BOOK 56 Page 27539 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004, AT 3:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 3:04 p.m. Mayor Palmer stated that the consultant just completed a presentation and conversations with architects concerning the City of Sarasota proposed Downtown Code and will be returning shortly. The Commission recessed at 3:04 p.m. and reconvened at 3:18 p.m. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. DISCUSSION RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4531, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-04, DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICTS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS (A/K/A "DOWNTOWN CODE") (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 3:19 through 6:13 Mayor Palmer stated that two public hearings concerning the Downtown Code have been held; that the Special Commission meeting is to discuss proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531, Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-04, and the proposed Downtown Code Districts and Related Amendments, also known as the proposed Downtown Code; that another public hearing will be held in the future; however, no public input will be allowed at the current meeting; that the public is welcome to communicate with the Commission orally or in writing; that another opportunity to speak will be scheduled prior to any final decisions. Mayor Palmer continued that Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (DPZ), is welcomed to the City; that Mr. Duany created the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) about four years agoi that the current meeting is to discuss implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that questions exist regarding the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the proposed Downtown Code; that Mr. Duany can answer questions regarding the Issues Matrix prepared by Staff and make any comments desired. Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Redevelopment, John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, and Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (DPZ), came before the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that the process of the update of the Community Redevelopment Area plan was begun four years ago; that the resulting document is entitled the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the process of adoption and incorporation into the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) was also begun; that the SmartCode developed by DPZ was then redrafted, tailored to the City, and incorporated into the existing City of Sarasota Downtown Code (2002 Ed.) (Downtown Code). Mr. Taylor referred to a schedule of meetings displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that three Commission meetings are scheduled in the future as follows: May 10, 2004 Public Hearing May 24, 2004 Commission Deliberations June 14, 2004 Continued Deliberations and Decision Making Mr. Taylor continued that no decisions are expected at the current meeting; that the public hearing on May 10, 2004, will be held prior to final decisions; that the Commission can give Staff direction beginning at the current meeting; that following the scheduled June 14, 2004, adoption of the proposed Downtown Code, the rezoning is scheduled to begin in August 2004 and conclude in approximately April 2005. Mr. Taylor referred to the Comments/Issues List dated April 2, 2004, which incorporates all the issues regarding the proposed Downtown Code and which is included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the issues fall into three major categories; that the first category is the process; that the process is proposed as administrative rather than through an Advisory Board, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency, or the Commission to approve site BOOK 56 Page 27540 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27541 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. plans within the Downtown; that the goal is to expedite the review process through Administrative Staff review and approval; that the second category involves vested rights; that the vested rights issue deals with properties which would be affected by the proposed change through the rezoning; that the third category is the building design standards; that Mr. Duany and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) held discussions prior to the current meeting; that Mr. Duany must catch a flight a little after 5:00, p.m.i however, Staff is available after Mr. Duany's departure for as long as necessary. Mr. Duany stated that importance for the elected officials to become experts is stressed; that the hard decisions require expertise to make the correct decision; that Staff has done a magnificent job of maintaining the quality of the conception, particularly considering the difficulty of working technically on one side and politically on the other; that the surviving document is still quite good; that Staff are now the experts. Mr. Duany continued that the reasons for the importance of land development codes should be discussed; that two types of codes exist; that the first type of code establishes guidelines of the shape of buildings and the manner in which the buildings meet the streets which are important for a first-rate pedestrian experience; that people who willingly live in Downtown in high density areas do not have yards or convenient parking; that the only reason people live in a high density Downtown is if compensation is provided through the pedestrian life; that living in a house would be preferred if a pedestrian life and places to walk are not of interest; that the City's focus should be on having a first-rate pedestrian environment to compete with other cities for the next 40 to 50 years; that the citizens were unhappy about the bulky, tall buildings which were being constructed in the City, creating a backlash against construction; that the second type of code is to embed the laws into regulations; that the reason codes were written dealing with the form and use of buildings and the way the buildings meet the street is to enhance pedestrian life; that encouraging mixed use and time spent on parking concerns such as masking parking garages were to enhance pedestrian life on a few great streets; that a City is generally only provided a few great streets. Mr. Duany stated further that people did not like the large buildings; that a way was created to set the buildings back sO the buildings did not rise directly from the ground; that a substantial setback at the level of the fourth story allows the eyes to read the four stories but not see the bulk of the building above the fourth floor; that the problem was mitigated by tall buildings also appearing to have a short portion; that the setback is an example of a building code; that another problem was the aesthetically disliked buildings; that the citizens felt the buildings were too large despite being built in accordance with existing regulations; that the bulk of the buildings had to become palatable to the citizens; that tall and short buildings, offices, apartment complexes, and houses can be compatible by having a harmonious architectural style; that the range of colors, the proportions of openings, the amount of glass contained, the solid-to-void ratio, and vertical and horizontal proportions allow buildings to appear harmonious; that the minimal eight constraints in the proposed Downtown Code to which the architects were objecting earlier make the buildings appear harmonious; that the Mediterranean style as well as the modernist tradition of the Sarasota School of Architecture currently exist in the City; that a third tradition may be developing now; that the architects should indicate the desired style of the City which can easily be incorporated in a land development code; that the style must be harmonious with the existing buildings; that the next building can form a backlash to the entire proposed Downtown Code if not liked by the citizens; that the buildings must remain harmonious; that the proposed Downtown Code is minimal compared to the land development code of West Palm Beach, Florida, and many newly developed towns. Mr. Duany further stated that contract government such as a homeowners' association is much more specific than municipal government; that a light, minimal code is required; that architects have two significant concerns: too much constraint and not enough constraint; that architects want the freedom to construct anything personally desired but want constraint on construction on anything not desired; that the proposed aesthetic standards can be a placeholder until the architects of Sarasota decide on recommendations for each of the proposed eight constraints; that the range of color, material, and proportions can then be decided by the architects; that an unregulated situation is where the problems can begin; that developers will be criticized through the public process and learn the City is a difficult City in which to obtain a permit and will move to another city which is not as competitive. Mr. Duany continued that upon arriving in Sarasota, many people indicated the significant number of nice projects being developed Downtown, including the Whole Foods Market Centre; that the investors chose Downtown Sarasota for the Whole Foods Market BOOK 56 Page 27542 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27543 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Centre due to the success of the Whole Foods Market in Naples, Florida, and because of the predictable Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the developers can observe the future of the Downtown; therefore, the investment is safe; that investors can have confidence in future development when an empty parking lot is developed as any new building will be compatible with the current buildings and the shopping street will remain unblocked; that a potential development which could block another building's view will be known in advance; that developers cannot tolerate the unknown; that a predictable situation creates the best investment environment and the best tenants. Mr. Duany stated further that many newer developments such as Pelican Bay, Florida, which is in the middle of nowhere and without much vitality, have an expected future; that predictability is a very important ingredient in urbanism; that predictable regulations are being presented now; that developers like to know other developers are not going to undermine the market by gaining permission to construct a taller building; that developers do not mind getting held to a high standard of development as long as the other developers are held to the same standard; that otherwise, development becomes a race to the bottom; that the next developer will construct with the cheapest possible aluminum if another developer is allowed to do so; that Pelican Bay maintains quality sO all developers can competei that some type of land development code is definitely necessary. Mr. Taylor stated that the Building Design Standards included in the proposed Downtown Code should be discussed while Mr. Duany is present; that the reason the standards were created was answered; that the 1983 R/UDAT study dealt with architecture or building design guidelines or standards and was followed by the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan); that an updated plan and land development code for implementation has been missing; that a number of charrettes were conducted to test the proposed Downtown Code; that the possibilities for different styles of architecture exist within the proposed Downtown Code; that the interpretation of certain sections of the proposed Downtown Code is a concern; that projects must maintain some flexibility to keep moving within the City. Mayor Palmer stated that considerable emphasis was placed on predictability and moving projects through the approval process as soon as possible; that the proposed Downtown Code provides for the Planning Director to approve many projects; and asked the advantages in not going through the Development Review Committee (DRC), the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), and eventually the Commission? Mr. Duany stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 not only considers the City from the inside but from the context of a much larger region in which other places compete including the suburbs; that the County is still very empty; that a developer has a chance to go Downtown or go to an office park in the suburbs; that an office park is essentially pre-permitted; that the master developer worked hard to pre-permit the office park and presents the architect with a limited list of requirements for construction; that the list includes materials, height restrictions, and landscaping; that the building is approved in less than one hour; that building Downtown has significantly more guidelines and includes meeting the owners of the neighboring businesses; that building Downtown is not a rational business decision; that people want to build in Downtown Sarasota due to the culture and waterfront; that development is approved at the level of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the issues involved are presented through the same checklist experience the competitors have; that developers are not thrown to the mercy of the public process; that the best developers should be sought; that having a list of expectations and administrators who can indicate compliance with the list is very businesslike. Commissioner Servian asked if a licensed architect should be on Staff to understand the issues presented? Mr. Duany stated no; that upon viewing the presentations prepared and the illustrations selected by Staff, an architect does not appear necessary at the moment; that if Mr. Burg or Mr. Taylor retire, an architect or others like Mr. Burg and Mr. Taylor would be necessary; that nobody defends the architecture unless the architecture is liked. Mr. Taylor stated that the learning process involving understanding the different terms, how the terms fit together, and the importance of visual harmony through the streetscapes takes time; that only the primary streets are involved; that the consistency of the Sarasota School of Architecture or modernism with the proposed Downtown Code is a concern; that the concerns regarding modernism architecture are handled through the Planning Director's decisions regarding adjustments; that some members of the community would rather have no restrictions at all in place; that Staff has the ability and knowledge to make the necessary decisions either internally or through seeking outside guidance; BOOK 56 Page 27544 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27545 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. that some members of the community objected to the frontage types in the proposed Downtown Code. Mayor Palmer stated that the issue of stories has been an ongoing, delicate issue; that the issue is whether the first story should be measured from ground entry level or additional height should be allowed for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) required elevations; that the second issue is if a height greater than 14 feet should count as a second story and if a height not used for one story should be transferred to another storyi that the flexibility is for the developers and builders to have up to 14 feet per story; that the height of a story would be 16 feet with two feet of interstitial space. Mr. Duany stated that developers will fill the maximum allowed height of a building with stories as low as possible; that many 8-foot ceilings would be built; that some developers are more generous with space vertically and build more feet per story; that the citizens of the City would live better with taller ceilings; that the reason the limit is 14 feet is to make the construction of a mezzanine impossible; that the rest of the world slips in mezzanines illegally whenever possible; that a 10-story building becomes a 20-story building if 16 foot clear per story is allowed; that his office is a warehouse with 14 foot stories; that the space is magnificent; that 16 feet per story has the potential for abuse. Mayor Palmer stated that the envelope of the building will encompass a certain amount of height; that clarification is necessary regarding stories versus height; that the number of people in the building does not matter if the building has the height. Mr. Duany stated that the number of people should be controlled by the number of vehicles involved; that one developer can literally win the lottery and absorb the market in a Downtown for years with one very tall building and many empty parking lots; that the height should be limited to allow the rest of the Downtown to fill out properly; that if a maximum height is allowed, everyone will build 8-foot ceilings which feels like a cheap motel, no matter the amount of marble and the number of mirrors installed. Mr. Taylor stated that the different facades allowed in the proposed Downtown Code are galleries, awnings, or arcades which brought into question the required retail frontages; that the retail frontages would be required to have one of the three frontage types, i.e., galleries, awnings, or arcades; that the proposed Downtown Code would not change everything overnight; that a conflict with the trees exists if an arcade, gallery, or awning is installed; that a decision must be made on the type of streetscape desired on retail streets. Mr. Duany stated that a tendency exists to value trees above everything; that the tree is easily defended; that wonderful cities exist with no trees; that the streets of New Orleans, Louisiana, do not have trees and are entirely arcaded; that trees block the signage of, and do not support, retail establishments; that trees are marvelous in residential areas; that a canvas awning, gallery, or arcade which goes entirely to the sidewalk works better on a first floor retail establishment; that an arcade is defined as a colonnade which has a building on top; that a gallery is just the colonnade without the building on topi that the building is constructed at the property line; that an awning normally is to keep the rain and the sun off the people; that a discovery was made of people using the sidewalk and not entering the retail establishments if the arcade goes to the sidewalk and the retail establishment is set back from the property line; that the retail shoppers should not have a choice; that for the arcade to go over the sidewalk is crucial; that people will walk outside and the retail establishment will close if the building is set back from the arcade; that the issue was documented in the 1960s and can still be evidenced today; that the arcade must be over the sidewalk; that a person must be inside the arcade for the shops to work which eliminates the possibility of trees; that an arcade plus trees is not an acceptable compromise; that the threshold decision to enter a shop in a shopping mall has been gradually eliminated; that the newest malls have retail establishments with no doors; that some stores in shopping malls do not even have glass; that a person is in the store shopping before a person realizes; that the arcade provides a psychology of being half inside the store prior to entryi that relative to the arcade, the shop front glass glows which attracts the eyesi that a reflection of the street is seen if the glass is not shaded; that the shading of the arcade provides the transparency of the glass, particularly if well lit. Mr. Taylor stated that the requirement of required retail frontage is only on a limited number of streets such as Main Street and Central Avenue. Mr. Duany stated that Downtown Sarasota is only a limited part of Sarasota County; that two percent of the geography is being defined with the proposed Downtown Code; that the Downtown area is BOOK 56 Page 27546 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27547 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. a particular area which should be differentiated from the rest; that Downtown Sarasota is partially tall buildings and partially small buildings; that by establishing a setback at four stories, the short and tall buildings become compatible; that all the owners would say the City was working against the owner if the setback went back from the property line; that the building site is left intact if the setback is at the arcade; that the setback is particular to Sarasota. Mayor Palmer stated that the density is increased as well. Mr. Duany agreed; and stated that the density is controlled by the parking; that the City is continually being involved. Mr. Burg stated that City Place in West Palm Beach, Florida, has dimensions from building front to building front which is greater than in Sarasota; that approximately 62 feet exists in the most narrow area on Main Street from the four foot section to the four foot section which is greater than in West Palm Beach. Mr. Duany stated that Sarasota has a very wide Main Street which could be narrowed Slightly; that New Orleans, Louisiana, and Charleston, South Carolina, have good looking streets which feel great; that the streets of New Orleans and Charleston are narrower than Main Street in Sarasota. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the possibility of a canyon effect like in New York City with no sun, no light, and no air is a concern. Mr. Duany stated that taking away width creates a canyon effect and takes away some light and air; that the question is if the canyon is aesthetically pleasing; that Madison Avenue is the narrowest of New York City avenues and is the nicest; that a high correlation exists between a successful Main Street and a narrow section; that shopping malls are 45 feet wide from shop to shop; that humans feel good in tight spaces; that the overly large Main Street is mitigated with the required retail frontages. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the Farmers Market was moved recently; that the previous location of the Farmers Market was a wider street with more area to move around; that one of the concerns was the narrower street; that the Farmers Market has a nicer social life and people are enjoying having to engage one another while walking through the Farmers Market at the new location on the narrower street. Mr. Duany stated that some people will like the narrower streetsi that some people will not like the narrower streets; that the streets will be unique; that wide open spaces are readily available all over Florida; that Naples, Florida, developed a defined Main Street; that Winter Park, Florida, is another example of a defined Main Street. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a healthy space exists for an arcade; that the amount of space the City has from street to building is unknown. Mr. Burg stated that the proposed Downtown Code would allow the arcade to go within three feet of the Main Street curb sO the arcade would extend nine feet from the building line; that a total of 18 feet, nine on each side, would be lost; that the recess would go perhaps three feet back into the property. Mr. Duany stated that the buildable commerce moves in three feet from the curb line; that the significant compensation on top of the arcade is more space. Mr. Burg stated that nine feet is gained on each side in most cases on Main Street. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the interior of the arcade would be 12 feet? Mr. Duany said 12 feet is almost worrisomely narrow; that the Seaside arcades are 12 feet; that 14 feet arcades should have been used; that two tables cannot quite fit comfortably; that two tables can fit comfortably within 14 feet. Mr. Taylor stated that the columns are also included in the same space and can be up to three feet in width, which could be altered. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the proposed Downtown Code does not provide for the arcade to come out to the curb. Mr. Duany stated that the three feet to the curb is to allow for the opening of the car door, the person stepping out, and people with absolute phobias of arcades. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the street tree and the arcade would appear to work with the three foot width to the curb. BOOK 56 Page 27548 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27549 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Duany stated that the Sarasota School of Architecture has substantially acrobatic cantilevers, the longest cantilevers known; that some architects would enjoy the absence of the arcade due to the Sarasota School of Architecture. Mr. Taylor stated that modifications have been made for construction of arcades of more than one story in height. Mr. Duany displayed pictures of cantilevers on buildings in Sarasota on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the cantilevers are defined as awnings in the proposed Downtown Code. Mayor Palmer stated that the most recent recommendation in the Comments/Issues List is to combine the arcade and the street trees; that Mr. Duany had indicated the arcade and the street trees are not a good combination. Mr. Duany stated that the reason is the street trees and the arcades interfere with each other. Mayor Palmer stated that a significant number of trees were just planted on Main Street. Mr. Duany stated that the trees would not be removed; that the City would lose two or three trees when a new building is built; that Main Street will have trees and arcades for decades. Mr. Burg stated that the proposed Downtown Code allows bulb-outs on corners and mid-block which comes out to the predominant curb line rather than parking; that the bulb-out spaces would be available for trees indefinitely. Mr. Duany referred to oictures of additional buildings with cantilevers displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the displayed cantilevers do not go over the sidewalk; that a study done in the 1960s indicated arcades should overlap. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the uniformity the City is seeking could be met as long as the same end line was utilized, whether an awning, cantilever, arcade, or gallery? Mr. Duany stated that the urban issue has to do with the frontage, which is the arcade; that the next issue is the harmony or the syntax; that the urban issue must be separated from the syntax issue, which is language; that the information available on syntax is the result of the work of a professor at Rutgers University who did visual preference studies; that the study had a rating system which went from minus ten to plus ten; that hundreds of thousands of citizens would indicate preferences; that the professor's studies found people do not mind tall buildings and mixed use if a vocabulary is shared; however, if the office building is a big, glass box and the apartment building is nothing but an egg crate of balconies, both buildings will be hated due to the size; that two buildings may have the same number of stories; however, the building with a more sympathetic architecture will be liked; that the reason syntax is written into land development codes is to gain acceptance of the tall buildings and mixed use. Mr. Duany continued that the One Sarasota Tower building is disliked by many; that the building is not taller than the others in Sarasota; that the vocabulary is different; that a visual harmony is necessary to achieve the kind of political has rmony for big buildings; that big buildings are better received if the buildings are harmonious. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the proposed Downtown Code is in some ways weak. Mr. Duany stated that the proposed Downtown Code is not strong enough to avoid so-called "kitsch" or low quality; that the City is not as protected as necessary. Mayor Palmer stated that the idea of creating a placeholder in the proposed Downtown Code was discussed; that the proposed Downtown Code could be adopted; however, the architects were offered an opportunity to come back and provide the Commission with a somewhat different plan to include in the proposed Downtown Code; that a significant difference could exist between the current requirements and the requirements developed by the architects; that the concern is the predictability for the community if the current requirements of the proposed Downtown Code are adopted and changed perhaps a year later. Mr. Duany stated that the architects have a responsibility to develop alternative requirements quickly; that Sarasota became a famous place in the history of architecture with the Sarasota School of Architecture; that the entire world became excited when a group of architects got together and created an architecture of place; that such an event has very seldom happened; that today's architects could come together and achieve a second generation architecture of place; that architects do not generally get along today; that architects' training is very individualistic; that the BOOK 56 Page 27550 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27551 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. training of the people in Sarasota in the 1960s was an architecture of context; that the architects were modernists who were traditionally trained; that the architects had a desire to fit in; that the training has changed; that the collaboration of architects is harder to a certain extent; that new regulations can be written if the architects arrive at a meaningful style; that a land development code cannot be written for a weak, nonspecific style; that the English language is not the problem; that the problem is the indecision of the architects; that the City and elected officials deserve a degree of harmony sO a political problem is not created every time a new building is constructed. Mr. Taylor stated that one comment was the necessity to identify the principles sought; that a debate will be necessary every time a new building is constructed if specific standards are not identified. Mayor Palmer stated that the proposed Downtown Code leads to Mediterranean Revival style rather than the Sarasota School of Architecture style and the mixing of the two styles; that four proposals submitted for the project for the City-owned property at Palm Avenue were identified as finalists; that one of the designs was very modernistic; that nevertheless with slight adjustments, the buildings of the four proposals would be within the proposed Downtown Code, yet the architecture was significantly different; that the City would like to see the modernism of the Sarasota School of Architecture be creatively permitted by architects sO more than the Mediterranean Revival style is allowed; that every other City in Florida is built in the Mediterranean Revival style. Mr. Duany stated that three of the Palm Avenue Project building proposals meet the proposed Downtown Code; that the fourth proposed is by Arcadia Land Company (Arcadia), has the square windows, and partially meets the proposed Downtown Code. Mr. Burg stated that Staff's view of rough openings is being either vertical or squarei that the glass curtain wall above the fourth level was viewed as a glass curtain wall rather than an opening; that the roofs of the fourth proposal would require an adjustment; that sloped roofs should be symmetrical with a minimum pitch or be flat with a parapet. Mr. Duany stated the roof should be symmetrical if the roof is pitched. Mr. Burg stated that an adjustment could be given for such a situation. Mr. Duany stated that what is evidenced Downtown is actually mediocre Mediterranean Revival style; that the idea of constraint is not realistic. Mayor Palmer stated that the Arcadia proposal for the Palm Avenue site is a modernist building and would fit the proposed Downtown Code with slight adjustments according to Staff; that the proposed Downtown Code allows for modernist architecture and does not require the Mediterranean Revival style. Mr. Duany stated that the offer was made during the charrette to write the proposed Downtown Code supporting the modernist style and banning the Mediterranean Revival style; that what happened then was indescribable; that the people concerned left rather angry; that the architects did not participate in the charrette; that the remainder of the citizens were participating very intensely and dominated the charrette which resulted in a land development code supporting a Mediterranean Revival style; that the architects should decide one way or the other; that the technical implementation of the proposed Downtown Code can be done; that agreement will be necessary after the technical implementation of the proposed Downtown Code. Commissioner Servian stated that the concern is for the architects who want to come forward and create outstanding architecture in the modernist style cannot do sO due to the constraints of the proposed Downtown Code; that the proposed Downtown Code appears to support the Mediterranean Revival style architecture; that most of the citizens of the City are tired of the Mediterranean Revival style architecture; that exemplary architecture is desired; that the two styles of architecture should live in harmony. Mr. Duany stated the two forms of architecture cannot live in harmony; that modernist architecture was conceptualized as an attack on traditional architecture; that everything traditional architecture did, modern architecture did not do; that American cities which have both forms of architecture are a tragedyi that Sarasota should have a modernist land development code; that the second rate Mediterranean Revival style architecture should be exterminated; that Coral Gables, Florida, has had a land development code favoring Mediterranean style architecture for 15 years and has done a great job; that the proposed Downtown Code allows excellent modernist architecture; that the proposed BOOK 56 Page 27552 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27553 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Downtown Code includes minimal requirements; that architects should read and work within the proposed Downtown Code; that Staff has done an extraordinary job of discovering various types of modernist architecture which meet the proposed Downtown Code; that Staff had performed some incredible research which is evident in the presentation; that the architects must have a willingness to participate in the process; that many of the comments by the architects concerning new urbanism are not true; that the architects have not done the research on new urbanism. Mr. Duany continued that the examples of modernist architecture included in the proposed Downtown Code has been here since the beginning; that Seaside, Florida, has been careful about having modernist architecture from the beginning; that Seaside has a predominance of traditional architecture because the people desire traditional architecture; that new urbanism is democratic; that the standards are maintained due to being highly regulated; that the level of excellence is raised; that the style is not regulated; however, the standards are raised; that a classical building is not mandated; that the building must be correct if a Classical building is constructed; that a building cannot be constructed incorrectly or badly; that the reason most new urbanist projects are traditional is due to the desires of the people; that the most popular style of architecture may be different 15 years from now. Mr. Taylor stated that the number of different styles of buildings received in response to the RFP for the Palm Avenue property is an indication of the minimal requirements of the proposed Downtown Code; that the next issue on the Comments/Issues List is the requirement for a pedestrian entrance on a primary street; that the proposed Downtown Code authorizes the Planning Director to choose which street should be the primary entrance if two primary streets are at an intersection; that, for example, Main Street would be chosen over Orange Avenue as the primary entrance; that the primary entrance of a street should not be left to chance; that the architects are concerned with the Planning Director's making such architectural decisions; that such a decision is not seen personally as an architectural decision. Commissioner Servian stated that the decision would be a planning decision. Mr. Duany stated that the entrance to too many buildings lead directly to parking garages; the people drive in from the originating location and go directly to the elevator shaft to get to the office; that the sidewalk is never used; that people then question the reason a sidewalk life does not exist and nobody is shopping; that the people have been trained to go straight from the parking garage to the office; that the same is true at the end of the day; that the proposed Downtown Code simply says to build a front door and put the marble to the front and not just off the parking garage; that entire buildings have the reception off the parking garage; that the front is the janitors' entrance; that the parking garage should direct people to the sidewalk. Mr. Taylor stated that a building less than one block away from City Hall has no front door on any of the sidewalks and all the entries are from the parking garage although the building has windows; that such a building should be precluded which is the reason the requirement is very important. Mr. Duany stated that the requirement is about putting life on certain streets and not just activating parking garages. Mr. Taylor stated that the amount of building mass desired on a frontage requires discussion; that the two more intense Zone Districts in the proposed Downtown Code, i.e., the Downtown Core (DTC) and the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone Districts, require a minimum of 90 percent of the building to have a presence on the sidewalk; that another Zone District requires 70 percent; that a concern heard is the percentage is too high; that any type of requirement is also heard as a concerni that some amount of building on the length of the sidewalk is important. Mr. Duany stated that retail requires a great deal of continuity; that shops collapse when a gap in continuity exists; that a correlation of the 90 percent on the sidewalk to where the shops are should be done; that people inadvertently will destroy not only their own retail but other people's retail by breaking up the continuity; that people when shopping are thinking about when to go home; that people will turn around and go home with the slightest provocation; that stores beyond the gap cannot survive because Americans will not go the extra 30 feet to continue shopping; that Americans are shopping mostly for entertainment and BOOK 56 Page 27554 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27555 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. are looking for the excuse to go home; that rigorous continuity must be maintained. Mr. Duany continued that the City has high-rises Downtown with rural bases; that 20-story high-rises Downtown go straight into berms and naturalism; that the citizens living Downtown are miscued; that people living in high-rises along the Bayfront think residency is anywhere in Florida other than Downtown Sarasota; that the people in the high-rises not only do not get out and walk Downtown but also do not like the noise; that people who live Downtown and do not expect a great deal of street life because the City miscued the people; that high-rises with berms at the base miscues the residents into thinking the condominium is not located Downtown; that the frontages of the proposed Downtown Code does not allow the miscuing; that the "A" streets will have urban frontages; that a berm with a drop-off between the building and the sidewalk is not allowable; that urbanity is lost with berms and naturalism; that the buildings could be anywhere; that a building which must have 70 percent frontage on the sidewalk has no room for berms. Commissioner Servian stated that the preference also is affected by the orientation of a person, where the person is from or has traveled; that the interaction with buildings constructed up to the curb line is affected by the background of a person; that significant criticism has been expressed regarding buildings constructed up to the curb; that other people say the building makes the person feel a certain wayi that the feel to a person who grew up in a suburban area compared to in a neighborhood of single family homes is much different. Mr. Duany stated that a small percentage of the County is being regulated with the proposed Downtown Code; that the County is mostly rural; that residents have a choice as to housing; that Downtown should be a place for people who miss urban living; that people who prefer rural living have many options; that the particular streets which are guided by the proposed Downtown Code should provide an urban environment. Mr. Taylor stated that the provision for special architecture of corner buildings was created by Staff; that corner buildings had no requirement for a setback; that corner buildings could have a rounded rather than square façade if the buildings exhibited exemplary architecture; that the requirement was broad enough to allow developers to construct a unique building; that the provision also allowed for the tight corners Downtown to have the triangle blocking visibility cut off to create a unique architectural feature; that the concern raised by the architects was corner buildings were the only place exemplary architecture would be allowed which is not the case; that the rule for the setback on the corner should be minimized if not eliminated if some unique architecture was provided such as a rounded facade which celebrated the corner for the pedestrian. Mr. Burg stated that the concept was learned during the University of South Florida Architecture Student Project at which the proposed Downtown Code was strictly applied; that the fourth story setback did not allow for a special design at the corner; that the students developed some very inventive ways of constructing buildings with something special on cornersi that an exception seemed appropriate for corner buildings. Mayor Palmer stated that the word "unique" does not have the same connotation as the word "exemplary" which assumes all the other buildings are not. Mr. Duany stated that the mandatory setback from the corner does not produce an aesthetically pleasing building; that an allowance to set back from the corner with a curb or a diagonal is better for pedestrians. Mr. Taylor stated that the opportunity should exist regardless of the choice of words. Mr. Duany stated that the phrase "responsive to the location" is often used; that the architecture was responsive to the location of a building on a corner rather than "exemplary." Mr. Taylor stated that the decision to allow such a building was given to the Planning Director to keep the approval an administrative decision; that the approval process could be removed and the building just happen. Mr. Duany stated that the process of going to the Planning Director is actually good for the architects and developers; that the meeting is not public; that everything else is not brought up; that the appeal process could always go to a public meeting if the developer or architect does not like the decision of the Planning Director; that an appeal process is in place for such a situation; that to require the entire project go through the public input process is a disincentive. BOOK 56 Page 27556 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27557 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that an issue in the Comments/Issues List concerns Table VI-1004, Street-walls, of the proposed Downtown Code regarding those areas which have no building frontage along the street and are therefore required to have a street wall between 3.5 to 8 feet in height; that permeability of the wall is encouraged; that decorative features on the wall are also desired to encourage Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and to discourage blank walls and allow for grill work; that entirely blank walls are not desirable; that the permeability goes beyond the recommendation of Mr. Duany for walls; that the objection is the Planning Director would be making the decision to allow a hedge to replace a street wall as opposed to allowing a developer to make the decision without any review. Mr. Duany stated that the Planning Director could make the decision to ensure the hedge is one which grows and would do the job; that the definition of a hedge is very broad; that reliance cannot be placed on hedges up north because in the hedges are dead six months of the year; that Florida has excellent hedge trees which are almost like walls. Mr. Taylor stated that the provision to allow a hedge on an interim basis is appropriate; that the next item on the Comments/Issues List regards Table VI-1004, Shape of Openings, of the proposed Downtown Code and is one of the most discussed provisions, which is the shape of openings; that some degree of visual harmony is necessary whether the requirement is for all square and vertical or all square and horizontal; that some degree of visual harmony is necessary; that the harmonious standard which has been observed in many areas is extremely important. Mr. Duany stated that the horizontality and verticality of the windows determines the harmonious look of the buildings; that the provision can be problematic and is the hardest one to work with regarding the Sarasota School of Architecture due to the mix of horizontal and vertical features. Mr. Burg stated that the proposed Downtown Code indicates the horizontal openings would be allowed if the building is in the Sarasota School of Architecture syntax. Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Director would be making the decision which causes concern among the architects; that the alternative is to go through the public processi that the Commission must make the ultimate decision. Mr. Duany stated that the decision of the Planning Director can always be appealed; that adequate recourse is available. Mr. Taylor stated that the next item on the Comments/Issues List concerns Table VI-1004, Roofs, of the proposed Downtown Code; that flat roofs are allowed; that parapets are necessary to screen the fixtures on the roof; that the proposed Downtown Code requires symmetrically pitched roofs; that symmetry is more important in the residential Downtown Neighborhood (DTN) Zone District than in the more urban Downtown Core (DTC) or Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone Districts. Mr. Duany stated that the difference between traditional and modernist architecture is evidenced by a recent accreditation visit at the Harvard Graduate School of Design; that three days were spent with students in projects; that every possible roof shape was seen at the conclusion of the three days, including a roof which came off the ground, twirled around, and landed as if an acrobatic airplane; that not a single roof was seen which went up and came down; that the Dean of the School was asked about the lack of variety; that Americans liked the simple up and down roof; that the up and down roof was a connection to the American middle class; that the soft-spoken Dean began yelling and completely lost control; that the Dean indicated the impossibility of allowing traditional, nostalgic architecture; that a profound dislike exists between proponents of traditional and modernist architecture; that the traditionalists dislike modernist architecture; that the issue may never be resolved; that the idea of resolving the conflict between the two styles of architecture is virtually impossible; that the two styles of architecture were built in opposition of each other; that the two styles of architecture are in the midst of a war; that one architectural style does not necessarily work better; that the differences of opinion cannot be reconciled. Commissioner Servian stated that the art world is also full of creative differences. Mr. Taylor stated that another standard for discussion is the required amount of glass and the exterior finish materials; that all glass and all metal buildings are precluded; that the standards for the required amount of glass on a required retail frontage is 70 percent glass on the ground floor; that a non-retail frontage requires 30 percent glass; that a maximum amount of 50 percent glass above the first story is allowed; that a certain standard has been drafted to provide a benchmark for the types of buildings desired; that a standard was added for the DTN BOOK 56 Page 27558 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27559 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Zone District for single family homes which did not previously require windows; that a requirement of 15 percent of window for single family homes was added by Staff and is a minimalistic standard to have a certain amount of window in a residential, single family building. Mr. Duany stated that posters and postcards of travel destinations favored by people are always harmonious; that Paris, France, is a City comprised of buildings of light stone with copper roofs and steady cornices; that people desire to go to Paris; that the Italian and French villages are all harmonious and desirable; that Climate was a determinate of architecture before air conditioning; that cities determined the best ratio of opening to walls; that the windows are smaller and the walls are thicker in Italy; that traditional architecture exists with a greater percentage of glass in Scandinavia; that the Climate dictated the architectural requirements; that air conditioning changed such architectural requirements; that the effect of climate can now be mitigated to achieve the harmony automatically; that now architects can use determinants other than the climate; that the wall-to-window ratio is significant in the proposed Downtown Code; that a full glass wall is not allowed due to being too different and disliked by the citizens; that the extremes of fully glass or fully blank wall have been avoided; that if buildings in Pienza or Florence, Italy, were regulated, the percentage of glass would be between 30 to 40 percent; that the proposed Downtown Code is dealing with minimum requirements; that the extremes should not be abused to avoid very hostile buildings. Mr. Duany referred to photographs of buildings in Sarasota on the Chamber monitors; and stated that ratio of wall to building of the old Mediterranean style is depicted and which is approximately 35 percent void; that the style can be recognized from all over Europe; that the negative consequences of a lack of standards are entirely blank walls or all glass buildings; that blank walls destroy pedestrian life; that no pedestrian desires to walk past a blank wall; that a new, harmonious vocabulary could be developed to respond to the climate; that the architects could get together and develop an architecture which responds to the climate of the latitude and provides a harmonious style; that the challenge was not accepted by the architects; that the meeting with the architects preceding the current meeting was not successful. Mayor Palmer stated that one area considered for residential zoning with a minimum amount of commercial zoning was the Rosemary District, which will be in the DTN Zone District; that significant development has occurred in the Rosemai ry District in the past four years. Mr. Duany referred to a map of the Rosemary District on the Chamber monitors; and stated that different degrees of urban intensity are identified on the mapi that three neighborhoods to the north of Main Street and one neighborhood to the south exist Downtown; that the neighborhood to the south, the Laurel Park neighborhood, was not under consideration in the development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the areas are regulated to have the edges or crust as the main streets; that the residential areas inside the crust are more protected; that the Rosemary District actually has the least residential urban fabric; that the idea was the Rosemary District would transform the fastest; and asked if the people are seeking to have the rest of the Rosemary District transformed? Mr. Taylor stated that a significant amount of property along the main north/south artery is commercial on both sides; that the area would be changed to a residential zone district; that the proposed Downtown Code has allowed all the existing uses of buildings and properties to continue; that the property owners would like to continue with the commercial zoning. Mr. Duany stated that the issue is not necessarily about commercial use; that commercial use is one of the variables; that the issue is all about more urbanism; that the people are asking to become more urban; that the Zone Districts could always be mixed use. Mr. Taylor stated that to a limited degree, owners of property in the Rosemary District which will be in the DTN Zone District would like more opportunity for commercial use such as in the DTE Zone District; that the some of the people desire the next higher intensity Zone District. Mr. Duany asked if the people had the choice to petition to move up to a higher intensity zone district? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that the petition would require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Burg stated that the DTN Zone District has minimal opportunities for commercial establishments. BOOK 56 Page 27560 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27561 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the reason is to protect the Downtown neighborhoods from commercial encroachment on a case by case basis. Mr. Duany stated that the issue is understood in the other two neighborhoods; that the Rosemary District is a clear transition neighborhood; that the process of amending the City's Comprehensive Plan should begin; that cities should become denser as cities naturally want to do. Mayor Palmer stated that the mixed use combination is desired; that mixed use allows for more residential, commercial, and office uses. Commissioner Servian stated that one of the criticisms is the City is trying to make Lemon Avenue the way Orange Avenue is now and Orange Avenue the way Lemon Avenue is now; that Orange Avenue right now is predominantly residential. Mr. Burg stated that Orange Avenue is a major traffic carrier; that Lemon Avenue in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is diminished in terms of traffic carrying capacity. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the reason for the proposed change is the interest in having residential areas within walking distance to Downtown. Mayor Palmer stated that Lemon Avenue is wide enough but is not heavily utilized. Mr. Duany stated that the SmartCode included a category called Transect T4 which has wide parameters; that Transect T4 has been renamed to the DTN Zone District in the proposed Downtown Code; that commercial or residential is allowed; that a variety of houses, townhouses, and small apartment buildings are allowed. Mr. Taylor stated that a limited amount of nonresidential is allowed in the DTN Zone District. Mr. Duany stated that Transect T4 provides significant latitude for different uses. Mr. Burg stated that the property Owners desire to go to the DTE Zone District. Mayor Palmer stated that the DTN Zone District has a limitation of 95 percent residential and 5 percent commercial use. Mr. Duany stated that the DTN Zone District may not make sense. Mayor Palmer stated that the other question is the area of Fourth Street and Fruitville Road with three-quarters of the distance not including Fourth Street in one Euture Land Use Classification and the remaining quarter facing Fourth Street in another Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Duany stated that a special campaign was held in which different types of drawings were utilized; and asked if the drawings were utilized to help in the discussions? Mr. Burg stated that the drawings have been incorporated into the proposed Downtown Code; that some property owners desire to take commercial use all the way to Fourth Street; however, another group of neighborhood people wish to preserve the noncommercial use on Fourth Street. Mr. Duany stated that significant time was spent to technically resolve the issues; that building designs were developed to accomplish both issues; that the problem is mitigated by the shape and manner of construction of the buildings. Mr. Taylor stated that an issue identified concerning Building Design Standards is habitable spacei that a minimum requirement of 20 feet of depth is required on the ground floor only; that a change has been proposed; that an adjustment would be required for above the first story; that the opportunity for non-habitable space would be provided towards the primary street if addressed in a proper manner; that Whole Foods Market Centre appears as a windowed frontage; that the design is an optical illusion; that an adjustment could be sought and approved such as with the Whole Foods Market Centre; that the developer was provided the extra width for the parking garage above the first story. Mr. Duany stated that the provision makes sense for old Downtowns where the lots are small; that the full parking garage and masking building in front can be accomplished when a new town is developed with extra-large lots; that the City has small lots sO the facade of the buildings is important; that a diagonal ramp on a parking garage should not be accepted; that the people will show more acceptance if the lines are horizontal; that the façade does not have to appear residential but should appear aesthetically pleasing; that people want the notion of a piece of architecture BOOK 56 Page 27562 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27563 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. rather than a utilitarian building; that a parking garage never looks good if full of diagonals; that most parking garages are prefabricated and look crude and unsatisfactory; that parking garages can look aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Servian stated that the new parking garage at the Sarasota Memorial Hospital is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Duany stated that Architects Bill Morgan, who works in Jacksonville and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Don Singer make beautiful parking garages; that Florida is filled with many examples of aesthetically pleasing parking garages. Mayor Palmer stated that the preference indicated by DPZ previously was not single use parking garages but rather parking garages with liner features. Mr. Duany stated that parking garages are lifeless even if aesthetically pleasing; that parking could be provided in the same pedestrian geographical area but not on the same site; that such design is usually considered radical; that people will use the sidewalk if the parking is some distance away which is desirable. Mr. Taylor stated that parking off-site has been allowed for a number of years in Sarasota; that the initial misunderstanding of the proposed Downtown Code was the parking was required off-site. Mr. Duany stated that placing the parking on less expensive land elsewhere is desirable to developers; that the buildings can be more aesthetically pleasing with numerous windows on the main streets. Mayor Palmer asked if the Downtown Mobility Study was reviewed in conjunction with the Downtown Master Plan 2020? Mr. Duany stated no; that the resolution of the issue concerning Bayfront Drive has not been heard. Commissioner Servian stated that the Commission decided not to narrow Bayfront Drive. Mr. Duany stated that the next generation will narrow Bayfront Drive as good ideas do not die. Commissioner Bilyeu asked how the City was doing with the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the proposed Downtown Code compared with other cities for which master planning has been done? Mr. Duany stated that the City has been implementing the process with amazing Slowness and with great difficulty; that the process for the heroic Staff and the Commission has been the most difficult ever experienced. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the setback in height has been discussed; that the most significant height is planned along the Bayfront; that the change from feet to stories along with the implementation of the DTC Zone District allows for building up to 180 feet; that the Bayfront can now be built up to 288 feet; that the height is not objectionable; that the videotapes of all meetings concerning the Downtown Master Plan 2020 were reviewed; that the indication was a land development code in support of Modernist architecture was necessaryi that not taking the vested rights away from property owners was also mentioned. Mr. Duany stated that West Palm Beach, Florida, took vested rights awayi that all the developers therefore have the opportunity to build rather than allowing one developer to build to extraordinarily high heights; that West Palm Beach has worked well; that a 20-story and 30-story building are hard to differentiate. Commissioner Bilyeu agreed. Mr. Duany stated that the story difference is hard to differentiate; that once 180 feet is reached, the height is less important; however, the higher buildings overload the market; that the parking situation becomes overloaded; that the urban fabric is destroyed with too much parking; that absorbing the bulk of parking makes the building undesirable when a building is too large; that constraining the density without destroying the elegance of the building is of importance. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the next question requires no lengthy explanation; and asked if the Laurel Park neighborhood should have been included in the Downtown Master Plan 2020? Mr. Duany stated yes; that redevelopment in the Laurel Park neighborhood was already beginning; that interference with success should not occur; that possibly redevelopment in the neighborhood has culminated and should be stabilized; that every area of the City requires a reconsideration of planning every 10 yearsi that BOOK 56 Page 27564 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27565 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. the question is if to continue the status quo or to move to the next level of urbanism; that most people inhabiting a successful place are beginning to have an illegal apartment, an illegal business, or too much parking on the lot, which are signs the area is ready to move on to the next level; that the question of if the neighborhood is ready to move on to the next stage should be asked every 10 yearsi that cities evolve. Mayor Palmer stated that the City is embarking on the Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) of the City's Comprehensive Plan which is the perfect time to discuss the Laurel Park neighborhood; that the entire City will be evaluated over the next several months; and asked for any additional comments? Mr. Duany stated that the Staff's efforts are heroic; that the Staff has maintained quality without compromising integrity; that a course has been created by Staff with examples included. Mayor Palmer stated the opportunity to ask questions is appreciated; that the answers will be of great assistance to the City. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff is not requesting any decisions from the Commission at the current meeting; that additional information could be obtained at the next public hearing before any final decisions are made; that language related to the primary and secondary street grid has been modified to assure clarity. Mayor Palmer asked for any changes or objections to the primary and secondary street grid; and stated the assumption will be no changes or objections are requested if no response is given. Mr. Taylor stated that the next item on the Comments/Issues List concerns Section IV-202 (B) (2) (K) regarding procedures; that the phrase will be added to the proposed Downtown Code to indicate appeals are quasi-judicial, that a comment was made regarding the Board of Adjustment having too much latitude which should be addressed in a separate Zoning Text Amendment; that the issue will be brought back to the Commission for the next cycle of Zoning Text Amendments. Mayor Palmer stated that the Board of Adjustment is scheduling a Workshop on April 28, 2004, with Staff to discuss the issue. Mr. Taylor stated that the next item on the Comments/Issues List regarding Section IV-1901 (A), Authority, of the proposed Downtown Code concerns the authority of the Planning Director to administer the proposed Downtown Code; that the Commission will ultimately determine the issue; that moving development through the review process as expeditiously as possible is the reason for the provision. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the provision is better understood after listening to the comments of Mr. Duany; that the critique of the architecture has been about buildings; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is about the urban fabric or design which is in the realm of planning; that the Planning and Redevelopment Department has the expertise to converse with architects and understand the language. Mr. Taylor stated that anyone given enough time can learn the language of architecture which has been accomplished personally over the last several years. Mayor Palmer stated that hiring someone with an architectural background on Staff was discussed previously; that Mr. Duany indicated hiring an in-house architect is not necessary as long as somebody on Staff has the background necessary to make the decisions; that the hope is a policy would establish an opportunity for the Planning Director or Staff to contact an architectural consultant if necessary to receive outside advice or expertise; that the Planning Director is not necessarily left without the opportunity to seek advice; that a more formalized plan should be developed to seek additional expertise if and when necessary. Mr. Taylor stated that the City Manager will always ensure competent Staff is available to administer the City's business in all departments. Mayor Palmer stated that a formal process would allow the community to feel more comfortable with the decisions which could be considered architectural. Mr. Taylor stated that the language could be added; however, no constraints in seeking additional advice as necessary have ever been felt. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the Planning and Redevelopment Department had a budget item for outside consulting; that a Holiday Inn Express never got constructed on the Boulevard of BOOK 56 Page 27566 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27567 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. the Arts and Tamiami Trail due to certain architectural designs which a local architect indicated could not be built; that an architect came forward to assist the City on a pro bono basis; that the Commission will likely keep the item in the budget sO the Planning and Redevelopment Department will have the funding when necessary. Mayor Palmer stated that Staff will have the ability and funding to seek outside guidance if necessary. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed Downtown Code may not be the best place in which to include the language; that the proposed Downtown Code currently requires all projects to come through the City Auditor and Clerk's Office; however, the process for adjustments will be similar to the current process for interpretations of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that if a person comes into the Building Department for a project requiring an adjustment, the individual will be referred to the Planning and Redevelopment Department; that a project requiring full Development Review Committee (DRC) review, as with site plans currently, would be referred to the City Auditor and Clerk's Office to notify people within 500 feet; that a change in the language is necessary sO all projects will not be required to go to the City Auditor and Clerk's Office; that verbiage should be included of expiration dates of site plans and adjustments together with other development approvals which would be appropriately tied to the site plan approval as well; that the City Attorney's Office has indicated the necessity of the change in verbiage. Mr. Taylor continued that the next item on the Comments/Issues List concerns Section VI-1903, Adjustments, of the proposed Downtown Code; that the language seems to indicate the Planning Director can change the rules; that the language may be misleading and will be clarified; that the Planning Director has discretion within the 25 percent numerical dimensional standards in the proposed Downtown Code; that the Planning Director cannot change the rules. Mr. Taylor stated further that the next item on the Comments/Issues List concerns Section IV-1903 (C) and (D) of the proposed Downtown Code regarding PBLP review and appeals; indicates the Commission makes the final determination as to the City's development since the Commission approves the proposed Downtown Code; that the Commission makes the decision of the applicable standards; that some disagreement with the description of excellent, poor, and fair frontages was expressed; that the proposed Downtown Code includes excellent descriptions of the terms; that the type of pedestrian environment desired and not desired in the street frontages has been outlined; that the architects were perhaps looking for a principle or philosophy to follow; that a debate over each project will occur by not having specific standards. Mr. Taylor further stated that a purpose statement will be added to Section VI-1002 entitled Application and Conflict of the proposed Downtown Code providing additional comfort in understanding the City's purpose. Mayor Palmer asked the reason for the following exception indicated in the proposed purpose statement: Exceptions are allowed for condominiums and valid development approvals Mr. Taylor stated that the Downtown Code (2002 Ed.) includes a provision exempting existing condominiums from the maximum height and density regulations if exceeded; that if a condominium were to be demolished for any reason, whether an act of God or voluntary demolition, the condominiums could be rebuilt; that the language was carried forward to the proposed Downtown Code to ensure Downtown condominium owners the provision would not be taken awayi that Section VI-1002 of the proposed Downtown Code replaces the section concerning nonconforming uses and vested rights in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the message is all existing buildings and uses can continue forever. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification about a residential project which is a rental project. Mr. Taylor stated that no difference exists; that office condominiums are a possibility. Mayor Palmer asked about residential buildings which are not condominiums? Mr. Taylor stated that residential buildings which are not condominiums are apartments; that no provision is made for an exemption for apartments at the present time but could be added if the Commission desires. BOOK 56 Page 27568 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27569 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that further clarification would be of assistance. Mr. Taylor stated that the rights of the multiple owners in a single condominium building necessitated protection. Commissioner Servian stated that citizens would be left without shelter if a condominium building was destroyed and had to be rebuilt under the proposed Downtown Code. Mr. Taylor stated that existing uses of buildings are allowed to continue; that existing buildings can be repaired, maintained, and expanded; that a change in use would not be allowed along Lemon Avenue in the Rosemary District; that a book store could replace another book store but not a bakery; that the City's Comprehensive Plan provides further clarification; that existing property rights are protected except for a change in use from commercial to residential. Mr. Taylor continued that the next question on the Comments/Issues List regards Section VI-1002, Application and Conflict, of the proposed Downtown Code, and concerns the cessation of a prohibited use; that the current standard in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) is six months for replacement; that the new proposal is for a longer period; that Thomas Quale from Landmark Bank, who also sits on the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Advisory Board, discussed the matter at length; that among the factors an insurer and lender analyzes is the degree to which the property is leveraged; that a question is what happens if a building is destroyed, voluntarily or involuntarily, and the building is entirely replaced; that under the proposed Downtown Code, the nonconforming use is allowed to continue operation if re-established within 24 months; that 24 months is considered generous; that the significant concerns of insurers and lenders are satisfied. Mayor Palmer asked the reason the 24-month period was used? Mr. Taylor stated that at the present time, the term is six months; that the thought process was to double the term; that the issue is the time period necessary to make a lender or insurer comfortable sO the figure was doubled again; that the Commission can consider whether the 24-month term is too generous or not generous enough; that the provision should address numerous concerns previously raised. Mayor Palmer stated that the continuation of a nonconforming use after destruction is a financial issue; that Mr. Quale or some other banker should give the Commission a realistic, rational approach. Commissioner Servian stated that 18 months is too generous but more than adequate for any lending and underwriting necessary from an insurance and lender perspective. Mr. Taylor stated that the use of the building could go on forever if the building is never remodeled; that the provision moves toward gradual compliance. Mayor Palmer stated that the opinion of Mr. Quale is respected; however, soliciting opinions from other bankers would be appropriate. Mr. Taylor agreed. Commissioner Servian stated that 24 months may be too generous; that 18 months is plenty of time to re-establish the business. Mayor Palmer asked if the time period was for rebuilding or getting a building permit? Mr. Taylor stated that the intent was the owner should have a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) within 24 months; that the business would have to reoccupy with the non-conforming use within 24 months. Mayor Palmer stated that 24 months may be necessary for a major building. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff felt 24 months was sufficient for the permit, site plan approval, etc. Mr. Taylor continued that Commissioner Atkins indicated a desire to add the US 301 and 10th Street intersection to the list of Primary Streets; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be necessaryi that the issue will be considered during the EAR process; that the verification of required retail frontages indicate Main Street, Central Avenue, and others are important streets on which to have the retail frontages; that the Building Design Standards are not onerous; that more comfort hopefully will be felt with the Building Design Standards; that a street can be removed from the list of Primary Streets; that adding the degree of certainty and predictability by designating BOOK 56 Page 27570 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27571 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. streets as Primary Streets is necessaryi that the required retail frontages must be determined by the Commission; that the retail frontages could go from Orange Avenue to Main Street and the Bayfront and east of Orange Avenue; that the Commission decided having a retail requirement on Main Street east of Orange Avenue was important; that Mr. Duany had extended the retail frontage all the way to School Avenue on the original proposal; that Staff reduced the retail frontage on Main Street to US 301; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) likewise thought east of US 301 was too much retail frontage. Commissioner Atkins asked if a pedestrian sleeve will be installed at the intersection of US 301 and 10th Street? Mr. Taylor stated that the matter would be considered during the amendment process for the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Palmer stated that new buildings such as the Sarasota Herald-Tribune building, banks, and other types of businesses are being constructed in the Downtown; that businesses are grandfathered in. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission should consider the options for the City 10 years in the future could be expanded or contracted; that the importance of the required retail frontage is important as the establishments will be required to install a gallery, an awning, or an arcade; that the arcade will not be easily accomplished as vacating a right-of-way is involved; that a gallery is a nice feature; that the business owner must make a marketing decision as to whether install a galleryi that awnings will be a requirement; that the number of street frontages with awnings must be considered; that street trees will be replaced in certain locations; that the proposal is to change the requirement for awnings from at least three feet to the curb to the maximum extent possible; that Staff would have the discretion to recess the awning slightly to preserve street trees and lamp posts, etc. Commissioner Servian asked if requiring awnings only on the south side of Main Street which is predominantly retail was considered? Mr. Taylor stated no; that the Commission can make the decision. Mayor Palmer stated that the north side of Main Street is predominantly offices. Commissioner Servian stated that having retail on the south side and other uses on the north side of Main Street may be one way to maintain the look without overwhelming the Downtown with retail establishments. Mayor Palmer stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is a 20-year plan; that many of the plans made are for the future. Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) initially did not want to have the retail frontages east of Orange Avenue; that since the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is a 20-year plan, the changes would be gradual as redevelopment occurs. Mr. Taylor continued that the next issue is the amount of commercial use allowed in the DTN, DTE, DTC and DTB Zone Districts; that the following ratios have been established: DTN 100% residential allowed/maximum 5% non-residential DTE 50% residential/508 non-residential DTC 25% residential/758 non-residential DTB 75% residential/258 non-residential Mr. Taylor stated further that the established ratios should not be incorporated in the proposed Downtown Code; that the City is required to follow the ratios as part of the, City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City's Comprehensive Plan is evaluated periodically to determine if the ratios should be adjusted. Mr. Taylor further stated that the next issue on the Comments/Issues List concerns Section VI-1005(G) (3) of the proposed Downtown Code and addresses the height of new buildings; that complete agreement has not been reached on the issue; that the Commission has agreed to allow two additional buildings in a portion of the DTC Zone District in a defined area with a 180 feet maximum; that the information learned earlier is a developer could potentially put in 18 stories in 180 feet versus ten stories within the same building footprint; that the issue was discussed in the context of the settlement agreement to enable the City to provide for a large corporate headquarters which might come to the City requiring the additional height for a certain type of building; that Staff initially did not know how to handle the approval; that the approval can be done administratively, through the PBLP, or through the Commission; that the Commission can decide the criteria and determine the approving bodyi that the City's Comprehensive Plan allows the process to proceed in any BOOK 56 Page 27572 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27573 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. manner determined by the Commission; that Staff thought the process should be done as expeditiously as possible; that other standards should be identified; that pedestrian requirements on a secondary street may not be supported; that the best course of action is unknown; that the Commission will make the policy decision. Mayor Palmer stated that only two buildings of 180 feet height will be allowed; that the buildings should not be accepted on a first come, first served basis; that the best way to handle approval of the two allowable buildings is unknown; that any other possibilities would be eliminated and an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would be required for additional development of 180-foot buildings; that the opportunity should be fair and open for developers within the particular area to come forth with a project; that a nonpolitical, fair way to consider the options is necessary. Mr. Taylor stated that a developer must build the building, not just come in and ask to build the building; that options are available to consider; that the decision will be made based on certain criteria. Commissioner Servian stated that the developer has already been chosen for the Palm Avenue project which could become the first of the two 180-foot buildings. Mr. Taylor stated that the Palm Avenue project is just outside the boundary for the two 180-foot buildings. Mayor Palmer stated that the boundaries require changing to include the site of the Palm Avenue project which would require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Palm Avenue project will take time to develop; that sufficient time could be available to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the recommendations for standards the PBLP brought forward will be a key decision for the Commission; that the 180 foot allowable height was based on bonuses for certain projects or if certain standards are met; that the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) establishes an affordable housing trust fund and transit fund for contributions from developers; that bonuses could possibly be given for paying into such trust funds to the extent more impact may result from a 180-foot building than from a building which is not as tall. Mr. Taylor stated that a significant amount of the area in which the 180-foot buildings could be constructed overlaps the DROD. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a 10-story building could be 160 feet. Mr. Taylor stated that the developer could potentially receive eight additional stories or the equivalent in floor-to-area ratio; that a story can potentially be built in 10 feet. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the issue is a height or density issue? Mr. Taylor stated that the developers view the gain as approximately eight stories. Commissioner Servian stated that the developers did not want to measure the limitation in stories. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that criteria is necessary to select the two 180-foot buildings for construction; that height or stories is not a concern. Commissioner Servian stated that Mr. Duany indicated the number of stories in a building should be a concern; that the residential use will be absorbed in one building with no other residential opportunity available elsewhere in the City if the floors are compressed in one 180-foot building; that density rather than height was the concern of Mr. Duany. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that only the two buildings are in question. Commissioner Servian stated that the two new buildings could equal 16 more stories which is a significant amount of residential or commercial space. Mr. Taylor stated that the options are either first-come, first-served, which would be an administrative approval, or the PBLP or Commission could review the building, observe the qualities of the project, and then a decision as to whether the building warrants the additional height. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Mr. Duany indicated the difficulty in differentiating between 20 and 30 stories. BOOK 56 Page 27574 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27575 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the criteria proposed is for the Commission to evaluate the buildings on a case by case basis; that Staff's concern was too much criteria was provided by the PBLP to the Commission in making the decision. Mr. Taylor continued that the next issue on the Comments/Issues List concerns Section VI-1005 (G) (3) of the proposed Downtown Code and addresses the notice requirement to the public concerning the possibility the additional height may be permitted; that notice will be provided within the affected area of the potential construction of a 180-foot building at the time of the required rezoning. Mr. Taylor continued that an elevation of two feet above the sidewalk is required for residential uses on the first floor; that single family homes such as a townhouse or a detached house are exempt from Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; that commercial condominiums or apartment houses should be elevated; that the front door is not the only way to comply with the ADA; that the ADA requirements supersede the requirements of the proposed Downtown Code. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification of the requirement to construct the first floor of residential use two feet above the sidewalk. Mr. Taylor stated that an example is Library Muse at which the first floor is elevated approximately two feet above the sidewalk; that many examples of the two foot requirement is available in the City and other communities; that the purpose is to change the height of the windows slightly to separate the pedestrian's eye levels and the windows. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that lots in Laurel Park are worth $250,000 at a minimum; that houses are being torn down and new homes constructed; and asked if the new single-family residences must be two feet above the rest of the homes? Mr. Taylor stated that the requirement is residential on the ground floor must be elevated two feet above the sidewalk level. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the two feet requirement extends to single family homes? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that houses in the. areas are already raised two feet for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood requirements; that the increased elevation is only a few inches and not significantly different than already required. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a home was once built next door to his home; that a swale was to be built to carry the water away; that the neighbor built higher than his property; that all the water was suddenly coming on to the property. Mr. Taylor stated that a stem wall built on pilings with a skirt around the base can be constructed. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the reference is to a raised foundation. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that a home could be constructed on a raised foundation at this time; that the single family residential areas would likely not change; that the people are required to build on raised foundations today. Mayor Palmer stated that the requirement is limited to property on primary streets. Mr. Taylor stated that many of the streets in Gillespie Park and Park East are primary by design; that the building design qualities, which were added to the Laurel Park neighborhood through the application of the Residential Single Multiple 9 units per acre (RSM-9) Zone District, are desirable; that for example, a front porch is required in the RSM-9 Zone District; that the RSM-9 Zone District incorporates many new urbanist principles; that the concern in the Laurel Park neighborhood is if to allow the introduction of nonresidential uses. Commissioner Servian stated that every older city in the Country has row houses or townhouses, most of which have one or two steps up with a porch. Mr. Taylor stated that the City does not require a porch except in the RSM-9 Zone District; that many people would probably choose to build the trontage in such a manner. Mr. Taylor continued by referring to Section VII-110(E), Sign Requirements in Particular Zone Districts Downtown Zone Districts, of the proposed Downtown Code and stated that buildings above six stories are allowed a horizontal identification sign; that Commissioner Atkins previously indicated a vertical identification sign could also be aesthetically pleasing; that examples of aesthetically pleasing BOOK 56 Page 27576 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27577 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. vertical identification signs have been provided to Staff; therefore, a provision has been included in the proposed Downtown Code to allow vertical identification signs; that width as well as height will be controlled. Mayor Palmer stated that the Sarasota Opera House building has a beautiful, vertical marquis sign. Commissioner Servian stated that the sign is not placed directly on the building. Mr. Taylor stated that a degree of visual harmony is the goal; and continued that the next issue on the Comments/Issues List concerns Section VII-206(H), Required Parking, of the proposed Downtown Code; that a commitment previously made was the parking standards should be based on information submitted by the Downtown Parking Consultant; that the Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on an evaluation of the peak or worst case demand; that parking requirements should not be based on the peak or worst case demand; that parking, for example, for a shopping center should not be built based on the parking demand for the Christmas season; that the standard is based on the appropriate number of parking spaces throughout the year; that alternative parking opportunities can be sought; that the cost of residential and commercial development increases with the requirement for additional parking; that a developer will provide the parking appropriate for the business in most cases; that the requirement of too much parking may create unwanted situations; that a developer may wish to build an apartment building or a condominium complex and provide less parking than is required for the particular market segment in the same manner opportunities are being provided in the DROD for smaller units for a certain residential segment which may or may not have a market; that the developer should make the choice as to whether a market exists; that the same is true for the parking standards. Mr. Taylor continued that the parking demand indicated in the Downtown Parking Master Plan is correct; however, the City should make up some of the differences in parking demand through public and off-site parking sO people can park and walk along the street. Commissioner Servian quoted Staff's response on the Comments/Issues List regarding Section VII-206 (H) of the proposed Downtown Code as follows: Parking standards in the zoning code are based on "average" or minimum demand. Commissioner Servian stated that the parking standards are based on either average or minimum demand but cannot be based on both. Mr. Taylor stated that the minimum standard is based on average demand for a particular use; that the standard is actually the minimum necessary. Mayor Palmer stated that the constant comment heard is of the lack of parking Downtown; that the issue is critical mass versus mass transit and which comes first; that Downtown parking in Chattanooga, Tennessee, involves parking at the end of Downtown, getting on mass transit, and moving back and forth Downtown; that a park and ride concept which has fast enough headways, comfortable vehicles, and a thorough route throughout Downtown is desired; that providing more parking Downtown will result in more automobiles coming Downtown; that the parking problem is significant; that a broader look should be taken to provide an appropriate mass transit in the Downtown area and the DTC Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that all options should be considered; that the two issues of mass transit and parking are tied together; that a constant balance will continuously be sought. Mayor Palmer stated that a trolley is now in place to support the Downtown merchants, patrons, and employees; that very little ridership exists at the moment. Commissioner Servian stated that the trolley was personally used on Saturday morning to go to the Farmers Market and to stop along Main Street; that the trolley was well received on Saturday; that parking is as much an issue on Saturday as during the week which shows numerous people are coming Downtown on the weekends; that a significant number of people were waiting at the trolley to go to the Farmers Market; that the number of people using the trolley was encouraging. Mayor Palmer stated that employees of Downtown businesses have been asked not to park on Main Street. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that upon reviewing the Downtown Master Plan 2020, most of the concepts being implemented are not for the 10,000 who live Downtown; that the improvements are for the people who pass through the City, the 40,000 to 50,000 who visit BOOK 56 Page 27578 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27579 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. everyday, or the people coming in from other locations to work; that only one of two ways to get to the Downtown exist; that people can get Downtown by automobile or a previously arranged park and ride; that the people will not spend the money in the retail shops if parking Downtown or transportation from remote parking sites is not available. Mr. Taylor referred to Section VII-213, Off-Street Loading Standards, of the proposed Downtown Code and stated that the standards should be modified for the Downtown; that the required number of off-street loading spaces will be lowered. Mayor Palmer stated that buildings under 10,000 square feet have no parking requirements but are required to have a loading space; and asked for clarification. Mr. Taylor stated that a business should have a loading space; that an adjustment may be granted if the requirement is too onerous for a particular business. Mayor Palmer stated that a building of up to 25,000 square feet is only required to have one spacei and asked if the loading space could be a shared with another facility? Mr. Taylor continued that a comment in the Comments/Issues List in the proposed Downtown Code conflicts with the Rosemary District Neighborhood Action Strategy (NAS); that Staff is of the opinion a conflict with the Rosemary District does not exist; that in fact, a provision in the Rosemary District NAS indicates the desirability of design standards and support for the proposed Downtown Code; that another comment in the Comments/Issues List is the ordinance adopting the proposed Downtown Code should explicitly indicate the map depicting the proposed zone districts is not being adopted; that the map in the proposed Downtown Code is clearly marked as not being adopted as part of the proposed Downtown Code. Mr. Taylor stated further that a number of comments in the Comments/Issues List concern rezoning issues; that the Commission must direct a rezoning once the proposed Downtown Code is adopted; that a rezoning is anticipated; that the Commission has the discretion not to rezone any portion of the Downtown; that Staff would like to advertise the proposed boundaries of the proposed Downtown Code; that flexibility will be built into the process sO the Commission can modify the boundaries if desired; that the Commission will be provided a map with the proposed boundaries as well as the issues identified; that the Commission can direct Staff as to any desired modifications of the boundaries; that affected property owners should be aware of the proposed boundaries in advance of the public hearings concerning the proposed Downtown Code. Commissioner Atkins stated that another piece of property should not be brought in the area impacted by the proposed Downtown Code to take one of the opportunities for a 180-foot building; that constructing two different buildings in the area encompassed by the proposed Downtown Code is the goal; that the property on the Palm Avenue site should not be considered as one of the two buildings. Mayor Palmer disagreed. Mr. Taylor stated that another comment on the Comments/Issues List is an objection to the loss of development rights; that the Commission will be provided as much flexibility as possible; however, direction will be required from the Commission. Mayor Palmer stated that a briefing on the Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, also called the Burt J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act (Burt Harris Act), and the related legal issues of downzoning should be provided to the Commission; that the Commission will be making a decision concerning the proposed Downtown Code at the May 24, 2004, Special Commission meeting; that receiving the information prior to that time would be appreciated. City Attorney Taylor stated that the information can be provided; that two memoranda have been written in the past and can be updated and provided to the Commission; that the effect of the Burt Harris Act has not been as terrible as anticipated; that the Burt Harris Act provides a mechanism for adjustments if a property is adversely impacted; that the City may be required to purchase a property if the development rights have been destroyed; that the Burt Harris Act provides a process to correct problems associated with property rights; that care should be taken with the potential number of properties affected. Commissioner Servian stated that development rights must be dramatically affected before the Burt Harris Act would go into effect. BOOK 56 Page 27580 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27581 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that new language has been developed indicating property must be inordinately burdened prior to the application of the Burt Harris Act; that significant litigation has not been forthcoming to legally define the term; that information concerning the Burt Harris Act will be provided in advance prior to a full discussion at the Commission table. Mayor Palmer stated that Mark Barnaby wrote a very readable treatise on the Burt Harris Act which was provided to the City Attorney's Office approximately a year ago and which deals with many of the issues. Mr. Taylor stated that the next comment on the Comments/Issues List is a general objection to imposing the DTN Zone District in the Rosemary District; that the concern regards vested rights; that another comment concerns property on the northeast corner of Fruitville Road and Lemon Avenue; that the Future Land Use Classification and the Zone District of the property will be bifurcated, with a portion being in the DTE Zone District and a portion in the DTN Zone District; that the Commission is aware of the issues. Mayor Palmer stated that the City's efforts concerning mixed-use in the Rosemary District is a concerni and asked the wishes of the Commission? Commissioner Servian stated that Staff should further clarify the use of the DTN and DTE Zone Districts in the Rosemary District. Vice Mayor Martin and Commissioners Atkins and Bilyeu agreed. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, Staff should provide further clarification of the use of the DTN and DTE Zone Districts in the Rosemary District. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff understood consideration of the DTN and DTE Zone Districts in the Rosemary District would be reviewed as part of the EAR process. Mayor Palmer stated that the consideration is not just part of the EAR processi that Staff previously indicated the opportunity would be available to leave the zoning unchanged and consider the DTN or DTE Zone District as part of the EAR process. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that the Commission must direct Staff to rezone the property or not and to evaluate the property as part of the EAR process if desired. Commissioner Atkins stated that Mr. Duany indicated the transitional area in the Rosemary District has unlimited possibilities which the City is flexible enough to absorb. Mr. Taylor stated that the choice for the land use is limited to the DTN Zone District unlike other areas of Downtown in which choices are available. Commissioner Atkins stated that Mr. Duany was referencing different transects which was confusing. Mayor Palmer stated that the DTN Zone Districts was established for the Downtown neighborhoods in the City's Comprehensive Plan and are difficult to change; that the DTB, DTE, and DTC Zone Districts are not established in the City's Comprehensive Plan and therefore can be changed more easily. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission made a conscious decision to protect the Downtown neighborhood residential areas from the flexible change unless an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan was processed; that the DTN Zone District was made unchangeable in the City's Comprehensive Plan for a specific length of time. Commissioner Atkins stated that the ability to be flexible was discussed previously; that now the discussion refers to no flexibility; that the issue does require further clarification. Mr. Taylor stated that the City will have flexibility if the City's Comprehensive Plan is amended; and continued that the next comment on the Comments/Issues List is a general comment concerning the area between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street east of the Rosemary District which was discussed earlier; that a good solution is not known; that the compromise between the developers and the residents was reached during the development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the final policy decision will be up to the Commission as to if to rezone the property and/or if to direct Staff to evaluate the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Palmer stated that changing the Future Land Use Classification of the northern quarter of the area between BOOK 56 Page 27582 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27583 04/12/04 3:00 P.M. Fruitville Road and Fourth Street would require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; and continued that the next comment on the Comments/Issues List is a general comment concerning an objection to the possible future rezoning of the Savoy on Palm condominium development; that the Commission will have the opportunity to change the line of the Zone District if desired; however, the grandfathering provisions will protect the Savoy on Palm property. Mr. Taylor stated that the final comment on the Comments/Issues List is a general comment related to the complexity and difficulty of the rezoning process for the 1,800 affected parcels; that the suggestion was not proceed with the City-initiated rezoning but rather allow property owners submit applications on a case by case basis; that proceeding on a case by case basis would be a lengthy process which would not result in achieving the ultimate goal in the near future. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification of the provision requiring a five-story building in the DTE Zone District be 100 feet away from a residential property. Mr. Taylor stated that buildings of five stories are allowed in the DTE Zone District; however, Staff proposes and the PBLP recommends height be limited to four stories if adjacent to the DTN Zone district and three stories if adjacent to the Laurel Park neighborhood, which is one story above the height allowed in the neighborhood. Mayor Palmer stated that the impacts of the provision, positive or negative, should be reviewed; that complaints have been received; that concerns have been expressed on both sides of the issue. Mr. Taylor stated that the provision resulted from the expressed concerns of residents in the Laurel Park neignborhood; that a number of comments were heard from residents in the Rosemary District; that as much concern will not be heard if the issue regarding the zoning in the Rosemary District is resolved. Mayor Palmer asked the date of the next meeting? Mr. Taylor stated that a public hearing will be held at the May 10, 2004, Special Commission meeting; that two to three hours of public input is anticipated; that Staff will request to return at the May 24, 2004, Special Commission meeting to complete the process. Mayor Palmer asked if the process can be completed at the May 24, 2004, Special Commission meeting? Mr. Taylor stated that the process could be completed at the May 24, 2004, Special Commission meeting; that the Commission will be required to make some policy decisions; that public input will not be received at the May 24, 2004, Special Commission meeting; that second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 could occur at the June 14, 2004, Special Commission meeting or at any Regular or Special Commission meeting considered appropriate by the Commission. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 6:14 There was no one signed up to speak. 3. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 6:15 There being no further business, Mayor Palmer adjourned the Special meeting of the City Commission of April 12, 2004, at 6:15 p.m. LOC ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR ATTEST: 3ikly E Rolmoon BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 56 Page 27584 04/12/04 3:00 P.M.