MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Vice Mayor Gene Pillot PRESIDING: Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0003) through (0050) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add as the first item on the agenda, Report Re: FDOT funding for Siesta Drive (S.R. 758) Drainage Project Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission had any objections to the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. 2. REPORT RE : FDOT FUNDING FOR SIESTA DRIVE (S.R. 758) DRAINAGE PROJECT = APPROVED CONCEPTUAL RESPONSE #1 (0050) through (0146) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and displayed a map on the overhead projector to identify the project area, Siesta Drive on Bay Island between Sarasota Bay and the humpback bridge. Mr. Daughters stated that funding has not been available to address drainage problems which have existed on Siesta Drive for some time; that Siesta Drive is a State road; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has offered to transfer $250,000+ to the City if the City will assume responsibility, for the design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the project; that the Administration has prepared a response which will be forwarded to the FDOT and scheduled to be discussed with David May, FDOT District Secretary, on June 10, 1996, and presented to the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on June 24; that Commission approval of the following conceptual response is requested: Book 40 Page 13294 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13295 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. The City prefers FDOT undertake the project as Siesta Drive is a State road. However, if FDOT is unable to fulfill its commitment in a timely manner, the City will procure professional services and undertake the project with FDOT's committing to pay the estimated costs for the design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the project, to accept responsibility for any shortfalls in event the actual costs exceed the estimated costs, and to assist the City in obtaining necessary permits. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's conceptual response. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. 3. INTRODUCTION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0171) through (3500) Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission has been provided with the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's (PBLP) recommended Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), revisions to the Land Use Element requested by the Commission at the joint Commission/PBLP workshop, proposed language for a Neighborhood Element, Land Use Change Request #24, and proposed Resolution No. 96R-892; that one revision to the Government Coordination Element requested by the PBLP was overlooked by Staff; that the following change in reference to Sarasota Memorial Hospital will be made on Government Coordination page 2: 2) provides ingress and egress for motor vehicles primarily via U.S. 41; Mr. Costanzo distributed hard copies to the Commission and referred to various slides displayed on the overhead projector to provide an overview of the EAR and the EAR process. Mr. Costanzo stated that Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which is effectuated by Florida Administrative Rule 9J-5, establishes the intent of the State Legislature that local planning should be a continuous and ongoing process; that more specifically, Chapter 163 states the intent of the EAR is to present an assessment and evaluation of the success or failure of a municipality's comprehensive plan and shall address the following specific items: major problems of development and physical deterioration condition of Plan at date of adoption and currently comparison of the Plan objectives with actual results effects of State Law and Regional Policy changes on the Plan unanticipated and unforeseen problems and opportunities that have occurred since adoption identification of actions needed to address planning issues identified description of public participation process identification of anticipated Plan amendments needed to address/implement any identified changes. Mr. Costanzo stated that the intent of the EAR is not to solve problems but to identify issues which serve as a basis for the update of the Sarasota City Plan; that the subsequent Comprehensive Plan Updates can only address issues identified in the EAR. Mr. Costanzo continued that Staff drafted the EAR based on input received at neighborhood meetings; that the PBLP held two workshops and public hearings on the draft EAR, made modifications, and recommended the EAR to the City Commission; that a joint City Commission/PBLP workshop was held on May 8, 1996, to further define the document; that a public hearing has been scheduled tonight for adoption after which the EAR will be forwarded to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Commission (SWFRPC) for review; that the SWFRPC has 30 days within which to review the EAR for sufficiency; that following sufficiency review, Staff will initiate a 12-month Comprehensive Plan Update process; that the Commission is required to adopt an updated Sarasota City Plan within 12 months of adopting the EAR. Richard Walker, Senior Planner, came before the Commission and stated that each element of the EAR includes eight sections: introduction, evaluation of achievement of objectives, major problems, comparison of existing plan VS. current plan, tables of data, major problems, consistency with changes in State laws and regional plans, and citizens' input; and presented the following issues identified in the EAR related to the Open Space and Recreation and Land Use Elements of the Sarasota City Plan: OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ELEMENT Major Problem: Problem #1 The documentation of the City-owned parks and open space in the Sarasota City Plan needs to be improved. Recommendations for Future Action or Proposed Amendments: Book 40 Page 13296 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13297 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Develop a Park and Open Space Master Plan, including a Downtown Landscaping Master Plan. Explore ways to strategically enhance the City's outdoor aesthetic ambiance and maximize its long term return on capital expenditures. Jointly develop with Sarasota County a master plan for converting the Sarasota Mobile Home Park to a recreation use. Analyze the continued feasibility (cost/benefit analysis) of continuing to require developers to contribute funds for the purchase of public art. Analyze the continued feasibility (cost/benefit analysis) of continuing to purchase art with public funds. LAND USE ELEMENT Major Problems: Problem #1 - Role of Impact Management Areas (IMAs) needs clarification/modification Problem #2 - Need for more detailed Land Use data and policies Problem #3 - Need for follow through with adopted plans, ordinances, and/or sector studies. Recommendations for Future Action or Proposed Amendments: Analyze the Future Land Use Map for areas that need modification. Mr. Walker stated that 22 requests were received for land use changes; that the Commission's request to consider Office Professional Business (OPB) or OPB-1 zoning for the property located at South Osprey Avenue and McClellan Parkway has been included as Land Use Change Request #23; that the requests were categorized into three groups: 1) recommended for approval, 2) recommended for further study, and 3) not recommended for approval. Philip Lieberman, Senior Planner, distributed copies of the following three charts, and assisted Mr. Walker in explaining the Land Use Change requests not recommended for approval: CHART 1: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL #2 North Tamiami Trail (lbehind Sunset Approved for IMA for Motel) Residential (Expanded to RMF-3 include several parcels) #7 Palm Avenue - IMA for Office Approve for inclusion in an IMA for office. #10 N.E. corner of Tuttle Ave. & Approve; extend both Fruitville Rd. - COP COP, RMF. #15 Waldemere Street between S. East Change to G Avenue and U.S. 41 = OPB #19 Stringfield Avenue between 15th Approve. and 17th Street - ILW CHART 2: REQUIRES FURTHER STUDY #4 Ringling School of Art & Design Requires further study. Expand MCI IMA on Bradenton Rd. #8 Auto Dealership - S. Washington Requires further study. Blvd. - orfice/Commercial #9 Lockwood Ridge Rd. between 12th & Requires further study. 15th Streets - Office #14 Hawthorne St. between East Ave. Requires further study. and U.S. 41 - OPB #16 Tuttle Ave. at Prospect St. Requires further study. = Office #21 Siesta Key Fish Market - Double Requires further study. residential density #22 Thirteen Lots at Alderman and Requires further study. Hudson Streets - RMF-R to RMF-6 #23 S. Osprey Ave. at McClellan Pkwy Requires further study. = Office (OPB/OPB-1) CHART 3: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL #1 Auto Rental on University Pkwy. Deferred to LDR process. between Desoto Place and Royal Not a land use issue. Palm Ave. Relates to a use in a zoning district not a land use category #3 Car Wash (CI) = Mobile Station Deferred to LDR process. on N. Tamiami Trail Relates to a use in a zoning district not a land use category. #5 Battery warehouse - Central Ave. Not recommended. Not Book 40 Page 13298 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13299 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. IMA to permit Industrial compatible with residential neighborhood. #6 S. Palm Ave. Mixed use Not recommended. Not compatible with residential neighborhood. #11 Main St. between Lime and Shade Not recommended. Not Avenues - multi-family compatible with surrounding neighborhood. #12 Fruitville Rd. at Briggs Ave. OPB-1 is need for unified - OPB development and access management. #13 Prospect St. at Lasula Ct. Not recommended. Not - Office compatible with residential neighborhood. #17 Clematis St. east of U.S. 41 Not recommended. Expansion - OPB of OPB would intrude into residential neighborhood. #18 Prospect and Floyd Streets Not recommended. Expansion between S. Tuttle Ave. and of OPB would intrude into S. Briggs Ave. = OPB residential neighborhood . #20 Rosemary District = 6th St. Deferred to LDR process for (Grocery Store) CI possible modification of the CRT District. Mayor Cardamone requested the Administration's recommendation regarding Request #24. Mr. Costanzo stated that an in-depth study by Staff or a review by the PBLP has not been conducted since Request #24 was received on May 30, 1995; that based on two similar requests reviewed and included in the EAR for land use changes in the same vicinity, Staff recommends the following: #24 Tuttle Ave. at Waldemere St. Requires further study. IMA for OPB Mayor Cardamone asked if the PBLP will review the request? Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's office, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission can either incorporate Request #24 into the EAR for further study or delay adoption of the EAR and remand the request to the PBLP for a recommendation; that Request #24 will be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and a public hearing held before the PBLP if the Commission chooses to incorporate the request into the EAR. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Commission will be approving the actions recommended on Chart 1 by adopting the EAR? Ms. Schenk stated no; that the requests will be considered under the Comprehensive Plan Update process; that Staff reports will be presented and quasi-judicial public hearings held on all requests listed on Charts 1 and 2. Commissioner Patterson stated that the requests on both Charts 1 and 2 will actually be considered for further study. Ms. Schenk stated that is correct; that Chart 1 refers to requests which Staff anticipates recommending for approval during the Update process; however, the resolution for adoption tonight includes the following language: It is hereby declared to be the intent of the City Commission to consider each requested change to the Future Land Use Map on a case by case basis. The fact that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process has concluded that further study is warranted shall not be deemed to require any change to the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Merrill stated that Staff does not recommend favorably for or against the requests listed for further study but is implying further review and more information is necessary. Mr. Costanzo stated that is correct; that the EAR is not an action document. City Attorney Taylor stated that the following language was included in the resolution to clarify that adoption of the EAR is an interim report and that requests will be considered during the Comprehensive Plan Update process: The Planning and Development Department, Planning Board, or City Commission may determine, after receiving testimony and documentary evidence presented at public hearings on any of the proposed amendments to the Sarasota City Plan (1989), that no change should be made to the Future Land Use map or that the land use change should be different from what was requested by the property owner. Commissioner Merrill stated that the requests referenced are site- specific; and asked if a broader area should be addressed in the EAR. City Attorney Taylor stated that the requests referenced in the EAR are a broad overview of several sites throughout the City; that preliminary determinations which may become the substance of specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments are not considered quasi- Book 40 Page 13300 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13301 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. judicial in nature; that adoption of the EAR has been categorized as a legislative, not a quasi-judicial process. Commissioner Merrill referred to Request #21, regarding the Siesta Key Fish Market; and asked if the Commission would lose its legislative right to deny the request when brought back for a decision if an item approved for further study is site specific? City Attorney Taylor stated that the EAR process will not prevent the Commission from making independent evaluations when the requests are formally brought back for a decision. Commissioner Patterson stated that the reference to approval on Chart 1 concerns her. Ms. Schenk stated that the Charts include summarized language drafted by the Planning Staff for presentation purposes; that the actual requests include more descriptive language; that the language in the EAR does not include any reference to approval or denial of the requests. Mr. Lieberman presented the following issues identified in the EAR related to the Transportation and Housing Elements of the Sarasota City Plan: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Issues identified: Concurrency: Most of the City's congestion is caused by background traffic from surrounding areas. The City's concurrency management system cannot correct this. Most of the City's severe congestion problems are "spot" problems, e.g., at intersections. Overall congestion is not generally severe. Level of Service (LOS) Standards: Is a "D" (C on some city streets) too strict, too lenient, or appropriate? Should LOS be raised on local streets or lowered on thoroughfares to encourage development and access away from local streets? Commissioner Merrill asked if standards will be developed to measure impacts on residential streets when, e.g., a new office use adds 100 trips but the LOS does not change? Mr. Lieberman stated that development of a system to define and measure neighborhood impacts is referenced in the EAR; that increases could be measured by number of vehicles, percentage of trips, trip lengths, nature of trips generated, etc. LOS Deficiencies: Several segments are currently failing. Two segments are predicted to fail in the future. Functional Classification: To protect neighborhoods, the City has removed from the Thoroughfare Plan most roads which are virtually all residential. Non-thorougntares are not eligible for Federal or State funding and cannot be used to relieve congestion. Site planning dilemma: Driveways onto local streets could intrude into neighborhoods; driveways onto arterials could impede the flow of through traffic. Recommendations for Future Actions: Concurrency management should be reconsidered on a sub-area, parallel basis rather than a segmental basis. Re-examine why certain City streets were singled-out at a LOS "C". Specific suggested solutions have been included in the EAR to address LOS deficiencies. A study of South Osprey Avenue will be used as a foundation for revising the Thoroughfare Plan during the Comprehensive Plan Update. Future functional classification should conform to the Thoroughfare Plan, which has implications for access management, i.e., driveway spacing and ingress/egress and right-of-way (ROW) width. Whenever possible, in a residential area, move center-line so that a whole lot on one side is condemned instead of pieces of both sides. This should help preserve neighborhoods and property values. HOUSING ELEMENT Issues identified: Approaching Build-Out: At current zoned densities, the City may begin to run out of housing units to accommodate projected population by year 2010. Decline in Home Ownership: Rental units have increased 8 times faster than owner-occupied units. This trend is not conducive to neighborhood cohesiveness, pride, or stake in the community. Deterioration of Housing Stock: Percentage of substandard housing has been rising since 1990. The greatest increase in deterioration is occurring in larger apartment houses. Book 40 Page 13302 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13303 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Code enforcement: The "worst first" policy neglects deferred maintenance. Recommendations for Future Actions: Compile a database and inspect deteriorated" and "dilapidated" properties more often. Hire one more inspector and clerk in the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department to target deteriorated properties. Promote living in the City as a preferable life-style. Adopt the previously written Historic Preservation element. Consider site design standards for multi-family housing to make buildings and complexes safer and more attractive. Mr. Walker presented the following issues identified in the EAR related to the Capital Improvements, Conservation, Utilities, and Coastal Management Elements of the Sarasota City Plan: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT opportunities: 1. Excess and uncommitted sewer and water treatment capacity. Recommendations for Future Action: Explore the feasibility of developing an economic element. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Recommendations for Future Action: Review the Tree Protection Ordinance to ensure it is fulfilling its intended purpose. Incorporate the Public Works Department's Street Tree Program, when completed, into the Sarasota City Plan. Ensure all environmental regulations are made applicable to all situations (public and private projects). UTILITIES ELEMENT opportunities: 1. Excess and uncommitted sewer and water treatment capacity. 2. Master Water Supply Plan - Currently in the drafting phase. Recommendations for Future Action: Work with Sarasota Stormwater and Environmental Utility to complete Basin Master Plan Studies for the City. Explore the conflict between redevelopment efforts and site specific stormwater management requirements. Attempt to have reclaimed water discharge capacity of the sewer treatment plant keep pace with the plant's average annual flow. Explore the feasibility of requiring all new construction projects, including municipal projects, to provide underground utilities, e.g., electric, telephone, cable television. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Major Problems: Problem #1 Prepare a Post Disaster Redevelopment Program/Plan by 1999/2000, which includes an economic recovery element. opportunities: 1. The City should ensure it is prepared to adequately respond to a weather disaster such as a hurricane, by reviewing two areas of concern: a. Analyze the building permit process to ensure that windload specifications for hurricanes are carried out as required by law. b. Review the Building Department's need for policies, procedures and contingency funding allowing it to temporarily increase its building review and construction inspection personnel following a major storm event. Recommendations for Future Action: Explore incorporating into the Sarasota City Plan, where appropriate, the language of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Mayor Cardamone asked if the EAR includes reference to a Conservation District? Mr. Costanzo stated that referencing a preservation or conservation district in the Land Use Element and the potential Neighborhood Element would be appropriate if the Commission intends to approve a Conservation District in the updated Land Development Regulations (LDRs); that specific reference in the EAR is not necessary but could be included if so desired by the Commission. Book 40 Page 13304 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13305 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Dupree and' Commissioner Merrill voiced support for including reference to a Conservation District in the EAR. Mayor Cardamone stated that language for the Conservation District has not yet been approved; therefore, the statements in the EAR should be broad. Commissioner Dupree asked if the terms "conservation" and "preservation" are interchangeable? Mr. Costanzo stated that preservation and conservation in the context of neighborhoods is essentially one in the same. Mr. Lieberman presented the following issues identified in the EAR related to the Government Coordination Element in the Sarasota City Plan: GOVERNMENT COORDINATION ELEMENT Issues Identified: The rapid growth of surrounding areas is straining the City's infrastructure. The City must design for a functional population of nearly 75,000. The sales tax formula is based on permanent population, not actual sales or on functional population. The City, being a central place, naturally has an inordinate share of tax-exempt properties. The Sarasota County Sheriff's Office receives taxes from City residents but provides few benefits to the City. Recommendations for Future Actions: Impact fee waivers needs to be studied for possible expanded geographical areas within City (not just downtown and Rosemary District) rather than more growth centers by I-75. Sarasota Memorial Hospital and other similar facilities need to quantify and mitigate their impact, especially on surrounding neighborhoods. Affordable housing needs generated from new jobs outside the City should be largely provided within those jurisdictions. A master plan for converting the Sarasota Mobile Home Park and vicinity to a recreational park will be completed, in coordination with the County, by 1999, and incorporated into the proposed Park and Open Space Master Plan. Commissioner Patterson stated that impact fee "waivers" require subsidy or payment by the local government; that the City currently has an interlocal agreement with Sarasota County for the collection of impact fees and allows Sarasota County to set policies regarding impact fees which affect the City; that the County's policies provide incentive for uses which are unlikely to be developed within the City; that termination of the interlocal agreement with Sarasota County should be considered to allow the City an opportunity to develop an impact fee structure with lowered or eliminated impact fees to encourage certain types of development; and asked if reference in the EAR is required to enable the City to proceed with such an action within the next year? Mr. Lieberman stated that preliminary analysis has been performed to identify both major issues related to impact fees which need further study and the ramifications associated with abandoning the County's fee structure, substituting an alternative fee structure, or having no fee structure; that the following language has been included in the EAR on Government Coordination page 20: Identify and map other areas of the City for assistance with impact fees either in the new Comprehensive Plan or in a subsequent study mandated by the Plan. Add to the work program an economic development element including a study of the current impact fee system, comparing the independent water and sewer fees to the joint effort for road and park fees. The current interlocal agreement should not be dismantled unless the study can prove substantial justification for doing sO. The study should identify specific locations beyond the current Tax Increment Financing District for impact fee assistance. Commissioner Merrill stated that technology is ever changing; and asked if the EAR includes reference to development of evolving standards for home occupations? Mr. Lieberman stated that the following language has been included on Housing Element page 40: Develop a more liberal policy on accessory uses and home occupations as an adjunct to homes in single-family districts, to accommodate "cottage industries" and telecommuting. Mr. Costanzo stated that home occupation will primarily be addressed through the LDRS process. Commissioner Dupree stated that the City's transportation system is ever changing and multi-faceted; that the quantity and quality of various types of transportation are based on the needs of Book 40 Page 13306 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13307 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. residential areas within the City; however, the Housing and Transportation elements are separate. Mr. Costanzo stated that the results of studies conducted to identify the land use patterns will be translated and included in the Thoroughfare Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update; that the EAR directs the City to analyze the feasibility of maintaining the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) system and research alternative methods to provide appropriate and cost effective transportation for City residents. Mayor Cardamone asked if the transportation study referenced in the EAR will address the specific questions which SCAT has been unable to answer regarding the service and benefits provided to the City by locating the Central Transfer Station in the downtown area? Mr. Lieberman stated that SCAT has not allocated the resources required to compile the data necessary to answer the City's questions. Mayor Cardamone stated that several million dollars will be invested in constructing a simple bus transfer station within the City limits; that the destination of the users transferring in the downtown area should be determined; that SCAT should be forced to conduct the study. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the serious interest of the Commission regarding the bus transfer system has been relayed to the County Administrator on several occasions; that the facility will be located on City-owned property, which provides the Commission with leverage to force the issue; that he understands a report prepared by SCAT was rejected by the County Administrator. Mayor Cardamone stated that reference in the Pelican Press to her enthusiasm with the Tallahassee bus station was totally inaccurate; that the Tallahassee bus station was not impressive. Mayor Cardamone continued that the potential elimination of Impact Management Areas (IMAs) or a complete alteration of the IMA process is being considered through the LDRS Update; and asked how IMAs will be addressed during the Comprehensive Plan Update? Mr. Costanzo stated that IMAs were identified as a problem in the EAR; that Staff intends to schedule a workshop with the Commission to discuss the issue after the EAR is adopted. Commissioner Dupree asked for clarification of the recommended action regarding the Open Space and Recreation Element, Problem #1. Mr. Costanzo stated that documentation of the City-owned parks will be addressed from an inventory standpoint; however, the Engineering Department is in the process of developing a master plan for the City's park system. City Manager Sollenberger stated that City parks have been constructed on an incremental basis; that a long-term policy and standards regarding the development of parks is necessary. Commissioner Dupree stated that recreation is a matter of continuing interest to him; and asked if the EAR provides for the development of goals for physical fitness recreation as well as leisure time recreation? Mr. Costanzo stated that the 1989 Sarasota City Plan includes various statements which address broad goals for recreational uses; that more specific statements regarding the amount and placement of recreational uses could be included during the Comprehensive Plan Update process. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the 1989 Sarasota City Plan contains policies developed prior to the consolidation of the City's Parks and Recreation Department with Sarasota County; that examination of the goals, policies, and objectives in the Open Space and Recreation Element would be appropriate. Commissioner Patterson stated that policies on City parks should be examined; that development of neighborhood parks which do not have amenities to attract people has been the trend in the City; that all neighborhoods would appreciate an exclusive park; however, standards should be developed which will make parks attractive to people Citywide. City Manager Sollenberger stated that constructing passive parks in selective neighborhoods has been a controversial issue in the past. Commissioner Dupree stated that the Comprehensive Plan should require development of parks which are user-Functional, user- friendly, and user-versatile; that parks should include amenities easily used and desired by people as well as provide various activities appropriate to the prospective users' age groups. Mr. Costanzo stated that development by September 30, 2000, of a Park and Open Space Master Plan which will address the issues raised is included in the EAR; that funding to complete the Master Plan has been scheduled for FY 1998/99 in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP); that the Commission could choose to revise the scheduled dates in the EAR and/or the CIP. Commissioner Merrill referred to the issues identified in the Housing Element; and cited the following citizens' comments received during Community Workshop #5, held at Tuttle Elementary School, for residents east of Lime Street, north of the railroad track, and to the City limits: The neighborhoods are changing quickly and decaying. There is no plan in place to encourage improvements. Book 40 Page 13308 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13309 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. The Fruitville Road Corridor is following the same decay curve as the Rosemary Park, north side of Sarasota, only 20 years later. Commissioner Merrill asked for the recommended action which will address the concerns cited. Mr. Costanzo stated that hiring one inspector and an additional clerk in the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department is recommended to focus on deteriorating properties; that development during the Comprehensive Plan Update of policies, goals, and objectives in the Land Use Element and the proposed Neighborhood Element should help address the concerns raised. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City is evolving into the center for affordable housing; that location of residence is an individual choice; and asked for clarification of the Government Coordination Element recommendation regarding affordable housing needs generated from new jobs outside the City being provided within those jurisdictions. Mr. Costanzo stated that the City has no mechanism to mandate location of residence; that discussion and negotiation between City and County governments will be pursued to encourage an alteration in County zoning policies to address affordable housing needs generated by job creation; that the City could conversely alter zoning and provide incentives to entice particular development in the city; that a State-mandated affordable housing analysis will be completed during the next 12 months as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City's impact fees for new homes are as high as $8,000; that lowering the impact fee would provide an incentive at no cost to the city taxpayer and should specifically be reviewed to address infill and rebuild of affordable housing. Mayor Cardamone asked if the demographics of the City, the land values, etc., will be reviewed as part of the affordable housing study? Mr. Costanzo stated yes. Mayor Cardamone asked if reference to a Neighborhood Element has been included in the EAR? Mr. Costanzo stated that statements have been included in the Land Use Element which will allow development of a Neighborhood Element during the Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Dupree referred to the issue identified in the Housing Element regarding decline in home ownership; and asked for clarification of the recommendation to encourage owner occupancy. Mr. Costanzo stated that decline in home ownership will be analyzed and reviewed during the Comprehensive Plan Update and primarily addressed through development of the Neighborhood Element. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes to address the Commission. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 96R-892 PERTAINING TO THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) FOR THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1989), ALSO CALLED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED; ETC. = ADOPTED AS MODIFIED (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (3500) through #3 (0263) The following people came before the Commission: Charles (Dan) Bailey, Attorney, and Michael Covert, President, representing Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH). Mayor Cardamone distributed to the Commission copies of a letter dated June 3, 1996, received from Mr. Covert, which outlined concerns with language drafted in the EAR. Attorney Bailey stated that the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board has adopted Prospective 2000, a strategic plan, and the Master Facility Plan, an implementation tool; that undertaking the City's development and review process to obtain necessary zoning and development approvals will be required; that an interlocal agreement which will set forth obligations, commitments, and procedures to be fulfilled by the parties in establishing review policies and pursing approvals, is contemplated as part of the process. Attorney Bailey continued that SMH has concerns with reference to the following in the Government Coordination Element: 1) providing sole access via U.S. 41, which Mr. Costanzo clarified should state primarily" and 2) prohibiting any future intrusion into the surrounding neighborhoods; that the EAR process is intended to identify issues; that SMH has concern the language recommended by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) may be too specific and could preclude processing of the Master Facility Plan. Attorney Bailey distributed and explained the following revised language proposed for consideration: - Government Coordination, page 2, at line 38 Book 40 Page 13310 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13311 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Sarasota Memorial Hospital should be encouraged to quantify and mitigate impacts arising from the implementation of its Master Facility Plan. Specifically Sarasota Memorial Hospital should adopt and follow a campus master plan within the core boundaries of Floyd Street, Osprey Avenue, Hillview Street, and U.S. 41. Such a plan should include detailed traffic studies which identify traffic circulation patterns, access, and impacts to the external road network which must be mitigated. Such a plan should also serve to reinforce the character of surrounding land uses and maintain compatibility with surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods. Attorney Bailey stated that the Hospital core does not currently extend to Hillview Street; that the intent of the language is not to imply the boundaries will be extended; however, SMH does not want the EAR process to restrain or constrain the Commission's entertaining a proposal from SMH to modify the core boundaries; that the Master Facility Plan includes development of properties owned by SMH which are located between Arlington and Hillview Streets. Government Coordination, page 21, at line 22 Recognizing the need to adequately plan for necessary community facilities, Sarasota Memorial Hospital and other community facilities need to quantify and mitigate potential impacts with respect to traffic, parking, mass transit, utilities, housing, solid/ hazardous waste, drainage, potable water, air quality, and surrounding land uses and patterns. Specifically, the Hospital should develop, adopt, and follow a campus master plan which includes traffic studies which identify circulation patterns, access, and potential mitigation measures for impacts created. Mr. Covert stated that the Hospital Board's intent is to work with the City in developing an interlocal agreement to facilitate implementation of the Master Facility Plan; that consideration of the proposed revised language or other language is requested to provide SMH an opportunity to work with the City during the development review and approval processes. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Administration has reviewed potential impacts of the revised language proposed? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City Attorney has prepared a preliminary draft of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and SMH; that referencing Hillview Street in the language implies an expanded core boundary; that major concerns exist regarding the Memorial Hospital core. Mayor Cardamone stated that discussion by the Commission regarding changes to the EAR should be reserved until all speakers have appeared before the Commission. Marquerite Cristiani, 2323 Main Street (34237) (Request #11), distributed photographs for Commission review; and stated that a land use change to Office, Professional Business (OPB) has been requested for properties located at 2323 Main Street through 2389 Main Street and 50 South Shade Avenue; that the subject properties encompass the north and south sides of Main Street between Lime and Shade Avenues; that three dwellings, two of which are rental units, are located on the south side of Main Street on Lots 15 through 24; that seven dwellings are located on the north side of Main Street on Lots 3 through 12; that the ten-dwelling block is completely surrounded by OPB and commercial uses, i.e., a Texaco gas station, a drug store, an attorneys' office, a dentist's office, and other professional uses; that the view from her front yard includes a convenience store, laundromat, bowling alley, liquor store, and a dead end street where many transients wander; that a change in land use to OPB would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Cristiani continued that the house at 2323 Main Street was constructed in 1947; that her family, which resided in the house for 49 years, was forced to deal with various changes which developed in the neighborhood, i.e., increased noise, pollution, and traffic as well as the undesirable passersby crossing the property to access the convenience store; that the surroundings are no longer suitable for families with children; that a residential neighborhood no longer exists; that in 1993, like so many of the original families, her family relocated; that the dwelling became a rental property; that in 1993 the assessed taxable value of the property was $102,044; that after two years of renting the home, the taxable value dropped by $2,677 to $99,367; that rental properties are a hassle for property owners and do not create the essence of a residential neighborhood. Ms. Cristiani further stated that the properties on Main Street between Lime and Shade Avenues have been invaded by commercial and OPB uses; that the property owners have been forced to deal with negative impacts not found in other residential neighborhoods; that Request #11 should be re-evaluated; that changing the land use on Main Street between Lime and Shade Avenues and dead-ending Main Street at Shade Avenue would deter encroachment of commercial uses past Shade Avenue; that the interior of Main Street is fast becoming rental property; that the Commission should allow what remains of an old, established neighborhood to become part of Sarasota's bright future rather than part of its decaying past; that Request #11 has not been recommended for approval; and requested that the Commission re-evaluate Request #11. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports further study of Request #11 but has concerns with rezoning the area to the OPB Zone District; that market forces are encouraging expansion of Book 40 Page 13312 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13313 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. commercial uses to the south and to the east; that the subject area is suitable for an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) or live/work opportunities; that an experimental live/work concept for the area could be supported; that constructing a cul-de-sac at Shade Avenue should be considered if the Commission determines OPB zoning is appropriate. Commissioner Merrill continued that he has an 8 p.m. appointment; and excused himself from the meeting at 7:46 p.m. Stephen Rees, Attorney, Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street (34236), representing Guy Asbury (Request #21), stated that during the fall of 1995, the Siesta Key Fish Market property was addressed as one of several properties scheduled for amortization as a nonconforming commercial use in a residential zone district; that testimony and information was presented to the Commission requesting the use be exempted from the amortization schedule; that the Commission chose to decline the request; therefore, the amortization provision is currently applicable; that Request #21 was filed during the EAR process to provide the opportunity for review of a request to rezone the property from the Residential, Single-Family (RSF-2) Zone District to the RSF-4 Zone District and increase the existing density of two dwellings to four; that the PBLP has recommended further study of Request #21. Attorney Rees continued that upon the effective date of the Zoning Code adopted in 1974, unified building lots under the same ownership which had common street frontage and a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet became one building parcel; that the previous owners of the Siesta Key Fish Market, who owned two parcels with a combined width of 100 feet and another two parcels with a combined width of 100 feet, met the RSF-2 Zone District requirements being adopted; that the property has been platted as 50- X 100-foot lots under the Plat of Siesta since the 1900s; that consideration of allowing the subject property to revert back to the density applicable in 1974 is being requested; that the intent is to demonstrate that development of four dwellings, one to each platted lot, is compatible with the surrounding vicinity and consistent with the Sarasota City Plan as amended; that the PBLP recognized that both on Garden Lane and on side streets off of Higel Avenue a number of similar neighborhoods exist with 40-, 50-, and 60-foot frontage widths, either which have been combined to create a larger homesite parcel, remain vacant and undeveloped, or have been developed with a dwelling in accordance with the original platted dimensions. Attorney Rees stated that Staff discussion and determinations on Land Use page 63 reference the validity to the request from an historical standpoint. Attorney Rees continued that the request for a change in land use was initiated on behalf of his client during the amortization proceedingsi; that the EAR has been deemed a legislative process; that his client does not intend to put the City in a corner; that an opportunity is being requested to subsequently demonstrate to the Commission that rezoning the subject property from RSF-2 to RSF-4 would be a wise decision. E. Ralph Tirabassi, Attorney, 1515 Ringling Boulevard (34236). representing McAlpine Prospect Properties (Request #13), stated that Request #13, Prospect Street between Lasula Court and South Tamiami Trail, is referenced in the EAR under Staff discussion & determinations for Community Planning Area #6 on Land Use page 67; that Staff recommended no change is justified and concluded that although the particular block has lost much of its residential character, retaining the current zoning is necessary to meet the City's future housing needs and changing the Impact Management Area zoning eligibility from RSF-4 to office would not be consistent with the neighborhood to the north. Attorney Tirabassi referred to a parcel map displayed on the overhead projector to identify Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10, owned by McAlpine; Planned Parenthood located on Lots 11, 12, and 13; the Waffle House located on Lot 14; Lots 1, 2, and 6, owned by Herbert Silverstein; and two vacant lots and four rental homes on Prospect Street west of Lasula Court: two of which are owned by McAlpine and two of which are owned by Dr. Silverstein. Attorney Tirabassi stated that density should be considered when addressing compatibility with the surrounding land use; that only 8 to 13 dwelling units could be constructed on the subject lots; that Sarasota Memorial Hospital looms over the properties; that the May Houck parcel, which will be developed commercially, is located to the north; that Floyd Street, primarily zoned OPB, is located to the south; that U.S. 41 is located to the east; that the subject area is distinguishable from the remaining area of Prospect Street which is clearly residential in character, especially west of Osprey Avenue; that the properties to the north can no longer be considered a viable neighborhood; that including requests in the EAR is not considered as a commitment by the Commission but rather an opportunity for the property owners to discuss with Staff alternative uses; and requested that the Commission place Request #13 in the EAR for further study. Bruce Franklin, ADP Associates, Inc. 189 Cocoanut Avenue; and Michael Furen, Attorney, 2033 Main Street (34236) representing Lola Morris and Dr. and Mrs. Kenneth Weisbrod (Request #14). Mr. Franklin stated the subject property is located on the north side of Hawthorne Street east of U.S. 41 and west of East Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Waldemere Fire Station to the north; that substantial changes have occurred since the subject parcel was last reviewed by the City; that the property owner is supportive of the language contained in the April 10, 1996, EAR draft as Book 40 Page 13314 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13315 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. recommended by the PBLP which suggests pursuing further study of the area as a transitional zone. Attorney Furen stated that Staff has recommended a land use change to Government Use (G) Zone District for Request #15, the City-owned property adjacent to the fire station on Waldemere Street between East Avenue and U.S. 41; that the subject property will essentially be the only parcel on the block that is literally surrounded by high-intensity commercial and offices as well as a noisy fire station facility; and requested approval of the recommended EAR language which will provide the property owner a future opportunity to provide information and convince the Commission that an office use on the subject property would be appropriate. Bruce Franklin, ADP Associates, Inc., 189 Cocoanut Avenue; and Michael Furen, Attorney, 2033 Main Street (34236), representing Igor Kolar (Request #23). Mr. Franklin stated that the Commission determined the amortization schedule for the nonconforming automotive service station use at 2440 South Osprey Avenue should be enforced and the use discontinue by January 1999; that consistent with Resolution 94R-721, which set forth requirements for the amortization review, and as part of the recommendation read into the record during the nonconforming use public hearing, Staff recommended office use would be an appropriate, alternative land use on the property; that during the May 8, 1996, joint City Commission/PBLP workshop, Staff was directed to prepare language to evaluate during the Comprehensive Update the potential of placing the Kolar property in an IMA for eligibility as an office designation; that the language has been drafted and the Kolar property added to the EAR for further study as Request #23. Attorney Furen cited the following from Land use page 68.1: Further study is needed during the update phase to determine whether another use other than residential could be appropriate with the surrounding single-family district. Attorney Furen stated that the record from the public hearings regarding amortization of the current use at 2440 South Osprey Avenue clearly indicates an office use at the site would be compatible with the surrounding, residential areas; that the language proposed by Staff on Land Use page 68.1 does not adequately reflect the facts; and requested the following, revised language be substituted for the cited Staff language: A residential designation for and use of this parcel may not be appropriate. An office use may be a more appropriate designation and use for this parcel, and is not incompatible. Further study is needed during the update phase to determine whether an office use is more appropriate or whether another use other than residential or office could be appropriate with the surrounding, single-family district. Commissioner Patterson stated that the EAR as drafted recommends further study of Request #23; that statements have been made that the EAR language does not impact future decisions of the Staff or the Commission; and asked why a change to specific language is being requested? Attorney Furen stated that the Administration previously stated on the record that an office use on this site would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that the EAR language drafted by Staff implies an office use may not be compatible; that the revised language is requested to accurately reflect what has already been determined at an Administration level; that the requested language does not commit the Commission to an office use designation; that members of the Commission have expressed an interest in acquiring the property; that the intent of the specific language is to preserve a reasonable, viable, economic use of the parcel in the event the City and the property owner are unable to reach an agreement in terms of acquisition. Mayor Cardamone stated that the public hearing will remain open as the Commission discusses the requests made by speakers. Commissioner Patterson asked for comment by the City Manager regarding the request made by Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH). City Manager Sollenberger stated that the PBLP recommended the following language: Government Coordination page 2 Sarasota Memorial Hospital and other similar community facilities need to quantify and mitigate its impacts especially on surrounding neighborhoods. Specifically, the Hospital should adopt and follow a campus master plan which includes; 1) detailed traffic circulation patters; 2) provides ingress and egress for motor vehicles primarily via U.S. 41; 3 serves to reinforce and preserve the character of the existing and surrounding land uses; and 4) prohibits any future additional intrusions into the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the actual language from the PBLP included a change from the term "solely" to "primarily"; that SMH's Master Facility Plan includes parcels which are to the south of the core boundaries; that the EAR should reference SMH's planning efforts; however, the revised language submitted references Hillview Street as within the. core boundaries, which is not accurate. Book 40 Page 13316 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13317 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger distributed to the Commission copies of an excerpt from Chapter 87-256, Laws of Florida, Special Acts, which references authority of the Hospital Board to construct buildings within the Memorial Hospital Core as defined by the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota without regard to municipal and county zoning ordinances, laws, and regulations. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the legislation, which conflicts with present-day Growth Management Law, was of major concern to previous Commissions, and has been protested by the City, could serve as an impediment to the Commission's considering an expansion of the existing Hospital Core boundaries; that discussions regarding the Hospital Board's repealing the legislation should be resumed. Mayor Cardamone stated that Philip Beauchamp, former SMH President, in addressing a height variance for the Critical Care Tower and the Physicians and Surgeons Center made a public statement that SMH would in the future comply with various City laws, etc. Mayor Cardamone requested an excerpt of the minutes from the July 29, 1991, joint meeting of the City Commission and the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board be prepared. Commissioner Patterson stated that losing Commission prerogatives by expanding the core boundaries is of concerni and asked if retaining Commission prerogatives during the development review process can be negotiated and preserved through an interlocal agreement? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that such issues of concern could fairly be brought to the table during negotiations of an interlocal agreement. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the legislation was dealt with in a similar manner by the City when an interlocal agreement with the Hospital Board was entered into for the construction of the Waldemere Medical Center (Critical Care Tower and the Physicians and Surgeons Center). Commissioner Patterson asked if the language drafted by Staff precludes the Commission from considering future petitions filed by SMH? city Attorney Taylor stated that foreclosing possibilities which may be brought to the table for consideration during the Comprehensive Plan Update is not the intent of the language in the EAR. Mayor Cardamone stated that the language drafted by Staff as recommended by the PBLP does not address the core boundaries or prevent the Commission from reaching an interlocal agreement or considering an extension of the core boundaries; that the language drafted by Staff is supported with the term "primarily" substituted for "solely." Commissioner Dupree agreed. Attorney Bailey came before the Commission; referred to the following draft language on Government Coordination page 2; and stated that retaining the term "prohibits" could potentially cause problems during the development process: 4) prohibits any future additional intrusions into the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods. Attorney Bailey stated that, for example, a parking garage is proposed along Hillview Street, a primarily commercial area; that discretionary decisions by the City will be required during the development process; that including such a strong term in the EAR is not appropriate. Commissioner Patterson asked if the term discourages" would be more acceptable to SMH? Attorney Bailey stated yes. Mayor Cardamone and Commissioner Dupree voiced support for substituting the term "discourages" for "prohibits." Bruce Franklin, ADP Associates, Inc.. representing SMH, came before the Commission and stated that a commercial component which will enhance the compatibility of the parking garage with surrounding uses on Hillview Street is referenced in the Master Facility Plan; that discouraging intrusion into the surrounding commercial neighborhood is contrary to the development SMH is attempting to promote based on the input received from area merchants. Commissioner Patterson stated that the term discourages" provides the Commission with latitude to make discretionary decisions in the future. Commissioner Patterson requested the Administration's recommendation regarding additional revision to the draft language. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the draft language has been recommended by the PBLP; that flexibility which enables the City to work with SMH during the development review process should be provided; however, the City's future ability to make discretionary policy decisions should not be compromised; that modifying the language as requested by SMH is not recommended. City Attorney Taylor stated that an in-depth review to determine potential impacts of the language submitted by SMH has not been performed by his office; that lengthy revisions to the language drafted by Staff cannot be recommended without such review; that the parameters regarding the procedures for development review will be set and the scope of the agreement defined through the drafting of an interlocal agreementi; therefore, the language drafted by Book 40 Page 13318 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13319 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Staff with the inclusion of the minor adjustments discussed by the Commission could be recommended. Mayor Cardamone requested comment from Staff. Mr. Costanzo stated that a brief review of the language proposed by SMH has been performed by Staff; that only one problem was identified with the revised language proposed to Government Coordination page 21; however, the PBLP has not reviewed or provided a recommendation regarding either of the lengthy revisions. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a moratorium on Comprehensive Plan Amendments is currently in effect; that timely closure of the EAR process is recommended; that adoption of the EAR, tonight, as drafted is preferable to continuing the public hearing and delaying adoption so the impacts of revised language can be reviewed; that the PBLP previously recommended the term "primarily" be substituted for the term "solely"; that the draft language provides adequate flexibility; that an Interlocal Agreement between SMH and the City will be negotiated; therefore, the Administration recommends approval of the draft language recommended by the PBLP with the term "discourages" substituted for the term "prohibits." Mayor Cardamone stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to retain the language drafted by Staff on Government Coordination pages 2 and 21 with the terms "primarily" and "discourages" substituted for the terms "solely" and "prohibits" on page 2. Mayor Cardamone requested Commission discussion regarding Request #11, Main Street between Lime and Shade Avenues. Commissioner Patterson stated that the statements made by. Commissioner Merrill prior to his departure make sense; that including Request #11 in the EAR for further study should be considered; and requested comment from Staff. Mr. Costanzo referred to a zoning map displayed on the overhead projector to identify the parcels referenced in Request #11 and explain the surrounding zoning and uses. Mayor Cardamone stated that the subject area is surrounded by various commercial and office zone districts; and asked the difference between OPB and OPB-1 zoning and the reason Request #11 is not recommended for approval. Mr. Costanzo stated that a larger minimum lot size is required in the OPB-1 Zone District. Mr. Costanzo continued that the parcels identified in Request #11, although invaded by commercial and office uses from all directions except the east, appear as a viable, well-maintained, detached, single-family neighborhood; that the intrusions from the surrounding areas, i.e., the IMA along Fruitville Road, have not been great; that the gas station and tire installation establishment on the corner of Fruitville Road and East Avenue are the only two obtrusive uses which currently exist. Mayor Cardamone stated that although development may not have occurred to date, the existing zoning in the immediate area would allow, e.g., construction of obtrusive, three-story office buildings. Mr. Costanzo stated that is correct. Mr. Costanzo stated that preservation of the remaining neighborhood could be addressed by requiring more intense buffering around residential uses through the LDRS Update. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that closing Main Street at Shade Avenue could be considered to preserve the existing neighborhood integrity and preclude through traffic; that the new Sarasota County Judicial Center is being developed downtown; that available, nearby housing should retained. Mayor Cardamone stated that the surrounding zoning has impacted the beautiful, single-family neighborhood which once existed in the subject area; that retaining residential zoning on a few isolated parcels around which the Commission has approved more intensive zoning may not be appropriate. Commissioner Patterson asked if an in-depth study of Request #11 was performed? Mr. Costanzo stated no. Commissioner Patterson stated that further study of Request #11 is supported; that adjacent properties in the same vicinity should also be studied. Mayor Cardamone agreed. Commissioner Dupree stated that owner-occupancy of the properties is an issue which should also be reviewed. Mayor Cardamone stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to revise the language on Land Use page 65 to reference further study of Request #11. Mayor Cardamone stated that speakers addressing Request #21 referenced 50- by 100-foot lots; and asked the minimum lot size currently permitted in the City? Mr. Costanzo stated that the minimum lot size is currently 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff has recommended further study of the remaining requests addressed by speakers; that, essentially, the petitioners are requesting a strengthening of language to indicate a more favorable, future decision; that the language drafted by Staff provides the Commission with latitude during the Comprehensive Plan Update and should be retained. Book 40 Page 13320 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13321 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that Request #13, Prospect Street at Lasula Court, has not been recommended for further study. Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Tirabassi referenced commercial development of the May Houck IMA; that the entire IMA will not be developed as commercial; that the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) portion of the property was rezoned; however, the Residential, Single-Family (RSF-2) zoning in the IMA was retained. Commissioner Dupree asked the reason Request #13 has not been recommended for further study. Mr. Lieberman stated that the lot lines for the Zoning Districts specifically separated the subject area mid block; that Staff felt the precedent set should be maintained; that a detailed analysis performed by the Planning Staff indicates the current zoning of the parcels would permit construction of 13 single-family dwelling units to meet future housing needs. Mayor Cardamone stated that Prospect Street has a strong neighborhood association; that development of single-family dwellings on Lots 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, located across the street from the subject parcels, is likely if the existing zoning on the subject parcels is retained; however, similar requests for change in land use on the lots across the street may be submitted if OPB is considered for the subject parcels. Commissioner Patterson stated that whether the impacts are irrefutable and a rezoning will release a neighborhood held hostage to surrounding intrusion or whether a viable neighborhood will be further impacted by allowing intrusion to continue is an issue associated with several of the land use change requests submitted. Commissioner Dupree asked the rationale for Staff's recommending further study of Request #14, Hawthorne Street between East Avenue and U.S. 41. Mr. Costanzo stated that specific lots were identified in Request #14; that a three- to four-block area could potentially be affected by any change in land use made to the specific lots; that the PBLP and Staff support studying a broader area; that additional time will be required to obtain information from applicants; therefore, further study of Request #14 was recommended by Staff; that the PBLP further defined the EAR language to specifically reference OPB or a similar type of low intensity office. Mr. Costanzo referred to a zoning map to identify the study area, including properties further south of the Weisbrod parcels to Hillview Street and the following block, as well as the zone districts and uses in the surrounding area. Mr. Costanzo stated that a change in zoning will not be recommended for the entire study area; however, a broader area will be studied to determine the likelihood or extent of potential commercial expansion and whether rezoning to OPB would be appropriate. Commissioner Dupree stated that the Waldemere Fire Station is located to the north of the subject parcels; that a nursing home is located across the street; that fast food establishments also front U.S. 41 in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Patterson stated that various changes have occurred since the Comprehensive Plan Amendment previously filed to change the land use of the subject parcels was denied by the Commission, appealed, and upheld; that the Planning Staff's desire to thoroughly study a request which could potentially reverse a previous Commission's position is understandable. Mayor Cardamone stated that prior to running for office, she had appeared before the Commission to express her view that maintaining residential zoning next to a fire station was ridiculous. Mayor Cardamone continued that East Avenue serves as a definitive line separating total residential to the east; however, numerous issuès have been raised by Commissioner Merrill regarding the RMF-3 Zone District south of the subject parcels and west of East Avenue, i.e., lower-valued housing, poor-looking apartment complexes, proliferation of trash-receptacles, and unmaintained yards; that low intensity office may be a more appropriate designation for that RMF-3 area. Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. Mr. Costanzo stated that Staff will conduct studies over the next 12 months and prepare individual reports on all 24 requests for presentation to the Commission during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Mayor Cardamone stated that Request #24, southwest corner of Tuttle Avenue and Waldemere Street, should be thoroughly studied; that extending commercial/orfice districts on Tuttle Avenue could further intrude into established residential neighborhoods. Mr. Costanzo stated that Staff and the PBLP recommended against a similar request for that very reason. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 96R- 892 by title only. Commissioner Dupree stated that the Commission will be approving the EAR report recommended by the PBLP with modifications as noted. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Book 40 Page 13322 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13323 06/05/96 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 96R-892 including review of Requests #23 and #24 and modifying language in the EAR as discussed. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that Staff is commended for their efforts in preparing and presenting the EAR. 5. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0263) through (0306) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that personal friends were recently involved in a vehicular accident at Waldemere Street and U.S. 41; that the accident occurred at approximately 3 p.m.; that the responding offiçer had indicated numerous accidents occur in the vicinity at that time of the day; that commendation was expressed regarding the courtesy and professionalism of the responding officer (Badge #113); that the frequency of vehicular accidents occurring at Waldemere Street and U.S. 41, should be examined by the Administration, especially, when the traffic circulation patterns related to the Master Facility Plan of Sarasota Memorial Hospital are reviewed. 6. OTHER MATTERS (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #1 (0306) through (0308) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that the next scheduled meeting is the regular City Commission meeting of June 17, 1996. 7. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (0310) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the special meeting of June 5, 1996, at 9:12 p.m. A o Atus CCn MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR ATTEST: F 74 s 13ily E Rebu SA BILLY E.CRUBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK