MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT : Commissioner David Merrill PRESIDING: Mayor Jerome Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 (b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:04 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 (0038) through (0055) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Item No. IV, Report Re: Status of the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC), per the request of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment Director Horwedel. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Change to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 2. INTRODUCTION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0055) through (0330) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Taylor referred to the City's proposed comprehensive plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition; and stated that adoption of proposed Ordinance Nos. 98-4061 and 99-4095 will be requested following the second public hearing; that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4061 amends the Chapters on Neighborhoods, Housing, Environmental Protection, Recreation and Open Space, Utilities, Transportation, Governmental Coordination and Capital Improvements; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4095 amends the Chapter on Future Land Use; that the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, contains all the changes made to the original BOOK 45 Page 17738 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17739 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. November 1997 draft approved by the Commission; that numerous public hearings have been held with the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and the City Commission during the past year; that further changes can be made if necessary; that the process began in June 1996 upon adoption of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) followed by 1.5 years of public input. Mr. Taylor referred to a letter dated October 29, 1998, from Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, to the Commission concerning the Russo Trust Family parcel at 1704 Bay Road including plans for a dental proposed office written in response to a question about land use classification raised at the October 27, 1998, special Commission meeting; and stated that the PBLP unanimously voted to recommend a Neighborhood Office land use classification for the parcel to allow for the construction of a dental office; that Staff concurs with the recommendation. Mr. Burg referred to his letter dated October 22, 1998, to the City Commission on the subject of Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) ; and stated that the proposed TCEA was approved following a public hearing at the July 20, 1998, regular City Commission meeting at which the Commission passed on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 98-4061 adopting the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, with the exception of the Future Land Use Chapter; that subsequent to the Commission meeting, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) suggested using directional peak-hour volumes rather than bi-directional peak-hour volumes in determining roadway level-of-service (LOS); that Staff concurs with the suggestions of FDOT and the DCA; that additionally, Staff recommends some minor changes in language for the purpose of clarity which are included. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the terms "directional peak-hour volumes" and bi-directional peak-hour volumes" with regard to criteria for measuring traffic concurrency. Mr. Burg stated that the guidelines for measuring traffic concurrency using directional peak-hour volumes rather than bi-directional peak-hour volumes are slightly more stringent. Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that measuring directional peak-hour volumes is a methodology rather than a criteria change; that traffic volume can be measured in two directions or only one during the peak hours. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of changes in the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition. Mr. Taylor stated that the changes are indicated by strikethroughs for deletions and underlines for additions. Commissioner Cardamone asked if outstanding issues remain? Mr. Taylor stated no; that the two issues not included are the Russo Family Trust parcel and the TCEA, which can be discussed following the public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the language changes proposed at the October 27, 1998, special Commission meeting are included? Mr. Taylor stated yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that one public hearing could be held for proposed Ordinance Nos. 98-4061 and 99-4095 concerning the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition; that two separate ordinances were prepared previously following separation of consideration of the Future Land Use Chapter from the other eight chapters. Mayor Dupree requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 3. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE No. 98-4061, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) CHAPTERS (EACH CHAPTER CONSISTING OF INTENT AND PURPOSE, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ACTION STRATEGIES AND SPECIFIED ATTACHMENTS) NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, HOUSING PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN, RECREATION ND OPEN SPACE PLAN, UTILITIES PLAN, TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, (COLLECTIVELY A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN: SAID AMENDMENT INCLUDES MAKING CHANGES TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION STRATEGIES OF EACH CHAPTER, AND CREATING A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD CHAPTER, AMONG OTHERS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY)- ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM II) BOOK 45 Page 17740 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17741 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. AND SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 99-4095, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1998 EDITION); PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CHAPTER OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998 EDITION) ENTITLED 1 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN" (SAID FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CONSISTING OF THREE SECTIONS ENTITLED "INTENT AND PURPOSE"; GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION STRATEGIES; AND "ATTACHMENTS ") : REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF, 1 ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (0330) through #2 (2595) Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. City Attorney Taylor stated that David Persson, City Attorney for the Town of Longboat Key, is in the audience but will defer from speaking as the following documents will be entered into the public record: Letter dated August 3, 1998, from the Town of Longboat Key to City Manager Sollenberger concerning the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) . Response letter dated October 1, 1998, from the City of Sarasota to the Town Manager of Longboat Key. The following people came before the Commission: Mr. Burt Polishook, 3931 Bay Shore Road (34234) and Kafi Benz, P.O. Box 1669, Tellevast (34270) representing the Planning and Development Committee of the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association (IB/SSAL, distributed copies of a memorandum dated November 9, 1998, from the IB/SSA to the Commission; and stated that the Commission's approval is requested to add the following Action Strategy (A.S.) 1.8, Objective 1 New Construction, Housing Chapter, to the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition: A.S. 1.8 Bayfront Construction In view of the Sarasota Bayfront being a unique element of the City's defining character, the City will develop Land Development Regulations that are special to housing construction along the Bayfront. Such regulations will ensure . reasonable visual access to the Sarasota Bay by the public, optimal permeable surface availability, and limitations related to building height, side setbacks and waterfront improvements to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Polishook stated that A.S. 1.8 is necessary as A.S. 3.3, Objective 3 Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources, Environmental Protection Chapter includes other relevant action strategies to guide land use decisions; however, no such strategies for housing appear in the document; that the Commission's approval is requested to add the following A.S. 3.4, Objective 3 Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources, Environmental Protection Chapter: A.S. 3.4 Shoreline Pedestrian Access - The City will also develop Land Development Regulations that ensure public pedestrian access to beach/mean low tide exposed bay surface and nearby wading waters. Mr. Polishook stated that a logical complement to A.S. 3.4 as proposed is extension of the regulations to the part of the Bay exposed at low tide, as well as nearby wading water; that additionally, regulations should prohibit structures in the rear of houses which block people from walking along the edge of the Bay; that the Commission's approval is requested to modify A.S. 3.6, Objective 3 Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources, the Environmental Protection Chapter, to add the term "seagrasses" after the term "dunes" to read as follows: A.S. 3.6 The City will continue to preserve and protect naturally occurring habitats, such as beaches, dunes, seagrasses, and other coastal vegetation. Mr. Polishook stated that in addition, Commission approval is requested to add the following sentence to A.S. 3.6: The City will explore the extension of the conservation overlay zone district to environmentally sensitive areas within the City which are already developed in an effort to protect these areas in the event of redevelopment. BOOK 45 Page 17742 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17743 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. . Polishook stated that the recommended modification helps provide a framework for protecting the waterfront's ecology from deleterious redevelopment; and referred to A.S. 4.2, Objective 4 Reduction of Exposure to Natural Disasters, Environmental Protection Chapter, as follows: A.S. 4.2 Storm Damage: The potential for storm damage shall be minimized through compliance with applicable Land Development Regulations including but not limited to: Southern Standard Building Code; Coastal Construction Code; and Sarasota Zone Code, which - Mr. Polishook stated that the following should be added to A.S. 4.2: restricts the length and size of private docks on the open waters of Sarasota Bay in order to minimize potential damage caused by wind-blown and water-driven materials. Mr. Polishook stated that Commission approval is requested to modify Illustration EP-5, Natural Habitats and Systems, Environmental Protection Chapter, by indicating the significant seagrass beds off the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores neighborhood Bayfront; that in lieu of an illustration change, wording should be included indicating the location of seagrass beds will be in accordance with the latest assessment of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP). Mr. Polishook stated that the City's current five-year capital budget appears to make no provision for previoysly specified or approved IB/SSA neighborhood projects or improvements; that the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, is not neighborhood- friendly nor is the City's current vision for "urban amenities with small town living and feeling" clearly stated; that future documents should address the issue of balanced growth in the City. Ms. Benz stated that the first draft of the proposed City's comprehensive plan contained a large section on protection of the environment and an extensive discussion of a conservation overlay district; that seagrass loss was not as extensive as reported at that time; that the seagrass beds offshore and along most of the shoreline are actually beds which came back following Bay dredging; that the SBNEP will be releasing information during the week of November 9, 1998, documenting the existence of seagrass beds which had not been officially acknowledged previously. Jeffrey Oldenburg, P. 0. Box 896 (34230), Marvin Fitzer, 1740 South Orange Avenue (34239) and Allison Jones, 145 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232). Mr. Oldenberg referred to the Future Land Use Map indicating the properties on the north side of Fruitville Road between U.S. 301 and Orange Avenue displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that Fruitville Road was designated as the main connecting road to Downtown, Lido Beach and Longboat Key upon construction of Interstate 75; that Fruitville Road was widened to accommodate 28,811 vehicles daily within seven feet of his home located on the north side of Fruitville Road west of the Walgreen Drug Store; that additionally, businesses were built two blocks west of his home; that the changes implemented by the State, County and the City have severely diminished the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood properties. Mr. Oldenberg continued that future land uses permitting office buildings on the north side of Fruitville Road in front of existing residential homes will further diminish the character of the other homes facing Fruitville Road west of U.S. 301; that the older homes on Fruitville Road will be impossible to sell; that a logical and just solution is to zone the entire north side of the Fruitville Road block west of U.S. 301 to allow low-level office buildings and include substantial setbacks and landscaping behind the buildings to provide protection for the nearby neighborhood; that considerable time and effort have been spent trying to save the neighborhood; however, alarmingly, the selling price of homes in 1997 parallels prices of 1986; that no renaissance for the Gillespie Park neighborhood will take place until improvements are made to Fruitville Road, the gateway to the Downtown. Mr. Fitzer reterred to the section of Intent and Purposes Future Land Use Chapter; and stated that compatible land uses are encouraged; however, the intent and purpose has not been applied to his property located on the north side of the Fruitville Road block west of the Walgreen Drug Store, or any property from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street, and from U.S. 301 to Orange Avenue; that the definitions for the word "compatible" include: 1) capable of existing together in harmony, 2) consistent, 3) constantly adhering to the same principle, 4) harmony, and 5) like minded; that no land use consistency exists as the Future Land Use Map shows four Zone Districts side by side; that the mixture of residential and non-residential uses are not compatible; that a Walgreen Drug Store is located at Fruitville Road and U.S. 301; that a nursery school, gas station and parking lot are located to the north; that in a westward direction, the Future Land Use Plan Map proposes office buildings on small lots on which homes are now located on Fruitville Road; that most of the houses on the north side of Fruitville Road are poorly maintained and Lenant-occupied; that removal of the homes is necessary as Fruitville Road is the BOOK 45 Page 17744 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17745 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. gateway to Downtown; that a commercial use would be the proper designation and would economically improve the area between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) is the only group opposed to commercial use; that claims the GPNA's represents a large group of people are false as personal attendance at meetings reveals only a small group of supporters who are concerned with problems west of Gillespie Avenue and close to Gillespie Park. Mr. Jones distributed copies of a memorandum dated November 10, 1998, to the Commission; and stated that as an owner of three houses in the Gillespie Park area and one on Fruitville Road, the present plan to maintain Fourth Street between Gillespie Avenue and Osprey Avenue as a residential use is not good; that the small lots with vacant houses, heavy traffic and high rates of crime prevent construction of suitable residential property; that the entire area bounded by Fruitville Road, Osprey Avenue, Fourth Street and Gillespie Avenue should be zoned for commercial use; that only three blocks from Central Avenue to U.S. 301 are residential on both sides of Fourth Street, i.e., from Gillespie Avenue to Adelia Avenue; that homes on Fourth Street from Adelia Avenue to Osprey Avenue are attractive; that all other streets from Central Avenue to U.S. 301 are designated on one side for commercial, non-residential or office park uses; that houses from Osprey Avenue to Gillespie Avenue meet the standards of Zoning Code (1998) but are in disrepair due to failed plans of approximately ten years ago to build a hotel/retail operation in the area; that future improvements are unlikely on Fruitville Road from Lime Avenue to U.S. 41; therefore, a commercial use designation provides desired consistency. Daniel Lobeck, 37 Sunset Drive, #31 (34237) representing Growth Restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO) and the One Watergate Association, distributed copies of the Land Use Element of the city's current comprehensive plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1989 Edition; and stated that written objections submitted on July 29, 1998, by the Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) should be entered into the record; that, in comparison, rezonings are allowed to only a small number of impact management areas (IMAs) in the City's proposed comprehensive plan; that rezonings should be allowed throughout the City; that neighborhood compatibility requirements are ignored under the goals of the City's proposed comprehensive plan; and cited the following from the Land Use Element, Sarasota City Plan, 1989 Edition: Objective 2.2 that land uses which are potentially incompatible either to type or intensity of use shall be buffered through provision of open space, landscaping, berms, etc., and where measures cannot mitigate the incompatibility between proposed and existing uses, the proposed use shall be prohibited. Mr. Lobeck stated that the City's proposed comprehensive plan, does not conform to the goals of compatibility of the City's current comprehensive plan as an assumption of compatibility, is made where residential and commercial areas exist together; that the City's current comprehensive plan assures incompatible uses may not come into a neighborhood as a matter of law; that an assumption of incompatibility provides a legal basis for challenge; that Commission's support of the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, negates any Claims of being a friend of neighborhoods. Mr. Lobeck continued that the purpose of Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) has been misrepresented by some members of the Commission and Staff; that a five-year time frame is allowed for developers to build necessary roads; however, the number of projects subject to the TCEA provisions is extremely small; that under the City's current comprehensive plan, a development which would adversely impact an adopted level-of-service (LOS) "D" road would not be allowed; however, the TCEA allows degradation to LOS "E"; that development would also be approved on a LOS "E" or "F" road unless an annual average of a 15 percent increase in daily traffic is exceeded, providing room for huge developments not subject to traffic concurrency standards on already congested roads; that additional allowances can be made for developers if plans could show more people using buses or walking; that creation of the TCEA provides for unlimited development " with very few standards; that Commissioner Cardamone indicated at the July 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting that people who anticipate significant traffic congestion should stay home and not drive through the area; however, some people do not have a choice due to location of residence or work; that an apology should be offered; that the Commission should oppose the TCEA in order to preserve the quality of life for the citizens and neighborhoods of Sarasota. Lonnie Ward, 1060 Oregon Court (34236), President, Newtown/North Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, referred to the area of the Newtown community on the Future Land Use Map displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that a provision for opportunities for growth in the Newtown community is requested; that zoning problems exist along the U.S. 301 corridor near Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way Dr. (Dr. MLK Way) i that the requirements of the Zoning Code (1981) leave no opportunities for expansion of businesses; that properties along the North Washington Court area should be changed from a Neighborhood Office to a Neighborhood Commercial land use classification to accommodate business opportunities and partnerships in which the community can afford to build small businesses such as shopping centers to accommodate BOOK 45 Page 17746 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17747 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. local foot traffic; that the area currently is designated as residential use; that previous recommendations for rezoning as an Office, Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District would not allow opportunity for economic growth; that a Community Commercial land use classification is necessary for the area west of U.S. 301 from Washington Court north to 29th Street; that Commission approval is requested to change the most valued property area east of U.S. 301 north of Dr. MLK Way from the Community Office/Institutional to the Community Commercial land use classification. Larry Button, 801 Boulevard of Presidents (34236), President, Lido Key Residents Association, referred to the map of Lido Key displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that the land use classification should not be changed east of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that presently, hotel and commercial uses are permitted west of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that additionally, two hotels, one condominium, and the Holiday Inn, all built prior to the current zoning classifications exist east of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that any additional changes to the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) Zone District east of Benjamin Franklin Drive would add to the current gridlock which takes place throughout the winter season. Mary Ouillin, 2304 Ringling Boulevard (34237), stated that the City's proposed comprehensive plan provides no protection for neighborhoods; and cited the goals in Objective 2.2, Land Use Element, the Sarasota City Plan, 1989 Edition, which provide neighborhood protection as follows: Objective 2.2 Land uses which are potentially incompatible either due to type or intensity of use shall be buffered from one another through the provision of open space, landscaping berms, site design or other suitable means. Where the application of such measures cannot mitigate the incompatibility between proposed and existing uses, the proposed use shall be prohibited. Ms. Quillin stated that the City's proposed comprehensive plan neighborhoods provides no protection to neighborhoods striving to rebuild; that the Agenda materials for the November 12, 1998, joint meeting with the School Board of Sarasota County, contain questions on which policies, programs, and initiatives should be considered to address possible causes for neighborhood decline; that serious problems exist in Sarasota; that the affordable housing projects suggested in the City's proposed comprehensive plan, perpetuate ghettoism and infuriate neighborhood residents who are the backbone of the City; that stronger code enforcement is necessary to prevent landlords from becoming slumlords and to provide protection for the people living in the community. Robert Kyllonen, 1803 Andrea Place (34235), representing the Resurrection House and the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless, stated that the definition of the term institutional" no longer includes social service agencies such as the Resurrection House; that social service agencies are not included in any of the land use; that among the enumerated existing and planned primary or secondary uses are: churches, adult bookstores, parks, bed and breakfasts, motels, farmhouses, laboratories, wholesale businesses, warehouses, truck stops, videos, theaters, farmers markets, film, photography, wasteland, wetland, prostitution, marinas, etc., are allowed; that social or human services which are important entities of the City suddenly do not exist; that the more appealing term of "human service agency" could be used instead of "social service agency"; that human service agencies provide valuable services to many people which the City does not choose to undertake; that human service agencies have invested approximately $500,000 in Downtown Sarasota, are a part of the community and provide a place for people in need of help. Michael Furen, 2033 Main Street (34237), Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, Charles Griggs, 4708 Pine Harrier Drive (34231), Architect, and Nan Plessas, 448 58th Street (34243) Development Facilitator, representing the Russo Family Trust, referred to a letter dated October 30, 1998 to the Commission; and requested that the following documents, enclosed with the letter, be entered into the record: 1. Letter dated March 16, 1995, from Charles H. Griggs, Architect to Dr. John Russo, discussing possible annexation into the City for the parcel so the proposed dental office could be constructed. 2. Letter dated May 17, 1995, from Dr. Russo to Dale Haas, P.E., Senior Utilities Engineer for the City, expressing the intent to annex the parcel into the City for the purpose of developing a medical office building. 3. Letter dated April 12, 1996, from Dr. Russo to Dale Haas, P.E., Senior Utilities Engineer for the City, advising the City that the Russos' intent is to apply to the City for a zoning change from the then existing County residential zoning classification to the City's OPB-1 Zone District after the annexation process for the parcel is complete and to develop a professional dental office building on the parcel. BOOK 45 Page 17748 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17749 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. 4. Letter dated February 1, 1996, from Charles Griggs, Architect to Dr. Russo, to Michael Connolly, City Attorney's Office, confirming the Russos' intent to proceed with the rezoning process once the annexation has been completed in order to develop a dental office on the parcel. Attorney Furen stated that the documents clearly establish the sole reason The Russo Family Trust sought annexation into the City was to develop a small-scale, low-intensity dental office located at 1704 Bay Road; that the City's proposed comprehensive plan indicates a Neighborhood Office land use classification which was recommended after the initial draft in 1997; that the Neighborhood Office land use classification for the Russo parcel as recommended by Staff and the PBLP is requested. Attorney Furen distributed copies of the Master Site Plan for the proposed dental office; and stated that in 1995 a request for possible voluntary annexation to the City was initiated; that a subsequent annexation agreement between the City and the Russo Family Trust dated May 13, 1996, signed without advice from counsel, did not specifically require the parcel be rezoned for use as a dental office upon annexation. Mr. Griggs referred to the Master Site Plan for the proposed ,50-square-toot dental office; and stated that the objective was to retain as many trees as possible; that pine, avocado, palm and grapefruit crees were retained in the building area; that two dead trees and a malformed oak tree were removed from the parking area in the rear of the building and replaced with a large oak tree; that the size of the proposed dental building is approximately the same as the nearest house; that the occupancy for the dental office is the opposite of residential occupancy, i.e., the office will be open five days a week during working hours versus residential occupancy which usually takes place in the evening hours and weekends; that the dental office is an ideal buffer between commercial and residential uses. Attorney Furen stated that Commission support for the recommended Neighborhood Office land use classification for the parcel is requested as the Master Site Plan shows the dental office conforms to residential scale, is residential in appearance and acts as buffer for further encroachments on Bay Road; that the applicants, Dr. and Mrs. Russo, are in the audience and are willing to answer questions. Tim Dutton, 4715 Palm Aire Circle (34243), representing the social service organizations, cited the following A.S. 4.5 from an early draft of the Land Use Chapter: A.S. 4.5 Locating Social Service Facilities: Identify alternatives for locating tax exempt social service facilities away from the Downtown Core. Mr. Dutton stated that concern remains regarding the possibility of relocating social service agencies away from Downtown; that the sentence is crossed out in the November 1, 1998, draft; that two important issues exist: 1) acknowledgment of the role of human service agencies not presently referenced under the term "institutional" in the Future Land Use Chapter, and 2) creation of an ad hoc committee of stakeholders from Downtown to address the needs of human service agencies, developers, etc.; that representatives from the Board of Directors of the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless are in the audience to respond to questions if desired. April Charney, 1750 17th Street (34234), Attorney, Gulf Coast Legal Services, representing Sarasota County's Coalition for the Homeless, stated that issues concerning social service agencies and human service providers should be affirmatively addressed; that the services provided by agencies such as the Resurrection House and the Salvation Army should be nurtured and strengthened by a positive relationship with the City; that 30 percent of the population of Sarasota live in poverty; that one in ten citizens live in subsidized housing as reported in the 1990 Census; that the City gains an economic benefit from services provided by non- profit community agencies; that social services in the City would suffer if these agencies moved away from Downtown where the neediest people live. Jeannette Widom, 1750 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), representing the Lido Key Residents' Association, referred to the map of Lido Beach displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that the Association opposes expansion of the Resort Residential land use classification for the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive, north of Taft Drive, south of Roosevelt Drive, and west of Boulevard of the Presidents; that expansion would allow for an illogical extension of the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District across the street from the developed waterfront area adjacent to the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) Zone District; that the request for increased density and intensity of use was made by the owner of only half of the affected land; that owners of the other half of the block have not requested the higher density land use classification; that the largest landowner on the block, Pelican Gardens, is a conforming condominium land use with a density of 18 units per acre; that the Toscany Motel on Taft Drive consists of approximately .75 acres with 26 units; that the land use as a motel is inconsistent; however, the number of units of 36 units per acre conforms to the zoning requirements; that only the Surf View Motel on Benjamin Franklin Drive situated on 3/8 acres with 26 units is not in conformity with the BOOK 45 Page 17750 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17751 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. requirements of Zoning Code (1981), having almost double the density, i.e., approximately 70 units per acre; that the City's proposed comprehensive plan proposes to allow a 70-unita-per-acre density to the entire block which would overshadow the remaining properties; that the requirements of Zoning Code (1981) should be retained; that the City's proposed comprehensive plan indicates the intent of planners is to retain the character of the neighborhoods; however, expansion of the existing motels will create concrete canyons such as exist in Miami Beach. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. Mr. Taylor stated that responses to speakers will be given as appropriate. Mr. Burg stated that language changes requested by the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association (IB/SSA) Planning and Development Committee cannot be considered due to time constraints; that some suggested language may be considered in future amendments, which are made on an annual basis; that the suggestion of the IB/SSA Planning and Development committee is to add the word "seagrasses" after the word " dunes" in the A.S. 3.6, Objective 3 Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources, Environmental Protection Chapter. Mr. Burg stated that coastal vegetation, though not as specific as seagrass, is adequate language; that any change to the current language is not recommended. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if coastal vegetation means vegetation on land while seagrass refers to vegetation in the water? Mr. Taylor stated yes; and that the term "seagrasses" could be added; that the additional language proposed by the IB/SSA Planning and Development Committee for inclusion in A.S. 3.6, Objective 3 Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources, Environmental Protection Chapter, is problematic but could be considered for inclusion in future amendments. Mr. Taylor stated that the current language with or without the word "seagrasses" allows the City to establish appropriate regulations on docks; that a larger issue concerns permitting docks along the northern coast of Sarasota and ways to proceed; that the City's comprehensive plan is not the place for incorporating dock regulations; that the City established a conservation district in 1989; that an overlay district exists which applies only to publicly-owned property such as North Lido Beach and Otter Key; that suggestions also were made for applying the regulations of the conservation district to coastal properties for the protection of historically-significant archeological sites; however, the City did not pursue imposing the regulations due to concerns for private property rights; that the same kind of problems appear in the overlay district for environmentally-sensitive areas in the City as proposed by the IB/SSA Planning and Development Committee. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the word "seagrasses" should be added to A.S. 3.6; that specific neighborhood concerns should be considered in future policy decisions. Mr. Taylor stated that the word seagrasses" will be added to Environmental Protection Chapter. A.S. 3.6, Objective 3 = Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources. Commissioner Cardamone stated that mangroves are a type of coastal vegetation grown on land, and therefore would be included in the term "coastal vegetation" used in A.S. 3.6; that inclusion of the term "seagrasses" is supported; that the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP) has worked hard and results can be seen by the remarkable resurgence of seagrass in the Bay. Commissioner Cardamone continued that a response to concerns about Bayfront mega-size house construction should be provided; and asked the City's position on tearing down houses and constructing mega-size houses on small lots with large amounts of impervious surface? Mr. Taylor stated that the issue of building large homes on small lots will be considered in Euture amendments to the Zoning Code. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the large home issue, as well as impervious surface, would be included in the Phase II of the Land Development Regulations which will become the City's new Zoning Code? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Mr. Burg stated that the IB/SSA Planning and Development Committee also brought up the issue of storm damage minimization contained in A.S. 4.2, Objective 4, Reduction of Exposure to Natural Disasters, and indicated the desire for adding the following language: restricts the length and size of private docks on the open waters of Sarasota Bay in order to minimize potential damage caused by wind-blown and water-driven materials. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the number and type of changes permissible at this time? City Attorney Taylor stated that care should be taken so substantive changes are not made to the language which has evolved during the past year of public hearings and as a result BOOK 45 Page 17752 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17753 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. of recommendations of the PBLP; that making significant language changes could jeopardize the process. Commissioner Cardamone asked if adding the term "seagrasses" would be considered substantive? City Attorney Taylor said no. Commissioner Cardamone asked if regulations on docks would be considered substantive? Mr. Taylor stated that the suggestions are very good; however, time constraints and the potential impact on many people prevent inclusion; that Staff which works continuously on the issue of docks has expressed concern over last minute changes without the benefit of citizen input. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City Attorney's advice is noted; that further guidance on issues which should not be changed would be appreciated. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff does not recommend any further changes; however, Staff would like to respond to other issues raised by the IB/SSA Planning and Development Committee. Mayor Dupree stated that a response should be provided the speakers who indicated the City's proposed comprehensive plan is not reader-friendly. Mr. Burg stated that Staff has attempted to make the City's proposed comprehensive plan document reader-friendly; however, two audiences are addressed: 1) the City's citizens and 2) the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) which imposes detailed regulations mandated by the State. Mr. Taylor stated that the format has been greatly enhanced including the addition of headings to facilitate easier reading; however, a 600-page document is understandably difficult reading. Mr. Burg reterred to Illustration EP-5, Natural Habitats and Systems, in the City's comprehensive plan; and stated that the SBNEP furnished the data; that the descriptions on Illustration EP-5 are very generic and will be updated for future maps, including the location of the seagrass beds; however, the seagrass beds would only appear as a small dot on the small-scale illustration. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if any mandate exists to map environmentally-sensitive items such as seagrass? Mr. Taylor stated that maps are support documents, not tied to action strategies; however, the Administration has authority to modify the maps through a resolution as new information is provided. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if any other Action Strategy exists which requires City tracking and protecting the seagrass beds at interval time periods, other than A.S. 3.6? Mr. Burg stated no. Mr. Taylor stated that implementation plans can be written in any form the Commission chooses; that currently surveys must be performed prior to issuing permits for building docks, etc., due to constant changes in beach conditions, e.g., seagrass beds. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Sarasota Bay is a dynamic, ever-changing body of water; and asked the purpose of an inadequate, small-scaled map? Mr. Burg stated that the map is required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that maps are apparently the only reference in the current dock ordinance on which the members of the Board of Adjustment can base a vote concerning a variance; that the City should maintain data sO criteria for making judgments other than testimony of people hired by applicants can be established. Mr. Taylor stated that the City's comprehensive plan can be updated as needed; that the frequency depends on Staff budget resources. Mr. Burg stated that the IB/SSA Planning and Development Committee also brought up the issue of desired capital improvements; that the Bayfront bike path and enhancement to the North Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) projects were discussed with the Finance Department; that partial funding was approved in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with plans to proceed as additional funds become available; that projects for Bay Shore Road and a pocket park are in very preliminary planning stages of the City's CIP process. Mr. Taylor displayed on the overhead projector the Future Land Use Map of the Downtown area; and stated that a request has been received to extend the Community Office/Institutional land use classification from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street; that Staff recommends retaining the Community Office/Institutional land use classification at the current location on Fruitville Road west of U.S. 301. Commissioner Pillot asked if a change to the land use classification is substantive and, therefore, should not be considered at this time? BOOK 45 Page 17754 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17755 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated yes, unless the suggested changes were integral to previous discussions. Mr. Taylor stated that maintaining the boundaries of the existing Community Office/Institutional land use classification has been addressed many times; that Staff, the PBLP and the Commission have been consistent in not recommending the extension of the Community Office/Institutional land use classification boundary on the north side of Fruitville Road west of the Walgreen Drug Store from mid block to Fourth Street; that extending the Community Office/Institutional land use classification could prompt concerns; that Staff recommends no change. Mr. Taylor stated that elimination of impact management areas (IMAs) should not present a problem as Mr. Lobeck asserted; that the City's future land use plans closely follow plans used by communities throughout the Country; that Sarasota's future land use plans go beyond the norm of most communities in defining the intent of each classification; that the addition of a Neighborhood Chapter emphasizes the importance of neighborhoods by addressing issues of compatibility, redevelopment, preservation, protection and enhancement. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Land Use Chapter contains language on potential prohibition of land use where compatibility cannot be obtained through site design, buffers, etc.; and asked if any wording has been included in the Future Land Use Chapter so a land use could be prohibited if not compatible with the neighborhood? Mr. Taylor referred to the A.S. 3.3, Objective 3 = Development Review and Approval Process, Future Land use Chapter; and stated that all the required compatibility factors are itemized; that the second item mentions particular factors of compatibility required for rezoning as follows: A.S. 3.3 intensity; density; scale; building size, mass, bulk, height and orientation; lot coverage; lot size/configuration; architecture; screening; buffers; setbacks; signage; lighting; traffic circulation patterns; loading area locations; operating hours; noise; odor, and other factors of compatibility are used to determine whether the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses and the intensity, density, and scale of surrounding development. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that A.s. 3.3 should include consideration of land usage sO the Commission can deny requests due to land usage incompatibility. Mr. Taylor stated that applications for rezonings are reviewed to ensure proposed land uses are compatible with the surrounding development in accordance with A.s. 3.3; that the ability for the City to deny incompatible land uses is implied. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the ability to deny is not spelled out but is only an interpretation; that the Land Use Element indicates a use may be prohibited if the conditions of compatibility are not met. City Attorney Taylor stated that the intent for compliance with compatibility criteria in A.s. 3.3 is understood; however, clearer wording could be incorporated. Commissioner Cardamone cited A.S. 3.2 in the Future Land Use Chapter as follows: A.S. 3.2 All rezonings and conditional uses shall be consistent with the future land use map. However, consistency with the future land use map does not equate to being consistent with the Sarasota City Plan in total. Rather, an "on balance" consistency finding shall consider all components of the Sarasota City Plan that are relevant to the request. For example, a proposal may be consistent with ten relevant components and inconsistent with only one; however, if that one component is judged to have more importance, then the proposal may be found to be inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the word "prohibit" is synonymous with "inconsistent", therefore, no change in wording is necessary. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Mr. Taylor stated that A.s. 3.2 and 3.3 expand on the factors which identify all the conditions of compatibility with surrounding development to ensure land use compliance by developers. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that A.S. 3.2 a proposal may be inconsistent if one component is judged to have more importance; and asked if a request can be denied when the requirements of any one component are not met? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that A.s. 3.2 provides the City with the ultimate ability to deny an incompatible land usage. BOOK 45 Page 17756 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17757 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the expectation, intent and purpose have been discussed; however, the word "prohibit" should be added to A.S. 3.3 to lessen ambiguity. City Attorney Taylor referred to A.S. 3.3; and stated that many hours were spent on the following definition for "on balance": An evaluation or weighing process of the various strengths and weaknesses of a request for development approval to determine whether it furthers the relevant components of the Sarasota City Plan. It is not the number of plan components with which a proposal is consistent, but the relative importance of those components . City Attorney Taylor stated that last-minute wording changes are not recommended as the definition of "on balance" might be compromised. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the present wording provides the City the ultimate ability to deny an incompatible land usage. Mr. Taylor stated that another concern of Mr. Lobeck was the adoption of the Transportation Concurrence Exception Area (TCEA) . Mr. Burg stated that Staff believes the TCEA complies with the objectives of the Florida Statutes; that the modifications to the TCEA made by PBLP and the Commission are minor; that Mr. Loback was concerned about allowing the use of tramportation-demand management and other measures to help meet traffic concurrency; that the issues were previously discussed by the Commission; that at the City's discretion, language could be included to provide up to 30 percent of the transportation demands; that Staff believes the City's proposed comprehensive plan is workable and powerful; that a provision of the TCEA indicates Staff will report back to the Commission within one year of the effective date; that the Commission can modify or eliminate the TCEA at the end of one year. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her understanding is the TCEA may be modified only through comprehensive planning or repeating the current process. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the State allows more flexibility than the City; that the City has built in strong parameters for the TCEA. Mr. Taylor referred to the Future Land Use Map displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that Mr. Ward spoke of changing the Neighborhood Office land use classification to the Neighborhood Commercial land use Plassification for the area west of U.S. 301, from Washington Court north to 29th Street; that on the east side of U.S. 301 and north of Dr. MLK Way, a change from the Community Office/Institutional to the Community Commercial land use classification is requested; that Staff does not recommend the change as the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC) is working on a future plan for presentation to the Commission. Mayor Dupree stated that Mr. Ward's proposed changes to the land use classifications in the Newtown area are supported. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the request has merit; however, substantial changes cannot be made during the final stages of adoption; that changes for block-long areas should be addressed and debated with the residential and commercial property owners. Mayor Dupree stated that the GNCRC has been hampered from preparing a Newtown revitalization and redevelopment plan in a one-year time period due to the City's funding restraints. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Staff will assist the GNCRC on any comprehensive plan amendment submitted to the City. Mayor Dupree stated that the proposed change from the Community Office/Institutional to the Community Commercial in the Dr. MLK Way/U.S. 301 corridor is supported, even if three Commissioners are opposed. Commissioner Pillot stated that opposition results from not wishing to make substantial changes during the final stages of adoption of the City's proposed comprehensive plan. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for Clarification of the Community Commercial land use classification. Mr. Taylor stated that the Community Commercial land use classification allows relatively intense land use, including restaurants, small retail strip malls, etc.; however, certain conditions could be imposed as with any rezoning request. Mayor Dupree asked the uses allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial land use classification? Mr. Taylor stated that the Neighborhood Commercial land use classification allows small, one- or two-story neighborhood-type offices; that the Community Commercial land use classification requested for the area east of U.S. 301 would allow larger, more intense office and institutional land use, such as schools, churches, daycare, etc. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the separation of commercial and office areas proposed on the east side of U.S. 301 is similar to BOOK 45 Page 17758 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17759 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. the Fruitville Road area west of U.S. 301 where properties will be divided by the back lot line rather than a street? Mayor Dupree stated yes; that the Community Commercial land use classification covers only a half block area on the east side of U.S. 301 and does not impact properties on Pershing Avenue. Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Ward was not seeking further westward encroachment but rather a change in the land use classification to allow more intense land usage such as commercial use. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Community Commercial land use classification is intense and allows businesses to abut the back yards of neighborhood houses; and asked if the Community Commercial land use classification includes restaurants? Mr. Taylor stated yes; however, restaurants or businesses have size limitations; that landscaped buffering abutting back yards are mandated to assure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods; that Staff is waiting to hear from the GNCRC as to neighborhood desires. Mr. Taylor referred to the map of Lido Key displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that Mr. Button objects to changing the land use in the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive between Roosevelt Drive and Taft Drive to the proposed Resort Residential land use classification which would allow multiple family units and motels/hotels; that discussions took place at the October 27, 1998, special Commission meeting to change the classification to a Resort Residential land use classification; that the description for the classification was changed to allow addition of a Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-3) Zone District, which allows maintaining the zoning for the block east of Benjamin Franklin Road to implement the Resort Residential land use classification; that a request to change to the RMF-4 or the WFR Zone District may be denied as compatibility factors must be taken into consideration; that rezoning a property may be conditioned on limitations of scale, height, etc. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that reference was made to the Toscany Motel, located at 129 Taft Drive, which was allowed under a grandfather clause, though not conforming to the requirements of the Zoning Code (1981); that the concern is the nonconformity would be allowed on the whole block between Taft Drive and Roosevelt Drive; and asked if the block consists of residential homes as well as motels/hotels? Mr. Taylor stated that the block consists of approximately half residential units and half motels/hotels; that the motels/hotels are located in the southeast portion of the block. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that previous discussions inferred a greater density was not being proposed; however, a greater density would occur if half the block consists of single-family homes; and asked for clarification of the zoning. Mr. Taylor stated that the entire block east of Benjamin Franklin between Taft Drive and Roosevelt Drive is in a RMF-3 Zone District; that a house exists on the southwest corner of the block with hotels/motels on the southeast portion of the block. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Button's and Ms. Widom's concerns are the non-conforming buildings currently existing would become legitimate and spread over the entire block. Mr. Taylor stated that a number of Ms. Quillin's issues concerning opposition to affordable housing due to a possible negative effect on neighborhood protection is unclear; that another issue concerns the need for stronger code enforcement; that Staff believes strong code enforcement currently exists. Mr. Burg. cited Housing Chapter, A.S. 2.1, Objective 2 Maintaining the Existing Housing Stock: A.S. 2.1 The City will continue a one-year minimum cycle with emphasis on targeted areas to help prevent and correct deterioration in the City's housing stock. The City will also target long-term chronic code violations. Mr. Burg stated that Ms. Quillin also requested the City look at a permitting process for rental properties; and referred to A.S. 10.4, Objective 10 - Other New Initiatives, Neighborhood Chapter, as follows: : A.s. 10.4 Rental Inspection Program, as an alternative, for neighborhoods that desire it. Mr. Burg stated that neighborhoods may request the City pursue an inspection program for rental housing in a particular neighborhood. Mayor Dupree stated that Ms. Quillin believes affordable housing serves as a precursor for slums; however, affordable housing can refer to people with middle or high incomes or to a particular income group while income-sensitive housing refers to people of all income levels. Mr. Burg stated that Ms. Quillin used the term "affordable housing"; that her comments concerning policies, programs and School Board issues cannot be addressed without more specific information. BOOK 45 Page 17760 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17761 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. The Commission recessed at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21 p.m. Mr. Taylor stated that comments of Mr. Kyllonen, Mr. Dutton and Ms. Charney concerning the use of the word "human services" with regard to social service organizations requires a response. Commissioner Pillot asked if the term "human services" or "social services" could be added to the City's proposed comprehensive plan? Mr. Taylor stated either term could be used. Mr. Taylor referred to the Land Use Chapter Community Office/Institution land use classification; and stated that each land use classification is Eurther categorized as: 1) Existing and Planned Primary Uses, 2) Existing and Planned Secondary Uses, and 3) Existing PimyAeprseay Uses; that some uses may be desired; that some may be desired with limitations; that other uses may be prohibited; that the Community Office/Institutional land use classification indicates institutional as a primary use while the secondary uses include churches, day-care centers, schools, etc.; that one suggestion is adding the term "social services delivery agency" as a secondary use in the Community Office/mnaticutional, Community Commercial, and Central City land use classifications; that the term institutional" is included under Existing and Planned Secondary Uses in the Community Commercial land use classification. Mr. Taylor referred to the Central City land use classification which also includes the term institutional" under Existing and Planned Primary Uses. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the term "human service agencies" can be used? Mr. Taylor stated yes; however, the term "social service delivery agency, - used in the Zoning Code, is preferred; that the term could be added as an existing and planned secondary use for the following land use classifications: : Community Office/ Institutional, Community Commercial, and Central City; that total consistency would be attained with other institutional existing and planned secondary uses. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the suggestion is acceptable; that the City's current comprehensive plan does not specify social service agencies; that the Commission did not erase an existing 'social service agency" term. Mr. Taylor stated that the term "social service agency" is not contained in the City's current comprehensive plan in which Zone Districts describe land uses and rezoning is allowed only in an Impact Management Area (IMA) ; that the City's proposed comprehensive plan recognizes social service agencies, delivery agencies, etc. Commissioner Pillot stated that substituting the word "human" for "social" service agency is acceptable; that the word "delivery" as an agency term is not known; that audience approval by an affirmative nod is requested to accept the term "social service agency"; that many people in the audience affirmed the term "social service agency." Mr. Taylor stated that the word "delivery" will be stricken from the term "social service delivery agency"; that the term I social service agency" will be added as an existing and planned secondary use under the following land use classifications: Community Office/Institutional, Community Commercial, and Central City; and referred to the Future Land Use Chapter - Existing and Planned Secondary Uses, to indicate consistency with other allowed land uses as follows: Professional and medical offices, personal services, institutional, retirement centers, governmental activities, and laboratories. Mayor Dupree asked the reason a social service agency is considered a secondary land use. Mr. Taylor stated that some institutional uses are described providing a basis for writing future regulations within a conditional or a permitted use category. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Kyllonen's concerns for exclusion of social service agencies under the definition of institutional are hopefully alleviated with the addition of the term "social service agency"; and asked if the word "prostitution" is used as a classification and, if sO, the context? Mr. Taylor stated that perhaps the word "prostitution" was used in an earlier edition of the City's comprehensive plan; that the word will be stricken, if found. Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Dutton commented concerning creation of an ad hoc committee of stakeholders from Downtown to address the needs of human service agencies, developers, etc.; that a decision was made not to include an Action Strategy recognizing the necessity of establishing an ad hoc committee at the October 27, 1998, special Commission meeting; that an ad hoc committee can be formed at any time. BOOK 45 Page 17762 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17763 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that an ad hoc committee is useful; that the Commission welcomes specific recommendations of the various social service agencies. Mayor Dupree asked if terminology regarding an ad hoc committee is excluded from the City's proposed comprehensive plan? Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Mr. Taylor referred to the Master Site Plan for the proposed dental office on Bay Road displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that questions concerning the City's commitment in the pre-annexation agreement for the Bay Road property were addressed at the October 27, 1998, special Commission meeting and are clearly explained in a memorandum dated October 30, 1998, from Attorney Furen to the Commission; that making no changes to the Master Site Plan accomplishes the request of Attorney Furen. Commissioner Pillot stated that a motion to approve the City's proposed comprehensive plan may foster discussion and/or debate on unresolved issues; and asked if further discussion is allowed? Mayor Dupree stated yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4061 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to: 1) adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4061 adopting the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, Chapters on: Neighborhood, Housing, Environmental Protection, Recreation and Open Space, Utilities, Transportation, Government Coordination and Capital Improvements, 2) add the cerm "seagrasses" in A.S. 3.6, Objective 3 - Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources, Environmental Protection Chapter, and 3) include the phrase "social service agencies" among existing and planned secondary uses in the Future Land Use Chapter. Mayor Dupree stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4061 is supported; however, the Housing Chapter requires further attention. Commissioner Pillot asked if specifics are suggested for the Housing Chapter? Mayor Dupree stated that solutions have been sought for a long time to provide housing for low-income people living in public housing; that more properties should be made available to groups such as Habitat for Humanity, etc.; that a basis for accomplishment is not contained within the City's proposed comprehensive plan. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that projects for people aspiring to home ownership have been accomplished in the past with the assistance of the Community Housing Corporation (CHC) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding; that presently funds are used for other projects such as streetscapes and benefits for particular areas within the City rather than low-income housing; that the Commission should discuss low-income housing and be empowered to make Euture funding disbursement decisions; however, the lateness of the request prevents inclusion of new mandates in the City's proposed comprehensive plan. Mayor Dupree stated that future Commission discussion is desired on the topic of low-income housing; that CHC has provided some housing for low-income citizens; that Habitat for Humanity also builds houses and provides loan assistance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the concerns are shared; and referred to A.S. 4.7, Non-Profit Developers, Housing Chapter, which states that: A.s. 4.7 The City will encourage non-profit developers to participate in the provision of affordable housing for low and moderate income households through the programs of the Office of Housing and Community Development. Commissioner Cardamone stated that organizations such as Habitat for Humanity help achieve A.S. 4.7 of the Housing Chapter; that, additionally, the Capital Improvement Chapter should address the issues of employment, job skills, etc., to bring low-income people up to a higher level of income; that some Commission concerns are addressed; however, the City's proposed comprehensive plan should not be changed at such a late date; that the Commission does have concern for the needs of low-income people in the City. Mayor Dupree stated that the long-term interest rates charged on low-income housing almost matches the cost of constructing a house; that assistance is necessary sO people can pay off a loan in 15 to 20 years; that groups which can assist in securing low interest charges are most desirable for the building of future low-income housing. Commissioner Cardamone asked if interest rates for low-income housing are higher than the market rate? BOOK 45 Page 17764 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17765 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree stated that loan papers observed for houses provided to low-income people show very large amounts owed over a long period of time. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following A.S. 4.2, Objective 4 - Housing for Populations with Special Needs, Housing Chapter: A.S. 4.2 The Office of Housing and Community Development will continue to administer the Down Payment Assistance Program for the purpose of assisting eligible first time homeowners and encouraging home ownership. Commissioner Cardamone stated that interest charges above market rate would be very disappointing, if true; that her understanding is of low or no interest charges. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that CHC builds homes with the idea of upgrading neighborhoods and not necessarily for people of low income; that often rental property is more appropriate than home ownership for some low-income people; that the City's goal-setting meetings might be the appropriate place to discuss the income requirements for home ownership; however, including new mandates is not appropriate. Mayor Dupree agreed; and stated the goal of calling attention to the necessity for further discussion on affordable housing has been accomplished. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 98-4061 adopting the proposed Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, Chapters on: Neighborhoods, Housing, Environmental Protection, Recreation and Open Space, Utilities, Transportation, Government Coordination and Capital Improvements, including the term "seagrasses" Environmental Protection Chapter, in A.S. 3.6, Objective 3 - Land Uses Compatible with Coastal Resources, including the phrase "social service agencies" among existing and planned primary or secondary uses in the Future Land Use Chapter. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yesi Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read the proposed Ordinance No. 99-4095 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 99-4095 adopting the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition by the adoption of the Future Land use Chapter including the phrase "social service agencies" within the broad definition of institution. I Mayor Dupree stated that the proposed Ordinance No. 99-4095 is supported; however, more assistance is necessary in the Newtown area; that putting off action now will cause a six-month to one-year delay in plans for commercial development. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mr. Taylor stated that Commissioner Patterson's contributions over the last few years are appreciated; that good wishes on her new position as Commissioner with the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners are extended; that many Staff people worked on the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition including Linda Silver, Lisa Arcabella, Gerald Chapin, Phil Lieberman, and John Burg who should be recognized for their efforts; that, most of all, Paul Costanzo and Doug James deserve special recognition; that approval of the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, begins the process of implementing projects which will benefit the City. Mayor Dupree stated that the Commission appreciates the work of Mr. Taylor and the Staff; that, despite some disagreements, much effort was made to accommodate the wishes of the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Taylor and the Staff carried a heavy burden to prepare the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, and rewrite the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) ; that the response has been positive; that the work is appreciated. Commissioner Pillot stated that Mr. Taylor's knowledge is impressive; that additionally, Staff efforts and Mr. Taylor's poise and high level of leadership throughout the planning process is appreciated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Taylor and Staff's efforts are appreciated; that a less cumbersome style is desired but cannot be accomplished due to State mandates; that remarks concerning the document's burdensome nature are understood; however, the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, is workable and much better than earlier documents; that the addition of the Neighborhoods Chapter speaks well for the priorities set by the Commission for the City; that new, interesting chapters will be added in the near future, i.e., chapters devoted to barrier islands and the economic development; that the high level of citizen input and involvement is appreciated. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Planning Staff, the PBLP, and the Commission should be congratulated for the efforts contributed in producing the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, and the LDRs. BOOK 45 Page 17766 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17767 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the people on the PBLP who volunteered unpaid time also deserve recognition since much effort was necessary to decipher the voluminous document and to garner citizen support. Mayor Dupree stated that the PBLP's support is appreciated. 4. REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE GREATER NEWTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GNCRC) (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (2595) through (3115) Gregory Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment, came before the Commission and stated that a request was made at the October 2, 1998 regular Commission meeting for a status report concerning the activities of the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC) ; and referred to the following correspondence which provides a chronology of activities: 11/10/98 Memorandum to City Manager Sollenberger from Gregory Horwedel- Status Report 10/23/98 News Release from GNCRC Status Report and announcement of resignation of Earl Watts 10/22/98 Letter to Earl Watts, from Gregory Horwedel Summary of projected costs 10/9/98 Letter to Earl Watts, from Gibson Mitchell Reimbursement of expenses 8/21/98 Memorandum to Gregory Horwedel from Earl Watts Status Report 8/3/98 Letter to Earl Watts, Executive Director, GNCRC, from Gregory Horwedel Procedural Issues and Conflict of Interest Issue Mr. Horwedel stated that most reporting issues were resolved during an October 2, 1998, meeting with the GNCRC Board of Directors; that significant progress was made toward fulfillment of the provisions of the GNCRC contract with the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the GNCRC work plan tasks. Mr. Horwedel stated that several items were targeted for accomplishment by the GNCRC in the first year of funding; that five work plan tasks were designated as primary: 1) storefront rehabilitation, 2) survey of area businesses to determine needs, 3) hosting technical workshops for the business community, 4) exploring housing, and 5) land use development plans; that a learning process regarding contractual obligations required some time; however, progress has been made on all primary tasks; that technical and accounting assistance was provided by City Staff; that additional people are required to accomplish all primary tasks; however, significant steps will be accomplished toward redevelopment of the Newtown community within a reasonable amount of time. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the GNCRC has reached out beyond Newtown to other businesses and neighborhoods in North Sarasota? Mr. Horwedel stated that the GNCRC has been advised of available resources from other entities which could assist in accomplishing primary tasks; however, the GNCRC must address the issue of Board composition internally; that the banking and development communities have resources which could be used either in an advisory capacity or through formal membership on the GNCRC Board; that Cynthia Porter, Executive Director of the GNCRC, has agreed to bring the issue of extending the small boundaries of Newtown before the GNCRC Board. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to the GNCRC News Release dated October 23, 1998, and to the memorandum dated August 21, 1998, from Earl Watts to Gregory Horwedel; and asked for clarification of the $100,000 grant referenced in both. Mr. Horwedel stated that a grant application was made by the GNCRC to the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA); that the YMCA has not made a decision concerning the $100,000 grant; that additional information will be requested from the YMCA concerning the grant; that partial funding has been obtained from the Provident Bank and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for storefront renovation; that a $10,000 grant has been received from "Drug Free Communities." Mayor Dupree stated that the October 23, 1998, News Release announced the $100,000 YMCA grant. Commissioner Cardamone asked if funding such as the YMCA grant is awarded through the City's Finance Department? Mr. Horwedel stated that a YMCA grant would come directly from the organization; that the City would not be involved; that the Provident Bank grant is a partnership between the bank and the City; that the bank will assume responsibility for record-keeping. City Manager Sollenberger stated that any grant funding coming to the City from a corporation would require Commission support for BOOK 45 Page 17768 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17769 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. authorization, preparation of a grant contract with the funding agency, and an administrative agreement with the GNCRC. Mayor Dupree stated that efforts of the Staff and Mr. Horwedel's work with the GNCRC are appreciated. 5. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS - APPROVED THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AN ADVANCED PBLP REPORT AND WAIVE THE 30-DAY MINIMUM TIME PERIOD BETWEEN ACTION BY THE PBLP AND THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (3115) through (3390) Charles D. Bailey, Law Firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34236), came before the Commission and stated that Mr. Taylor's work in producing the City's proposed comprehensive plan is outstanding; that many hours of public input was heard, digested, assimilated, and collated; that on-the-spot responses were provided. Attorney Bailey stated that the Salvation Army Human Service Complex for which Petition Nos. 98-SE-16 and 98-SV-06 are pending will be known as the Salvation Army Center; that plans were presented to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) at the November 4, 1998, regular PBLP meeting; that both petitions were recommended for approval and will be presented to the Commission at the November 16, 1998, regular Commission meeting if authorization is received from the Commission for an advanced PBLP report; that the urgency is due to a December 31, 1998, closing date; that the Salvation Army bought the property; however, construction may not commence until permitting is received; that tentative dates for approval by the Commission are first reading at the December 7, 1998, regular Commission meeting, and second reading at the December 21, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that the efforts of Jane Robinson, Director, and the Staff of the Planning and Development Department are appreciated. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff can accommodate the request to receive an advanced PBLP report; that the Commission's approval is recommended. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the City Manager's recommendation to receive an advanced PBLP report and waive the 30-day minimum time period between action by the PBLP and the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 6. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (3390) through #4 (0800) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: : A. stated that a special CRA meeting has been suggested to discuss the proposed Ringling Park project; that such a meeting is opposed until support from neighborhood groups, such as Gateway 2000, the North Trail Association, the Downtown Association, etc., has been obtained; that the proposal is too large to bring before the Commission unless a good community support base can be demonstrated. Commissioner Pillot stated that Dr. Murf Klauber is admired and has a vision for the City; however, no benefit can be gained for the community or the project unless significant community support is obtained prior to presentation before the Commission; that Dr. Klauber should be advised of the Commission's recommendation and requested to provide a proposal to the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Staff has a reason for bringing the proposal to the Commission at the present time? City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff has met with Dr. Klauber on several occasions; that in October 1998 suggestions were made to obtain community support; however, representatives for Dr. Klauber requested a meeting before the PBLP; that the PBLP suggested bringing the proposal before the Commission; that Staff proposed holding a CRA meeting to discuss issues of height, mass, public subsidy funding for construction of a conference facility, donation of property by the City, etc.; that the suggestion is the Commission discuss the merits of the proposed Ringling Park project so the City can determine a course of action; that a decision has been made regarding the relocation of the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) facility; that a negative response to the Ringling Park proposal would turn the City's attention to alternative plans for future development in the Lemon Avenue mall area. Commissioner Pillot asked if the proposed meeting for presentation of the Ringling Park proposal is a meeting or a workshop? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a special Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting is proposed; however, a workshop could be scheduled to discuss the proposed Ringling Park project. Commissioner Pillot stated that a meeting which includes citizens - input would not be supported; that a workshop would not require citizens' input and would be supported. BOOK 45 Page 17770 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17771 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that citizens' input is desirable for a development project; however, in this instance, the rules could be amended excluding citizen's input for a special CRA meeting for preliminary discussion concerning the proposed Ringling Park project; that an affirmative vote by the Commission would initiate the use of Staff time and resources for the project; that the Commission should not support the proposed Ringling Park project without citizens' input. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a community meeting in Commission Chambers to present plans to interested people would be appropriate; that a community response, negative or positive, should be obtained prior to bringing any plans before the Commission; that developers of other projects are required to hold a neighborhood meeting as part of the development review process; that one suggestion is for a neighborhood meeting to listen and respond to community concerns; that a huge project requires proper handling in order to succeed; that premature support by the Commission could jeopardize the proposed Ringling Park project. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission sets policy for the City; therefore, the proposed Ringling Park project should be reviewed by the Commission before Staff commits more time and resources; that 35- to 45-story buildings do not blend in with the small-town feeling desired by the City; that many citizens have expressed similar opposition to the proposed large-sized buildings. Commissioner Pillot stated that scheduling a meeting to review the proposed Ringling Park project is supported; however, a meeting with citizens' input is not supported; that the normal process which is required for other development projects should be followed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an appeal to seek input from various neighborhood groups has not been followed to date; that a CRA meeting may not be appropriate until the public has responded. Mayor Dupree asked if the proposed CRA meeting should be canceled? Commissioner Cardamone stated yes; however, a reason for canceling the meeting should be provided. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed Ringling Park project is larger both in public subsidy and physical size than any past project presented to the City; that Staff should be advised to spend minimal time on the project until public support is evident. Commissioner Pillot stated that development projects must follow preliminary steps prior to coming before the City Commission; that the proposed Ringling Park project should follow the same process. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the normal process for development projects begins by making pre-application to the Development Review Committee (DRC), followed by formal application including a site plan; that the magnitude of the proposed Ringling Park project will necessitate addressing policy questions prior to submission of a site plan; that the site plan will be dependent upon concessions and by the willingness of the city to participate; that the intent for scheduling a meeting with the Commission now is to address willingness for the City to further consider the proposed Ringling Park project. City Manager Sollenberger stated that no Staff time will be devoted to the proposed Ringling Park project; that presentation of the proposal to the DRC is premature; that the issues surrounding the proposal reach far beyond the policies and goals of the City Commission, i.e., restructuring of the City's Tax Increment Financing (TIF) debt, etc.; that Dr. Klauber has been advised that the proposal, though appealing, may not blend in with the small-town feeling desired by the City; that one suggestion has been made to commence the process by scheduling meetings with citizens. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission should not attempt to solve such policy issues as public funding for the construction of a conference center until support is shown from the City's citizens. City Attorney Taylor stated that, for the record, scheduling a formal meeting now is premature; that the Commission should not make too many concessions in the beginning stages of the normal process of approving a development project; that additional development approvals will be required with ever-increasing refinements; therefore, early Commission concessions on the proposed Ringling Park project could require spending large amounts of time and resources; that reversal of the Commission's premature approval would be difficult. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City is aware of the importance of sending clear signals; that no encouragement has been given to Dr. Klauber to continue spending funds on further development of the proposed Ringling Park project. Mayor Dupree stated that an overall plan of the proposed Ringling Park project has been seen twice; and asked if the Commissioners have seen the proposal? BOOK 45 Page 17772 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17773 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioners Pillot stated that an overall plan of the proposed Ringling Park project was viewed one time. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an overall plan of the proposed Ringling Park project was viewed twice. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that an overall plan was viewed one time; that one suggestion is to hold a meeting so the Commission could advise that certain aspects of the project have merit, while issues of scale do not have merit; however, the decision for adhering to height restrictions does not belong to the Commission. Gregory. Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment, came before the Commission and stated that Staff has been contacted requesting information about neighborhood groups; that information was furnished; that the proposal was presented on November 10, 1998 to the Rosemary District Advisory Board; that the entatively-chaduled CRA meeting on November 16, 1998, was mentioned; that the news media was present at the Rosemary District Advisory Board meeting. Mayor Dupree stated that the Commission should advise Dr. Klauber the project does not conform to the City's building height restrictions in the Downtown area and the large amount of public Eunds required do not fall within budgetary guidelines. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to proceed with the CRA Meeting on Monday, November 16, 1998, not to exceed two hours and not to include Citizens' Input for the purpose of giving reasonable time for a presentation; that the Commission should set standards for the process of approving development projects as proposed tonight. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Cardamone stated that any standards set forth by the Commission for the proposed Ringling Park project and met by Dr. Klauber would set up expectations; that later Commission requests for changes in the Ringling Park project could cause problems. City Attorney Taylor stated that an application for the proposed project has not be submitted; therefore, a preliminary meeting such as the proposed CRA meeting to discuss the proposed Ringling Park project should not present problems for the Commission; however, agreeing to concessions in the preliminary stages could appear to be pre-approval and cause problems for the Commission at a future date. Commissioner Pillot stated that Dr. Klauber should be advised to follow the current, written standards set by the City for development projects. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a meeting without Citizens' Input is not supported. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to cancel the November 16, 1998, CRA special meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Dr. Klauber will be advised. COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that the efforts of City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and others responsible for the updated audio system in the Commission Chambers are appreciated. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the General Services Department and Commissioner Cardamone provided assistance in securing the updated audio system. VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the leadership of the Residents Association of Plymouth Harbor has requested the City facilitate improving vehicle access to and from the area; that in the past the City attempted and failed to secure a lower speed limit; that a request will be made to the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) for assistance to lower speed limits or to install a traffic light; that City Staff assistance is also requested which requires Commission consensus. Mayor Dupree stated that there is Commission consensus to request MPO assistance in lowering speed limits or installing a traffic light in the Plymouth Harbor area. 7. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (3390) through #3 (0800) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that a November 17, 1998, special Commission meeting has been scheduled to appoint a commissioner to fill the unexpired term of Vice Mayor Patterson; that under the rules of procedure, a special meeting requires citizens' input which may not be appropriate; that a consensus is required to omit the Citizens' Input section on the Agenda for the meeting. BOOK 45 Page 17774 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17775 11/10/98 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to omit the Citizens - Input section on the Agenda for the November 17, 1998, special Commission meeting to appoint a commissioner to fill the unexpired term of Vice Mayor Patterson. Vice Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 9:15 p.m. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to omit the Citizens' Input section on the Agenda for the November 17, 1998, special Commission meeting to appoint a commissioner to fill the unexpired term of Vice Mayor Patterson. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:17 p.m. B. stated that the following Commission meetings are scheduled for November 1998: November 12 at 10 a.m. Joint meeting with the School Board, Landings Administration Building November 13 at 1 p.m. Special meeting regarding Financial Sustainability November 17 at 1 p.m. Special meeting of the City Commission to appoint a commissioner to fill the unexpired term of Vice Mayor Patterson. November 18 at 11:30 a.m. Special meeting for the Commissioner swearing in ceremony C. stated that a reception in honor of Vice Mayor Patterson will be held at 6 p.m., November 13, at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. 7. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VII) #3 (0804) There being no Eurther business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the special meeting of November 10, 1998, at 9:46 p.m. Phone upher AJEROME DUPREE, MAYOR ATTEST: 7 336L E Rel BILLY E CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 45 Page 17776 11/10/98 6:00 P.M.