MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Nora Patterson and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: Commissioner Delores Dry and city Attorney Richard Taylor PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 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. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY 1995 = ROSA SOLORIO, BUILDING TECHNICIAN II, BUILDING, ZONING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0032) through (0095) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, and Rosa Solorio, Building Technician II, came before the Commission. Mr. Litchet stated that Ms. Solorio, who has worked for the City of Sarasota for five years, was recently promoted to a Building Technician II position; that while learning the duties of her new position, Ms. Solorio also took on duties of the Office Supervisor who was not able to work a full-time schedule; that Ms. Solorio's hard work and positive attitude which have made the department run more effectively during times of staff shortages exemplify an employee who serves with excellence and pride. Mayor Merrill presented Ms. Solorio with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the July 1995 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1995 - APPROVED AS CORRECTED (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0118) through (0120) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Book 38 Page 12142 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12143 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson referred to the following motion found on draft page 31: Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to accept the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Commissioner Dry did not vote in the affirmative; that the minutes have been corrected to accurately reflect the vote. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no additional changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of August 7, 1995, are approved by unanimous consent as corrected. 3. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1 AND 2 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0126) through (0158) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to the Bobby Jones Golf Complex Maintenance Agreement, which includes a new Section 21, "Effluent Reuse Pump Station." 2. Approval Re: Granting of an Easement Deed to Seminole Gulf Railway for railroad purposes contingent upon the City acquiring the property. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 and 2. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Commissioner Dry notified him earlier that she was not feeling well and would not be in attendance at tonight's meeting. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-830) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3885) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3895) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. - 95-3888) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3889) = ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3890) = ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3891) - ADOPTED; ITEM 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3892) = ADOPTED; ITEM 9 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3893) - ADOPTED; (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0158) through (0300) city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-830 in its entirety and proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3885, 95-3895, 95-3888, 95-3889, 95-3890, 95-3891, 95-3892, and 95-3893 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-830, appropriating $20,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to provide funding to continue the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3885, amending Chapter 37 of the Sarasota City Code, Water and Sewers, adjusting water and sewer rates for the purpose of expanding, repairing, operating and maintaining the Water and Sewer System of the City of Sarasota by establishing new rates for water consumed; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3895, amending Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, Recycling and Solid Waste, adjusting Recycling and Solid Waste collection rates for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Solid Waste Management System of the City of Sarasota by establishing new rates for Recycling and Solid Waste collection; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3888, providing for the designation of the structure located at 501-13 Kumquat Court, as a structure of Historic Significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; providing for reading by title only; (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-RH-05, Robert Kyllonen) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3889, providing for the designation of the structure located at 963 Indian Beach Drive, historically known as the Knapp House, as a structure of Historic Significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; providing for reading by title only; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-HD-02, Mikki Hartig) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3890, providing for the designation of the structures located at 1913 Datura Street, historically known as the Westmore Tenant House & The Smith/Freeman Home, as structures of Historic Significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; Book 38 Page 12144 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12145 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. providing for reading by title only; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-HD-03, Mikki Hartig) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3891, a petition to request Historic Designation of the structure situated on the following described property: Lots 16, 17, and the east 15 feet of Lot 15, Block B, Grove Heights Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 197, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; said property known as "A Westmore Tenant House" and "The Smith/Brewer Home: with a street address of 1936 Grove Street, Sarasota, Florida; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-HD-04, Mikki Hartig) 8. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3892, providing for the designation of the structure located at 1658 Loma Linda Street, historically known as a Cummer Tenant House, as a structure of Historic Significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-HD-07, Mikki Hartig) 9. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3893, providing for the designation of the structure located at 1858 Magnolia Street, historically known as the Oren L. Hines House, as a structure of Historic Significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-HD-06, Mikki Hartig) - Planning and Development Director Robinson; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-HD-06, Mikki Hartig) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 9 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes; that the petitioners have a reasonable amount of time to address the Commission and a reasonable amount of time for rebuttal. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: GRANADA AND SAN REMO SUBDIVISIONS TRAFFIC ABATEMENT REQUEST PETITIONS - POSTPONED ACTION UNTIL THE DECEMBER 4, 1995, MEETING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0300) through #2 (1045) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, and Joseph Pizzalato, Traffic Control Systems Technician IV, came before the Commission. A series of computer-generated exhibits were displayed and referenced throughout the presentation. Mr. Mohammed stated that in January of 1989, residents of Tangier Terrace petitioned the City to reduce speeding and the volume of vehicular traffic on Tangier Terrace; that a study was conducted by the Engineering Department with the results presented to the City Commission at a public hearing on September 16, 1991; that the Commission approved the following measures and assured the residents that a follow-up study would be conducted to measure effectiveness: 1. Constructing two landscape medians. 2. Installing sidewalks. 3. Closing span of Tangier Terrace at Siesta Drive. 4. Reducing the width of intersection of Tangier Terrace with Siesta Drive. 5. Reducing speed limit to 25 mph. Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained a display of the existing traffic controls in the Tangier Terrace/Cranada Neighborhoods. Mr. Mohammed stated that the traffic abatement measures were implemented in March 1992; that the follow-up studies conducted in 1993 indicate the traffic volume on Tangier Terrace reduced by two- thirds; that vehicular speeds on Tangier Terrace reduced from 42 mph to 39 mph but remain considerably higher than the City's criteria for traffic abatement on residential streets. Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained a display of the average daily volume in the Tangier Terrace/Granada Neighborhoods which reflected mph vehicular speeds of 47 on Siesta Drive, 38.6 on Tangier Terrace, 33.3 on Flores Avenue, 32.4 on Bay Road, and 31.6 on Camino Real. Mr. Mohammed stated that the Tangier Terrace residents requested that the City study additional traffic abatement measures to curb speeding on that street; that a 40% reduction in volumes and speeds has been experienced in areas of the City where speed humps have been installed; therefore, installation of speed humps was recommended to the Tangier T'errace residents; that prior to consideration of a traffic abatement measure, the City Engineering Department investigates the impact of the abatement upon the adjoining streets and contacts the residents of neighboring streets to seek input; that a meeting was conducted with residents of the Granada subdivision in the spring of 1994; that concern was raised that installation of speed humps only on Tangier Terrace would divert traffic onto the Granada subdivision streets; that although Book 38 Page 12146 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12147 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Camino Real is the only street which currently meets the City's criteria for traffic abatement, the majority of the Granada residents requested implementation of additional abatement on all of the Granada subdivision streets to ensure no adverse impact from the installation of speed humps on Tangier Terrace. Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained a display of the proposed traffic abatement measures for the Tangier Terrace/Granada Neighborhoods which reflected the proposal to add 3 speed humps on Tangier Terrace, 3 speed humps on Flores Avenue, 1 speed hump each on Palonia and Jacinto Courts, 1 speed hump on Almeria Avenue, 2 speed humps on Camino Real and stop signs on Camino Real at Fortuna Street. Mr. Mohammed stated that the proposal was presented to both neighborhoods at a public meeting on May 9, 1995; that the majority of the attenders supported the proposal; that in a continuing effort to receive neighborhood input, the City surveyed the residents and determined that approximately 90% of the residents from both neighborhoods approved of the proposal. Mr. Mohammed referred to the Traffic Abatement Survey mailed to the residents of the Tangier Terrace/Granada Neighborhoods from which he cited the following: It is important that you respond. IF NO RESPONSE IF RECEIVED, THE CITY WILL ASSUME YOU SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF THE 11 SPEED HUMPS AND THE "STOP" SIGNS. Mr. Mohammed stated that language similar to the following was suggested by Commissioner Pillot in a discussion held previously regarding the survey results: This is an important survey, please respond. If no response is received the City will not know your preference and therefore it cannot be considered. Mr. Mohammed referred to a display and explained in detail the Granada Subdivision Survey Results and the Tangier Terrace Survey Results which reflected the total number of properties on each street, the number of properties in support and not in support of the proposal, the number of properties which did not respond, and the percentages thereof. Commissioner Patterson stated that the total percentage of properties in support of the proposal includes residents who did not respond to the survey. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the display indicates a limited number of responses were received. Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct; that the residents were informed at the public meeting that properties for which no response was received would be tallied as a support response; therefore, the residents did not feel compelled to respond. Commissioner Pillot stated that the residents may not have responded for a variety of reasonsi that he suggested revised language to inform the residents that a response is necessary for accurate representation of each resident's preference. Commissioner Patterson stated that a consensus by the Commission should be reached on a revision to the language incorporated into the survey. Mayor Merrill stated that the method by which responses to surveys should be tabulated was discussed at a previous Commission meeting; and requested the Administration to present alternatives to the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Pillot asked if alternatives to the proposal presented were considered, i.e., fewer speed humps? Mr. Mohammed stated that most of the traffic on Tangier Terrace is generated by motorists who are attempting to avoid the Osprey Avenue/Siesta Drive traffic light; that installing speed humps only on Tangier Terrace would divert the cut-through traffic to adjacent streets which would have no speed humps; that one alternative available is to delay installation of speed humps on Palonia and Jacinto Courts and Almeria Avenue until the other traffic abatement measures proposed are implemented and the potential, adverse impacts are studied; that speed humps could be installed subsequently on Palonia and Jacinto Courts and Almeria Avenue if an increase in vehicular volume and speed is determined. Mr. Mohammed continued that of the 4 responses received from the 8 properties on Palonia Court all 4 were in support of the speed humps and 4 properties did not respond; that of the 8 responses received from the 17 properties on Jacinto Court 5 were in support of the speed humps and 3 were not; that 9 properties did not respond; that of the 6 responses received from the 23 properties on Almeria Avenue 4 were in support of the speed humps and 2 were not; that 17 properties did not respond. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Bay Road is the apparent problem generating cut through traffic on the seven streets for which traffic abatement measures are being considered; that posting "dead end" or "no exit" signage would be less costly to implement than the traffic abatement measures proposed; that additional traffic on Bay Road will be generated by the new Publix development and the major redevelopment occurring at the Snelling Plaza; that closing the streets at one end should be considered as an alternative measure. Book 38 Page 12148 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12149 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that a proposal to close off Flores Avenue and Camino Real was previously submitted to the Commission; that the Commission at that time did not support the proposal. Mayor Merrill asked if the Engineering Department has considered a potential traffic pattern developing whereby motorists will cut through Tangier Terrace from siesta Drive to Bay Road to access the new Publix development, especially during the tourist season? Mr. Mohammed stated that Siesta Key residents and visitors will most likely frequent the new Publix and Snelling Plaza developments as primary trips; that an increase in traffic volume on the neighborhood streets is likely. Mayor Merrill asked if installing stop signs in lieu of speed humps on Tangier Terrace or Flores Avenue would be an effective, alternative traffic abatement measure? Mr. Mohammed stated that Tangier Terrace has no intersecting street at which a stop sign could be installed; that installing traffic abatement only on Tangier Terrace will divert the traffic to the adjacent, neighborhood streets; that installing similar traffic abatement on adjacent streets is the best method of deterring cut- through traffic; that motorists dislike and avoid speed humps but will continue to travel along streets with stop signs. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that even with three speed humps installed, motorists attempting to access the two new developments from Siesta Drive during tourist season or at the peak hours will find the Tangier Terrace route preferable to waiting at the congested Siesta Drive/Osprey Avenue traffic light. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that the speakers address their feelings regarding access from the neighborhood streets to Bay Road being closed. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Brian Garby, 3830 Tangier Terrace (34239), stated that the proposed speed humps will dramatically affect the quality of life of the people residing in the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods; that the residents will be subject on a daily basis to the discomforts associated with speed humps; that in the 1960s, Tangier Terrace dead ended at Bay Road; that a pandora's box was opened for cut- through traffic when access from Tangier Terrace to Bay Road was opened; that closing Bay Road access should be considered as an alternative; that Bay Road is a County street; that the County has not been receptive to discussions regarding traffic abatement on County streets; however, continued attempts should be made by the City to obtain the County's cooperation on this issue. Mr. Garby continued that speed humps should not be accepted as the solution; that motorists will find Tangier Terrace, even with speed humps, a more attractive route than a route via the siesta Drive/Osprey Avenue traffic light; that establishing a traffic pattern on Siesta Drive similar those used in Washington, D.C., should be considered whereby Siesta Drive could be widened to three lanes with two lanes designated for vehicles travelling from Siesta Key during the a.m. peak hours and two lanes designated for vehicles travelling to Siesta Key during the p.m. peak hours; that the redevelopment planned at the Snelling Plaza is substantial; that in combination with the new Publix development at Crossroads Shopping Center, the vehicular volume on and around Bay Road will substantially increase; that innovative solutions for traffic diversion are necessary to avoid recurrent problems. Mr. Garby continued further that speed humps are not aesthetically pleasing and lower property values; that a median, not properly maintained by the City, is located on Tangier Terrace in front of his house which makes ingress and egress to his driveway difficult; that vehicles will be diverted into his circular driveway if a speed hump is installed in front of his house as proposed. Mr. Garby further stated that alternative solutions are available which are more feasible and less expensive than speed humps; that a study of traffic diversion was presented to the Commission in 1991 which proposed placing temporary traffic diverters along the streets bordering Siesta Drive to prevent right turns off of Siesta Drive and left turns onto Siesta Drive; that this type of traffic diversion could be implemented at 1/10th the cost of speed hump installation; that he would be willing to sacrifice personal ingress and egress to the neighborhood to prevent the cut-through traffic and supports Vice Mayor Cardamone's suggestion. Commissioner Patterson stated that she was on the Commission in 1991 when vehicular volume on Tangier Terrace was approximately 2,500 vehicles daily; that the volume is currently under 1,000 vehicles daily; that the traffic abatement measures implemented have been relatively effective; that this is the first time the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods have come to the Commission in some unanimity; that more possibilities for successful traffic abatement exist with two neighborhoods in unanimity; and asked if Mr. Garby is supporting closing access to Bay Road and retaining an opening directly onto Siesta Drive? Mr. Garby stated that is correct with access to Siesta Drive limited to right turns only; that the residents would be inconvenienced by no longer being able to take left turns onto Siesta Drive to travel to Siesta Key, but hopefully the vehicular Book 38 Page 12150 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12151 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. volume would be reduced to 500 daily which is an acceptable residential volume; that the study resulting in 944 vehicles daily on Tangier Terrace was not performed during the height of tourist season; that the vehicular volume is much greater; that motorists travelling at excess speeds is also a problem which needs attention. Caroline Kennedy, 3529 Jacinto Court (34239), stated that she previously signed a petition in favor of installing speed humps as proposed; however, her support is actually for a delay of speed hump installation on Jacinto Court until a study can be performed to determine if the traffic abatement measures installed on the surrounding streets adversely impact the traffic volumes and speeds on Jacinto Court; that her rationale for signing the petition was to oppose installation of speed humps on Tangier Terrace only. Brent Cox, 1640 Fortuna Street (34239), stated that Tangier Terrace and Flores Avenue are the direct cut-through streets; that the surrounding neighborhood streets are inconvenient for cut-through traffic; that motorists travelling at excess speeds is a major problem, but installing speed humps throughout the neighborhood is not the solution; that speed humps, traditionally colored bright orange and surrounded by numerous indication signs, are an eyesore which detract from the neighborhood and lower property values; that speed humps promote noise pollution; that motorists often accelerate the gas between and screech on their brakes prior to passing over speed humps; that speed humps do not slow motorists driving trucks; that the installation of stop signs on Camino Real at Fortuna Street is supported; that additional law enforcement should be assigned to address the speeding motorists on the neighboring streets if speed humps are installed on Tangier Terrace and Flores Avenue; that a majority of the property owners did not respond to the surveyi that further study is necessary before speed humps are installed throughout both neighborhoods; that he supports and would be willing to participate in any temporary, traffic abatement studies. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is not indicating support for the proposal, but asked for Mr. Cox's opinion on closing access to Bay Road from Tangier Terrace, Flores Avenue, and Camino Real. Mr. Cox stated that making a left turn from the neighborhood onto Siesta Drive is currently difficult to impossible; that he would agree to studying various, temporary traffic abatement measures. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is not indicating support; however, if Bay Road is more easily accessible for the neighborhood than Siesta Drive, perhaps closing access from the neighborhood to Siesta Drive could be considered as an alternative. Commissioner Patterson stated that all six streets in the neighborhood with access to Siesta Drive would have to be closed; that, otherwise, traffic would be diverted to the particular street on which access remains. Mr. Cox stated that the vehicular volumes on the streets have been reduced; that local citizens are the motorists who use Tangier Terrace and Flores Avenue to cut through from Bay Road to Siesta Drive; that an effort is necessary to address motorists who continually travel in excess of the speed limit on the neighborhood streets. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that three speakers have suggested implementing temporary, traffic abatement measures; that the Commission should discuss that issue following the public hearing. Donna Garby, 3830 Tangier Terrace (34239), stated that she and her husband, the first speaker, are 10-year residents of Tangier Terrace and have two small children; that Mr. Garby's vehicle was struck and totalled in an accident as he attempted to access Siesta Drive from Tangier Terrace; that accessing Siesta Drive is difficult and dangerous. Mrs. Garby continued that locating a median in front of their house was accepted to help reduce the vehicular volume in the neighborhood; however, the median has not been maintained, is unsightly, and limits access to their driveway; that the proposal presented indicates installation of a speed hump at the median location; that the City did not contact her or her husband for comment regarding the speed hump location; that placing another traffic abatement measure in front of their house is not acceptable; that sidewalks have been installed along Tangier Terrace; that motorists attempting to avoid a speed hump at the proposed location could result in injury to one of her children playing on the sidewalk; that the adjacent properties both have circular driveways which motorists could use to bypass the speed hump; that the speed humps could compound the flooding problem experienced in the neighborhood during heavy rains. Mrs. Garby further stated that she is opposed to the installation of a speed hump at the location proposed; that closing access to Bay Road or Siesta Drive is supported as an alternative to installing speed humps throughout the neighborhoods. Commissioner Pillot asked for comment by Mr. Mohammed regarding the significance of the three property addresses presented in the proposed traffic controls display. Mr. Mohammed stated that the property addresses at the medians were inadvertently omitted; that the three speed humps are proposed for the locations as follows: 1) aside the median site referenced, 2) Book 38 Page 12152 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12153 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. at 3633 Tangier Terrace, and 3) aside the median located between 3624 and 3522 Tangier Terrace. David Finkelstein, Tangier Terrace (34239), stated that the proposal for speed humps is supported; that the first and fourth speakers may have a different opinion if a speed hump was not proposed for location in front of their house; that motorists avoid streets on which speed humps are placed or drive at a reduced speed; that speed humps may be unsightly, but protecting his children from speeding motorists is of greater concern than being subject to traffic abatement which is not aesthetically pleasing; that closing access at Siesta Drive rather than at Bay Road is supported since Bay Road can be used for travel to more places. Mayor Merrill stated that speed humps have proven successful in reducing vehicular volume and speed on various City streets; that the City is attempting to find a successful, traffic abatement measure which would be acceptable to the neighborhood. Rod Warner, Traffic Abatement Chair of the San Remo Homeowners Association (SRHA), 3648 Tangier Terrace (34239), read a prepared speech which explained the conflicting emotions the SRHA has in resigning to support the proposal for 11 speed humps and 2 stop sign in the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods. Mr. Warner stated that the SRHA feels gratitude to the City and Granada neighbors who have agreed to a resolution, sad that while offenders will be turned away residents will have no choice but to travel over the speed humps on a daily basis, and relief from the risk to life and limb which is bound to get worse as Siesta Key density increases and the new Publix development opens. Mr. Warner continued that alternative solutions are available which are more aesthetic, more effective, less irritating, and less expensive than speed humps, for example, semi-diverters, which were previously requested for implementation at Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhood streets interfacing with Siesta Drive, or woonerven, which is the landscaped peninsula system used in Holland; however, an acceptable, traffic abatement remedy that can be implemented as soon as possible is needed; that the risk to life and limb is too great not to accept the proposal brought forth by the Administration; that the majority of residents support the proposal out of desperation for an expedient resolve to an ongoing problem; therefore, the SRHA feels anticipatory delight and are resigned to requesting that the Commission vote in favor of the speed hump proposal. Commissioner Pillot asked for Mr. Warner's opinion on closing access to Bay Road or Siesta Drive? Mr. Warner stated that those options were considered in depth by the SRHA; that closing access to Bay Road would be preferred if closure was considered as an alternative since only three streets would be affected. Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. Warner to rank his preference for speed humps, semi-diverters, or a street closure. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked Mr. Warner to also consider a combination of closure and semi-diverters. Mr. Warner stated that closure may not be necessary if semi- diverters are implemented; that street Closure and speed humps would be ranked similar as least preferable; that semi-diverters would prevent access into the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods by motorists going to or coming from Siesta Keyi that semi- diverters or woonerven, which are more aesthetically pleasing traffic abatement measures, would be preferred; however, the neighborhood does not want to wait another two years while the City studies the concepts; that a resolve to the problem is needed now; that the traffic abatement measures previously implemented reduced vehicular volume by at least 25% but did not address the excessive speeds at which motorists are travelling through the neighborhoods. Mr. Warner continued that he recommends asphalt speed humps be installed as an interim remedy until the City can find a more aesthetically pleasing solution; that the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhood would agree to being a test site for semi-diverters, the woonerven, or other modern, aesthetic, effective traffic abatement measures; that the City could implement an innovative solution to traffic abatement that merits the name and reputation Sarasota has. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that areas of Gainesville, Florida, have implemented temporary semi-diverters and other traffic abatement measures; that impermanent and inexpensive materials have been used prior to constructing permanent traffic abatement devices; however, having two neighborhoods in agreement for a solution is important. Mr. Warner stated that although no one is ecstatic about the proposal, residents of the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods have general agreement in favor of the speed humps. Commissioner Patterson stated that installing speed humps for removal when an alternative solution is found is not supported; however, a safe, effective alternative presented by the City engineers which would not promote grid locked traffic at Bay Road or Siesta Drive could be supported; that the Commission should consider having an alternative proposal reviewed and presented to the neighborhoods within the next 30 days. Book 38 Page 12154 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12155 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Warner stated that an additional 30 days would be acceptable, since a resolve has taken almost 15 years; however, the issue has a sense of urgency and needs a resolve in the immediate future. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if Mr. Warner agrees that making a left turn on to Siesta Drive from the interfacing neighborhood streets during tourist season is virtually impossible? Mr. Warner responded, yes; however, the plans associated with the new Publix development anticipate making siesta Drive three lanes; that Siesta Key density is continuously increasing. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the neighborhood residents would accept having to travel the route of Bay Road to Osprey Avenue and turning left at the Siesta Drive/Osprey Avenue traffic light to get to Siesta Key? Mr. Warner stated that the issue was discussed at various meetings in the past; that the majority of the residents voiced a willingness at that time to travel the route described to gain relief from the problems associated with cut-through traffic. Mayor Merrill stated that he supports speed humps as an effective compromise; that the City's traffic abatement measures can be compared to a baby which first crawls and then walks; that more elaborate systems will be implemented as people get frustrated with elementary systems such as four-way stops and speed humps and demand more innovative solutions. Mikki Hartig, 3708 Flores Ave. (34239) and Terry Coffrin 3618 Palonia Court (34239) representing the Granada Homeowners Association came before the Commission. Ms. Hartig stated that the SRHA previously presented to the Commission an initial plan for semi-diverters which prohibited left turns from Tangier Terrace onto Siesta Drive; that a majority of the Granada neighborhood opposed the plan which would have diverted the Tangier Terrace residents onto Flores Avenue and through other neighborhood streets to access Siesta Drive; that the diverter plan proposed had residents weaving all through the neighborhood streets to access their own residences; that the semi-diverter plan adversely affected the quality of life for the Granada neighborhood. Ms. Hartig continued that she has been a resident on Flores Avenue for nine years and has maintained continual contact with surrounding neighbors; that the majority of the Granada residents support the Administration's proposal; that 2% years ago the Granada neighborhood did not support speed humps but subsequently realized that traffic will be diverted onto their streets if speed humps are installed on Tangier Terrace and not on the Granada neighborhood streets; that the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods are concerned with the traffic impacts generated by the new Publix and Snelling Plaza developments; that the Granada neighborhood previously supported closing access to Bay Road, but a closing of Siesta Drive would not be supported since significant problems associated with the Publix development are anticipated at the Bay Road/Osprey Avenue intersection. Ms. Hartig further stated that the City should request cooperation from Sarasota County for traffic abatement on Bay Road; that two County Commissioners have been contacted and are amenable to a cooperative effort of the City and County working to address the traffic concerns of the neighborhood regarding Bay Road. Mr. Coffrin stated that vehicles will be diverted to the smaller streets if no speed humps are installed; and presented a petition expressing support for the installation of speed humps on Palonia Court which was signed by 6 of the 8 property owners. Mr. Coffrin continued that one. of the two property owners who did not sign the petition is an older, retired, hungarian woman to whom explaining the situation was difficult; that the other property is a rental. Commissioner Patterson asked for Ms. Hartig and Mr. Coffrin's preference regarding the speed humps as proposed or an alternative semi-diverter proposal. Ms. Hartig stated that speed humps are preferred. Mr. Coffrin agreed. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the new Publix and Snelling Plaza developments will generate traffic impacts not previously considered; and asked if having the City research alternative, innovative solutions to satisfy the concerns raised would be objectionable to the Granada neighborhood? Ms. Hartig stated that the issue has not been discussed with the Granada residents; however, the general feeling of the neighborhood is that a myriad of traffic meetings have been held and attended for years while the cut-through traffic and excessive speeds continue; and that speed humps which have been successful on Spring Creek Drive and on Shade Avenue will work for the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods. Mike Hartenstine. 200 South Orange Avenue (34236) representing John and Julia Hartenstine. 3617 Jacinto Court, stated that he is an attorney with the law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz and Getzen; that his parents, who have resided on Jacinto Court since 1953, have significant concern regarding the Administration's proposal. Book 38 Page 12156 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12157 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Attorney Hartenstine cited the following from page 4 of the City of Sarasota Residential Traffic Abatement Program: A request for traffic abatement will be made on an attached petition form and signed by 60% of the residents living on the street in question. Attorney Hartenstine stated that a petition signed by 60% of the residents living on all the streets on which speed humps are proposed has not been submitted to the City; that a petition signed in 1989 by a high percentage of Tangier Terrace residents asks for traffic abatement measures but does not mention speed humps; that no petitions have been submitted by residents on streets in the Granada subdivision; that the proposal brought forth is based on the initial 1989 petition for traffic abatement submitted by Tangier Terrace residents, a spring 1994 meeting with Granada residents, further conversations between Granada residents and the Engineering Department, and a May 9, 1995, meeting with the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods at which 15 of 197 properties were represented; that a survey of the residents of both subdivisions was subsequently taken. Attorney Hartenstine distributed a copy of the combined results of the Granada/Tangier Terrace Traffic Abatement Study Residents Survey and a plat map prepared by the Engineering Department indicating the properties in support or not in support of the proposal and the properties which did not respond to the survey. Attorney Hartenstine stated that a total of 31% of the residents indicated support for the proposal; that in contrast, 69% of the residents either opposed the proposal or did not respond to the survey; that the Engineering Department has presented that, assuming everyone who did not respond supports the proposal, 90% of the residents are in support of the proposal. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one minute remains on the five-minute time limit. Mayor Merrill asked Attorney Hartenstine for an estimate of time in which his statements could be concluded. Attorney Hartenstine stated that his statements will take an additional 15 minutes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to extend the time limit by 15 minutes. Motion failed for a lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to extend the time limit by 5 minutes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to amend the motion to extend the time limit by 10 minutes. Amendment died for lack of a second. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to extend the time limit by 5 minutes. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Attorney Hartenstine submitted for the record 13 of the City's questionnaires entitled Traffic Abatement Survey which were physically obtained on July 29, 1995, from 14 of the residents on Jacinto Court, Camino Real, and Fortuna Street who did not previously respond to the survey and signed in opposition to speed humps; and stated that 8 of the 9 non response residents on Jacinto Court signed in opposition to speed humps; that, in addition, Ms. Kennedy previously indicated her reversal of opinion; that the surveys indicate a clear majority of residents in opposition to speed humps on Jacinto Court; that 1 resident owns properties on both Jacinto Court and Fortuna Street; that 1 Camino Real resident signed in support of the stop sign but opposed the speed humps; that 1 of the 3 Fortuna Street resident surveys submitted had previously signed in support of the proposal. Attorney Hartenstine continued that the City cannot assume that a citizen who does not respond to an unsolicited questionnaire has any particular point of view; that articles have previously been submitted which support the position that speed humps only aggravate people; that the speed humps, for the reasons mentioned by previous speakers, are the worst alternative of the various traffic abatement measures available and could be considered a violation of the Sarasota City Code and illegal in the State of Florida. Attorney Hartenstine referenced and presented to the Commission highlighted copies of Sections 30-3, 30-9 and 33-37 of the Sarasota City Code and Chapter 316 of the Florida State Statutes. Attorney Hartenstine stated that the City has a traffic abatement policy which has never been submitted for public hearing or adopted by the City Commission and contains specific criteria on which to base a need for traffic abatement measures. Attorney Hartenstine continued that the interest of long-time residents in a neighborhood should be weighed when speed humps are considered; that many residents who have resided in the Granada subdivision since the 1950s oppose the proposal; that the City currently has 47 traffic abatement petitions filed with the Engineering Department; that the Commission's decision will be precedent setting if approval of the proposal is granted; that the City focuses on surveying the residents in a particular neighborhood but does not gather input from the general public; Book 38 Page 12158 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12159 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. that three additional questions related to installation of speed humps in other areas of the City were added on the surveys he collected and submitted; that 10 of 13 residents also opposed speed humps on other City streets. Attorney Hartenstine further stated that in addition to the alternatives previously mentioned, chicanes are another effective alternative which should be considered; that Greenwich, Connecticut, has a series of alternating picket fences on residential streets around which motorists must drive; that semi- diverters should be considered; that the issue should be revisited to determine the current feeling of the majority of residents regarding diverters; that narrowing Tangier Terrace would reduce speeds. Commissioner Pillot thanked Attorney Hartenstine for the advance copy of his research which was received and reviewed; and asked for his opinion on the best posture the Commission could take tonight regarding the proposal? Attorney Hartenstine stated that the Commission does not have sufficient evidence of neighborhood support for the proposal to install speed humps; that the proposal should, therefore, not be adopted; that a more aesthetically pleasing but effective traffic abatement measure should be studied for the subject neighborhoods; that Tangier Terrace residents which have been delayed relief from traffic abatement for sO long are desperate for a solution; that the Commission should make a commitment to the neighborhood that forthwith an effort will be made to develop and implement an appropriate traffic abatement measure. Commissioner Pillot stated and asked if Attorney Hartenstine agrees with the comment made by Mr. Warner that, although a solution is necessary immediately, a 30-day delay would be tolerable? Attorney Hartenstine stated yes; that a correct solution is needed not a bad, temporary solution; that no traffic abatement is better than speed humps. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends: 1) accepting the traffic abatement study and 2) approving the installation of 11 speed humps and 2 stop signs on Camino Real at Fortuna Street. Mayor Merrill stated that speed humps are a simple solution which have been implemented in shopping centers for years; that some of the data provided by Attorney Hartenstine indicates residents on streets with speed humps appreciate them; that no increases in accidents are noted; that speed humps reduce vehicular speed; however, a strong unanimity in the neighborhood and on the Commission should be present for any traffic abatement measure to be implemented; that the ramifications to the City could be severe if speed humps are installed in a divided neighborhood and do not have strong support by the Commission; that traffic abatement is controversial and affects more citizens than those living on the applicable streets; that any traffic abatement measure implemented in the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods should be strongly supported by both the neighborhood and the Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that the traffic abatement measures implemented on Tangier Terrace in 1992 were performed to give the street a more residential character comparable to that on the neighboring streets; that meeting the traffic abatement needs of Tangier Terrace could not be achieved by simple narrowing of the street; that further narrowing, i.e., to one lane, would again make Tangier Terrace different from the neighboring streets; that the subject area is in the district she has represented through two elections; that a fair number of people and most often the neighborhood leaders have contacted her regarding this issue; that the speed hump proposal is the only, solution which has had any type of general agreement by the two neighborhoods; that she is not close minded to considering alternative solutions since new, additional traffic elements not previously considered have arisen and a willingness to work together not previously present within the two neighborhoods has developed; however, she feels speed humps are the only traffic abatement measure for which the Commission will ever receive majority support from the neighborhood and, therefore, would be willing to support the speed hump proposal tonight. Commissioner Pillot asked for comment by the Administration regarding a reasonable time in which alternative traffic abatement measures could be presented to the Commission for review? Mayor Merrill stated that a correct solution should be implemented; that traffic abatement studies have historically, taken years; that six months would be a more feasible amount of time than 30 days. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Engineering Department would require 90 days to present alternative solutions to the neighborhood at a public meeting, conduct a survey of the residents, and compile the results for presentation to and review by the City Commission. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to postpone action on this item until the regular City Commission meeting of December 4, 1995. Book 38 Page 12160 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12161 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that non responses to surveys should not be considered as a particular vote; that a better sampling of the residents' opinions is necessaryi that City surveys should include proper presentation of the subject issue and include options to the questions; that asking for a yes or no response to questions is not sufficient; that the questions should be easy to understand and presented in some variation of the following format: Would you like the City to implement "X" which will reduce the cut-through traffic and quiet your neighborhood: If your travel in the neighborhood is compromised? If access to Siesta Drive will be limited? If access to Bay Road will be limited? Commissioner Patterson requested that City surveys include ready- to-mail-back materials when a response is required. Commissioners Cardamone and Pillot voiced support for this request. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration will follow that procedure. Commissioner Pillot stated that communication by the City with the 197 property owners in the Tangier Terrace/Granada neighborhoods and the responses received should be documented in a log to indicate the City's attempt on at least three occasions to make contact with each of the area properties; that responses could be obtained from all 197 with reasonable effort on the Administration's part. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to postpone action until the December 4, 1995, meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:01 p.m. and reconvened at 8:11 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3894, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, LICENSES, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE OCCUPATIONAL TAX LICENSES BEGINNING AUGUST 1 OF EACH YEAR AND CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF TO SEPTEMBER 30 OF EACH YEAR: SETTING FORTH PENALTIES FOR ENGAGING IN BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE; REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF A FEDERAL IDENTIPICATION NUMBER OR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THE APPLICATION FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE; AMENDING THE TRANSFER FEE FOR TRANSFER OF AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TO A NEW OWNER OF A BUSINESS OR TO A NEW LOCATION FOR THE BUSINESS; ADJUSTING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEES FOR ENGAGING OR MANAGING BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS OR OCCUPATIONS WITHIN THE CITY; SETTING FORTH REQUIREMENTS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES FOR COIN OPERATED OR TOKEN OPERATED VENDING MACHINES; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR REPEALING OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #2 (1046) through (2217) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that in 1993 the Florida Legislature passed the "Dudley Bill" which was the first significant legislation regarding Occupational Licenses since 1981; that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894 sets forth the reclassification of businesses, professions, and occupations as recommended by the Equity Study Commission to establish a new rate structure; that the comments and recommendations received from the Commission at the July 3, 1995, City Commission meeting and other subsequent comments have been reflected in the ordinance. Commissioner Patterson stated the Commission was copied on a memorandum dated August 2, 1995, from Mr. Litchet in response to a comment made by Commissioner Cardamone in reference to a wider disparity in fees for major retailers; and asked if the higher fee referenced in the memorandum has been incorporated into the ordinance? Mr. Litchet stated that a $970 fee has been incorporated into the schedule for merchants with wholesale and retail annual inventory stock of over $100,000 and with 20,000 square feet or more of leasable floor area; that the total budget impact of $17,947 from the revised schedule includes the additional increase to major retailers. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Equity Study Commission recommended that the license fees for the smaller merchants be reduced if higher fees for the larger merchants were implemented; that although the changes to the rate schedule have to be adopted by October 1, 1995, specific fairness issues have not been addressed in the recommendations from the Equity Study Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone cited the following items and fees from the Proposed Revised License Schedule: (5) General automobile dealers, permitting sale of new or used cars, repair or replacement parts and operation of repair department . . $163.00 (7) Bakeries a. Retail $ 33.00 b. Wholesalers $ 65.00 (11) Boat Dealers, including repair parts and Book 38 Page 12162 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12163 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. marine supplies $165.00 (16) Brokers/Real Estate and Stockbrokers a. With not more than three (3) salespersons $ 58.00 b. Each additional salesperson in excess of three (3) . $ 12.50 C. The maximum fee for a stockbroker $246.00 (20) Coin-Operated Machines a. Game, Music and coin-operated machines, other, each $ 8.75 (35) Laundries, Self-service a. Up to 10 machines $ 25.00 b. Each additional machine $ 1.65 (37) Merchants, Wholesale and Retail with annual average inventory stock of: g. $50,001 to $75,000 . $325.00 (49) Restaurants, Drive-in Restaurants, Cafeterias, or Dining Room e. Seating more than one hundred (100) . $195.00 (62) Trailer Parks a. 1-15 trailers $ 42.00 b. Each additional trailer $ 1.65 (64) Undertakers or Funeral Directors . $123.00 (65) Unclassified/Miscellaneous . $ 42.00 Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that all bakeries should be considered retail; that self-service laundry machines are coin-operated machines and should be charged similarly; that a large real estate or brokerage firm generates more dollars than the retailer category cited but pay a lower Occupational License fee; that further equity among the categories and fees should be established. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Equity Study Commission will meet annually to evaluate the rate schedule? Mr. Litchet stated that the Equity Study Commission is authorized to meet every two years to evaluate the ordinance and can make recommendations that have an impact of 5% of the total dollar amount for occupational licensing; that potential inequities still remain; that the "Dudley Bill" restricted to 10% the total dollar amount by which the Occupational License Fee schedule could be increased and limited the changes which could be made to categories; that the various methods of charging rates to the 133 categories included in the City's Occupational License Fee ordinance made the Equity Study Commission's task difficult to complete in the allotted time period; that many categories were never used and were eliminated; that categories were consolidated within a major category to make fees consistent between similar businesses; that the new schedule has 67 categories; that the remaining inequities can be addressed as the process proceeds. Commissioner Patterson stated that Vice Mayor Cardamone is raising the issue of dollars generated; that the Occupational License has been perceived by her as a supplement from the businesses toward the expenses incurred by the City in providing the services and infrastructure necessary for businesses to operate; that a stockbroker firm generates minimum traffic impacts since the majority of business is conducted via telephone whereas a retail merchant brings customers to its location; and asked for the overall rationale used by the Equity Study Commission in deciding the changes to the fee schedule. Mr. Litchet stated that methods reviewed to make the system more equitable did not include the intensity of a business but rather the potential of a business to afford a higher fee; that assessing similar fees to similar types of businesses was the main rationale on which the Equity Study Commission focused; that the constraints of the "Dudley Bill" made difficult the consolidation of similar businesses with assessments based on different methods, e.g., the number of people compared to the amount of inventory. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that increasing the rates to generate revenue for the City was not her objective, equity was; that automobile dealers should have been included under the additional category for merchants with $100,000 in annual inventory and 20,000 square feet of retail space; that the limited time available to the Equity Study Commission made addressing all the issues difficult. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his interpretation of the legislation changing the Occupational License Tax Act is that reclassification and adjustments to the rate schedule must be adopted by October 1, 1995; that a rate increase of up to 5% can be considered every two years but requires approval by a majority plus one of the governing body; therefore, four City Commissioners would have to vote in favor of future increases; that in clarification of the statement made by Mr. Litchet, the Act does not provide for an Equity Study Commission to be reappointed in the future. Ms. Schenk stated that Mr. Sollenberger's interpretation of the "Dudley Bill" is accurate. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Book 38 Page 12164 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12165 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894 by title only. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the October 1, 1995, submission date could be met if the ordinance was referred back to the Administration for further revisions to the rate schedule? Mr. Sollenberger responded, yes; however it would be difficult. Commissioner Patterson asked if the one-time opportunity is applicable to all adjustments, e.g., could the fees be reduced in the future? Ms. Schenk stated that the statute provides an increase by ordinance of up to 5% every other year. Mayor Merrill stated that a motion is necessary for further discussion. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that businesses have been paying the same fees for use of City streets and services since 1981; that an attempt to generate increased revenue through the Occupational License Fee is logical; that she was not previously aware revising the rate schedule was a one-time opportunity; that the inequities raised by Vice Mayor Cardamone are valid; that re-addressing the entire rate schedule and properly advertising the ordinance for public hearing prior to the October 1, 1995, deadline would not be feasible; however, delaying action until the next regular Commission meeting to have specific items developed by the Administration for Commission review would be supported if doing so does not adversely affect the ability of the City to meet the submission deadline. Commissioner Pillot asked if the future 5% rate increase is applicable to the totality of the revenue or to each individual business? Ms. Schenk stated that the statute reads, "the rates of local occupational license taxes by up to 5%." Commissioner Pillot stated that the term "taxes" infers applicability to the totality of the revenue, and if so, increases to individual fees could be offset by decreases to other individual fees as long as the total increase in taxes does not exceed 5%. Ms. Schenk stated that the issue will have to be researched. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Occupational License Fees should be used to offset expenses for providing City services to a business' patrons; however, Sarasota would not be the City it is without many of the businesses which pay the fees; that the Equity Study Commission should be reconvened for one meeting to address specific businesses perceived as generating a big dollar volume, i.e., automobile dealers; that attorneys and medical practices pay a fee of $58.00 to operate a business in the City; that the inequities in the rate schedule need further address. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if advertisement of a new ordinance would be required if the rate schedule is altered? Ms. Schenk stated that the rate schedule is attached to the ordinance, but substantial alterations to the fees would require re-advertising the ordinance with the new rate schedule attached. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a new ordinance for the next regular City Commission meeting would have to be advertised by August 27 and submitted to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune by Wednesday of this week. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894 on first reading. Motion carried (3 to 1): : Cardamone, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3896, AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, BY PROHIBITING PLACEMENT OF SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS OR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS CONTAINERS AT THE CURB OR ROADSIDE ANY EARLIER THAN 5:00 P.M. OF THE DAY PRIOR TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED COLLECTIONS BY REQUIRING THE SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS CONTAINERS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CURB OR ROADSIDE BY NO LATER THAN 9:00 P.M OF THE DAY REGULARLY SCHEDULED FOR COLLECTION: BY REQUIRING STORAGE OF THE SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS CONTAINERS IN SIDE OR REAR YARDS AND NOT FRONT YARDS; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR REPEALING OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #2 (2226) through (2599) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that in response to the issue raised at the June 10, 1995, Neighborhood Workshop regarding removal of trash receptacles from front yards, the following strategy is proposed: Book 38 Page 12166 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12167 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Amend City Code, Section 16-34 to provide that solid waste containers not be placed at the curb or roadside in front of the premises until 5:00 p.m. the day prior to regularly scheduled solid waste collection and be removed no later than 9:00 p.m. the day of collection. The proper storage of solid waste containers shall be in side or rear yards and not front yards. Draft and distribute a bi-lingual letter informing the public of the new code provision. Place bi-lingual stickers reflecting the new code provisions on all new and existing trash receptacles. Mr. Litchet stated that "front yards" has not been defined in the ordinance but is a common sense term which identifies the area from the front entrance of a house to the street; that the issue can be addressed by the Special Master if a problem with enforcement occurs; that the term "required front yard" is defined in the Zoning Code and relates to setback requirements. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. Edward Harding, 1959 South Beneva Road (34232) representing Harding Partners, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that currently three separate pickups are scheduled for recyclables, solid waste, and yard waste; that a blue bag system for 650,000 household units will be implemented in Chicago, Illinois, later this year; that storing recyclables inside in the containers provided by the City promotes infestation of palmetto bugs; that paper which gets wet in the containers sitting outside cannot be recycled; that implementing a blue bag system for collecting recyclables would reduce the cost to the city and to City residents. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3896 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3896 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3896 on first reading. Commissioner Pillot stated that standards are necessaryi however, he does not anticipate a cadre of policing on the streets at 9:00 p.m. to cite families in violation of the ordinance; and asked for the Administration's intention related to enforcement of this provision. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the retrieval time has been extended by two hours; that the Code currently requires retrieval by 7:00 p.m.; that Code Enforcement personnel will not be combing the streets at 9:00 p.m. to identify properties which have not taken in solid waste containers; that the standards are being set to eliminate the situation whereby the containers remain in front yards for numerous days. Mayor Merrill requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, no. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3884, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OF AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ALSO KNOWN AS (A.K.A.) SARASOTA CITY PLAN) FOR ONE (1) YEAR FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1995, TO NOVEMBER 1, 1996; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR AND PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY SUCH A MORATORIUM; EXEMPTING FROM SAID MORATORIUM PETITIONS TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, PERTAINING TO ANNEXED PROPERTY, REQUESTING ZONING UNDER THE CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING CODE EQUIVALENT TO THE EXISTING SARASOTA COUNTY ZONING ON THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; EXEMPTING FROM SAID MORATORIUM PETITIONS TO AMEND THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN WHICH IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT REQUIRED TO BE PREPARED BY CITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3191, FLORIDA STATUTES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = MOTION TO POSTPONE ACTION FAILED (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (2600) through #3 (0607) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that this proposal has been presented to the Commission at previous meetings; that proposed Ordinance No. 95- 3884 establishes a moratorium for Comprehensive Plan Amendments between November 1995 and November 1996 with an exemption proposed for annexations where a petitioner is seeking equivalent zoning. Ms. Carter referred to and explained the Long Range Planning Schedule displayed on the overhead projector. Ms. Carter stated that this is the first of two public hearings; that the second reading will also be a public hearing; that the purpose for the moratorium which will be effective during the 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle is to allow Staff the Book 38 Page 12168 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12169 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. opportunity to complete the Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Sarasota City Plan as mandated by the State and to review future amendments in accordance with the updated comprehensive plan; that the moratorium will be effective with the exception of amendments relating to annexed properties requesting equivalent land uses and amendments based on the results of the EAR; that the City will review requests for land use designation changes or textual changes to the Sarasota City Plan up to the normal deadline for 1996 Comprehensive Plan amendments which is the first Monday in November 1995; that these requests could include current non- conformities and land use changes for annexed properties; that six requests have already been received and more are expected by November; that Staff will respond to written requests addressed to the Planning and Development Director from the public which include the particulars of a site or textual change. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the second public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 5, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Virgina Haley, Chairman of the City Coalition of Neighborhoods Association, address, 1646 South Orange Avenue, stated that the EAR process and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Update has been followed very carefully by the Coalition; that the Planning Department has been cooperative in explaining the long range planning schedule; that the Coalition realizes the tremendous burden these required activities place on the City's resourcesi that consensus of the Coalition was reached that focusing the City's resources on the EAR process and the LDRs Update would be in the best interest of the City; that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan could complicate the entire review processi that the Coalition supports the moratorium as proposed. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO) and himself, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237), stated that he is speaking for himself and GEO; that the public is familiar with a two-year moratorium on development with the exception of remodeling, affordable housing, and Public Works; that the proposed ordinance is for a one-year halt on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan not on rezonings; that the areas of the City designated in the Sarasota City Plan as impact management areas (IMAs) would remain eligible for rezonings if the proposed ordinance is passed; that the City has received limited requests for additional IMAs or textual changes since 1989; however, petitioners have begun to use the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process to create IMAS which are actually rezonings of parcels; that the Commission should be concerned that property owners and developers may perceive and take advantage of a window of opportunity for filing IMA petitions prior to the completion of the EAR process if the proposed ordinance is not passed; that and if this occurred, the resources of Staff would be depleted by the flood of applications and the entire EAR process would be defeated; that the EAR process is for review of not only requests of certain property owners and development interests but also the affected neighborhoods, the road system, the environment and other factors on which comprehensive planning should be based; that the proposed ordinance is a prudent request by Staff to halt for one year changes to the infrequently amended Comprehensive Plan; that he and GEO strongly urge the Commission's support and adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for an explanation of GEO. Mr. Lobeck stated that GEO was formed in 1989 and currently has over 200 dues-paying members. Mayor Merrill stated that the question is unrelated to the item; and requested that Mr. Lobeck respond in writing to Vice Mayor Cardamone. Stephen Rees, Attorney, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 (34237). representing Guy Asberry and the Chapman Trust, stated that his first client Mr. Asberry recently converted a lease-option to record ownership of a property on Garden Lane known as the Siesta Fish Market; that his second client is the Chapman Trust which owns a group of Residential, Multiple Family zoned properties opposite the ongoing conversion of Snelling Plaza; that both clients request denial by the Commission of the proposed moratorium; that in accordance with Florida State Statutes Chapter 163, property owners have the right to petition the local government for amendments deemed proper and appropriate relative to their properties; that the findings asserted within the proposed ordinance are somewhat self-serving and relate to a practical problem of either insufficient staff or an inability of the City to commit sufficient resources to accomplish several responsibilities and functions of local government required under the Statute; that the Commission should implement a remedy to allow property owners the right to continue to seek Comprehensive Plan amendments during the 1996 cycle; that if the Commission decides in favor of the moratorium he requests on behalf of his clients that two language revisions be made to the ordinance. Attorney Rees continued that the Chapman Trust has been approached to consider annexation into the City in conjunction with utilities service plan; that the subject property is currently designated as an Activity Center on Sarasota County's future land use map; that Activity Center zoning provides a variety of potential high-density multiple family, office, professional, institutional or commercial Book 38 Page 12170 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12171 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. uses; that the proposed ordinance as drafted is unfair to the property owner seeking annexation since the moratorium period will have to expire before a zoning change, which would first require an amendment to designate an IMA, can be pursued. Attorney Rees suggested the following exemption language be added to Section 2 of the proposed ordinance: (a) or the permissible designated Sarasota County zoning. Attorney Rees stated that a third exemption should be added to address properties which would be coming forth under the Commission's consideration of whether to enforce amortization of non-conforming uses in residential zones or to implement another remedy; that discussion has been held with Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, as to whether or not one of the remedies may be to recommend the establishment of a land use district change which, again, could only be accomplished through the designation of an IMA. Attorney Rees suggested that an additional subparagraph be added to Section 2 of the proposed ordinance as follows: (c) Petitions to amend the Sarasota City Plan or element thereof, including the future land use plan map or map series which implement the recommendations adopted by the City Commission respecting zoning changes to residential properties currently under consideration respecting nonconforming uses. Attorney Rees stated that the proposed language would provide the opportunity for both the property owner and the Commission to have flexibility in considering each nonconforming use. Commissioner Patterson stated that the amortization period which was extended by five years on the Siesta Fish Market would remain effective past the period of time proposed for the moratorium; that the issue would be relevant only if Mr. Asberry plans to change the land use from its current use. Attorney Rees stated that is correct; that the Commission should realize that property owners, including his client, may request as a proper remedy to a nonconforming use in the City, consideration by the Commission of making a property eligible to become a conforming use. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Administration and legal Staff have reviewed the language proposed by Attorney Rees? Ms. Schenk and Mr. Sollenberger stated that the language had not been reviewed. Commissioner Pillot asked if language acceptable to the Administration and legal staff could be added to the ordinance between first and second readings if the Commission so desires? Ms. Schenk stated, yes; that second reading of the proposed ordinance is also a public hearing at which public input can be received; however, including more exemptions could defeat the purpose of the moratorium and could invite legal challenges as to why specific properties are being exempted and others are not. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to approve Ordinance No. 95-3884 on first reading with the requirement that the Administration and legal staff review the language proposed by Attorney Rees and bring back as part of the ordinance at second reading as much of the language that is supported. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Patterson stated that misgivings about the moratorium have been felt since the first presentation of the item; that Attorney Rees addressed one of her concerns which is the annexation of the Snelling Plaza property; that Staff approached the issue of annexation by including an exemption to provide properties with the City's equivalent to Sarasota County zoning; however, a desirable property with a land use permitted on Sarasota County's future land use map could petition to annex into the City but be forced to delay development for over one year until the Commission deliberates on changing its future land use map which may not include such a use; that a positive address to the issue is required prior to a vote. Ms. Schenk stated that the issue was discussed with the Planning Department Staff; that the delay in the scenario cited by Commissioner Patterson would only be six months since the potential properties for annexation would be exempted under Section 2(b) and amendments processed under the EAR in the spring of 1996. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for further explanation of why a nonconforming use property owner may want the ability to apply for an IMA designation during the moratorium period. Ms. Schenk stated that a hardship may be relevant if the nonconforming use was forced to cease operation during the Book 38 Page 12172 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12173 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. moratorium; however, Attorney Rees I client was previously granted a 5-year amortization period which does not expire during the one- year moratorium period proposed; that the intent of the request for an exemption may be to provide the property owner with sufficient time to present a subsequent petition for an IMA if the first petition filed is denied. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the property owner has the opportunity to petition for an IMA at this time and be considered under the EAR process at no charge. Ms. Schenk stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she shares Commissioner Patterson's concern regarding annexations; and requested a response from the Administration. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration is pursuing the Snelling Plaza area for annexation; however, a petition for annexation has not be filed to date; that the current residential zoning of the Chapman Trust property is no longer compatible with surrounding uses which are primarily commercial; that the property could be addressed under the EAR process prior to June 1996 if annexation is requested; that the representatives of the Chapman Trust will be made aware of this option. Commissioner Patterson stated that the EAR has a process of substantial length; and asked if language similar to that proposed by Attorney Rees would be more appropriate. Mr. Sollenberger stated that permitting numerous exemptions could jeopardize the validity of the ordinance. Commissioner Patterson asked for clarification of the new property rights legislation regarding a property owner's right to appeal Comprehensive Plan amendment denials for a hearing with a special master. Ms. Schenk stated that a hearing before a special master is one of the voluntary proceedings the property owner may elect to go through as a means of compromising a dispute; that the special master acts as a mediator and can recommend solutions, e.g., to place a property in an IMA for certain zone districts; that an exemption for the special master process has not been included in the proposed ordinance; that the City will be losing that tool during the moratorium period if the ordinance is adopted. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to postpone consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884 to the next regularly scheduled city Commission meeting at which time the Administration can provide an appropriate recommendation regarding Attorney Rees' proposals. Commissioner Pillot stated that 14 days are required between first and second public hearings; that due to the Labor Day holiday, only 13 days separate the regular City Commission meetings in September. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a special meeting could be scheduled for the second public hearing. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she is more interested in having language considered for annexations than for nonconforming uses. Ms. Schenk stated that the Zoning Code language relevant to annexations includes reference to Sarasota County's zoning and future land use mapi that similar language could be incorporated into the proposed ordinance between first and second readings to address the first issue raised by Attorney Rees if that is the wish of the Commission. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion failed (2 to 2): Cardamone, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot; no; Merrill, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 95-PA-08, 3638 FRUITVILLE ROAD AND 3, 15, 36 AND 44 GOLDEN SANDS DRIVE, TO AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP #11 TO CREATE AN IMPACT MANAGEMENT AREA MAKING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR A REZONING TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-4) OR LESS INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL = CONTINUED TO NEXT REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING (SEPTEMBER 18, 1995) AT WHICH A FULL COMMISSION WILL BE PRESENT (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #3 (0620) through #4 (2082) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development; Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, Comprehensive Division; and David Johnston, Landscape Architect, came before the Commission. Ms. Carter referred to the City Plan Amendment Map for Petition No. 95-PA-08 displayed on the overhead projector to identify the subject site located at the corner of Fruitville and Beneva Roads. Ms. Carter stated that this is a transmittal public hearing for amended Petition No. 95-PA-08; that the Staff's report has been amended accordingly and represents Staff's review of the petition for consistency with the existing Sarasota city Plan; that the petitioner has requested a land use designation for rezoning to Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-4) restricted to an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF), with a height limitation of 35 feet and the sole access on Fruitville Road. Book 38 Page 12174 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12175 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Carter continued that the goals, objectives and policies of the Sarasota City Plan are general; that specifics such as site plans are traditionally presented during the rezoning process; however, conceptual plans on this petition will be presented to illustrate variations of the property under different zoning scenarios; that the policies in the Sarasota City Plan were developed from a combination of community input and State regulations in effect in 1989 and were not written with the intent of withstanding the type of scrutiny current laws have imposed upon comprehensive plans. Ms. Carter further stated that the Staff's report has been amended at various times, first to respond to the amended request, second to correct technical errors, and thirdly to tighten the City's evaluation in accordance with the new private property rights legislation; that David Johnston & Associates has been hired to assist with the development of a Staff recommendation and has developed three conceptual site plans that illustrate the recommendation Staff has made to date; that Staff has not had the advantage of reviewing additional materials and testimony the petitioner has developed with the exception of the conceptual site plan showing the proposed ACLF which was provided earlier today. Ms. Carter cited the following policies and objectives relevant to the Staff's consistency review of amended Petition No. 95-PA-08: Land Use Policy 1.1: Sufficient acreage will continue to be reserved in the general land use categories to meet the needs of the projected population upon which the Sarasota City Plan is based. Housing Objective 1: To continue to ensure that sufficient acreage is reserved in appropriate locations to meet the housing needs of the City's residents. The Staff report indicated inconsistency on these two items. Ms. Carter stated that a sufficient amount of residential land has been reserved in the Sarasota City Plan to meet future housing needs; that several zone districts allow for the development of ACLFS; that the City of Sarasota has twice as many ACLFS per capita as the County, yet the County has a greater and an increasing percent of senior citizens. Transportation Objective 5: Traffic impact on surrounding neighborhoods should be minimized. The Staff report indicated consistency on this item. Ms. Carter stated that the intersection of Fruitville and Beneva Roads is currently operating at an "F" level of service; that the number of accidents at this intersection in 1994 was the highest in the Cityi that although the existing traffic conditions at the Fruitville/Beneva Roads intersection are serious, as voiced by residents of the adjacent neighborhood at the previous public hearing, the amount of traffic generated by the proposed ACLF will not have a noticeable impact given the existing high traffic volumes. Land Use Policy 1.2: Promotes the development of compatible land use patterns. The Staff report indicated inconsistency on this item. Ms. Carter referred to a Residential Intensity/Density chart displayed on the overhead projector and explained the various dwelling units permitted under Residential, Single Family (RSF) and RMF Zone Districts. Ms. Carter stated that the subject site is zoned RSF-2 and RSF-3 which allows 4.3 and 5.8 dwelling units per acre respectively and are listed at levels of intensity 4 and 5 in Section 6-29 of the City's Zoning Code; that the petitioner is requesting RMF-4 zoning which allows 18 units per acre; that doubling the density to 36 units for ACLF units that do not include kitchens is an available option, but 18 units per acre was used for the analysis performed by Staff; that the level of intensity for RMF-4 zoning is 13. Conservation Objective 3: The City shall restore and continue to conserve and protect natural habitats, vegetative communities, and fisheries. The Staff report indicated inconsistency on this item. Ms. Carter referred to an aerial photograph displayed on the overhead projector and identified the subject site. Mr. Johnston stated that the site has a considerable number of mature specimens, e.g., sabal palms, which may be relocated, mature oaks, and pines; that the more intensely the site is developed, the fewer trees or tree masses will be saved; that assessing the impact is difficult without a site plan; however, a development which is flexible in design, i.e., single-family cluster housing, would provide for a greater savings of the mature specimens. Ms. Carter displayed on the overhead projector a Density Analysis chart for the subject property and stated that the Staff's recommendation is to create an Impact Management Area (IMA) with Book 38 Page 12176 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12177 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. eligibility for RSF-4 zoning; that the Staff's intent was to recommend the RSF Zone District which would provide for the largest number of units; that the Zoning Code would allow a maximum of 23 units on the property as currently zoned, but a practical density would be 18 units; that the RSF-4 cluster subdivision recommended by Staff has a maximum density of 38 units and a practical density of 34 units; that the petitioned RMF-4 zoning has a maximum density of 93 units or 187 ACLF units without kitchens. Ms. Carter stated that an RSF-4 cluster subdivision of 34 units would provide housing to all age groups and generate 382 trips per day compared to 400 for a 187-unit ACLF or 208 for 18 homes under existing zoning; however, neither of the three scenarios will result in significant traffic impact upon Fruitville or Beneva Roads; that Staff concludes that a single-family subdivision will be the most compatible land use; that cluster housing which provides for all units on the ground level promotes the preservation of open space and would also provide for the flexibility of preserving the significant, older, larger tree masses on the site. Mr. Johnston stated that permission to physically view the subject site was not granted prior to his recent vacation; therefore, the concept plans submitted were created by estimating the size and location of tree masses from aerial photographs and peripheral site visits. Mr. Johnston displayed on the overhead projector and explained in detail the following three concept plans for cluster housing developments of 1,365 square-foot, single-family units with single- width driveways on lot sizes of 2,500 square feet each: Concept #1 Focuses on maximum tree preservation with Golden Sands Drive entry. 26 units. Concept #2 Focuses on maximum units with Fruitville Road entry. 33 units. Concept #3 Focuses on maximum units with Golden Sands Drive entry. 34 units. Mayor Merrill asked for the distance a house should be located from a tree to preserve the root system and if the 1,365 square feet estimated would include a garage or a carport? Mr. Johnston stated that 10 feet is a general rule of thumb; that the concept plans were digitized based on aerial photographs; that plans based on a tree survey would provide more accurate information; that an average-sized footprint without architectural detail was used for the house size. Mayor Merrill stated that the interior living space would be approximately 1,100 square feet if a carport or garage were included and lower if an entry walkway, lanai, or back porch were included on the houses; that retention areas requiring approximately 15% of a the total site size in an area which is not treed have not been designated on the concept plans. Mr. Johnston stated that the houses could be developed with two floors which would allow for larger units; that appropriate data was not available to accurately incorporate other elements, i.e., stormwater retention in areas other than the back yards of homes. Commissioner Pillot stated that houses on the sized lots being discussed would be marketable at a low price and, therefore, would not be an asset to the community. Mayor Merrill asked if a financial analysis has been performed comparing the Staff's recommendation of a cluster housing subdivision versus the ACLF use proposed by the petitioner? Ms. Robinson stated that the Staff's research did not include an economic element. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following items into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1991 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments. All documents made a part of the record of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meetings of April 19, and May 3, 1995, as well as the minutes of those meetings. All documents made a part of the City Commission meeting of May 10, 1995, as well as the minutes and video tape of that meeting. Planning Department report of August 21, 1995, concerning Petition No. 95-PA-08. > Resume of David W. Johnston, ASLA. Ordinance No. 84-2751, containing zoning regulations for cluster housing subdivisions. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. Joel Freedman, AICP, Bishop & Associatesi Stephen D. Rees, Esquire, of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, PA; and Craig Book 38 Page 12178 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12179 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Richardson, Planner-lawyer. representing the petitioner Joseph Stewart Stottlemyer, Successor Trustee, came before the Commission. A board display depicting an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding areas was displayed in the Commission Chambers. Attorney Rees stated that approximately one hour will be necessary to make a presentation to the Commission in response to the somewhat unusual Staff report advocating a different land use district and use than has been proposed by the petitioner as well as to further support the petitioner's request. The Commission recessed at 9:56 p.m. and reconvened at 10:01 p.m. Mayor Merrill stated that this is a reopened public hearing; that information and statements from the public presented at the previous public hearing remain part of the record. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the previous public hearing was held on a different requested use; therefore, the Commission will not be required to take portions of previous information into consideration for the amended petition. Mayor Merrill stated that is correct. Attorney Rees distributed to the Commission and entered into the record a copy of his written report in letter form addressed to the Mayor and city Commissioner dated August 21, 1995, and an attached binder containing each of the documents referenced in his letter as Exhibits 1 through 10; and provided an overview of the content. Attorney Rees stated that the Staff omitted one key condition which had been proffered by the petitioner on May 30, 1995, in reference to the request for RMF-4 zoning; and cited the following from page 1 of his letter: (c) The provision of enhanced buffering of a minimum 50 width utilizing native vegetation and existing tree masses. Attorney Rees stated that a protessional, licensed landscape architect, and professional planners will provide testimony to document the importance of the extensive tree masses on the subject site and the ability of the ACLF proposal to preserve the most intensely of the tree masses, contrary to the Staff testimony that cluster housing would better provide for preservation. Attorney Rees continued that page 2 of his letter: 1) reiterates from prior testimony that the ACLF is a residential use being sought in a residential district, 2) quotes the intent for the RMF Zone District which clearly recognizes that the relevant zone district regulations are designed to preserve the basic characteristics of residential living while the purpose of the zone district is to provide for a range of housing type, density and intensity, and 3) quotes from a letter issued December 8, 1994, by Staff in the original sufficiency review of the amendment application for the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) or RMF-5 or less intensive zoning to indicate Staff's recommendation to the petitioner that consideration be given to providing the lesser intense RMF zoning abutting the surrounding single-family neighborhood; that the plans recommended by the petitioner's use provide for the variety intended by the zone district which the cluster housing plans submitted by Staff have failed to do; that the Staff action in taking an intractable position to recommend an RSF district is hard to believe when back in December 1994 Staff recommended to the petitioner that an RMF zone district for the ACLF could be compatible abutting the single-family neighborhood, as documented in his attached exhibit #4. Attorney Rees further stated that page 3 of his letter reiterates from the original Comprehensive Plan Amendment application those significant and relevant provisions of the Florida Statutes in Chapter 163 which discuss the Commission's responsibility and authority to plan for future development and growth. Attorney Rees referred to pages 4, 5, and 6 of his letter which highlighted portions of the provisions from the housing element and the future land use element which document the necessity to designate for proposed, future, general distribution location and extent of use of land for residential uses including the amount of land to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected population of the area, and the character of the undeveloped land; and stated that Staff has failed in its analysis to meet the statutory test; that the petitioner has met those requirements and has documented a need for the ACLF, an abundance of remaining, undeveloped land suitable for single-family development, and that removal of approximately 18 to 22 single-family units from the subject site will not detrimentally impact the provision within the City elsewhere of adequate sites for single family dwelling; that the petitioner has demonstrated that the proposal is not only consistent with the Sarasota City Plan but as important in furthering the goals, policies, and objective of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan regarding the elderly and the provision of housing and services for the elderly. Attorney Rees continued that page 10 of his letter sets forth a precise statement for rejection of the Staff recommendation for RSF-4 zoning; that between May 10 and August 21, 1995, the Book 38 Page 12180 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12181 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. petitioner has received five Staff-generated reports and recommendations, among which factual errors, over simplification, over generalization or distortion of key facts, and conclusions which are not supported by facts in the record, applicable law, or administrative rule or regulation have been found; that the key substance of each of the reports has been identified in his letter to demonstrate the internal inconsistencies within and among those reports and to provide the Commission with saline examples Attorney Rees further stated that page 14 of his letter provides a summaryi that in his professional, legal opinion based upon his resume, credentials, working experience, knowledge of the Sarasota City Plan and applicable regulations, which was provided during the May 10 public hearing, the Staff report proposing an RSF zone district for cluster housing is not compatible and is not the most consistent proposal for the subject site; that the general principles which Staff seeks to establish may be applicable to another location within the City; however, the physical characteristics, the surrounding neighborhood, and the goals, policies and objectives which are applicable to the subject location mandate the approval of RMF-4 zoning with an ACLF use as proffered by the petitioner. Commissioner Patterson referred to the 16-page letter and 10- section booklet provided by Attorney Rees; and asked if the intent is for the Commission to take into consideration in its decision the bulk of information being seen for the first time tonight which she has not had a chance to review? Attorney Rees stated that the purpose of his letter is to reiterate, from the extensive documentation the petitioner has filed and from prior, verbal testimony, the salient aspects in support of the petitioner's request; that the letter contains statements of opinion and refers to facts already present within the record; that the exhibits contain copies of documents which also come from the record of the proceeding; that the good points of the petitioner's request and the negative points of the Staff's recommendation have been summarized; that the Commission should be able to easily comprehend and digest both the letter and the exhibits since the material is a summary or repetitive to that which is already in the record. Mr. Freedman stated that Land Use Policy 1.1 and Housing Objective 1 have been discussed; that the following policy is also relevant: Housing Policy 1.4: Rezoning from residential to non-residential zone districts shall be conditioned on the adequacy and suitability of residentially zoned acreage to meet future housing needs, as determined through the Housing Analysis Program outlined in Policy 3.2. Craig Smith, MAI, Smith-Parke & Company, Inc.. and Rod Krebbs, Developer, Hallcraft Homes, came before the Commission. Mr. Richardson stated that as an educated City and Regional planner and a Land Use attorney, the primary area of his practice for the last 15 years has been as a consultant in comprehensive planning and comprehensive plan implementation to a number of local government clients. Mr. Richardson submitted into the record a booklet entitled, Report in Support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-08, which included his resume, and a document entitled Rebuttal of City Staff Findings, which was in response to the issues responded to by Staff with specific directives to the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. Mr. Richardson stated that the first important issue addressed by Staff was a question of whether or not sufficient land acreage is available in the City for single-family residential dwelling if the subject parcel is designated for an ACLF use. Mr. Richardson referred to and explained Table 1, entitled Actual Demand for Single Family Units Vs. Demand Estimated in City Plan, on page 3 of his report; and stated that the Sarasota City Plan Land Use Appendix A projected a demand for 1,113 single-family units between 1989 and 1999; that the future land use map designates lands to accommodate 1,441 single-family units; that the city's building permit records were researched to determine single- family development which has occurred since the adoption of the Sarasota City Plan in 1989; that the actual amount of residential single-family development is approximately 50% of the amount projected and has averaged 56 units annually since 1989; that based on the City's analysis, sufficient acreage will be available to accommodate single-family growth for three planning periods if growth continues at the same annual rate it has since 1989, which is likely since the annual number of building permits issued in the City between 1986 and 1994 averaged 57.6 units annually; that the City has 250% to 300% more land than is necessaryi therefore, a change in land use on the subject property would not affect the sufficiency of land available to meet the City's housing needs. Mr. Smith displayed on the overhead projector and explained in detail a chart entitled Vacant Residential and Vacant Multi-Family Property Within the City of Sarasota which compared the Staff's findings of 5,145 potential number of multi-family units with Smith-Parke research indicating 660 potential ACLF units. Mr. Smith stated that Staff indicated in its July report developable acreage within the City for 9,700 ACLF units; that in the report dated August 21, 1995, Staff has indicated a potential for over 5,000 ACLF units on vacant land in the City; that the Book 38 Page 12182 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12183 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. City's calculation omitted two factors: 1) the number of parcels in each zone district, and 2) the average size of those parcels; that the average size of the vacant residential and multi-family property is 0.42 acres; that, for example, Staff indicated the 7 potential multi-family units for the 0.2 vacant acres available in the RMF-6 Zone District; that 0.2 acres is equivalent to 8,800 square-feet of land on which the City's coverage requirements would not permit development of 7 multi-family units; that Staff has significantly overstated the total capacity of development of ACLFS on other parcels within the City; that the Zoning Code differentiates between an ACLF and an Adult Care Home; that the Smith-Parke analysis was performed solely on ACLFS which have 17 beds or above and are located on parcels of more than 1.2 acres in the higher intensive zone districts and more than 2 acres in the lower intensive zone districts; that the results of the research indicate 7 buildable parcels on which approximately 660 ACLF units could be developed; that two of the seven parcels have petitioned for alternative use of land: 1) the Serena Street parcel for which an alternative use has been granted, and 2) the parcel located behind the Ringling Towers which has not yet been addressed by the Commission; that removing those two parcels leaves a potential for approximately 300 ACLF units or an amount significantly and substantially lower than that presented by Staff. Commissioner Patterson asked for the 7 parcels identified in the Smith-Parke analysis. Mr. Smith displayed on the overhead projector a map of the buildable parcels for ACLFS in the City of Sarasota which were identified. Mr. Smith stated that in raising the issue that the City has twice the number of ACLF units as the County, the Staff may have a misinterpretation as to the difference between ACLFS, Adult Care Homes, and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) since all those categories were included in their statistics of ACLFS within the City. Mr. Smith displayed on the overhead projector and explained a map identifying all the categories of adult care in the City and the County; and stated that the ratio of 65+ population to ACLF/CCRC in the City is 6.4 per 100 and in the County is 4.6 per 100; that 6.5 per 100, as in Pinellas County, is a typical penetration rate of the 65+ population; that the argument isolating the difference between the City and the County, due to the development patterns of the city, is that the County is increasing its facilities to provide an adequate penetration rate compared to the City, not vice versa. Mr. Smith displayed on the overhead projector and explained a map reflecting, by one dot per person, the location of population aged 65 or more in North Sarasota County per the 1990 Census; and stated that Staff has presented a need for housing for the younger but has not indicated where the population is originating from; that the chart indicates a tremendous number of population aged 65 or more within the City limits. Mr. Smith stated that an issue was raised that 6 ACLFS are located within a one-mile radius of the subject property; however, only 1 of the facilities is actually an ACLF, the Beneva Park Club; that the other 5 facilities are Adult Care Homes; that the State licensure requirements are significantly different for the two categories; that the level of service at the proposed ACLF will be consistent to that at the Beneva Park Club; that the Beneva Park Club is one of the most successful ACLFS in the City and, from that perspective, an argument could be based that the proposed site is a favorable location. Mr. Smith continued that the following issues raised in the Staff report need further review: 1. The potential for ACLF units elsewhere in the City is 5,000. Mr. Smith stated that the number is actually closer to between 300 and 600 units. 2. The City of Sarasota has twice the number of ACLFS per capita as the County yet the County has a greater and increasing percent of senior citizens. Mr. Smith stated that the ratio is actually 3 to 2; and the Staff recommendation requires that the Commission adopt age discrimination based on the originating location of the people and in terms of making policy regarding the number of units the City can or should have. 3. The informal survey of over 90% of the ACLF beds in the City showed that the majority of ACLF residents did not formerly reside in the City. Mr. Smith stated that the survey performed by Smith-Parke is in disagreement; and indicates 30% of the residents came from inside the City, 30% specifically came from Sarasota County, and 30% had an unknown origin. 4. Six ACLFS are located within a one-mile radius of the subject site. Mr. Smith stated that there is only one ACLF within that radius. Book 38 Page 12184 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12185 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Smith continued that ACLFS within the City currently have waiting lists for more than 250 persons, which is tangible evidence of the need for the proposed ACLF; that a demand analysis performed calculated the unaddressed demand as exceeding 370 units. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked how the number of persons on the waiting list was determined? Mr. Smith stated that Administrators or Marketing Directors of each of the facilities in the City were contacted and surveyed; that the waiting list Citywide includes 250 people, 200 of which are awaiting entrance to Plymouth Harbor. Commissioner Patterson stated that people will wait a substantial amount of time for entrance into Plymouth Harbor which is located on beautiful, waterfront property. Mr. Smith stated that an extensive waiting list for the more intensive end of the service level will not be found within the ACLF environment since the older population cannot wait for admission and must find a location. Commissioner Patterson stated that Plymouth Harbor does not admit elderly persons with intense, medical needs. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission should approve Petition No. 95-PA-08 for the following reasons which have been entered into the record: 1. The proposed ACLF: a. responds to a real need in the City; b. addresses a real need for City and County residents; C. adds 40 to 50 jobs to the community; and d. expands the tax base by approximately $7 million to $10 million. 2. The development of the property is not feasible under the existing zoning or the zoning proposed in the Staff's recommendation. Mr. Freedman stated that all of the overhead projections have been submitted to the City Auditor and Clerk as part of the record. Mr. Krebbs stated that as the owner of Hallcraft Homes, Inc., he is a hands-on builder/developer who has an Engineering degree from Stanford University and an MBA from Florida State University in market research and associated fields; that he has been building and developing in Sarasota for 24 years; that the majority of his work is performed in the County; that a review of the property for single-family cluster housing was performed at the request of Attorney Rees who he subsequently informed that the property could not be developed as proposed; that he has no financial interest in the proposed project and is not being paid to appear before the Commission; that he is appearing tonight to express his strong feeling that the subject property cannot realistically support single-family development as proposed by Staff. Mr. Krebbs stated that extremes in development are found in the City and the County; that value can be created on very large parcels of land, i.e., Palmer Ranch or other large developments, by developing schools, quiet wooded lots, and proper circulation; that he specializes in developing small properties of 5 to 15 acres; that in dealing with small properties the issue of location must adequately be addressed; that people want to live in a quiet neighborhood; that he has developed 15 cluster housing developments; that three more are in development, two of which are at the zoning process with Sarasota County; that the three properties are located within walking distance of the prime schools, are in quiet areas off of major roads, and are wooded with smaller canopy trees which allows flexibility in design; that the subject property violates all his checklist items used to evaluate potential property, with the exception of being within walking distance to commercial, retail properties. Mr. Krebbs continued that the issue of quietness is important in developing marketable, residential housing; that the petitioner's proposed use is a contained building; that the road noise would be overwhelming for single-family houses with lanais; that noise deteriorates as a power factor in distance, but 50% of the subject property is unlivable based on quietness; that designating the site as RSF-4 for cluster housing will result in a bankrupt development; that a discounted cash flow analysis based on a purchase price of $0 for the subject property indicated a $15,000 profit to develop the entire cluster housing subdivision; that attaching a purchase price to the property would result in a loss of over $100,000; that the development costs on the subject property would be high resulting in a high dollar amount charged per cluster housing unit; that to generate a realistic profit for the builder, developer, and subcontractors, each unit would have to be sold for approximately $125,000 to $140,000. Mr. Krebbs continued further that a substantial number of the trees on the subject property will not be saved by developing cluster housing; that only one oak tree was saved when the Community Housing Corporation developed cluster housing units with common driveways on the 0.5 acre lot on the corner of 8th Street and Orange Avenue; that following completion of the development, negative feedlack was received on the common driveways; that with an immense, creative effort, approximately 10 majestic oak trees could feasibly be saved if the subject property is developed as cluster housing. Book 38 Page 12186 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12187 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Krebbs further stated that the subject property is not suitable for single-family development; that the RSF designation on the subject and surrounding properties was received when Fruitville Road was only two lanes; that single-family development on the subject property is no longer feasible. Commissioner Pillot referred to Concept #3 which reflects 34 Cluster housing units on 2,500 square foot lots; and asked for Mr. Krebbs' estimate of the market value of a well-developed home on the subject property as proposed in Concept #3. Mr. Krebbs responded, $80,000. Commissioner Pillot stated that Mr. Krebbs - estimate seems feasible; and that 34 owner-occupied homes at $80,000, after homestead exemptions, would produced approximately $1.8 million in taxable value to the City. Mr. Freedman stated that Land Use Policy 1.2 states that development of compatible land use patterns should be promoted; that Land Use Policy 1.3 states that preservation of the viability and the quality of life in existing neighborhoods should also be promoted; that Land Use Goal 2 is for protection and enhancement of existing neighborhoods. Mr. Richardson stated that a general land use analysis of the relationship of the parcel with the Fruitville Road corridor and a more specific analysis of how the parcel relates to the adjacent lands were conducted by viewing aerial photographs, walking the neighborhood, taking photographs of the parcel, and reading relative plan documents; that in his opinion, the proposed ACLF is compatible with the surrounding land uses; that the subject parcel is adjacent to Fruitville Road, which is the principal east/west corridor in the City, is the link between the City and Interstate 75, and is one of the most travelled roadways in the City and the entire County; that property on Fruitville Road is fairly evenly divided between high-intensity uses and single-family development; that properties to the north of the subject parcel are multi-family developments and businesses which have a significant impact on the intersection at Beneva and Fruitville Roads; that the northeastern, southern, and eastern portions of the subject parcel are adjacent to older, single-family homes, and as a result, the property has a dual character and can be considered a transition area; that the impact of traffic, visual, odor and noise are the four criteria considered relating to the issue of compatibility of proposed development with the surrounding land uses; that the proposed ACLF will have de minimis traffic impact because access is on Fruitville Road; that visual impacts are nil as substantial vegetation surrounds the property; that no adverse odor or noise impacts will occur. Mr. Freedman stated that the Staff's analysis of the amended petition now concurs with the petitioner's original contention that the ACLF proposal with access on Fruitville Road will not impact the surrounding roadways; however, two of the cluster housing proposal recommended by Staff have access on Golden Sands Drive which will increase by 116 the daily trips on that residential street. Mr. Freedman submitted for the record, displayed on the overhead projector, and explained the following four exhibits of alternative land uses and concept plans for the subject property: Exhibit #1 RSF-2 zoning. 14 lots on a cul-de-sac. Exhibit #2 RMF-4 zoning. ACLF with access on Fruitville Road, a 50-foot wide buffer, parking closest to Golden Sands Drive, Elexible design which preserves trees, and 75-feet of space from the eastern boundary of the building to the nearest adjacent property line. Exhibit #3 RSF-4 zoning. 23 cluster housing units on 50 X 50 square-foot lots. Exhibit #4 RSF-4 zoning. 24 Cluster housing units developed as duplexes Mr. Freedman stated that Conservation Objective 3, which addresses the restoration and preservation of the natural habitat, was taken into consideration when developing the petitioner's conceptual plans for the ACLF; that the ACLF will have no impact on over 60 percent of the four hundred plus trees on site; that an RSF-4 cluster housing plan will have a major impact on the trees; and that any single-family development, whether duplexes or detached, will have a major, adverse impact on the trees. Edward Stewart, ASCL, Landscape Architect, Stewart-Washmuth & Company, came before the Commission and submitted for the record a summary chart of the tree counts for the four alternative land uses. Mr. Stewart stated that he was retained by Bishop and Associates to render an opinion about how the conceptual site plans presented would affect tree growth on the subject site; that the four-acre site is densely populated with approximately 470 trees; that the proposed ACLF will have the least impact on specimen trees of any of the proposals presented; that the 50-foot buffer protects the trees and reduces noise impact to a minimum; that the impact on the Book 38 Page 12188 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. 047 Jo azis 047 agesnIIT 07 a7TS 047 07 quepefpe sarazadozd Jo sydezbogoyd rogpaford peayoAo 047 uO pakerdstp ueupaaia IW rotqegayzeur pou ST AT SOAeTTeq anq 'sak pazezs sqgay IW pomerAez uaaq pey sueld zazsnto pasodoad s,ueupaas *IW JT paxse pue Tesodoid S,3je7s uey? ssal sirun BATI ST resodoid SIouoTATad a47 7e47 pazezs uosIegged rauorssyumroo 'paAes aq nou IITM saa7 pue 'pasodoid sarun bursnoy eisnto Jo zaqunu 0u7 477M etgerreAe pou ST KATIIqIxeT3 047 7247 isquguerynbei aoueurpio uorapegoid aaIL S,K7TO 047 poaur nou IITM uetd adaouoo bursnoy pezsnto arun-EE papuguropa S,Ijezs 047 7eyz pazezs sqqaIy IW ueudoTOABp Arpureg-erbuys e JoJ uey? IIOV ue JoJ ssapoad buruozaz 047 uT ToIquoo ajour aABy pInoM uorssyuuoo 047 72y7 !seazz ajour aAzasaid pou IITM sburttemp Aryuej-atbuys 1eyz !quouegess 7e47 47TM AIreuofssajord soaibestp au 7ey7 IIOV ue uey? saa1z azour OAzOsaId ITIM stun Terquaprse Kryuej-eTbuys 7eyz JJe7s Kq epeu ureto e 07 burpuodsai aze seuorataad a47 7eu7 pazezs ueupaaa IW 7dapuop queejsyp ATegalduos e ageisnIIT ptnoo AIquenbasqns paquasad uetd etTs e 1eyz fuoraeinbrjuoo pageIsnIIT a47 uT piinq 07 ATuwroo 07 reuoratad 047 sse zouueo uorssyuwo 047 pazezs uosIegzed rauorssyumroo aITnq ST JIOV ue JT a7TS 047 woy panoura. aq IITM rogouerp uT sayour LE 0017 auo pue 'rogauetp ut soyour 22 saa17 Jo aIdnoo e 'regeueyp uT sayour 42 IaAO saa1z 0a147 zeyz pazezs ueupaaa IW *soa1? uo poedur 7seal 047 aAEy IITM JIOV auz zeyz pageporez aq ueo a7fs 047 uo soa1? zayzo JO saaz ured 2eyz !aIinq aze sburttemp AtyueJ-etburs JT quaozed 69 pue atinq ST JIOV ue JT panes aq IITM saazz 047 Jo quepzad 9L 7ey7 sageigsuouep sburItemp Aryuej-etbuys 47TM asn JIOV a47 Jo uostzeduroo e zeyz lazts a47 uo seaz Jo sadKz queejsyp a47 ITe JoJ pagonpuoo SeM sisKreue ST47 7eyz !peAes aq uep saa.7 s(eo 047 Jo quapied ZL JO 802 'ueupoaia IW Kq paquasaid uetd adaouoo bursnoy jegsnto run-1z 'pauoz 4-4Sa 047 47TM ey7 !panes aq ueo saaz s(eo 04z Jo quepzed 68 Io 092 'AToV pasodoid 047 471M 2eyz Kazedoid 042 Jo suotziod Terquao-ya.zou pue ureyniou a4z 7e punoy ST saa1z aseyz Jo zaqunu nazeaz6 0u7 7ey7 lusaai ueuroads, pareprsuos are zegeuetp uT sayour 05-12 aze yorym saa1? esotpuezb KitenstA azou 'rebaet a4z 'azts zoafqns a47 07 satidde 7T se 1ey pazezs 71eMa7S IW "'soa1? ueuroads, uorssazdxe 047 Jo uorarurjep e Io/pue MOTeOIJTIET JoJ passe ououep.zes IoKew OOTA aIInq aze sburttomp kryuej-erbuys JT Iezeab aq pInom suezsks 00.1 popuozxe saazz *W'a 00:9 $6/12/80 68TZT ebed 8E xoog trees; and stated that the height of the trees on the subject parcel ranges from 14 feet to above 60 feet. Mr. Richardson distributed copies of a report entitled "Rebuttal of City Staff Findings"; and stated that the Staff report includes statements with which he disagrees. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Commission is expected to take the report presented into consideration prior to making a decision? Mr. Richardson stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson stated that ample time has not been provided to read the material being presented and entered into the record by the petitioners; that the Commission cannot be held accountable for a vote if ample time is not provided to read the material pertinent to the issue. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she agrees. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification as to whether the material presented is a summary of material the Commission has either had in writing, orally, or both in the past. Attorney Rees, stated that a large portion of the testimony from the petitioners, agents, expert witnesses, and consultants has been in furtherance of prior basic testimony, either within the application itself or as supplemented by documents submitted in the record or verbal testimony; that some information is new as a response was required to several subsequently issued Staff reports moving from a recommendation of RSF-4 cluster-housing to RSF-3 cluster-housing and back to RSF-4 cluster-housing; that the changes in the Staff report resulted in the petitioners being unable to file documents in advance of the meeting; that the petitioners are trying to be responsive by providing the data base legally required to allow approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment application for transmittal purposes; that the petitioners hope the Commission would find that this hearing can be closed and appropriate. action taken this evening; that the city Attorney provided the petitioners with a letter dated June 26, 1995, indicating that certain documents provided by the petitioner in the appendix to the legal action which had been filed on the MCI denial were not properly within the record; that the petitioners have had difficulty with agreement on this. Attorney Rees entered into the record the City Attorney's letter with duplicate copies of the material located in the Appendix of the petitioner's complaint against the City. Attorney Rees stated that a supplemental traffic study, performed by Tampa Bay Engineering on May 2, 1995, was not included in the Book 38 Page 12190 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12191 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. record of the proceedings. Attorney Rees entered into the record a duplicate supplemental of the Tampa Bay Engineering traffic study. Attorney Rees stated that some question has been raised as to the history of ownership on the subject property. Attorney Rees submitted for the record deeds of record documenting that the individual parcels have been collected and are presently being held by the Successor Trustee. Attorney Rees further stated that titling of these properties and the aggregation into the 5.2 acre parcel occurred during a period of time in which the City was commencing public workshops through the Planning Department, and studying the Fruitville corridor both west and east of Beneva Road to implement specific land use decisions relative to frontages west of Beneva Road; that there was a recommendation for the creation of a mixed-use residential district east of Beneva Road, and the type of multiple-family zone district being proposed was specifically recognized back in the mid 1985 through 1987 period as being a considered recommendation, but was never formally adopted; however, the Commission implemented this district west of Beneva Road; that he respectrully requests the Commission consider his professional, legal opinion which can be found in the summary on pages 14-16 of his letter dated August 21, 1995. The following people came before the Commission. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), asked if this public hearing is a continuation of the first hearing or is a modification of the first hearing, and if this presentation concerns a Small Scale Development Activity (SSDA) at the conclusion of which a decision will be made to transmit to the State for approval? Ms. Schenk stated that a public hearing is being held at a transmittal stage, that the standard report will be made if the Commission decides to transmit 95-PA-08 to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA); that a second public hearing will be held in the fall to adopt an ordinance if the petition is approved; that the proposal is not considered a Small Scale Development Activity. Mr. Babb stated that the public hearing was advertised as an SSDA, and has progressed through all the relevant steps; that at an earlier public hearing the City Attorney stated that a sector study should probably have been performed for the subject parcel; that no study has been performed and, as a result, no evidence exists for the assertions made by the petitioners; that no established procedures are included in the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Code for Small Scale Development Activities, that established procedures should be determined and defined for the Comprehensive Plan, so the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), the Commission, and the general public can understand how to deal with such matters; that the Commission should deny this petition as it stands. Dan Loebeck, representing the Growth-restraint Environmental organization (GEO) and himself, 1450 South Shade Avenue (34237), stated that he travels the intersection of Fruitville Road and Golden Sands Drive frequently and, as a citizen of the City, is concerned about increasing land use permissibility; that the manner in which traffic and land use regulations affect the citizens of the City must be taken into consideration; that a fundamental and major issue is that the Comprehensive Plan states that two dozen areas in the City are appropriate for rezonings; and according to Policy 1.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, future sector studies will provide the background necessary for any designation of new IMAs or changes to IMA boundaries; that no sector study has been performed encompassing the area in question; that even though the increase in density may not have a tremendous impact at first, it will become tremendous at this intersection in the future; that this intersection is already one of the busiest and most dangerous in the City; that a market exists for $80,000 homes, and particularly for affordable housing; that State and Regional policies call upon the City to enhance affordable housing; that he objects to the developer receiving unlimited time to make their case and that each member of the public has only five minutes to cover all these points; that an RSF-4 Zone District is a doubling of the density in this area; that Staff's recommendation is that the proposal is incompatible with adjoining neighborhood land uses and not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that ample facts, evidence, and testimonies have been given; that the fundamental policy of the Comprehensive Plan is that a new IMA should not be created before a sector study is done; that the Commission will vote no on this petition if the Comprehensive Plan means anything to the City. City Clerk and Auditor Robinson stated that it is after 11:30 p.m. and a motion is necessary in order to continue the meeting. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to continue the meeting to complete the topic on the table. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to continue the meeting as presented on the agenda. Motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Schenk stated that the Commission is in the middle of a quasi- judicial hearing and a motion is needed to continue the hearing to the next meeting. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to continue the present hearing at its Book 38 Page 12192 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12193 08/21/95 6:00 P.M. current stage until its conclusion at the next Commission meeting when a full Commission is present. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a full Commission will be present at the September 18, 1995, regular Commission meeting. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that some citizens have been waiting all evening for their opportunity to speak. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to continue the meeting to complete the agenda. Motion died for lack of second. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 95-PA-05, ADDS LANGUAGE TO LAND USE POLICY 1.3 THAT EXEMPTS PROPERTIES FOR WHICH A SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING ORDINANCE PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN AND THEN REVERTED TO THEIR FORMER ZONE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DUE TO AN EXPIRED SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. POLICY CHANGE ALLOWS THESE "REZONED PROPERTIES" TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE REZONED TO THEIR ORIGINAL ZONE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION, OR A LESS INTENSIVE ZONE DISTRICT CLABSIPICATION, PROVIDED THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERALIZED FUTURE LAND USE MAP = CONTINUED TO NEXT REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING (SEPTEMBER 18, 1995) AT WHICH A FULL COMMISSION WILL BE PRESENT (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #4 (2082) through (2130) Sarah Schenk of the City Attorney's office stated that Petition No. 95-PA-05 is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; that the public hearing will have to be re-advertised unless it opened and continued to another meeting. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to continue the public hearing on 95-PA-05 until a meeting at which a full commission is present. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a full commission will be present at the September 18, 1995, regular City Commission meeting. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 11. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2132) There being no motion to continue the meeting past 11:30 p.m., Mayor Merrill adjourned the regular meeting of August 21, 1995, at 11:36 p.m. L DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: Bill E Robexson BILLY E2 ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 38 Page 12194 08/21/95 6:00 P.M.