BOOK 38 Page 11831 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 10, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Delores Dry, Nora Patterson (arrived 7:02 p.m.), and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 7:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Merrill requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that petitioners have 30 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Commissioner Patterson arrived at 7:02 p.m. 1. BOARD ACTIONS : REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REPORT OF THEIR SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1995 AND PARTIAL REPORT OF MAY 3, 1995 - APPROVED THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND APPROACH FOR THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR), REFERRED MOTION DIRECTING LEGAL STAFF TO PREPARE A MORATORIUM TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CLARIFICATION AND A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIFIC DATES (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0088) through (1186) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission. Ms. Carter presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's special meetings of April 19, 1995, and May 3, 1995, and regular meeting of May 3, 1995: A. 95-PA-07 (220 Lockwood Ridge Road) : Petition to amend Future Land Use Map #12 to expand sub-area 3 to allow a change in land use from Residential Single Family (RSF-3) to Office Park (OP). Portions of Serena Street, a platted but undeveloped road, are included in the request. Ms. Carter stated that at its April 19 meeting the PBLP found Petition 95-PA-07 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended adoption of Alternative 3 to the City Commission for amendment to the Sarasota City Plan to create a new Impact Management Area (IMA) sub-area in Future Land Use Map #12, designated for "OP" use only, conditioned upon the vacation of Serena Street and enhanced buffering. B. 95-PA-08 (3638 Fruitville Road and 3, 15, 36, and 44 Golden Sands Drive): Petition to amend Future Land Use Map #11 to include an Impact Management Area (IMA) that would allow a change in land use from Residential (RSF 2 & 3) to Medical, Charitable and Institutional (MCI) or Residential Multi-Family (RMF-5). Ms. Carter stated that the public hearing on 95-PA-08 was continued from the April 19 special meeting to the regular meeting of May 3, 1995, at which time the PBLP found Petition 95-PA-08 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission, based on the following conditions proffered by the petitioner: Use of the property restricted to an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) with a maximum number of 230 units and a 5,000 square foot ancillary clinic; An enhanced vegetative buffer with native vegetation; Limited access on Fruitville Road; and A maximum height not to exceed 35 feet. C. 95-PA-06 (2929 Floyd Street): Petition to amend Existing and Future Land Use Map #1 to include annexed property for continued Residential Single Family (RSF-3) use. Ms. Carter stated that at its April 19 meeting the PBLP found Petition 95-PA-06 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission. D. 95-PA-09 (2141 Hansen Street, 3940 School Avenue, and 3931, 3933,3939, 3943-47 and 3951 Dearborn Avenue) : Petition to amend Existing and Future Land Use Map #1 to include annexed property and to amend Future Land Use Map #28 to allow a change in land use from Residential Multi- Family (RMF-2) to Commercial Intensive (CI). BOOK 38 Page 11832 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11833 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Carter stated that at its April 19 meeting the PBLP found Petition 95-PA-09 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission of placing the site in an IMA with eligibility for CI land uses and restrictions addressing compatibility with the adjacent multi-family residential zone designation by use of neighborhood buffering and limited vehicular access. E. 95-PA-05 (Land Use Element) : Petition to amend Land Use Policy 1.3 by adding language regarding "rezoned properties". with conditional rezoning approvals as of March 13, 1989. Ms. Carter stated that the public hearing on 95-PA-05 was continued from the April 19 special meeting to the regular meeting of May 3, 1995, at which time the PBLP recommended that the City Commission place the three parcels identified in regard to proposed Petition 95-PA-05 for consideration during the EAR process and direct Staff to place any other properties with similar conditions in the process for the next available Comprehensive Plan revision. F. Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) : Proposed schedule and approach for the EAR of the Sarasota City Plan. Ms. Carter stated that at its special meeting of May 3, 1995, the PBLP accepted the Staff recommendation for a moratorium on Comprehensive Plan Amendments during 1996 and for the EAR schedule and procedure whereby public workshops will be held on Wednesday nights, except the first Wednesday of the month throughout the months of September and October; that the PBLP also recommended that public workshops required in the Comprehensive Planning process be scheduled prior the filing of a formal petition for an amendment. Ms. Carter stated that the PBLP adopted a resolution regarding proposed Petitions 95-PA-05, 95-PA-06, 95-PA-07, 95-PA-08, and 95- PA-09 for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by the City Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the Administration recommends approval of the proposed schedule and approach for the EAR of the Sarasota City Plan; that an Administration's recommendation for the individual items scheduled for public hearing will be provided during each of the Staff presentations. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she will move to accept the PBLP report. Mayor Merrill stated that acceptance of the PBLP report is necessary only if the Commission is adopting the Board's actions; that the PBLP has adopted the actions; that acceptance of the report is not technically required under Roberts Rules of Order; that a motion addressing the Administration's request for approval of the EAR schedule and approach would be appropriate. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve the proposed schedule and approach for the EAR. Commissioner Patterson stated that the schedule would not permit any Comprehensive Plan Amendments during the year 1996. Ms. Carter stated that is correct; however, the EAR schedule and approach and the recommended moratorium are two separate issues; that approving the schedule and approach would not approve the moratorium; that an exception to allow Comprehensive Plan Amendments for annexation petitions with equivalent zone uses has been proposed in conjunction with the recommendation for a moratorium during 1996. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to approve the preliminary schedule and EAR approach. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Ms. Carter stated that the Administration recommends that the Commission direct legal staff to prepare and set for public hearing an ordinance establishing a moratorium on Comprehensive Plan Amendments in 1996 exempting annexations with equivalent land uses; that Staff will be conducting the EAR under a stringent deadline; that an enormous amount of work is involved; that changing the Comprehensive Plan while conducting the EAR would cause difficulties; that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will not be permitted until the EAR is completed, submitted, and found sufficient; that the scheduled completion date of the EAR is March 1996; that the State requires 90 days to review the EAR; therefore, the EAR could not be approve until June. Commissioner Patterson stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendments could be permitted in July. Ms. Carter stated that is correct if the EAR is found sufficient in June; that eliminating Comprehensive Plan Amendments in 1996 is not a State mandate; that Staff is proposing the moratorium to ensure the City is able to complete the EAR on schedule. Commissioner Patterson stated the City could delay acceptance of applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments until final approval of the EAR is received. City Attorney Taylor stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendments cannot be approved prior to approval of the EAR according to State Statute; that the State mandate becomes effective upon the deadline for completion of the EAR which is March 1996; that Comprehensive BOOK 38 Page 11834 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11835 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Plan Amendments could not subsequently be approved until the EAR was found sufficient; however, the lengthy process of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications could begin prior to the EAR being found sufficient. Mayor Merrill stated that the word "moratorium" is of concern. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Administration's recommendation did not specify the length or dates for which the moratorium would be effective. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to direct legal staff to prepare a moratorium for Comprehensive Plan Amendments in 1996 with the understanding that the specific dates of the moratorium be for the shortest time necessary to permit adherence to all statutory requirements and preparation of the EAR by Staff. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion leaves the dates open ended; that she is concerned with having a moratorium in effect for the entire year of 1996; that the staffing provisions should be reviewed if the Planning Department is not capable of processing Comprehensive Plan Amendments during the EAR process. Commissioner Patterson continued that she is particularly concerned with applications for annexations; that prohibiting a change in land use for County properties annexing into the City would be a disincentive if an opportunity to acquire a different land use was available in the County but not in the City; that requiring a property to retain its existing land use when annexed into the city could prevent planned development of a property. Commissioner Patterson requested a comment from the Mayor regarding his negative vote on approval of the EAR schedule. Mayor Merrill stated that the EAR process is too lengthy and bureaucratic and should be simplified. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she views the EAR process as an unfunded mandate; that updating and reviewing Comprehensive Plans is a good exercise; however, the EAR process is excessive. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for the period of time necessary for a moratorium if the process is expedited? Ms. Carter stated that the City has offered and some requests have been received to review requested properties for a land use change during the EAR process; that the review would be at no charge to the property owner; that the schedule adopted by ordinance for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process begins in November of each year for the upcoming year; that the moratorium proposed is for the cycle beginning in November 1995; that valid requests received and reviewed during the EAR process could be included with the evaluation amendments submitted in March 1997, one year after submittal of the EAR; that under the moratorium proposed, valid Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests delayed until November 1996 would be processed for completion in August 1997; that some time could be saved if a petitioner is successful through the EAR process. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Mayor Merrill, it was moved to refer the motion to direct legal staff to prepare a moratorium to the Administration for clarification and a written recommendation on specific dates Commissioner Pillot stated that the action requested in the motion proposed is the same action requested in the previous motion; that he has confidence in the Administration's judgement on the time necessary for a moratorium; that the Administration has continually demonstrated competence and a desire to serve the public as expeditiously as possible; therefore, he feels the second motion is unnecessary and will vote against it. Commissioner Patterson stated that a lack of confidence in the Administration was not intended in the motion; that depending on the Administration's response, for example, if a 1.5 year delay on reviewing Comprehensive Plan Amendments is reported as necessary due to the level of staffing in the Planning Department, she may vote a totally different budget in September; that she does not feel comfortable voting on a motion as open ended as the first motion put forth. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if waiting for a response from the Administration regarding a time line on the moratorium would affect the EAR schedule previously approved? Ms. Carter responded, no. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to refer the motion directing legal staff to prepare a moratorium to the Administration for clarification and a written recommendation on specific dates. Motion carried (4 to 1) : Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a report will be made at the first regular meeting in June. Mayor Merrill requested that City Attorney Taylor provide a brief description of the Snyder Decision and the guidelines to be followed during the public hearings. City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearings tonight fall under a statutory process required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; that the Snyder Decision was a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court which requires a quasi-judicial procedure as opposed to a legislative procedure in land use decisions affecting a BOOK 38 Page 11836 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11837 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. particular parcel of propertyi therefore, the City Commission will be hearing evidence on which to base its decision to grant or deny the land use requests presented; that evidence presented via correspondence or testimony must be based on facts; that opinions relating only to someone's feelings is not considered proper evidence; that a citizen stating an objection to a development because they feel it will cause significant traffic impacts at their residence would need to present factual evidence on which the City Commission could act; that the decision rendered by the City Commission must be based on competent, substantial evidence to be sustainable in a court of law should the decision be challenged. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3872, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 95-PA-07, PERTAINING TO REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 NORTH LOCKWOOD RIDGE ROAD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = MOTION TO PASS ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING FAILED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (1198) through #2 (0921) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development; Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, and Philip Lieberman, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission. Ms. Carter stated that the proposed ordinance is a small-scale development amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which, if adopted, would be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs from which a determination on consistency would be received within 90 days. Mr. Lieberman displayed a Current Zoning/Subdivision Map on the overhead projector to identify the subject parcel and explain the request. Mr. Lieberman stated that the petitioner requests an amendment to Future Land Use Map #12 to expand the existing Impact Management Area (IMA) sub-area 3 northward from Serena Street and Lockwood Ridge Roads; that the eastern end of Serena Street was vacated on December 20, 1993, per the request of the Church of Nazarene, which, as a quid pro quo, dedicated a strip of land so that Beethoven Street could be extended through to connect Serena Street for access; that during the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) discussion on the vacation of Serena Street, Staff was requested to investigate the expansion of the subject IMA during the next Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Lieberman continued that the current zoning is Residential Single Family (RSF-3); that the proposed amendment would allow a zoning change to Office Park (OP) or Residential Multi-Family (RMF-4); that the Neighborhood Workshop was well attended by the potentially affected residents; that the residents supported the proposal provided the RMF designation, included in the original IMA, was not expanded; that no objection was raised to an OP use; that the petitioner intends to assemble four vacant parcels within the existing IMA with the subject parcel to develop 30,000 square feet of office floor area. Mr. Lieberman further stated that the following issues are relevant: The proposed IMA, if adopted, will decrease the future housing supply by 11 units but if rezoned to OP will add an estimated 34 jobs; Buffering to existing homes on the south side of Jolson Drive. Utility Right-or-way Mr. Lieberman stated that the petitioner has committed to provide appropriate and additional landscaped buffers, berms, and site design to protect the adjacent neighborhoods; that relocation of utilities would be necessary; however, the five-feet required for a densely planted buffer area would not provide adequate space on which to relocate necessary utilities; that a future request to vacate Serena Street is anticipated; that the petitioner would gain 50 extra feet if Serena Street is vacated, a significant width of which could be transferred to the northern boundary and used for a utility easement plus a buffer; that appropriate relocations would be required on a site plan utilizing the land as a unified office park. Transportation Mr. Lieberman stated that currently, Lockwood Ridge and Fruitville Roads are both operating at a level of service "C"; that according to the traffic study prepared by Tampa Bay Engineering for the petitioner, the 68 trips generated at peak hour from the existing and proposed IMAS combined would not degrade the existing level of service which is acceptable under Comprehensive Plan standards. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Staff spent a substantial amount of time in the 1980s studying and identifying the limits of the IMA area which stops at Serena Street; and asked if Staff has determined that those limits should be changed at this time? BOOK 38 Page 11838 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11839 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Robinson stated that Staff believes the existing residential zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that secondary to the application for the petition, Staff reviewed the site at the request of the PBLP which felt the zoning line would be better located at a mid-block location than at a street location; that the PBLP recommended approval of the proposed IMA as a compact development unified with the existing IMA. Commissioner Patterson stated that the PBLP finding was actually contrary to the finding of Staff. Ms. Robinson stated that Staff did not make a recommendation to the PBLP; that the land use as it currently exists is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, Staff's finding would be that RSF zoning would be appropriate at the site. Commissioner Pillot asked if Ms. Robinson is stating that Staff finds the proposed zoning inconsistent? Ms. Robinson cited the following statement: The requested use as found by the Staff is inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan. The adopted plan was based on a study conducted in 1987 which called for maintaining the residential areas north of the IMAs along Fruitville Road. At that time an analysis was made to ensure that the parcels were developable under the allowed zoning districts. Ms. Robinson stated that the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and at least four residential neighborhood policies can be detailed; however, public input on these issues is also important; that the neighborhood supported the petition. Commissioner Pillot stated that Ms. Robinson cited the findings of Planning Department Staff in 1987; and asked if the position of the Planning Department in 1995 is to oppose the proposed amendment? Ms. Robinson responded, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that Ms. Robinson site the Staff Analysis included in the PBLP package dated April 19, 1995. Ms. Robinson cited the following: It also should be noted that a redesignation to "OP" does not guarantee that the 30,000 square-foot size of the office park proposed by the developer will actually take place. Theoretically, under OP zoning, the subject parcel, which is approximately, 80,000 square feet, could be 30% covered with a building as high as three stories, for a total of up to 72,000 square feet of office floor area. If a parking garage were built, the coverage could increase to 50% (120,000 square feet). Mayor Merrill asked if the proposed office park will have access to Beethoven Street? Mr. Lieberman responded, no. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Traffic Engineer selected by the City to perform the traffic study for the petitioner addressed the ramifications of increased traffic on the residential streets inside a neighborhood or if streets for which concurrency is a factor were the only streets addressed? Ms. Carter stated that the Engineering Department establishes the criteria for the traffic study. Mr. Lieberman stated that he understands the presumption of the traffic consultant was that no east bound traffic would filter through Jolson Drive, Gershwin Drive or Melody Lane if the congestion at the Lockwood Ridge/Fruitville Road intersection worsened; that those roads lead only to Bailey Road, and there is no traffic signal protection at the Fruitville/Bailey Road intersection; that the traffic study focused only on Fruitville and Lockwood Ridge Roads. Commissioner Patterson stated that buffering becomes significant when a three-story building could be sited next to residential homes; that vacating Serena Street would provide the petitioner with the ability to expand the width of buffering; and asked for the specifics associated with the additional buffering offered by the petitioner. Mr. Lieberman stated that the petitioner stated their intent was to exceed the five-foot requirement for a densely planted buffer area; that the utility right-of-way land would provide additional distance between the back property lines of the residential lots and the office building; that a more specific answer could be provided by the petitioner. Ms. Carter stated that to address sensitive issues, a condition for enhanced buffering has been added in former IMAs during the site and development plan stage. Commissioner Patterson stated that the term "enhanced buffering" is vague; and asked if the parcel is placed in an IMA with that terminology could the Commission upon granting the street vacation require, for example, 50 feet of buffering? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and the Conditional Rezoning process are two distinct processesi that the first process must be completed before a parcel can be considered under the second process; that approving the BOOK 38 Page 11840 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11841 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. requested IMA would make the subject property eligible for a conditional rezoning at a subsequent time; that the Snyder Decision has impacted how particular rezonings are reviewed; that due to the burden of proof required during the Conditional Rezoning process, one could assume that the important decisions with reference to how a site is developed should take place at the Comprehensive Plan level; however, Zoning Code rights are not lost by placing a parcel in an IMA or under a list of eligible zones; that as recognized in the Snyder Decision, the Commission retains the right to impose terms and conditions as required by applicable codes or circumstances of the impact a property use may have on adjacent or surrounding properties. Commissioner Patterson stated that she cannot perceive a property owner submitting a Comprehensive Plan petition that is not site specific. Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission is beginning to ensure a discussion on "process"; that several of the Commissioners have met this week with City Attorney Taylor to discuss that issue; that Commissioners' questions should be specific to the petition rather than to the process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all documents made part of the record at the PBLP meetings of April 19, 1995, and May 3, 1995, as well as the minutes from those meetings are established as part of the record for this petition. Commissioner Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 8:08 p.m. Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, representing petitioner Mr. Jim Rutledge, came before the Commission, made an overhead slide presentation and referred to a board display depicting an aerial view of the proposed site to identify the subject parcel and the existing IMA and to explain the relationship of the property to Fruitville Road and the surrounding developments including the shopping centers to the east and Sarasota Fair Grounds to the southwest. Mr. Freedman submitted his resume for the record to qualify himself as an expert in land planning. Commissioner Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Freedman stated that all the procedures of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process were followed; that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit the petitioner to assemble parcels large enough to properly plan an easily circulating site; that Fruitville and Lockwood Ridge Roads front the existing IMA, creating two front yards; that a third front yard would be created if Serena Street were constructed; that developed by itself, the existing IMA would be surrounded by three front yards for which setback requirements are very restrictive; that the front yard setbacks would limit the developable space and the use of the property; that the required Neighborhood Workshop provided the petitioner an opportunity to discuss the neighborhood's concern with developing a multi-family use on the property; that the petitioner does not intend to develop multi-family on the property and stipulated to OP zoning only at the PBLP meeting; that the existing zoning of the parcel is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan; that the change to the Comprehensive Plan as requested would obviously be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Freedman continued that Staff was asked for changes which took place since the Corridor Study was performed in 1988; that the vacation of the eastern portion of Serena Street is one change which has occurred; that another change is that the land to the north of the Church of Nazarene is now owned by the church. Mr. Freedman further stated that the PBLP direction for the Staff to investigate placing the subject parcel in an IMA during the next Comprehensive Plan update indicated that the petitioner should attempt to assemble the land; that this has been accomplished; that Fruitville Road is an interstate connector with special landscaping and parking requirements; that assembling the properties, vacating the Serena Street right-of-way, and transferring the space gained to the rear of the property will permit the petitioner to more effectively utilize the frontage on Fruitville Road. Mr. Freedman referred to the buffering issue raised and stated that identification of specific buffering is not required until the rezoning process; that a site plan has not been prepared or submitted to the Commission for review; that whether a vacation of Serena Street will be permitted is not known; that many questions will be answered as the process continues; that the Commission would have the right to deny a rezoning petition if the petitioner was not able to demonstrate provision of an adequate buffer to address the Commission's concerns with having an office building abut residential property. Mr. Freedman referred to the utility relocation issue raised and stated that the issue was identified during the review process; that the Public Works Department plans to install a force main down the Serena Street right-of-way in the future; that the proposed development would contribute toward the need to upgrade the sanitary sewer; therefore, the utility project could be cost shared; that the 20-foot wide easement required for the utilities could be located at the rear of the property and correspond with the existing utilities; that the easement would provide at least 20 feet of buffering from the residential properties; that the petitioner intends to provide enhanced buffering in addition to the BOOK 38 Page 11842 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11843 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. requirements; however, the exact width of the buffering is not known at this time. Mr. Freedman stated that access to the neighborhood to the north would not be permitted from the proposed development; that the petitioner's original intent to utilize a portion of Beethoven Street for access is no longer being pursued. Mr. Freedman referred to the Staff Analysis cited and stated that although a three-story building and a parking garage were stated as a maximum use, such a product would not be marketable at the subject location; that in addition, he does not believe such a project would meet concurrency; that projects which do not meet concurrency are never presented to the Commission. Mr. Freedman stated that public services are available to the subject parcel; that the level of service on Fruitville and Lockwood Ridge Roads would not be degraded; that the subject property under OP zoning would provide an ideal location for a small office park similar to the Penn West Park development; that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in protecting the neighborhood to the north with enhanced buffering and restricted access; that in his professional opinion, zoning lines should be drawn in the back yards of properties. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following person came before the Commission: Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that he is not for or against the specific petition currently before the Commission; that he is speaking against all the petitioned amendments; and read in its entirety a prepared speech which focused on the IMA Process and Changes to Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3. Mr. Babb cited and provided his interpretation of Policy Nos. 1.1, 1.3(P2), 1.3( (P6), and 1.4, and Land Use Appendix B, Future Sector Studies. Mr. Babb stated that the procedure being followed to allow the proposed petitions for IMA status has greatly diminished public rights; that the proper processes have not been followed; that the public has never been allowed to participate in a discussion of their neighborhood with the freedom allowed by the legislative process; that the only, public participation permitted before the PBLP and the City Commission has been under the restraints of the quasi-judicial process; that during the PBLP public hearings, the lawyer for the petitioners stated that only their presentations met the legal requirements and that no other substantial evidence or competent witnesses had come before the Board; that many citizens did speak in opposition to the petitions being presented tonight; that the petitions do not comply with Comprehensive Plan policy statements 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4; that properties are available in zone districts which allow the uses the petitioners have requested, but the petitioners have not attempted to locate in those zone districts; that a sector study has not been initiated by the City or any of the petitioners; that a sector study would have allowed all citizens to participate on an equal footing under the legislative process; that no data or ànalysis has been provided in the proper format to support the IMA requests; that since the City has allowed an improper procedure to be followed, the City Attorney has correctly ruled that site-specific land procedures must be considered under the quasi-judicial process, which severely handicaps the citizens; that there is a perception that because a petitioner has filed a request to have his property placed in an IMA, he must be allowed to proceed; that the implication is that the petitioner has acquired rights to proceed under this process; that this is incorrect; that the petitioner who has not followed the correct procedure to gain status should not be allowed to proceed with a petition. Mr. Babb continued that the petitions being considered by the Commission tonight are modified conditional rezonings with quasi- judicial site and development plans; that approving the proposed IMA requests will prevent the PBLP and the City Commission from denying subsequent requests for the rezonings. Mr. Babb requested that the proper procedures as delineated in the Sarasota City Plan be followed and that all the IMA petitions not be allowed to proceed. Mayor Merrill stated that he senses the Commission will attempt to discuss what standards should be used to judge IMA designations; that as Chair, he would like to resolve such a discussion within the next 10 minutes; and requested City Attorney Taylor to provide the guidelines against which the Commission should be judging the proposed petitions for IMA designations. City Attorney Taylor stated that he would not have ruled tonight's proceedings as quasi-judicial had a sector study been initiated; that the Commission needs to question whether the petitioners have made a showing on the record to support that the requests are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that the same standard is used in the rezoning proceedings. Mayor Merrill stated that the Comprehensive Plan is used to evaluate rezonings; and asked what standards are used to place a parcel in an IMA? City Attorney Taylor stated that IMA designations handled in its purest and proper form would require a review by the City Commission as to whether or not the proposal requested without any conditions attached violates any conditions of the existing BOOK 38 Page 11844 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11845 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Comprehensive Plan; that violation of a condition would be the grounds on which the proposal could be rejected. Mayor Merrill asked why the City has two separate processes if the standards for IMA designations and conditional rezonings are both evaluated based on the Comprehensive Plan? City Attorney Taylor stated that the IMA designation is generalized; that a parcel must first be designated in an IMA before the property owner can proceed to the Conditional Rezoning process; that details are not significant at the Comprehensive Plan level because the details are addressed in the second part of the process. Mayor Merrill stated that he hears City Attorney Taylor stating that the standard against which to judge in both processes is whether a petition meets the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan but that details are not significant during the IMA process; that he questions why the level of detail would be different under a quasi-judicial process if placing a parcel in an IMA has to meet all the Comprehensive Plan requirements - the same standard which has to be met under a rezoning. City Attorney Taylor stated that more standards are used at the Conditional Rezoning level than at the Comprehensive Plan level; that in addition to reviewing adherence with the directions, policies, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the impact on the neighborhood, the traffic circulation, the concurrencey, etc., are evaluated when a site plan is submitted during the Conditional Rezoning process. City Attorney Taylor continued that the Commission should be evaluating the facts presented tonight on the particular petitions to determine whether the petitions violate or will generate impacts contrary to any of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; that other information, e.g., the site plan and the size of the buildings, is evaluated when a property placed in an IMA is considered for a rezoning; that at that point, the Commission determines whether conditions are necessary to mitigate negative impacts or whether the rezoning petition should be denied. Commissioner Patterson stated that if any petition to change the Comprehensive Plan could be ruled inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan it seems that decision would be legislative in nature. City Attorney Taylor stated that Commissioner Patterson is correct; however, the petitions presented tonight have been through a process which became specific in terms of details and impacts; that the Snyder Decision stated that a quasi-judicial proceeding is based on the procedures that were followed as well as the nature of a petition. Commissioner Patterson stated that any petition presented to the Commission requests a legislative decision as to whether or not that petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that having an adopted Comprehensive Plan stating the proposed change is not appropriate and having a Staff that supports that position should be sufficient evidence upon which the Commission can vote no. City Attorney Taylor stated that he agrees with Commissioner Patterson's last statement; that the Commission needs nothing more than the professional advice of Staff as to whether a petition violates the Comprehensive Plan to deny that petition. City Attorney Taylor continued that the process has become an issue that is troublesome for the Commission and the Administration; that he recommends a workshop be scheduled to discuss adjustments to the processes being followed. Commissioner Patterson stated that the new legislation recently passed should also be entered into the processes. Mr. Babb stated that the quasi-judicial proceeding followed throughout this Comprehensive Plan Amendment process has prohibited citizens from addressing the Commission without hiring an attorney, a competent land use specialist, etc. Commissioner Patterson asked what impact a citizen's statement of "I do or I don't want that in my neighborhood" would have? City Attorney Taylor stated that all citizens have the right to be heard; however, a fact on which to base the citizen's statement must be presented. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if this process could be halted while a sector study that addresses Fruitville Road is performed? City Attorney Taylor stated that requesting a sector study as an alternative to proceeding with the petitions would be reasonable since information would be gained on which the Commission could base its decision. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that performing a sector study would provide all the citizens an opportunity to discuss the Fruitville Road corridor in open public meetings, permit the petitions to be evaluated in a legislative setting, and eliminate the quasi- judicial restrictions regarding public contact with the Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested a discussion by the Commission on the ramifications of performing a sector study. Mayor Merrill stated that a discussion on process was suggested so the Commission could reach a resolve; that if the Commission BOOK 38 Page 11846 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11847 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. decides to continue with the public hearings tonight, subsequent discussions on the process will be ruled out of order. Commissioner Patterson stated that a sector study was performed at the City's expense in the 1980s; that Staff has not recommended the study be updated; and asked if the Commission has the prerogative to require that the petitioners pay for another sector study? City Attorney Taylor cited the following from Land Use Appendix B, Future Sector Studies: A schedule for completing these studies is outlined in General Plan Appendix E; however, other interested parties may contract for such studies under the supervision of the Planning Department at an earlier date if desired. City Attorney Taylor stated that the use of the word "may" indicates that other interested parties can contract for a sector study to expedite the results. Ms. Robinson stated that the City Commission previously approved a work program which included a sector study for the Fruityille/Beneva Road area in the summer of 1995; that the Administration plans to incorporate the sector study into the EAR. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Joel Freedman came before the Commission and stated that he differs with the opinions expressed that the neighborhood and the public have not been involved in the process; that a Neighborhood Workshop is required for that purpose; that tremendous participation from the affected neighborhood was received and there was no opposition for the proposal at 220 North Lockwood Ridge Road. Mr. Freedman continued that times change which is why the EAR process is required - to review the entire Comprehensive Plan; however, the State Statute also permits that small-scale amendments, which have an acreage limitation, can proceed without a review of the entire Comprehensive Plan; that Staff incorrectly designated the IMA sub- area 3; that the site was not reviewed properly from a land planning standpoint; that as currently configured, the parcels cannot be developed as the high-quality office park that was intended by the original IMA designation; that the existing IMA, with three front yards, will be subject to substantial frontage setbacks; that retaining the existing configuration of the IMA will result in the development of a strip of low-quality offices rather than the high-quality office park the City intended. Mr. Freedman continued that the previous speaker mixed many petitions together; that the affected neighborhood is not against this proposal; that this proposed development will not intrude into the neighborhood streets; that the necessary controls and requirements will be provided during the rezoning process to ensure that City neighborhoods will be protected. Mayor Merrill requested the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Ms. Robinson will be making the Administration's recommendation on each of the petitions tonight. Ms. Robinson stated the following Administration's recommendation: The requested use as found by the Staff is inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use plan and the following policies which further protect the established neighborhoods: Land Use Element Policies 1.1, 1.3 and 2.2 Transportation Policy 1.6 Transportation Objective 5 Housing Element Policy 1.4 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872 by title only. On motion of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Cardamone) and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872 on first reading. Mayor Merrill stated that he agrees the subject parcel is not highly desirable for residential development; that the front yards would be abutting commercial development on Fruitville Road; that the OP zoning is a good compromise for the site; that he supports Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-07. Commissioner Patterson stated that she will not support the motion based on the Administration's recommendation. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion failed (3 to 2): Dry, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes; Cardamone, no. The Commission recessed at 8:58 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3873, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 95-PA-08, PERTAINING TO REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3638 FRUITVILLE ROAD AND 3, 15, 36 AND 44 GOLDEN SANDS DRIVE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BOOK 38 Page 11848 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11849 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - REVISED LANGUAGE OF SECTION 3(A): MOTION TO PASS ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING FAILED (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #2 (0941) through #3 (2249) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development; Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, and Philip Lieberman, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission. Ms. Carter stated that the proposed ordinance is a small-scale development amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which, if adopted, would be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs from which a determination on consistency would be received within 90 days. Mr. Lieberman displayed a Current oning/Subdivision Map on the overhead projector to identify the subject parcel and explain the request. Mr. Lieberman stated that the petitioner requests an amendment to Future Land Use Map #11 to create a 5.2-acre Impact Management Area (IMA) on the south side of Fruitville Road east of Golden Sands Drive to be eligible for a more intensive zoning of Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) or Residential, Multi-Family (RMF-5); that the petitioner intends to build a 230-unit Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) and a 5,000 square-foot infirmary. Mr. Lieberman continued that a great deal of discussion was held at the PBLP meeting concerning the need for ACLF units in the City; however, the City of Sarasota presently has twice the number of ACLF units as Sarasota County; that the percentage of senior citizens in the City of Sarasota is less than in the County; that the percentage in the City of Sarasota is declining whereas it is increasing in the County. Mr. Lieberman further stated that the following issues are relevant to the petition: Compatibility of an ACLF use abutting a residential zone Transportation and Traffic Mr. Lieberman stated that in accordance with the traffic study prepared for the petitioner by Tampa Bay Engineering, the proposal in terms of peak hour traffic would not degrade the level of service on Fruitville Road, Golden Sands Drive or at the Fruitville/Beneva Road intersection; however, the severely congested intersection is operating at a level of service "F" in the peak hour; that a more intense development than is currently permitted under the Future Land Use Map will exasperate the condition at the intersection. Commissioner Patterson requested comment by the Engineering Department; and asked at which point a congested road operating at a level of service "F" would no longer meet concurrency? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the referenced level of service "F" referred to the Fruitville/Beneva Roads intersection analysis only; that the road segment sections are operating, at an acceptable level of service "D" which would be retained if the subject parcel is developed; that further development would not be recommended if the level of service on the road segment sections reached a level of service "F." Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Traffic Engineer selected by the City to perform the traffic study for the petitioner addressed the ramifications of increased traffic on the surrounding residential streets? Mr. Daughters stated that the traffic impact on Golden Sands Drive was addressed; that the traffic study was performed twice; that the original traffic study based on a closure of Golden Sands Drive and construction of a new access road into the Eastwood Subdivision showed significant impact to the neighborhood; that the second traffic study without the closure of Golden Sands Drive showed minimal impact to the neighborhood. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all documents made part of the record at the PBLP meetings of April 19, 1995, and May 3, 1995, the minutes from those meetings, as well as the Sarasota City Code, City of Sarasota Zoning Code, and City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan are established as part of the record for this petition. Ms. Robinson stated the following Administration's recommendation: The adopted Future Land Use Plan was based on a study conducted in 1987. The decision was made to preserve the existing residential neighborhoods of the entire area east of Beneva Road. The requested use is inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan and the following policies which further protect the established neighborhoods: Land Use Element Policies 1.1, 1.3 and 2.2 Transportation Policy 1.4 Transportation Policy 1.6 Transportation Objective 5 BOOK 38 Page 11850 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11851 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Housing Element Policy 1.4 Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, Steve D. Rees, Esquire, and Craig Smith, MAI, representing the petitioner Stottlemyer Trust, came before the Commission and submitted their resumes for the record. Mr. Freedman stated that he was not aware recommendations from the Administration would be made at the public hearings tonight; that hearing the Staff recommendation prior to the presentation on this petition is appreciated; that it allows for a response to be made on the comments whereas that opportunity was not available on the previous petition presented. Mr. Freedman made an overhead slide presentation and referred to a board display depicting an aerial view of the proposed site to identify the subject parcels and explain the request for IMA designation to allow for potential MCI zoning with restricted conditions as proffered. Mr. Freedman stated that the requested area which is under one ownership includes one large rectangular parcel currently zoned RSF-2 with frontage on Fruitville Road and four lots currently zoned RSF-3 on the east side of Golden Sands Drive; that a fence divides the subject property with the residential property to the east; that an enhanced buffering of dense, native vegetation would be retained. Attorney Rees stated that he is a practicing attorney in the Land Use Division of the Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg Law Firm; that he has successfully authored and had adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendments in the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County, authored Zoning Code amendments within Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, and successfully defended consistency challenges to the State Land Adjudicatory Commission as well as having participated in consistency defenses to Comprehensive Plan Amendments within Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. Attorney Rees continued that his specific task was to assist the petitioner and Mr. Freedman in the assembly of data to demonstrate internal consistency of the proposed amendment with the existing Sarasota City Plan and to demonstrate that the approval of the amendment would be compatible with both the State Comprehensive Plan and Regional Policy Plan; that the application as filed and supplemented specifically identified those goals, programs, and policies within the City, Regional and State Comprehensive Plans that support and, in his professional opinion, mandate a determination of consistency and approval of the amendment application; that the application filed includes on pages 23 to 29 excerpts of the State Comprehensive Plan which detail the following provisions: 1) elderly, 2) adequate housing for the elderly, 3) health issues associated with the elderly, and 4) land use policies necessary to provide suitable, affordable housing locations and supportive services for the elderly; that excerpts of the Southwest Florida Regional Plan were included on pages 29 to 43; that Part 2 of Part I discusses the human systems within the region as to the demographics and extent of the population age 55 and older; that Part II is similar to the State Comprehensive Plan in discussing the elderly, housing for the elderly, health needs for the elderly, and the land use classification to provide housing; that Part III discusses the means by which the region and local governments implement strategies through fruition to further the Regional Plan; that pages 4 through 18 of the application review the existing Sarasota City Plan and identify goals, objectives and/or policies in support of the request. Attorney Rees further stated that in the review and discussion with Staff, it was mutually recognized that for this amendment application to be filed the only necessary change amending the Comprehensive Plan would be the revision to the Future Land Use Map; that no textural material or additional data was found necessary for inclusion within the amendment packet to support the IMA request. Attorney Rees further stated that by State Statute as well as the City's adopted ordinance, the consideration of the approval of the proposed amendment to the Sarasota City Plan is not a development order which triggers a concurrency determination; that the traffic study performed included an analysis of closing Golden Sands Drive; that once the initial traffic study report was released, the petitioner determined, after consultation with the City's Engineering Staff, to abandon further mutual consideration of that proposal; that a formal letter of withdrawal of the petitioners intent to vacate a portion of Golden Sands Drive was filed with the City Auditor and Clerk; that a second traffic study dealing with the existing transportation system was performed; that the revised report concluded that no improvements to the system were necessary as a result of the proposal; that one of the important aspects of the study was to investigate whether there would be an impact to the residential neighborhood surrounding the subject property; that the traffic consultant determined that the one or two trips generated at the peak P.M. hour had no impact on the transportation network. Attorney Rees further stated that the petitioner proffered four conditions to address the issues of compatibility Staff indicated should be addressed. Attorney Rees cited the following four conditions included in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance: (a) The uses of the property shall be restricted solely to an adult congregate living facility with a maximum of 230 BOOK 38 Page 11852 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11853 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. units (ACLF) and a medical clinic with a maximum of 5,000 square feet. Attorney Rees stated that the terms "ancillary" and "affiliated" were used in his testimony before the PBLP meeting since the medical clinic is an essential component of providing an overall resident healthcare system; that a clinic within a housing complex is only available in the MCI Zone District; that modification to the condition as drafted in the proposed ordinance is suggested to further clarify the petitioner's intent; that substituting the words "together with an affiliated" for the word "and" would clarify that the property, if approved for MCI rezoning, could not be utilized for a medical clinic only. (b) The sole ingress and egress to the site shall be onto Fruitville Road; Attorney Rees stated that the petitioner's original application did not propose a driveway onto any residential street; that the proposal to close Golden Sands Drive was withdrawn. (c) Petitioner shall provide enhanced buffering utilizing native vegetation. Attorney Rees stated that the provision was meaningfully offered by the petitioner in recognition of the following factors: 1. the site is heavily treed and well vegetated on the perimeter abutting the existing residential properties; 2. a 50-foot buffer is required for properties in the MCI district that abut residential; and 3. the majority of the 50-foot buffer would be retained in its present vegetated state in accordance with the Tree Protection Ordinance and can be enhanced in a specific site plan consideration. (d) The maximum height of all structures shall be 35 feet. Attorney Rees stated that within the MCI district, the 35-foot requirement can be increased depending upon the setback of the buildings from the property line; that the petitioner's intent was to retain the maximum height of any structure at no greater than 35 feet; that inclusion of the condition assures the City and the adjacent neighborhood that structures, even if built to a three- story or 35-foot height elevation, would be at or below the height of a majority of the trees on the west, south, and east perimeters. Mr. Smith stated that Smith-Parke & Company, Inc., a local real estate advisory firm with specialization in long-term care, specifically ACLFS, conducted a highest and best use analysis of the subject property; that the proposal envisions an ACLF oriented to those in need of personal care services; that the facility, limited to no kitchens, would cater to those over the age of 80; that the affiliated clinic is envisioned to serve principally the resident population; however, the trend in the industry is to use staff persons in home-health type settings to reach out to the larger community, which allows the elderly to remain in their homes longer than has traditionally been possible. Mr. Smith continued that the following four main points are important for consideration on the potential adoption of the proposal: 1. The uses allowed under the existing zoning are not economically viable. Mr. Smith stated that the petitioner, because of his purchase price, would obviously suffer a significant economic loss under the existing zoning based on the envisioned appearance, the approximate sales price, and the cost of developing a single-family subdivision on the subject parcel; that sales prices of similarly zoned properties suggest a loss; that the policy of the City to provide housing would be frustrated because this site could not economically be developed as a single-family subdivision. 2. The proposed use represents a compatible use with a neighborhood and the location. Mr. Smith stated that the site bears two relatively difficult characteristics: frontage on a six-lane highway and abutment with single-family residential; that the difficulty in attempting to merge the two issues is that a use compatible with the frontage is rarely compatible with a single-family abutment; that an ACLF provides a relatively unique opportunity for compatibility and will be a non-intensive use from the standpoint of viability as well as traffic generation. 3. The proposed use responds to the demonstrated housing needs in both the City and the County. Mr. Smith stated that the percentage of elderly population in the City of Sarasota is declining; however, the raw numbers indicate an increase; that age 85 and over is one of the fastest growing sectors of population in both the City and the County; therefore, the proposal would further the City's goal to provide good, decent and affordable housing. BOOK 38 Page 11854 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11855 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. 4. The proposed utilization is good public policy in that it adds permanent jobs to the City and substantially enhances the tax base while having a negligible impact on the area service needs. Mr. Smith stated that an ACLF of the sized proposed would anticipate a staff ranging from approximately 40 to 50 persons, skilled and non-skilled labor; that staffing would be over a 24- hour period, 7 days per week; that approximately $10 million or more in assessable value would be added to the tax base. Mr. Smith continued that the proposal represents a "win-win" opportunity for the City to provide jobs and enhance its tax base while allowing the petitioner to develop the property consistent with its highest and best economic use. Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 9:40 p.m. Attorney Rees stated that one of the aspects of Mr. Smith's highest and best use analysis was a consideration of the property for development under its existing RSF-2, RSF-3 zoning; that although the existing zone district is presently consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, it is not a reasonable zoning district. Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:42 p.m. Attorney Rees stated that the Staff indicated the proposed amendment would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because Land Use Element Policy 1.1 is not addressed; that the goal which the City seeks in Policy 1.1 to reserve and provide suitable areas to meet housing needs is frustrated; that the subject property has not been developed for single family use and will remain in the same vacant situation since a product the public will purchase cannot be economically developed; that the City should identify how the land can be used to effectively serve another portion of the total City population; that extensive data from the State and Region has been supplied to emphasis the City's need to address the provision of appropriately located, affordable, adequate housing and services. Attorney Rees continued that 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; that data has not been provided by Staff to demonstrate the removal of potentially 18 single-family lots from the inventory of the City's housing base will destroy the Sarasota City Plan; that Mr. Smith has testified and demonstrated in his report that there is a meaningful present and an increasing future need to address housing for another portion of the population. Attorney Rees continued that Staff has indicated Policy 2.2 supports a determination of inconsistency; that the property and the proposal for development within the IMA addresses recognition of adequate buffering to mitigate any perception of an incompatibility; and cited the following from the Zoning Code regarding buffering in the MCI district: Regulations for such uses in the MCI district are designed to minimize or prevent incompatibility with adjoining or nearby residential districts. Attorney Rees cited Transportation Policy 1.4 which the Staff indicated supports a determination of inconsistency: Emergency vehicle access shall be considered during any modification of the transportation network, including the design and construction of roads and traffic mitigation devices. Attorney Rees stated that Staff's determination was, based on the petitioner's supplemental proposal to close Golden Sands Drive; that Staff made no comment as to an inconsistency with Policy 1.4 subsequent to the Golden Sands Drive proposal being withdrawn; that Staff has not indicated a problem with the provision of emergency vehicle access to the proposed site off of a single driveway off on Fruitville Road; that no recommendation for the design or construction of any different road or traffic mitigation devices has been provided. Attorney Rees cited Transportation Policy 1.6 as follows: The approval of development orders shall be subject to the availability of adequate levels of service on impacted roads as defined by the policies of the Capital Improvement Element. Attorney Rees stated that Staff's report indicated that the Engineering Department would transmit comments when the revised traffic study prepared by Tampa Bay Engineering was received; that the Engineering Department's comments are on record; that a problem does not exist with the levels of service; that changes in the existing transportation system have not been recommended. Attorney Rees cited Land Use Element Policy 1.3 as follows: Petitions for rezonings will be evaluated by the local Planning Agency for consistency with the Sarasota City Plan including: All development or redevelopment or changes in zoning or IMA designation shall be evaluated with a view toward the preservation of both the viability of and quality of life in the existing neighborhoods. BOOK 38 Page 11856 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11857 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Attorney Rees stated that an MCI district with the proffered conditions implemented would provide the City assurance that the public welfare would be protected and the viability and the quality of life within the existing neighborhoods would not be impacted or compromised. Attorney Rees cited Transportation Objective 5 which the Staff indicated supports a finding of inconsistency: To continue to minimize the impacts of the transportation system on residential neighborhoods. Attorney Rees stated that the City-selected, petitioner-paid traffic engineer contracted to perform the traffic study reported no impact on the residential neighborhood or residential street system, commenting that 1 of the 51 trips generated may divert onto Golden Sands Drive; that the report indicated the trips entering and leaving from the driveway on Fruitville Road would proceed westerly or easterly. Attorney Rees continued that the petitioner submits there are no policies, goals or objectives within the existing Sarasota City Plan that support a finding of inconsistency; that the petitioner has demonstrated that the Commission must find consistency with the proposed amendment, adopt the ordinance, and transmit the amendment to the State for a finding of compliance and issuance of a final order approving the proposed IMA. Commissioner Dry asked if the medical clinic would be separate and apart from the ACLF? Attorney Rees stated that modification to the proffered condition (a) language, as suggested, would clarify the reverse; that the intent of the testimony provided was to assure that if the MCI district is approved by the adoption of the IMA request that the clinic would not be a stand alone facility; that the condition as recommended for modification would require the clinic to be developed in conjunction with an approved ACLF development; that the services provided by the clinic would be for the residents of the ACLF and those persons who require therapeutic, rehabilitative and other non-overnight nursing or infirmary care related services; that the clinic is not intended to be free standing in the commercial sense of, for example, a nearby "Quik Care" facility. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Freedman indicated the medical clinic would be affiliated with the ACLF only; that Attorney Rees indicated that the medical clinic would have an outreach program for home-health services; and asked for clarification. Mr. Smith stated that residents in many of the ACLFS today are in need of physical, occupational, and speech therapy; that home- health type facilities are often sited within an ACLF to efficiently service not only the ACLF population but also the population in the area; that members in the community would be eligible for services at the clinic. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked how long the property has been owned by the Stottlemyer Trust. Mr. Freedman stated that the property was purchased in 1987. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the former owner valued her privacy which is probably why the property was not developed as part of the Golden Sands residential development; that making a purchaser's investment in a parcel economically viable is not the role of the Commission in a land use decision. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked why an RMF designation is not being sought by the petitioner? Mr. Freedman stated that an accessory infirmary use is specifically prohibited in the RMF Zone District; that infirmaries are permitted in an MCI Zone District; that ACLFs of the type with only rooms are not the trend of the future; that existing ACLF facilities in the City of Sarasota will be attempting to change their license to provide additional services; that the RMF Zone District does not require the 50-foot set back requirements; that the intent of the MCI Zone District is to create uses compatible with residential neighborhoods; that the subject parcel with commercial services nearby and located on a major arterial connected to hospitals, the downtown, and the interstate is an ideal location for an ACLF. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked Staff to respond to whether an infirmary within an ACLF would be prohibited in the RMF Zone District? Ms. Robinson responded, yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that the petition appears to be an isolated parcel in a residentially zoned land area; that the justification she is hearing for permitting the proposed use is that the parcel is on Fruitville Road; that testimony has been presented that the City has double the number of ACLFS and fewer elderly people than the County; and asked what criteria would be used to differentiate the subject parcel from the rest of the Fruitville Road corridor east of Beneva Road if the request was approved? Mr. Freedman stated that the subject parcel is at the intersection of Fruitville and Beneva Roads. Commissioner Patterson stated that the subject parcel is substantially separated from Beneva Road. BOOK 38 Page 11858 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11859 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested a listing of eligible uses in the MCI Zone District. The eligible uses in the MCI district were displayed on the overhead projector and made part of the record. Attorney Rees stated that the purpose of the petitioner proffering condition (a) was to voluntarily remove all the uses available in the MCI Zone District except the two uses identified; that a change in ownership would not change the proffered condition requiring that the only permissible development within the MCI Zone District, if approved, would be an ACLF with an infirmary. Mayor Merrill asked if the scale of a 250-unit ACLF compared with the character of the neighborhood was reviewed. Mr. Freedman stated that the traffic study was prepared based on a 230-unit ACLF and a 5,000 square foot infirmary so the highest potential use of the property could be analyzed; that a 230-unit ACLF would not properly fit on the property; that an ACLF with 125 to 160 units is more feasible for a 5-acre parcel; that the clinic size proposed was large enough to provide for the worse case scenario in the traffic study; that a 5,000 square-foot clinic is not intended; that the specific details are required during the Conditional Rezoning and Site and Development process. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Clarence Brien, 419 West Cornelius Circle (34232), stated that the Commission should keep neighborhood preservation in mind during the public hearings scheduled; that the subject parcel is surrounded by approximately 400 houses; that the City Engineer indicated that one of the pertinent exits for the neighborhood is controlled by the County; that the County should be contacted for relief. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO) and himself, 950 South Shade Avenue (34237), stated that density is an issue of concern related to the proposed amendment to replace 18 single-family homes with a 230 ACLF units, which is the equivalent of 115 dwelling units; that statements have been made that the level of service on Fruitville Road and at the intersection of Fruitville and Beneva Roads will remain unchanged; however, the transportation analysis submitted does not fully analyze the transportation impacts as required by the Growth Management Act and the Sarasota City Plan; that a proper analysis would determine the committed capacity on the road and then consider the various impacts on the road and the intersection from other developments including the areas to the south that have yet to be developed. Mr. Lobeck continued that the Comprehensive Plan states changes to IMA designations shall be evaluated with a view toward preservation of viability and quality of life in an existing neighborhood; that the subject parcel is in an area designated for residential single-family use and part of the viability of the adjoining neighborhood would be lost by a change in land use. Mr. Lobeck further stated that the Growth Management Act of the State of Florida requires the City of Sarasota to project future population and to identify appropriate land for that population; that the City projected the future population of 1999 and, by recognizing existing zoning and designating IMAS, provided adequate land to accommodate that population; that property in an IMA which was designated to accommodate future population growth should be used for the ACLF requested; that approving the petitioner's request would set a bad precedent. Janice Haas, 23 Horton Circle (34232), stated that her property on Horton circle where she has resided for 23 years is approximately 500 feet from the subject propertyi that PBLP Board member Eula Bacon stated, "it's unfortunate that the residents can't afford expensive studies and expert witnesses"; that the dictionary defines the term "expert" as someone whose knowledge or skills is specialized and profound especially as the result of much practical experience; that practical experience makes the residents in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property the best experts available; that the subject property is approximately 200 feet from the Fruitville/Beneva Road intersection, indicated in the traffic study as operating at the lowest level available, a level of service "F"; that expert residents have come forward in three previous meetings to explain the dangerous traffic situations experienced daily in accessing Fruitville and Beneva Roads and the dangers to the children playing on the neighborhood streets used by motorists as cut through streets to avoid the intersection; that the residents and visitors of the proposed ACLF, aged 80 years and older, would be subject to the same dangers. Ms. Haas presented for the record a City of Sarasota Police Department Incidents Listing printed on May 9, 1995, for the preceding 18-month period, and stated that 45 accidents between January 1, 1995 and May 7, 1995 were listed. Ms. Haas continued that a developer cannot by law be penalized for conditions which already exist; that the residents who already live in hazardous conditions should be protected by law; that permitting 51 more trips to access the referenced intersection would add to the existing traffic problems. Ms. Haas further stated that the Sunday edition of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune included an article quoting that the city Commissioners are interested in studying why people choose to buy houses outside the City; that perhaps the study should include how to keep the long-residing citizens such as those on Horton Circle; that since Horton Circle was established 53 years ago, Midwest Arms BOOK 38 Page 11860 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11861 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. with 130 units to the east and Fairway Oaks with 138 units to the north have been proposed, approved and developed; that approving the proposed medical facility with 230 units and an affiliated 5,000 square foot clinic directly adjacent to the street on the west would indicate that development in the City apparently has no limits. Ms. Haas requested that the Commission vote "no" on proposed Ordinance No. 95-3873. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked Ms. Haas to identify on the map the areas experiencing excessive cut-through traffic. Ms. Haas referred to Parkland Avenue and Golden Sands Drive as the route used by northbound traffic on Beneva Road to access Fruitville Road; and stated that U-turns occur at the median on Fruitville Road while vehicles attempt to access Fairway Oaks or come out of Horton Circle. Vivian Gager, 179 Parkland Avenue (34232), stated that she has resided on Parkland Avenue for 27 years; that the middle-to-low income neighborhood feels targeted since expert testimony cannot be afforded to effectively fight a facility of the magnitude proposed in a quasi-judicial setting; that the petitioner owns another property on Golden Sands Drive with frontage on Beneva Road; that neighbors are concerned additional properties will be purchased by the petitioner for commercial development on Beneva Road or that properties on Colorado Avenue will be purchased for southerly expansion if the proposed petition is approved. Ms. Gager continued that Zoning Code S 4-10(g) permits a release by the Commission of the restrictions proffered by the petitioner; that the neighborhood has no guarantee that the restrictions will be adhered; that a three-story building adjacent to a residential neighborhood cannot be effectively buffered; that the Penn West Park development at the Fruitville Road/Tuttle Avenue intersection has beautiful plants but is not buffered; that she does not want to view a three-story building from her yard; that traffic impacts will be generated; that the petitioner could petition for a Relief from Use Restrictions and request access to Golden Sands Drive in the future. Mique Fortin 185 Parkland Avenue (34232), stated that the subject property should be used to develop more single-family homes; that the need for single-family homes is greater than the need for ACLFS; that middle-to-low income housing is limited in Sarasota; that houses for sale in the adjacent neighborhood sell quickly; that visitors and delivery trucks will use the Parkland Avenue/Golden Sands cut-through to avoid waiting 10 minutes at the Fruitville/Beneva Road intersection; that residents are concerned with the effect the ACLF would have on property values. Dorothy Payne, 200 Parkland Avenue (34232), stated that many development changes have occurred since she purchased her home in 1968; that a four-lane highway, which was originally a field, borders the community on the west; that six-lane Fruitville Road, which was originally two lanes, borders the community to the north; that three shopping centers have been established, one of which is primarily vacant. Ms. Payne continued that the neighborhood has been damaged for public good; and requested that the neighborhood not be destroyed for private gain. Tom Balog, 42 Golden Sands Drive (34232), was sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and stated that he supports the statements made by Vivian Gager; that his property abuts the Sarasota County drainage canal; that the property on which a new access road was originally requested by the petitioner has an oak tree and plant materials that have been maintained by a neighbor for over 30 years; that he is one of the remaining three property owners north of Colorado Avenue whose property is not owned by the petitioner; that many of the neighbors are intimidated by the public forum process at which the petitioner has the resources to inflict their will and desires upon neighbors that cannot afford to defend themselves in the same manner. Mr. Balog requested that the will of the neighborhood take precedence over that of the developer when the Commission makes its decision. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Mr. Freedman, Attorney Rees, and Mr. Smith came before the Commission for rebuttal. Attorney Rees stated that the characteristic of the requested use was referred to as commercial by speakers; that ACLFS are considered residential land uses under the Zoning Code; that Richard Doyle, Tampa Bay Engineering, made the following statement in response to the concerns expressed at the PBLP meeting by Ms. Haas related to traffic generated by the proposed development: "In answer to the lady's question, it's 51 trips total. In traffic engineering lingo that's a one way trip so it would be approximately half of those that would be coming in. A little bit more than half would be coming in the morning. They would be coming from the west from the Beneva/Fruityille Road intersection. They would be coming in and turning right into the property and most of the 51, the majority of the 51 would not be impacting your ability to get out on Horton Circle. Some would but most would not. 1 Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the 51 trips included traffic generated by the proposed clinic? Attorney Rees stated that specifically for trip generation, the trips generated by the clinic and the trips generated by the BOOK 38 Page 11862 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11863 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. housing facility were split; that the 51 trips estimated was the result of the two uses in combination during the p.m. peak hour. Mr. Freedman stated that discussions were held with City Staff regarding a possible closure of Golden Sands Drive to alleviate the problem with motorists exiting Golden Sands Drive and making U-turns; that the petitioner purchased the additional property referenced to provide another outlet onto Beneva Road if the Golden Sands Closure was to be pursued; that the Stottlemyer family does not intend to continue acquiring property in the neighborhood. Attorney Rees referred to the revised traffic study submitted by Tampa Bay Engineering and cited the last sentence of the second paragraph in the Executive Summary as follows: Normal traffic variations from one day to the next will be significantly greater than the project traffic impact. Attorney Rees stated that the consultant, therefore, concluded that the impact from the petitioner's proposal would be minimal. Mayor Merrill stated that further clarification of the clinic is necessary; and asked if signage would be placed on Fruitville Road indicating a health clinic and if the clinic would be on one floor of the building? Mr. Smith stated that the current examples of the proposed clinic reside within the physical confines of the ACLF facilities; that licensure of certain types of facilities require signage; that signage demonstrating a home-health agency is likely; however, the context of the clinic is to service the neighborhood not to attract people by placing a neon sign on Fruitville Road; that the capacity is necessary to provide many of the treatments necessary for the identified population; that, for example, therapy for an individual who has experienced a stroke requires greater amounts of equipment than can be transported into an individual's home; that the external allowance would be an efficient and economic way to provide people with a centralized location at which to receive therapy. Mr. Freedman stated that Lakehouse West with 162 ACLF units and a home-health agency occupying 1,250 square feet within the facility is a specific example of the proposed use. Mr. Smith stated that Lakehouse West also plans to incorporate a rehabilitation facility which will be operated in 1,200 square feet; that the combined square footage at the Lakehouse West facility was used as a basis in judging a maximum of 5,000 square feet for the proposed ACLF clinic; that a 2,500 square feet clinic is actually anticipated at this time based on the environment; however, the maximum square footage was requested to: 1) assure consideration of the greatest potential traffic impact and 2) retain a degree of upside allowance for future growth in terms of service to the community. Commissioner Patterson asked Mr. Lieberman to summarize the additional information provided to the Commission relative to Petition 95-PA-08. Mr. Lieberman stated that the information concerning the declining percentage of senior citizens in the City was eluded to during his initial presentation; that a telephone survey of the seven sizeable ACLFS in the City was conducted; that the results indicated that the majority of ACLF clients came from outside the City, very few came from the same neighborhood, and less than 50 percent came from within the City. Mr. Lieberman continued that Mr. Smith was correct that the absolute projected (raw) number of persons over age 85 is increasing; however, a declining senior citizen percentage indicates the absolute number of non-senior citizens is growing even more; that the City needs to accommodate the non- senior citizen housing need as well. Ms. Robinson restated the Administration's recommendation for a finding of inconsistency and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3873 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Cardamone), it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3873 on first reading. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission has been advised by City Attorney Taylor of its responsibilities under applicable jurisdiction; that the Administration's recommendation on the agenda request states, "Action should be based upon the substantial, competent evidence in the record"; that the opinions and feelings of residents are not disregarded by the Commission; however, based on his understanding of the Commission's legal responsibilities, the opinions and feelings heard tonight do not constitute substantial, competent evidence. Mayor Merrill stated that the existing problems with which the neighborhood is faced cannot be resolved tonight; that traffic abatement measures and encouragement for County installation of a traffic light at Parkland Avenue and Beneva Road are issues that need to be addressed; that when originally approached regarding a proposed change in use on the subject property, which is located in the district he represents, he told the petitioner that commercial, shopping center, or office uses would not be supported; that he actually had suggested an ACLF; that being in the development business, construction of nice homes on the site is not envisioned; that he envisions a multi-family use closer to that of Midwest Arms or an undeveloped property held until members and the mind-set of BOOK 38 Page 11864 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11865 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. the Commission changes; that developing the property into something with very low negatives associated would be preferred; that an ACLF will prevent crime aspects; that no children or juveniles will be hanging out at a facility that is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; that large amounts of money would not be on site to invoke a robbery; that Bahia Oaks Lodge is a well maintained, attractive amenity in his neighborhood; that he sincerely believes an ACLF will be the best use offered for the subject parcel. Mayor Merrill continued that 230 units is not feasible for an ACLF on the site; that two buildings the size of the Gil Waters Bayou project on Osprey Avenue would be out of the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood; that the word maximum implies "up to" 230 units. On motion of Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the language of Section 3 (a) striking the words "with a maximum of 230 units (ACLF)" and replacing the words "maximum of 5,000 square feet" with "minimum size necessary to serve the ACLF." Mayor Merrill stated that the language added regarding the size of the clinic is vague to the benefit of the Commission rather than to the benefit of the petitioner; that the exact square footage would be documented and determined during a rezoning petition hearing. Commissioner Patterson asked if a standard applies to the number of ACLF units permitted? Ms. Robinson stated that 25 units per acre are permitted in the MCI district; that the ACLF density varies depending on the number of units with kitchen facilities. Commissioner Patterson stated that the language proposed by Mayor Merrill could permit 250 units; that the petitioner has suggested that the number be reduced to 230 units. Mayor Merrill stated that the intent of his amendment was to avoid the notion that the Commission has evaluated and approved 230 units; that a number should not be included arbitrarily without a site plan. city Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney Rees had suggested that the term "affiliated" be included prior to "medical clinic" in the language of Section 3(a); that the suggestion proffered by the petitioner would clarify that the clinic not be a stand alone facility. Mayor Merrill stated that the intent of the amendment was to include the language "an affiliated medical clinic." Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Bahia Oaks Lodge referenced is not located on or adjacent to RSF-2 property; that the ACLF serves as a buffer between an apartment complex followed by a church and an office/medical use followed by an intense commercial use. Vice Mayor Cardamone restated the amendment as to revise Section 3(a) of the proposed ordinance to read as follows: (a) The uses of the property shall be restricted solely to an adult congregate living facility and a medical clinic with a minimum size necessary to serve the ACLF. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the amendment. Amendment carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes; Cardamone, yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that she will not support the proposed ordinance based primarily on the recommendations of the Planning Staff; that she disagrees the subject parcel is on the corner of Beneva and Fruitville Roads and would find it difficult to distinguish a starting and stopping point if the block was broken; that the City has chosen to preserve the area east of Beneva Road; that discussions on a policy change would be necessary for her to support breaking the land use pattern in existence; that the potential of continual requests to rezone properties for ACLF eligibility concerns her; that ACLFS, a profitable use, can be an intense land use based on the density suggested in the proposed petition; that the City already has twice the number of ACLFS as the County; that she would like the City to maintain a mix of age groups that provides a climate in which people of all ages will want to reside. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the main motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3873 on first reading. Motion failed (3 to 2): Dry, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes; Cardamone, no. The Commission recessed at 11:03 p.m. and reconvened at 11:10 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3874, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 95-PA-06, PERTAINING TO REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2921 FLOYD STREET, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM II-3) BOOK 38 Page 11866 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11867 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. #3 (2249) through (2577) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Richard Walker, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission. Mr. Walker was sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mr. Walker displayed a Current Zoning/Suhdivision Map on the overhead projector to identify the subject parcel and explain the request. Mr. Walker stated that Mr. Atlee Schlabach, through the City- initiated petition, requests the Existing and Future Land Use Maps be amended to include 2921 Floyd Street, one lot in an enclave; that the petition, a voluntary annexation, requests eligibility for Residential Single Family (RSF-3) zoning, which is equivalent to its current Sarasota County zone designation. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3874 by title only. Ms. Robinson stated the following Administration's recommendation: The current land use of the subject property, residential, is compatible with the surrounding residential land use pattern and the Sarasota County future land use designation of "Urban." Land Use Element Objectives 1 and 2 relate to the recommended finding of consistency on the proposed amendment. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3874 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that any property owners in an enclave receiving City services should be noticed that delivery of potable water will be lost on a date certain if the property is not annexed into the City; that sewer services should be provided when those properties are annexed; and requested that the Administration research and identify other enclaves in the City. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission previously made similar requests of the Administration. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3875, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 95-PA-09, PERTAINING TO REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2141 HANSEN STREET, 3940 SCHOOL AVENUE, 3931, 3933, 3939, 3943-47, AND 3951 DEARBORN AVENUE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM II-4) #3 (2587) through (3271) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Richard Walker, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission. Mr. Walker displayed Proposed Future Land Use Map #28 and Existing Land Use Map 1 on the overhead projector to identify the subject parcel and explain the request. Mr. Walker stated that the property is located in the southeast quadrant of Bee Ridge Road, a commercial corridor in the County; that the subject lots are bounded by four Zone Districts: Commercial Intensive (CI) to the north and east sides, Residential Multi Family (RMF-1) to the south, which permits a density of nine dwellings per acre, and RMF-2 to the west which permits a density of six dwellings per acre. Ms. Robinson stated the following Administration's recommendation: The requested proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Sarasota City Plan which relate to: Land Use Element Policy 2.2 Transportation Element Policy 1.6 Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, representing petitioners Robert Geyer and Patrick Dickinson, came before the Commission and submitted his resume for the record to qualify himself as an expert in land planning. Mr. Freedman made an overhead slide presentation and referred to a board display depicting an aerial view of the proposed site to identify the subject property and to explain the relationship of BOOK 38 Page 11868 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11869 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. the property with the previously annexed Coast Volvo dealership and the existing, surrounding land uses. Mr. Freedman stated that the current use of the subject property is one paved and one gravel parking lot, a storm water detention pond, and a single-family, and two duplex residences; that the applicants originally entered into a pre-annexation agreement with the City to obtain sanitary sewer service and subsequently annexed the Coast Volvo and Cadillac dealerships; that the pre-annexation agreement required annexation of lots 22, 23 and 24 when those lots became contiguous to the City limits; that the applicants have acquired the intervening lots and now wish to annex the land located on School Avenue into the City; that the existing uses on the properties are permitted in the current County Zoning designation which equates to the City's RMF-2 zoning; however, the City no longer provides for employee parking or stormwater facilities on residentially zoned property in connection with a commercially zoned project; that obtaining final approval on the annexation prior to the potential rezoning being addressed would result in non-conforming uses on the subject property; therefore, the Petitioner requested that final approval of the annexation be delayed until the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Conditional Rezoning processes were completed. Mr. Freedman continued that currently, Coast Volvo maintains Volvo vehicles at the Cadillac dealership; that Volvo owners prefer to have their vehicles maintained by Volvo mechanics; that the petitioner would like to build an approximately 8,000 to 10,000 square foot structure on a portion of the subject property to maintain Volvo vehicles; that the depth of the existing Coast Cadillac CI zoning to the south would be used for employee parking and stormwater facilities; that north of the CI zoning line would be employee parking and the proposed structure; that sanitary sewer service is necessary to proceed with the project planned; that the only sanitary sewer service available in the subject area is from the City of Sarasota; therefore, the petitioner is seeking annexation to acquire that sewer service. Mr. Freedman further stated that the annexation would be a benefit to the City because of the increased tax base; that additional access points to the site are not necessary; that the Neighborhood Workshop at which support for the project was voiced was well attended; that the concerns raised related to potential buyers test-driving vehicles through the residential neighborhoods were subsequently resolved; that adoption of the requested Impact Management Area (IMA) would permit the petitioner to move forward with the rezoning process and final approval of the annexation. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all documents made part of the record at the PBLP meetings of April 19, 1995, and May 3, 1995, the minutes from those meetings, as well as the Sarasota City Code, City of Sarasota Zoning Code, and City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan are established as part of the record for this petition. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Ms. Robinson restated the Administration's recommendation for a finding of consistency and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3875 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3875 on first reading. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 6. 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 CLASSIPICATION 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 CLABBIFICATION, PROVIDED THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERALIZED FUTURE LAND USE MAP - MOTION TO APPROVE FAILED (AGENDA ITEM II-4) #3 (3274) through (0986) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission. Ms. Carter stated for clarification that the six pages preceding the Staff Report in the Agenda packet were submitted by Ernest Babb. Ms. Carter continued that the petition requests the addition of the following language to Land Use Policy 1.3: Policy 1.3 shall not apply to those properties for which a site and development plan was approved as part of a conditional rezoning ordinance prior to March 13, 1989, the date of adoption of the Sarasota City Plan, and then reverted to their former zone district classification due to an expired site and development plan, herein after referred to as "Rezoned Properties. In such event, Rezoned Properties shall be eligible to be rezoned to the zone district classification which existed on the property immediately prior to such reversion, regardless BOOK 38 Page 11870 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11871 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. of whether the Rezoned Properties are designated as Impact Management Areas, so long as they are consistent with the adopted Generalized Future Land Use Map. Ms. Robinson stated that the Administration's recommendation is to transmit the policy amendment to the Department of Community Affairs to allow properties to be rezoned in accordance with the Generalized Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that the properties referred to in the subject petition were considered under the Conditional Rezoning process and approved with conditions and with a specific site and development plan; that suggesting the properties be allowed to revert to the last approved zoning does not have merit; that if allowed to revert, the properties should revert with the site and development plans that accompanied the original rezonings; that the Mission Harbor property has fallen under several previous district categories; that Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD), the district to which the property would be allowed to revert, is completely unsatisfactory for the area; that C-CBD is a edestrian-oriented district with no lot coverage limits; that C-CBD zoning is suitable for downtown not an area removed from the central area; that the City should follow the policies established in the Comprehensive Plan which regulate the manner in which properties can be placed in IMA making them eligible for rezonings to specified districts; that a sector study should be performed if the City believes the status of a property should change; that the governing, general policy should not be changed to consider specific sites since doing sO would require policies and amendments to fall under the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Babb requested that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) to review the identified parcels during the Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) process. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for comment on lot coverage in the C-CBD. Ms. Robinson stated that C-CBD is a very open district; that she does not think C-CBD zoning has a maximum lot coverage requirement. Mayor Merrill stated that the hour is late; that the discussion should focus on the item before the Commission; and suggested that Ms. Robinson provide Vice Mayor Cardamone with the information from the Zoning Code tomorrow. I Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she feels an answer is important at this time. Ms. Robinson stated that the C-CBD has open space requirements and performance standards based on height, etc.; that providing a definitive yes or no answer is difficult without reviewing the Zoning Code. Mayor Merrill ruled the discussion out of order. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to appeal the Chair's decision. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. Commissioner Patterson stated that the discussion, is relevant since C-CBD is the zoning to which the property will revert; that properties built from property line to property line with no open space have been viewed in the C-CBD. Ms. Robinson stated that properties in the downtown have no setback requirements; however, when the C-CBD was revised other performance standards were established. Commissioner Patterson asked if setback requirements were currently applicable to the downtown? Ms. Robinson stated that the requirement may not be termed a setback but rather a maximum lot coverage or an open space requirement depending on the type of structure; that the Zoning Code will be referenced and an answer provided to the Commission. John van Heusden, 114 Woodland Place, Osprey (34229) representing the Friends of Selby Public Library read a prepared speech expressing opposition to the proposed amendment for two reasons: 1) the legality of the amendment is questionable in light of the absence of adequate data and analysis to support it, and 2) the amendment may simply be a subterfuge that will result in helping the County Commissioners renege on their promise to taxpayers in June of 1989. Mr. van Heusden stated that the taxpayers were lied to when led to believe that a large main library would be built in Sarasota as well as a branch in the east if the one percent sales tax increase was passed; that the Resolution Trust Company (RTC) and the taxpayers were lied to when the representation was made that a library would be built on the Mission Harbor site; that the Friends of the Selby Library strongly urge the Commission to vote "no" on the proposed amendment. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), stated that the Mission Harbor site is zoned Residential Multi Family (RMF-3, -4, and -5); that a conditional rezoning was approved for a site specific BOOK 38 Page 11872 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. w - 35 BOOK 38 Page 11873 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. project that did not materialize, and the Commission downzoned the property to its current zoning designation; that the Future Land Use Map is incorrect; that a sector study or review of the neighborhood should have been performed when the property was reduced to the RMF designation to correct the Future Land Use Map for compliance with the surrounding neighborhood; that the commercial developments contiguous to the Mission Harbor property have yards; that the Players Theatre, the Woman's Club, and the Unity Church have beautifully landscaped yards; that C-CBD is an inappropriate zone for the downtown north; that the EAR process could be used to review the Mission Harbor and other identified as well as unidentified sites to determine the appropriateness of existing and future zoning; that she suggests rezoning the Mission Harbor property on the Future Land Use Map as RMF with a Theatre and Arts District (TAD) overlay which would make eligible a multitude of wonderful projects that could help in the revitalization of the downtown north area; that a TAD overlay would permit a shopping center, a library, residential or a hotel/conference center. Ms. Quillin requested that the Commission support the PBLP's recommendation of not approving the amendment but having the identified parcels reviewed through the EAR process. Johnny Nugent, 400 North Tamiami Trail (34236), stated that the ordinance in effect requested by the Planning Director approximately two years ago protects the neighborhoods; that the Mission Harbor site was once zoned for 50 units per acre which would have permitted a 100 unit hotel; that the property was rezoned to permit 35 units per acre before it was downzoned by the Commission; that approving the proposed amendment would permit inappropriate. zonings of the past, i.e., C-CBD; that the PBLP voted against the proposed amendment 4 to 1; that the Commission should further review the issue. Richard Morris, 447 South Washington Drive (34236), stated that he was involved in the construction of Burns Court Cinema downtown approximately 1.5 years ago; that the building completely covers the 6,000 square foot lot; that there were no setback requirements; that the developer agreed to install a 5-foot wide sidewalk along Burns Court at the request of the City to expedite the project. Mr. Morris continued that this late night rush to judgement of a proposal by the Administration to gut the Sarasota City Plan, which was rejected by the PBLP, is at best an effort on the Administration's part to avoid the serious public discussion of this issue and at worst a moral affront to the City Commission and the citizens represented; that he assumes the City Administration is acting on behalf of shadowy real estate and speculative interests since there is no private petitioner for the proposed amendment; that the reason and the entity for whom this change has been requested should be revealed; that preventing a modern library from going on the Mission Harbor site is probably among the reasons for the change; that the future of the city should not be changed to serve special interests at the expense of the general good. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Ms. Robinson stated that the Zoning Code has been reviewed; and cited the following requirement relative to lot coverage in the C-CBD. For all new development in the C-CBD an area equal to five percent of the total lot size shall be devoted to either open space or urban open space as defined in this section; and, an additional area equal to ten percent of the total lot size shall be devoted to urban open space or interior open space or to a combination of both of those terms as defined by this section. Ms. Robinson stated that, in addition, the height limit for commercial development in the C-CBD is 90 feet; however, additional height allowances may be cumulatively allowed if, e.g., 20 percent of total lot size is reserved for urban open space or interior open space; that developments over 10,000 square feet or above three stories have to be reviewed through the Development Review process. Ms. Robinson restated the Administration's recommendation to transmit the policy amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to transmit the policy amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. Commissioner Pillot stated that the statements made by certain speakers alleging some underhanded purpose of the City Administration to attempt to sabotage the library or cater to some special interests are resented in the strongest possible terms; that the City would be a better place if more of the citizens who speak had as much integrity as City Manager Sollenberger. Mayor Merrill stated that in the future, derogatory statements such as those made by the speakers tonight will be ruled out of order. Commissioner Patterson stated that the zoning to which the Mission Harbor site would revert is more intense than the zoning in place prior to the downzoning in that 50 units per acre were permitted versus 35 units per acre. BOOK 38 Page 11874 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11875 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Robinson stated that is correct; that an ordinance adopted Citywide incorporated all properties zoned C-CBD-S which permitted 35 units per acre into the C-CBD which permits 50 units per acre; that the Mission Harbor property was originally zoned C-CBD-S. Commissioner Patterson stated that the PBLP minutes reflect a concern with the reverting zoning changes and with the lack of public input placing the property into an IMA would create; that she does not agree with the referenced statements made by the speakers tonight; however, she will not support the motion. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that speakers making unfounded charges to a public body based on suspicions is unconscionable; that the Mayor's decision to rule those type of comments out of order in the future is appreciated. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for the uses permitted in the C-CBD. Ms. Robinson stated that other than the Governmental Zone, the C-CBD is the most comprehensive zone in the City; that permitted uses include: hotels and residential at 50 units per acre and a variety of commercial uses from movie theaters to restaurants to retail; that the Sarasota Quay and Main Street are zoned C-CBD. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Mission Harbor property was planned for development and therefore was not included in the Comprehensive Planning process during which the surrounding properties were designated in IMAs; that the conditional rezoning approved for the site expired and the property was downzoned. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for the purpose behind the downzoning. Ms. Robinson stated that concern was raised about RTC regaining ownership of the property, and the City having no control over the property being sold off in pieces if the C-CBD zoning was retained; that RMF was considered a holding zone to require site plan approval for rezoning and development of the property in a unified manner. Commissioner Dry referred to the example sites referenced in the Staff Report; and asked for further clarification. Ms. Robinson stated that the specified examples were conditionally rezoned properties whose site and development plan approvals expired and reverted to their original zoning. Ms. Carter referred to three sites listed on the overhead projector and a board display of the Generalized Future Use Map to provide further clarification. Ms. Carter stated that the City's zoning maps were reviewed against the Generalized Future Land Use Maps to identify inconsistencies, specifically, to identify properties with Map designations based on "existing zoning" in 1989 that subsequently reverted to the zoning held prior to the 1989 Sarasota City Plan; that properties falling under those circumstances cannot be rezoned to their designated Future Land Use Map categories without the completion of an amendment to create an IMA; that additional properties may exist; however, the following three sites are the only sites which have been identified: 1. Property known as "Mission Harbor" 2. Three parcels: 2051, 2067 and 2077 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way 3. Two parcels: 2725 and 2761 Bahia Vista Street Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to transmit the policy amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. Motion failed (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Commissioner Patterson asked if the identified sites will be reviewed during the EAR process? Ms. Robinson stated that all areas of the City will be reviewed during the EAR process to determine appropriate land use, including the three sites identified. 7. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK ON AN ACTIVE POSITION REGARDING ANNEXATIONS AND CITY UTILITY SERVICES #4 (0997) through (1150) VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. requested that the Administration pursue annexation of properties in enclaves receiving City water and sewer services. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the previous request by the Commission regarding that issue will be reviewed to determine whether it was adequately addressed; that the City has formally adopted a passive position with respect to annexations; that he intends to bring back an active position and a specific recommendation to deal with the properties referenced. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City has taken a passive position on annexations; however, the Commission previously voted to pursue a more active position. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a "no annexation, no service" approach will be reviewed; that a formal policy position with specific recommendations will be presented to the Commission. BOOK 38 Page 11876 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11877 05/10/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Mayor Merrill it was moved to adjourn. Motion died for lack of a second. B. stated that accepting Board reports has been a customary motion made since she has been on the Commission; that an awkward situation was created when she attempted to make a motion to accept the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's report and was told by the Mayor that such a motion was not necessary and to proceed to the next item; that prior notice of the change and a kinder approach by the Chair would have been appreciated. MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that Remarks of Commissioners under Roberts Rules of Order are to be informal observations about the public reputation for consideration by other Commissioners, the general public and Staff; and encouraged the Commission to direct questions that could be answered by the Administration directly to the Administration. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she asks questions that seemingly represent the constituents she serves; that the Mayor's attempt to run a good meeting based on Roberts Rules of Order is understood; however, she does not feel Roberts Rules of Order should be the bible of an elected body. 8. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) #4 (1150) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the special meeting of May 10, 1995, at 12:11 a.m. DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: Billwy & Robensen BILLY & ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK