BOOK 45 Page 17593 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioner Mollie Cardamone, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT : Commissioners David Merrill and Gene Pillot PRESIDING: Mayor Jerome Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:15 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0030) through (0147) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Item No. IV, Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4079, amending the Sarasota City Code so as to transier sections of the Zoning Code to the Sarasota City Code as follows: amending Chapter 23, Sarasota City Code, to create a new Section 23-3.6, Commercial Vending on Public Property and Public Right-of-Way; amending Chapter 2, Sarasota City Code, to create a new Article IX, Sarasota Mobile Home Park; amending and transferring the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 30, Article IV, Streets, Sidewalks, and Parks to Chapter 22, Sarasota City Code, Article IV, Vacation of Parks, per the request of Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office B. Add Item No. VI, Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1114, adopting a Billable Fee Schedule for the review and processing of applications for Development Permits and matters pertaining to Development Review as provided for in the Zoning Code (1998); : setting forth findings; providing for transitional provisions; etc. C. Add Item No. VI, Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pension, Division 4, General Employees, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota D. Add Item No. VII, Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pension, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota E. Add Item No. VIII, Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4080, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pension, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objections, Item Nos. VI, VII, and VIII will be moved forward on the Agenda and addressed as the first items of business by the Commission. Mayor Dupree requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 2.1 ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4086, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSION, DIVISION 4, GENERAL EMPLOYEES, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (0147) through (0207) City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086 was passed on first reading at the October 19, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086 on second reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98- 4086 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086 on second reading. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 45 Page 17594 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17595 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. 3. ADOPTION RE: : SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4074, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSION, DIVISION 2, FIRE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII) #1 (0208) through (0310) City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 was passed on first reading at the October 19, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 on second reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98- 4074 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 second reading. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Dupree, yes; Patterson, yesi Cardamone, yes. 4. ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4080, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSION, DIVISION 2, FIRE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII) #1 (0310) through (0382) City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4080 was passed on first reading at the October 19, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4080 on second reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98- 4080 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4080 on second reading. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0) : Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes. 5. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4077, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCORPORATE THE BOUNDARY OF THE FRUITVILLE GATEWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLICABLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: REAL PROPERTY LOCATED BOTH TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH IN THE VICINITY OF FRUITVILLE ROAD (STATE ROAD 780) RUNNING FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRUITVILLE ROAD AND THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS LINE WESTERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF FRUITVILLE ROAD (STATE ROAD 780) AND NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41); MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE FRUITVILLE GATEWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED CONTINGENT UPON ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4076 (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0382) through (0479) Timothy Litchet, Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Attorney Schenk stated that the first public hearing was held and proposed Ordinance No. 98-4077, which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Sarasota to incorporate the boundary of the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District, was passed on first reading at the October 6, 1998, special Commission meeting; that a second public hearing is required by State law. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98- 4077 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4077 on second reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98- 4076. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4077 on second reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4078, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCORPORATE THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAUREL PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY COTERMINOUS WITH THE CENTER LINE OF MORRILL STREET, THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY COTERMINOUS BOOK 45 Page 17596 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17597 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. WITH THE CENTERLINE OF ALDERMAN STREET, THE WESTERN BOUNDARY COTERMINOUS WITH THE CENTERLINE OF RAWLS AVENUE, AND THE EASTERN BOUNDARY COTERMINOUS WITH THE CENTERLINE OF LAFAYETTE PLACE, THE CENTERLINE OF JULIA PLACE AND THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PARCEL ZONED OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS (OPB) LOCATED NORTH OF LAFAYETTE PLACE AND SOUTH OF JULIA PLACE; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE LAUREL PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; : REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED CONTINGENT UPON ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4076 (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0479) through (0561) Timothy Litchet, Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Attorney Schenk stated that the first public hearing was held and proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078, which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Sarasota to incorporate the boundary of the Laurel Park Overlay District, was passed on first reading at the October 6, 1998, special Commission meeting; that a second public hearing is required by State law. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 on second reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98- 4076. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 on second reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0) : Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes. 7. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4076. ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A REVISED ZONING CODE FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REVISED ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; : ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) ARTICLES WITH APPENDICES: ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION ARTICLE III, DECISION MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES; ARTICLE IV, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES ARTICLE V, VESTED RIGHTS AND NONCONFORMITIES: ARTICLE VI, ZONE DISTRICTS; ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, AND ARTICLE VIII, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES, (COLLECTIVELY A/K/A THE ZONING CODE [19981); PROVIDING FOR TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS: PROVIDING THAT THE ZONING CODE (1998) SHALL SUPERSEDE ANY PREVIOUS ZONING CODE; PROVIDING THAT PROSECUTIONS BEGUN UNDER PREVIOUS ZONING REGULATIONS MAY BE CONTINUED: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF AND THE PARTS OF THE ZONING CODE (1998); REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS: REFERRED TO THE PBLP AND PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE THE ISSUE OF ENCOURAGING PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTIONS IN AREAS OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (0617) through #2 (1600) Timothy Litchet, Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Attorney Schenk stated that the first public hearing was held and proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 was passed on first reading at the October 6, 1998, special Commission meeting; that a second public hearing is required by State law. Copies of the following documents were distributed to the Commission: A 15-page document dated 10/19/98 and entitled "E Errata Sheet, City Commission Recommended Land Development Regulations (LDRs) n A supplement to the 10/19/98 LDRS Errata Sheet outlining revisions to Section IV-203, Concurrency Certificate A supplement to the 10/19/98 LDRs Errata Sheet outlining additional revisions to Section II-201, Definitions BOOK 45 Page 17598 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17599 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet referred to various pages of the 10/19/98 LDRs Errata Sheet to explain the revisions made to the LDRs document following the October 6, 1998, special Commission meeting. Mr. Litchet stated that issues raised by Vice Mayor Patterson at the October 6, 1998, special meeting have been addressed as follows: Issue: Evaluate future public use as a criteria for street vacations Revised: Article IV, Section IV-1306 (E) : C. Whether the street, right-of-way, easement or non fee interest has been improved, and the extent to which it is currently, or in the future will be utilized by the general public; Issue: : Review intensity level of the proposed Commercial Park (CP) Zone District, which replaces the Commercial Office Park (COP) Zone District Mr. Litchet stated that revising the level of intensity in the CP Zone District could lead to downzonings or create unintended consequences; that Staff recommends the intensity levels of all zone districts be reviewed during Phase II of the LDRs Update. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that addressing the intensity levels at a later date is acceptable; however, the parameters of the CP Zone District should be seriously examined. Issue: Densities in the Residential, Multiple-Family RMF-4,-5,-6) Zone Districts Mr. Litchet stated that changes to the densities in the RMF Zone Districts have not be made in the LDRs document; that the issue will be reviewed during the Comprehensive Plan Update. Issue: Densities in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone Districts Revised: Article VI, Section VI-1603 (B) Mr. Litchet stated that a 50 dwelling unit maximum per acre for multiple-family and multiple-family with mixed-use in the C-CBD Zone District has been included on the development standards chart under Article VI, Section VI-1603 (B). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the potential of restricting the number of motel/hotel units in the C-CBD Zone District should be addressed by the PBLP during Phase II of the LDRS Update. Issue: Limiting accessory uses in churches/synagogues to 25 percent of the gross floor area Revised: Article VII, Section VII-602 (L) (2) Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-602 (L) (2) was eliminated as requested by the Commission at the October 6, 1998, special meeting. Issue: Clarify height bonuses apply only to the commercial section of the C-CBD Zone District Revised: Article VI, Section VI-1603 (A) (2) 2. Other Uses. One hundred (100) feet, provided that additional height, in excess of the 100 feet maximum height, may be permitted cumulatively up to a maximum of one hundred eight (180) feet, as previded-herein in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) below: Mr. Litchet stated that issues raised by Commissioner Merrill at the October 6, 1998, special meeting have been addressed as follows: Issue: Reword reference to non-habitable space for height limitations Revised: Article VI, Section VI-102 (P) The height limitations contained in the regulations pertaining to specific districts do not apply to spires, belfries, cupolas, personal television antennae, water tanks, ventilators, chimneys, elevator shaft enclosures, or other appurtenances usually required to be placed above the roof level and not intended for human occupancy. In addition, the height limitations shall not apply to non-habitable false architectural features (including roofs)- net intended fer-huma-seewpaney-extending no more than six (6) feet above the eave line of a roof for buildings in zone districts whose maximum height requirement is less than fifty-one (51) feet, no more than nine (9) feet for buildings in zone districts whose maximum height requirement is less than one hundred and one (101) feet, no more than twelve (12) feet for buildings in zone districts whose maximum height requirement is less than one hundred and forty-one (141) feet, and no more BOOK 45 Page 17600 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17601 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. than twenty (20) feet for buildings in zone districts whose maximum height requirement exceeds one hundred and forty-one (141) feet. Provided, however, that the heights of these the above cited structures or appurtenances thereto shall not exceed any height limitations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration or airport zoning regulations within the flight approach zone of airports. Issue: Require employees of home occupations to reside at dwelling Revised: Article VII, Section VII-802 (B) (1) 1. The principal person or persons conducting the home occupation shall reside in the dwelling and all employees of the home occupation shallalso be enly eecupants inhabitants of the dwelling are engaged-im-the-homs-oeswpatiom: Vice Mayor Patterson stated that persons conducting home occupations may have a personal secretary or someone who comes to the dwelling to assist with projects or tasks. Mr. Litchet stated that the language was proposed and is being revised to clarify the intent of the existing Zoning Code, which does not provide for employees of home occupations; that providing for employees who are not inhabitants of the dwelling at which the home occupation is conducted would create an enforcement issue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the intent is to prohibit the hiring of employees to engage in the home occupation but not to prevent an employee unrelated to the home occupation from coming to the dwelling. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that enforcement of the existing provision has not been an issue. Issue: Docks Mr. Litchet stated that the issues concerning docks were raised by John Browning during the October 6, 1998, public hearing; that the Commission agreed no specific action should be taken under Phase I of the LDRs Update; that the Board of Adjustment intends to review and report back with regulations for docks in the near future. Mr. Litchet stated that the following revisions were made in response to issues raised during the October 6, 1998, public hearing by Charles D. Bailey, Law Firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen: Issue: Definitions for Use, government; Use, lease-hold; and Use, quasi-public Revision: Article II, Section II-201 Use, government: Any use for exclusively public purposes without reference to the ownership of the building or structures or the realty upon which it is situated by any department or branch of the federal government, State of Florida, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota govermmeNt-under-the-direct- authorityef the City Commission; Sarasota Board of County Commissioners. Sarasota County School Board, the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, University of South Florida, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the Sarasota Memorial Hospital. Use, lease-hold: A principal use conducted, on a zoning lot owned by either a government et quasipublie agency, by a non-governmental entity that is leasing the land, facility and/or building from either a government er-esi-publie agency. Attorney Schenk stated that the definition of Use, quasi-public was eliminated as recommended by City Manager Sollenberger and the language merged into the definition of Use, government. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Commission consensus to make the revisions requested by Attorney Bailey is not recalled; and asked if the Governmental Use. ("G") Zone District would now include property owned by Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) ? Mr. Litchet stated yes; however, the provision would not exempt SMH from meeting development standards for parking, etc., as set forth in the LDRs document for the Governmental Use Zone District; that the governmental entities referenced in the Use, government definition could request consideration of a Government Zone Waiver if development standards cannot be met; that development of a specific zone district for the hospital properties is planned under Phase II of the LDRS Update. Attorney Schenk referred to and explained the following language incorporated into the LDRs document to clarify the City Commission's intent to adopt a hospital zone district with standards in the future and not to make existing structures within the hospital core nonconforming in the interim: Revision: Article VI, Section VI-101 BOOK 45 Page 17602 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17603 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. C. Sarasota Memorial Hospital Development within the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core Area. 1. Intent & Purpose: Sarasota Memorial Hospital owns property within the "G" Zone District designated as the " Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core' n on the Official Zoning Atlas. Section VI-2003 of these requlations requires all development within the "G" Zone District to comply with the development standards of the most restrictive zone district adiacent to the "G" zoned zoning lot. It is the intent of the City Commission to enact a new hospital zone district with standards, as a subsequent amendment to these requlations to address the unique characteristics of existing and proposed development within the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core Area. It is the intent of the City Commission to avoid making existing structures within the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core Area nonconforming by the enactment of Section VI-2003 hereof. During the interim period between the enactment of the Zoning Code (1998) the enactment of - a new hospital zone district and the rezoning of properties within the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core Area to this new zone district, the provisions of Subsection 2 below shall apply. 2. Structures Deemed Lawful: Structures existing within the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core Area upon the effective date of these requlations which are located on property zoned as a "G" Zone District, shall be deemed lawful existing structures. Such existing structures shall be exempt from compliance with the development standards of the most restrictive zone district adiacent to the "G" zoned zoning lot on which the existing structures are located. 3. Duration: This exemption shall be deemed temporary and shall cease at such time as the City enacts a new hospital zone district applicable to the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core Area and at such time as properties within the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core Area are rezoned to such new hospital zone district. Vice Mayor Patterson requested clarification of previous Commission action concerning Governmental Use regulations. Lou Ann Palmer, Vice Chairman, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding past discussions and Commission direction provided at the October 6, 1998, special meeting concerning revision to the "Use, quasi-public" definition, reference to "uniquely governmental, and development of a hospital zone district. Attorney Schenk stated that her notes indicate Commission direction to retain the Governmental Use regulations proposed as follows in Section VI-2003: In addition to the standards set forth in Article VII, all development within the G District shall be carried out in accordance with the development standards of the most restrictive zone district adjacent to the G zoned property. A. The development standards shall apply to all development, uses, and property owners including the city. B. Waivers to the development standards may be granted in accordance with Section IV-1701. Attorney Schenk stated that the standards set forth in Article VII include: regulation of signs, off-street parking, landscaping, and use standards. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a governmental entity proposing to construct a storage shed on "G" zoned property would be exempt from setback requirements? Mr. Litchet stated that governmental entities, including the City of Sarasota, would be required to meet setback requirements set forth for the most restrictive adjacent zone district or to request a Government Zone Waiver from the City Commission if the setback requirements could not be met. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the same criteria would apply were a lift station to be constructed on "G" zoned property? Mr. Litchet stated yes; that, for example, if the nearest zone district were Residential, Single-Family (RSF), the setback requirements for the RSF Zone District would apply to the property on which construction of the lift station is planned. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the standards by which requests for Government Zone Waivers are reviewed? BOOK 45 Page 17604 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17605 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet referred to and explained Section IV-1706, which outlined the following Standards for Review pertaining to Government Zone Waivers: A. For uses that are uniquely govermmental, such as fire stations, police stations, sewage treatment plants, pump-stations, or similar uses, whether the requested waiver is the minimum waiver that will make possible the reasonable use of the land and that the waiver will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (This paragraph is meant to govern those generic use types not identified as principal uses in the Use Chart found in Section VI-102 of this Code.) B. For all other uses, such as office buildings, auditoriums, restaurants, etc. (regardless of ownership), the waiver shall not be granted unless: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings of a similar nature in other zoning districts. 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 3. Literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other similar properties in other zoning district under the terms of these regulations and would cause unnecessary and undue hardship for the applicant. 4. The waiver, if granted, is the minimum waiver that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. 5. The granting of the waiver will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of these regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. Litchet stated that the standards for uniquely governmental uses are less restrictive; that the standards for uses such as office buildings, auditoriums, and restaurants are more restrictive. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that SMH is in the process of purchasing physicians' practices and properties to expand the hospital core; that assuring appropriate standards for setbacks and height restrictions would apply in such an instance is the concern; and asked if the City Commission would have the ability to deny, for example, a Government Zone Waiver requested by the County to exceed height and setback requirements in constructing. a jail at a location where the building would be visually obstructive to surrounding properties? Mr. Litchet stated yes; that all Government Zone Waiver requests will be presented to and reviewed by the City Commission; that the process will be similar to that currently followed by the Commission in evaluating variance requests for "G" zoned properties. Commissioner Cardamone asked the standards applicable if, for example, Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority purchases property on which to construct an office building for lease and an extension of runway for specific use by the Airport? Mr. Litchet stated that exercising discretion in determining development standards applicable to the runway would probably be necessary as the adjacent zone district would be difficult to discern; that a Government Zone Waiver would be required if the development standards applied could not be met; that the runway would be considered a uniquely governmental use; therefore, Commission consideration would be based on the less restrictive criteria set forth in Section IV-1706 (A) i that the office building constructed for lease would not be considered a uniquely governmental use; therefore, the more restrictive criteria set forth in Section IV-1706 (B) would apply. Mr. Litchet stated that the following revisions were made in response to issues raised at the October 6, 1998, special meeting by Michael Furen, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg: Issue: Creating noncontorming uses in the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) Zone District by eliminating the special exception process Revision: Article V, Section V-103 (E) (3) 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions as to reconstruction. for any project which was granted a special exception for height in a zone district pursuant to a prior zone code which previously provided for a special exception for height and if such special exception was granted prior to the BOOK 45 Page 17606 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17607 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. effective date of these requlations. then such project may be rebuilt after destruction to the prior extent of nonconformity as to height and density of units per acre regardless of the percentage of destruction. In the event of such rebuilding, all setbacks and other applicable district requirements shall be met t unless a variance therefor is obtained from the board of adiustment. Mr. . Litchet stated that new construction or expansion to existing structures will be subject to the new regulations and development standards set forth in the MCI Zone District. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the exemption will apply to structures willfully destroyed, e.g., a building which is purposely demolished for replacement? Mr. Litchet stated that the existing Zoning Code provides for reconstruction of nonconforming buildings, i.e., condominiums with long-term leases, in the event of destruction; that the provision is not restricted to involuntary destruction of structures. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that reconstruction of an entire structure to the nonconforming status should be allowed, for example, if a hurricane destroys only a portion of the structure; however, providing for reconstruction to the nonconforming status when buildings are purposely demolished for replacement is of concern. Commissioner Cardamone agreed. Mr. Litchet stated that the provision has been in the Zoning Code for the past 25 yearsi that directing Staff to review and report back on the issue before taking action to further restrict the opportunity for reconstruction of nonconforming structures would be appropriate. Ms. Palmer agreed; and stated that unintended consequences could result if the issue is not reviewed carefully. Mr. Litchet stated that the Commission's concerns are understood; that the issue will be reviewed with the PBLP. Commissioner Cardamone stated that providing for the expansion of a special exception, a variance, or a nonconforming use is her concern. Attorney Schenk stated that Section I-105, Transitional Rules, requires approval of a new conditional use permit for expansion or a change in use of a previously approved special exception. Issue: Inadvertent omission of provision allowing 24-hour operation as a conditional use in the North Trail (NT) Zone District Revision: Article VI, Section VI-2103 (B) (3) 3. Prohibited hours of operation are from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., except as otherwise provided in subsection (5) (b). Urgent care centers, colleges, universities, restaurants, theaters, hotels, and motels, residential uses, bed and breakfast inns, and existing radio and television stations, transmitters, bars, and taverns are excluded from this restriction. All other allowable uses shall apply for a Major Conditional Use to extend their hours of operation. Mr. Litchet stated that the existing Zoning Code provides for 24-hour operation in the North Trail (NT) Zone District by special exception. Issue : Deeming parking at a nonconforming use a lawfully existing characteristic of use Revision: Article VII, Section VII-202: A. Applicability. Except for one and two family dwellings, every use hereafter instituted, and every structure hereafter erected or enlarged, shall have permanently maintained off-street parking areas pursuant to the provisions set out in this Division. When-e-change er inerease in-the intensity entargement set * use ereates- an nerea ase the recuired ameunt ef parleing additienal parking spaees shall be previded fer any ew expanded-areas of the use in aeeerdanee with the provisions ef this Divisien- Where an existing use has fewer parking spaces than the number of parking spaces that would be required by this Division, and the existing use is increased in density or intensity, additional parking spaces shall only need to be provided pursuant to this Division for the increased units, square footage or intensity of the use. C. Where, on January 1, 1975 a use exists whose parking, for any reason whatsoever is less than that which was required by the zoning code in effect at the time a building permit was issued for the structure (s) thereon, such parking shall be deemed a lawfully existing characteristic of use and shall be deemed to be in conformity with BOOK 45 Page 17608 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17609 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. these requlations and shall be allowed to continue. However, any expansion of the use shall comply with Subsection (B) above. Mr. Litchet stated that the language was included in Section VII-202 to clarify the intent of the existing Zoning Code to require additional parking spaces only for the expanded area of a nonconforming use. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the broadened language may be beneficial to the planned Hyatt expansion but would also make legal the sale of land on which parking is provided, e.g., at an establishment which illegally expanded a special exception use. Mr. Litchet stated that the provision applies only to a use existing on January 1, 1975. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that inclusion of the 1975 date adequately addresses her conçern. Mr. Litchet stated that issues raised during the October 6, 1998, public hearing by Stephen Rees, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg have been addressed as follows: Issue: Unnecessary reference to non-profit corporation in Club, private recreation definition Revision: Article II, Section II-201: Club, private recreation: A land area and one or more buildings and structures containing recreational facilities, club house and usual accessory uses, operated bya nen-prefit cerporation-tor the pleasure and recreation only of its members and their guests for a membership fee, which may include, but are not limited to, indoor restaurant, bar, lounge, meeting rooms, exercise and sauna, outdoor swimming pool, tennis courts, shuffle board courts, cabanas, outdoor furniture and other similar facilities. (See also "Club, private") Issue: : Reference to private recreation club on a condominium identification sign Revision: Article VII, Section VII-110 (D) (4) : 4. Private recreation clubs: One (1) identification wall or ground sign no more than six (6) square feet in area. Illumination of the sign is permitted if such illumination consists of only a low-intensity fluorescent or incandescent bulb. All lighting for signs shall be so designed and arranged to shield adjacent properties from direct glare. Neon, animated or moving signs are prohibited. The building and zoning administrator shall determine that the style of the sign is compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. If approved in accordance with Section VI-104(B) of this Code, as a recreational club/condominium. project, the private recreation club's sign may be made a part of such condominium identification sign (see subsection VII-110 (D) (1) above) Such combined sign will then be considered a "proiect identification sign. 1 Such a project identification sign shall no exceed thirty-eight (38) square feet in total aggregate area. Issue: Proposed revisions to provide for alternative use of Siesta Key Fish Market property. Mr. Litchet stated that Staff does not recommend incorporation of the language proposed by Attorney Rees to provide for alternative use of the Siesta Key Fish Market property. Attorney Schenk referred to the supplements outlining additional, minor revisions made to the following sections of the LDRs document to provide consistency with 1998 amendments to the Florida Statutes: Section II-201, Definitions Assisted living facility: Any building or buildings, section or distinct part of a building, residence, private home, boarding home, home for the aged, or other residential facility er-other-plaser whether operated for profit or not, which undertakes through its ownership or management to provide, fera peried exeeeding 24hoursr housing, meals, food-servieer. and one (1) or more personal services for a period exceeding 24 hours to one (1) or more adults ferfour 141 OF-more-adwkter who are not relatives of the owner or administrator by blood or marriage, who require such services; or to provide extended congregate care, limited nursing services, or limited mental health services, when specifically licensed to do sO pursuant to Fla. Stat. 400.407. A faeility effering persenal servieest extended eongregate eare, limited nursing serviees, - limited-mental healt Eer fewer han four adults within the meaning ef mmat a informal: advert * seli 1 fer es at Eral € elds tseif ou ca neitt prevides sueh services BOOK 45 Page 17610 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17611 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. unless the faeility lieensed-as af adult family eare heme a. Each separate room or group of rooms designed or intended for use as a residence by an individual or family equipped with kitchen facilities shall be equal to one (1) dwelling unit. b. Each separate room or group of rooms designed or intended for use as a residence by an individual or family and not equipped with kitchen facilities shall be equal to one-half of a dwelling unit. C. Where the facility contains an accessory infirmary, each bed shall be equal to one-quarter of a dwelling unit. (See also Adult day care center, Community residential home, Group home facility & Nursing home) Section IV-203, Concurrency Certificate Transportation facilities. A de minimis impact is an impact that would not affect more than 1 percent of the maximum volume at the adopted level of service of the affected transportation facility as determined by the City. No impact will be de minimis if the sum of existing roadway volumes and the proiected volumes from approved proiects on a transportation facility would exceed 110 percent of the maximum volume at the adopted level of service of the affected transportation facility would exeeed e et the sum-ef existing velumes- ar ejeeted elumes Eremt appreved- prejeets eft anspe: en faeility Provided, however, an impact of a single-family home on an existing lot will constitute a de minimis impact on all roadways regardless of the level of the deficiency of the roadway. No impact will be de minimis (with the exception of the impact of a single-family home on an existing zoning lot) if it would exceed the adopted level of service standard for any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Michael Furen, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street (32437), stated that the Commission's favorable response to most but not all of his requests for revisions and the expeditious manner in which Staff responded to Commission direction are appreciated. Attorney Furen referred to the following item on page 10 of the LDRs Errata Sheet: Article VI, Section VI-104 (B) : B. For shopping malls, shopping centers, office parks, mixed-use condominium/hotel proiects, recreational club/condominium. projects and industrial parks developed as a single project, but which include zoning lots under separate ownership subsequent to, or in conjunction with the development of the project, the design standards for parking, setbacks, zoning lot coverage, open space, etc. may be satisfied by all of the property included within the project. Attorney Furen stated that the provision should not be limited to condominiums; and requested that the phrase "and other mixed-use projects" be incorporated into the revised text under Section VI-104 (B) - Attorney Furen continued that the existing Zoning Code provides for 24-hour operation in the NT Zone District by special exception; that the special exception process has been eliminated from the LDRs document; that the revision to Section VI-2103 (B) (3) provides for extended hours of operation as a Major Conditional Use; however, hours of operation is not listed as a use for any of the zone districts on the LDR Use Matrix; and asked if omitting reference to hours of operation as a use in the matrix will cause a problem with interpretation of the Code? Mr. Litchet stated no; that various use standards set forth in the text have not been included on the LDR Use Matrix, which is a specific use not an all-inclusive use chart; that the following revision has been included on the LDRs Errata Sheet since sections of the text also reference "conditional use" without specifying the type as either minor or major: Article II, Section II-101(M) M. Any references to "Conditional Uses" shall be interpreted to mean Major Conditional Uses. Only those uses specifically cited as being allowed by Minor Conditional Use shall use said Minor Conditional Use process. Mr. Litchet stated that the intent is to develop a broader matrix during Phase II of the LDRs Update. BOOK 45 Page 17612 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17613 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. Dale Parks, Chairman, George Haborak, Vice Chairman, Kate O'Connell and Dennis Kowal, Members, representing the Public Art Committee. Mr. Parks stated that the Public Art Committee is proposing potential changes to Section VII-701 in an effort to enhance contributions to the Public Art Fund. Mr. Haborak referred to: 1) minutes of the Public Art Committee meeting of June 23, 1998, wherein Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, explained Staff's recommendation and the position of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) regarding changes to the public art requirement and 2) minutes of the PBLP's meeting of May 24, 1998, wherein the PBLP reached a consensus to limit the location of public art to within the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) although two members voiced support for expanding the requirement Citywide. Mr. Haborak stated that the public art requirement currently applies only to nonresidential buildings located in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD), Theater and Arts District (TAD), and Government (G) Zone Districts; that additional funds could be raised if buildings, i.e., the Walgreens recently constructed at the intersections of Fruitville Road/U.s. 301 and Bahia Vista Street/U.S. 41, were subject to the public art requirement. Ms. O'Connell stated that the original intent for establishing the Public Art Committee was to provide for and enhance the City with public art for enjoyment by all citizens; that expanding the public art requirement Citywide would provide a benefit to the citizens and also provide funds to enhance redeveloping areas, i.e., the North Trail (NT) Zone District, which are viewed by visitors before entering the Downtown. Mr. Haborak stated that Citywide application of the public art requirement would generate a funding source for the Aesthetic Enrichment Master Plan previously adopted by the City Commission; that Commission consideration of applying the public art requirement Citywide is requested. William Tatem, President. and Roland Kruse, Member, Sarasota Elks Lodge #1519, 2635 Fruitville Road, distributed to the Commission copies of: 1) a letter outlining the hardship caused to the Sarasota Elks Lodge by the elimination of the special exception providing for location of private clubs in residentially zoned areas and 2) a letter from Alan Bennett, property owner, outlining his intent to negotiate the sale of property to and supporting the request of Sarasota Elks Lodge #1519 for a 30-day filing extension. Mr. Tatem stated that Sarasota Elks Lodge #1519 has been considering relocation to a less expensive site; that property for sale at the northeast corner of Lockwood Ridge Road and 12th Street, which is zoned Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-1), was not identified until Friday, October 16, 1998; that timely submittal of a special exception application prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 was not feasible; that Commission consideration of granting a 30-day filing extension to Sarasota Elks Lodge #1519 for submittal of a special exception application is requested. Charles D. Bailey, Law Firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz &e Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue, (34236) representing Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH), referred to Section VI-101 (C) on the LDRs Errata Sheet and stated that the language is well prepared and captures the essence of the request made by SMH. Attorney Bailey referred to the revised definition of Use, government; and stated that SMH is governed by the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board; that the proper name should be referenced under Section II-201. Attorney Bailey continued that his recollection of the Commission's discussion at the October 6, 1998, special meeting concerning revision to the "Use, quasi-public" definition and reference to "uniquely governmental" resulted in an informal consensus to: 1) eliminate the needless distinction between "Use, governmental" and "Use, quasi-public" and 2) eliminate the distinction between "uniquely governmental". and 'governmental" by applying the more restrictive standards to both. Attorney Bailey further stated that a change in the public art requirement as proposed by the Public Art Committee would affect not only the master plan for SMH but also any school projects, i.e., improvements to Brookside Middle School, or projects planned by the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority; that applying a standard Citywide which currently exists only within the Community Redevelopment Area would be a substantial change to the LDRs document presented during the first public hearing; that input from governmental and other potentially affected entities should be sought if the Commission intends to honor the request of the Public Art Committee. Bob Skalitsky, 1231 North Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), representing Marina Tower, asked if the maximum height of structures in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District will remain at 180 feet for residential condominium developments providing retail on street level? Mr. Litchet came forward and stated that Section VI-1603 provides a 180-foot maximum height for residential or commercial uses. BOOK 45 Page 17614 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17615 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 on second reading. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission previously discussed the issue of expanding the public art requirement beyond the existing three zone districts within the Community Redevelopment Area; that she was a proponent of applying the requirement Citywide for new construction, specifically in the NT Zone District; that requiring a display of public art or a contribution to the Public Art Fund for commercial developments, i.e., Walgreens, Eckerds, or other stores with a standard appearance, may be appropriate; that Attorney Bailey raised the issue of potential impact on the hospital, schools, and airport; that SMH has a beautiful display of public art with donated or purchased paintings on the walls of each floor and Sarasota- Manatee Airport Authority has the Mote Marine exhibits, waterfalls, etc., all of which are appealing to the public and visitors trequenting the City; however, the potential for negative impact on school projects raises concern. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Sarasota County School Board is not required to obtain a building permit for school construction; therefore, applying the City's public art requirement to school projects may not be feasible. Mr. Litchet came forward and stated that is correct; that the public art requirement applies to any property owner or developer who applies to the City for a building permit to construct or make substantial improvements to a nonresidential building located in the C-CBD, TAD, or "G" Zone Districts; therefore, the requirement, currently and as drafted, would not apply to the Sarasota County School Board. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the reason the Commission failed to reach consensus in favor of broadening the public art requirement is not recalled. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that expanding the public art requirement as requested would essentially apply a one- -half of one percent tax Citywide on commercial construction; that applying the public art requirement to the Community Redevelopment Area is acceptable since the commercial builders benefit from the substantial funding the City has invested into that area; however, applying the requirement outside of the Downtown core, where the City continues to have difficulty attracting quality commercial buildings, would be counterproductive; that the Commission should consider increasing the annual $30,000 budget allocation to the Public Art Fund versus taxing private entities for a public interest. Ms. Palmer came forward and stated that expanding the area in which the public art requirement applies would be a major revision; that the issue should be referred to the PBLP if further consideration is desired by the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that extensive parking and landscaping standards apply Citywide; that requiring a one-half of one percent contribution for public art Citywide may be excessive; however, a lower percentage contribution for areas outside the Community Redevelopment Area could be considered; that the developer can satisfy the public art requirement either by making a monetary contribution to the Public Art Fund or by providing public art on site; that she supports referring the issue to the PBLP for review. Mayor Dupree stated that public art is important; however, discouraging new construction is of concern; that considering an increased budget allocation is more favorable than imposing a one-half of one percent "penalty" on new construction. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a program whereby developers are encouraged to make public art donations, e.g., statues with plaques referencing the benefactor, could be considered for the areas outside the Community Redevelopment Area; that referring the issue to the Public Art Committee versus the PBLP may be more appropriate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that many developers who build and reap the benefits of operating businesses in the City of Sarasota are not Sarasotans and do not reinvest business earnings in the local economyi that encouraging the provision of public art either through donation or a lesser contribution should be examined. Mayor Dupree stated that a Commission consensus has been reached to refer to the PBLP and the Public Art Committee for further review the issue of encouraging public art contributions in areas outside the Community Redevelopment Area. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she does not feel comfortable addressing the request of the Sarasota Elks Lodge this evening as the subject property has not been reviewed nor a Staff report provided; that the request could be reviewed during the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Mayor Dupree agreed. Mr. Litchet stated that the PBLP attempted to limit commercial intrusion into City neighborhoods; that the compatibility of private clubs with residential uses is questionable; that adjacent BOOK 45 Page 17616 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17617 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. neighborhoods have requested a change in zoning along the rear of the existing Elks Lodge facility which fronts on Fruitville Road; that reviewing the request of Sarasota Elks Lodge #1519 during the Future Land Use portion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process would be more appropriate. Commissioner Cardamone requested a Staff response to the issue raised by Attorney Bailey concerning application of the more restrictive standards to both uniquely governmental and governmental uses. Mr. Litchet stated that although, in practice, the PBLP and City Commission may routinely choose to review uniquely governmental and governmental uses based on the more restrictive standards, having two separate standards provides the Commission a legal basis for denying a request for a waiver which is undesirable. City Attorney Taylor stated that the provision was drafted to assist the building officials in interpreting and applying the code requirements to development applications filed; that retaining two separate standards, as currently drafted, and monitoring the results is advised; that a change in the provision could be made in the future if necessary. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if development of a hospital zone district would negate the need for SMH to request variances or government waivers on a structure-by-by-structure basis? Mr. Litchet stated yes, hopefully, that will be the result of the public process Eollowed in developing a hospital zone district. Ms. Palmer stated that Commission agreement was sensed to Attorney Furen's request that the phrase "and other mixed-use projects" be incorporated into the revised text for Section VI-104 (B). Attorney Schenk came forward and stated that an appropriate motion would be to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 as modified based on the following: the 15-page document dated 10/19/98 and entitled Errata Sheet, City Commission Recommended Land Development Regulations (LDRs) II the 10/19/98 LDRs Errata Sheet outlining revisions to Section IV-203, Concurrency Certificate, pertaining to De Minimis Development the 10/19/98 LDRs Errata Sheet outlining additional revisions to Section II-201, Definitions, pertaining to Assisted Living Facilities revision to Item 42 of the LDRs Errata Sheet, Section IV-104 (B), to incorporate the phrase "and other mixed-use projects" revision to Item 16 of the LDRS Errata Sheet, Section II-201, for proper reference to Sarasota County Public Hospital Board under "Use, government" On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 modified as outlined by Attorney Schenk. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0) : Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Mr. Litchet stated that Zoning Code (1998) is effective upon the Commission's vote; that petitions filed through 5 p.m. on October 21, 1998, will be governed by Zoning Code (1974); that petitions filed as of October 22, 1998, will be governed by Zoning Code (1998); that a smooth transition is expected; that Staff has coordinated necessary changes to application forms and computer programs, i that training sessions are scheduled through November to familiarize Staff with the new regulations; that specific training sessions for Board members and the public will be scheduled in December. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the final product will be as bulky and weighty as the draft LDRs document presented? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the new zoning code books will be larger than the existing books but should not be as bulky as the draft LDRs document; that Internet access to Zoning Code (1998) will be provided on the City Auditor and Clerk's web page. Commissioner Cardamone stated that completing the rewrite of a 25-year-old zoning code is a major accomplishment; that congratulations are extended to all parties involved in the rewrite. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Ms. Palmer convey the Commission's gratitude to the PBLP for the endless volunteer hours they expended in developing the draft LDRS document; commended the efforts of Mr. Costanzo, Mr. Litchet, and Attorney Schenk, in preparing a final product for adoption; and thanked the public for participating in the process. Commissioner Cardamone stated that formal appreciation should be extended to the PBLP either at a regular City Commission meeting or through a letter from the Mayor. BOOK 45 Page 17618 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17619 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree thanked Vice Mayor Patterson and Commissioner Cardamone for their time and efforts in attending the LDRs workshops as well as the Staff who were involved in the LDRs Update process. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the magnitude of the project was not realized when the Administration initially recommended the City proceed with the LDRS Update; that adoption of Zoning Code (1998) is a major accomplishment. 8. ADOPTION RE: : SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4079, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE so AS TO RANSFER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO THE SARASOTA CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: AMENDING CHAPTER 23, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO CREATE A NEW SECTION 23-3.6, COMMERCIAL VENDING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: AMENDING CHAPTER 2, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO CREATE A NEW ARTICLE IX, SARASOTA MOBILE HOME PARK; AMENDING AND TRANSFERRING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE IV, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND PARKS TO CHAPTER 22, SARASOTA CITY CODE, ARTICLE IV, VACATION OF PARKS; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV) #1 (1606) through (1680) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4079 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4079 on second reading. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson I it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 98-4079. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1114, ADOPTING A BILLABLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND MATTERS PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ZONING CODE (1998); SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ETC. - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (1688) through (1757) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1114 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Resolution No. 98R-1114. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 98R-1114. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. 10. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA CONSENSUS TO INCORPORATE A STATEMENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES IF INCLUSION OF AN ACTION STRATEGY IS NOT LEGALLY NECESSARY (AGENDA ITEM X) #2 (1861) through (2170) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: : A. stated that in a recent conversation, Tim Dutton, Human Services Planning Association of Sarasota County, Inc. I was advised that she could support 1) appointing or encouraging the formation of an ad hoc committee to review the needs of the social service agencies, their clients, and the relationship to the City and 2) incorporating language such as the following as a statement in the revised Comprehensive Plan: The City recognizes the importance of social service agencies to our citizens in our community. Commissioner Cardamone stated that including the appointment of an ad hoc committee as an action strategy in the Comprehensive Plan is neither strongly supported nor opposed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the referenced language is acceptable; however, mandating the appointment of an ad hoc committee in the Comprehensive Plan is not supported. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, indicated that action strategies must accompany statements incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Dupree stated that requiring the appointment of an ad hoc committee in the Comprehensive Plan is not strongly supported; that incorporating such an action strategy would only be BOOK 45 Page 17620 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17621 10/21/98 6:00 P.M. considered to assure the social service agencies the City's intent is real. City Attorney Taylor stated that incorporating a statement without an action strategy could negatively affect the City's ability to gain State approval of the revised Comprehensive Plan; that the issue will be reviewed and a legal opinion forwarded to the Commission. Mayor Dupree stated that Commission consensus has been reached to incorporate a statement in the Comprehensive Plan recognizing the importance of social service agencies if inclusion of an action strategy is not legally necessary. 11. OTHER MATTERS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #2 (1757) through (1862) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: : A. stated that he will be attending the annual conference of the International City/County Management Association next week; that V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, will be the Administration's representative at the October 27, 1998, special City Commission meeting concerning the Future Land Use component of the revised Comprehensive Plan; however, Mr. Schneider is also scheduled to attend a Conflict Resolution Seminar sponsored by Florida State University on October 27, 1998, and will not arrive at the Commission meeting until approximately 8 p.m. B. stated that his attendance at a public forum coordinated by the Bradenton City Manager Committee has been requested to provide input regarding the Commission/Manager form of government; that the forum is scheduled from 6 to 8:30 p.m. on October 29, 1998; that a continuation of the public hearing scheduled on October 27, 1998, has also been scheduled for 6 p.m. on October 29, 1998; that Mr. Schneider is available to attend the entire meeting as the Administration's representative; that he could also plan to attend the Commission meeting after 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that making the City of Bradenton aware of the Commission/Manager form of government is important. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that City Manager Sollenberger should plan to attend the October 29, 1998, Commission meeting following the public forum. 12. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #2 (2175) There being no further business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the special meeting of October 21, 1998, at 8:50 p.m. brone Bupiu JEROME DUPREE, MAYOR ATTEST: 4 e Robens * BILLS ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 45 Page 17622 10/21/98 6:00 P.M.