BOOK 45 Page 17507 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: : Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson (arrived at 6:07 p.m.), Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Jerome Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Section III, Section 9( (b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that any citizen who has signed up to speak has five minutes and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 1. 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 (US 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) PASSED ON FIRST READING CONTINGENT UPON ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4076 (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0045) through (0295) Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, and Timothy Litchet, Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission. Mr. Costanzo stated that the Fruitville Road Corridor Overlay District is proposed as part of the proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRs), also called the proposed Zoning Code (1998), and is intended to accomplish the following: 1) preserve. and promote the aesthetic value of the Fruitville Road corridor, 2) avoid distracting visual clutter along the corridor and 3) create and enhance the visual aspects of the corridor which is the eastern gateway to the City. Vice Mayor Patterson arrived in the Chambers at 6:07 p.m. Mr. Costanzo stated that the Fruitville Road Corridor Overlay District is designed to overlay and modify the primary zone districts along the corridor and operates in conjunction with the underlying zone districts; that the following regulations affect new uses in the overlay district: New development must provide a unified sign program addressing style, color and size of signage internal to the project. Free-standing, ground-mounted signs must be monument- type signs. Animated, flashing message signs are prohibited. Metal-sided, pre-modular and pre-fabricated buildings except for single-family detached housing are prohibited in the overlay district. Mr. Costanzo referred to four Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District Boundary Maps; and stated that the proposed overlay district extends from the eastern City boundary line to US 41 and affects parcels fronting, on Fruitville Road. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4077 on first reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4077 by title only. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: Minutes of the February 4, 1997, City Commission workshop regarding the Fruitville Road Corridor Overlay District BOOK 45 Page 17508 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17509 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Minutes of the May 21, 1998, public hearing held by the Planning Board Local Planning Agency (PBLP) on the proposed Zoning Code (1998) A Resolution of the Planning Board adopted on May 21, 1998, finding the proposed Zoning Code (1998) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4077 on first 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 (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. 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 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) - PASSED ON FIRST READING CONTINGENT UPON ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4076 (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0296) through (1331) City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 amends the official City Zoning Map to incorporate the boundaries of the Laurel Park Overlay District. Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, came before the Commission and stated that the Laurel Park Overlay District is the second of two new overlay districts proposed for incorporation in the official City Zoning Map in the proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRs), also called the Zoning Code (1998), and was written by two consultants for the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), William Merrill and Bruce Franklin, with input of many neighborhood residents and is designed to protect and enhance the significant architectural characteristics and the existing environment in Laurel Park; that Staff has revised the language concerning approval authority of the Historic Preservation Board for structures in Laurel Park to provide that approval or denial must be based on the mandatory design criteria as previously directed by the Commission. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Bobby Fletcher, Chairman, Laurel Park Overlay District Committee, Rick Liberi, President, Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, and Bruce Franklin, Planning Consultant, representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association. Mr. Franklin stated that the Commission approved a $10,000 allocation for consultants to facilitate the LPNA's s process in drafting an ordinance to create an overlay district; that numerous meetings, neighborhood presentations and technical workshops have been held and attended by many participants to complete the proposal; that the process culminates with the final presentation to the Commission. Mr. Fletcher stated that the Laurel Park neighborhood is an area primarily consisting of 200 to 300 residential structures south of downtown; that Laurel Park is historically a residential neighborhood and is a mix of single- and multi-family uses; that the area was mostly developed during the 1920s; however, some developmental activity occurred during the 1950s and 1960s; that some homes were converted from single-family uses to multi-family and commercial uses; that approximately 70 percent of the Laurel Park neighborhood consists of single-family residences with the remaining 30 percent consisting of multi-family residences and some commercial uses; that the Laurel Park neighborhood is participating in the revival of the downtown area which has been witnessed and enjoyed over the last several years and which has resulted in an increase in owner occupancy, extensive existing structure rehabilitation primarily of historic structures and changes in developmental pressures; that some new neighborhood development and construction is being witnessed; that the overlay district incorporates regulation changes which will govern the Laurel Park neighborhood which faces two developmental issues: : 1) the revitalization of downtown and near-by neighborhoods has meant increased development pressures in the Laurel Park area, and 2) the existing zoning for the Laurel Park neighborhood is outdated based on current homes in the area and residential desires; that areas which have not seen much new development in the last several decades now face development pressure; that an increased interest in more single-, multi-family and commercial uses is being witnessed; that the existing zoning is primarily multi-family, specifically, the Residential, Multiple-Pamily (RMF)-3 Zone District, and is not consistent with either the existing uses, character or the residents' desires; that Laurel Park residents appreciate the neighborhood is primarily BOOK 45 Page 17510 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17511 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. single-family uses and has an historic character; therefore, a new overlay district is desired to reflect the existing environment and the neighborhood's future direction. Mr. Fletcher continued that the Laurel Park Overlay District is the culmination of over two years of effort; that a great emphasis has been placed on inclusion of all concerns; that the efforts have included: many different pertinent issues; many informal discussions among residents, Staff and anyone interested; numerous neighborhood meetings; research into the efforts of other cities and counties in similar situations; the existing environment such as age, uses, size and architectural aspects which has been documented, and a survey mailed to all residents and property owners in the area; that the Laurel Park Overlay District incorporates the neighborhood's desires; that the Laurel Park Overlay District has not been drafted by only a few people but rather represents many residents' opinions; that the proposal has been widely distributed and thoroughly discussed among neighborhood residents and Staff; that the Commission has also reviewed the proposal. Mr. Fletcher stated further that setbacks governing development should be reduced on the front and side yards of property in Laurel Park as is consistent with older neighborhoods; that limitations on the floor-to-area (FAR) ratio and maximum height are being introduced to prevent very large homes from being developed in a typically single-family neighborhood with relatively small homes; that some detached apartment dwellings as currently exist should be allowed particularly on larger lots; that current regulations prohibit additional apartment construction; that new homes are anticipated in the future as the neighborhood becomes a more desirable place to live; that implementing a limited design review of new buildings which should be suggestive and not attempt to mimic an historic presérvation district or an extremely restrictive new neighborhood is desired to encourage compatible designs. Mr. Fletcher further stated that five mandatory design features are included to assure new structures are compatible with the neighborhood and referred to Section VI-3106 (B) (4), Mandatory Design Standards, of the proposed LDRs as follows: a. Utilities. For all new buildings, utility "house feed" lines shall be placed underground. b. Building Façade. All new buildings must be front-facing and include a front door as a primary entrance. C. Front Porch. The main entrance on all new buildings shall include a porch, deck or similar open-air covered main entry feature. The porch, deck or similar feature shall have a minimum area of 60 square feet. d. Garage Placement. For all new buildings and garages, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back at least 15 feet from the front façade of the primary building and must be set back at least 25 feet from the front lot line. The width of any attached garage area may not exceed 50 percent of the primary building's front façade. e. Fences. New fences shall not exceed four (4) feet in height in the front yard. Mr. Fletcher stated that developing the Laurel Park Overlay District has been a worthwhile effort representing new territory for neighborhood planning; that the Laurel Park Overlay District was the first to begin as a neighborhood plan if not the first adopted; that the proposal is very moderate and increases property owners' rights; that the proposal is considerate of neighborhood residents, respectful of property rights, is substantially superior to the existing multiple-family zoning and is consistent with the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed restrictions are as lenient as possible to achieve neighborhood protection; that the Laurel Park Overlay District should be adopted as proposed. Mr. Liberi stated that the individuals involved in preparing the proposal met on a weekly basis; that he has been on the Laurel Park Overlay District Committee, which initially was comprised of only three members, for over one year; that additional members joined; that the Laurel Park Overlay District Committee met for a considerable period to arrive at the final recommendation; that Committee members were not all in accord in the beginning; that the final recommendation is a modest proposal greatly improving the Laurel Park neighborhood, which can go in many directions; that the City of St. Augustine, Florida, is representative of the type of commercial neighborhood Laurel Park can become; that the neighborhood has the potential to accomplish many things but has much to lose if the proposal is not adopted; that residents wish to remain in Laurel Park, which is loved due to the close proximity to downtown and the Bayfront, as Laurel Park cannot be duplicated; that the upcoming downtown renovations are exciting and will add to the Laurel Park neighborhood; that selling his home and leaving the Laurel Park neighborhood is not an option; that the final proposal provides residential protection; that new residents will be able to invest in homes with knowledge of the neighborhood's future direction and protection from further commercial intrusion; that Osprey Avenue is not the only area with the potential for extensive commercial intrusion; that mixed-use buildings exist across Morrill Street; that the Sarasota County Administration Building is nearby; that heavy traffic exists in the area; that building pressures surround the Laurel Park neighborhood, whose residents chose to live in the area, banned together to develop the proposal, and desire approval of the Laurel Park Overlay District to assure future neighborhood protection and security. BOOK 45 Page 17512 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17513 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Martha Hafner, 1841 Oak Street, (34236), representing the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) and the Alliance for Historic Preservation, stated that her position as the immediate Past President of the LPNA and a current voting Board Member has provided much insight to the Laurel Park neighborhood; that the CCNA and the Alliance for Historic Preservation support the Laurel Park Overlay District Committee's final recommendation, which is a tool for the future of Laurel Park and other City neighborhoods; that the Commission is urged to accept the final recommendation of the Laurel Park Overlay District Committee. Ms. Hafner distributed and read a letter from Tina Little, Past President of the LPNA, indicating: Laurel Park residents took a great challenge and put forth much dedication to keep Laurel Park strong, The elected LPNA President speaks for the residents of Laurel Park, The residents enthusiastically accept the Overlay District, Laurel Park is envisioned as a neighborhood with people in homes, Mixed-use is not supported and The recommendation of the Laurel Park Overlay District Committee was a team effort. Denise Kowal, 540 South Orange Avenue, (34236) owner of historic Herald Square, the triangle-shaped building at the intersection of Orange and Pineapple Avenues and the Spanish-style building across the street which was renovated in the early 1990s and stated that she moved to Sarasota in 1981; that her first residence was at 1675 Oak Street which could have been purchased for $28,000 at the time but which is currently on the market for approximately $219,000; that millions of dollars have been personally invested in the Laurel Park neighborhood; that Laurel Park has a great growth potential; that people and families are attracted to the Laurel Park neighborhood and wish to remain a community; that a mixed-use building is owned and functions well as the building has been a mixed-use since the 1920s; that mixed-use in areas where mixed-use buildings will function effectively is supported; however, the Laurel Park neighborhood functions as residential uses; that residents wish to maintain the community; that many viable mixed-use areas exist in the downtown area; that Laurel Park neighborhood residents do not desire mixed-use and do not wish to worry about uses which will come and go in the neighborhood; that residential protection is highly desired; that the proposal of the Laurel Park Overlay District Committee is strongly supported; that family members reside in the neighborhood; that ties to the neighborhood exist; that the LPNA is supported strongly from the viewpoint of a business owner. Brian McInnis, 1742 Laurel Street, (34236), stated that his family has lived in Sarasota for ten years and has operated the Pineapple Parfait for seven yearsi that personal investments in property in the Laurel Park neighborhood have been made; that the residential base in Laurel Park is viable and can continue to grow given the opportunity; that peace of mind is most important; that the fear is of the impact of the creeping effect of commercial uses impacting residences not fronting Osprey Avenue, which is a north-south corridor; that Ohio Place is directly west of Osprey Avenue and is also a side street; that Osprey Avenue is a commercial area which may have an affect on side streets; therefore, the desirability to live in houses on side streets would decline resulting in a chain effect of declining property values; that the restrictions on mixed-use buildings is the issue; that the allowable amount of non-residential uses is very reasonable; that his two sons play outside in the surrounding areas; that trafiic generated by mixed uses could be a significant problem; that numerous varying opinions have been considered in devising the Laurel Park Overlay District; that fairness and creating a balance was attempted; that no property rights will be taken; that no opportunities will be lost if the proposal, which can benefit the entire downtown, is adopted. Sam Schackow, 2355 McClellen Parkway (34239), President, Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA), stated that the Laurel Park Overlay District proposal is important to neighborhood residents, is supported by the CCNA, protects existing commercial and residential properties, maintains the integrity and character of the Laurel Park neighborhood, which will continue to prosper with the adoption of the proposal, and assures Laurel Park will continue as one of the City's great success stories. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: Minutes of the May 6, 1998, PBLP meeting Minutes of the May 21, 1998, PBLP public hearing on the proposed Zoning Code (1998) Resolution of the PBLP adopted on May 21, 1998, finding the proposed Zoning Code (1998) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 by title only. BOOK 45 Page 17514 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17515 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 on first reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 on first reading contingent upon the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. Commissioner Cardamone stated that passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 on first reading is supported with great pleasure; that observing the LPNA endure the many challenges and achieve the many accomplishments to arrive at the Laurel Park Overlay District proposal, which will protect the neighborhood and allow continuing success, has been very interesting and rewarding. Commissioner Pillot stated that the presenters are congratulated for a very concise and thorough presentation. Mayor Dupree stated that the long, hard efforts of the LPNA in developing the Laurel Park Overlay District are appreciated. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 on first reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yesi Cardamone, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that numerous telephone inquiries have been received from citizens who are unable to arrive at the meeting until after sundown due to the Jewish holiday but wish to speak to Agenda Item III regarding proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076; that citizens have been told the Commission would attempt to keep the public hearing open until citizens can arrive; that the Commission may wish to change the order of business to accommodate those citizens. Commissioner Pillot stated that Agenda Item IV could be considered prior to Agenda Item III. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that no one has signed up to speak concerning Agenda Item IV. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objections, Agenda Item IV concerning proposed Ordinance No. 98-4079 will be considered next and Agenda Item III concerning proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 will be considered subsequently to accommodate and respect citizens wishing to speak. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 98-4079, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE sO AS TO TRANSFER 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. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING CONTINGENT UPON ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4076 (AGENDA ITEM IV) #1 (1379) through (1540) Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that several sections of the current Zoning Code (1981) do not directly pertain to land use; that the recommendation is to transier the sections concerning commercial vending on public property, the Sarasota Mobile Home Park, and the procedure for vacation of parks to the Sarasota City Code (1986) as follows: Create a new Section 23-3.6, Commercial Vending on Public Property and Public Right-of-Way Create a new Article IX, Sarasota Mobile Home Park Transfer Chapter 30, Article IV, Streets, Sidewalks and parks to Chapter 22, Article IV, Vacation of Parks Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one was signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4079 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4079 on first reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance No.98-4076. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4078 on first reading contingent upon adoption of proposed Ordinance 98-4076. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. BOOK 45 Page 17516 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17517 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson and left the Chambers at 6:50 p.m. 4. 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) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH ENUMERATED CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (1628) through #3 (1100) Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, and Timothy Litchet, Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission. Mr. Costanzo stated that revising the Zoning Code (1981) began as a reformatting exercise but has been expanded to incorporate necessary revisions; that the effort has been to present a clear, concise, readable and understandable zoning ordinance in the proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRS), also to be called the Zoning Code (1998) ; that the proposed LDRs which incorporates important and all-encompassing revisions include eight articles and two appendices as follows: 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 Noncontormities Article VI: Zone Districts Article VII: Regulations of General Applicability Article VIII: Enforcement Procedures and Penalties Appendix A: Concurrency calculation methodology Appendix B: Ownership identification procedures for rezoning applications Mr. Costanzo referred to a document entitled Errata Sheet which includes minor revisions and stated that further revisions may be necessary in the future; and referred to a document entitled City Commission Revisions to Planning Board Recommended LDR Document outlining 14 revisions proposed subsequent to the completion of the October 1998 draft of the proposed LDRS as requested by the Commission as follows: Article/Section Issue/Revision Section IV-202(F) (3) Definition of Affected Persons Section IV-202 (I) Disclosure of ex-parte communications Section IV-814 Clarification of major conditional use approval for uses in historic structures Section VI-303 (A) Increase of maximum building heights in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF)-4, -5 and -6 Zone Districts from 65, 85 and 110 feet to 70, 90 and 130 feet Section VI-303 (B) Increase in side yard setbacks for multi-family uses in the RMF-3 and -4 Zone Districts from 15 to 20 feet, in RMF-5 from 20 to 25 feet and RMF-6 and 7 from 25 to 30 feet Section VI-303 (C) Modification of the additional setback requirements in RMF Zone Districts Section VI-2303 Revisions of side yard setbacks, building height measurement and additional side setback requirements in the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District Section VI-2403 Revisions of side yard setbacks, building height measurement and additional side setback requirements in the Waterfront Resort-Bayfront (WFR-B) Zone District Section VI, Div. 31 Elimination of the View Protection Overlay District Section VI-3106 (C) (1) Clarification of size of accessory dwelling units in the Laurel Park Overlay District Section VI-3106 (E) (3) Limitation of the Historic Preservation Board's review to mandatory design standards in the Laurel Park Overlay District Section VII-906 (T) Addition of "non-profit bingo" as an accessory use to public schools Section VII-1101 (I) Clarification of final finish on walls as "stucco-type" surface Section VII-1301(C) Clarification of reduction of waterfront setback for outdoor bars or restaurants in the WFR-B Zone District BOOK 45 Page 17518 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17519 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree returned to the Commission Chambers at 6:59 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to Section IV-1306, Standards for Review concerning street vacations, and stated that no provision has been made for reviewing potential future use as a standard for street vacations; that a provision can be added unless the existing language is sufficient; that the number of street vacations has increased during her tenure on the Commission. Commissioner Pillot agreed. Mr. Costanzo stated that a provision can be added to Section IV-1306, Standards for Review, specifically addressing potential future use; that the standards for review for street vacations are not precisely addressed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that adding the provision is a minor change; that a phase could be inserted to avoid rewriting Section IV-1306. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the intent is not to change Section IV-1306 extensively; that a preference as to a method to address such a standard is not expressed; that a specific provision may not be necessary. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to Section VI-103, Ranking of Zone Districts by Intensity; and stated that the Commercial Office Park (COP) Zone District is a level 17 intensity which is below many other less intense districts; that the intensity level may create a problem; that Staff should re-examine the intensity level of the COP Zone District, which includes property of intense commercial activity such as a strip center which is more intense than the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) and Medical, Charitable and Institutional (MCI) Zone Districts; that the MCI Zone District was the basis for rejecting the petition for the Walgreens property on South Tamiami Trail at Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets; that level 17 intensity represents the problem which resulted in litigation between the City and Walgreens. Attorney Schenk stated that the City's current Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1989 Edition, which will remain in effect until the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, is adopted, will be affected if the intensity level of the COP Zone District is increased; that Impact Management Areas (IMAs) may also be affected; that an equal or more intense zone district can be created; that the chart entitled Ranking of Zone Districts by Intensity incorporated in Section VI-103 (B) was the existing chart when the IMA map was completed in 1989. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the comments concerning the COP Zone District should be disregarded if lacking legitimacy. Mr. Litchet stated that some changes to the COP Zone District, now being called the Commercial Park (CP) Zone District, were made to lessen intensity; that the CP Zone District is more intense than other zone districts and may not have been placed properly in the intensity level chart, which will be examined; that a recommendation can be brought to the Commission prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that no urgency exists if the CP Zone District has not been expanded in the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Costanzo stated that many zone districts will be re-written in Phase 2 of the LDRs. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that many requests for rezonings could be received prior to adoption of the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to Section VI-301, Intent and Purpose of the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) Zone Districts; and stated that the existing intensity for all hotel districts in the LDRS has been retained; that taking hotels out of the RMF Zone Districts and leaving hotels in the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District is the goal; that the potential densities are: RMF-4 Zone District: 36 units per acre RMF-5 Zone District: 50 units per acre RMF-6 Zone District: 70 units per acre Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the densities are high particularly if the RMF-6 Zone District is expanded. Mr. Litchet stated that hotels and motels have a double-density provision; that the densities have not been decreased or changed in the proposed LDRs; that the concern was creating nonconformities. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that strange results may arise if the intent is to take hotels out of the RMF Zone Districts and the amount of land in the RMF Zone Districts is expanded in the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to Section VI-2503, Development Standards for the CP Zone District, which indicates an allowable density of 50 hotel units per acre; and stated that the CP Zone District is ranked less intense than some RMF Zone Districts; that the existing regulations would allow 50 units per acre on the Walgreen's site. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to Section VI-1603, Development Standards for the C-CBD Zone District, which indicates no maximum for dwelling units per acre; and stated that lack of a maximum number of dwelling units per acre intensifies existing BOOK 45 Page 17520 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17521 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. regulations; that the standard is currently 50 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Litchet stated that the current density is 50 units per acre for multi-family uses; that the C-CBD Zone District has no maximum density for hotels or motels; that the 50-unit density standard can be added for multi-family uses, if desired for consistency with the current standards. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that approving a higher density than 50 dwelling units per acre anywhere in the City is unimaginable. Mr. Costanzo stated that the C-CBD Zone District is located in the downtown and is the most intense zone district; that the building height maximum limits the density to no more than the surrounding RMF Zone Districts, which was the reason for eliminating density maximums from the C-CBD Zone District; however, incorporating a maximum density of 50 units per acre for multi-family uses is possible if the Commission desires. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that eligibility for the C-CBD Zone District greatly exceeds the downtown area; that the Central City land use classification in the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan is very large and includes many residential areas and areas where high densities were avoided; that maintaining a s small town" feeling with an eligibility of more than 50 units per acre will be difficult; that the Ringling Towers site and the Bayfront Condominiums will be included in the Central City Land Use Classification; that height does not limit builders; that 500-square-foot units could be built; that indicating density is immaterial in the City is inappropriate. Commissioner Pillot stated that market forces have an effect; that 500-square-foot units with a building height of 180 feet at the Ringling Towers site would not be marketable. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that 500-square-foot hotel and condominium units are marketed as studio apartments on Longboat Key for several hundred thousand dollars each. City Attorney Taylor stated that the LDRS has been prepared by Staff and reviewed by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); ; that much advocacy in favor of the proposed LDRS is not occurring; that the Commission may wish to hear from the Chairman of the PBLP, who participated in the process and is present in the audience. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objections, Lou Ann Palmer, Chairman of the PBLP, is requested to come before the Commission. Ms. Palmer came before the Commission and stated that the PBLP did not consider density in the C-CBD Zone District which would have been a major concern if the lack of a density maximum were realized; that 50 units per acre is the maximum number of dwelling units allowed anywhere in the City and was considered an established limit; that the equivalent density in the RMF-6 Zone District is 35 dwelling units to the acre or 70 hotel and motel units which is the highest anywhere but the C-CBD Zone District; that the RMF 7 Zone District allows 50 units per acre but does not allow hotel and motel uses; that incorporating the current standard would provide for a maximum density of 50 dwelling units and 70 hotel or motel units per acre in the C-CBD Zone District. Commissioner Cardamone stated that density was considered self limiting due to the height limitations; however, the concern is understood; that allowing 50 dwelling units called studio apartments of 500 square feet in downtown would be significant; that Staff comments would be appreciated. Mr. Litchet stated that density was eliminated based on discussions with the LDRs consultants indicating limitations on multi-family uses were not required if not established for hotels or motels; that incorporating a density maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre, which maintains the status quo, is not difficult; that establishing a maximum for hotels and motels would require review by the PBLP; therefore, the status quo for hotels and motels should probably be retained and could be reviewed in Phase 2 of the proposed LDRS. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that dwelling units rather than hotels or motels are the major concern at this time. Mr. Litchet stated that the status quo will be maintained; that the point can be argued in Phase 2 if Staff is of the opinion densities should be eliminated. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification. Mr. Litchet stated that a maximum density of 50 dwelling units will be incorporated; that eliminating the limitation on density can be presented to the PBLP if Staff so recommends in the future. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a developer presented the concept of building a hotel which could be converted to apartments during discussions concerning the Mission Harbor site; that the idea was interesting and would guarantee an investment; that density was considered self limiting; however, a problem could arise; that incorporating language concerning maximum densities is supported. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that allowing a large number of hotel or motel units with the resulting traffic congestion problems in downtown is a concerni however, lowering the density maximums deserves public discussion; that similarly, eliminating density maximums should not inadvertently occur and is opposed. BOOK 45 Page 17522 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17523 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree stated that the maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre, which seem large, should be re-incorporated. Mr. Litchet stated that the density maximums will be re-incorporated. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that two years ago the issue of setbacks for property on major arterials in the C-CBD Zone District was raised; that no setbacks are required in the current Zoning Code (1981) allowing construction to the street line with no landscaping; that some requirement for open space exists; that potential setbacks which could possibly be counted as open space should be considered; that a means of preserving the feeling of the Theaters and Arts District (TAD) is not known; however, no setbacks seems a poor design for such a large area. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that the maximum buffer required where zone districts meet is 10 feet which is not much; that more could be proffered in a request for a rezoning; that a buffer of more than 10 feet may be appropriate in some circumstances. Mr. Costanzo stated that David Johnston, David W. Johnston Associates, Inc., landscape architects, helped write the landscaping section and is prepared to address buffers. Mr. Johnston came before the Commission and stated that the 10-foot buffer was designed to correlate with the buffer of adjacent properties resulting in a 20-foot buffer and providing 20 feet of aggregate green space between active buildings; that the current requirement is for a 6-foot buffer; that the proposed 10-foot buffer is 4 feet wider than the current requirement. Mr. Litchet stated that the majority of the City's zone districts have no buffering requirements between uses; that buffering is required around parking areas only but not between uses; that a 10-foot buffer on all sides of property between uses is a giant step and will require acclamation; that a larger buffering requirement would be a concern as none has existed in the past; that additional buffering requirements could be reviewed in Phase 2 if desired. Mr. Johnston stated that a 10-foot buffer requirement was developed after discussion with urban foresters concerning the ground space necessary to maintain adequately the ability to grow trees without disrupting utilities, drainage easements, pavement, etc.; that the main concern was not to have a narrow buffer in which a live oak or other large scale tree would be planted and grow disruptive to a parking lot or utilities; that many lots in the City are narrow; that development could be severely penalized with a buffer requirement of greater than 10 feet. Vice Mayor Patterson stated the lack of mandatory buffering in the current Zoning Code (1981) was not known; that the vision was more buffering for multi- or single-family residences from commercial uses. Mr. Litchet stated that a few specific zone districts were drafted to require a 5-foot buffer with a 6-foot fence along a residential common boundary. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the buffering requirements are being increased in all cases. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that the landscaping area for parking areas is also being increased; that the necessity for additional buffering can be determined in the future. Mr. Johnston stated that more intense uses adjacent to single-family uses, for example, may require more intense buffering to provide protective screening. Attorney Schenk stated that two corrections are required: 1. Section IV-123, pertaining to development agreements, including the sentence: the development agreement shall provide that such construction shall be completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy Attorney Schenk stated that the sentence should be deleted as the existing Zoning Code (1981) has been amended with different time frames for traffic concurrency which is three years after issuance of certificate of occupancy. 2. Section VII-602 (2), provides that no more than 25 percent of the existing and proposed gross floor area of churches and synagogues may be used for normal accessory uses such as administrative offices, parlors, meeting halls, rooms for choirs, and classrooms. Attorney Schenk stated that attorneys representing various churches and synagogues in the area have been in contact with the Cityi that additional research concerning the Constitutional implications of Section VII-602 (2) should be conducted; that Staff's recommendation is to delete Section VII-602 (2) at this time; that any desired limitations to accessory uses for churches and synagogues are best handled by a separate ordinance containing appropriate legislative findings of the public purpose served; that considerable litigation throughout the United States on limitations of churches and synagogues has occurred; that a legal defense for the public record should be established if the limitations are desired. Commissioner Pillot asked if formal action by the Commission is required? BOOK 45 Page 17524 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17525 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Schenk stated that direction will eventually be required; however, the public should first be provided an opportunity to be heard during the public hearing. City Attorney Taylor stated that some people may desire to speak during the public hearing process; that the legal concern has been raised; that an additional concern is the 25 percent standard may not be appropriate; that additional study may be required to justify a standard which will take time. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a percentage standard may not be necessary for many religious institutions; that alternatively, designating the property as commercial uses may be equally appropriate by virtue of location; that if sO, the public, having created the anomaly, should initiate and pay for the expense of the appropriate rezonings. Commissioner Pillot agreed; and asked if any reference to size of the property is incorporated or if such reference is useful? Mr. Costanzo stated that size of the property is referenced only in single-family residential zone districts in which the minimum lot size is 2 acres for churches and synagogues; that a provision based on the lot size may be feasible. Commissioner Pillot stated that two separate issues are presented: rezoning versus the application without rezoning. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed. Mr. Costanzo stated that a method to address larger lots may be necessary upon reconsideration; however, the general tenor is still an effort to make less intrusive uses in single-family residential zone districts. Commissioner Pillot agreed; but stated that an addition of 25 percent of existing floor area could be barely noticeable on a large property but could practically use up the entire space on a smaller property; that considering the issue in a separate ordinance is supported. Mayor Dupree asked if a chapel is considered a church or synagogue for purposes of the two-acre requirement? Mr. Costanzo stated that the existing regulation is for a minimum of two acres for a church or synagogue, which includes a chapel; that the PBLP specifically chose to retain the provision. Mayor Dupree asked the rational? Mr. Litchet stated that Staff struggled with the issue as a two-acre minimum for churches in single-family residential zone districts may result in larger churches with potentially more impact; however, support to change the requirement is not recalled at the PBLP or Commission level. Mayor Dupree stated that changing the requirement is not being advocated; that the question is the rational. Mr. Litchet stated that the requirement has existed since 1974 and has never been changed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that only churches currently in single-family residential zone districts are affected; that not every church in the City is on residentially zoned land; that a new church can be built on a smaller piece of property. Mr. Litchet stated that a number of churches are located in Residential Single-Family (RSF) Zone Districts. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP's concern was churches in single-family or other residential neighborhoods; that some churches are quite active and can create severe problems with noise and constant activity in addition to the possibility of groups taking over single-family homes; that non-traditional groups which must be recognized as religious may not be desired by neighborhoods; that the PBLP wished to protect single-family and residential neighborhoods from excessive activities; that some churches become very active which is wonderful but which may not be appropriate in residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Cardamone stated that some very active churches are heavily engaged in quasi-commercial activities such as large day care centers, leasing of space to programs and various projects which are not compatible with single-family neighborhoods; that the simple solution may be to identify churches with a significant amount of land which is zoned residential but which is not appropriately zoned and correct the zoning at the City's expense. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP discussed the issue at length; that placing large churches contiguous to residential neighborhoods in a commercial zone district is a concern as the church could change and the property would already be zoned for commercial use which could change the use's intensity and be very negative for a neighborhood; that real concerns are presented. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that two tiers of size could be considered. Ms. Palmer stated that the issue could be referred to the PBLP for further consideration and a recommendation. Mayor Dupree stated that the question involves the rational for requiring two acres for a chapel which is considerably smaller than a regular church or synagogue. BOOK 45 Page 17526 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17527 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Palmer stated that a chapel was not specifically considered; that the PBLP discussed general usage for religious purposes; that the concern was non-traditional religious groups and accessory quasi-commercial uses; that the Zoning Code (1981) has limited restrictions other than conditional uses or special exceptions for child care facilities, etc.; that such a use on less than two acres could be an intrusion into a neighborhood; that the PBLP could consider the issue further if desired. Mayor Dupree stated that many churches start off as chapels and grow larger. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to Section VI-1603, Development Standards in the C-CBD Zone District, which provides height bonuses of 20 and 30 feet and a 180-foot height maximum; and asked if the language limiting total height to 180 feet is sufficiently clear? Mr. . Litchet stated that no developers have indicated the 180-foot maximum is unclear. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the entire table is under Section VI-1603 (2) which provides: additional height. may be permitted cumulatively up to a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) feet. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that Section VI-1603 will be reviewed to assure clarity. Commissioner Merrill stated that a provision measuring building height half way up a hip roof but to the top of a flat roof has existed for a long time; that the provision favors flat roofs; that many cities have found buildings with peaked or other types of non-flat roofs are more interesting; and asked for clarification of Section VI-102(P), Height Limitations, as follows: In addition, the height limitations shall not apply to false architectural features. Mr. Costanzo stated that the reference is to non-occupiable space. Commissioner Merrill stated that a roof may not be considered a false architectural element. Commissioner Cardamone cited Section VI-102 (P) as providing: false architectural Eeatures not intended for human occupancy . Commissioner Merrill stated that a Building Official may one day rule a roof is not a false architectural feature but rather a real architectural feature; that the section is acceptable if the term "false" is eliminated. Commissioner Merrill stated that substantial changes are being made in the proposed LDRs to encourage home occupations; however, the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association indicated mixed use is not desired in the neighborhood; that the City should control mixed use; that home occupations will be subject to limitations; and cited Section VII-802 (B), General Use Limitations of Standards for Home Occupations, as follows: and such limitations which may be imposed by the Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement . Commissioner Merrill stated that the enumerated limitations may not be as specific as desired; and asked if the right is provided to develop unilaterally new limitations to assure the Commission's intent is carried out ettectively? Mr. Litchet stated yes, that is the intent; that the regulations are currently in effect; that the concern is the enumerated limitations may not be adequate to cover the impact of the various home occupations constantly reviewed. Commissioner Merrill referred to Section VII-802 (B) (1) as follows: 1. The principal person or persons conducting the home occupation shall reside in the dwelling and all employees of the home occupation shall be inhabitants of the dwelling. Commissioner Merrill asked the definition of the term "reside"? Mr. Litchet stated that generally a written statement of residing in the structure is required. Commissioner Merrill asked the result if neighbors indicate no one is living in the structure. Mr. Litchet stated that enforcement becomes the issue; that specific representation as to actually residing in the dwelling is required as part of the application. Commissioner Merrill stated that an affluent person may have five houses around the world sO the residence in the City is only one of several residences; and asked if a certain number of nights a year must be spent in the residence to operate a business? Mr. Litchet stated that the situation has not been encountered; that a specific requirement of a certain amount of nights has not been established. BOOK 45 Page 17528 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17529 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that such a requirement would be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Merrill stated that establishing, a definition for the term "reside" is the concern; that more time could be spent working than sleeping in the building. Mr. Litchet agreed; and stated that the provision is from the current Zoning Code (1981); that an attempt is made to verify compliance; that the occupancy stipulation is required in writing; that no real problems have surfaced over the years. Commissioner Merrill stated that the live/work phenomenon is new for the City and will be tested; that people always have the right in a capitalistic economy to push the envelop which means pushing Staff; and asked if the term "occupant" is the same as someone who resides in the dwelling unit? Mr. Litchet stated yes; that applicants are required to verify employees will not be coming to the site from off site as part of the application. Commissioner Merrill stated that the limitation should be clarified; that another issue is traffic generation; that the engineers' trip generation standard is approximately 10 trips per house per day on average; and asked if a home occupation could exceed that standard? Mr. Litchet stated that Staff has discussed the traffic generation from home occupations; that for example, people are told delivery trucks cannot come to the house in greater volume than normal residential uses; that increased delivery truck traffic is the basis for a significant number of complaints regarding home occupations; that a standard is very difficult to quantify. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission's intent is known; that the ability is provided to unilaterally develop standards if necessary; and asked if the understanding of the provision is no more trips than a normal single-family house would be generated. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that more speciticity concerning employees will be incorporated prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a number of people signed up to speak may wish to speak to the 25 percent accessory use limitation for churches and synagogues; and asked if Commission consensus exists to eliminate the limitation and refer the matter to the PBLP. Attorney Schenk stated that the public has the benefit of the Commission's discussion and could come to the table and indicate support. Commissioner Pillot stated that members of the public may not have heard the entire discussion. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a summary could be provided. Attorney Schenk stated that an issue has arisen regarding proposed Section VII-602 (L) (2) regarding accessory uses to churches and synagoguesi that the current proposed language provides no more than 25 percent of the existing and proposed gross floor area may be used for normal accessory uses such as administrative offices, parlors, meeting halls, rooms for choirs, and classrooms in single-family residential zone districts; that the Commission was advised by legal counsel the regulation of accessory uses of churches and synagogues would be more appropriately handled by separate ordinance containing appropriate legislative findings as Constitutional issues are involved; that the Commission's consensus was to delete Section VI-602 (L) (B) and possibly take a vote concerning a separate ordinance at the close of the public hearing. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission's consensus was to remove the limitation of accessory uses in churches and synagogues and bring the issue back as a separate ordinance providing the opportunity for input from all interested persons. City Attorney Taylor stated that everyone has an opportunity to be heard; however, in consideration of time and the hour and the intent of the Commission to remove Section VII-602 (L) (2) from proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076, presentations from supporters may not be necessary. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission. John Browning, 1376 Harbor Drive (34239), member of the Board of Adiustment, stated that he was one of the original framers of the revisions to the dock regulations; that the intent was to correct deficiencies and consolidate the regulations into one section, which is Section VII-1302, Docks; and referred to Section VII-1302 (A) as follows: Docks on the open waters of Sarasota Bay, Big Pass and New Pass shall project into said waters no less than necessary: 1. To reach a minimum depth of minus three (-3.0) feet mean low water; or 2. So as to maintain, from the lowest point of the keel or propeller, whichever is lower, or the vessel to be berthed at the dock, a minimum clearance over any BOOK 45 Page 17530 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17531 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. submerged bottom lands of one (1) foot as measured at mean low water. Mr. Browning stated that Section VII-1302 (A) clearly reflects the framers' intent, which was for minimum requirements for all waterways; that docks can extend up to 100 feet to reach a minimum depth; that docks cannot be located within 25 feet of another person's property unless the property has less than 65 feet of shoreline, in which case the dock cannot be located within 8 feet of another person's property; that the same standard should exist for all waterways in the City; that unfortunately, Section VII-1302(B) was inadvertently incorporated from the current Zoning Code (1981) as follows: Docks on all other waterfront property and inlets or narrow waters of Sarasota Bay shall not project into side waters so as to be located within the middle fifty (50) percent thereof or exceed a maximum length of thirty (30) feet, as measured from mean high water, whichever is less. The total area of any such dock shall not exceed five hundred 500 square feet, as measured seaward from mean high water. Such docks shall not be located within eight (8) feet of the extended property lines of the property upon which the dock is erected or within eight (8) feet of the extended property lines of any adjacent property. Mr. Browning stated that Section VII-1302 (B) applies to inland and small waterways and does not establish minimum depth or clearance; therefore, prop dredging can occuri that docks can be located within 8 feet of another person's property regardless of the size of the property; that Section VII-1302 (B) is from the current Zoning Code (1981) with no revisions. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the incorporation into Section VII-1302, Docks, was accidental? Mr. Browning stated yes; that Section VII-1302 (B) should not have been incorporated from the Zoning Code (1981); that the intention was to incorporate only the limitation from Section VII-1302 (B) concerning the middle 50 percent of the waterway; that docks on narrow waterways should meet the limitation in Section VII-1302 (A); that Section VII-1302 (B) should be revised reterencing only the middle 50 percent limitation as follows: Docks on all other waterfront property and inlets or narrow waterways of Sarasota Bay, in addition to meeting requirements established in (A) above, shall not project into said waters sO as to be located within the middle fifty (50) percent thereof. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the key is to meet the requirements of Section VII-1302 (A) Mr. Browning stated that is correct; that deleting the balance of Section VII-1302 (B) will accomplish the original intent; that the Board of Adjustment spent approximately eight months on the dock regulations; that incorporation of Section VII-1302 (B) was only recognized as a problem at the last Board of Adjustment meeting; that incorporating Section VII-1302 (B) as currently presented will not change the status quo; that the Commission is requested to approve the proposed Section VII-1302 (B) to achieve the intended purpose. Commissioner Cardamone asked for comments from Staff. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff worked with the Board of Adjustment on the issue over the last few years. Mr. Litchet stated that the best approach to the dock issue is not to make changes at this time as suggested changes may not be minor; that a major revision was made to the dock ordinance in 1994; that total agreement between the Board of Adjustment and the PBLP on all aspects of the dock ordinance may not have existed at that time; that a 25-foot setback in certain inlet areas was discussed; however, the setback has always been 8 not 25 feet; that the PBLP was extremely concerned about the number of nonconformities created and the impact on other properties; that prop dredging was discussed; that the solution may be to consider a new dock ordinance to include regulations concerning community boat docks; that professional help concerning the dock ordinance may be required. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Section VII-1302 (B) allows taking up to 25 percent of narrow water on either side and requires that a piling or a boat cannot be placed sO as to obstruct navigation; that docks for very large boats are increasing; that Staff is requested to review the dock regulations. Mr. Browning stated that Section VII-1302 (C) provides as follows : No tie-off piling, vessel or boat lift shall be placed, or docked sO that any portion thereof projects into the middle fifty (50) percent of any waterway. Mr. Browning stated that Section VII-1302 (B) has been discussed with three of the framers from the Board of Adjustment, which worked on dock regulations for six to eight months including special sessions; that the intent of Section VII-1302 (B) was never to leave the regulations wide open for narrow waterways, which makes no sense; that silting and other problems occur in the narrow waterways; that prop dredging should simply be allowed if Section VII-1302 (B) is not changed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the point is logical. BOOK 45 Page 17532 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17533 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a smaller boat could be obtained. Mr. Browning stated that individuals can take any action desired if no requirement exists. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Board of Adjustment played an important role in the development of the dock regulations; that the request is for an assignment beyond that which was already undertaken; that the dock section presented is being carried forward from the existing Zoning Code (1981) which perhaps should be rewritten as suggested but which was not part of the original assignment. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the implication is the recommendation is a major change. Mr. Browning stated that the only change is to apply the same requirements as exist on the open waterways to all waterways. Commissioner Pillot stated that neither proposal can be refuted; that Mr. Browning and Mr. Litchet agree changes are necessary; that Staff's recommendation to review dock requirements including the suggestion presented is supported. Commissioner Cardamone stated that reviewing dock requirements is supported; however, the matter is before the Commission on the first public hearing; that language could be deleted if desired by the Commission and not considered a major change. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that additional language would be required to have Section VII-1302 (B) be in addition to Section VII-1302 (A) ; however, the issue has not been presented to the PBLP, which is the larger concern. Commissioner Cardamone stated that tree ordinances and dock ordinances have been considered during her 5.5 years tenure on the Commission and were considered prior to that time; that a satisfactory resolution has not been achieved. Commissioner Pillot stated that the concern is if a legitimate change can be achieved at this meeting; that voting for any specific language is not supported; that Staff's suggestion to refer the issue back to the Administration places no limitations but provides an opportunity for professional review with full consideration for Mr. Browning's proposal. Commissioner Cardamone agreed; but stated that hiring additional assistance concerning an issue under consideration for years is not required. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the suggested revision to Section VII-1302 (B) is supported but should be presented to the PBLP; that hiring someone with the requisite expertise is supported as the issue is extremely contentious and has significant legal implications; that the City recently experienced one very expensive hearing involving the existing dock ordinance; that the City's ordinance may be in contradiction to the State regulations; that outside assistance may be necessary. Robin Fruge, 4123 Drakeswood Circle (34232), Vice President of Administration of Temple Beth Shalom, and David Band and Barbara Levin, Law Firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, et al, 240 Pineapple Avenue (34236). Mr. Fruge stated that the Commission's action concerning accessory uses for churches and synagogues is appreciated; that Temple Beth Shalom would like to break ground in September 1999 to add to the existing school; that a concern is being subjected to possible restrictions if the proposed limitation is adopted. Ms. Levin stated that a limit will be placed on the school unless Temple Beth Shalom is specifically exempted. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if organizations are under regulations in place upon application of the permit. City Attorney Taylor stated that a clause is normally written into any ordinance providing that pending applications are exempt from revisions. Attorney Band stated that a proposal is pending and involves two pieces of property, one in the RMF-2 and one in the RMF-3 Zone Districts; that the applicant would like to move forward with the application; that the request is to exempt anyone who has submitted an application. Mr. Litchet stated that pending applications are considered under the regulations in effect at the time of application; that Temple Beth Shalom was advised an application can be filed which would vest rights under the existing regulations. Commissioner Pillot stated that Temple Beth Shalom can proceed as necessary and desired. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the concern is the ordinance will be adopted prior to filing for the building permit. Mr. Litchet stated that filing the application not the building permit vests the rights. Ms. Levin stated that the proposed regulation concerning accessory uses for churches and religious institutions has the appearance of facial discrimination; that a special exception can be granted for a private school without the limitation; that religious institutions are penalized; that the rationale for the disparity on the basis of traffic or other impacts is not BOOK 45 Page 17534 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17535 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. understood; that the State adopted legislation in July 1998 prohibiting any local regulation burdening the exercise of religion; that the school and teaching of Judaism is an integral part of the practice of Judaism; that the proposed limitation could be interpreted as a burden on the exercise of religious freedom; and distributed a copy of Chapter 98-412, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, Florida Statutes, from the 1998 Florida Legislative Session. Charles D. Bailey, Law Firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue, (34236) representing Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) and Michael Covert, SMH President, Marty Moss SMH Board member and Chairman of the Hospital Planning Committee, Daniel McDaniel, SMH Director of Architectural Planning, and Pam Truitt. SMH Urban Planning Design Coordinator. Attorney Bailey distributed the following documents: Letter dated July 16, 1998, from Attorney Bailey to the Commission concerning governmental versus quasi-public uses Article II, Definitions and Rules of Construction, of the proposed LDRs Section IV-1706, Standards for Review, of the proposed LDRS - Section VII-204, Number of Parking Spaces Required, Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the proposed LDRs - Section VI-2003, Development Standards, of the proposed LDRs Article VI, Division 7, MCI, Medical, Charitable, Institutional Zone District, of the proposed LDRs Attorney Bailey stated that the first issue is the method by which the proposed LDRs will deal with governmental uses versus uses labeled as quasi-public uses, which is not a substantive issue as no greater burden is imposed; however, a distinction is created between governmental uses and quasi-public uses; and referred to a letter dated July 16, 1998, from Attorney Bailey to the Commission indicating the proposed definitions as follows: 1. Government Uses those uses engaged in by general-purpose governments, such as federal, state, county or municipal agencies, which are simply referred to as "governmental uses," and 2. Quasi-Public Uses those uses engaged in by special-purpose governments, such as the school board, hospital board, airport authority, the state university, and the water management district, which are labeled as - quasi-public" uses because deemed to be "similar to and [to] resemble those of the government. 11 Attorney Bailey stated that the distinction is without a difference as the land uses are not treated differently except for governmental waivers; that SMH complies with the same Florida unahine-in-coverment Law and the same public records act as governmental entities; that SMH performs a specific purpose and not a general purpose as does the City; however, beyond that distinction; that the rationale and purpose for the distinction is not understood; that no substantive distinction is made in the LDRs except for the method of obtaining waivers from standards in the Government Use (G) Zone District; and referred to Section IV- 1706, Standard for Review, Government (G) Zone Waivers, as follows: In reaching a decision as to whether or not the waiver application should be approved, approved with changes, approved with conditions, or disapproved, the Planning Board and the City Commission shall consider: A. For usès that are uniquely governmental . 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. B. For all other uses 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 districts 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. Attorney Bailey stated that uniquely governmental uses, e.g., fire stations, police stations, sewage treatment plants, pump stations, etc., i.e., uses which have locational problems are distinguished and more lax standards for granting waivers is BOOK 45 Page 17536 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17537 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. provided; that similarly, the Commission adopted a relaxed standard for granting variances for docks several years ago sO an applicant is not required to demonstrate any hardship is not self imposed; that in fact, a showing of hardship is not required; that the proposed LDRs are trying to achieve the same result for uniquely governmental uses; however, no uniquely governmental uses actually exist; that for example, fire departments were historically fire companies and private entities; that currently, a number of private utilities operate in the County; that no justification exists for the attempted distinction. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the five-minute time limit has been reached. Commissioner Pillot stated that additional time should be granted as the subject is extremely important. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objections, an additional 3 minutes will be granted. Attorney Bailey stated that for example, the County will be required to comply with the five showings if building an office or an administration building; that a waiver could be granted even if three of the five are not technically met; however, an artificial distinction is being created with no ustification. Attorney Bailey displayed on the overhead projector a list of the City's fire stations; and stated that the locational aspects are not truly unique as a fire station can be located within a certain range of areas in residential neighborhoods such as St. Armands Circle or the Waldemere Street area; that for example, the South Gate water cower was moved three blocks to the east of the originally proposed location at Paradise Plaza; that the justification for the provision is not understood; that a County-owned hospital would be treated as a governmental use; however, an independent special district hospital such as SMH would be treated as a quasi-public use, which appears as a distinction without justification. Ms. Truitt distributed the following documents: a City map indicating uniquely governmental uses photographs of uniquely governmental uses including the pump station at Tangier Way, the pump station at Harmony Lane and Northwest Drive, the Waldemere Fire Station, the Fire Station on Old Bradenton Road a map indicating existing and planned public medical facilities a diagram of the SMH campus including the surrounding zone districts photographs of various views of SMH Ms. Truitt stated that the fire station on Bradenton Road is in a residential zone district; that the two pump stations are either directly across from or adjacent to homes; that the locational issue is not specific to uniquely governmental uses. Attorney Bailey referred to the map of existing and planned public medical facilities including SMH; and stated that SMH has a locational problem. Ms. Truitt agreed; and stated that SMH has made a significant investment in infrastructure and medical equipment resources in one location; that understanding the logic for the distinction between uniquely governmental and quasi-public uses is difficult. Attorney Bailey stated that a second issue is parking ratios for Medical Offices and Clinics; however, the issue will be deferred as discussions with Staff may resolve the issue. Attorney Bailey referred to Section VI-2003 as follows: all development within the G Zone District shall be carried out in accordance with the development standards of the most restrictive zone district adjacent to the G zoned property. Attorney Bailey stated that the intent of Section VI-2003 is understood; that the G Zone District currently has no standards; that some standards are necessary; that currently the height restrictions in the G Zone District are equal to the nearest adjacent zone district; that SMH is adjacent to the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) Zone District; and referred to Section VI-701, Development Standards for the MCI Zone District, as follows: Maximum Density per Acre 25 Minimum Zoning Lot Area 20,000 square feet Minimum Zoning Lot Width 100 feet Maximum Zoning Lot Coverage 40 percent Maximum Height 35 feet Minimum Front Setback 30 feet Minimum Side and Rear Setback 25 feet Attorney Bailey stated that SMH will be subject to all the standards, which would render most of the hospital in the block between Arlington and Hawthorne Streets nonconforming. Ms. Truitt referred to the map indicating surrounding zone districts; and stated that the MCI Zone District touches SMH's boundaries in the slightest way possible; that SMH is surrounded primarily by the OPB Zone District; however, SMH would be bound by the standards of the MCI Zone District; and referred to the photographs of SMH including those sections which will become nonconforming including the Critical Care Center, Waldemere Medical Plaza, the entire section along Arlington Street, the Waldemere Parking Garage and the North Parking Garage. BOOK 45 Page 17538 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17539 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Truitt stated that significant impacts will be created for SMH; that the proposed change in the G Zone District is jokingly referenced as the Planner and Lawyer Relief Act; that the belief is the City does not wish to proceed in the proposed direction; that no one desires to create difficulties for SMH; that the requirement to create standards in the G Zone District is understood; that after a long discussion with City Staff, the thought is a hospital zone district should be created for SMH which has been discussed for years. Attorney Bailey stated that abolishing the distinction between governmental and quasi-public uses and treating all governmental uses the same is requested; that the artificial and unwarranted distinction between uniquely governmental versus quasi-public uses in seeking waivers should be eliminated, which will not make a considerable difference; that the possibility of establishing a hospital zone district for SMH to deal with the unique aspects of the existing buildings, setbacks, etc., should be considered. Commissioner Pillot asked for comment from the Administration. City Manager Sollenberger referred to the definition of quasi-public use in Article II, Definitions and Rules of Construction as follows: A use owned and operated by a nonprofit organization whose governing body, organizational purpose and ideals are similar to and resemble those of the government, and which is maintained for or used by the community . . City Manager Sollenberger stated that the definition refers to nonprofit organizations; that the distinction is actually between general and special purpose governments; that the Sarasota County School Board, the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) are special district governments and not nonprofit organizations; that the definition may be incorrect. Mr. Costanzo stated that governmental uses versus quasi-public uses is strictly nomenclature; that the definition of governmental use can be changed with no ramifications if desired. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if one or two categories would be required? Mr. Costanzo stated that one definition of governmental uses would be written to include the Sarasota County School Board, the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Board, the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, etc., which will have no ramifications; that the effort was to develop a definition realizing from Staff's perspective an inherent difference between a municipal government and the other entities; however, from a regulatory standpoint, no difference is created in the LDRs between governmental uses and other quasi-public uses; that uniquely governmental uses is an outgrowth of the PBLP's strong desire to develop enforceable standards in the G Zone District, realizing uses such as lift stations, police stations and fire stations have locational requirements which should have lesser standards; that Staff and the PBLP had a difficult time developing a term to define the uses; that the general consensus of Staff and the PBLP was to define the uses as uniquely governmental, which has no specific relationship to the use; that the definitions are purely nomenclature and have no ramifications. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that two different sets of criteria are enumerated for two categories of uses; and asked for clarification. Mr. Costanzo stated that the categories are not the difference between SMH or the Sarasota County School Board versus the County. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the use is defined rather than the ownership. Mr. Costanzo stated that is correct; that the term "uniquely governmental" should be considered separately and not confused with governmental and quasi-public uses. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that eliminating the distinction in the definition means the distinction between Section IV-1706 (A) and (B) can no longer be made. Mr. Costanzo stated that the distinction can still be made as the term "uniquely governmental" is defined internally to Section IV-1706. Commissioner Merrill asked if any problems result? Mr. Costanzo stated that the definition is strictly terminology and can be changed with no problem. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that SMH is asking for the same treatment as City properties. Ms. Costanzo stated that the PBLP felt strongly that uses such as office buildings, hospitals, and restaurants, etc., regardless of ownership, should be held to a higher level of justification for waiver of standards. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of the issue of the definition of uniquely governmental versus governmental use. Mr. Costanzo stated that two issues are presented; that the first issue is the definition in the use chart which indicates uses allowed in different zone districts and differentiates between governmental and quasi-public uses. BOOK 45 Page 17540 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17541 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the first issue can be eliminated. Mr. Costanzo stated that no issue actually exists; that the definition can be changed; that the other issue is standards for a waiver in the G Zone District; that in the proposed LDRS, the PBLP mandated development standards for the G Zone District which have never existed previously; that the PBLP also realized instances would arise requiring a lessening of the standards; therefore, the waiver procedure was developed; that the PBLP recognized significant differences between the County's operating an office building, Marina Jack's operating a restaurant or SMH's operating a medical office building in the G Zone District versus a requirement for the City or the County to develop a sewage pump station, a fire station or a police substation in a particular location to serve a neighborhood; that the PBLP believed those uniquely governmental uses should not be held to as high a standard. Commissioner Merrill stated that SMH does not want the distinction; however, Staff indicates a distinction exists and should be retained. Mr. Costanzo stated that is correct; that the PBLP vehemently fought for the distinction. Ms. Palmer agreed; and stated that under the proposed LDRs, the City would be held to the same standard as a private developer in developing an office building; that uses which are not distinguishable between private and public ownership should have the same standards; however, very specific unique situations which normally do not occur in the private sector should have a different standard; that the PBLP would prefer the standard be more restrictive rather than more relaxed if one standard will apply to everyone including uniquely governmental uses. Commissioner Pillot stated that some services such as a fire station are not necessarily uniquely governmental as 75, 80, or 90 years ago volunteer fire departments were operated privately and today some sewage disposal plants are operated privately. Mr. Costanzo agreed; and stated that the PBLP tried to deal with the concern by including the following in Section IV-1706 (A): . (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.) Mr. Costanzo stated that Section IV-1706 (A) governs generic uses not identified as principal uses in the use chart; that the PBLP went further in Section IV-1706 (B) to add the phrase: (regardless of ownership) . Commissioner Pillot stated that some uses are part of the function; that for example, SMH requires an auditorium to carry out some duties of the service provided, educational programs or other purposes; that rendering much of SMH nonconforming is nonsense; and asked a resolution to avoid such a result? Mr. Costanzo stated that the easiest, simplest, and best resolution is to consider developing a hospital zone district, which can be part of Phase 2 of the LDRs. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the PBLP may have been considering the ability of a hospital to build an office building to lease to someone else, the doctors or even a retailer for a shoe store without having to comply with any standards as the property is in a G Zone District; that any other developer in the City would be required to comply with certain standards; that during her service on a neighborhood advisory committee years ago when the Waldemere Parking Garage and the medical office building were built, SMH knew some potential problems could arise with the City and, therefore, came forward and offered to comply voluntarily with the then-existing zoning code and other applicable regulations, although not required to do so by the State enabling legislation. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP believed a hospital should meet established standards for hospitals; that other hospitals could locate in the City; that another privately owned hospital was previously located in the City; that developing a hospital zone district may be the appropriate and best action; that the PBLP had strong opinions concerning standards in G Zone Districts. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to Section IV-1706 (A) and (B) ; and stated that the list of uses is not long; that numerous other uses exist; and asked which section would apply to an athletic field, for example? Mr. Costanzo stated that Section IV-1706 (A) concerns uses which are not identified as generic uses in the land use matrix such as a sewage treatment plant or a fire station. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the uses can be simply identified? Mr. Costanzo stated that an effort was made; that neither Staff nor the PBLP could think of alternate language. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the language works well for uses specifically identified but not as well for the other uses which could be identified; that one solution is all uses must conform with the standards of Section IV-1706 - (B) and determine if changes are necessary in the future. Ms. Palmer stated that the anticipation is the PBLP would prefer a tightening rather than a loosening of the standards. BOOK 45 Page 17542 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17543 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that establishing SMH as a nonconformity is disturbing; that the PBLP should be requested to consider a hospital zone district as well as one definition for all governmental uses meeting a special or general purpose; that the value of segregating the uses is not seen. Commissioner Merrill stated that the value of the two standards as developed by the PBLP in Section IV-1706 (A) and (B) is appreciated; that some uses such as a lift station are required; that placing the additional burden on the City in developing such uses is not desired; that currently no standards exist for the G Zone District; that some standards should be developed; that the PBLP's intent is correct; that the standards may not be as clear as desired; however, the philosophy is in place; that the nonconformity of SMH should be considered separately through a hospital zone district sO SMH would not be subject to either Section IV-1706 (A) or (B) but would be a special consideration. Commissioner Cardamone asked if standards should be developed for a hospital zone district? Commissioner Merrill stated that the standards should be fairly broad. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the nonconformity issue can be addressed? Mr. Litchet stated that the nonconformity section of the proposed LDRs is drafted sO no immediate problems are created; however, SMH could realize an impact in terms of financing or other issues in the future; that creating a hospital zone district could be established as a priority; that the different standards of Section IV-1706 (A) and (B) are understood and make sense; that a certain amount of nonconformities will be created no matter what action is taken. Commissioner Pillot asked the time necessary to develop a hospital zone district? Mr. Costanzo stated that a specific answer is not known; that City and SMH Staff will have to discuss concepts and try to develop a middle ground; that a hospital zone district will be developed as soon as possible if desired. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an outline or proposal would be appreciated prior to final development. Ms. Palmer stated that Staff could develop a schedule prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076; that discussions will be required with SMH Staff; that some issues will involve the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the core district of SMH is immune from many of the restrictions? City Attorney Taylor stated that the recollection is the SMH enabling legislation contains language which is periodically referenced as restricting the City's ability to apply zoning regulations; however, SMH has always agreed to adhere to the City's regulations; that the point has never been litigated as a middle road has always been found to avoid confrontation. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if creating a special category for the hospital core is a problem? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Commissioner Pillot stated that Staff could meet with SMH Staff prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 and return language which makes sense unless and until a hospital zone district is created which eliminates the problem. Mayor Dupree agreed; and stated that any language should also deal with the problem which presently exists. Commissioner Pillot stated that is the intent. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a problem actually exists? Ms. Palmer stated yes; that SMH is the most significant nonconformity issue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the understanding was that nonconformities created by the proposed LDRs would be treated differently than in the past; and asked for clarification. Mr. Litchet stated that structures can have different characteristics such as setbacks, etc., which are nonconforming; that structures can be repaired, remodeled, and expanded in accordance with the proposed LDRs; however, expansion along nonconforming setbacks, for example, is not allowed; that the proposed LDRs will not affect SMH's current operations; that future projects could be affected as financial institutions and lenders are nervous about nonconformities of any kind, which is likely SMH's main concern. Commissioner Pillot stated that language should be developed resolving the problem until a hospital zone district is created. Mayor Dupree agreed. Commissioner Cardamone asked if such language can be developed in two weeks? City Attorney Taylor stated that time is not available to go through the normal process of neighborhood and PBLP meetings; that something would need to be done on a band-aid basis without involvement of the PBLP. BOOK 45 Page 17544 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17545 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that a band-aid basis is exactly the concept desired; that some temporary language could be developed prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 to avoid nonsense and allow time to do the job properly which will involve neighborhoods, the PBLP, etc. Mayor Dupree and Commissioner Merrill agreed. City Attorney Taylor stated that language can be developed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that one nonconformity which is not standard for the City is the wood fence behind which equipment is stored at the northwest corner of Hillview Street and US 41; that SMH should be doing something more with the property than equipment storage; that a response is not necessary; that the purpose is to make the statement at the Commission table; that being told the equipment will be moved tomorrow would be fine. The Commission recessed at 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:17 p.m. Charles D. Bailey, Law Firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue, (34236) representing Bob Geyer, owner of Sunset Chevrolet, stated that the City and Sunset Chevrolet entered into a property pre-annexation agreement which imposed upon the City an obligation for a land use classification eligible for rezoning to the equivalent of the County designation, i.e., the Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District; that one parcel is in the Office, Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District; however, the pre-annexation agreement committed the City to the CI Zone District for the entire property; that during discussions concerning the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan, the Commission added the following policy statement: 10.1 Future Land Use: Any parcels annexed into the City prior to the effective date of this Comprehensive Plan shall be rezoned to a City zone district in accordance with the applicable Municipal Services and Pre-Annexation Agreement unless otherwise agreed by the City and the subject property owner. This action strategy is applicable solely to such annexed parcels and shall not apply to other parcels located within the same land use classifications as such annexed parcels. Attorney Bailey stated that the policy provides the City will honor pre-annexation agreements; that the purpose is to assure Sunset Chevrolet is in no worse position under the proposed LDRS than under the County's regulations; that City Staff, specifically Paul Costanzo, has done an excellent job in one of the prior versions of the LDRs in preparing a matrix matching each of the development standards with the Ford, Cadillac, Volvo, and Chevrolet dealerships in the City; that any small areas of discrepancies were identified which was very helpful and comforting; that assurances were recently received no changes have occurred since the matrix was developed; that the concern is to assure no erosion of the terms of the pre-annexation agreement in terms of signage, landscaping, etc. Michael Furen, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A.. 2033 Main Street (34237), representing various clients, stated that the first issue presented involves the MCI Zone District; that under the present Zoning Code (1981), buildings in excess of 35 feet in height are recognized and permitted as special exception uses; that special exceptions will be conditional uses in the proposed LDRs; however, conditional uses do not appear in the MCI Zone District; that eliminating the provision allowing buildings in excess of 35 feet in height as special exceptions could create nonconformities for numerous properties considering the large area in the MCI Zone District; that the Commission is urged to consider retaining the provision as a conditional use in the proposed LDRs. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if an existing special exception will become nonconforming? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Attorney Furen stated that the property will not become nonconforming as to use but could become nonconforming to a characteristic of use; that the issue is height rather than a particular type of physical use of the property itself; that a special exception for a hotel or motel or other actual use would not become nonconforming; that the concern relates to a characteristic of use, i.e., height. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a building with a special exception for an extra 30 feet in height under a provision which no longer exists in the proposed LDRS would become nonconforming raising a concern to a lender. City Attorney Taylor stated probably not; that the Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement makes the interpretation. Mr. Litchet stated that a building is not noncontorming if a special exception was previously granted; however, additional height may not be granted for new structures; that the proposed LDRs allow for revocable conditional uses; that height does not fit with the conditional use process as structured at the direction of the PBLP and the Commission as a conditional use for height could not be revoked once the structure is built; that considerable discussion occurred concerning the appropriateness of special exceptions for extra height. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the statement was made that properties all over the City would become nonconforming; that the issue can be addressed by indicating the properties will not become nonconforming. Attorney Furen stated that the provision could be clarified indicating such special exceptions will not become a nonconforming use characteristic. BOOK 45 Page 17546 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17547 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that the nonconforming section of the proposed LDRS can be reviewed and specified to assure no problem develops which is Staff's intent. Attorney Furen stated that the second issue is client specific to the Speedway Super America, LLC, which recently expended $1.6 million in upgrading the facility at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Tamiami Trail and 10th Street; that the facility was designed to operate 24 hours a day; that the property is in the North Trail (NT) Zone District even though other properties in the vicinity are in the Commercial, General (CG) or the Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District; that a special exception request to operate 24 hours a day is being prepared to file with the City pursuant to the present provision in the Zoning Code (1981) allowing hours of operation between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. only by special exception in the NT Zone District; that the proposed LDRs does not provide for special exceptions for hours of operation but allows certain exclusions from the limitation including urgent care centers, colleges, universities, restaurants, theaters, hotels and motels, residential uses, bed and breakfast inns, existing radio and television stations, transmitters, bars and taverns; that the simplest solution is to add convenience stores with or without gas pumps to the list of exclusions; that a revocable conditional use permit is a possibility; however, other potential uses are not included on the list for the NT Zone District, for example, drug stores, shopping centers wishing to operate 24 hours a day but have no ability to do so under the proposed LDRs; that allowing 24-hour operation in the NT Zone District on some basis by expanding the list of exclusions or by providing for a revocable conditional use permit is urged. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Attorney Furen previously indicated the term revocable" would not be used at the Commission table. Attorney Furen stated that the indication was the term "revocable" would not be willingly used. Mr. Litchet stated that the Commission previously asked Staff not to change the provisions concerning the NT Zone District as considerable work went into the development of the zone district by property owners; that a special exception provision allows for operating between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.; that the other portions are carried forth as currently incorporated in the Zoning Code (1981); that Speedway was on notice concerning the special exception at the time of original approval and indicated a special exception would not be necessary as the operation would not be 24 hours a day. Attorney Furen agreed; but stated that the client intended to seek a special exception subsequent to the completion of the improvements, which is currently being prepared. Mr. Litchet stated that the reason for not incorporating conditional uses is not recalled; that a revocable conditional use can be incorporated if the Commission wishes to allow for uses not specifically exempted from the 24-hour provision. Commissioner Pillot asked Staff's recommendation. Mr. Litchet stated that incorporating conditional uses would maintain the current status quo in the NT Zone District allowing for the application for a conditional use permit for a 24-hour operation; that a revocable conditional use permit would be a better tool than allowing 24-hour operations as a matter of right as much of the NT Zone District abuts residential uses. Commissioner Pillot asked if the conditional use will be major or minor? Mr. Litchet stated that the conditional use will probably be a major conditional use. Commissioner Cardamone stated that conditional use permits are appropriate in such situations. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the distinction between major and minor conditional uses? Mr. Costanzo stated that major conditional uses come to the Commission for approval after a recommendation from the PBLP; that minor conditional uses only go to the PBLP for approval. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if all conditional uses are revocable? Mr. Costanzo stated yes. Attorney Furen distributed copies of his memorandum dated October 6, 1998, to Timothy Litchet concerning Article VII, Division 2, Off-Street Parking; and stated that off-street parking has been an issue in various projects over the years; that the City has many instances of existing uses with parking which does not conform to later changes in the parking requirements; that the current Zoning Code (1981) has been properly interpreted over the years sO additional parking is required only to meet the increase in density or intensity of use; that site limitations frequently mean the physical impossibility of providing parking for all the existing use and the proposed intensified use; that an attempt was made to address the issue in the initial draft of the proposed LDRs with suggested additions as recommended in his October 6, 1998, memorandum as follows: Add the following as Section VII-202 (C) : Where an existing use has less parking spaces than the number of parking spaces that would be required by this BOOK 45 Page 17548 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17549 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. Division and the existing use is increased in density or intensity then additional parking spaces shall be provided pursuant to this Division only for the increased density or intensity of the use. Amend Section VII-203 (A) to read as follows: No building or use shall be permitted or constructed unless off street parking spaces are provided in accordance with the provisions of this Division, except as otherwise provided in Section VII-202(C). Mr. Litchet stated that the proposed LDRs do not change the interpretation of the parking requirements; that the suggested additional language could be reviewed prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076. City Manager Sollenberger concurred. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City has parking lots which do not meet the current landscaping standards; that no means is available to require landscaping in accordance with current standards; and asked if an opportunity is provided to require meeting landscaping standards? Mr. Litchet stated that the landscaping standards in the proposed LDRs incorporate a 50 percent rule; that the entire parking lot must be brought up to landscaping standards if the building structure or use is increased by over 50 percent, which is a good standard. Commissioner Cardamone asked about renovations of only 45 percent? Mr. Litchet stated that a cumulative provision has been incorporated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that renovations of only 45 percent will occur as retrofitting is expensive. Mr. Litchet agreed; and stated that landscaping standards may limit the expansion of businesses as the new parking lot landscaping requirements may not work for new additions; however, no requirement exists currently to bring parking lot landscaping up to standard; that the requirement to meet parking lot landscaping standards if the building structure or use is increased by over 50 percent should cover the majority of important projects. Attorney Furen stated that the Commission is urged to consider a balance between the impact on existing available parking and the landscaping standards; that beautifying may be creating further parking shortages which is not desirable. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the problem is buildings have been demolished but the property has not been brought up to today's parking standards; that a purchaser of property could discover that 10 years previously 45 of the 50 percent was used in remodeling if the landscaping standard is cumulative; and asked the manner in which a purchaser is placed on notice? Mr. Litchet stated that cumulative remodelings are currently tracked for Federal Emergency Management Area (FEMA) area properties; that a new computer system is being installed which will facilitate tracking. Attorney Furen distributed a copy of his memorandum dated October 5, 1998, to Paul Costanzo concerning three proposed revisions clarifying certain provisions in the LDRs which have been discussed with Staff as follows: 1. Add the words non-residential" between the words "new" and development" in the first line of Section VII-1603 (C) 2. Revise the language in the "Suggested Off Street Parking Requirements" block opposite Hotels/Motels in Section VII-204 to read: "1/guest unit plus additional 1/10 guest units; plus spaces for accessory uses required by Division 9, if any" 3. Add the words "meeting or conference rooms, I after the last comma in line 1 of Section VII-904 (A) Attorney Furen stated that Staff has indicated Nos. 1 and 2 are acceptable; that some concern was expressed concerning No. 3 which relates specifically to the Harley Sand Castle Hotel but more generally to hotels and motels in the RMF Zone Districts; that certain accessory uses to hotels and motels in the RMF Zone Districts are recognized not to require additional parking beyond the parking standard provided for the hotel itself; that meeting and conference rooms are not referenced; that Staff explained the rationale and has an alternate means of achieving the desired result for the Harley Sand Castle Hotel without further unintended implications; therefore, No. 3 should be disregarded; that the Commission is requested to adopt Nos. 1 and 2. Stephen Rees, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A. 2033 Main Street (34237), distributed a copy of his letter dated September 21, 1998, to the Commission requesting the Commission amend the proposed definition for a new land use called a private recreation club in the WFR Zone District; and stated that a proposed definition for a new land use called a private recreation club was presented to Staff for review at the May 6, 1998, PBLP meeting; that after discussion, the PBLP suggested inserting a provision clarifying the entity which would operate the private recreation club; that the suggestion was a non-profit corporation should be the entity, which was incorporated in the definition; that the attorneys responsible for the formulation of the ownership and the operation of the proposed private recreation club subsequently indicated the error of the limitation to non-profit entities; that the request is to delete the reference to a non-profit corporation from the BOOK 45 Page 17550 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17551 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. proposed definition and retain the provision of operation for the pleasure and recreation only of members and guests. Commissioner Merrill asked if the request has been discussed with Staff and if Staff concurs? Attorney Rees stated the request has been discussed with Staff who has no problem with the request. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the request has been reviewed by the PBLP? Ms. Palmer stated that the definition was presented to the PBLP which approved the recommendation with minor modifications. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the reason the limitation was adopted? Attorney Rees stated that the limitation was not proposed in the original definition; that certain revisions were requested after discussion with the PBLP; that the revised definition was determined as too limited after the PBLP action. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP's interest was to assure the operation was not open to the public creating concerns from the residents regarding increased traffic, etc.; that the PBLP was being as restrictive as possible; that the anticipation is the PBLP will not object if Staff and the Commission do not object. Mayor Dupree asked the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff does not object; that the proposal makes sense. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the proposed definition is accepted. Attorney Rees distributed a copy of his letter dated October 6, 1998, concerning signage for the private recreation club; and stated that previously a paragraph identical to that which presently regulates bed and breakfast inns in the WFR Zone District was presented for approval as follows: 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 provided that such illumination consists of only a low-intensity fluorescent or incandescent bulb. All lighting for signs shall be sO designed and arranged so as 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. Attorney Rees stated that after presenting the proposed paragraph concerning signage, the determination was a better avenue is to provide signage for the private recreation club as part of the condominium project; that the major identification sign for the project includes signage for both the condominium and the private recreation club; that the request is to add the following: If approved under Article VI, Section VI-104 (B) of this Code as a recreational club/condominium project, the private recreation club sign may be part of such condominium identification sign with that sign area increased by no more than six (6) square feet. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the amount of allowable signage for the condominium project would be enlarged? Attorney Rees stated that the allowable signage area will still be six square feet for the private recreation club which will be added to the allowable signage area for the condominium; that a formal response has not yet been received from Staff. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff has indicated the request is satistactory. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the only concern is the possibility of one very large sign; however, the total area is probably so small sO as not to matter. Attorney Rees stated that the combination sign facilitates motorists' being able to identify the entrances quickly; that an extremely small sign for the private recreation club could be missed. Mr. Costanzo stated that one sign is better than two; that nothing is lost if the total square footage remains the same. Attorney Rees distributed a copy of his October 6, 1998, letter to the Commission and a boundary survey of the lots surrounding the Siesta Key Fish Market; and stated that on October 5, 1998, the Commission considered and disposed of a request from the owner of the Siesta Fish Market for a settlement proposal for litigation; that he is not affiliated with the lawsuit; however, administrative land use matters have been represented for the Siesta Fish Market for approximately 2.5 years through proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the proposed LDRS; that the Zoning Code (1981) presently provides two noncontorming, adjacent platted lots of record with common frontage become one buildable lot upon coming into single ownership; and referred to the boundary survey which indicates Lots 10 and 11 which will become one buildable parcel and Lots 12 and 13 which will become a second buildable parcel; that in 1995, Mr. Asbury, the owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market, acquired title to the four lots and, therefore, obtained two buildable residential parcels; that the parcels are in the RSF-2 Zone District; that the lots are platted by reason of width and BOOK 45 Page 17552 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17553 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. minimum lot area to conform with the RSF-4 Zone District; and distributed a copy of Section 9-2, Nonconforming Lots of Record, Zoning Code (1981), which lists the applicable provisions. Attorney Rees stated that the Commission has expressly by legislative determination exempted certain lots in the Riverside Park area from the application of the single ownership/unified common frontage provision; that fairness and equity to the property owner would be to allow a restoration of the four single-platted lots of record so one residential dwelling could be constructed upon each of the four lots; that the legal description of Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 could be added to Section 9-2(b) (1), Zoning Code (1981), as follows: (b) Provided, however, the requirement of separate ownership shall not be required and the prohibition of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership shall not apply to . (1) The nonconforming lots of record in the RSF-2 Zone District [of] Riverside Park Attorney Rees stated that the nonconforming lots of record do not meet the standards of the RSF-2 Zone District but do by the present or proposed zoning code qualify for the erection of a single-family dwelling upon application of a proper building permit; that other lots are nonconforming lots of record which do not meet the requirements of the RSF-2 Zone District but upon which a dwelling currently exists; that additions or modifications could be made subject to specific standards; that the proposal subjects the four lots to the standards of the RSF-2 Zone District, is not a rezoning, and does not change the standards; that the proposal is to retain the four separate lots of record and not to combine Lot 10 with 11 and Lot 12 with 13; that a residential dwelling could be constructed, meeting the standards of the RSF-2 Zone District or other owners with an existing dwelling who sought to enlarge or modify the structure. Commissioner Pillot stated that the matter could be referred to the Administration for a report back unless the Administration has an immediate response. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposal is a different type of request from the other matters being considered, concerns the use of land contrary to the provisions of the current Zoning Code (1981), and has not yet been heard by the PBLP; that the preference is to follow a procedure including review by the PBLP rather than to incorporate the proposal into proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 currently being considered for adoption. City Manager Sollenberger agreed; and stated that the proposal should be handled as a separate issue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that typically such a proposal would be a request for a change to the applicable zoning code and would be a separate application; that the recollection is the desirability of four separate lots at the location had previously been considered and rejected by Staff. Attorney Rees stated that a separate application is one method of handling the request. Mayor Dupree asked the wishes of the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City Attorney's advice should be followed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proper procedure would be to file an application for an amendment to the Zoning Code (1998); however, no purpose may be served if the process has already been followed and the application rejected. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the application may not have been reviewed by the PBLP; that the recollection is a request was received for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Staff chose not to include the amendment in the current update. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposal should be referred to Staff for a report back. Attorney Rees stated that Staff can be contacted to determine the best approach. Jim Cooney, 708 Garfield Drive (34236), was no longer present in the Chambers. Jann Vasiloff, 4446 Violet Avenue (34233), was no longer present in the Chambers. Rabbi Joe Mishkin, 5824 Sandy Pointe Drive (34233), was no longer present in the Chambers. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the following are made part of the public record: Minutes of the May 21, 1998, PBLP public hearing at which the Planning Board found the proposed Zoning Code (1998) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Resolution of the PBLP adopted on May 21, 1998, finding the proposed Zoning Code (1998) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4076 by title only. BOOK 45 Page 17554 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17555 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a number of issues have been identified which will be reviewed by Staff. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Commission formal agreement is desired? Mr. Costanzo stated that the Commission is requested to correct any incorrect understandings; that Staff will proceed to make the various revisions based on the Commission's direction as follows: 1. Street vacations The standard will include future public use as a consideration. 2. Ranking of districts Staff will reconsider the ranking of the COP which is now the CP Zone District 3. C-CBD Zone District Reincorporate the 50-dwelling-unit density cap on multi-family uses. 4. Development agreements - The language developed by the City Attorney's Office will be incorporated. 5. Churches and synagogues Proposed Section VII-602 (L) (2) establishing a limitation of 25 percent on accessory uses to churches and synagogues will be eliminated. The issue of large churches with many accessory uses in residential single-family zone districts will be considered as part of Phase 2. 6. C-CBD Zone District - The language will be clarified that bonuses are not in addition to the 180-foot maximum for all other than non-residential uses. 7. Home occupations - The language concerning occupants will be clarified. 8. Height limitations The language will be clarified that the calculation does not include non-habitable space rather than false architectural features. 9. Boat docks - The language will not be changed at this time; however, the language will be reexamined potentially with private consultants to address the issue brought up by the Board of Adjustment. 10. Hospital The definitions of governmental versus quasi-public uses will be unified. A study will be initiated to write a hospital zoning district. "Band aid" language will be developed to address nonconformities at SMH for the interim until the hospital zoning district can be implemented. The two-tiered provisions for addressing waivers in the G Zone District as recommended by PBLP will be retained. 11. MCI Zone District - Conditional uses will be incorporated. Mr. Litchet stated that the language in the noncontormity section of the proposed LDRS will be clarified to indicate the granting of a previous special exception carries with the land and will not be considered nonconforming under the proposed LDRs; that conditional use to add height will not be considered. 12. NT Zone District - A major conditional use for hours of operation for the non-listed uses to expand hours of operation will be added. 13. Parking for New Additions - The language suggested by Attorney Furen will be reviewed for possible incorporation to assure the final language concerning parking requirements is clear. 14. Private recreation clubs - The language concerning non- profit corporations will be eliminated. The language recommended by Attorney Rees concerning revised signage criteria for private recreational clubs will be incorporated. 15. Siesta Key Fish Market - The proposal will go through the appropriate process and be presented to the PBLP. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the understanding was the proposal concerning the lots surrounding the Siesta Key Fish Market would be presented to Staff and proceed to the PBLP only if recommended by Staff. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4067 on first reading with the revisions enumerated. Mayor Dupree requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that appreciation is extended to the Vice Mayor for her careful and thorough reading which resulted in highlighting some important issues. Mayor Dupree agreed; and stated that appreciation is extended to Staff for the continued support, for bringing valuable information forward, and for the thorough explanations. 5. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA ADMINISTRATION. TO REVIEW MAINTENANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE NORTH SIESTA KEY BRIDGE (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (1100) through (2398) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: : A. stated that the Florida League of Cities is sponsoring an interesting program to recognize great Floridians, which will involve some cost but would be nice to entertain nominating local Sarasotans who made an impact on the community; that serious criteria have been established; that the program could be publicized if endorsed by the Commission; and distributed a packet of information containing the following: BOOK 45 Page 17556 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17557 10/06/98 6:00 P.M. A brochure entitled "Great Floridians 2000" published by the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Department of State A letter to City Officials from the Secretary of State and the President of the Florida League of Cities supporting the Great Floridians 2000 program A description of the Great Floridians 2000 program including criteria for eligibility and instructions for submission A September 1998 article in the magazine Quality Cities, published by the Florida League of Cities entitled "League Co-sponsors Great Floridians 2000 Program to Recognize Influential Historic Figures" A newspaper article published by the Associated Press entitled "State seeking great Floridians" Mayor Dupree asked the deadline. Commissioner Cardamone stated that time is available; that the program could be referred to the Historic Preservation Society, which may know of individuals who should be nominated. Commissioner Pillot stated that Owen Burns, who is not recognized as much as John Gillespie or John Ringling, is a possible candidate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Bertha Palmer, who is not recognized with anything in her name in the City but who founded a bank, came to mind. VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the long, hot summer and considerable rain may have contributed to grass and lawn code violations; that the rights-of-way are particularly bad which was indicated to the Deputy City Manager who has resolved the problem; that during the discourse, some issue regarding the City's legal right to enforce mowing was revealed; that grass and weeds are becoming very high which impacts very negatively on the look of the City; that the problem should be resolved. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the issue will be reviewed and a report returned. B. that the right-of-way at the northwest side of the north Siesta Key bridge does not look good. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will review the problem. COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that he will be out of town until November 10, 1998. MAYOR DUPREE: A. stated that a dangerous situation is developing at the Ringling School of Art & Design due to the patrol people on golf carts; that several people have reported the patrol people dart out in front of motorists and avoiding the patrol people is difficult; that the message should be conveyed that the patrol people should slow down as the main thoroughfare is crossed. 6. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #3 (2398) through (2438) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: : A. stated that a message was received that the joint meeting with the Sarasota County School Board has been rescheduled to November 12, 1998, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. 7. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (2438) There being no further business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the regular meeting of October 6, 1998, at 9:58 p.m. nome blp hu EROME DUPREE, MAYOR OTA ES To Ely E Relnsen BILLYE C/ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 902 BOOK 45 Page 17558 10/06/98 6:00 P.M.