BOOK 45 Page 17623 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: : Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, and David Merrill, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, and City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson ABSENT: : Commissioner Gene Pillot and City Manager David Sollenberger PRESIDING: Mayor Jerome Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:05 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. INTRODUCTION RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN, 1998 EDITION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0034) through (0314) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the public hearing is to consider the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition; that another public hearing to consider other chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for the November 10, 1998, Special Commission meeting at which time speakers may address issues in chapters other than the Future Land Use Chapter. Mr. Taylor referred to the following maps displayed in the Chambers which incorporate the Commission's direction received during Commission workshops held in June 1998: Map #1: Relationship of Proposed Future Land Use and Existing Zoning dated July 1998 and Map #2: Location of Issues dated September 21, 1998 Mr. Taylor distributed an Addendum to the Issues and Recommendations Matrix dated October 26, 1998, incorporating Staff suggestions in response to the Commission's direction received at the October 20, 1998, Commission workshop concerning the Future Land Use Chapter; that the Action Strategies (A.S.) and the issues concerning the Future Land Use Map will be discussed. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff recommends adding the phrase ". implementing zone districts are defined in accord with A.S. 2.3 and the I after the words "as the" in A.S. 3.1 to result in the following: A.S. 3.1 Consistency of Rezoning and Conditional use Permits: All applications for rezoning and conditional use permits shall be revised by the City Planning Board for consistency with the Sarasota City Plan. The City Commission shall make the final determination as to consistency after consideration of the Planning Board's recommendations thereto. However, until such time as the Zoning Code has been revised in accord with Action Strategy 2.4, an application to rezone property from a residential to a non-residential zone district may be deemed inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff also recommends adding the following which provides the justification and rational for denying a request for rezoning from a residential to a non-residential zone district at the end of A.S. 3.1: based on a finding that the current (unrevised) specific uses or development standards for the zone district requested are not compatible with the uses, density, intensity, and scale of development in the surrounding area. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff recommends striking the words "requests for" from A.S. 3.2 to result in the following: A.s. 3.2 Consistency With Other Sarasota City Plan Components: All rezonings and conditional uses shall be consistent with the future land use map. However, consistency with the future land use map does not equate to being consistent with the Sarasota City Plan in total. Mr. Taylor stated that the word "Compact" has been deleted from A.S. 4.6 and the phrase "within the Central City Land Use Classification" has been added to A.S. 4.7 to result in the following: A.S. 4.6 Downtown Core: Establish mechanisms, including regulatory, that retain/encourage easy access to parking, transit stops and shopping for pedestrians within the Downtown Core. A.S. 4.7 Office Uses along John Ringling Boulevard and Fruitville Road: Continue to encourage office uses along John Ringling Boulevard and Fruitville BOOK 45 Page 17624 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17625 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Road within the Central City Land Use Classification. Mr. Taylor stated that the term "performance " has been changed to "design u in Objective 5 to result in the following: Objective 5 - Preserving and Enhancing the Built Environment: To continue to preserve and enhance the physical environment by reducing blight, discouraging urban sprawl, encouraging aesthetic amenities, and developing design standards that enhance compatibility, . Mr. Taylor stated that the timeframe for A.S. 8.1 has been changed from two to five years and the timeframe for A.S. 8.8 has been changed from five to two years with the result as follows: A.S. 8.1 Economic Development Chapter: Within five (5) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan, the City shall have prepared and adopted an Economic Development Chapter and shall have incorporated same into this Sarasota City Plan. A.S. 8.8 Plan for Tenth Street: Within two (2) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan, the City should prepare a Plan for the area located north of Tenth Street, west of Orange Avenue, on the Future Land Use Plan Map for incorporation into this Sarasota City Plan . Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) discussed A.S. 10.1 concerning annexed properties and recommended adding language to allow deviation upon the mutual agreement of the City and the property owner; that specific language was not developed; that Staff recommends adding the phrase "unless otherwise agreed by the City and the subject property owner" to A.S. 10.1 to result in the following: A.s. 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. . Mr. Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office recommended adding the phrase "the function, operation or enjoyment of" to the definition of Cmpatibla/copatlailiey as follows: Definitions Compatible/Compatibility A compatible use would not interfere with or impair the function I operation or enjoyment of neighboring uses.. Mr. Taylor stated that the definition of "Consistent with the Sarasota City Plan" requires modification by deleting the phrase "requests for" for consistency with the change in A.S. 3.2 to result in the following: Definitions - Consistent with the Sarasota City Plan Further all rezonings and conditional uses must be consistent with the future land use map. Mr. Taylor referred to the Existing Zoning section of the Resort Residential Land Use Classification in Attachment 1, Future Land Use Classifications, Future Land Use Chapter; and stated that the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) -3 Zone District has been added as conceptually consistent. Mr. Taylor referred to the General Characteristics section of the Central City Land Use Classification in Attachment 1, Future Land Use Classifications, Future Land Use Chapter; and stated that the following additional language is recommended for incorporation: Central City - General Characteristics Recognizing the importance of housing in the redevelopment of downtown, the intent of the City is to increase the amount of land used for residential purposes in this classification to thirty-five (35) percent. Mr. Taylor referred to Attachment 3 of the Issues and Recommendations Matrix dated October 7, 1998; and stated that the legend of Attachment 3 indicated the Community Office/ Institutional Land Use Classification but should indicate the Community Commercial Land Use Classification; that the appropriate change has been made. Mr. Taylor referred to two memoranda dated October 23, 1998, from Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, to the Commission concerning the specific requirements of the proposed Neighborhood Office Buffer (NOB) and the Traditional Neighborhood Commercial (TNC) Zone Districts as requested by the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that Commission discussion and decision concerning the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan will follow the public hearing. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that any speaker who has signed up to speak has BOOK 45 Page 17626 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17627 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. five minutes, will be timed and will be advised when one minutes remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Commissioner Cardamone stated that time has been provided for two meetings, if necessary; that completing the deliberations in only one meeting is preferred if possible. Commissioner Merrill stated that approximately 20 people have signed up to speak; that 1.5 hours will be required to hear all the speakers; therefore, only one meeting may be necessary. Commissioner Cardamone stated that avoiding dialogue with the speakers may assure completing the deliberations in one meeting. Mayor Dupree agreed. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN, 1998 EDITION - PASSED ORDINANCE NO. 99-4095 ON FIRST READING WITH THE APPROPRIATE REVISIONS AS RECORDED BY STAFF WHICH WILL BE REPORTED BACK TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO SECOND READING (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0441) through #3 (3760) City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearing concerns proposed Ordinance No. 99-4095 which is to adopt the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition; that a second public hearing is scheduled for the November 10, 1998, Special Commission meeting to consider all the chapters of the city's Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Chapter. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Michael Furen, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., 2033 Main Street (34237), representing several clients, stated that on behalf of Harley Hotels Inc., the owners of the Sandcastle on South Lido and Sarasota Prime Hotel, Ltd., and the owners of the Holiday Inn on South Lido, both clients support the Resort Residential Land Use Classification for the two properties and would object to any change; that on behalf of Plymouth Harbor, Inc., the operator and owner of the Plymouth Harbor retirement center, the client supports the proposed Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification and would object to any change; that on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. John Russo, owners of a parcel at the western terminus of the City limits on the south side of Bay Street, the client supports the proposed Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification as recommended by Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and would object to any change; that on behalf of Dr. and Marta Weisboro, owners of property along the Hawthorne and Waldemere area, east of Tamiami Trail, the clients support the proposed Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification and would object to any change; that on behalf of Speedway Super America, LLC, owners of a parcel at the northeast corner of Tenth Street and US 41 (Tamiami Trail), the clients support the proposed Community Commercial Land Use Classification and would object to any change; that on behalf of Mr. Kolar, owner of the Kolar Auto Haus at Mcclellan Parkway and Osprey Avenue, the client requests the Commission reconsider the prior decision to designate the property as the Single Family Low Density Land Use Classification and designate the property as either the Community Office/Inatitutional or Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification, both of which were recognized as a consistent alternative during the public hearing process concerning amortization of non-conforming uses and perceives the Single Family - Low Density Land Use Classification as not rational for the property. Attorney Furen referred to the Addendum to the Issues and Recommendation Matrix dated October 16, 1998; and stated that the recommended definition for "Compatible/Compatibility" will create serious problems for the City, property owners, and neighborhoods; that the following should be struck from the definition: A compatible use would not interfere with or impair the function, operation or enjoyment of neighboring uses. . Attorney Furen continued that the term "a compatible use" is a relative term; that any adjacent land use arguably interferes with or impairs the function, operation, or enjoyment of a neighboring use; that the language is not qualified by a material inference; that the language is very broad and fraught with problems which could result in future litigation; that an alternate suggestion is to incorporate the term "materially" in the definition; that additionally, the term "enjoyment" is a subjective standard which exists in the minds of the adjacent neighbors, is not a quantifiable or objective legal standard for a comprehensive plan, and should not be incorporated. Steve Rees, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P. A. 2033 Main Street (34237), representing several clients, submitted the following documents for the record: Two letters dated October 27, 1998, to the Commission indicating the following: BOOK 45 Page 17628 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17629 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. 1. Clients represented and clients' positions concerning Staff's recommended land use classifications, and 2. Clients' Richard A. and Susan K. Morris request for the Central City Land Use Classification. A copy of a letter dated June 17, 1998, and attached exhibits including photographs concerning the objections of property owners Paul E. and Elaine Chapman, Trustees, to the multiple-family use rather than the requested Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Classification for lots 18 through 25 in the Lynwood Park Subdivision. Attorney Rees stated that the correction of the legend in Attachment 3 of the Issues and Recommendations Matrix dated October 7, 1998 from the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification to the Community Commercial Land Use Classification is appreciated; that a client is the Chapman Trust, which owns the recently annexed property at the corner of Brown Avenue and Hanson Street opposite the Glengary Shopping Center; that the letter dated June 17, 1998, provides material information on the properties; that the PBLP concurred with Staff's recommendation to designate the property as the Community Commercial Land Use Classification; that the property was annexed into the City in the County's Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District; that the purpose of bringing the property into the City was to comply with the proposed Community Commercial Land Use Classification, i.e., a commercial, general use rather than an commercial, intensive use; that the potential for a unified development potential is a benefit derived from one owner's having a property of large size; that the photographs show aspects of the property such as driveways, parking areas, and service delivery areas; that the property is suitable for commercial development rather than less intensive residential use. Attorney Rees referred to the Issues and Recommendation Matrix which does not include the issue of lots four and five of block B of Grovesner Park, owned by Susan and Richard Morris which arose subsequent to the June 17, 1998, Special Commission meeting concerning the Future Land Use Chapter; and stated that the property is located between Oak and Kentucky Streets and is in the Residential, Multiple-Pamily (RMF) -5 Zone District; that the adjoining lots are in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District which allowed for construction of administrative offices for the Sarasota Film Society; that prior to the June 17, 1998, Special Commission meeting, the property was in the Central City Land Use Classification; that as a result of the June 17, 1998, Special Commission meeting, the designation was changed to multiple-family use; that opposition is expressed to any but the Central City Land Use Classification; that the Commission is requested to designate the property as eligible for the Central City Land Use Classification to allow for rezoning to the C-CBD Zone District to allow development of a parking lot. Dan Beychok, 1620 Bay Road (34239), stated that objections are expressed to changing the property east of his home to the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification from the current residential use; that the value of his residential property will decrease if the proposed change occurs; that the logic of the change is not understood; that the neighborhood buffer should be designated on Hansen Street next to the existing veterinary clinic and the parking lot to avoid impacting residential uses; that the Neighborhood Office Buffer (NOB) Zone District should be in place to assure compatibility with residential uses if the property is changed to the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification. Blanche Johnson, 2587 Aspinwall Street (34237), representing the Park East Community Association and the neighbors surrounding the Elks Lodge at 1519 at 2635 Fruitville Road, stated that she has resided at her current address for 19 years; that representatives spoke at the June 15, 1998, Regular Commission meeting and requested a small park at the rear of the Elks Lodge or, alternatively, to have the property classified for residential use; that the property is lovely; that the neighbors had hoped the Elks Lodge, after having been in the neighborhood for over 30 years, would donate a rear portion of the property to the neighborhood; that a park near Riverview High School was originally donated to the Elks Lodge by Marie and William Selby along with funds for a clubhouse in 1961; that the neighbors now realize the property will not be donated to the neighborhood as a park; that the request is the property be designated for residential use sO the property will become home sites if sold; that the Commission is also requested to deny any future request to open Aspinwall Street at the Euclid Avenue drainage canal for access to the area; that the Elks Lodge requested the opening of Aspinwall Street when Fruitville Road was being redesigned in the 1980s; and distributed a packet of information concerning the property including the following: A Michael Saunders Company real estate flier offering the Elks Lodge property for sale for $2.3 million - A property appraisal dated June 15, 1998 A letter dated June 17, 1998, from Arlene Hoffman to the Commission requesting a park at the location, including attached newspaper articles Letters submitted on June 17, 1998, to the Commission from twenty other residents of the neighborhood Documentation that the Elks Lodge came before the Commission and requested the opening of Aspinwall Street in February 1980, which was granted BOOK 45 Page 17630 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17631 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. A letter dated October 19, 1981, to the Commission concerning the drainage problems created by the construction Newspaper articles dated October 20, 1981, in the Sarasota Journal and dated October 21, 1981, in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune regarding the October 19, 1981, Commission meeting A letter dated December 18, 1981, from Ms. Hoffman indicating the reasons Aspinwall Street should not be opened Newspaper articles from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune dated September 17, 20, 21, and 22, 1982 A letter dated June 14, 1982, with a verbatim transcript of the Commission meeting of February 18, 1980 A letter dated September 7, 1982, requesting additional funds for the street project be returned to the budget, the project canceled, and the street restored to the original condition Ms. Johnson distributed photographs from 20 months ago of the flooding resulting from construction on Fruitville Road near Aspinwall Street for Commission viewing; and stated that the canal at the end of Aspinwall Street is maintained by the County; however, Aspinwall Street is a City street; that the separated responsibilities created a problem; that the newspapers reported extensively about the issue at the time; that once construction began, a mess was created and extensive flooding resulted; that the City agreed to pave Aspinwall Street if the County would build an acceptable head wall at the canal; that the neighbors finally prevailed; that the street was closed again; that the neighbors are concerned a new owner will request the opening of the street again; that assurance that approval will not be granted to reopen Aspinwall Street is requested. Marilyn Dodge, 209 Sunway Avenue (34237) representing the Park East Community Association, stated that concern about the changes in the neighborhood is shared; that older neighbors are moving out and younger people with small children who will need new facilities for play areas off the street are moving in; that the Elks Lodge has been a good neighbor except for the efforts to open Aspinwall Street; that the concern is an attempt will be made to open the street again when the property is sold; that assuring the rear portion of the property is compatible with the surrounding residential area is requested if the front portion of the property is eligible for office uses; that the Commission should protect the neighborhood from unwanted traffic; and submitted a petition signed by 73 neighbors living on the streets adjacent to the Elks Lodge requesting the property be dedicated for a park or, if not possible, be rezoned for residential use. Ralph Tirabassi, law firm of Furgeson and Skipper, 1515 Ringling Boulevard (34236) John Wanklyn, President of McAlpine Prospect Properties, Herb Silverstein, M.D. 78 Sarasota Center Boulevard (34240) and Joel Freedman, Bishop and Associates, 78 Sarasota Center Boulevard (34240) representing Dr. Silverstein. Attorney Tirabassi stated that a common interest led to a collective approach to the Commission; that the Commission's action at the June 17, 1998, Special Commission meeting to designate the area south of Prospect Street, east of Lasula Court and west of Tamiami Trail from residential use to the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is supported; that the Commission's decision was reversed by the PBLP which reaffirmed the PBLP's original recommendation for residential use; that the proposed Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification initially generated much discussion before the PBLP, resulting in a 3-to-2 vote to retain the designation for residential use; that the present use of the properties is incompatible; that the houses on the lots are in ill repair and are not owner-occupied; that no reasonable anticipation of improved residential use exists; that Dr. Silverstein and McAlpine Prospect Properties are trying to cooperate to achieve the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which encourages cooperation of land owners; that the Commission voted many years ago to deny a special exception for parking in the Residential, Single-Family (RSF) Zone District; that the land owners were left without a means to provide parking for the property; that Staff has consistently recommended the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification; that the change would allow the land owners to negotiate with the neighbors to change the zoning; that Dr. Silverstein entered into a contract several years ago to purchase the lots from McAlpine Prospect Properties for a parking lot; however, the special exception was not approved; therefore, the contract lapsed; that the Commission is requested to approve the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification. Mr. Freedman stated that part of the vision of the Ear Research Foundation is expanding from the present location; that the requested Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification would enable expansion; that a closure of Lasula Court would be requested as part of a development proposal; that closure of Lasula Court would reduce the effect of any development on Prospect Street; that the developers of Mandarin Park, the property across the street, have provided a letter of support regarding the proposed change; that the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is requested. Dr. Silverstein stated that any questions will be answered; and thanked the Commission for its consideration. Brenda Patton, 720 South Orange Avenue (34236) law firm of Kirk Pinkerton, representing the owners of the Toscany Motel and the Surf View Motel on Lido Key, distributed a map of Lido Key and BOOK 45 Page 17632 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17633 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. copies of her letter dated October 26, 1998, to the Commission requesting the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) -3 Zone District be included in the Resort Residential Land Use Classification; and stated that the motels are small, non-conforming motels, which are old and in need of renovation and investment to remain viable economically and attractive in the neighborhood; that the non-conforming status creates a problem; that the loss of more than 50 percent of replacement value would prohibit reconstruction as a motel; that the inability to rebuild following a major storm or fire prevents further investment in the properties; therefore, allowing deterioration until all economic benefit has been drained makes economic sense; however, the neighborhood will suffer along with the owners; that Staff recommends designating the property as in the Resort Residential Land Use Classification and eligible for the RMF-3 as well as the RMF-4 and Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone Districts; that the property is currently in the RMF-3 Zone District; that the owner would be allowed to apply for a rezoning as a motel use; that the Commission could either rezone the property to the WFR or RMF-4 Zone District or deny the rezoning so the property would remain in the RMF-3 Zone District; that either option would be legally supportable and be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that concern has been expressed by neighbors regarding the potential uses if the property is designated as the Resort Residential Land Use Classification and rezoned to allow motel use; that the maximum density allowed under the RMF-4 and WFR Zone Districts is 36 units per acre; that combining the parcels yields 1.15 acres, which would limit the entire parcel to 41 motel units if rezoned to RMF-4 or WFR Zone District; that the Toscany Motel and Surf View Motel combined currently have only 54 motel units; that the requested designation and a rezoning to either the WFR or RMF-4 Zone District would reduce the density to 41 units; that the benefit to the owners is to tear down the old motels and rebuild one modern, consolidated motel on the two parcels. Attorney Patton referred to the map of Lido Key indicating the only adjacent residential use is a duplex to the north; and stated that the block to the north is also a multiple-family use; that the area is appropriate for the Resort Residential Land Use Classification rather than the multiple-family use; that no need for a buffer exists; that Staff supports the recommendation for the Resort Residential Land Use Classification; that designating the property as in the Resort Residential Land Use Classification is requested. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the size of the block between South Boulevard of the Presidents and Benjamin Franklin Drive? Attorney Patton stated that the size of the Toscany Motel and the Surf View Motel site is 1.15 acres; that the entire block is 2.3 acres; that the density of 36 units per acre applies to sites of less than 3 acres. Jim Cooney, 708 Garfield Drive (34236), stated that the Commission recently expressed concerns regarding waterfront construction; that the Board of the Lido Key Residents Association sent a letter objecting to increased heights of structures along the waterfront; that the current limit of 110 feet in height should be retained; that the balance between the residential use of condominiums and the commercial uses of hotels and time-share properties has been discussed; that 10 condominium properties, 9 hotel/motel/cime-ahare properties, and 1 private club exist on Lido Key including 3 properties due for redevelopment; that the use on Lido and St. Armands Keys is almost a 50 percent split between private and commercial uses; that traffic is the major concern of the neighbors and should be considered by the Commission in determining allowable density in the area; that the traffic to and from Longboat Key adds to the traffic problems; that the traffic increases during the tourist season; that the neighbors are not opposed to the multiple-family or commercial uses but wish to protect the natural environment and limit the traffic. Bill Tatum, 2635 Fruitville Road (34236), representing the Elks Lodge on Fruitville Road, stated that the gate placed at the rear of the Elk Lodge property during the construction on Fruitville Road has been removed; that the residential neighbors would like to have the rear portion of the Elks Lodge property rezoned; however, the Elks Lodge would like to retain the current Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) Zone District; that Staff recommends no change; that the Commission is requested to adopt Staff's recommendation. John Duhig, 1424 Fourth Street (34235), referred to Action Strategy (A.S.) 4.4, which has been renumbered from A.S. 4.5, concerning social services agencies as recommended by Staff and the PBLP in the Future Land Use Chapter as follows: A.S. 4.4 Social Service Needs: The City will establish an Ad Hoc Committee composed of appropriate stakeholders to identify the future land use needs of social service agencies, their clients and the City. After public consideration and refinement by the Planning Board and City Commission, incorporate the results into the Sarasota City Plan. Mr. Duhig stated that A.s. 4.4 is supported; that forming an ad hoc committee is advised to allow social service agencies to express needs and concerns; that additional language would strengthen the City's Comprehensive Plan if an ad hoc committee is formed, making the social service agencies feel more welcome in the City. BOOK 45 Page 17634 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17635 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Tracy Lee, 1354 Harbor Drive (34237), representing Dick Lee, owner of lots 1, 2, 23, 24 and 25, resub of lot 5, block N, plot of Sarasota, and Lynn Townsend, P.E. 6400 Manatee Avenue West, Suite G, Bradenton, Florida (34209), submitted for the record a petition signed by 18 people which reads as follows: We the undersigned being members of Park East Community Association and living either on the north or south side of Seventh and Eighth Streets between East Boulevard and [US] 301 in the City of Sarasota, Florida petition this honorable board to approve the request of Dick Lee to allow him to use the following described property in Sarasota, Florida [Lots 1, 2, 23, 24 and 25, Resub of Lot 5, Block N, Plat of Sarasotal either for a neighborhood community commercial land use or to use said property as a neighborhood office building use. . Mr. Lee submitted for Commission viewing photographs of a building which would be demolished if construction of a parking lot is approved; and stated that a setback of 100 feet is requested to allow construction of a parking lot; that the request was previously denied as not consistent with the surrounding area; however, other commercial properties in the area have greater setbacks; that the current request is to allow the zoning to be consistent with the other commercial properties in the area by allowing extension of the parking lot by 100 feet; that the change would result in less density than the existing use. Ms. Townsend stated that the building behind the existing building on the property is an apartment complex of six or seven units, which is not consistent with the current or proposed land use; that the residents are low to no income and a nuisance to the other residents; that a photograph of the adjacent house demonstrates that extending the parking lot, perhaps the width of one lot, to serve the existing building could eliminate a potential nuisance and hazard; that the requested change in use is consistent with the general commercial and multiple-family uses in the surrounding area of US 301; that public safety would be served by creating a greater buffer by a parking lot or an office rather than a strip mall; that the planned new building and parking lot will be nice and will provide more of a buffer to keep children from venturing onto the highway. Mr. Lee stated that the incomplete portion of the existing building will be used as office space; that currently parking is inadequate for completion of the building; that the building is an eyesore to the entrance to downtown; that no financial incentive exists to repair the dilapidated buildings for one- or two-family residential use consistent with the recommended future land use; that allowing a parking lot is requested. Lawrence Button, 801 South Boulevard of the Presidents (34236), stated that an ordinance should be created requiring a developer to live in an area for five years before being allowed to begin any development; however, adopting the concept is unlikely; that four motels or hotels are located to the east of Benjamin Franklin Drive, three of which may have been built prior to the implementation of zoning regulations; that the Holiday Inn acquired a special exception; that five years ago, the owners of the Toscany Motel were informed the motel failed to meet the current zoning regulations and was subject to amortization; that a five-year moratorium on the amortization was implemented; that the residents of Lido Key accepted the moratorium as the motel was well managed and had been brought up to date; however, no increase in units should be allowed; that traffic flow is a significant problem; that more units mean more traffic in a small, isolated community. Audrey Lucker, 729 Tyler Drive (34236), referred to her letter dated October 19; 1998, to the Commission regarding the Toscany Motel and the Surf View Motel and stated that recent renovations to the Toscany Motel are very nice; that no objection exists to the Toscany Motel; that concern exists regarding the potential of replacement with a higher building if the Toscany Motel is demolished; that allowing the same number of units as currently exists would not be opposed; that the traffic is impossible and increases with all new development; that allowing no increase in height or the number of units is requested. Rodney Dessberg, 3935 North Washington Boulevard (34234), distributed copies of aerial photographs of the area at the intersection of South Tamiami Trail and Siesta Drive and of the area north and east of Nations Bank at said intersection and copies of the plat book of the area; and stated that the area is a commercial district not a residential neighborhood; that the recommendation of the PBLP proposing the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification for the property adjoining Nations Bank at the intersection of South Tamiami Trail and Siesta Drive is not acceptable; that the property should be designated as the Community Commercial Land Use Classification which provides for the Commercial, General (CG) Zone District, consistent with the current zoning; that 56,000 cars pass the site daily; that the area is not four streets off of the highway; that the area is covered with buildings or carmac; that the rear property line of the Nations Bank is on East Avenue, which comes to a dead end a few blocks to the north and does not intersect Siesta Drive to the south due to another dead end north of the post office; that East Avenue cannot become a thoroughtare; that the East Avenue section only affects two houses, which are across from a parking lot and should not become the basis for a land use change; that Nations Bank plans to relocate to the current site of the drive-through tellers; that the Commission is very interested in the impact of development on neighborhoods; that conditional rezoning Petition No. 98-CO-03 was recently approved for a parcel at 2010 Datura Street, which is at the corner of Datura Street BOOK 45 Page 17636 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17637 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. and South Tamiami Trail; that part of the process was satisfying the neighborhood concerns regarding traffic; that putting up a fence on the outside of the property gave the residences privacy; that the property should remain in the CG Zone District with a designation as the Community Commercial rather than the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a new facility is currently being constructed? Mr. Dessberg stated yes, for Nations Bank at the location of the current drive-through facility. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. Mr. Taylor referred to the Issues and Recommendations Matrix dated October 7, 1998, and the Addendum to the Issues and Recommendations Matrix dated October 26, 1998; distributed the Issues and Recommendations Matrix dated October 26, 1998, which combines the two previous matrices; and stated that text issues will be discussed first Eollowed by map issues; that no new issues arose in the public hearing. The Commission recessed at 7:30 and reconvened at 7:38. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the issues raised by the public speakers will be discussed? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Mr. Taylor stated that if desired, the conclusion will be the Commission agrees with the PBLP's recommendation on each issue unless discussion occurs. Mayor Dupree stated that the procedure is acceptable for issues for which support was expressed; however, objections raised should be addressed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has just received the new Issues and Recommendations Matrix; therefore, items cannot be checked off rapidly; that items for which the PBPL has changed the Commission's recommendations should be brought to the attention of the Commission. Mr. Taylor agreed; referred to the Issues and Recommendations Matrix; and stated that Action Strategies (A.S.) 2.1 through 2.12 have been reordered, which should not be an issue; and referred to A.S. 2.1 which is a change from the term "i.e." (that is) to "e.g." (for example) as follows: A.S. 2.1 Components of the Land Development Regulations : the Land Development Regulations, and any subsequent revisions made thereto, shall continue to address: compatibility (e.g. intensity, density, and scale of development). Mr. Taylor stated that a suggestion was to modify A.s. 2.9 to include the non-residential commercial uses in residential zone districts which were exempted from the amortization schedule by special action of the Commission; that Staff recommends no change is necessary to A.S. 2.9 as the City can address non-conforming uses through the Zoning Code (1998); that the PBLP agreed with Staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that discussion about the status of the non-conforming properties which were exempted from the amortization schedule has been continuous; that the non-conforming uses differ from the uses exempted from the amortization schedule; that the doctors' offices on Osprey Avenue are supposed to retain a certain footprint and cannot be rebuilt if 50 percent of the building is destroyed; and asked if a house would have to replace the structure if destroyed? Robert Fournier, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission stated yes, according to Ordinance No. 96-3928 adopted in 1996; that 13 of the 30 non-contorming uses in residential zone districts were exempted from the amortization schedule, were allowed to continue in perpetuity subject to restrictions, but were not exempted from the other limitations and restrictions applying to non-conforming uses. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if other restrictions such as remodeling, enlarging or upgrading exist? Attorney Fournier stated that certain restrictions continue, having been carried over to the Land Development Regulations, also called the Zoning Code (1998); that the only exemption is from the provision which would have terminated the uses in 1999. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the amount a property owner can invest for items such new windows or replacement windows is restricted and if the restriction still exists in the Zoning Code (1998)? Attorney Fournier stated that an amount as a percentage of the property's value which cannot exceed on an annual basis was established. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the hope is the limitation was not incorporated into the Zoning Code (1998); that the limitation was very unproductive. Attorney Fournier stated that the exemption does not indicate percentages; that normal repair and maintenance can be performed to allow the continuation of the non-conforming use; that normal repair cannot extend or expand the non-conforming use; that only BOOK 45 Page 17638 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17639 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. repairs required to remedy unsafe conditions, maintenance or repair of a sign in a manner not to change the exterior message, and repairs necessary to maintain and correct any damage or deterioration to the structural soundness or interior appearance of a building or structure without expansion or alteration can be performed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the restrictions on size and expanding the non-conformity should remain; however, owners should be allowed to make significant investments to upgrade the quality and appearance of a building or structure; that the City should not prohibit upgrades even if the work exceeds normal maintenance to keep the building safe. Attorney Fournier stated that such investment appears precluded. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the issue should be addressed since preventing further investment is self-defeating. Mr. Taylor stated that addressing non-conforming uses in the City's Comprehensive Plan is not required; that the Zoning Code (1998) could be revised at another time. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that an objective is to clean-up such issues before leaving the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 2.10 to which the Commission agreed in June 1998 concerns overlay districts; that the recommendation is to add the phrase "or future land use classification to result in the following: A.s. 2.10 However, overlay districts shall not be utilized to add uses not specifically enumerated in the district regulations or future land use classification. Mr. Taylor referred to A.S. 2.11; and stated that the recommendation is to change the phrase ", consider the creation of" to "create" resulting in the following: A.S. 2.11 Regulations for Barrier Islands: Recognizing the fragile nature of barrier islands and their evacuation needs, create new land development regulations that address the density, intensity, and scale of development. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 2.12 is renumbered to A.S. 3.4 to improve organization and clarity as follows : A.s. 3.4 Central City Parking: Recognizing the need to optimize the use of land for parking in the downtown, consider amendments to the EDCM Engineering Design Criteria Manuall to expand the use of public rights-of-way for parking within the area defined by the Central City Land Use Classification. Mr. Taylor stated that existing A.S. 3.4 through 3.7 will be renumbered; that A.S. 2.13 as follows was addressed by the Commission in June 1998 and no issue exists: A.S. 2.13 Incentives for Central City Housing: Recognizing the importance of housing in the redevelopment of the downtown, consider incentives for housing for the zone districts that implement the Central City Land Use classification. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 2.14 concerns the Central City overlay district; that the PBLP recommends the following language changes: Delete: "may be areas of critical concern" and replace with: "are distinctive areas with"; Delete: 'area designated as"; Add: "land use classification"? Add: "where new development must be particularly sensitive to its surroundings" Add: "creating new zoning districts or"; Delete: "define these areas and develop" and replace with: "establish"; Delete: "address the concerns (i.e. protection of historic structures allowed uses and structure heights) I and replace with: "enhance compatibility and the preservation of historic resources" Mr. Taylor stated that the resulting A.S. 2.14 is as follows: A.s. 2.14 Central City Districts: Recognizing that there are distinctive areas within the Central City Land Use Classification where new development must be particularly sensitive to its surroundings, consider creating new zoning districts or using overlay districts to establish standards and/or incentives to enhance compatibility and the preservation of neighborhoods. Mr. . Taylor stated that the Staff recommends and the PBLP concurs with deleting references to special exceptions wherever the term "conditional use permits/special exceptions" occurs in the Future Land Use Chapter. Mr. Taylor stated that the following language changes were recommended to A.S. 3.1 as a result of Commission discussion: change the term "all" to "an" and add the phrases implementing zone districts are defined in accord with action strategy 2.3 and the" and "based on a finding that the current (unrevised) BOOK 45 Page 17640 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17641 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. specific uses or development standards for the zone district requested are not compatible with the uses, density, intensity and scale of development in the surrounding area" to result in the following: A.S. 3.1 Consistency of Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits: However, until such time as the implementing zone districts are defined in accord with action strategy 2.3 and the zoning code has been revised in accord with action strategy 2.4, an application to rezone property from a residential to a non-residential zone district may be deemed inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan based on a finding that the current (unrevised) specific uses or development standards for the zone district requested are not compatible with the uses, density, intensity, and scale of development in the surrounding area. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the language Eulfills the intention of the Commission, providing an additional opportunity for the Commission to reject an application on the basis that the implementing regulations are not yet adopted? Attorney Fournier stated yes. City Attorney Taylor agreed; and asked if the Commission will be asked to adopt the City's Comprehensive Plan with the changes recommended? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that notations will be added to the Issues and Recommendations Matrix indicating the Commission's decision. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission's motion to adopt the City's Comprehensive Plan will be based on the Issues and Recommendations Matrix with appropriate notations. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that a revised document will be presented at the November 10, 1998, Special Commission meeting prior to the public hearing; that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) requires the changes from the November 1998 draft of the City's Comprehensive Plan previously transmitted to the DCA be indicated; that all extraneous material will be deleted once the City's Comprehensive Plan is found in compliance by the DCA. Mr. Taylor stated that the phrase "requests for" has been deleted from A.S. 3.2 to result in the following: A.S. 3.2 Consistency With Other Sarasota City Plan Components: All rezonings and conditional uses shall be consistent with the future land use map. Mr. Taylor stated that the following two items from A.S. 3.3 have been consolidated: A.s. 3.3 Items For Consistency Review: During reviews of rezonings and conditional use applications for consistency with the Future Land Use Plan ensure that: the proposed use and the proposed intensity, density, and scale of development is compatible with surrounding uses and the intensity, density, and scale of surrounding development; the proposed use, building size, mass, bulk, height, lot coverage, lot ize/configuration, screening, buffers, architecture, setbacks, building orientation, signage, lighting, traffic circulation patterns, loading area locations, operating hours, noise, and other factors of compatibility are considered. . Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed new item is as follows : A.S. 3.3 Items For Consistency Review: During reviews of rezonings and conditional use applications for consistency with the Future Land Use Plan ensure that: the proposed use (s) i intensity; density; scale; building size, mass, bulk, height, and orientation; lot coverage; lot eize/configuration; architecture; screening; buffers; setbacks; signs; lighting; traffic circulation patterns; loading area locations; operating hours; noise; odor, and other factors of compatibility are used to determine whether the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses and the intensity, density, and scale of surrounding development. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 3.4 is a renumbering from A.s. 2.12 as previously indicated. Mr. Taylor stated that the term "offer" has been changed to "submit" in A.S. 3.7 as follows: A.S. 3.7 Voluntary Proffers: All applicants for rezoning may submit voluntary proffers Commissioner Cardamone asked if the neighborhood request to provide incentives during the discussion of the Elks Lodge property falls into the category of voluntary proffers? BOOK 45 Page 17642 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17643 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 3.7 relates to a rezoning or a conditional use approval; that developers have the ability to submit proffers addressing compatibility issues such as height or buffering; that developers may do whatever the zoning district allows; that the Elks Lodge property is the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) Zone District; that the Commission may control the uses through an adjustment to the zoning district. Commissioner Cardamone asked if property owners requesting a rezoning for commercial office use could make a proffer to overcome neighborhood objections of increased traffic, density, height, etc. Mr. Taylor stated yes; that A.S. 3.7 allows such proffers. Commissioner Cardamone asked for legal clarification. City Attorney Taylor stated that applicants can make proffers to overcome neighborhood objections. Mr. Taylor stated that the phrase "support private sector efforts to" has been added and the phrase "methods to identify, acquire, H has been deleted from A.S. 4.1 resulting in the following as agreed upon by the Commission in June 1998: A.S. 4.1 Artist's Live/Work Space: Support private sector efforts to develop and/or renovate properties for artist's live/work space. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 4.2 as follows has been deleted: A.s. 4.2 Mission Harbor Development: Develop a strategy for attracting development interests for the Mission Harbor site. Mr. Taylor stated that the A.S. 4.4, which was renumbered from A.S. 4.5, concerns social service agencies; that representatives of local social service agencies suggested language for A.S. 4.4; that the City Attorney's Office recommended alternative language based on the June 17, 1998, Special Commission meeting as follows: A.S. 4.4 Social Service Agencies: Recognizing the important contribution of social service agencies to the citizens of Sarasota, the City will cooperate with appropriate stakeholders in the formation of an ad hoc committee to identify the needs of social service agencies, their clients, and the City. City Attorney Taylor stated that that an action strategy must indicate some action to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan and not merely make a statement of recognition; that a general statement of recognition could result in problems with the DCA review; that the language should provide an implementation device if the Commission wishes to make a statement about the topic of social services agencies; however, specific language is not recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff recommendation in June 1998 was not to incorporate language in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City can establish an ad hoc committee without incorporating A.S. 4.4 in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Merrill stated that incorporating no language concerning social service agencies is supported; that the proposed language indicates strong positive action beyond recognizing the contributions of social service agencies; that possible conflicts should also be recognized. Mayor Dupree stated that representatives of social services agencies recommended the City designate an ad hoc committee to contribute to discussion of the needs for social service agencies; and asked if such action is inadvisable? Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission can appoint an ad hoc committee with incorporating such language in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that A.S. 4.4 should be eliminated. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 4.4 can be eliminated if desired. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that an ad hoc committee is a good idea and may be created without being incorporated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that appointment of an ad hoc committee by the Commission is not required. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an ad hoc committee could be formed at anytime. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City should cooperate in any endeavor to address the issue of potential incompatibilities and potential needs of social services agencies which are not addressed. Commissioner Cardamone agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission's decision is to delete A.S. 4.4; that a renumbering of action strategies will follow. BOOK 45 Page 17644 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17645 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the recommendation for A.S. 4.5 is to delete the phrases "and Auto Service Related Uses" and "/service stations" as suggested by the PBLP resulting in the following: A.S. 4.5 Parking: Develop a public/private partnership charged with identifying sites that are suitable for the construction of parking lots/garages and with identifying techniques to fund and develop same. Mr. Taylor stated that the term "compact" will be eliminated from A.S. 4.6 as previously directed by the Commission resulting in the following: A.S. 4.6 Downtown Core: Establish mechanisms, including regulatory, that retain/encourage easy access to parking, transit stops, and shopping for pedestrians within the Downtown Core. Mr. Taylor stated that the phrase "within the Central City Land Use Classification" will be added to A.S. 4.7 as previously directed by the Commission to result in the following: A.S. 4.7 Office Uses along John Ringling Boulevard and Fruitville Road: Continue to encourage office uses along John Ringling Boulevard and Fruitville Road within the Central City Land Use Classification. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 4.9 concerning the John Ringling Towers Area Development and A.S. 4.10 concerning Connecting Fruitville Road with the John Ringling Causeway were deleted with the Commission's agreement in June 1998; that the Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation to make no change to A.s. 4.12 concerning the Rosemary District Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the term "performance I has been changed to "design" in Objective 5 as follows: Objective 5 - Preserving and Enhancing the Built Environment To continue to preserve and enhance the physical environment by developing design standards that enhance compatibility. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 5.3 concerns code enforcement; that a recommendation from the public was to revise A.S. 5.3 to require enforcement of the Florida Accessibility Code; that Staff recommends no change to A.S. 5.3 as: 1) the City requires all new development meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 2) the City is not the enforcement agency regarding complaints filed under the ADA; that incorporating issues relating to accessibility in the City's Comprehensive Plan is not required. Mayor Dupree stated that Americans with Disability Act (ADA) issues should be not be addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that Americans with Disability Act (ADA) issues are code enforcement issues; that the City's Zoning Code could be expanded to include State or Federal requirements to assume the enforcement responsibility if desired. Mr. Taylor stated that the DCA requested changes to A.S. 6.1; that the language changes are not substantive and will result in the following: A.S. 6.1 Historic Preservation Program: : The City shall identify historic and archeological resources to promote the conservation and restoration of said resources. The City shall maintain an Historic Preservation Program that will provide for the designation and preservation of historic resources including historic structures, historic districts, archeological sites, and historic signs. The City shall continue to promote the preservation of historic resources through: the Historic Preservation Board; a process of review, approval, and appeal of actions related to designated historic resources to include, but not limited to, building permits, demolition permits, permits for moving buildings, and sign permits; designation of historic resources using criteria established by the National Register of Historic Places; and incentives for the preservation including, but not limited to, relief from certain building code regulations for eligible properties. Mr. Taylor stated that the phrase "The City shall" has been added to A.S. 6.5 as Eollows: A.S. 6.5 Existing Regulations: The City shall continue to protect the integrity of cultural, historical, natural, and archaeological resources in accordance with appropriate local, state, and federal regulations. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 8.1 through 8.6 and 8.8 have been revised to incorporate recommendations of the PBLP or the Commission as appropriate and as follows: A.S. 8.1 Economic Development Chapter: Within five (5) years from the effective date of this Sarasota BOOK 45 Page 17646 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17647 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. City Plan, the City shall have prepared and adopted an Economic Development Chapter and shall have incorporated same into this Sarasota City Plan. A.S. 8.2 Public Safety Chapter: Within two (2) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan, the City should prepare a Public Safety Chapter for incorporation into this Sarasota City Plan. A.S. 8.3 Barrier Island Chapter: Within three (3) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan. A.S. 8.4 Cultural/Historical Resource Chapter: Within five (5) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan, the City should prepare a Cultural/Historical Resource Chapter for incorporation into this Sarasota City Plan. A.S. 8.5 Design Chapter: Within five (5) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan, the City should prepare a Design Chapter for incorporation into this Sarasota City Plan. A.S. 8.6 Thoroughfare Plan: The City shall re-examine the adopted Thoroughfare Plan designations and make appropriate modifications to those designation whenever there is an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. A.s. 8.8 Plan for Tenth Street: Within two (2) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan, the City should prepare a Plan for the area located north of Tenth Street, west of Orange Avenue, on the Future Land Use Plan Map for incorporation into this Sarasota City Plan. During this planning process, explore alternative techniques for the purpose of making the entire area available for development in accordance with the plan to be adopted for this area. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the City's Comprehensive Plan addresses the revision of the North Trail (NT) Zone District? Mr. Taylor stated that the only action strategy concerning the NT Zone District is A.S. 8.9, which includes a neighborhood study for the north Sarasota area and an analysis of the neighborhoods on the east and west sides of North Tamiami Trail; that the term "adoption" has been changed to "effective date" in A.S. 8.9 to result in the following: A.S. 8.9 North Sarasota Neighborhood Study: Within two (2) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan. . Vice Mayor Patterson stated that representatives of the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association (IB/SSA) came before the Commission when the City's Comprehensive Plan was originally presented, prior to being sent to DCA, and were upset with the provisions of thè NT Zone District which was developed by the City several years previously; that the NT Zone District is quite restrictive, which was understood to have originated with the neighborhood; that currently, the neighborhood is concerned as the NT Zone District actually resembles a narrow strip mall along North Tamiami Trail; that the Commission indicated the NT Zone District could not be addressed for the current revision of the City's Comprehensive Plan but would be established as a priority in the future; that the entire Commission agreed to reconsider the NT Zone District when the neighborhood representatives were before the Commission. Mayor Dupree agreed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that IB/SSA leaders recently indicated City Staff advised the IB/SSA would be required to categorize the properties along North Tamiami Trail before the issue could be re-examined; that the effort would have to come from the neighborhood; that the anticipation was a re-examination of the NT Zone District would be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that A.S. 8.9 indicates the North Tamiami Trail is part of a large study; that the preference is to separate the commercial corridor on North Tamiami Trail, which would meet the expectations of the IB/SSA. Mr. Taylor stated that IB/SSA representatives expressed concerns and were advised that residents in the Bayou Oaks neighborhood had similar concerns; that changes to the commercial corridor on North Tamiami Trail will affect neighborhoods to the east and west; that after many discussions, IB/SSA representatives went to Gateway 2000 for approval of language similar to A.S. 8.9 for incorporation into the City's Comprehensive Plan so the entire corridor and the neighborhoods on both sides of North Tamiami Trail could be examined; that the language in A.S. 8.9 was written due to the inquiryi that the concept is the City will work with the neighborhoods on both sides of North Tamiami Trail to develop a plan for the commercial corridor. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that A.S. 8.9 should be clarified sO that a re-examination of the NT Zone District is stipulated in A.S. 8.9. BOOK 45 Page 17648 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17649 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that A.S. 8.9 does not specifically indicate the North Tamiami Trail commercial corridor, which is preferable. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that City Staff should not advise neighborhood representatives of a requirement for categorizing all the properties on North Tamiami Trail. Mr. Taylor agreed; and asked if the individual advising neighborhood representatives is a member of the Planning Staff? Vice Mayor Patterson stated noi that the statement reportedly made by City Staff may be inaccurate; that specifically providing for a study of the NT Zone District should be incorporated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, which could be included in A.S. 8.9. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, A.S. 8.9 will be revised to include a study of the NT Zone District. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the North Tamiami Trail commercial corridor should be specified. Commissioner Merrill stated that the phrase ". and shall include a review of the North Trail Sector Study" could be incorporated into A.S. 8.9 after the phrase "north to the City limits." Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the term "North Trail (NT) Zone District" could be used. Mayor Dupree recognized Lou Ann Palmer, Chairman of the PBLP, who was present in the audience; and stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, Ms. Palmer is requested to come before the Commission to participate in the Commission's deliberations. Ms. Palmer came before the Commission and stated that the term the "North Trail (NT) Zone District" is suggested as the correct name. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the term "North Trail (NT) Zone District" should be added to the title of A.S. 8.9. Commissioner Merrill agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that A.S. 8.9 will be revised as follows: A.S. 8.9 North Sarasota Neighborhood Study and North Trail (NT) Zone District - Within two (2) years from the effective date of this Sarasota City Plan, the City shall review and adopt appropriate revisions to the Future Land Use Chapter . . north to the City limits and shall include a review of the North Trail (NT) Zone District. Mayor Dupree asked if A.S. 8.9 precludes a review of the area after two years? Mr. Taylor stated that the indication is the study should be completed within two years. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the term "review" should be added to A.S. 8.9 as follows: A.S.8 8.9 North Sarasota Neighborhood Study and North Trail Zone District: During this planning and review process, . Mr. Taylor stated that that the final revised language of A.S. 8.9 will bé presented to the Commission prior to second reading; that A.S. 10.1 was revised to include the phrase "unless otherwise agreed by the City and the subject property owner. I to allow flexibility. between the City and the property owners and to result in the following: A.S.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. . Mr. Taylor stated that the following language has been incorporated into the definition of the term "on balance": Definition - On Balance: It is not the number of plan components with which a proposal is consistent or not consistent, but the relative importance of those components. For example, a proposal may be consistent with ten relevant components and inconsistent with only one, however, if that one component is judged to have more importance, then the proposal may be found to be inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the definition of the term compatibility" was raised earlier by Attorney Furen. Attorney Fournier stated that the comments are valid; that the definition should be revised to incorporate a quantifier or standard which could be the phrase "would not unreasonably interfere with or impair"; that the previous suggestion was to utilize the term "materially." BOOK 45 Page 17650 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17651 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the objective is the term - compatibility" also incorporates conditions which would adversely affect a neighborhood; that determining the enjoyment of a neighborhood is difficult. Attorney Fournier stated that two questions should be raised: 1) how and 2) to what degree; that a standard of reasonableness should also be considered; that the term "unreasonably" or "materially" could be incorporated in the definition. Commissioner Merrill stated that the following sentence could be eliminated from the definition of the term "compatibility"; .A compatible use would not interfere with or impair the function, operation or enjoyment of neighboring uses. Commissioner Merrill stated that including the sentence implies development can impair or harm the function, operation, and enjoyment of a neighborhood unless unreasonable or material; that the implication is a level of degradation is acceptable; that the Commission's intent is expressed in the balance of the definition. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the same argument precludes the phrase "existing in harmony" which is also incorporated in the definition. Commissioner Merrill stated that the term compatibility" is not preferred; however, Staff recommended using the term; that using the term "materially" or "unreasonably" which are subjective standards with the term " compatibility" is not acceptable; that a reasonable impairment cannot be defined; that the sentence should be eliminated. Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP did not include the sentence initially; that Staff added the sentence after discussion with the Bayfront Condominium Association regarding concerns about the definition of 1 Compatible/Compatibility", that insertion of the sentence was requested; that the sentence could be deleted without materially harming the intent of the definition. Mayor Dupree asked if the Bayfront Condominium Association found the revised definition satisfactory? Commissioner Merrill stated that the Bayfront Condominium Association objects to incorporating the term "materially" or "unreasonably", that the Association desires a very strict standard and believes the standard would be diluted by adding the term "materially" or "unreasonably", that eliminating the sentence would be best. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for legal clarification. City Attorney Taylor stated that incorporating the sentence requested by the Bayfront Condominium Association provides more substance to the definition of "Compatible/Compatibility", that inclusion of "materially" or "unreasonably" would not be objectionable as the specific listed factors in the definition are important and are used to determine the term "consistency", that the balance of the definition is adequate if desired by the Commission. Commissioner Merrill stated that eliminating the sentence is supported. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a definition which makes future Commission decisions the most defensible in court and which creates the least trouble for future Commissions, which must defend decisions, is desired. Mayor Dupree asked if the term "materially" or "reasonably" creates a problem if litigation becomes necessary? Attorney Fournier stated that incorporating the term "materially" or "unreasonably" is important if the sentence is retained; that a presumption is created that any adjacent use, however minimal, will affect a neighborhood if the qualifying term is not incorporated; that some level of impact is tolerable; that exceeding the tolerable level is the problem; that the first sentence should remain; that the term unreasonably" should be incorporated in the definition. Commissioner Cardamone stated that incorporating language concerning compatibility in the City's Comprehensive Plan will be of assistance during neighborhood arguments against rezonings; that interference. or impairment is not mentioned elsewhere; that previously, neighborhoods had to rely upon specific key words; however, the issue has always been compatibility; that protection and preservation of neighborhoods are the overriding concerns in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed language concerning compatibility carries the concept much farther for a good argument. Commissioner Merrill stated that a definition for compatibility should stipulate a change should enhance a neighborhood; that a change should not imply a negative impact. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a change should both enhance and not negatively impact a neighborhood. Commissioner Merrill stated that the preference is to incorporate no changes into the recommended sentence as was promised to the Bayfront Condominium Association; that inserting the term "materially" or "unreasonably" means the Commission acknowledges impairment of the function, operation, or enjoyment of a BOOK 45 Page 17652 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17653 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. neighborhood is acceptable to the Commission; that a standard would be required to determine "material" or unreasonable"z that leaving the qualifier out implies degradation of neighborhoods will not be allowed and changes must make the City a better place to live; that the sentence should be unchanged or not be incorporated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that adding a phrase such as "any land use change must enhance the City" would be better than incorporating the term "materially"; that no rezoning should be allowed if the change will even slightly impair the City; that any change allowed should be positive; that incorporation of the additional terms and establishing a new standard is contrary to the objectives of the people who requested the sentence. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the term demonstrably" is better? Commissioner Merrill stated that the problem would still exist. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that having nothing may lead to the concept that the Commission might be expected to turn down a proposal if 100 people come before the Commission objecting; that the courts would reverse such decisions; that a standard beyond opinions must be established. Commissioner Cardamone asked for further legal clarification. Commissioner Merrill stated that the decision should not be based on a defense; that the basis should be making the City better; that the City will have to prove a "material" harm to reject a proposal, which should not be the standard; that the term -, compatible" should be defined as a use which enhances the neighborhood; that nothing else is necessary; that a negative should be avoided, which would occur if the term "materially" is incorporated; that the sentence currently indicates a change cannot impair, cannot be worse, and must be at least equal; that incorporating the term "materially" or "unreasonably" implies degradation is allowed; that the Commission should not be making decisions which degrade the Cityi that a defense in court should not determine the content of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the current statement is neutral and will not impair the City; that the definition could be: "a compatible use is one that enhances the neighborhood. 11 Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the language will not be defensible. City Attorney Taylor stated that the definition must be defensible. Commissioner Merrill stated that, therefore, the entire following sentence should be eliminated: .A compatible use would not interfere with or impair the function, operation or enjoyment of neighboring uses. City Attorney Taylor stated that the purpose of the definition is to provide the ability to make defensible a decision a development is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the items listed in the definition provide the basis; that the current sentence was approved to provide a means to quantify the impacts relating to function, operation, or enjoyment; that the sentence does not quantify but rather identifies areas for examination; that every development in a neighborhood can interfere in some manner; that limiting consideration to material influences can be quantified and proven in a court of law. Commissioner Merrill stated that the implication is the City must have a standard to assure defensibility; that the sentence is incorporated to assure the neighbors the Commission understands the desire for the City not to go backward; that a lawsuit is not the concern; that a neutral or improvement standard should be established; that the proposed sentence establishes a neutral standard; that a developer will have a better chance of winning if the term "material" is incorporated; that neighbors should feel confident the Commission wishes to make the City better; that a debate over the term "material" is not desired; that any statement should assert a change must be better or neutral; that a statement allowing anything less is progressing backward and should not be allowed. Mayor Dupree stated that the statement should be referred back to Staff if no agreement exists. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the language can remain unchanged as the term "material" is implied and any court ruling will be on the basis of the reasonableness of the decision or whether the impairment is material? City Attorney Taylor stated that the concern is supporting the statement in court; that having a quantifier in the statement is more desirable than implying an assumption of a standard of reasonableness. Attorney Fournier stated that the term "materiality" cannot be equated with the term "reasonableness", that a court may imply a standard of reasonableness; that such an argument would be expected from an opponent; that incorporating the City's standard of reasonableness is best if the sentence remains. Commissioner Cardamone agreed; and stated that the phrase 1 .a compatible use would not unreasonably impair could be incorporated and the phrase "the function, operation or enjoyment of. eliminated. BOOK 45 Page 17654 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17655 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Attorney Fournier stated that the phrase "function, operation, and enjoyment" could remain, which is recommended, and the term "unreasonably" incorporated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that term "enjoyment " is a concern. Attorney Fournier stated that the term "enjoyment" was added for residential uses in which the term "function and operation" may not be appropriate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a good night's sleep could not be enjoyed due to a street sweeper's cleaning a parking lot next to a neighborhood. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue is if the interference is unreasonable; that the possibility is property values have not gone down as a result of a development; however, the development may have impaired the neighborhood and made the neighborhood less desirable; that the Bayfront Condominium owners accepted the nebulous concept of compatibility as the standard was neutral; that a standard of going backward is being incorporated with the term unreasonably"? that the statement should be left alone or eliminated but not modified. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that many court cases must have been won or lost due to the definition of the term "reasonable", that the term should not be incorporated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the advice of the City Attorney's Office to incorporate the term is accepted. Attorney Fournier stated that the sentence should be eliminated if the term "reasonably" or "materially" is not incorporated. Commissioner Merrill agreed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that incorporating the sentence with the term unreasonably" is preferred; that the term "enjoyment" can remain or be eliminated. Mayor Dupree stated that the sentence should not be changed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the language suggested by the Bayfront Condominium Association did not include the phrase n function, operation, or enjoyment"; that the sentence suggested by the Bayfront Condominium Association is less vague and does not raise the same objections. Commissioner Merrill asked the language suggested by the Bayfront Condominium Association. Mr. Taylor stated that the language is as follows: A compatible use would not interfere with or impair neighborhood uses. However, . Commissioner Merrill stated that the exact language suggested should be utilized; that the implication is any change must be neutral. Mr. Taylor stated that the Bayfront Condominium Association would probably not object to the additional words suggested by the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Merrill asked why Staff added the additional words? Mr. Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office suggested the additional words of "the function, operation, or enjoyment of" for clarification; that no reason existed for Staff of the Planning Department to disagree with the addition. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the statement as recommended by the Bayfront Condominium Association is less assuming; that the language inserted by Staff requires a qualifier such as the term "reasonable. 1 Commissioner Merrill agreed; and stated that a list of specific factors in incorporated in the balance of the definition. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the original language suggested by the Bayfront Condominium Association is acceptable? Attorney Fournier stated yesi that the additional language was intended to eliminate a perceived vagueness; that inserting the phrase "the function, operation, or enjoyment " was recommended for clarity. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that including the term "enjoyment I causes confusion. Attorney Fournier stated that the argument is understood; that the term "enjoyment" can be eliminated. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the phrase "function and operation" or just "neighboring uses" clarifies the definition; that allowing a rock band would interfere with neighboring uses. Commissioner Merrill stated that the statement is more general without the phrase function, operation and enjoyment"; that the specifics follow in the definition. Attorney Fournier stated that the section must be read as a whole; that the definition is acceptable without the phrase. BOOK 45 Page 17656 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17657 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the efforts of the City Attorney's Office have been motivated by concern over application in a court of law; that the definition is being made worse by additional language; that the best alternative is to return to the original language. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that, therefore, the definition should read: Definition - Compatible, Compatibility A compatible use would not interfere with or impair neighboring uses. However, this is a relative term that varies from neighborhood to neighborhood. Many factors need to be considered when determining whether a proposed development would be capable of existing in harmony with an existing neighborhood. Specific factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, use; intensity; density; scale; building lot coverage and eize/configuration, architecture; screening; buffers; setbacks; signs; lighting; traffic circulation patterns; loading area locations; operating hours; noise; and odor. Greatest care is required in when determining the effect of a proposed development in areas that border other land use classifications that permit mixed uses. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the definition of "Compatible/Compatibility" is accepted. Mr. Taylor stated that the definition of "Concurrency Management System" is modified to recognize the Transportation Concurrenty Exception Area (TCEA) as follows: Definition - Concurrency Management System The process to assure that development orders and permits are not issued until concurrency is met. For transportation, this means that facilities must be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City except as otherwise provided for in the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area of this Sarasota City Plan. (Section 163.3180 (2) (c), Florida Statutes). Mr. Taylor stated that the definition of "consistent with the Sarasota City Plan" has been modified for consistency with A.S. 3.2 by deleting the phrase "requests for" to result in the following: Definition - Consistent with the Sarasota City Plan Furthermore, all rezonings and conditional uses must be consistent with the future land use map Mr. Taylor stated that a definition of "density" has been added pursuant to the Commission's discussion at the June 17, 1998, Special Commission meeting as follows: Definition - Density: Density is a ratio of the number of dwelling units in relationship to a specified amount of land. Low density: 4.5 units per acre or fewer Moderate density: More than 4.5 units per acre to 9 units per acre Medium density: More than 9 units per acre to 25 units per acre High density: More than 25 units per acre to 50 units per acre Mr. Taylor stated that the DCA recommended incorporating the phrase "exceeding that" in the General Characteristics section for each land use classification as follows: General Characteristics: However, any increase in density exceeding that permitted by existing zoning for an individual lot or parcel . Mr. Taylor stated that the Resort Residential Land Use Classification is revised to include the RMF-3 Zone District as follows: Resort Residential - Existing Zoning These zoning districts [which are conceptually consistent with the intent of this land use classification) are RMF-3, RMF-4, and WFR. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that including the RMF-3 Zone District provides the Commission the ability to maintain the existing zoning unless acceptable proffers are forthcoming. Attorney Fournier referred to a letter dated October 26, 1998, from Brenda Patten, Esq., to Mayor Dupree recommending including the RMF-3 Zone District in the Resort Residential Land Use Classification; and stated that the presented concepts are correct. Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP and Staff recommends incorporating the following in the General Characteristics section of the Resort Residential Land Use Classification: Resort Residential - General Characteristics In order to ensure a residential identity in this classification, the intent of the City is to limit hotel BOOK 45 Page 17658 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17659 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. and motel uses to a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the total land area assigned this classification in the City. Mr. Taylor stated that in response to Commission direction, the following is incorporated in the General Characteristics section of the Central City Land Use Classification: Central City - General Characteristics Recognizing the importance of housing in the redevelopment of downtown, the intent of the City is to increase the amount of land used for residential purposes in this classification to thirty-five (35) percent. Commissioner Cardamone stated that 35 percent appears as a maximum; that the phrase "at least" should be incorporated. Mr. Taylor stated that the phase "at least" will be incorporated. Mr. Taylor stated that an issue concerning the Metropolitan Regional Land Use Classification was the number of uses permitted in conjunction with the University of South Florida/Ringling Museum/Asolo Theater; that Staff and the PBLP recommends no change to the Metropolitan Regional Land Use Classification from previously presented. Mr. Taylor referred to the map of Illustration LU-6, Future Land Use 2010, displayed on an easel in the Chambers and displayed from an electronic file and stated that the Future Land Use Map issues are as follows: Future Land Use Map #1: Plymouth Harbor Mr. Taylor stated that in June 1998, the Commission recommended changing the designation of the Plymouth Harbor property to the Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification, with which the PBLP agreed. Future Land Use Map #2: Hotels on Lido Key Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #2 is if the Resort Residential Land Use Classification should be retained for the block on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the resolution was to add the RMF-3 Zone District to the Resort Residential Land Use Classification. Mayor Dupree stated that some questions arose; however, no problem is created if additional height is not provided. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission may review height as a factor of compatibility if a request to rezone the property is presented; that a proffer could be extended to reduce the height to an acceptable level; that otherwise, the existing zoning could remain. Future Land Use Map #3: Area South of Alderman Street Mr. - Taylor stated that Issue #3 involves property currently in the RMF-4 Zone District which allows a density of 18 units per acre; that a request was received to provide a classification allowing up to 25 units per acre; that the Multiple Family = High Density Land Use Classification is recommended which provides for a density of up to 25 units per acre. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the PBLP recommended no change in the density; that the reason the Commission decided otherwise is not recalled. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the area is in the vicinity of Laurel Park where the City purchased property to prevent the development of multiple-family uses? Commissioner Merrill stated that the City did not purchase land in the area being discussed; that the area is isolated; that Alderman Street divides the area; that Rawls Avenue is the only connection between the neighborhoods. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the area is not called Laurel Park. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue had been resolved previously by revising the Multiple Family - High Density Land Use Classification to allow up to 25 units per acre. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that request should be supported if no problems are created. Future Land Use Map #4: Lot on Hyde Park Street Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #4 concerns a single lot on Hyde Park near Morton's Market, which the Commission recommended be designated for commercial uses in June 1998; that the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Classification is recommended. Future Land Use Map #5: East Side of Lasula Court Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission decided in June 1998 to allow office uses on the east side of Lasula Court; that Staff designated the area as in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification; however, the PBLP does not agree and recommends the Single-Family Moderate Density Land Use Classification on BOOK 45 Page 17660 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17661 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. both sides of Lasula Court as currently reflected on the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission reached a compromise sO everything east of Lasula Court would be reclassified. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP disagreed upon return of the issue to the PBLP. Mr. Taylor stated that the Future Land Use Map being presented reflects the PBLP recommendations; however, the official Future Land Use Map reflects the Commission's changes and indicates a Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission is happy with the decision made previously. Mr. Taylor stated that the property will remain in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification. Future Land Use Map #6: US 41 and East Avenue from Hyde Park Street to Waldemere Street Mr. Taylor stated that East Avenue from Hyde Park Street to Waldemere Street has been designated as the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification; that no action is necessary unless a change is desired. Future Land Use Map #7: Nations Bank property along South Tamiami Trail to the north of Siesta Drive Mr. Taylor stated that the issue has not been presented previously. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the Commission is reviewing new issues? Mr. Taylor stated that in revising the Future Land Use Map, approximately six areas seemed problematic and did not seem logical; that new concepts were developed and presented to the PBLP. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the property is the Nations Bank property. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the earlier discussion implied a couple of residences were being transformed to an office use; however, no implication was provided that the main structure of Nations Bank is being placed in an office designation which is not eligible for a bank. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the location? Mr. Taylor referred to the Future Land Use Map indicating the post office and the current location of Nations Bank; and stated that the Nations Bank property is in the CG Zone District; that the area to the east allows for office uses and also has two single-family lots, which are currently in the City's Comprehensive Plan as eligible for office use under an Impact Management Area (IMA); i that the recommendation is for the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification; that the property to the north is in the RMF-2 Zone District; that a church is located on the property; that the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification is logical for the church property as well; that the two blocks to the east are recommended for the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification, which is a less intense office use; that the intensity of the buildings and the design of the buildings would decrease as construction approaches East Avenue; that the situation might develop with a one- or two-story building on the east side of the street and a four-, five-, or six-story building on the west side of the street; that a parking lot might be built; that the recommendation is for office uses rather than commercial uses. Mayor Dupree stated that the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is less intense than the Community Commercial Land Use Classification. Mr. . Taylor stated that is correct; that the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is more compatible with the single-family residences on the east side of East Avenue; that the PBLP concurred with Staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the entire section of Siesta Drive in the area is commercial use. Mr. . Taylor stated that the area could be designated as the Community Commercial Land Use Classification, if desired. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a commercial use would make the area coherent. Commissioner Cardamone stated that some intersections have high traffic, high volume, and high values and should be some of the City's most intensive commercial uses. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed; and stated that commercial uses are most appropriate where the property does not back up to single- family residences. BOOK 45 Page 17662 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17663 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the property will be designated as in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification which is consistent with the current CG Zone District. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the block to the north which does not back up to single-family residences could also be in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification; that the property fronting on Tamiami Trail could have the more intensive uses. Commissioner Merrill disagreed; and stated that the neighborhood has trees, open spaces and single-family residences and is not commercial; that the area to the south approaching Bee Ridge Road looks trashy and junky with signs and strip commercial activity; that north of Siesta Drive the character changes into a more desirable residential area; that no intrusion into the neighborhoods west of Tamiami Trail is desired; that East Avenue is becoming the line drawn to the east of Tamiami Trail; that changing a church site due to the appearance on a map will not be supported; that such a change could encourage the church to leave as the property value may increase; that the houses behind the church have been a stable neighborhood, which could suddenly become unstable due to action of the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the uses behind the church? Commissioner Merrill referred to the Future Land Use Map to indicate the location of the church; and stated that to his knowledge, the church is not planning to sell; however, a situation that would create a financial advantage to the church should not be developed due to the Commission's action; that the people living on the block to the north currently look at a church and are in an area which is considered a compatible, desirable neighborhood; that the Commission should not draw commercial and office uses into single-family residential neighborhoods; that more intense uses should be along back property lines rather than across the street; that allowing retail on the corner where the current bank drive-in facility exists will change the character and scale of the neighborhood which currently has a trees, shade, and open space; that the neighborhood does not have dumpsters, delivery trucks, or the litter which accompanies retail use; therefore, office use would be better for the neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a bank will be built at the location; that a retail use in a structure resembling a big box will likely be built on the corner. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan does not change any zoning; however, areas are being identified on the Future Land Use Map which might change; that office use currently exists in the area along Tamiami Trail which makes the area attractive; that an office building is a more attractive use than a retail use with all the signs; that a restaurant would also be compatible at the location; that the residential areas to the north should be revitalized instead of extending retail use; that the streets are in a good school district, are close to downtown, and have desirable amenities; that intrusion would be inadvisable. Commissioner Cardamone asked the recommendation? Commissioner Merrill stated the corner of Siesta Drive and South Tamiami Trail should be in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification; that the block to the north could be in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification; however, the residences further north should be left as single-family uses. Mayor Dupree asked why the northeast corner of Siesta Drive and South Tamiami Trail should be in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification? Commissioner Merrill stated that retail use currently exists on Siesta Drive but not on South Tamiami Trail. Mayor Dupree asked if changing the portion on South Tamiami Trail would encourage property owners across the street to request rezoning to commercial use? Commissioner Merrill stated yes. Mr. Taylor stated that consensus was heard among three Commissioners for the northeast corner of Siesta Drive and South Tamiami Trail to be in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification; and asked if consensus exists for the block to the north. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that either the Community Commercial or the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is acceptable. Commissioner Merrill stated that the area should be designated for office use. Mr. Taylor referred to Attachment 1 of the Issues and Recommendations Matrix dated October 26, 1998, indicating the current line along the back property line of the lots facing East Avenue between the RMF-2 and the OPB Zone Districts and the RSF-3 Zone District; and stated that only three to four houses exist on the two-block area of East Avenue between Orchid and Goldenrod Streets. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the area on East Avenue in the RSF-3 Zone District should remain single-family uses. Mr. Taylor stated that three or four nice houses are in the area on East Avenue; however, the neighborhood does not have a future. BOOK 45 Page 17664 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17665 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification. Mr. Taylor stated that non-residential uses are occurring on the two blocks; that a personal judgment was buffering should begin similarly to the change introduced on East Avenue to the north. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the change would make the residents look at offices instead of other single-family homes to the north and east. Mr. Taylor stated that a use is being discussed; that the area can be classified as single-family or multiple-family residential uses if the Commission does not desire office uses; that the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is logical. Commissioner Merrill stated that indicating single-family use is not compatible and declaring the future of the neighborhood is limited is a concern; that developers frequently argue mixed use is viable and commercial near residential uses is wonderful for a neighborhood; that speculators may begin buying the homes, running them down, and coming to the City for rezonings, which is another issue; that currently the area with the church is very stable; and that the houses are in good shape. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City will be destabilizing the neighborhood if the City dramatically increases the property values at the back of the church's property by changing the designation to office uses; that the residential properties on the blocks to the north already have been forfeited to the reclassification concept. Mr. Taylor stated that the argument is understood; that the decision is very subjective. Commissioner Merrill asked if single-family use is inappropriate for the location over the long term? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that single-family use is not the best use for the long term. Commissioner Merrill asked the underlying issue concerning the appropriateness of the use? Mr. Taylor stated that long term, the best redevelopment use for the blocks on East Avenue and the block to the south on Orchid Street is as office use. Commissioner Merrill asked the a definition of the term "redevelopment. Mr. Taylor stated that the term "redevelopment u was intended to mean long-term development, long-term use, and long-term planning. Commissioner Merrill asked the basis upon which the recommendation is made. Mr. Taylor stated that single-family uses will not survive long term on the west side of East Avenue. Commissioner Merrill asked the reason for the belief. Mr. Taylor stated that development to the west will impede the long-term, viable preservation of single-family uses. Commissioner Merrill disagreed; and stated that people want to move into the area, which should be encouraged; that cities need people living in cities to be attractive. Mr. Taylor agreed; and stated that the City should make an effort to preserve the single-family uses. Commissioner Merrill stated that a philosophy either exists or not; that a philosophy should not be abandoned so quickly; that the reason for seeking the opinion is the area is very desirable for single families; that a considerable amount of single-family uses already exists in the East Avenue area; that the City must determine the reasons if people do not want to live in an area with three houses backing up to a church and across the street from other single-family homes; that an argument presented regarding the necessity for redevelopment to obtain office buildings, retail uses, and tax dollars could be conceded; however, agreement would not be expressed with the focus; that the conclusion the area is not desirable for single-family uses is not accepted; that agreement is expressed with designating the second block to the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification; that the block to the north should not be designated in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification, which would create a destabilizing effect for approximately 12 houses; that the concept of East Avenue being "open game' I should be discouraged; that East Avenue continues north and is fully residential; that attractive single-family neighborhoods exist on East Avenue. Mr. Taylor agreed. Commissioner Merrill stated that speculators have purchased property in the East Avenue area during the last eight years; therefore, some homes will be lost; that the fight for some blocks has been lost; however, the City's Planning Staff should not be indicating East Avenue is the dividing line, thus encouraging speculators to buy rental properties and allow the properties to deteriorate; that the logic to change the northern portion of East Avenue to the Neighborhood Office Land Use BOOK 45 Page 17666 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17667 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Classification is not understood; that the area should be designated for single-family uses. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that commercial uses, including the post office, exist along Siesta Drive which is unattractive for the homes facing the commercial area; and asked if designating the other portion in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification is acceptable? Commissioner Merrill stated that the homes are not unattractive. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed; but stated that considerable noise and disturbance exists. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the litter is incredible. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that many complaints concerning the commercial activities have been received from residents; that the dividing line might be better along the back of the properties. Commissioner Merrill stated that both sides of streets are being affected by the proposed action; that some of the property is currently in the RSF-3 Zone District, allowing for only single-family uses. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a small strip which backs up to the commercial uses along Siesta Drive could be designated as the Community Office/ Institutional Land Use Classification. Commissioner Merrill stated that a change would begin a domino effect; that soon a proposal would be received to extend the dividing line across the street; that the area is stable though less expensive than west of Tamiami Trail; that no requests have been received for changes to the area; that the area provides housing; that the property is in the Southside Elementary School district, which is attractive. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the suggestion is the portion on South Tamiami Trail could be designated as the Community Office/ Institutional Land Use Classification allowing for the construction of a bank; that the south side of Siesta Drive and South Tamiami Trail south of Siesta Drive would be in the Metropolitan/ Regional Land Use Classification; that no change is suggested to the areas currently in the RSF-3 or RMF-2 Zone Districts. Commissioner Merrill stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if any change is suggested to property currently designated as more intensive than single-family uses? Ms. Palmer stated that some of the property is in the OPB Zone District. Commissioner Merrill referred to the Future Land Use Map; and stated that the northern block is in the RSF-3 Zone District; that the property on which the church is located is in the RMF-2 Zone District; that the 12 property owners living across from the church property should not have the City change the designation to the Community Otfice/Institutional Land Use Classification without input from the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed; and stated that the neighborhood should be invited to participate prior to such a change. Commissioner Merrill stated that the neighborhood association has not been consulted about any changes or if designating a line at East Avenue should be the new philosophy at City Hall. Mr. Taylor agreed; that a preference is heard for the block to remain as currently zoned; that the western portion is in the RMF-2 Zone District and the eastern portion is in the RSF-3 Zone District. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the church property was previously a furniture store many years prior to becoming a church; that a very strong, viable, single-family neighborhood existed, except the front lots on South Tamiami Trail; that changes have left blocks with three homes; that a strong neighborhood exists on the west side of East Avenue; that previous City decisions may have destroyed the neighborhood so a barricade must be established; that East Avenue might be the final line for any changes in the single-family neighborhood; that the arguments concerning the school district and the existing neighborhood are correct; however, no neighborhood exists on the west side of East Avenue; that parking and a church which was previously a furniture store exist; that the church has likely been investing in the property due to the frontage on South Tamiami Trail; that the structure does not look like a church; that the location failed as a furniture store; that a nice facility was created; that protecting three houses left on the block between East Avenue and South Tamiami Trail will be difficult; that a good, compatible development may be preferred; that the setbacks on parking lots are 10 to 15 feet; that the City has a 10-foot right-of-way for a total of a 25-foot buffer; that a nicely landscaped parking lot would be better than a couple of houses deteriorating in the middle of commercial uses; that the neighborhood should be approached for suggestions; that commercial uses can be designated for the front portion; that spending additional time on a resolution is not preferred. BOOK 45 Page 17668 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17669 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree stated that the church has existed for a long time and has expanded toward South Tamiami Trail with office areas which were previously stores. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the building was previously the McDonald Roberts Furniture Store, followed by the Top Value Stamp Store, and followed by the church; that not much has been done to the structure except closing off the display windows. Mayor Dupree stated that the sanctuary is behind the administrative offices which front on South Tamiami Trail. Mr. Taylor stated that the block in the RMF-2 and RSF-3 Zone Districts will remain unchanged. Commissioner Merrill stated that the portion fronting on South Tamiami Trail could be designated as the Community office/Institutional Land Use Classification. Mr. Taylor stated that the back portion will remain in the RSF-3 Zone District; that two zone districts will exist in the area; that the Commission has previously directed consistency in the zone districts; that the suggestion is to allow multiple-family uses; however, the entire back portion of the block can be designated as single-family uses, if desired. Mayor Dupree asked if the term "back portion" refers to the west side of East Avenue, i.e., between East Avenue and South Tamiami Trail? Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that the area is partially in the RMF-2 Zone District and partially in the RSF-3 Zone District. Commissioner Cardamone stated that multiple-family uses could be the buffering for the single-family uses on the east side of East Avenue. Commissioner Merrill agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that the area would be designated in the Multiple Family- Moderate Density Land Use Classification, which is the lowest density multiple-family use; that the block to the south will be designated in the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification to the west and the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification to the east; that the southernmost block will be in the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification as presented. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the number of single-family homes in the area. Mr. Taylor referred to an aerial photograph of the area; and stated that five homes exist on the west side of East Avenue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that residents of the single-family homes would be very angry if houses on either side suddenly and without notice were rezoned to multiple-family or office uses due to a decision of the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that the line between single-family and multiple-family uses can be based on the existing RMF-2 and RSF-3 Zone Districts. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a mini-sector plan could be developed at a later date. Mr. Taylor stated that the area fronting on South Tamiami Trail will be in the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification. Commissioner Merrill agreed; and thanked Vice Mayor Patterson for her insight. Ms. Palmer stated that the church property will be divided into two zone districts. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the existing zoning of the church property? Mr. Taylor stated the church is in the RMF-2 Zone District. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the church property should remain unchanged. Mr. Taylor stated that the designation of the church property will not change. Mayor Dupree asked the wishes of the Commission regarding the balance of the Commission's deliberations concerning the Future Land Use Chapter. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the balance of the Future Land Use Chapter can be completed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission should continue to 11 p.m., after which time the discussion can be continued to another date, if necessary. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the Commission will continue deliberations. Future Land Use Map #8: Golden Gate Point density Future Land Use Map #9: South Tamiami Trail between Prospect and Floyd Streets BOOK 45 Page 17670 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17671 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Future Land Use Map #10: Single-family use for two lots on 58th Street Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission previously agreed on Issues #8 through 10 of the Future Land Use Map. Future Land Use Map #11: Commercial use for two lots on US 301 Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #11 was brought to the Commission's attention by Mr. Lee earlier. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue has been debated. Future Land Use Map #12: Office use for Kolar Auto Haus Future Land Use Map #13: Office use on the north side of Fruitville Road Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission previously agreed on Issues #12 and 13 on the Future Land Use Map. Future Land Use Map #14: Office use for a two-acre site on south side of Fruitville Road Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #14 involves a request to permit office use; that Staff and the PBLP recommended not to support the request; that the Commission previously agreed. Future Land Use Map #15: Property on the southeast corner of Palm Avenue and Alderman Street Future Land Use Map #16: Property on the southeast corner of Palm Avenue and Alderman Street Mr. . Taylor stated that Issues #15 and 16 involve the same propertyi that Issue #15 was a request to include the property in the Central City Land Use Classification; that Staff and the PBLP recommended not to support the request; that the Commission previously agreed; that Issue #16 was brought to the PBLP by Staff; that Staff recommended and the PBLP concurred that the property be designated in the Multiple Family - Medium Density Land Use Classification; that the Bayfront Condominium Association agrees with the recommendation. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue was debated previously. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the current use of the property? Mr. Taylor stated that the property is in the OPB Zone District; that the Selby Foundation owns the property; that a small office in a structure resembling a single-family house is located on the property. Mayor Dupree asked for Plarification of the property's location. Mr. Taylor stated that the site is at the southeast corner of Alderman Street and Palm Avenue; that the parcel will remain in the Multiple Family Medium Density Land Use Classification; that the Commission agrees with the PBLP. Future Land Use Map #17: Palm Avenue and Ringling Boulevard Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #17 is another recommendation by Staff and involves the property at the southeast corner of Ringling Boulevard and Palm Avenue, which is in the C-CBD Zone District; that the Commission agreed to designate the property as the Multiple Family - Medium Density Land Use Classification. Commissioner Merrill stated that the classification for property was debated previously. Ms. Palmer stated that designating the property as the Multiple Family - Medium Density Land Use Classification results in a split in the zoning of the parcel which is in single ownership. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP and the Commission previously agreed. Ms. Palmer stated that the vote at the PBLP was split; however, the PBLP recommendation is to adopt the Multiple Family - Medium Density Land Use Classification. Future Land Use Map #18: north side of Tenth Street Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #18, the area north of Tenth Street, has been designated as the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the designation is not logical; however, no other Commissioner agrees; that a destiny is being created instead of allowing the area to become attractive for some desirable industrial development; that only social service organizations will locate in the area; that the area is large. Mayor Dupree asked if the cement plant is in the vicinity? Vice Mayor Patterson stated yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission's previous conclusion is supported. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that standards should be set for renovations of the industrial properties allowing for a more acceptable presence of an employment center which is not an BOOK 45 Page 17672 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17673 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. eyesore; that the City utilities will always remain in the area; that the area will only be considered by social services agencies, i.e., organizations looking for inexpensive land, unless changes are made. Commissioner Merrill stated that the County has a dump and sewage treatment plant in an area where $300,000 homes are being sold; that the presence of a landfill and a sewage treatment plant does not preclude improvement. Mayor Dupree stated that no upgrading in the area has occurred for the past number of years. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that all the other Commissioners agreed with Staff. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the area should be designated as in the Production Intensive Commercial Land Use Classification; that a different personal opinion is now being expressed; that the area could be good for mixed uses; that one use may be located next to the sewer plant; that another use, such as apartments, may be located further away. Mayor Dupree stated that the Coastal Recovery Crisis Stabilization Unit is nearby between Orange and Central Avenues; that WWSB-TV Channel 40 will be relocating to the vicinity; that the issue is if the Commission is content with the cement plant, welding shops, the brownfields, etc.; and asked for clarification. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Staff asserts the City should have a better vision for the area; however, Staff's vision is too ambitious; that maintaining the status quo is more probable; that providing for industrial uses with established standards is more likely to encourage investment to improve the area's appeal. Mayor Dupree stated that the City should assert certain standards. Commissioner Cardamone stated that standards will be established with the development of a new plan for the area north of Tenth Street. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the area could be cleared if enough funds were available for acquisition. Mayor Dupree agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that the regulations in the recently adopted Zoning Code (1998) improve the standards for industrial areas; that multiple-family use is allowed in the area to the north and west; that creating a buffer is desired; that one way is to reinvent the use. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the areas which are zoned for multiple-family use and the location of The Pines of Sarasota? Mr. Taylor referred to the Future Land Use Map to indicate the locations and the areas in which multiple-family and industrial uses are allowed; and stated that the area should be reinvented as office use to create a land use pattern which is single-family use, Eollowed by multiple-family use, followed by office use; that Staff is recommending office use; that the area is currently zoned for industrial use; that Staff is suggesting office use in the future to reinvent the area by creating a different vision. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP's conclusion was to extend office use into the area while decreasing the production and intensive commercial uses which may be possible as the Renaissance of Sarasota and improvements to the north are developed; that a contrary argument is also possible. Mr. Taylor stated that reinventing could be "soft" manufacturing such as computer soitware rather than "hard" manufacturing such as furniture; that attracting a computer software manufacturer to the area may be possible. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that computer software manufacturers go to very fashionable areas and a classy environment such as an office park; that a location with a concrete plant next door will not be selected; that the concept is not feasible. Mayor Dupree concurred. Mr. Taylor stated that the concrete plant should not remain; that the location should be reinvented as, for example, an office park; that an action strategy in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates the area should be examined and a plan designed to develop the vision. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that such a plan would work if the City had the funds to purchase all the property or if one entrepreneur would start the process; that additional time should not be spent on the issue, which has already been discussed thoroughly with Staff. Mayor Dupree stated that more of the same is likely if the area is left as industrial use. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission previously agreed to accept Staff's recommendation. BOOK 45 Page 17674 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17675 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Future Land Use Map is the future dream; that the zoning is not changing. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the area will be designated as office use in the City's Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Taylor stated yes, by consensus of the Commission. Future Land Use Map #19: Tenth Street from North Tamiami Trail to Cocoanut Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #19 is a citizen's request to designate the area as in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification; that Staff does not support the request; that unless directed to the contrary, the assumption is no change will be implemented. Future Land Use Map #20: along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way Future Land Use Map #21: area between 32nd and 33rd Streets Future Land Use Map #22: parking on south side of 25th Street Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission previously agreed on Issues #20 through 22. Future Land Use Map #23: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way near Maple Avenue Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #23 relates to Maple Manor; that the current zoning would require designation as the Multiple Family High Density Land Use Classification; that Staff recommends designation as the Multiple Family Medium Density Land Use Classification. Commissioner Cardamone stated that high density could not be supported with the existing parking. Ms. Palmer stated that the parcel is currently in the RMF-6 Zone District. Mayor Dupree stated that the Multiple Family - Medium Density Land Use Classification is best. Mr. Taylor stated that the Multiple Family Medium Density Land Use Classification is logical; that high density should not be encouraged in the location. Future Land Use Map #24: Washington Boulevard (US 301) north of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #24 concerns property on the east side of US 301 which is currently in the RSF-4 Zone District; that Staff initially proposed the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification; however, the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC) is developing a plan for the area; therefore, Staff recommends waiting for the study to determine if a change is warranted. Future Land Use Map #25: 17th Street corridor Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #25 involves the area between one block west of US 301 and the north and south sides of 17th Street as indicated on the Future Land Use Map which will be designated as the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification. Future Land Use Map #26: Elks Lodge property on Fruitville Road Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #26 concerns the Elks Lodge; that the property owner and residents of the neighborhood spoke earlier; that entire parcel is in the MCI Zone District, which is consistent with the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification as recommended by Staff and the PBLP. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP vote was split. Commissioner Merrill stated that the parcel extends deeply into the neighborhood; and asked the reason the rear portion was not designated for single-family use? Mr. Taylor stated that the concept was suggested to the PBLP; that discussion occurred. Commissioner Merrill stated that designating the rear portion as single-family use is preferable; that inclusion in the MCI Zone District was probably done without consideration of the possibility of a sale in the future; that the rear portion should be single-family use. Commissioner Cardamone agreed. Mayor Dupree asked for clarification of the size of the property. Mr. Taylor stated that the rear portion is approximately 142 feet; that four single-family lots could be developed on the undeveloped property which has many trees; that a solution could be to sell off the rear portion of the property to develop single-family homes; that the current Elks Lodge facility is larger than required; that a portion of the building could be rented; however, none of the members of the Elks Lodge agrees with the concept. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if adequate funds are available? BOOK 45 Page 17676 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17677 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that an answer is not known. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the unavailability of adequate funds is the likely basis for disagreement. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the neighborhood behind the Elks Lodge is very nice and should be protected. Ms. Palmer stated that the property is across from multiple-family use but next to single-family use; that a diversity exists; that the PBLP was split on the issue; that the neighborhood should be protected; however, the alternative is severing a portion of land which has been in the MCI Zone District for many years; that the issue is a matter of opinion. Mr. Taylor stated that the Elks Lodge, which is the owner of the property, objected to designating the rear portion of the property to single-family use; that developing consensus for the City's Comprehensive Plan was more important than creating controversy; that controversy has been created in several other places; that the concept is good; however, the controversy may prevent moving forward with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is more important. Commissioner Cardamone disagreed; and stated that keeping things moving should not be the basis for resolving difficult matters; that the request is reasonable. Ms. Palmer stated that the neighborhood strongly supports cutting off the back portion for residential use; that a difference of opinion between the Elks Lodge and the residents exists; that the PBLP was split. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that changing the designation to the Single Family Low Density or Single Family Moderate Density Land Use Classification does not change anything unless the zoning is changed; that the issue is if the Commission has reduced the value or potential of the land if the zoning is changed to a less intensive use and the resulting cost to the City; that the objective of Staff and the neighborhood will carry a price. Ms. Palmer agreed; and stated that the issue arises with other properties cut into different land use classifications. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that down-zoning was not part of splitting the parcels into different land use classifications. Ms. Palmer stated that the property on the corner of Palm Avenue and Ringling Boulevard was split. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the current and planned land use is compatible. Ms. Palmer stated that property was changed from the C-CBD Zone District to a multiple-family use. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that nothing is accomplished unless the Commission is prepared to adopt a less intensive zone district, learn the results and pay for the privilege of reclassifying the property to a less intensive zone district if litigation is brought and is successful; that otherwise the recommendation is not beneficial. Mr. Taylor stated that the property could be designated as single-family use if desired by a majority of the Commission or remain in the Community Office/Inatitutional Land Use Classification as recommended by Staff. Commissioner Merrill stated that the parcel should remain in the Community Otfice/Institutional Land Use Classification. Mr. Taylor stated that the property will remain in the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification absent a majority Commission decision to change. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that an offer to purchase the parcel should be considered if development is not desired. Mayor Dupree stated that an offer to purchase the land would be better than to change the zoning to a less intensive use, which would cost more than a purchase. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification. Mayor Dupree stated that more will be paid if litigation is brought than if the parcel is purchased. Commissioner Merrill agreed. Future Land Use Map #27: Bradenton Road north of 44th Street Commissioner Merrill stated that Issue #27 was debated previously. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission did not reach consensus, i that the property is in an Impact Management Area (IMA) eligible for multiple-family use although currently in the RSF-3 Zone District; that Staff recommends designating the property to the Single Family - Moderate Density Land Use Classification; that the PBLP concurs. Commissioner Merrill agreed. BOOK 45 Page 17678 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17679 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Future Land Use Map #28: Central Avenue between Myrtle Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #28, the area of Central Avenue west of the railroad tracks between Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Myrtle Street, concerns a request to change the area to single-family use; however, Staff's recommendation is to retain the multiple-family use, which is consistent with the existing RMF-1 Zone District. Mayor Dupree asked the location of the property and if the property is undeveloped? Mr. Taylor stated that some of the property is undeveloped, some is single-family use, and some is multiple-family use; however, all the property is in the RMF-1 Zone District. Mayor Dupree asked if an assisted living facility could be built? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Future Land Use Map #29: The Shell gas station at the corner of US 41 and Dr. MLK Jr. Way and the Windsor Parke Retirement Center south of the Ringling School of Art and Design campus Mr - Taylor stated that request is to include the properties in the Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification; that Staff recommends retaining the Community Commercial Land Use Classification; that the Commission previously agreed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Staff's recommendation is acceptable. Future Land Use Map #30: University of South Florida Conservation and Open Space area Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue was debated previously. Ms. Palmer stated that a final decision was not reached. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission decided not to dictate to the University of South Florida (USF) the use of the property. Mr. Taylor stated that the property will, therefore, be placed in the Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification. Future Land Use Map #31: Osprey Avenue between Siesta Drive and Bay Road Mr. Taylor stated that the subject property, which is in the middle of a commercial area, is being used as an apartment house; that the property is in the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) Zone District; that Staff's recommendation is to change the designation from the Multiple Family Medium Density to the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification. Mr. Taylor stated that the parcel is currently zoned for commercial uses; that Staff recommended the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Classification to the PBLP; that the PBLP disagreed believing the parcel should be designated as multiple-family use despite the current commercial zoning; that the Multiple Family - Medium Density Land Use Classification is recommended by the PBLP. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the structure on the property is a large condominium complex which is in good condition and which will remain for many years. Ms. Palmer stated that the condominium is across from a shopping center; that the location is perfect for residential use. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that affordable housing is provided by the complex. Mr. Taylor stated that the parcel will remain in the Multiple Family - Medium Density Land Use Classification. Future Land Use Map #32: Siesta Key Fish Market, Garden Lane near Higel Avenue Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission previously agreed to retain the Single Family Low Density Land Use Classification for the property involved in Issue #32. Future Land Use Map #33: Hansen Street north of Glengary Shopping Center Mr. Taylor stated that Issue #33 involves the following Staff recommendations to designate: the multiple-family parcels facing Hansen Street immediately north of the Glengary Shopping Center in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification, the multiple-family parcels facing Hansen Street to the west in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification, BOOK 45 Page 17680 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17681 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. the multiple-family parcels facing Nebraska Avenue in the Community Commercial Land Use Classification Mr. Taylor stated that the property came into the City from the County through annexation; that creating a buffer with the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is recommended. Commissioner Merrill asked if office uses were allowed under the County's designation and if any commitment existed regarding the annexation? Mr. Taylor stated that the terms of the pre-annexation agreement for all the property are not known; that in some instances, the pre-annexation agreement required allowing office uses if allowed in the County; that an effort was made to emulate the provisions of the County's Comprehensive Plan; that a commercial use for the properties facing Hansen Street to the west is not logical; however, the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is logical. Commissioner Cardamone stated that large lots with attractive single-family homes exist across the street. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP believes the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is preferable to the Multiple Family - High Density Land Use Classification. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a similar argument was heard regarding East Avenue. Ms. Palmer stated that the situations are different; that high, intense, commercial use exists along the rear of the property. Commissioner Merrill stated that changing the use would not be supported if the properties had been in the City as single-family uses for a long period; however, an effort should be made to duplicate allowable uses in the County if an agreement was implied during annexation; that Staff indicates the implication was not made, at least in all cases; that allowable uses should not be lost upon annexation into the City. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the recollection is an agreement existed in the pre-annexation agreement. City Attorney Taylor stated that a response is not known. Commissioner Cardamone asked the neighbors' position. Mr. Taylor stated that some neighbors on the south and west side of Hansen Street objected to Staff's initial proposal, which was to designate the entire area as in the Neighborhood Community Commercial Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the zoning in the County? Mr. Taylor stated that the property was in the County's Single Family-Low Density (RSF-2) Zone District. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a zone district is being developed under the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification which will be compatible with single-family use. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that a proposed Neighborhood Office Buffer (NOB) Zone District was distributed to the Commission at the beginning of the meetingi that the PBLP has scheduled a November 5, 1998, workshop to review the proposal. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Staff's recommendation is acceptable. Commissioner Merrill stated that the area should be single-family use; however, the issue has been debated, resulting in Commission agreement. Future Land Use Map #34: Bay Road western boundary of City Mr. . Taylor stated that an earlier public speaker, Mr. Beychok, lives in a single-family house at 1620 Bay Road with a deep lot and a single-family house next door; that Issue #34 involves property immediately east; that further east, Sunset Chevrolet has a parking lot in the OPB Zone District; that immediately to the north is the Bay Road Animal Hospital; that the effort was to provide for uses consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and to create a buffer between the intensive commercial uses and the residential uses; that after much debate, the PBLP agreed with designating the property in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification. Ms. Palmer stated that the PBLP finally unanimously agreed with the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification due to the nearby intensive uses; that the desire was to assure a use which would be compatible with single-family uses. Mayor Dupree asked for clarification of the current use of the property? Mr. Taylor stated that the property is occupied by one single-family house; that the property is less intensive than the Community Commercial Land Use Classification and will create a buffer from the commercial to the single-family uses. Mayor Dupree stated that the recommendation is higher intensity than single-family use. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. BOOK 45 Page 17682 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17683 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Palmer stated that a heavily traveled driveway is located directly across the street. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the Future Land Use Map and stated that the recommendation creates an irregular zoning line. Mr. Taylor stated that the development pattern south of Bay and Bee Ridge Roads is not preferred; however, the area was inherited from the County; that dealing with the area is difficult; that the best possible solution is being sought. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for claritication of the term "inherited. 1 Mr. Taylor stated that the City annexed the property and inherited the existing development; that the manner in which Sunset Chevrolet and some other uses have developed results in a problem in creating a buffer between the commercial and residential uses; that the desire is to create compatible situations through decreases in intensity, buffering, and splitting the lines of use at the best possible locations mid-block or at a street in some locations; that the recommended solution is the best possible. Commissioner Merrill stated that leaving the property as single-family use is supported; that Mr. Beychok built a home with single-family use next door; that the property would appeal to many people; that many people would find such a large parcel which is close to the City and west of Tamiami Trail desirable; that the property is very marketable. Ms. Palmer stated that the property is the subject of a small scale amendment which will be presented to the Commission in the future. Commissioner Merrill stated that the parking lot nearby is not highly desirable; however, the parking lot is not the entrance to the shopping center; that the parking lot is used to store vehicles. Mr. Taylor stated that the parking lot and the Bay Road Animal Hospital are in the OPB Zone District. Commissioner Merrill stated that the parking lot and the Bay Road Animal Hospital are lesser intensive uses, creating a buffer from the intensive commercial uses; that a veterinary clinic is more neighborhood-oriented; that the Bay Road Animal Hospital is attractive. Mr. Taylor stated that the Bay Road Animal Hospital should be designated in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification if the Commission chooses single-family use for the subject parcel. Commissioner Merrill stated that high market demand will exist for single-family use at the location; that Mr. Beychok has a nice property which will be an asset. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a veterinary clinic can exist in the Neighborhood Office land use category? Mr. Taylor stated potentially yes, depending upon the zone district and the description. Commissioner Cardamone stated that nothing is compatible with living next to a veterinary clinic, with dogs barking day and night. Commissioner Merrill stated that the noise ordinance should prevent any disturbance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the land was bought with the veterinary clinic nearby. Commissioner Merrill stated that a piece of property in the area would be personally desired. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a desire to sell the land for an office use is based upon not finding the location the most desirable place to live. Commissioner Merrill stated no, not necessarily; that making a good profit could be the objective of such a sale. Mayor Dupree asked the use on the property abutting from the south? Mr. Taylor stated that the abutting properties to the south are all single-family uses. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a proposal for an office building on the property was brought before the Commission? Mr. Taylor stated that a proposal exists for the property being discussed. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission has reviewed the proposal? Mr. Taylor stated that the first step for a proposal is a small scale amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, which may have been discussed previously; that the parcel was the subject of Commission discussion during the annexation process. Commissioner Merrill asked if the owner was promised particular zoning? BOOK 45 Page 17684 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17685 10/27/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the owner was not promised a commercial or a non-residential use; that no promise of uses different from the currently allowable uses was promised during the pre-a annexation process; that the County's Comprehensive Plan provides for single-family use. City Attorney Taylor stated that the pre-annexation agreement is not immediately available; that information concerning the pre-annexation agreement could be provided prior to second reading of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff's recommendation will be accepted subject to providing information concerning the pre- - annexation agreement. Mr. Taylor continued that another issue not incorporated in the Issues and Recommendations Matrix concerns lots four and five of block B of Grovesner Park, which is property adjacent to the Sarasota Film Society and which is designated as multiple-family use; that a request for the Central City Land Use Classification continuing to Palm Avenue will be presented to the Commission as a small scale amendment; that the Commission's previous action keeps the property as multiple-family use and will likely result in the Commission's not approving the small scale amendment; that the Commission has indicated a desire to retain residential use on Palm Avenue as much as possible; that no change would be consistent with the Commission's earlier discussion. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the PBLP is comfortable with the decision? Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP discussion was consistent with the Commission's discussion; that the PBLP agreed multiple-family use is more desirable along Palm Avenue. Mr. Taylor stated that the issues concerning the Future Land Use Map are concluded. Mr. Taylor referred to the Issues and Recommendations Matrix and stated that five small scale amendments have been presented for Commission consideration. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that some of the small scale amendments would not be necessary if the City's Comprehensive Plan is not challenged. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that the small scale amendments would advance the approval process of the requested changes. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the status of approval for the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the target date is mid-February 1999. Ms. Palmer stated that a legal challenge could lengthen the approval process. Mr. Taylor stated that the small scale amendments would be effective if approved before the end of 1998 if the current schedule is maintained; that the City's Comprehensive Plan will be in effect by mid-February 1999 in the absence of legal challengei that final approval for the proposals represented by the small scale amendments could be advanced by six weeks. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 99-4095 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the City's Comprehensive Plan with the changes discussed. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 99-4095 on first reading with the appropriate revisions as recorded by Staff which will be reported back to the Commission prior to second reading at the November 10, 1998, Special Commission meeting. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously: (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM III) #3 (3750) through (3760) There was no one signed up to speak. 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) #3 (3760) There being no further business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the Special meeting of October 27, 1998, at 10:30 p.m.: nome - 2 huprue JEROME DUPREE, MAYOR ATTEST: 3 EL E Robusen BIELY B ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK A : BOOK 45 Page 17686 10/27/98 6:00 P.M.