MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1998 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, City Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Gene Pillot, Deputy City Manager Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. INTRODUCTION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0002) through (0480) John Burg, Chief Planner, came before the Commission and stated that Commission deliberations regarding the Future Land Use Chapter should be finalized on Friday, June 19, 1998; that an Issues and Recommendations matrix for the remaining eight chapters will be prepared for Commission review on Monday; that the Commission is recommended to vote approval or disapproval of each chapter of the April 1998 Comprehensive Plan document developed by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4061, amending the proposed Comprehensive Plan and incorporating revisions to the PBLP document is agendaed for the July 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that any additional changes will be incorporated into the proposed Comprehensive Plan for the second public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance scheduled on August 10, 1998. Lou Ann Palmer, Vice Chairman, PBLP, came before the Commission and stated that the following items will be addressed: 1) the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, 2) the planning process to date, 3) the role of the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) 4) chapters and major issues, and 5) the relationship between the Comprehensive plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) : 1. Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Ms. Palmer stated that a Comprehensive Plan, required by State statute under the 1985 Growth Management Act, provides broad policy direction. BOOK 44 Page 16884 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16885 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. 2. The Planning Process to Date Ms. Palmer stated that the process for revising the Comprehensive Plan began with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), adopted by the Commission in June 1996: that six community workshops addressing issues raised during the EAR process resulted in the following two changes: 1) inclusion of a Neighborhood Chapter, and 2) replacement of the existing Impact Management Areas (IMAs) with a new Land Use Classification System. Ms. Palmer stated that in November 1997, the original Staff draft of the proposed Comprehensive Plan was distributed to the Commission, the DCA, the PBLP and the public. 3. The Role of the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Ms. Palmer stated that the DCA determines if the proposed Comprehensive Plan is in compliance with State requirements; that the original Staff draft was distributed to the DCA in November 1997 and comments from the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report returned by the DCA have been included in the Issues and Recommendations Matrices; that the proposed Plan will take effect in October 1998 when the DCA is expected to find the final draft in compliance. 4. Chapters and Major Issues Ms. Palmer stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan contains nine chapters: 1) Neighborhood, 2) Housing, 3) Environmental Protection, 4) Recreation and Open Space, 5) Utilities, 6) Transportation, (7) Future Land Use, 8) Governmental Coordination, and 9) Capital Improvements; that the Neighborhood Chapter is the only new chapter. Mr. Palmer continued that the following two chapters have major issues requiring resolution: Transportation Ms. Palmer stated that Levels of Service (LOS) and the Transportation Currency Exception Area (TCEA) for Downtown are major issues: . that the desire to move vehicles efficiently competes with the goal of neighborhood protection. Future Land Use Ms. Palmer stated that a new Future Land Use Classification system was developed to replace Impact Management Areas (IMAs), ensure compatibility, and provide flexibility; that new measures to determine compatibility, have been developed to provide assurance to residents concerned with the possible incompatibility of adjacent land uses. Ms. Palmer continued that although significant time was expended considering requests for changes to the Future Land Use Map, every request was not approved. 5. The Relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Ms. Palmer stated that an analogy can be drawn by comparing the proposed Comprehensive Plan to a conceptual design for a house and the LDRs to a set of detailed blueprints; that broad policy statements rather than zoning regulations are provided in the proposed Comprehensive Plan while the LDRs provide specific regulations to implement. each chapter of the proposed Plan; that for example, the proposed Plan states that criteria and measures for removal of nuisance trees will be included in the LDRS which actually do list specific nuisance trees as well as the criteria for removal. Ms. Palmer continued that formatting issues will be addressed during Phase I of the LDRs; that regulations implementing the proposed Comprehensive Plan will be drafted during Phase II which must be adopted within one year after the proposed Plan is found in compliance by the DCA. Mayor Dupree requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time any citizen who has signed up. to speak has 5 minutes; that additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Commission. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4061, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA (A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN [19891); STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING NINE CHAPTERS WITH EACH CHAPTER CONSISTING OF INTENT AND PURPOSE, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ACTION STRATEGIES, AND SPECIFIED ATTACHMENTS: : NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, HOUSING PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN, UTILITIES PLAN, TRANSPORTATION PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, (COLLECTIVELY A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN, 1998 BOOK 44 Page 16886 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16887 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. EDITION); SAID AMENDMENT INCLUDES MAKING CHANGES TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION STRATEGIES OF EACH CHAPTER, CREATING A NEW SYSTEM FOR FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADDING A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD CHAPTER, AMONG OTHERS; ETC.; (TITLE ONLY) - NO ACTION; FIRST READING TO TAKE PLACE ON JULY 20, 1998 (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0499) through #3 (0492) Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. The following citizens came before the Commission: Joseph Moraca and Maria Price, Members, Parks, Recreation and Environmental Advisory Board. Mr. Moraca stated that Co-Chairmen Bart Cotton and Richard Martin are on vacation and unable to attend this meeting; that the Advisory Board began reviewing the first draft of the proposed Plan early in 1998; that at the February 24, 1998, PBLP public hearing, Co-Chairman Bart Cotton and Richard Martin presented the Advisory Board's recommendations regarding revisions to the Environmental Protection and Recreation and Open Space Chapters; that the proposed Comprehensive Plan should emphasize the importance of linking the protection of the environment to the development and management of public parks; that the following issues regarding the Environmental Protection Chapter were addressed: Invasive Plants Ms. Price stated that that the Advisory Board requested the PBLP include in the proposed Plan specific policies for the removal and management of invasive plants and restoration and management of native habitats; that recommendations regarding policy and management issues developed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have also been incorporated into the proposed Plan. Ms. Price continued that at the February 24, 1998, PBLP public hearing, the Advisory Board recommended the following items be included under the Recreation and Open Space Chapter: a more detailed analysis of current and projected demand for City parks, particularly water-related facilities; a more defined concept of neighborhood pocket parks and promotion of parks with bicycle and pedestrian lanes; additional exhibits to show publicly-owned parcels located within the City; maps pinpointing the location of invasive plant and point-source pollution sites; a list of native plants; the addition of canoe and kayak launch sites to the Level of Service (LOS) chart; and an action strategy to promote establishment of a City "Friends of the Park" program. Ms. Price stated that the recommendations of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board presented at the. February 24, 1998, PBLP public hearing have been included in the April 1998 PBLP draft of the proposed Plan; and distributed a memorandum from the Advisory Board recommending adoption of the proposed Environmental Protection and Recreation and Open Space Chapters. Joyce Mintzer, 1 President, Bayfront Condominium Association, distributed a prepared statement for the record and stated that the Central City Land Use Classification lacks criteria regarding compatibility between commercial and residential land uses; that measurable performance standards should be developed. Ms. Mintzer continued that during the May 18, 1998, joint PBLP/Commission workshop, it was stated that the future land use section would be used to direct the physical feeling and essence of the City; however, the proposed Plan is a policy document; that the. Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are merely an implementing tool; that the Bayfront Condominium Association recommends adding language to establish that the goal of compatibility is to maintain and/or enhance a neighborhood character and market value and avoid negative impacts; that suggested language for the proposed policy statement has been included in the prepared statement. Ms. Mintzer further stated that the proposed Plan does not disclose that 1,000 residential dwellings in Downtown are included in the Central City Land Use Classification; that residential dwellings should be classified separate from commercial land uses; that the existing Comprehensive Plan provides certain protections, for example, residents must be noticed if a proposal is submitted to develop a use different from the existing use; that the requirement to notice residents should not be eliminated. Ms. Mintzer stated further that language pertaining to the proposed Fruitville Road Extension should be deleted; that the Bayfront Condominium Association endorses the comment made by Staff at the May 18, 1998, City Commission workshop that "We can go ahead and take it out. These things are here as a result of them being in the Vision Plan"; that the community will be better served if all reference to the Fruitville Road Extension is immediately eliminated. BOOK 44 Page 16888 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16889 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Burt Polishook, 3931 Bay Shore Road (34234) Kafi Benz, P.O. Box 1669, Tallevast (34243) Dick Lobo, 3139 Bay Shore Road (34234) Second Vice President, and Tim Tilton, 714 45th Street (34234) representing the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association. Mr. Polishook distributed a memorandum from the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA) and stated that the proposed Plan has been reviewed by members of the Planning and Development Committee of the IBSSA; that recommendations regarding height, setbacks, and impervious surface have been included in the IBSSA memorandum; that a policy statement should be included to prohibit construction of huge, out-of-scale homes and incompatible, gated communities; that residents should be able to participate in the approval processes for site and development plans and rezoning petitions; that the recommendations of the IBSSA are supported by the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) . Mr. Polishook continued that the proposed Plan recommends the density in the Bayou Oaks neighborhood be increased to facilitate owner-home occupation use; however, the IBSSA recommends finding ways to encourage owners of high-density properties to downgrade the intensity of zoning. Mr. Polishook further stated that the etropolitan-segional Commercial Land Use Classification has been applied to two homes in the residential neighborhood of 58th Street; that a June 16, 1998, letter to the Commission was sent by General Rolland Heiser, President of the New College Foundation, Inc., who requested the City withdraw the proposed land use change and reinstate the residential classification to accommodate the wishes of residents. Mr. Polishook stated further that the Commission is requested to allocate City resources to ensure that Action Strategy 8.8 regarding the North Sarasota Neighborhood Study is implemented within one year to catalyze North Trail development; that the Commission is requested to assign Staff to assess the feasibility and facilitate the development of pocket parks in the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores neighborhood. Mr. Tilton stated that issues related to the following chapters and action strategies should be addressed: Neighborhood Chapter Action Strategy (A.S.) 1.1. Mr. Tilton stated that diverse areas requiring more than one definition of compatibility exist in the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores neighborhood; that the IBSSA requests the definition of compatibility" be revised to address the issue of individualized pocket areas within a neighborhood. Neighborhood Chapter - A.S. 4.3 Mr. Tilton stated that the proposed Plan indicates that regulations addressing compatibility, will be included in the LDRs; however, no assurance is provided that compatibility can be maintained during the time period between adoption of the proposed Plan and adoption of the LDRS update; that a new action strategy should be adopted to legislate a moratorium on rezonings for one year or until Phase II of the LDRS is adopted; that the results could be disastrous if the LDRS and the Comprehensive Plan are not simultaneously adopted. - Neighborhood Chapter - Action Strategy 4.2 Mr. Tilton stated that the proposed Plan indicates that the feasibility of and interest in creating "Design and Compatibility Guidelines" will be explored; that the IBSSA recommends the existing language be revised to state the City shall adopt by ordinance "Design and Compatibility Guidelines" within one year after adoption of the proposed Plan. Future Land Use Chapter and Map Mr. Tilton stated that Future Land Use Classifications are too broad; that the IBSSA recommends a revision to the Future Land Use Map to provide additional land-use density classifications. Mr. Lobo stated that he is a property owner on 58th Street, a bucolic, semi-paved, residential street with nine homes ending in a cul-de-sac, nestled between the Ringling Museum and the University of Florida (USF) /New College properties; that in the 1950s, prior to development of USF/New College, the properties on 58th Street were sold to private homeowners; that the street has always been limited to residential use; however, the PBLP has classified two 58th Street properties donated to the New College Foundation, Inc., as Metropolitan-egiona) Commercial Land Use; that after representatives of the New College Foundation, which intended to use the property for a new headquarters, met with and heard the concerns of residents, General Rolland Heiser, President of the Foundation, withdrew the request that the land be classified as Metropolitan-Regional Commercial Land Use and has requested the properties remain classified as Residential, Single-Family Land Use; that the Commission is requested to accommodate General Heiser's request. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the issues raised by the IBSSA have been addressed at the PBLP public hearings and meetings and submitted to Staff for comment? BOOK 44 Page 16890 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16891 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Benz stated yes; that most of the issues have been raised previously. Mr. Polishook stated that the details provided by Mr. Tilton are being newly introduced. Mr. Tilton agreed. Kafi Benz, representing the City Coalition of Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) and Chairman of the CCNA's Comprehensive Plan Study Group, stated that a great deal of Staff and citizen time was wasted on one specific issue; that two maps were included when the original Plan draft was distributed; that one was the existing Future Land Use Map and the other was the proposed Future Land Use Map including the proposed land use classifications; that for a long time, people did not understand that the two maps were not parallel; that the existing map illustrates current land use classifications and existing structures; that the new map shows the proposed land use classifications and specifies existing zone districts which were not illustrated on the existing mapi that people presumed that capricious changes had been made to increase densities; that existing zone districts should have been shown on the existing Future Land Use Map. Ms. Benz continued that the CCNA has developed relationships with all neighborhoods located in the north part of the City and intends to work with those neighborhoods to resolve existing problems such as crime and incompatibility of residential and commercial land uses. Charles D. Bailey, Attorney, 200 South Orange Avenue (34239), and Robert Geyer, President and Owner of Sunset Chevrolet, distributed two street maps of properties south of Bay Road and north of Hansen Street on the west side of U.S. 41 and a copy of the June 6, 1996, pre-annexation agreement specifying the existing zone districts in which the Sunset Chevrolet property is located and stated that under County zoning, the Sunset Chevrolet property was located in the Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District with a portion of the property under OPI (Sarasota County Zoning); that the pre-annexation agreement provides that the City will initiate an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to make the entire Sunset Chevrolet property eligible for a rezoning to the Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District and that the City will initiate the rezoning. Attorney Bailey continued that the PBLP and Staff recommend the Sunset Chevrolet properties be classified as eighborhoa-comnty Commercial Land Use; that the Commercial, General (CG) Zone District, the most intensive allowable use under the requested land use classification, would allow motor vehicle sales as a conditional use; that the CG Zone District would limit motor vehicle sales as a permitted use and impose more restrictions than required in the CI Zone District; that the Commission is requested to implement the provisions of the pre-annexation agreement. Attorney Bailey continued that Mr. Geyer contracted to purchase two parcels on Nebraska Street originally recommended for classification as eigiborhogd-Comunity Commercial Land Use; that toward the end of the PBLP deliberations, a petition was submitted by residents on Hansen Street expressing concerns regarding commercial intrusion; that reacting to the concerns of residents, the PBLP reclassified the two lots under contract to Mr. Geyer from eighborhoa-comunity Commercial to Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use along with eight other parcels also originally classified as eigiboriod-Comunity Commercial Land Use. Attorney Bailey further stated that Mr. Geyer conducted a neighborhood meeting with concerned residents; that a letter was mailed inviting to an informal meeting the 18 residents who signed the petition submitted to the PBLP; that residents were requested to support classification of the two lots under contract to Sunset Chevrolet as eigiberhood-comnity Commercial Land Use conditioned by Mr. Geyer's promise that the two lots would be used exclusively for off-street employee parking; that Sunset Chevrolet proffered commitments regarding fencing, control of lighting, and hours of operation; that the following four individuals appeared: Kenneth Jones, Jane Burke, Albert Hope, and Jeffrey Ferro; that Mr. Hope owns the lot west of the two lots owned by Sunset Chevrolet; that the meeting concluded with the agreement that the residents would have no concern if Sunset Chevrolet keeps the commitments specified in Mr. Geyer's letter; that the Commission is requested to reclassify the two lots on Nebraska Street under contract to Sunset Chevrolet as eighleroo-comnty Commercial Land Use. Joseph Moraca, and Sharon Jones, 2163 and 2183 Hibiscus Street (34239) representing the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Association. Ms. Jones distributed a memorandum from the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Association and stated that residents oppose the recent changes in land use of properties between Bahia Vista Street and Hyde Park Street; that the subject area should be viewed as fragile and East Avenue should be revitalized; that office uses should reflect the character of the neighborhood; that aesthetics and architectural details of new buildings should be enhanced; that the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Association should be noticed regarding petitions for variances, applications, and development proposals. Mr. Moraca stated that a section between East Avenue and U.S. 41 from Bahia Vista Street to Hyde Park Street has been classified as eigborhoa-commnity office/Professional/Institutional Land Use; BOOK 44 Page 16892 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16893 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. that the residents hope the definition of "compatibility" will enable residents to control adjacent land uses; that the memorandum includes recommendations such as inserting a photograph under existing and planned primary uses to show smaller scale office uses compatible with existing uses. Dr. Robert Nerthling, 11 Sunset Drive, #102, (34236), stated that the Commission is requested to eliminate any reference to the proposed Fruitville Road Extension in the proposed Plan; that the proposed extension will not solve traffic problems or facilitate traffic flow to the barrier islands; that after traveling through Downtown and over the Ringling Causeway Bridge, traffic will still back up at St. Armands Circle; that the current easy and safe ingress and egress of residents at Lawrence Point, Le Chateau, and Sunset Towers would be impeded by the stop sign and increased speed limit proposed as accessories to the Fruitville Road Extension; that although five-point intersections have been successfully implemented in the City, none have the volume expected at the proposed intersection of the Fruitville Road Extension and Gulf Stream Avenue; that the proposed Fruitville Road Extension would create two small residential isles where there now exists a single, sheltered residential enclave. Dr. Nerthling continued that the proposed Fruitville Road Extension appears to have been developed either by local or State engineers and by the sycophants of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) serving on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) who seem unconcerned with the interests of tax-paying residents; that all language pertaining to the proposed Fruitville Road Extension should be deleted. Pat Bulmash, 11 Sunset Drive (34236), stated that she owns a condominium at Sunset Towers; that residents are strongly opposed to the proposed Fruitville Road Extension passing in front of Sunset Towers; that the proposal to make the intersection of Gulf Stream Avenue and Sunset Drive a five-way traffic signal is frightening; that other five-way traffic stops in the City do not have the traffic volume which can be expected to result on Sunset Drive if the proposed Fruitville Road Extension becomes a reality; that residents of Sunset Towers will become prisoners or kamikaze pilots trying to enter or exist the driveway of the condominium if the proposed Fruitville Road Extension is approved; that many of the residents are elderly; that although the bottleneck at Gulf Stream Avenue and U.S. 41 will be mitigated, the bottleneck at St. Armands Circle will still exist. Ralph Tirabassi Attorney, Law Firm of Fergeson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser, Baron & Tirabassi 1515 Ringling Boulevard (34238) representing the McAlpine Prospect Properties, stated that McAlpine Prospect Properties owns property on the south side of Prospect Street; that he attended all public hearings before the PBLP and some of the workshops; that in some instances, presentations by the public, followed by deliberations and decisions of the PBLP, resembled a rezoning hearing more than hearings regarding future land use; that the distinction is important; that the PBLP voted to retain the existing residential land use classification on Prospect Street between Planned Parenthood, west of U.S. 41, to Lasula Court; that the PBLP decision will deprive the City and the landowners from the dynamics of the rezoning process and the ability to negotiate proffers of conditions and restrictions with potential developers; that landowners working together to develop a reasonable site plan and the ability of residents to participate in the rezoning process are eliminated in advance; that the PBLP decision to maintain the status quo results in stagnant zoning helpful to neither property owners or the City. Attorney Tirabassi continued that the Waffle House, Planned Parenthood, three lots owned by the McAlpine Prospect Properties and one other property are located respectively on Prospect Street between U.S. 41 and Lasula Court; that the Ear Research Foundation is located to the south; that two homes situated on the McAlpine properties are not owner-occupied and are no longer compatible with the character of the neighborhood; that the properties require a more reasonable and practical land use classification; that conversion to office use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be allowable in the proposed Plan; that the Commission is strongly recommended to approve the Staff recommendation to classify the subject properties as aighborioa-commnty Office/Professional/institutional Land Use. Darwin "Rusty" Blix, Owner, Alderman Oaks Retirement Residence, Inc. 727 Hudson Avenue (34236) and property on Golden Gate Point and Barbara Levin, Attorney, Law Firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford & Gordon, 240 South Pineapple Avenue, P.O. Box 49948 (34230). Mr. Blix distributed two letters and the following petition signed by 16 residents or property owners in or near Hudson Bayou: We the undersigned, all living and/or owning property on or near the Resubdivision of Blocks 1 & 2 of Hudson Bayou Addition to Sarasota, Florida as recorded in plat Book 1, page 29 of the public records of Sarasota County, would like to inform the City of Sarasota that we are in favor of the following statement concerning the proposed Comprehensive Plan. We support Mr. Blix's request that the land fronting Pine Tree Lane, Rowe Place, Alderman Street, and Hudson Ave. located within the area generally described in the legal description in the above paragraph, be zoned to allow 25 units per acre so that the addition to Alderman Oaks BOOK 44 Page 16894 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16895 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Retirement Center described on the attached drawings would be permitted by the new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Mr. Blix stated that the proposed elimination of Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) Zone Districts more intense than RMF-4 or 18 units per acre is of major concerni that many existing developments will become non-contorming and many good developments will not come to fruition; that two of his properties and a substantial portion of his income are negatively affected by the proposal to impose a ceiling on the density in residential, multiple-family zone districts at the level of density allowed in the RMF-4 Zone District. Mr. Blix continued that the Alderman Oaks Retirement Residence, developed at 20 units per acre, will become non-conforming if the density in RMF Zone districts is limited to 18 units per acre; that a proposed addition to the retirement center, supported by neighborhood residents, would be eliminated unless the property is classified as Residential Multiple-Family Land Use with an allowable density of 25 units per acre or Central City Land Use, a classification neighborhood residents can be expected to oppose; that the Commission is requested to classify the property with a higher allowable density than permitted in the RMF-4 Zone District. Mr. Blix further stated that the reason for the Staff recommendation that Alderman Oaks is not good for the neighborhood is not understood; that the development provides a proven demand and serves the needs of residents. Mr. Blix stated further that he owns the 17-unit Riviera Apartments located on Golden Gate Point; that the decision to downgrade the density to 18 rather the current allowable density of 25 units will have a negative impact, the specifics of which are addressed in the June 17, 1998, letter to the Commission; that few people on Golden Gate Point are aware of and no one has expressed support for the PBLP/Staff proposal to lower the density; that owners of 4,000 square-foot waterfront dwellings on Golden Gate Point are not affected; that the issue has become one of the "haves" versus "have nots"; that a representative of the Roman Catholic Church of the Holy Ghost which owns a large waterfront parcel is extremely concerned about the impact of lowering the density to 18 units per acre; that the Church knew nothing about the proposed changes until a few days ago. Mr. Blix continued that the Commission is requested to ask Staff to provide compelling reasons for reducing the density from 25 to 18 units; that the Commission is requested to review any available studies and to review the calculations used by Staff to determine that 18 units per acre is better than 25 in every RMF Zone District in the City; that both Hudson Bayou and Golden Gate Point are areas with good traffic flow; that no more than one-eighth of the people living in Alderman Oaks Retirement Residence own a vehicle; that the projects have a low impact on the surrounding area. Ms. Levin distributed a June 17, 1998, letter from Abel, Band, etc., and stated that the proposed Plan restricts density in the RMF Zone District to 18 units per acre and indicates that any land use classification greater than 18 units per acre is not consistent; that every, property located in the RMF-5, -6, and -7 Zone Districts currently allowing more than 18 units will become non-conforming and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that the position that the grandfathering provision will protect development rights is incorrect; that Section 9-8 (b) and (c) of the Zoning Code relating to non-conformities state that condominiums or residential facilities may redevelop but are subject to current bulk regulations; that the grandfather provision will not protect existing development rights. Attorney Levin continued that language in the proposed Plan specifically states that RMF-1, -2, -3, and -4 Zone Districts are consistent and by exclusion indicates that properties in the RMF-5 Zone District will be inconsistent; that the proposed language ties the City's hands; that worthy projects benefiting the neighborhood cannot be presented for Commission consideration if the proposed lowering of density is approved. Attorney Levin further stated that the proposed lowering of maximum density to 18 units will tie the hands of all future Commissions; that no documents exist nor have any studies been conducted to support the density restriction suggested by Staff; that the number of projects impacted by the lowering of density has not been determined and the economic impact on the City has not been analyzed; that the Commission is requested to eliminate the reference to allowing no more than a maximum of 18 dwelling units in the Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use Classification and to direct Staff to include RMF-5, -6, and -7 if specific zone districts are specifically referenced in the proposed Plan. Dick Lee, 1354 Harbor Drive (34236), distributed the following petition signed by 10 residents in the Park East Community: We, the undersigned living or owning property in the Park East community, support the petition of Dick Lee to have the following described property that lies between Seventh and Eight Street in the City of Sarasota and described as follows : Lots 23, 24, and 24, Resub. Of Lot 5, Block N, Plat of Sarasota, together with Lots 1 and 2, Resub. Of Lot 5, Block N. Plat of Sarasota BOOK 44 Page 16896 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16897 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. designated Neighborhood - Community Commercial. It is believed by the undersigned that the Lee Executive Building located at 730 Washington Boulevard in the City of Sarasota and being adjacent to the above described property does substantially improve our neighborhood and the granting of Dick Lee's petition will further improve our neighborhood. Mr. Lee stated that he purchased the property on U.S. 301 to develop a bank with second-story office use; that although opportunities arose to develop income- -generating projects with no benefit to the community, the property remained undeveloped until construction of the Lee Executive Center, and was then leased to the Juvenile Justice Center for a term of 15 years. Mr. Lee continued that the properties were purchased only after the Zoning Department informed him that the existing multiple-family dwellings in the rear of the Lee Executive Center could be developed for parking use; that subsequently, the City deleted from the proposed Plan the language necessary to permit parking use on those parcels. Mr. Lee further stated that the Commission is requested to allow classification of the three parcels as eighlerhod-Comunity Commercial Land Use; that attempts have been made to repair and rent the houses; however, the structures are old and dilapidated and the tenant history has been dismal; that the doors and windows were knocked open after the houses were closed; that the properties are not suitable for singe-family residential use; that the aglora-comnty Commercial Land Use Classification would allow development of a parking lot to serve the Lee Executive Center; that the best buffer between commercial and residential uses is parking use. Mr. Lee stated further that a petition supporting the change in land use classification was supported by every resident on Seventh and Eighth Streets; however, he was informed this evening that one resident who signed the petition several weeks ago now opposes the request; that a meeting with the resident will be held tomorrow. Mr. Lee continued that the property was purchased based on assurances by the City that the parcels could be developed as parking use; that the Commission is requested to tour the neighborhood and view properties adjacent to his to understand the existing problems. Commissioner Merrill asked if the neighborhood is considered undesirable? Mr. Lee stated that although former tenants generated chronic problems, the neighborhood residents are fine people. Arlene Hoffman, 260 Sunway Avenue (34237), Blanche Johnson, 2487 Aspinwall Street (34237) and Marilyn Dodge, 209 Dunway Avenue (34237). Ms. Hoffman stated that she has lived at 260 Sunway Avenue for 38 years and is a member of the Park East Community Association; that the City proposes to classify the Elks Club property at 2635 Fruitville Road, currently for sale, as Neighborhood-Community Office/Professional/Institutional Land Use; that a future development on the parcel, abutting the residential area, could negatively impact the neighborhood; that the new Eckerd's Drug Store on the corner of Tuttle Avenue and Fruitville Road had an immediate impact on residences. Ms. Hofiman continued that Sandy Vaughn, PBLP Member and President of the Park East Neighborhood Association, requested the PBLP to rezone the rear portion of the parcel to residential land use; however, the other PBLP Members voted to retain the current zoning allowing office and commercial uses. Ms. Hoffman further stated that a park should be developed on the rear portion of the Elks Club property; that funding for the park could be allocated from City, Federal or State funds, the Trust for Public Land, or from the Elks Club in the form of donated land; that many years ago, Marie Selby donated money and land on Proctor Road to the Elks Club; that in 1933, Edith Ringling donated her home on Gulf Street to Elks Lodge 1519; that the non- profit Elks Club has received generous donations and a generous property tax exemption; that the national organization of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks gives millions of dollars to charity and millions of hours to community service; that donating a portion of their property would be the ultimate service to the community. Ms. Hoffman stated further that the Commission is requested to support the proposal for a park, tour the rear portion of the Elks Club property, and delegate Staff to negotiate with the Elks Club; that the proposed park could be named Benevolent Park; that the City is requested to consider zoning the rear portion of the property as residential use if a park is unobtainable. Ms. Johnson stated that she has lived in the vicinity of the Elks Club for 18 years and is a member of the Park East Community Association; that the Elks Club has been a good neighbor because the buildings have never been expanded back toward Aspinwall Street but the future use of the parcel is questionable; that the Commission is requested to do what is right for the neighborhood. BOOK 44 Page 16898 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16899 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Johnson read a letter from Ella Jane Shirley, 257 Sunway Avenue which stated that she was unable to attend due to health reasons; that she has lived at her address for 38 years and has been a Sarasota resident since the early 1940s; that the loss of beautiful lands has been hurtful; that she supports a park on the rear portion of the Elks Club property. Ms. Dodge stated that she has lived on Sunway Avenue since 1970 and raised children as a single mother; that having a park within walking distance would have been a godsend; that she walks her dog several days a week past the Elks Club propertyi that traffic volume on the street is heavy; that the Commission is urged to consider the request to develop a park on the rear portion of the Elks Club property. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the existing zoning on the property? Michael Taylor, Deputy Manager of Planing, came before the Commission and stated that the property is currently located in the Medical, Charitable, Institutional Zone District consistent with the proposed Neighborhood-Community Office/Professional Institutional Land Classification. Bruce Franklin, AIA, Principal, ADP Associations. Inc. and Eddie Morton, representing Michael's Marketplace and Griffin Holdings, 1830 South Osprey Avenue (34239). Mr. Morton distributed a map of properties in the Southside Village including one residential property located on Hyde Park Street and stated that Michael Klauber, a principal in Michael's Marketplace, is on vacation and unable to attend this meeting; that a few months ago, a conceptual plan was presented to the City for a Southside Village redevelopment project including Morton's Market and storefronts on the east side of Osprey Avenue; that the Commission is requested to consider reclassifying one residential parcel at 1821 Hyde Park Street from office to commercial land use; that the existing structure is a dilapidated house; that the property is located between retail shops on Osprey Avenue located in the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) Zone District and to the east, a parking lot for a medical office building on Hillview Street; that the Commission is being requested only to allow the opportunity to present a development plan in the future; that the development can only occur if the Commission reclassifies the property from residential to commercial land use. Mr. Franklin stated that the parcel at 1821 Hyde Park Street would be incorporated into a courtyard linking the proposed development to pedestrian traffic on Osprey Avenue; that the subject property is wedged between an existing alley and the parking lot for the medical office building; that in the future, a rezoning petition including site plan would be submitted to rezone the parcel for commercial use under the proposed eigboroa-Comaniy Commercial Land Use Classification; that the Commission is requested to reclassify the property from office to commercial land use. Steve Brett, 2510 South Scarlet Oak Court (34232), representing Consumer Credit Counseling Service and the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless, distributed a letter and stated that Action Strategy 4.5 indicates that a need has been identified to provide alternatives for locating social service agencies away from Downtown; that several people in the audience support the continued operation of social service agencies in Downtown; that the need to relocate social service agencies away from the Downtown core is not understood as the majority of low-to-moderate income families live close to Downtown; that relocating social service agencies from convenient locations will burden the needy who lack transportation. Mr. Brett continued that social service agencies such as the Salvation Army could be negatively impacted if the proposed Plan prohibits expansion of existing services in Downtown. Mr. Brett Eurther stated that the Commission is strongly recommended to remove the language promoting decentralization of social services; that according to national statistics, homeless and needy individuals have always gravitated to downtown areas. Joel Freedman, AICP, Vice President, Bishop and Associations. 78 Sarasota Center Boulevard (34240) and Dr. Herbert Silverstein. 1961 Floyd Street (34239) representing the Ear Research Foundation. Mr. Freedman stated that the land use classification proposed for properties located on the south side of Prospect Street east of U.S. 41 is a concern; that the proposed Plan has a new element providing tools to achieve neighborhood compatibility not provided in the existing Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed Plan will protect existing neighborhoods with regulations regarding buffering and setbacks; that the Commission is requested to consider the original Staff recommendation to classify the property on the south side of Prospect Street as Neighborhood- Community Office/Professional/Institutional Land Use. Mr. Freedman continued that the requested land use classification will allow the Silverstein Ear Research Foundation to submit a rezoning petition and facilitate the Foundation's mission; that Dr. Silverstein wishes to build a new office building with access limited to Floyd Street and parking use only on the parcel fronting Prospect Street; that Raymond Bewley, the owner of property west of the Silverstein property has sent a letter to the Commission stating support for Dr. Silverstein's proposal that BOOK 44 Page 16900 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16901 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. his, Mr. Bewley's, property would be accessed through Dr. Silverstein's property to Lasula Court. Mr. Freedman further stated that all access from Prospect Street would be restricted; that a request would be submitted to the City to close Lasula Court; that the proposed Plan enables the Commission to deny any site plan for office use not compatible with the neighborhood; that some neighbors are for the proposal, some are ambivalent and some are opposed; that one of the reasons for mixed feelings is that a large property on Prospect Street was vacant when Dr. Silverstein originally purchased the property for the Ear Research Foundation; however, the vacant property is currently being developed as residential use on the rear portion and commercial use fronting U.S. 41. Mr. Freedman distributed a site plan for the proposed Silverstein Ear Institute and a letter from James Clabaugh, developer of Mandarin Park Subdivision and stated that Mr. Clabaugh supports the proposed plans for the Silverstein Ear Institute and closure of Lasula Court; that Mr. Bewley, an owner of abutting property, has also indicated support for the proposal; that Dr. Silverstein is committed to the design illustrated in the site plan presented to the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what Mr. Bewley intended to do with his own property? Mr. Freedman stated that Mr. Bewley is currently negotiating with the owners of a medical office building interested in expanding on Floyd Street; that Dr. Silverstein may also purchase a portion of Mr. Bewley's property. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how a parcel classified as office use can be restricted to parking use? Mr. Freedman stated that traffic volume, aesthetic impact, and a request for ingress and egress from and to Prospect Street could render a proposed development project incompatible; that parking spaces can be buffered more easily than two- or three-story buildings; that the proposed parking lot will not allow access to or from Prospect Street. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the ability of the Commission to restrict property classified as office use to parking use is not understood. Mr. Freedman stated that Staff may be able to provide clarification during Commission deliberations; that Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planing is convinced the proposed Plan allows such restrictions. Dr. Silverstein stated that the Ear Research Foundation, operating out of two small houses on Floyd Street, has treated over 25,000 residents of Sarasota; that research is conducted to find new treatments for dizziness and hearing loss and educational programs provided for young doctors; that he does not wish to ruin the neighborhood or increase traffic volume on Prospect Street; that Prospect Street traffic should be decreased by the closing of Lasula Court; that a neighborhood park will be provided. Dr. silverstein continued that the Ear Research Foundation will have to relocate if the land use classification is not approved; that when the property was purchased in the 1980s, the existing regulations indicated that a property with contiguous office space on Floyd Street was eligible for a special exception for parking use; that the subject properties were purchased based on the eligibility of the parcels for parking use; that the Commission is requested to grant what was allowable a few years ago; that the neighborhood will be enhanced with a beautiful green space and the area improved by the closure of Lasula Court. Mr. Freedman stated that the Commission is requested to consider the Staff's original recommendation to the PBLP supporting the request. Joel Freedman, representing Ross McIntosh, Owner of property on the northeast corner of the intersection of Tuttle Avenue and Bahia Vista Street, stated that the existing Comprehensive Plan applied an Impact Management Area (IMA) to the subject property now proposed by Staff and the PBLP to be classified as eighboroa-comnity otfice/Professional/institutional, that the owner of. the property supports the PBLP and Staff recommendation. Joel Freedman, representing the Rutledge property located on the north side of Fruitville Road east of Lockwood Ridge Road, stated that the owner of the subject property supports the PBLP recommendation to maintain the classification as Neighborhood- Community Office/Professional/Institutional Land Use. Joel Freedman, and Stephen Rees, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, representing Sarasota Ford. Attorney Rees stated that he and Mr. Freedman represent the owner of Sarasota Ford and adjoining property to the north legally defined as Lots 1, 2, 2(a), 3, 6, 7, 7(a), and 8 of Payne Park Subdivision; that the block of lots is bounded by Oak Street on the north, by U.S. 301 on the west and by Payne Park on the east and south; that the owner of Sarasota Ford supports the eighborhoa-comnity Commercial Land Use Classification recommended by Staff and the PBLP. BOOK 44 Page 16902 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16903 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Attorney Rees continued that the Sarasota Ford property is currently located in the Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District; that lots fronting U.S. 301 on which future expansion is proposed are located in the Commercial, General (CG) Zone Districts and lots to the rear facing Payne Park are located in the Residential, Multiple-Family Zone District; that the CG Zone District is the implementing zone district necessary to allow a motor vehicle sales agency under the eglorog-comunity Commercial Land Use Classification recommended by Staff and the PBLP; that the CI Zone District is not recommended as Staff feels the variety of uses available under that zone district would not be appropriate. Attorney Rees further stated that he requested and obtained at the May 1998 PBLP meeting, a recommendation by the PBLP to propose an amendment to the CG Zone District to provide for a motor vehicle sales agency as a conditional use; that a zone district would be provided to allow the owner of Sarasota Ford to initiate a rezoning; that the City may impose appropriately lawful conditions to regulate expansion of the dealership; that the ability to approve limitations under a conditional use is not provided in the CI Zone District. Mr. Rees stated further that he and the owner of Sarasota Ford support the eghboriod-Community Commercial Land Use Classification based on the action taken by the PBLP; that when Phase I of the LDRS is presented, the Commission is requested to find that a conditional use for motor vehicle sales agency in a CG Zone District is the appropriate means to permit these types of uses. Mr. Freedman stated that the Commission is requested to adopt the PBLP and Staff recommendation to provide conditional use permitting of motor vehicle sales in the CG Zone District. Joel Freedman, representing Ravenwood Development, stated that the owners and developers of the Phoenix project on Golden Gate Point have already begun work on the 13-unit project; that Golden Gate Point is classified as Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use in the proposed Plan; that the Staff recommendation to lower the density in RMF zone districts throughout the City from 25 to 18 units per acre may cause problems; that the proposed 13-unit condominium project will exceed 18 units per acre and will be inconsistent with the proposed Plan; that the landowners have spent many years organizing development of the Phoenix project; that Action Strategy 1.2 is designed to ensure that a new building not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan can still be made consistent; however, the developer beginning a new multi-million dollar project is concerned the proposed Plan may make the project inconsistent; and distributed a letter from John Brown, Attorney, Law Firm of Walters, Levine, Brown, Klingensmith, Milonas & Thomison, representing the developers of the Phoenix Project. Bob Kyllonen, 1803 Andrea Place (34235), representing Resurrection House, stated that during 1997, 1,327 new homeless people, 203 of whom were family members, visited Resurrection House; that Staff has recommended revising the language under Action Strategy 4.5 to state that alternatives should be identified for locating social service facilities away from Downtown; that the PBLP concurred with Staff; that present social service agencies in Downtown are supposed to be grandfathered in; however, the proposed Plan indicates that social service agencies can be relocated by the City; and asked how safe the grandfathered social service agencies will be if the City decides to relocate those facilities? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the social service agencies are pretty safe; that the Commission has no intention of requiring existing social service agencies to relocçate. Monique Buehrer, 1855 Prospect Street (34239) and Gail Mandell, 1847 Prospect Street (34239). Ms. Buehrer stated that Dr. Silverstein approached the neighbors on Prospect Street regarding the rezoning of property for parking use for the Silverstein Ear Research Foundation on the east and west side of Lasula Court south of Prospect Street; that this evening, the intention to rezone the south side of Prospect Street for commercial use was revealed; that no way exists to guarantee that another office building will not be constructed in the middle of the neighborhood; that she is totally against the rezoning on the west side of Lasula Court south of Prospect Street. Ms. Mandell stated that she opposes the rezoning; that the employees of the Silverstein Ear Research Foundation use the residential street for parking and residents cannot pull out of their driveways; that residents have spoken to the employees; however, - conditions have not improved; that a medical center already exists across from residential homes on Prospect Street; that the existing homes on Dr. Silverstein's property should not be demolished for parking use; that the residents have no guarantee that a medical center will not be developed on the subject property after the parcel is rezoned; that further encroachment into the neighborhood is opposed. Commissioner Cardamone requested the street numbers of the speakers. Ms. Mandell stated that she and Ms. Buehrer live at 1847 and 1855 Prospect Street. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint Environmental Organization and himself, 37 Sunset Drive #37 (34237), stated that the proposed Plan will negatively impact developmental controls, BOOK 44 Page 16904 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16905 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. land use, and traffic impact throughout the Cityi that for example, Action Strategy 3.1 indicates that a request for development approval does not need to be consistent in total but only "on balance' I considering all relevant components of the proposed Plan; that developers could claim that approval does not hinge on one section of the proposed Plan because Action Strategy 3.1 indicates that a proposed site plan is not required to be consistent in totality; that for example, language in the existing Comprehensive Plan regarding coastal development in high-hazard or flooding areas indicates that development in the coastal high-hazard area will be restricted in the LDRs; that the proposed Plan states that the LDRs shall address several subjects including coastal and flood-hazard areas but does not state that development in those areas will be restricted. Mr. Lobeck continued that neighborhood compatibility is one of the City's goals; that the new Neighborhood Chapter states the City will strive to make residential and non-residential areas compatible with one another but does not indicate commercial intrusion into neighborhoods will be resisted; that the Neighborhood Chapter primarily offers buffers such as landscaping but does not address neighborhood compatibility; that the City will be striking entirely from the Future Land Use Chapter the existing language which restricts development. Mr. Lobeck further stated that Objectives 2 and 3 in the existing Future Land Use Chapter which provide strong protection to ensure neighborhood compatibility are deleted from the proposed Plan; that the existing Comprehensive Plan requires preservation of both viability and quality of life in existing neighborhoods; that nothing approaching those words is found anywhere in the proposed Plan; that the existing Comprehensive Plan states that when buffers, berms and other methods cannot make a proposed land use compatible with existing uses, the proposed use shall be prohibited; that no such language exists in the proposed Plan. Mr. Lobeck stated further that the proposed Plan states that a land use must ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and surrounding developments; that surrounding" is a word of art meaning "adjacent"; that the proposed Plan will protect only adjacent lots; that the existing Comprehensive Plan requires broad protection of neighborhoods. Mr. Lobeck continued that language in the existing Comprehensive Plan protecting neighborhoods from the impacts of through traffic has been deleted from the proposed Plan; that instead, language in the Neighborhood Chapter states the City shall have strategies such as speed humps to discourage traffic on residential streets. Mr. Lobeck further stated that the Transportation Chapter in the existing Comprehensive Plan states that development will be controlled or denied if projected to overcrowd local roads; that the proposed Plan states the City must recognize that controlling traffic in neighborhoods often results in increased congestion on thoroughfares and that the efficient movement of people and goods must be balanced against environmental quality, neighborhood presentation, architectural and pedestrian scale, and fiscal constraints. Mr. Lobeck stated that the existing Comprehensive Plan sets the Level of Service (LOS) "C" on 13 significant local roads as does the County; that the proposed Plan lowers the LOS on those roads to "D"; that in the future, the LOS "C" and "D" will be comparable to existing standards for "D" and "E"; that also in the future, traffic congestion will be created under the law of concurrency which, under existing language, requires the City to disapprove developments expected to lower the LOS below a specific standard. Mr. Lobeck stated further that the existing Comprehensive Plan states that a new development along a road overcrowded by development must be limited or delayed; that the proposed Plan allows development to proceed if unspecified mitigation is provided by developers or a transportation plan for future traffic mitigation is proposed by the City; that the proposed Plan would allow developments to exceed the traffic standard on an overcongested road as long as the traffic is not increased more than 10 percent. Mr. Lobeck continued that the existing Comprehensive Plan allows rezoning in 26 specific areas in an extremely controlled wayi that the proposed Plan would allow rezoning anywhere in the City; that a PBLP Member noted that a parcel on Bird Key could be rezoned to the RSF-4 Zone District; that no one will be safe if the proposed Plan is adopted; that an adjacent residential lot could be developed as office use the day after the proposed Plan becomes effective. Mr. Lobeck further stated that the proposed Plan, a blueprint for overdevelopment and traffic gridlock, has been driven by developer interests since the beginning; that the City Manager has clearly indicated his sympathies regarding land use matters; that the proposed Plan update has been guided to facilitate developments irrespective of neighborhood impacts or traffic congestion; that adoption of the proposed Plan will be Christmas in July for developers. Mr. Lobeck stated further that the Commission's first interest should be the safety and convenience of the driving public; that the movement of ambulances and other public safety vehicles should not be obstructed by severe traffic congestion; that businesses and tourism will be chased out of the City by traffic problems resulting from the proposed Plan; that the City's goals indicate BOOK 44 Page 16906 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16907 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. that Sarasota should be a City of urban amenities with a small town living and feeling; that amending the existing Comprehensive Plan to eliminate controls on development and traffic would be the height of hypocrisy; that the Commission is strongly urged to scrutinize the proposed Plan carefully and hold neighborhood meetings with residents who could be impacted by the proposed intensification of allowable development; that the Commission is requested to direct Staff to redraft the proposed Plan. The Commission recessed at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Andrew Andreikovics. P.O. Box 2352, (34230), referred to a display of photographs and maps of various properties on Lido Key and stated that the PBLP originally recommended that the Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use Classification should be the only allowable classification on Lido Beach; that in April 1998, the PBLP, responding to public concerns, recommended the west side of Benjamin Franklin Drive be classified as Residential, Multiple-Family/Residential, Mixed-Use Land Use; that the Holiday Inn will be the only property on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive included in the new land use classification; that the Surf View and Toscany Motels, also located on the east side, are not recommended for inclusion. Mr. Andrejkovics continued that the Holiday Inn is bordered by single- and multiple-family residential areas to the north, south, and east; that one high-rise condominium is located north of Lot 69 of John Ringling Estates, Inc., Division "B" and another is located to the southwest; that the Eco-Group intends to develop a 150-unit condominium on two vacant parcels on Lido Beach west of Benjamin Franklin Drive. Mr. Andrejkovics further stated that the PBLP recommended classification of the 15-year old Holiday Inn as Residential, Multiple-Family/Residential, Mixed-Use Land Use, but did not provide the same classification to the 50-year-old, family-oriented Toscany and Surf View Motels; that a total of 74 units including condominium units currently exist on the block; that some units lack insulation, sprinklers, or handicapped access. Mr. Andrejkovics stated further that the Surf View and Toscany Motels, should be classified as Residential, Multiple- Family/Residential, Mixed-Use Land Use to facilitate future redevelopment; that an investment group has contracts on two other properties in the neighborhood and would like to demolish the existing structures and develop a 90-unit hotel. Mr. Andrejkovics continued that 2,159 hotel/motel and condominium units currently exist on Benjamin Franklin Drive; that although traffic problems exist on Lido Key, a new 90-unit hotel would add only 16 units to the existing density of 74 units; that development of a gourmet store/New York-style deli on Lot 69 would allow residents and hotel guests to walk to a nearby store, featuring gourmet items and international newspapers, operating under limited hours; that a new hotel with accessory uses would generate approximately $54,000 in tourist taxes. Brenda Patten, Attorney, Law Firm of Kirk-Pinkerton. 270 South Orange Avenue (34236), requested that she be allowed to rise to a point of order. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that only the Commission can rise to a point of order. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Attorney Patten should be allowed to speak. Attorney Patten stated that she represents the owners of the Surf View and Toscany Motels, the two properties referenced by the prior speaker; that a representation has been made that contracts are on the properties and that plans for development exist; that Mr. Andrejkovics has no contract to purchase and is not an owner of the properties; that Mr. Andrejkovics is free to speak about the properties; however, the real owners of the property do not support the plans as presented. Patrick Wilson, 128 Golden Gate Point (34236), stated that a June 15, 1998, memorandum from the Deputy Director of Planning and Development to the Deputy City Manager states that land use on Golden Gate Point is envisioned as multiple-family residential with a maximum density of 18 units per acre; however, the north end of Golden Gate Point on Gulf Stream Avenue is directly across from properties located in the Central City Land Use Classification. Mr. Wilson continued that the existing land use classification and zoning for Golden Gate Point allow a maximum of 25 units per acre; that the proposal to lower the density of the Residential, Multiple-Pamily Land Use Classification from 25 to 18 units should be eliminated; that the Commission may consider the following options for future land use on Golden Gate Point: 1. Change classification to Central City, allowing up to 50 units per acre; 2. Create new higher density RMF zone district permitting 25 or more; or 3. Allow the existing 25 units per acre to remain legal on Golden Gate Point. Mr. Wilson stated that no property owner with whom he has spoken has indicated any support for the first two options; that the existing allowable density should remain. BOOK 44 Page 16908 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16909 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Wilson continued that a letter from Father David Smith, the representative of the Church of the Holy Ghost, located on the east side of Golden Gate Point, states that he, Father Smith, received a copy of the June 15, 1998, memorandum from Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, which explained Staff's rationale regarding the future land use proposed for Golden Gate Point, and hopes that he, Mr. Wilson, will be able to attend this meeting and express the concerns of the congregation regarding possible negative impacts to the value of the Church's property if the density is lowered. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a letter from a member of the Church of the Holy Ghost stated that no member of the congregation was ever properly notified of the process to revise the existing Comprehensive Plan; that the issue will be brought to the table during Commission deliberations; that the lack of notice to property owners is extremely difficult to accept. Mr. Wilson stated that the residents of Golden Gate Point addressed the problem at the last CCNA meeting; that no one had specifically told the residents that the City was developing a Comprehensive Plan until rumors began. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the existing zone district for Golden Gate Point? Mr. Wilson stated the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) -5 Zone District. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that a copy of the memorandum from the Deputy Director of Planning and Development will be provided to the Commission. Catherine and Richard LaBrie, 1024 Rhodes Avenue (34237), were no longer in the Commission Chambers. Michael Furen, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street (34237) representing Harley Hotels Inc. . and Leona Helmsley, Executrix of the Estate of Harry Helmsley and Sarasota Prime Hotels, LTD., stated that Ms. Helmsley owns the historic Sandcastle Hotel on Lido Key; that the Sarasota Prime Hotels recently purchased the Holiday Inn on Lido Key; that the original Staff recommendation that hotels/motels be eliminated from Lido Key was not accepted by the PBLP. Attorney Furen continued that the PBLP and Staff now recommend classifying the Holiday Inn site and properties south of the public beach on the west side of Benjamin Franklin Drive as Residential, Multiple-Family/Residential, Mixed-Use Land Use; that hotels and motels would be recognized as consistent with the proposed Plan as secondary or conditional uses. Attorney Furen continued that the PBLP/Staff recommendation is supported with two minor changes in the text: that under the General Characteristics in the Residential, Multiple-Family/ Residential Mixed-Use Land Use Classification, the language presently states that "this classification preserves the basic characteristics of multiple family living while at the same time providing for new residential accommodations and new hotels and motels"; that the Commission is requested to direct Staff to revise the language as follows: providing for new residential accommodations and new and existing hotels and motels. Attorney Furen stated that under Existing Non-Primary/ Non-Secondary Uses in the same land use classification section, the language states that undesirable uses would include " commercial activities"; that Staff has indicated no intent to prohibit accessory commercial uses such as a restaurant or gift shop; that the Commission is requested to change the language to designating as undesirable non-accessory commercial uses." Michael Furen, and Joel Freedman representing Plymouth Harbor, Inc. Attorney Furen stated that Plymouth Harbor is a landmark retirement center currently located in the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) Zone District which allows for retirement centers with accessory uses such as pharmacies and beauty shops; that current density is slightly over 18 units per acre; however, Plymouth Harbor, under existing regulations, would be allowed to expand by 80 units in the future; that Plymouth Harbor has a grandfathered special exception for height because it was constructed prior to adoption of the 1974 Zoning Code and is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; that the facility pays approximately $350,000 per annum in property taxes. Attorney Furen continued that the PBLP and Staff recommend classifying Plymouth Harbor as Residential, Multiple-Pamily Land Use even though the adjacent Sarasota Yacht Club is classified as eiglberhood-Comanity Office/Professional/inatitutional Land Use; that the present zoning would become inconsistent as the MCI Zone District is not an implementing zone district for the Residential Multiple-Family Land Use Classification; that financing for redevelopment would become incredibly difficult. Attorney Furen further stated that RMF-4, the most intense zone district allowed under the proposed Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use Classification, allows a maximum height of 45 feet; that although the proposed LDRS expands the allowable height in the BOOK 44 Page 16910 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16911 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. RMF-4 Zone District to 65 feet, the proposed Plan itself does not provide special exceptions for buildings in excess of 35 feet in height as is currently available in the MCI Zone District; that retirement centers absent nursing-care facilities are allowable in the Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use Classification under the existing Comprehensive Plan; that facilities with accessory uses will not be allowed in RMF zone districts under the proposed Plan. Attorney Furen stated further that the probability of Plymouth Harbor becoming inconsistent with the proposed Plan is of grave concern; that although Plymouth Harbor was grandfathered as an existing use, the use was never designated as non-conforming; that the current grandfathered status may not provide any benefit; that Plymouth Harbor would become a zoning enclave because the MCI Zone District would not implement and is inconsistent with the Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use Classification and the City is mandated by State law to rezone properties to be consistent with the proposed Plan; that the property would have to be rezoned to the inappropriately less intense RMF-4 Zone District to meet consistency requirements; that the PBLP and Staff recommendation to classify Plymouth Harbor as Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use will negatively impact the viability of Plymouth Harbor and is unsupported by any studies or data. Attorney Furen continued that the Deputy Director of Planning and Development has suggested options regarding the land use classification of Plymouth Harbor; that he, Attorney Furen, proposed the facility be designated as one of the following two land use classifications:: 1. eiglborhoa-Comunity Office/Professional/Institutional Land Use Attorney Furen stated that the existing MCI Zone District would be allowed to implement the aghorod-comunity Office/ Professional/Institutional Land Use Classification. 2. etropolitan-legional Commercial Land Use Attorney Furen stated that facilities listed under etropolitan-segional Commercial Land Use include the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport and Sarasota Memorial Hospital; that the land use classification designates facilities with distinct and identifiable complexes, centers, or campuses; that Plymouth Harbor, the largest retirement center in the community, fits clearly within the definition of a "center". Attorney Furen continued that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to change the existing retirement center use; that the MCI Zone District is an implementing zone district under the etropolitan-segional Commercial Land Use Classification; that Plymouth Harbor would remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Freedman stated that he supports the recommendations provided by Attorney Furen. Michael Furen, representing Dr. Kenneth & Marta Weisbrod, stated that the Weisbrods own a row of lots on the north side of Hawthorne Street east of U.S. 41 and west of East Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Waldemere Fire Station to the north; that the Weisbrods request Commission approval of the PBLP and Staff recommendation to classify the properties as Neighborhood Community/Office/Professional/Institutional Land Use. Michael Furen, representing Igor Kolar, Owner of Autohaus Kolar, Inc. 2440 South Osprey Avenue (34239), stated that in the past, the Commission voted to amortize the subject motor vehicle repair facility; that the amortization has resulted in significant financial damages to Mr. Kolar and his long-standing business; that during the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, the Commission was requested to direct Staff to consider office use for the property rather than residential, single-family land use; that the City Manager recommended small office uses compatible with similar uses along Osprey Avenue would be appropriate if the owner obtained historical designation; that the request to classify the property for office use was considered by the City; however, Staff and the PBLP have recommended classifying the Kolar property as Residential, Single-Family Land Use. Attorney Furen continued that the recommended classification is not appropriate; that the Commission decision to amortize the property is regrettable; that although the Commission has discussed on the public record the possibility of purchasing the property for park use, no bid has been presented; that classification of the property as eighlerlod-Comnity Office/ Poiwaa/wttcaN Land Use would allow Mr. Kolar a reasonable hope of being compensated for damages when the business ceases in January 1999; that no justification exists under the State's Growth Management Act for the Staff and PBLP recommendation to classify the property as Residential, Single- Family Land Use. Marvin Fitzer, 1740 South Orange Avenue (34239), stated that he owns properties on Fruitville Road between Gillespie and Osprey Avenues; that the properties front Fruitville Road and continue in the rear to Fourth Street; that the structures on the properties are frame houses built in the 1920s which should be replaced; that a rezoning is required to expedite financing for redevelopment projects; that the properties are 50-foot lots, 125 feet deep; that the land use classification proposed by the PBLP will allow office land use fronting on Fruitville Road; but restricts the BOOK 44 Page 16912 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16913 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. rear portions of the properties fronting on Fourth Street to residential use. Mr. Fitzer continued that development of small office buildings fronting Fruitville Road is impossible if the rear portion of the properties fronting on Fourth Street are restricted to residential use; that he would like the opportunity to use the properties fronting on Fourth Street for parking or office use; that development of the properties is currently financially impossible. Mr. Fitzer further stated that one property in the vicinity was sold in 1993 for $31,000 and resold in 1995 for $24,000; that another property was sold in 1987 for $33,000 and resold in 1993 for $30,000; that a third property on Fourth Street and Osprey Avenue was sold in 1985 for $148,000 and resold in 1996 for $68,000; that houses have decreased in value; that Walgreens, a commercial land use abutting his property, is the only project which has helped the area; i that property owners feel that development of commercial properties adjacent to Walgreens would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. John Duhig, 1442 Fourth Street (34230), Chairman, Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board, stated that the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board worked for two years to develop a land use plan to redevelop the Rosemary District; that the Advisory Board requests the Commission approve the Rosemary District Plan as an element of the proposed Comprehensive Plan; that currently, the Rosemary District Plan is included in the proposed Comprehensive Plan as a guideline but not as a requirement for implementation of redevelopment efforts; that the Advisory Board requests the Commission approve that the Rosemary District Plan be included in the proposed Plan as a requirement rather than a guideline. John Duhig, representing the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless, and General Manager, Salvation Army, stated that the proposed Plan lacks any information regarding social service agencies in Downtown excepting the PBLP and Staff recommendation that social service agencies be relocated to other areas; that the proposed Plan addresses existing and planned primary uses and existing and planned secondary uses acceptable within each land use classification; that non-primary and non-secondary uses are defined as "all other uses"; that the proposed Plan does not specifically address the existence or operation of social service agencies within the City. Mr. Duhig continued that last year, the City originally recommended that churches not be allowed in residential neighborhoods and that social service agencies were not necessary in Downtown; that the PBLP reconsidered and included churches as an acceptable use in residential neighborhoods; that social service agencies have been written out of the proposed Plan and are considered only as something to be removed if possible; that the PBLP has deleted all references to social service agencies from the proposed Plan; that Catherine Christensen, Board Member representing the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless, wrote the following letter: The proposed relocation of social services negatively impacts people who are struggling and significantly increases their hardships. They will then be isolated both figuratively and literally. Are we behaving like those who have banished lepers to the outskirts of the village. People are in the City. That is where the support services need to be. That is the best solution. We feel strongly that the City Comprehensive Plan needs to address in language which is clear and concise the need for social service agencies within the City of,Sarasota. Dan McNicol, 1919 Morrill Street (34236), Rick Liberi, 1810 Morrill (34236), and Martha Hafner, 1841 Oak Street (34236) representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA). Mr. McNicol stated that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) has been developing the Laurel Park Overlay District with funding provided by the City and in consult with Attorney William Merrill and Bruce Franklin, AIA, ADP Group, Inc.i; that the LPNA recommends Laurel Park remain a residential neighborhood; that the overlay district includes design guidelines for new construction and changes in setbacks and bulk regulations to facilitate the compatibility of redevelopment projects. Mr. McNicol continued that Laurel Park is bordered by U.S. 301 on the east, Orange Avenue on the west, Morrill Street on the north and Oak Street on the south; that although Laurel Park is surrounded on all four sides by commercial land use, the residents wish to maintain a residential neighborhood character; that the Commission is requested to remove the language in the proposed Plan that would allow non-residential uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Liberi stated that under Existing and Planned Secondary Uses in the Residential, Single Family/Residential, Mixed Land Use Classification, the following paragraph should be deleted as allowable uses: Non-residential activities such as artist studios and single practitioner services (e.g. artist studios, accountant, real estate office, bed and breakfast, tutoring) that occur in conjunction with residential uses on the same lot or parcel. Mr. Liberi stated that allowing non-residential uses in Laurel Park works against residential redevelopment; that the proposed Plan contradicts the goal of being a City of urban amenities with BOOK 44 Page 16914 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16915 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. small town living and feeling as well as neighborhood preservation and revitalization; that the area is bordered by commercial land use classifications including Central City Land Use; that the buffer zone surrounding Laurel Park would be weakened if non-residential uses are allowed within the residential neighborhood area; that commercial uses would be developed with more sensitivity to the overall area if Laurel Park remains primarily residential rather than mixed use; that the Laurel Park Overlay District recommended for approval by the PBLP and Staff does not include non-residential uses; that an opposing position has been presented that non-residential uses should be allowed because of the existence of commercial land use along Osprey Avenue; however, once the residential neighborhood is gone, it will be gone forever. Ms. Hafner stated that she is the past President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association; that residents realize the residential character of Laurel Park will be lost if not protected; that no incentive exits to redevelop a property as a residential dwelling once the structure has been used for commercial use; that the Commission is strongly recommended to delete the language allowing non-residential uses from the Residential, Single amily/Residential, Mixed Use Land Use Classification. Mr. McNicol stated that Action Strategy 2.10 includes a statement stating that overlay districts shall not be utilized to add uses not specifically enumerated in the district regulations for the underlying zone district; that the language dilutes the power and authority of an overlay district; that the Commission is requested to reconsider inclusion of such limiting language. Mr. Liberi stated that the overlay district allows accessory dwellings such as granny flats on 10,000 and larger square-foot parcels; however, granny flats are not permitted in the existing RMF-3 Zone District; that Laurel Park would not be allowed to develop accessory dwellings if the referenced language remains in the proposed Plan; that although an overlay district can make the regulations more restrictive, it cannot make the regulations less restrictive. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the existing zone district in Laurel Park is an extremely intense form of multiple-family residential zoning; that the reason for an overlay district is not understood as the uses permitted in the zone district are greater and more intense than the one accessory use, granny flats, proposed as part of the overlay district. Mr. Liberi stated that setbacks and configurations are addressed in the Laurel Park Overlay District; that houses built in the front rather than the middle of a 10,000 square-foot lot would be able to develop a granny flat in addition to the main dwelling. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Action Strategy 2.10 does not prohibit the specification of setbacks in an overlay district; that the language prohibits potentially adding anything more intensive than what is allowed in the underlying zone district; that zoning in Laurel Park is intense. Bill Tatum, 2635 Fruitville Road (33577), Exalted Ruler, Elks Lodge #1519, stated that the local Elks Club represents approximately 1,400 members and supports 21 local charities; that the Elks Children's Hospital, a Statewide project, provides orthopedic surgery for needy children with or without insurance; that underprivileged children are sent to the Elks Club Youth Camp every yeari that nationally, the Elks National Foundation is second only to the U.S. government in the number and amount of scholarships granted every year. Mr. Tatum continued that the Elks Club property on Fruitville Road is currently located in the MCI Zone District; that representatives of the Elks Club met with the PBLP which recommended the existing zoning be retained; that the Commission is requested to allow the existing zoning to continue; that although a for-sale sign is on the property, the Elks Club is trying to utilize the present location. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Elks Club would consider donating the rear portion of the property for a neighborhood park? Mr. Tatum stated no; that the rear portion of the property is used often for Elks Club functions. James Thomas, 1340 15th Street (34236), was no longer in the audience. Catherine Christensen, 3350 Kenmore Drive (34231), stated that she supports the statements made by Mr. Duhig, and deferred from speaking. Stephen Rees, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, representing the Chapman Family Trust, stated that earlier, Attorney Charles D. Bailey addressed the Sunset Chevrolet Dealership property on Nebraska Street brought into the City through annexation; that at the conclusion of his presentation, Attorney Bailey referenced Lots 18 through 24 on Hansen Street, similarly affected by the PBLP action which reversed the Staff recommendation to classify the property as eighborhpa-commnisy Commercial and instead recommended the property be classified as Residential, Multiple-Pamily Land Use. Attorney Rees distributed a June 17, 1998, letter to the Commission summarizing his representation of the Chapman Family BOOK 44 Page 16916 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16917 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Trust; and stated that during the transmittal stage hearings, he appeared before the Commission and the PBLP to request his clients' property be classified as Neighborhood-Community Commercial Land Use; that during the subsequent adoption stage hearings before the PBLP in February 1998, he again presented the request for the eighloriod-Comunity Commercial Land Use Classification; that on March 26 and 31, 1998, the PBLP, reaffirmed the Staff recommendation to classify the Chapman Family Trust property as Neighborhood-Community Commercial Land Use. Attorney Rees continued that two weeks later, on April 14, 1998, the PBLP considered a request submitted by a property owner to the west of the subject property, reversed their earlier decision, and adopted the current recommendation to classify the property as Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use; that he takes exception to the process of consideration by the PBLP; that their consideration was outside the record comprised by the official PBLP public hearing in February 1998; that although he attended every workshop and public hearing, the PBLP did not give him the opportunity to respond to their reconsideration of the earlier decision; that the one meeting in April 1998 at which the action was taken was the only one he did not attend; that the following day, Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, alerted him regarding the action taken in his absence. Attorney Rees referred to appraisals and a series of photographs in a binder identifying properties on Hansen Street across from the Glengary Shops, currently located in a Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District and stated that the Plat of Lynwood Park indicates that the Chapman Family Trust's cluster of properties is one of the few with unified ownership in the geographic area from Nebraska Street to Hansen Street; that the request and concurrence by Staff to rezone the property as eighlorod-Comunity Commercial provided the opportunity to centralize a future development project and install buffering around the perimeter of the side and rear yards. Attorney Rees continued that the PBLP recommendation restricts the property to a residential, multiple-family zone district allowing six units per acre across the street from the Glengary Shops; that the rear of the residential properties would front the CI Zone District portion of his client's property on Nebraska Avenue. Attorney Rees further stated that good planning dictates that one unifying zone district should be provided when a large tract exists under unified ownership; that the properties were appraised in 1994 on the death of Frances Chapman; that his clients are the executor trustees under that estate; that the Commission has been provided excerpts from the appraisals; that the structures on the lots fronting Hansen Street across from Glengary were constructed in the 1920s and 30s; that the appraisal notes the structures as in an advanced state of disrepair, not air-conditioned, and serviced by wells and septic tanks; that the rentals generate $250 to $375 per month. Attorney Rees stated further that a number of inquiries from responsible developers were received after Staff recommended the property be classified as eigiborloo-Comunity Commercial Land Use; that subsequent to the PBLP recommendation to classify the property to Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use, he sought from the development community inquiry of interest to develop a low-scale, six-unit-per-acre apartment development; that not one developer has indicated any interest; that the Commission is implored to consider the analysis provided in the June 17, 1998, letter and attachments in the binder, reject the PBLP action, and reinstate the Staff recommendation to classify the property Neighborhood-Community Commercial Land Use. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Mr. Rees is involved in the five duplexes at 1705, 1715, 1735, and 1743 Hansen Street? Attorney Rees stated no; that those properties are located west of the Chapman Family Trust property; that at the May 18, 1998, joint Commission/PBLP workshop, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Taylor specifically addressed Staff's concern with the action taken by the PBLP which rejected the eiglboriod-Comanity Commercial and, instead, proposed the Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Patterson requested clarification regarding the location of the properties. Attorney Rees stated that beginning at the intersection with Brown Avenue, the eight lots run westerly on Hansen Street immediately across from the Glengary Shops. Attorney Rees distributed a June 17, 1998, letter to the Commission including a chart listing the property owners represented by him who submitted requests for changes to the Future Land Use Map and stated that State Statutes require that property owners appearing both before the transmittal stage and the adoption stage hearings must have standing relative to the adoption of a land use plan; that the chart indicates that every property owner he represented agrees with PBLP recommendations regarding the rezoning of their properties except for the owners of the Chapman properties. Sister Frances Nevolo, 3950 Roxanne Boulevard #6A (34235), Member of the Executive Committee, Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless and the Board of St. Vincent de Paul Society and Director of Bethesda House, a Downtown drop-in center, stated that people in social services serve families and individuals who have experienced devastating losses; that she believes in the dignity BOOK 44 Page 16918 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16919 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. of every individual; that the Commission is requested to remember that land use decisions impact individuals and families; that the City should remain a City with concern and compassion for all. William Merrill, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street #600 (39237) Bruce Franklin, AIA, Principal ADP Associations. Inc. Attorney Merrill stated that he represents Michael's Marketplace and Griffin Holdings; that Action Strategy 2.10 establishes uses for overlay districts; that the Commission is requested to delete the last sentence of the second paragraph which states that overlay districts shall not be utilized to add uses not specifically enumerated in the district regulations for the underlying zone district; that the Commission is requested to revise the language in the first sentence of the same paragraph to state the following: Overlay Districts may be used to modify the development standards of the underlying zone district, add uses to the underlying zone district, and delete uses which would otherwise be permitted or permissible in the underlying zone district. Attorney Merrill stated that the existing language in the proposed Plan indicates that overlay districts allow modifications to standards and deletion of uses in the underlying zone district; however, uses not allowed in the underlying zone district would not be permitted; that for example, a use entitled "Accessory Dwelling Units" has been included in the Laurel Park Overlay District to allow dwelling units such as granny flats, detached from the main dwelling; that the proposed language under Action Strategy 2.10 would conflict with the Laurel Park Overlay District regulations as accessory dwelling units are not currently allowed in any zone district. Attorney Merrill continued that several speakers previously addressed development problems created by non-conforming lots in the Fruitville Road/Fourth Street area; that properties fronting on Fruitville Road need parking use on the rear portion of the parcels; that small lots will continue to decrease in value until sufficient space is provided for development; that the new Commercial, Business-Newtown. (CBN) Lone District has similar problems with narrow properties; that an overlay district would allow the Commission to allow parking use and prohibit more intensive uses. Attorney Merrill further stated that the Commission is asked not to throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting overlay districts, an important planning tool; that the City and not the landowner would have discretion to decide appropriate compatible uses in overlay districts. Attorney Merrill stated further that the Commission is requested to delete the last sentence of the second paragraph of Action 2.10 if the requested language to add uses is not approved. Mr. Franklin stated that no rational basis exists for the Commission to burden itself by a limitation which prohibits overlay districts to add uses not specifically included in the underlying zone district; that deletion of the language does not create any precedent or establish any right for property owners; that overlay districts are used in many cities nationwide to accommodate development on properties too shallow for current-day uses; that the overlay district is a great tool which allows approval of compatible design standards with conditions regarding signage, landscaping, and parking. Mr. Franklin continued that an overlay district would provide flexibility on a case-by-case basis; that the Commission would have full discretion to require developers to proffer conditions; that no rational basis exists to eliminate flexibility; that overlay districts will provide the ability to avoid the nuisance of having to develop line-item amendments to the Zoning Code. Mr. Franklin further stated that the Laurel Park Overlay District was developed with the consensus of residents and the PBLP and will soon be presented to the Commission; that no good reason exists why the Comprehensive Plan should require amending in the future; that the Commission is urged to adopt the language recommended by Attorney Merrill to add uses; that at a minimum, the Commission is requested to delete the last sentence in Action Strategy 2.10. Attorney Merrill stated that overlay districts are a valuable tool allowing redeveloping cities to choose between more stringent or more flexible development standards; that pertormance standards could be developed to facilitate the proffering of conditions from property owners; that setbacks, build-to lines, urban design and compatibility issues, parking, landscaping, and signage would be specified in each overlay district as conditions for Commission approval. Attorney Merrill continued that the developers of Southside Village redevelopment project wish to design a project compatible with traditional urban life; that the overlay district created to redevelop Southside Village specifically complies with the draft design and compatibility guidelines in the proposed Plan; that overlay districts can be used to implement melghborhoo-specific plans and accomplish the objectives of the Neighborhood Chapter; that an overlay district will be used to develop a padestrian-friendly, village marketplace with human scale in Southside Village. BOOK 44 Page 16920 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16921 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Gay Zuercher, 1750 17th Street, Building H, (34234), representing Safe Place And Rape Crisis Center (SPARCC), was no longer in the Commission Chambers. Victoria Main, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota (SHA), 1300 Sixth Street (34236), distributed and read a SHA Resolution which stated that the SHA requests deletion of the portion of the proposed Plan stating the City will explore transferring responsibility for administering the Section 8 vouchers and certificates from the SHA to the Office of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of dispersing the concentration of low-income housing to a wider area of Sarasota; that the Board of the SHA has grave concerns regarding the potential of losing the Section 8 program and would like to work with the County Staff and ensure the two programs are working closely together; that the SHA should keep the Section 8 program as one of the key elements of providing low-income housing. Lonnie Ward, President, North Sarasota Community Chamber of Commerce and President, National Coalition for Affordable Housing, 1060 Oregon Street (34236), stated that economic growth is the primary concern of Newtown residents; that the PBLP recommendation to classify the northeast corner of the intersection of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and U.S. 301 as residential land use is a concern; that the Commission is requested to classify the properties extending to 28th Street and the railroad track as commercial land use. Mr. Ward continued that for many years, the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way corridor has suffered from a lack of economic growth; that the subject property should be developed as a gateway to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that residential zoning is not appropriate; that U.S. 301 is a major traffic corridor and the subject property is the only parcel on that roadway not zoned for commercial activity; that the nearest supermarket is a substantial distance awayi that the property should be classified as commercial land use to facilitate a decent shopping center for job opportunities and commercial activity benefiting residents. Lisa Wade, 3959 Sunshine Avenue (34231), Peggy Seaboyer, 1716 Hansen Street (34231) and Jane Burke, 1706 Hansen Street (34231) residents in the vicinity of Hansen Street properties recommended to be classified as eldhiorot-Comunity Commercial Land Use, were no longer in the Commission Chambers. Kenneth Jones, 1706 Hansen Street (34231), distributed the following petition signed by 23 residents or property owners on or near Hansen Street: We the undersigned residents and property owners of Hansen Street and adjacent areas would like to take this opportunity to voice our concerns regarding the City of Sarasota's proposed Comprehensive Plan. We are alarmed that a section of Hansen Street from Brown Road to Sunshine Avenue may change from residential zoning to commercial property zoning. We feel that such zoning changes would have a detrimental effect on our property's values, our lifestyles, and our peace of mind. Upon reading various sections of the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan, one would notice the emphasis placed on affordable housing, residential to commercial property compatibility, and residential neighborhood traffic abatement programs. . We believe that as now zoned our properties are affordable. We do not think that the proposed zoning changes are compatible to our residentially zoned property. We believe that traffic on Hansen Street is already above standard residential level and that a change to commercial zoning will increase traffic to a level that is obtrusive. We therefore request that residential protection be enacted that would allow our neighborhood on Hansen Street to remain a viable residential neighborhood, free of commercial zoning intrusions. Mr. Jones stated that the request by Attorney Stephen Rees that properties on Brown Avenue and Hansen Street be rezoned as commercial is a concern; that County residents living nearby were not informed and are concerned regarding the requested change from residential to commercial land use; that he would have become more involved if he were notified earlier. Eric Roe, 1632 Sixth Street (34236), Tina Riggle, 1743 Eighth Street (34236), and Linda Holland, President, Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, 617 Gillespie Avenue, (34236). Mr. Roe stated that Mr. Fitzer, an earlier speaker, requested the Commission to change the classification of Fourth Street properties from Residential, Single ramlyPesidmtial-sia Use to Neighborhood-Community Office/Profesional/Inaticutional Land Use; that he, Mr. Roe, is a resident and landowner in Gillespie Park and a member of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association and on the Greater Downtown Action Team Board of Directors; that the neighborhood stretches from Fruitville Road to 10th Street and is bounded by Orange Avenue and U.S. 301; that the current land use classifications are correct. Mr. Roe continued that the request to classify as commercial land use properties fronting Fruitville Road with rear yards fronting Fourth Street was presented to and rejected by the PBLP; that the south side of Fourth Street on the north side of the block between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street should remain residential land use; that the neighborhood character should be preserved. BOOK 44 Page 16922 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16923 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Riggle stated that Fourth Street in Gillespie Park should be classified as residential land use. Ms. Holland was sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and stated that the earlier speaker and owner of Fourth Street properties referenced land values in Gillespie Park; that some housing values may have decreased; however, the values in the rest of the neighborhood are increasing; that a recent refinancing of her home provided evidence that property values are increasing; that properties owned by absentee landlords may be decreasing in value due to deteriorating conditions; that a meeting was held with one absentee landlord who revealed that his properties will be allowed to deteriorate until the City agrees to Classify the parcels as commercial land use; that the earlier speaker does not live in Gillespie Park; that a great deal of value exists in the houses on Fourth Street. Brenda Patten, Attorney, Law Firm of Kirk-Pinkerton. 270 South Orange Avenue (34236) representing the Toscany Motel located at 129 Taft Drive and the Surf View Motel located at 1121 Benjamin Franklin Drive, distributed a map and a June 17, 1998, letter regarding motels on Lido Beach and stated that the subject properties are located between Boulevard of the Presidents and Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the Toscany and Surf View motels face no residential land uses on the south, east and northeast; that condominiums and high-rise hotels are located to the west of the two motels; that the Commission has been recommended by the PBLP to classify the Holiday Inn and properties west of Benjamin Franklin Drive as Residential, Multiple-Family/Residential, Mixed-Use Land Use; that the PBLP and Staff have recommended the Toscany and Surf View Motels be classified as Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use which allows single-family and multiple-family dwellings as primary uses and motels as prmyhp-toy uses; that the recommendation infers that motels do not belong in the land use classification and should be scheduled for removal from the zone districts implementing the proposed Plan. Attorney Patten continued that the two motels will continue to be non-conforming land uses as no implementing zone district is provided in the proposed Plan which will allow motels to be consistent in the Residential Multiple-Family Land Use Classification; that non-conforming properties cannot be rebuilt if damaged by more than 50 percent of value or renovated if improvements exceed 50 percent of value; that the non-conforming status of the two motels has created substantial problems such as the inability to obtain financing for renovation and difficulty in selling the properties. Attorney Patten further stated that the owners of the EwO motels are requesting the City to extend the Residential, Multiple-Family/!esidential, Mixed-Use Land Use Classification to the two properties; that currently, the requested classification is applied to properties west of Benjamin Franklin Drive; however, the classification has also been applied to the Holiday Inn; that classifying the two motels as Residential, Multiple Family/ Residential, Mixed-Use Land Use would enable the owners to apply for a zone district in which the motels can exist either as primary or secondary, conditional uses; that the current Residential, Multiple-Family Land Use classification is supposed to serve as a buffer between commercial and residential uses; that no residential uses exist to the south or east of the subject properties. Attorney Patten stated further that the Toscany and Surf View Motels are currently non-contorming uses located in the RMF-3 Zone District; that in 1996, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 96-3928 in the Zoning Code to allow the motel uses to continue as non-conforming uses indefinitely as long as the uses were limited to the existing types of structure, number of employees, and parking; that the implication by the language in the proposed Plan designating the motels as non-primary/non-secondary is that the Zoning Code will be amended to eliminate the uses; that she does not believe Staff intended to eliminate uses which received the special status pursuant to the 1996 ordinance; that the following revision to Action Strategy 2.9 is proposed: Legal non-conforming uses: Legal non-conforming uses, as defined by the Zoning Code, shall continue to be regulated by that Code. Properties subject to the provisions of Ordinance No. 96-3928 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of said ordinance. Attorney Patten stated that the language recognizes the special status such properties received by virtue of the current zoning ordinance so that the City will not be required by law to amend the zoning ordinance to eliminate those uses. Brenda Patten, representing the Law Firm of Kirk-Pinkerton, distributed a copy of the proposed Future Land Use Map and stated that the site of the Kirk-Pinkerton office building has been classified as eiglboriod-Comuniy, Office/Professional Institutional Land Use; that the classification allows office; however, the Office, Professional, Business (OPB) Zone District is the only implementing. zone district allowed; that the property directly to the west is classified as Central City Land Use, the same land use classification provided to properties north of the Kirk-Pinkerton office building; that the elghboroa-commnity Office/Professional/Institutional Land Use Classification is intended to serve as a buffer between residential and commercial uses; that office rather than residential uses exist on either side of the Kirk-Pinkerton office building; that a row of office BOOK 44 Page 16924 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16925 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. uses does buffer residential use further north on Orange Avenue; however, classifying the Kirk Pinkerton property as Neighborhood- Community Office/Professional/Institutional Land Use does not serve the buffer function intended by the classification. Attorney Patten continued that the Commission is requested to expand the Central City Land Use Classification to include the Kirk-Pinkerton property and allow the entire north side of the block to be located in the Central City Land Use Classification; that Kirk-Pinkerton is currently discussing purchase of a parcel to the west for expansion of office use; that the proposed building would fit more easily into the more flexible site-planning criteria of the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District if the Central City Land Use Classification is approved; that the two parcels would be developed under a single zoning; that two different land use classifications would make development difficult; that the City would have ample opportunity to consider density and height during a rezoning hearing; that the Commission is requested to classify the subject property as Central City Land Use. Devin Rutkowksi, 1920 Laurel Street (34236), stated that in 1990, Laurel Park was in a deteriorated condition; that a tremendous rebirth has occurred over the past eight years; that he personally researched land use issues as a result of special exception petitions presented when he was President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association; that he became aware of the conservation district concept as well as the conditional use permit concept. Mr. Rutkowski continued that existing, widespread attitudes towards land use ideas are a result of a 1927 court decision upholding the constitutionality of single-use zoning or separation of uses, typically found in suburbs; that single-use zoning is not relevant with the historical context of American life when residents lived, worked, shopped, attended church and school, all within the same urban neighborhood. Mr. Rutkowsi further stated that mixed uses currently exist in Laurel Park which is not a solely residential neighborhood such as McCLellan Park, Harbor Acres, or Sapphire Shores; that over the past several years, many excellent examples of mixed uses have been developed; that he was allowed to have his drafting business in his garage in 1992; that former architect, Craig Clemens, had an architectural business in his garage which generated no complaints; that Martha Hafner, former President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, had a sewing business in her garage; that architect Mark Ramaeker lives and works on Orange Avenue; that approximately 40 percent of the revitalized Towles Court is occupied by residents who live on site day and night; that every house along Morrill Street except for the corner of Morrill Street and Links Avenue is occupied; that Morrill Court will be providing seven live/work units; that Bill Baumgartner and Barbara Best opened the Be Well Institute and provide residential rental units on Osprey Avenue; that last year, his wife opened Discovery Days, a 40-child pre-school facility, on property which also provides three residential units. Mr. Rutkowski stated further that Sue and Joe Kane on the corner of Morrill Street and Osprey Avenue are the best example of the benefits of mixed use; that five years ago, he, Mr. Rutkowski, vehemently opposed their special exception application approved by the Commission because the Kanes had no desire to live in the neighborhood but wanted to convert a residential house into an office; that the concept of renovating a nice old house for a permanent residence was foreign to them; however, the Kanes now intend to live in the house at 310 Osprey Avenue in which they have already invested over $50,000 to renovate; that people are currently living and working in Laurel Park. Mr. Rutkowski distributed a survey of Laurel Park residents conducted when he chaired the Conservation District Committee and stated that over 300 five-page questionnaires with land use questions were distributed; that 100 of the questionnaires were returned, a 30 percent response rate; that 70 percent responded positively to the concept of mixed uses along Osprey Avenue; that 90 percent supported granny flats; that unfortunately, the proposed regulation in the Laurel Park Overlay District restricting granny flats to lots of 10,000 square feet or greater will eliminate some of the potential to develop granny flats; that home offices were supported by 80 percent of the residents. Mr. Rutkowski continued that the City should be proactive; that the language in the proposed Plan is progressive and consistent with the natural evolution of the neighborhood; that the community should paint the picture, create the rules and regulations, and allow residents to participate. Mr. Rutkowski further stated that he recommended to Ms. Hafner one and a half months ago that they compromise and allow the language under Action Strategy 2.10 allowing mixed uses to apply only to properties along Osprey Avenue rather than neighborhood-wide, that he never heard back from Ms. Hafner; that the proposed Laurel Park Overlay District currently allows non-residential uses to catalyze redevelopment of the neighborhood; that preventing future conversions from residential to commercial is unrealistic as four such live/work projects have already been allowed; that it would be interesting to watch the outcome in Circuit Court if a mixed use was denied by the City in the future; that the proposed Comprehensive Plan is a broad policy document to be implemented two to three years in the future after intensive discussions before the PBLP and the Commission; that deleting the language allowing mixed uses would eliminate the possibility of those uses altogether. BOOK 44 Page 16926 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16927 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Rutkowski submitted letters from Robert Weintraub and Julie Jeffrey, 1881 Laurel Street, and Kevin Perry, 540 South Osprey Avenue, supporting non-residential uses in Laurel Park as stated in the existing language in the proposed Plan. Kacy Carla Benington, 1445 Second Street (34236) Tom Treend, 4907 80th Avenue Circle E (34243), Tim Dutton, representing the Human Services Planing Association, 1750 17th Street (34234) and April Charney, representing the Sarasota County Homeless Coalition and Gulfcoast Legal Services, 1750 17th Street (34234), were no longer in the Commission Chambers. Mayor Dupree stated that Ms. Bennington, Mr. Treend, Mr. Dutton, and Ms. Charney requested that the comments they wrote on sign-up sheets be read for the public record. Commissioner Merrill stated that a bad precedent would be started by reading comments written by the public on sign-up sheets. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the comments will be made part of the record. Michael Furen, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street (34237), stated that a gross misstatement made by one of the previous speakers should be corrected; that the proposed Plan was not dictated by developers; that the PBLP is not packed with pro-development interests; that the previous speaker referred to Action Strategy 3.2 and stated that a developer could prove consistency with the proposed Plan by simply proving that a proposed site plan is consistent with one particular element or chapter of the proposed Plan; that the statement is totally inaccurate; that Action Strategy 3.2 was drafted to provide the Commission the legally correct belief that the Commission is not required to approve a proposal simply because a developer claims consistency with the Future Land Use Chapter; that on the contrary, the action strategy indicates that proving consistency with the Future Land Use Chapter does not entitle a developer to development approval; that each proposal must be examined in the context of each chapter of the proposed Plan; that consistency with the proposed Plan would be achieved only after all chapters are considered and a determination made as to whether or not the specific development proposal meets the "on balance" requirement; that the actual policy was grossly misrepresented by the earlier speaker. Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Staff had requested Commission deliberations begin at the special meeting scheduled tomorrow evening; that at 6 p.m., tomorrow, an additional special meeting has been called to address the Road Impact Fee Advisory Board item. Commissioner Merrill stated that several more meetings have been scheduled this week to address the proposed Plan; that the deliberations should be deferred until tomorrow evening. Vice Mayor Patterson concurred and stated that the Commission promised Commissioner Cardamone the opportunity to comment on issues under Remarks at this meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson asked if the Commission wishes to reschedule the items remaining from the June 15, 1998, regular Commission meeting to tomorrow evening? Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objections, the Commission will address the following items at the,special meeting scheduled for June 18, 1998: 1. Approval Re: : Request for proposals for the sale and development of City-owned property located at 1865 Laurel Street; 2. Approval Re: Request for proposal for Lemon Avenue Mall; and 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4064 pertaining to the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP. 3. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEND A LETTER TO GOVERNOR LAWTON CHILES EXPRESSING THE CITY'S CONCERNS REGARDING ORIMULSION AND REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET WAIT FOR THE RESULTS OF AN EPA STUDY BEFORE MAKING A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE USE OF ORIMULSION IN FLORIDA (AGENDA ITEM III) #3 (0493) to (0698) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE : A. stated that Commission support is requested to send to Governor Lawton Chiles another letter expressing the City's concerns about orimulsion; that a national study to analyze the effects of orimulsion is planned; that the Governor and Cabinet should wait to see the results of the study before making a final decision. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is studying the effects of orimulsion; and asked if Commission support is requested to advise the Governor to postpone a decision regarding orimulsion until after the EPA study is completed? Commissioner Cardamone stated yes. BOOK 44 Page 16928 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16929 06/17/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree stated there is a consensus of the Commission to send a letter or fax comorrow to Governor Lawton Chiles expressing the City's concerns regarding orimulsion and requesting the Governor to postpone any final decision until the EPA study is completed. B. stated that the workshop meeting with the Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment has been rescheduled from 4 to 6 p.m. on June 30, 1998. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she cannot attend at that hour; that between the time the first date was canceled and the June 30, 1998, date was set, another engagement which cannot be canceled was scheduled; that she requests the meeting be held at 7:30 p.m. on June 30, 1998. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she cannot attend at 7:30 p.r m. that the Department of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment has been in existence for over six months; however, the Commission has not yet met as a Board to provide direction to Staff; that four Commissioners have already committed to attend the meeting scheduled at 4 p.m. on June 30, 1998. Vice Mayor Patterson requested the workshop meeting not be scheduled at 4 p.m. on June 30, 1998. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Vice Mayor Patterson is expected to be extremely busy as the County elections draw near. Commissioner Merrill stated that Vice Mayor Patterson attends more meetings than he does. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Vice Mayor Patterson's attendance record is perfect. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she understands the consensus of the Commission is that the workshop meeting will remain scheduled at 4 p.m. on June 30, 1998. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the only alternative dates are in August 1998; that the Department of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment would be in existence for nearly 10 months without a Commission meeting if the June meeting is postponed to August. MAYOR DUPREE: A. stated that the Commission should meet with the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota (SHA) in the near future. 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (0700) Mayor Dupree adjourned the special City Commission meeting of June 17, 1998, at 11:10 p.m. to June 18, 1998, to immediately follow the special Commission meeting regarding the Road Impact Fee Advisory Board at 6 p.m. Blpru JEROME DUPREE, MAYOR ATTEST BiceE tos . BILLY E. CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 44 Page 16930 06/17/98 6:00 P.M.