Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Welcome to the September 11th, 2024 Board of County commissioners meeting. We are at 1660 Ringling Boulevard in our downtown chambers. We do have all of our commissioners present here this morning, and if you are able, please stand for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Heavenly Father, as we gather this morning, an anniversary of a day painful to remember. Sorry. But impossible to forget. We're in 10 on doing good work. We seek to represent well and fair. And those who given us this task may efforts be blessed with insight, guided by understanding you in wisdom. We seek to serve with respect for all and may our personal face give those strength to us honestly and well in all matters before us. Amen. Thank you, sir. As some of you may know, we do our best to recognize our local veterans here in Sarasota County to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Many of these local veterans are folks that work here at the county with us, and that's the case here this morning. We have Miss Laura Cole. She is in our code enforcement department. She's a sergeant U.S. Army six years of service. And she has awards and medals that include Army commendation medal, Army achievement medal, Army good conduct medal, national defense service medal, global war on terrorism, service medal, Iraq campaign medal with campaign stutter, and overseas service ribbon, ribbon and combat action badge, and a notable fact she had 15 months deployed in Mizzou Iraq with a 550 second military police company. Miss Cole, thank you for being here this morning. Please lead us on the pledge. to the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you again for your service. And Mike, thank you so much for that invocation here this morning is great. We have some proclamations here this morning starting off with Commissioner Rainford is going to get us started with the National Preparedness Month. Thank you, Sinandra if you don't mind coming up with your team. I know you guys have been busy. So thank you for being here with us this morning, especially on such a significant day as September 11th. Today is, or this month is National Preparedness Month, whereas the month of September is recognized as National Preparedness Month, and is dedication to raising awareness and sharing information on the importance of preparing for disasters in the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane season. And whereas Sarasota County experience is significant impacts with Hurricane Anne in 2022, Hurricane Adalia in 2023, Hurricane Debbie in August, and Sarasota County Emergency Management remains committed to ensuring residents are able to prepare for and recover from all disasters. And where a Sarasota County Emergency Management staff have met with over 5,000 community members this year to share preparedness information and increase knowledge of the risks of potential hazards. And whereas the 2024 hurricane season began on June 1st and continues through November 30th with September marking the historical peak of the season. All residents and visitors are encouraged to create an individualized disaster preparedness plan in evacuation plan. Stocket disaster supply kit with at least seven days of supplies for each individual and pet residing in the household. Now therefore we the Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida do hereby per claim September 2024 to be National Preparedness Month presented this 11th day of September 2024. Sandra, do you have any words? Sure. Thank you so much commissioners for allowing us to highlight National Preparedness Month. We're here obviously with the emergency management team. And as we continue to recover from Debbie and today, as we remember the events of September 11th, it's a great reminder that we need to be vigilant, be prepared for any hazard that may face us here in our community. If anybody here or any other residents who are listening online want any more information on preparedness, they can go to our website, www.sc.gov, forward slash be prepared, or they can go to call 311 and you can get some information from any of the call takers there. Thank you so very much. We appreciate this. Thank you so much. the . Great and next up will be Commissioner Smith and he will be doing a proclamation for Falls Prevention Awareness Week. Oh, yeah, good. I'm trying not to take offense of being selected for this duty. There is one other commissioner older than I. Anyway, with that said, this is Falls Prevention Awareness Week. Whereas September 18th through the 22nd is designated as Fall Prevention Awareness Week. A time for us to recognize injuries from falls are largely a preventable community health problem. This year's theme, Better Balance for Fall Prevention, raises awareness about falls and promotes best practices for fall prevention. And whereas evidence-based programs reduce falls by utilizing cost-effective strategies such as exercise programs to improve balance and strength, medication management, vision improvement, reduction of home hazards, and fall prevention education. And whereas the Sarasota County Falls Prevention Coalition is working to increase awareness of this issue, promote multidisciplinary strategies to prevent falls and encourage citizens to take steps to protect those who are at increased risk of falling. Now therefore, we the Board of County Commissioners to Sarasota County, Florida, do her by proclaim. September 18th to the second. I'm going to go to the second. I'm going to go to the second. I'm going to go to the second. I'm going to go to the second. I'm going to go to the second. I'm going to say I'll go first to Burger. I'm the aging system coordinator for Sarasota County, and we are grateful to be here today and bring awareness to falls and fall related injury, which are pretty significant in our community. And among the top falls and lift assist are among the top 10 calls that are responded to by our emergency services. So again, we're fortunate to work with our Department of Health and we have a dedicated Fall Prevention Coordinator, Kelly Ward, and she's going to just tell you a few things about what we've been working on the past year. Thank you, Sue, and thank you, commissioners. I'm honored to be part of the team with the Department of Health and Services of the County as a fall prevention coordinator and we are collaborating and networking within the communities and so far this year in educational workshops we've reached 471 people and through popular demand, I developed a fall prevention 102 workshop and that's reached 143 people. And we are promoting an evidence-based balance training program or fall prevention program. And so far we have 194 people registered in the, that have registered in that program and we already have six classes scheduled for next year. So the community is really embracing these programs that we're offering and I'm honored to be part of this team. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else likes saying anything? I do want to say a good friend of mine, my best friend growing up's mother, was in her 90s, and she said she was heading to the Y to exercise. And I asked her how much she was lifting. But actually it's all seriousness. She was doing squats and getting up and out of a chair to strengthen her body and her legs so that she wouldn't fall. And God bless us, she made it to 101. So anyway, this is very important as much as we all like to make fun of ourselves. So thank you very much. Thank you. Congratulations. Bye now. See you, congratulations. We're going to open. Oh, photograph time. Excuse me. Great. Thank you to everyone coming. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Ray. So this one's a little bit impromptu. It wasn't on our agenda, but we're also as a commission, whether it's our star students or schools that come into our chambers. We're always excited to see students get involved in the process. And if the foundation's Christian Montessori Academy wants to come forward, we're excited to have you in the chambers today. And let's, if you just want to come forward here. Thank you for your pleasure. I'm going to go to the next meeting. Yeah, that was great. It wasn't planned on our agenda today. They actually just came into our chambers today to witness government in action for themselves. So I thought that was great. So, Glad we took an extra minute. I want to take an extra minute if I could to recognize Mr. Norm Shemmel who came here yesterday and gave us his annual dedication of a framed picture of an actual photo that he takes related to 9-11 in memory of all that have perished. So thanks to him and his wife and I'm going to be able to have a meeting with the community. I'm going to be able to have a meeting with the community. I'm going to be able to have a meeting with the community. I'm going to be able to have a meeting with the community. I'm going to be able to have a meeting with the community. I'm going to be able to have a meeting with the community. I'm going to be able to have a this morning that they're carrying out for a 9-11 memorial at our fire station 23 here this morning. So thank you to them for being there and carrying that out. It's been 23 years now and it's just incredibly hard to imagine. It's been that long, but we will never forget. So moving on here to agenda item number one, the board, please note that the board may break for lunch and as needed throughout the day attendees interested in specific agenda items should plan accordingly. Agenda item number one is open to the public. This time is reserved for person desiring to comment items not scheduled for public hearing. Person's wishing to speak it open to the public. She'll complete a request to speak card, including the number of the agenda item or if not an the agenda item, the topic to be addressed. Comments and scheduled agenda items will be heard first, followed by up to five speakers related to topics not on the advertised agenda. Any remaining speaker cards will be held for final open of the public session at the end of the meeting. Just a reminder, we dealing with discussion items, those are heard during open to the public. So if any of the agenda items that you'd like to speak on are related to a discussion item, please get your cards into the clerk now and we'll make sure you're heard here this morning. Anything that is a public hearing, that'll have it separate open to the public and request to speak cards will be related to that. So with that, I do have a couple here this morning. And feel free if you just want to use these seats up front to stage and maybe save just a couple minutes, but we only have three cards here this morning, which would be Douglas. I'll spell it. RICC I-A-R-T-I, I believe. Good morning, sir. Welcome. You'll be recognized here for three minutes, and there's a clock over here to judge your time and that mic is super flexible if you need to pull it to your bend it around or whatever you need. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you members of the County Commission and attendees. I stand here today representing a hundred members of the professional charter captains of Sarasota. We're small independent businesses that are members of the professional charter captains of Sarasota. We're small independent businesses that are one of the backbones of our community's tourism and marine economy. We are single operator fishing and tour charter captains, and we're here to voice our concerns regarding the proposed permit medallion program. First let's talk about the obstacles we already face. From the constant threat of red tide, sewage spills, tropical storms and hurricanes, to weather cancellations, our industry is no stranger to challenges. The cost of doing businesses incredibly high, often as much as 70% of our earnings. These challenges force us to be resilient, adaptable, and resourceful. The last thing we need is yet another hurdle that can devastate our livelihoods. The proposed system would issue only 124 permits, yet there are more than 200 of us who make a living in Sarasota County waters. Forcing us into a bidding war for these medallions would pit us, captains against captains, eroding the camaraderie and mutual respect that have long been the foundation of our community. Three years with two one-year extensions then read bid from the medallion that's part of what the program asks. Picture this you invest your years of your life building relationships with clients poor money in your business only to lose access to a medallion in the next cycle. What happens then? All that investment, financial, emotional, and professional will be wiped out in an instant. Our captains already contribute to the long-term local economy and community by attracting tourists who spend money not only on charters, but on lodging, dining, and retail and more, year after year. We've built a reputation based on trust, consistency, and service. This new system threatens to upend everything we work for. Meanwhile, Sarasota faces more pressing issues. Water quality, deteriorating, to sewage spills and runoff. Yet instead of addressing these critical environmental issues, this proposal seeing is at our small resident owner business. We aren't the problem. In fact, we're part of the solution. We are the ones out there on the water every day. We have a vested interest in protecting these waters for our future generations. Sarasota Bay belongs to everyone. It's not just for those with resources to outbid others and medallion auction. These programs favor the wealthy and well connected while jeopardizing the livelihoods of those who spent years building our businesses from the ground up. We urge you to reconsider this proposal. Instead of imposing restrictions that harm our small businesses, let's focus on fostering growth and welcoming the services we provide to both locals and visitors alike. Thank you very much, your time. Thank you, sir. Next up, Sherman Baldwin, followed by Nick Cancella. Good morning, sir. You're recognized for three minutes. Good morning, Sherman Baldwin, 2048, 5th Street in Sarasota. I'm here representing the Park East neighborhood of Sarasota. I know the county is aware of this, but I think that we need some quicker action on this. So for some of you commissions that may not be aware of this, there are six LBG, train tank cars that filled with liquefied petroleum gas, each carrying about 33,600 gallons of gas on or near a residential neighborhood. I have pictures that I'll leave with the recording secretary if you'd like to see it. It's at Fruitville in school avenue, really pretty close to downtown. What concerns me is they were moved there during Hurricane Ian because some of the bridges down to Fort Myers were out. So we understand it went off on a train track spur. They were set there, but almost two years later, they are there. And in fact, it's become a depot where trucks, LPG trucks, go there to fill up and then go about their day in delivering the LPG gas to customers that they have in the area. We know that there's federal jurisdiction on these LPG tank cars, but we need somebody. We have tried to call as a community and no one will take our calls. America is the people that I think own the gas and the tank cars. We need somebody with a little more might to say it's time to move these out of the neighborhood. We understood why they were there. Move there during EN because of that. ENS over the train tracks are fine. Get them out of a residential neighborhood. It's really I think very dangerous. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you sir. Next up is Nick Cancella. Sorry if there's a mispronunciation there. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Nick, how do you solve Sarasota Reef Charter? Yeah, you can get very flexible. There you go. Nick, how do you solve Sarasota Reef Charter? Over my career, I have led or been part of many management teams. Some good, some not so good. At multiple large organizations. One universal trait that distinguishes mediocre teams from outstanding teams is this. Mediocre teams ask, what do we need to do, what do we have to do, they're just trying to get by. Whereas outstanding leadership teams ask, what is the right thing to do? They operate well beyond just trying to get by. Complicated issues can only be solved through rigorous problem, problem application, the formal problem solving, cause analysis processes. So what is the issue we were out to solve? Is it parking, a complaint, an illegal activity, and given the issue, what are the causal factors that resulted in the issue occurring? Are they associated with undersized parking lots, unclear regulations, blatant disregard of the regulations, a change in interpretation of the regulations, failure to enforce the regulation? And given the causal factors, what are the actions being taken? Do these actions directly address the cause? And what is the impact of these actions? The answer to all these questions is quite simply, we don't know. And why don't we know? Because instead of addressing the issue to a formal process, we assign the task force to develop a specific solution without knowing the issue, the scope of the issue, or why the issue occurred in the first place. As a result, with the BCC, we'll be getting from the task force today is really nothing more than an idea. With the task force, we'll be proposing today will certainly result in economic impact of the county. The recommendations will cause many charter boat and tour operators to go out of business as you just heard. And there's more. All the other boating industries that are also using county boat ramps for commercial activity or services for remuneration have yet to be addressed. Interesting terms, commercial activity and services for remuneration. The two terms that are at the heart of the issue for permanent activity, yet neither of these terms are defined in the ordinance. How can that be? Would a formal prom solving process have identified this? Of course it would have, and would have put in place solutions to address that gap. Just one small example of what we miss by not following the formal process. How big is the impact to the boating industry in Sarasota County? We don't know, but I have good news. It just so happens that Sarasota County has a formal business impact analysis process that would address this. Are we going to do a thorough and detailed business impact analysis before making any decisions? What do you think? And if not, why not? The test forces recommendations are started and only that nothing more without understanding the full scope of the issue and the economic impact that the recommendations that have. How can the BCC possibly make an informed decision? You can. You simply can. I began by differentiating between mediocre and outstanding leadership teams. I believe this BCC is an outstanding leadership team. So as you listen to the test forces, presentation and recommendations, ask yourself, what is the right thing to do? What is the right thing to do? Thank you, sir. I have, thank you. I have no further requests to speak, cards for open to the public. Is there anyone here that would like to speak at open to the public? Seeing none, I'll move on to the discussion section agenda item number two, which is 2A to approve the arts and culture alliance of Sarasota County Inc. Fiscal Year 2025 scope of services and budget of $284,55 as recommended by the Tourist Development Council and 2B as to approve an agreement for services with the arts and cultural lines of Sarasota County Inc. to provide grant oversight and administer the cultural arts, tourism programs as outlined in the scope of services for fiscal year 2025 in the amount of $284,055 and it looks like McColle is going to get started. I am. Good morning for the record and co-risk director of parks recreation and natural resources. I am here this morning to provide you a brief update on the proposed changes to the fiscal year 25 arts and cultural alliance budget and scope and ultimately their agreement for services. Brian Hirsch the executive director of the Alliance is present here today if you all have any additional follow-up questions. So just a little background on how we got here today. On June, excuse me, could I interrupt for one? Oh, there we go. Now we've got it in front of our screen. Okay. On June 13th of 2024, the Arts and Cultural Alliance presented their budget and scope to the Tourist Development Council, which was approved and recommended for approval and moving to the board. And then on July 10th, this board did consider the Alliance's fiscal year 25 scope of services and budget. At that time, the board took no action on the proposed scope, but directed staff to work with the Alliance on revising the scope of services and bringing back a future discussion item, which I am here today to but directed staff to work with the Alliance revising the scope of services and bringing back a future discussion item which I am here today to do. So couple the summer, the staff here within parks and the Alliance have worked diligently to further clarify and revise their scope of services. There are four main areas that those revisions have occurred within their scope. The first includes revisiting guidelines and requirements to ensure demonstrated return on investment. One of the things we definitely heard in July was we've made great progress in the guidelines and what the program is developed for within the 25 guidelines, but there's still probably some room for continued improvements. So within this section of their scope, we have added that the additional of requirement of all TDCA programs to be electronically ticketed or have a manned entrance point where visitor data is collected. So that would be a recommendation to be added into the guidelines, which would come back to you all for fiscal year 26 in January. Some additional scope to revisit guidelines would be that the project would have to be completely secured or manned entry points during the duration of the project. Also, they would develop a mechanism to include the grantees' prior outcomes and performance in the scoring rubric and eligibility. Currently, when you apply for one year, there is no really ability within the scoring rubric or the review to look at past years. Now, that will only work if they were a past recipient, but many of them are repeat recipients. And the fourth area that will be added to discuss and add to the guidelines will be continuing the evaluation and revising of performance targets. As you all know, there is two sections of performance. One is tourism based, one is artistic. And those will continue to be refined before coming back to you in January. The second area of change for their scope of services would be the evaluation of the scoring and allocation system. There were obviously changes for fiscal year 25s grant cycle. It went to 100 point scale. There were a variety of things got added. We are saying within their scope we want to see continued refinement of that scoring system. And really looking at how do we continue to weigh tourism heavily since that is the funding source for this grant program. The third area is to enhance the organization being the Alliance's organization's accountability for the reporting requirements. So require that the collection and reporting of all purchase serves and attendees zip codes are done. So, we added the survey requirement in for 2025. But again, it was a little soft in exactly the requirements of getting those surveys back. So, we said, great, we understand. When you look at the guidelines, we certainly want to look at how many Surveys and how you're pushing those out, but we can't hold you accountable to if someone doesn't take a survey But what we can do is look at adding the accountability of anyone that purchases tickets one ticket ten tickets Or walks in the door of your event that we're collecting a zip code. I think that will significantly help this board in the reviewing of where are they coming from. Are they locals? Are they regional? Or are they truly tourist living or coming here and paying bed tax? And finally, the last piece of that, I already talked about the surveying and really working on collection of those surveys surveys the last is that the alliance will perform the initial review of the grant reporting and payment request to these grants. In the past the alliance does a fantastic job of reviewing educating on how you apply, reviewing and then making recommendations of those awards to you as a board. However, after that, they do go and attend the shows, but they really don't have any administrative requirements of the grants after that. We are changing that, and they were very happy to be part of this is that when the programs and the organizations report in and request their reimbursement, those will go to the Alliance first for review so that they have an ability to say, yep, they are doing what they said they would do in the application. And then finally, the fourth area of the change of scope of services before you is refining the marketing requirements and expense eligibility further in this next round of 2026. Those are things such as staff eligibility. So a marketing person or staff's role in marketing versus true hard costs of marketing like your website or advertising. So a little bit more definition on what that looks like and is eligible for the next round. So our staff recommendation is after working with the Alliance for the last couple of months. We do believe that these recommendations of the change of scope should move forward per your review of their scope of services and budget and ultimately recommending approval of their fiscal year 25 agreement of services. I will note that this is a one it will be a one year contract as visit Sarasota also is. If the Board considers and approves the scope of services and the agreement today, we as staff will work with them to implement and manage their agreement and really delivering that best in class grant program moving forward and really furthering our focus of promoting Florida's cultural coast. And then the alliance will provide written quarterly status reports that include both financials and the summary of what they're doing. And with that, these are the two motions before you. I'll take any questions. Thank you so much, Nicole. Questions, comments, discussions, motions, commissioner, Smith, and commissioner Rainford. Commissioner Rainford, are we on the board? Maybe for a motion or do you want to go with Commissioner Smith? All right, happy to move approval of item 2A and B. I motion my commissioner, Rainford, do I have a second? Seconded. I motion by Commissioner Rainford to have a second. Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Rainford would you care to speak to it? Yeah, I think it was thoughtful in terms of staff and arts alliance in terms of working through what we asked for. And really to put a pulse on where the taxpayer money is going and where it's most effective. And I think this does that. And I think this will help the program continue to grow and make us the cultural coast we want to be. Commissioner Smith. You know, we want to thank Nicole and her staff, wonderful presentation, and also the folks at the Arts and Cultural Alliance. Rita Raid with Commissioner Rainford said that I think you guys are doing a great job. We need to promote Sarasota as the center of the cultural coast and I believe we're doing that. I think the changes you've made are excellent as far as monitoring how we're doing and wherever the folks are coming from so I just want to commend you and I'm happy to second the motion. Commissioner Nunder. Yes. Yeah, thank you. Nicole, thank you and Brian. Thank you. Working in collaboration, I think is a wonderful thing to hear. I've had a really great time chairing that board meeting all the people and having all the presentations. It's been thoroughly interesting and very informative. And I really do think that these higher levels of quantifiable metrics that we can track in the game data helps everybody involved in the process including this board making financials decisions You know, we want a good return on our investment for our community We want to push our cultural cost narrative which we are So I'm very happy that everybody got together in collaboration to work in them. Thank you Thank you anything further from this board? If not, I'll call the question. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Rainford, seconded by Commissioner Smith. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Nicole. Moving on to agenda item number three, presentation and discussion of the commercial Water Base Charter Boat and Tour Operations Task Force Report. And Ms. Rissler, I think you're doing this one for us as well, right? I am, or I'm kicking it off. For the Record Nicole Rissler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. And I am joined here today by Mason to us who has served as our chair of the Commercial Water Base Charter Boat and Tour Operator Task Force. just a couple of housekeeping things before I turn it over to Mason. You do have a paper copy of the Task Force's full report. There was just one script nurse error that needed to be addressed. On page seven, it had originally read that Nora Patterson within the county, North County zone was located on city of Sarasota property that should have read and it is highlighted in your paper. It should have read is located within the city of Sarasota jurisdiction. It is owned and nor Patterson is owned and operated by Sarasota County. It's just within the city of Sarasota's boundaries. And with that I'll just give you a couple of background slides on the history of this item. In August of 2022, Parks staff completed the Board assignment 22-015, where county staff were asked to research the feasibility of developing a potential permit program for fishing charter and tour operators. And October of 24, October 24, 2023, the board did request staff that we bring back guidance associated with a potential task force to investigate unauthorized commercial activity and the delegation of authority for approval of penalties, fees, and unauthorized use. On February of this year, we brought that task force details back to you and you did a proof of resolution to create the task force. And since then, the task force has been initiated and Mason will give you an update all on that. It was established in response to the increased unauthorized commercial water craft and tour operator use of parks and amenities as pickup and drop off locations. I'll just last note before handing it over here to Mason is that this task force and their duties and responsibilities were associated with looking at motorized boat ramps that are managed and operated owned by Sarasota County. So there has been significant confusion in our task force meetings about 10th Street and Ken Thompson, both of those boat ramps are owned and operated by the city of Sarasota. So these recommendations were, that was not part of the recommendations. And it is now my pleasure to introduce Mason who was the chair of our task force to provide their report. As Mason comes up, I'll just say publicly a huge thank you to the five members of this task force as well as our staff liaison, Shela Roberson. They had a very short time period of 60 days, and they did really fantastic work of bringing this to you. Mason. Good morning, sir. Welcome. Good morning. Thank you Nicole. Good morning commissioners. I guess I do need to introduce myself. My name is Mason Tush, and I am chair of the commercial charter boat and tour operators task force. I would first like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to work on this project. I wanna thank the other task force members for their time. Along with the members of the community who attended our meetings and had the courage to voice their ideas and opinions. Like Nicole said, I want to thank Shela Roverson and the rest of the county staff who helped coordinate all the meetings. It would have been very difficult without you. So the purpose of our task for purpose of our group was to determine the mechanism for lawful and legal operation of charter boat and tour excursion operators to evaluate existing opportunities and requirements for these businesses and then ultimately to develop a final report which we are doing today and bring to you county commissioners. We were given a timeframe of approximately two months. Our task force included five members. Two of those were charter tour operators, and that was Jason Cobza and Brad Donahue. Two were water access property owners or charter tour operators with a lease to land a budding the Marine Park District. That was Sherman Baldwin and myself Mason Tush. One was a community member at large and unfortunately Tony resigned after the first meeting due to scheduling conflicts and his vacancy was not refilled for the resolution. So there were a total of seven meetings, beginning May 20th and ending August 7th. And ultimately, our task force recommendation to Sarasota County is to move forward with a permit program that will allow for the legal operation of OUPV six-pack fishing charter and tour excursions out of the park system. OUPV stands for operator of uninspected passenger vessels and those can carry a maximum of six passengers. Our belief was that by limiting the program to only the OUPV vessels, we would allow for the greatest amount of participation by our small business captains who operate these charters. Once the requirements are met, these permits will be sufficient for both the county, Marine Park District and Parks Recre recreation and natural resources. These requirements will set standards for professional and safe operation. We recommend that the county would issue these permits by zones including North County, Mid County and South County. Businesses would be able to apply for the zone or zones that best serve their customers. These permit holders would have their flexibility to pick up and drop off their customers at any of the locations within that specified zone. I do wanna make note as Nicole began to, that we do recommend the inclusion of Nora Patterson Bay Island Park, even though it is located within, or in the city of Sarasota, and is currently zoned for residential use. Issuing permits within this park may require the county to re-zone the property and obtain additional approvals from the city of Sarasota. So this kind of highlights this next slide highlights the different zones and the parks that are be associated with them. North Zone would be Turtle Beach Public Boat Ramp and Nora Patterson Bay Island Park, Mid County Zone, Nacomas Beach Public Boat ramp and Nacomas Beach Park, Loretta Court Bay Access and then the South County Zone is Snook Haven, Indian Mount Park and the Marina Park and Boat ramp in Venice. All right, number of permits as you heard before, the task force recommends that we base the number of permits on 50% of the available vehicle spaces within each park. So the total number of permits for Sarasota County is 124 and these would be broken down into 37 for North County, 48 for Mid County and 39 for South County. It would also be a recommendation that businesses should not be able to purchase more than four permits per zone. Each permit would represent the use of one vessel and must meet the program requirements. We did add that after one year of implementation we would ask the county conduct a review analyzing the impact that this program has had on the park system to determine if additional permits could be issued. And then this slide here kind of will speak to what I just said. You'll see the different county parks. The fifth column over is the number of vehicle spate parking spaces in each park. And then the next column after that or two columns that would be the number of permits per park. So Norapaderson Bay Island Park has 40 vehicle spaces so we would attribute 20 permits to that park. The task force recommends utilizing a bid process similar to what the county is already using for the commercial recreation and tour operator permit program, which you probably will know as the CRTO program for the Kayak and paddle board companies. Minimum bids for our program should start at 1200 per permit, per year, with a term of three years with two additional one year renewals, so 3-1-1. Enforcement is critical, and we do advise the county and new commissioners, please, to take any steps needed to ensure the integrity of this program. And finally, there was further discussion that the excess proceeds from this program after the management expenses be allocated for the acquisition of additional waterfront properties to support the growing need of water access in Sarasota County. So with that, does conclude my short presentation and I will certainly do my best to answer any questions you might have. Well, first off, Mason, I have to tell you, I think I'm probably speaking on behalf of the entire board. That was incredibly professional and thoughtful. We deal with a lot of advisory boards. This was a super tough one, especially coming from scratch. So you're dealing with a lot of passionate thought here and opposing opinions. The leadership on that is recognized by me. I really appreciate you. And yeah, it's welcome to the NFL. It's so with that. Mr. Smith, thank you, Commissioner Nunder. Thank you, Mason and staff for doing a great job. Very thoughtful, very tough for you all, but I think you did a great job. One of the comments that I have questions that I'd like to maybe get some board discussion on is the maximum permits per zone at four. That would essentially mean 31 businesses could actually have permits. I think I would like to see that to two. And one of the discussions, I, or part of the discussion I had with Nicole, was that how do you know if the boat coming up to the park has a permit or not? And I had suggested perhaps a flag. They could have permit documents on board, but so that eight county staff member can look out and see if the folks work in there, I've got a flag up. The flags could be transferred to different boats of a boat captain's boat is down that particular day. If he has another boat, he could transfer it to a different boat. As opposed to something, actually sticking out of the boat that maybe couldn't be transferable. But those are my comments. Congratulations. I know are my comments. Congratulations. I know this is tough. I think us as the board reviewing this in a year to see how it's going as far as parking and the number of permits per park, we may find that parking is as much an issue, perhaps in a particular location and that maybe more permits could be issued in that spot But this is a great first start and I congratulate you in your committee. Thank you Commission you're under the commissioner cut singer. Yes. Thank you Thank you Mason nice to see you very well thought out Process that you all went through and thanks to all the participants involved. I actually wrote the exact same thing as Commissioner Smith and I was curious about, you know, what was the iteration or the thought process between the four permits per zone and perhaps do you have any thoughts as to whether if we went down to two, you know, I know we've heard some testimony here today about the the amount of fishing captains and operators in our community that absolutely provide tremendous value and recreation and tourism. Do you have any thoughts on perhaps moving that down to two or was there any conversation? So yes, there was this discussion. Yes, we was discussion. Yes, we want to get as many of these permits in as many hands as possible. However, there was some discussion within the task force that what if companies wanted to grow their business or they wanted to become larger. So they shouldn't have the restrictions of just one boat. And so that's where that was the mentality behind that. Was to allow the companies to grow if they needed to within, you know, the county system. Okay, thank you. I have one other quick question. On the enforcement component, I think I've had my one on one with Nicole, I think there's going to be perhaps some challenges there in the beginning, and I think it's going to probably take some buy-in on our end, but in addition to the business and sector that you all are in. Kind of a self-regulating, self-policing type situation is what I'm thinking needs to happen. It's important that everybody plays by the rules in my opinion, and certainly we want to be cognizant and respectful for the people that are playing by the rules. So I'd be interested in getting a little more information about the enforcement component, either with staff or what you guys think is appropriate and prudent here, but that was the last thing I had on my notes. Thank you. Commissioner Cutsinger, then Commissioner Rainford. Yeah, I'll just add to my praise for the group. The work you did is very ask a lot of passion, a lot of thoughts, and you guys I think did a great job, so thank you for the work you put into it. I have the same issue. I think what we're doing here is something of an experiment, obviously. And I would rather start out a little bit smaller and see how things go and then be able to perhaps increase. I would be with the two permit per zone as well. You also, I'm a little concerned about the 50% of parking spaces. These two are a lot of them going to happen during times where there's a lot of folks here, you know, during holidays and other seasons where, you know, those parking spaces may be very valuable, you know, very necessary. I'd be at the 35% range of the parking spaces to start. And then, you know, you said, let's take a look in a year and see how it's going. So personally, again, great job, very supportive, but I'd like to start out a little smaller. So for me, it would be the two permits per zone and maybe a third of our parking spaces instead of half of them or being dedicated to it. Commissioner Rainford? Yeah, I just want to reiterate and I've certainly heard from staff at the manner in which the board went about this business and just want to commend everybody for taking their time and volunteering to do that. I think it's important we worked out a lot of issues that I think people see on the periphery that aren't necessarily issues prevalent to this discussion, whether that's 10th Street or Ken Thompson, like they talked about, which are, you know, you see a lot of the issues that I think that perception creates, but that are not under our jurisdiction. I did have a couple of things. The, on the nor Patterson, I'm a little bit concerned. This is under Nessir, your pervy, but Nicole touched on it. That right off the top 20 of these permits are essentially not doable because we have to go through that rezoning process. Is that accurate in Nicole? You might go speak to that. Yes, so the City of Sarasota did attend and was at most of our task force meetings. And before the task force even began, we really dug in and asked for some understanding of what would need to be done. We had to go through that a very similar process with South Lido. When we put the CRTO program there, we had to get a conditional use to allow that commercial activity. We envision that the same thing Nora Patterson is currently zoned within the city residential. It will have to be changed to government use and then we believe that a conditional use will also have to be done with the city. Do we have any type of time frame on that? I don't off the top of my head. We would have to talk to the city staff on that. If directed to begin looking at a program, we would obviously certainly initiate that as quickly as possible of given direction. And it just gives me a little pause, just going back to the beginning of this. Nor Patterson was probably correcting me from wrong, the most contentious spot out of all the different locations. I don't know if you heard that as well. Mason from your discussions. I did start to look into more of the locations. I took a day and I drove around to all the different locations. It's been to be honest, I didn't know all the parks. I do believe from what I've heard from some feedback, the Marina Park in Venice is also a tight space. But yes, nor Patterson is what most of the comments came from. And then into Commissioner Smith's point about a flag or some mechanism in terms of identifying the boat, I think that's great, whatever that becomes, but I also think that identifying the vehicle is we're talking about spaces in the parking lot and I think that's what drove a lot of the North Patterson concerns was parking. I don't know if there's been any discussion about what that might look like or I think it's something that the board should probably consider if we're thinking about it. So we just have a metric to see like, hey, our 50% of the spots actually be being taken up because I realize that not all the charter captains are going to be out every single day. Obviously, the holidays, this certainly might be more prevalent, but was there any discussion about the vehicle medallions or anything of that nature? So the permits were specific to the vessels. We did not dive into any permits or placard you put on the customer's car when they show up we didn't we didn't talk about that that would be a way that you could potentially monitor how many of the spots are being used so that might be a good idea in that review process but no we did not talk about something specific and then you wouldn't just have any industry information. I know there's testimony here earlier about potentially 200 charter captain vessels in the community. And I don't know if that's just county ramps. I'd have to ask that person that spoke. But do you have any idea of what the overall amount of vessels potentially are? I mean, we're talking about the two and the four. I have my own opinion on that. But Commissioner Rainford, I, in the beginning, I mean we're talking about the two and the four. I have my own opinion on that but. Commissioner Rainford, I in the beginning I would have to ask staff to get that to you but there is a number. What we reviewed was the number of OUPV captain's licenses in our area. Doesn't mean that they're all active. But that's just what we had. It was the number. How many was it? Approximately 800. 800. 800. Of those licenses. Okay. That doesn't mean they have a business. Understood. Yeah. And I mean, I would just be my point to the to the board in regards to any conversation that we have around the parking. Obviously the parking is part of the issue, but my concern from the GICO is regulating businesses out of business. If there's 800, maybe some of those aren't being used to your point, maybe. Just one of the notes, some of those 800 could also, that's this area so they might be using more of the city properties, not just. 100% would agree with you on that As a Sarasota County resident I use city boat ramps often So I guess my only thing I know that the rest of the commissioners have mentioned the two And I'm just and I'm all for if somebody wants to grow their business Sarasota should be the place where it grows If we're at 120 on the 100, 24 on the recommendation and 20 are coming off the board immediately because they can't be issued until that rezone goes through. I would lead more towards one until that discussion is had at a later date when, you know, by the time you get that rezone and you review it at the next year, I think that would be the appropriate time to win but those are just some initial thoughts. Thank you. So, Nicole, I have a question for you if you could and if the county attorney could listen close to this hopefully and chime in if there's a possibility here. I share the concerns, as a matter of fact, I'm Nicole and I and our one on one we're talking about the volume here and one of the things that we were chit chatting about was that is there a way for this board to either give a bigger number with the authorization for Nicole and or the County Administrator to reduce it without having to come back to this board or the opposite, do a lesser amount and give authorization and Nicole and the County Administrator to increase it as things adjust here because I think there's just great work done here. But the reality is probably going to make some adjustments over time to get this the exact way you want it and that'll be boards beyond I'm here. But county attorney, I got first off Nicole, is that something you think you could manage even if it was something we could legally draft? Yeah, I think it can be built in. I think it would be much easier from an operations and logistics perspective to start with a smaller number of bids being put out there. And then an evaluation of if we believe the capacity and the need is there to have the authority to then release another round of permits that could be bid on. It would be much harder to provide and put out there that you've won a bid for three years, but ultimately one year in we say oops we did too many. It's hard to take that back. It would be easier to go the other direction. No, I think that's very fair. Again, that was not an ask of the board. I was just in the interest of discussion that might be an answer again. So Nicole doesn't have to be coming back as she's trying to figure this out. Commissioner Smith, thank Commissioner Rainford. the number of permits that we're talking about. We're directly tied to the number of parking spaces. So for you reduce the number of parking spaces, we would be reducing the number of permits given. Is that correct? That's correct. I'm inclined to say, let's stay with the 50% and keep going. would be reducing the number of permits given. Is that correct? That's correct. I'm inclined to say let's stay with the 50% and keep the number where we have it and see how it works. And maybe the boat captains have a car to permit as the folks check in. Say put this on your dash and return it, obviously before you leave. Keep the driver's license or something so they know they don't leave without it or with it. But anyway, that's in the weeds there. But I just think that it would be a good idea to monitor as Mr. Rainford is talking about. It's just a winged an idea of who's there with the boat captains because there could be other folks that are just, you know, their buddies picking them up and they're taking off, you know. So I think it's, and we're talking about 20 that we may lose there or at least we put on Paws at Norapaderson. Yeah, I hate to see that. I guess we're just going to have to work with our friends in the city to try to get this thing through as soon as possible. Thanks. Commissioner Rainford, then Commissioner Nunder. Yeah, no, I think it's a good, continued discussion chair in regards to what staff's ability is to go back out with potential increases, decreases, and so forth. The Patterson thing certainly concerns me because that's up where I think most of the consternation was that brought this about. I don't know if it's worth the board discussion, but I would be more in favor, as I mentioned, for the first round doing the one, and then if the, with monitoring, the county staff thought that, hey, maybe the parking lots aren't full with the one, and maybe the number could go to 75. I guess you don't know until you try it, 75%, and they go back out for round two. But I think that it's important to kind of outline at that point what the maximum is, whether that's two, whether that's four, when it goes back out and people get a second bite of the apple, that we outline that now. So that one, because essentially this is going to be a bidding war if there's 800 potential people and you're looking at 120 I mean 100 in four slots that are that are open out of the gate I think we need to make sure that we're not impacting 700 businesses and put them out of business Commissioned under then commissioner cut singer. Yeah, thank you The the parking issue at at any time as I understood it from one on one, it's first come first serve, right? And so that, you know, if the community gets up and takes out all the parking spaces, it is what it is. Is that correct? Okay. You know, this is an opportunity at least for me to really dive deep into my district where I represent and live. South County, what we call it, Mid County now, the Nacomus Venice area. I might be the only person in my neighborhood that doesn't have a boat. COVID-COVID changed the dynamics for recreational boating immensely in my neighborhood and we are jam-packed. In fact, I've had neighbors take their boat, clean it up, get ready to go out there, there's no parking. So I can assure you that in my area, at least in that Nacomus area and South, we are rocking and rolling down there. People are utilizing the park system, the ramp system at a very high level to this day. And that just doesn't mean the weekends. It also means during the week as well. system, the ramp system, at a very high level to this day. And that this doesn't mean the weekends. It also means during the week as well. People are still using it. I'll go back to, you know, I'm certainly open to the discussion and listening on this for a further bait. I think this is a moving. We're going to have to adjust. The situation is fluid. I don't think we could come up with a concrete, definitive solution yet. I still think the two permits instead of the four is okay with me to start with the understanding that giving Nicole and Org-Johnathan the ability to interact and commingle with the community and with the captains and what's going on to be able to not come back to this board, I wholeheartedly support that. I think that timing would be of the essence. And so to be able to make those decisions on the fly is important. And then at the parking spaces, whether it's 35% or 50%, I'll still listen on that. I think if there's anybody in the public listening in my neck of the woods, you know, the general public might say 35% is a good place to start. And if down the road with Jonathan and Ornacole having the ability to pivot with a fluid situation and bring it up to a higher percentage, you know, I think that might be the right place to start on a conservative side, you know, with the 35 and then perhaps move it up. So I'm listening. I'm still listening. Commissioner Cuttsinger. Yeah. I agree. Wholeheartedly with Commissioner and Nunders comments on this because, you know, we're struggling with this because we don't have enough information to really make an informed decision because this is entirely new. We don't know how this is going to work out. These initial permits are going to be for three years. So it's a lot easier to start a little smaller and then see how it works and then we can come back in a year and review and say, you know what, let's open up some additional permits. This isn't creating issues. It's working well. And again, we're signing three additional permits. This isn't creating issues. It's working well. And again, we're signing three-year permits. We can't back that. We can't go back to somebody and say, oh, sorry, it's not working. We're going to take your permit away. That's not going to work that way. So I'm a third of our parks being dedicated to commercial activity out of that park. I can see the community saying, this is that these are parks, and I can see there being some conflicts there. I'd be much more in favor of starting with, somewhere in a third of the parking spaces, 35% or something being dedicated, and then see how that works for a year and come back and say, okay, well, this has not been as problematic or concerning or it's working okay, we can increase that to 50 percent and I definitely the two permits instead of four and we can increase that as well so I'm for I'm support this great work I think this is a really well thought out solution and appreciate you and the task members on this but I would certainly prefer to start a little bit smaller the other issue and this will be I think probably after we move forward, in some way, we've got to figure out enforcement because this really doesn't matter if we can't enforce it. So I think the chapter 90 revisions that we were talking about that's going to put some teeth into this, we definitely have to move forward on that as well. And I don't know if we do that, if we just ask for that to be brought back to us at this point or how that works, but we never did follow up on that, but we've got to bring that enforcement into play. I think we've got already for a motion, it could be a separate motion that just says, you know, asking, can I initiate our staff to bring back that ordinance? All right, well thank you for that. Anyway, those are my thoughts, but I'm listening again, great job. Commissioner Rainford? Yeah, just to add to that, I think enforcement's going to be the biggest challenge out of any of these programs, no matter how the board decides on it. It'll cost us more to enforce than we'll certainly raise in the permits, in my opinion. I'm not in support of what was just said. Just in context, if you go to the 35% mark, there's 88 permits with the ability for somebody to get to, that's 44 potential captains out of the 800 before you even take out nor Patterson Park. So to me, you're potentially putting over 700 businesses out of business. So I recognize that, so I will not be supporting that. Okay, no one else on the board. Does anyone want to, sorry Mason, were you done with your thoughts and the presentation? Yeah. Okay, great again, thank you. Commissioner Smith. Yeah, I'm okay with lowering the parking to 35% but keeping the same number of permits that are being proposed and seeing how that works out. Again, this is a suggestion from the committee that these number of permits are based on 50 parking spaces. So that's just my thought. I don't want to reduce the number of permits we're talking about. Commissioner Rainford? Yeah, I just want to clarify. And maybe Nicole can clarify on that. I think the number of permits is issued based on the number of parking spots. So if we go down to 35, it's taken it down to the 88 versus the 124. Yeah, but it's not a law. Oh, no, absolutely. Open for discussion. That would, to me, put it more up to, I mean, you're, it was up to us. I'm just saying. A different metric. Well, yeah. Okay. I, yeah. OK, I'll answer. Here we go. So can we read on with your thoughts, Commissioner Rainford? Then Commissioner Nunder, if you wouldn't mind pausing for a minute, maybe Nicole could bring some clarity to that. And then I'll go to you. Is that OK? Yeah, I think you could clarify it for yourselves. just the methodology, just to confirm a couple of things. The recommendation of the task force was, although each of these parks have a number assigned to them, it was really only to develop some kind of methodology of how they got to the number of permits for each zone. So currently, if they're recommending 37 permits within the north zone, it doesn't mean that there's 20 at Norropatterson and 17 permits that it means there's 37 permits and they can operate at any of those currently, there's two in the north zone. Their methodology was the 50% is how they got to the number of permits at each location. But again, this was just one, they're a method to get to a number. Let me ask a clarifying question. Is that, so a motion from this board just simply would direct you to how many permits? Is that helpful rather than doing the honors algebra related to the parking? Sure. Okay. All right, sorry, commissioner Nunder for the parking. Thank you chair. Nicole I just I just need some clarification here. We're going back on the four permits versus the two permits here And I guess help me understand this because I'm reading you know the report here It's limiting for because from four permits per zone per company issued so if you give each company to Are you not in fact? Increasing the opportunity for other companies to get permits? Correct. So it's not, in fact, actually diminishing or decreasing the amount of people that can get permits. I'm seeing it wrong and my math is very ancient. You're increasing the ability for people to get because you're limiting two per company. And then there's, instead of four, they're going to get two you're limiting to per company. And then there's instead of four, they're gonna get two, which allows more companies to go ahead and prosper. Yes, so the example that I've been using, if you just take Norr Patterson and 20, just say there's 20 permits. If the recommendation was to allow companies to bid on up to four, you could, they may not, I mean, somebody might only have one boat or only have two boats, but let's just say they did. You could ultimately have only five companies operating out of Nora Patterson for the 20 permits because five of them would all have four permits total. So if you reduced that maximum down to two or as a commission of Rainford said one, you would ultimately be increasing the number of Companies that could be utilizing those permits. Yeah, okay. My Pineview math is very ancient, so it's not very good anymore. But that's kind of how I saw it. And I think when you talk about trying to Protect the institution of our fishing and tourism here in Sarasota, I think it behooves us all to have more people having the ability to go out and earn a paycheck for their families and the living, et cetera. So I just wanted to make clear that that's how I read it and understood it. So thank you. Commissioner Rainford. Yeah, I was just pointing out the fact that when you mentioned the 35%, you were taking it down to a maximum of 44 if they all got two permits versus the 800. I think ultimately at the end of the day, this coincides with some of the board direction that we've given previously that we need more boat ramps and I just saw I think here recently Manatee County put a significant value on some land to acquire some additional land for boat ramps and we should be doing the same. You have a board policy item that will be to you here very shortly about that. How many how many potential permits on them? Okay no one else come here. How many how many potential permits on them? Okay, no one else then can we share a cutscene all right well, let me take a stab here so What if we were to I mean what about just limit just saying instead of going through all this we're gonna start with a hundred permits I mean is that something that that we could do or Give us that would essentially instead of doing the 35% parking spaces that essentially would take care of itself if we're doing 100 permits and we're doing two permits per zone per person per zone. You could we would just need some guidance on would you like those equally distributed between the three zones or would you like it in the same percentage that you're currently seeing? I don't want to get into those weeds. Again, I'm just, I'm concerned about dedicating half of our parking space in our parks. That's the thing I'm struggling with. I'm much more comfortable starting with a third or 35% of the parking spaces. Give it a year, see how that goes. And absolutely, one of our top priorities is, and we've made this very clear, about acquiring more opportunities for boat launches, and we're really working on that. So I think I'm ready to make it, try to make a motion on this, see if it gets a second. Commissioner Cutson here, if I could just one second on this, Nicole, again, the percentage in parking, sorry if I'm being slow in this, the percentage in parking was simply just an equation that was some type of rational thought of how you were coming up with the number of permits. The percentage of parking has absolutely nothing to do with this, ultimately the final motion. Correct. There's no dedicated spaces. It was just an ability to find something about capacity of how many permits. At any given day, you could say, Nekomis boat ramp, we can say there's 20 permits that we are attributing there, but if somebody came to get on a charter at one o'clock and that entire parking lot could be full with other people, there's no reservation of part, at least in what was proposed, there's no reservation of parking spaces. Got it. So number three, which is on our screen right now, the number three number of permits by zone, in theory, the direction you're looking for policy decision to staff, the only things that matter on that spreadsheet are the first column, which is the county park name, and the green column, which is how many permits do you want to have it? Is that fair? Or in the zone. The number of permits you want in the zone, that last column. Got it. It has nothing to do with the number at the top with the percentage of the parking. That's how they came up with the number but it has nothing to do with what ultimately the motion is going to shake out here again to that fair. That's fair. Okay. Sorry for the pauser commissioner cut singer. Commissioner Rainford, you were on the board. Did you're off now? Okay. Thoughts discussion, somebody want to try and take a stab at it. We can keep amending the motion if we have to. Commissioner cut singer, just my thought was on that, is that that green column is really what it comes down to on that, the second green column is really what it comes down to on that, to the second one to the right, is whether everybody agrees with that or not. Again, I want to oversimplify it too much. But Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Rainford. Yeah, I'm willing to make a motion on this little safe. We get a second and go from there. And that is to accept the task report as presented with the exception of going to two permits and allowed per company and keep the same number of permits as in the chart, but allowable parking being at 35%. And anyway, I didn't mean to talk about the discussion while I'm going there. Just clarification on that. Nicole, does the 35% parking throw you on that? I would say yes. I just need I just need to know how many to move forward So guidance to bring something back to you all for future consideration of a permit program I would just need to know how many permits you would be looking for in each zone and just to clarify the two permit max would be per zone or total. So commissioners Smith if I could maybe suggest a friendly amendment to it. Take off the parking discussion at the time. Yeah, that's fine. And then there's probably a little more thought on, or your thought on the two per company? Well, two per zone, I guess I, excuse me. Same number of permits. It's listed two per zone going forward. No, call, I'm gonna restate the motion and feel free. Please per zone going forward. No call. I'm going to restate the motion and feel free. Please I'm sure commissioners mind is moving through this is the motion is to accept the task force recommendations. It's going to be two per zone with the total permits of what's on the screen there 124. Yes. So all of the recommendations you'd be accepting. It's a commissioner Smith to that okay. Yes sir. That was okay. Um, do I have a second for that? Can I ask a court? Sure. Of course. So the, the permits would be per off the operator not per zone. Correct. Per operator per zone. So if operator per zone. Nicole's fishing charters wanted to bid on all three zones. I could bid on all three zones up to two permits in each zone. So ultimately if depending on the bids, you could win six permits total to an each zone. Okay. Been a good discussion. I'll second the motion. Commissioner Smith, was that the intent of your motion? Okay, hearing yes. And then a second by Commissioner Cuttsinger. Commissioner Smith, do you care to speak to it? Yeah, I, again, I believe this, I'd like this is a good starting point. I don't want to get into the weeds too much of this. If the ship captains, boat captains find that they can't, there's no parking. I'm sure they're going to tell their customers, make sure you carpool or take Uber or whatever. I mean, in order to get the people to the park, they'll do that. So we can talk about parking another day but right now I think this is a good starting point that and we could you know see how it goes after we start monitoring the situation. Commissioner Kutsinger. Yeah obviously this is a challenging issue because again we're gonna learn our way here and I am wholly supportive of our fishing industry. One of the reasons I moved to Florida is I love the water. I love getting out of the water. It's a great experience. It's one of the things that draws a lot of people here. So again, appreciate the work that you've done in a year. We're going to come back and take a look at this and see you know how you know how we deal with all whatever the issues that arise as a part of this and take another look at it It'll be an interesting experience. So let's see what happens commission of renford Yeah, I'm going to be opposing this as I stated previously into that explanation of the the two per zone the 20 most affluent charter captains could potentially have six of these each and put the other 780 people out of business so I will not be supporting this. I think it's short-sighted. I'll, I'll, I'll submit a commission. I'll go ahead, Chair. I'll do it. Yeah, I usually speak last, but I'm okay on this one. No, that's fine. It's just, there's, I don't think there's any way this is going to stay the way it is. There's going to be, have some adjustments. the board. I'm sure there will be reasonable discussion on the matter. And we'll figure it out. I think the intent of all of this was clear. And I think we're getting closer to the intent of fixing some of these behaviors. But again, I don't think there's going to be a 100% chance that there's going to be some changes to this. So at least we'll get it started here. So commission and under sorry I jumped ahead. It wasn't on this actually. After we vote I just kind of wanted to maybe have a discussion on that and on Nicole I don't know if you needed it or not but that chapter 90 action that Commissioner Cuttsinger alluded to so that was Mike that was Mike. That's great. Okay, so motion by commissioner Smith, seconded by commissioner Cutsinger, would anyone here to speak to it? Seeing none, then I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye passes four to one. Thank you, Nicole. Commissioner Nunder, did you want to jump into this second? Thank you chair. You're in a cool I Commissioner cut singer brought it up. I think we did touch on it briefly. Are you looking for direction from this board to bring that chapter 90 back? And is that something that you need consensus or motion on for Josh and county attorney perhaps you could weigh in? Just do a formal motion on it just to bring it back on staff's east foot. Okay. Sure I'll go ahead. Chair, I'd like to make the motion of directing staff and county attorney to bring back the new updated language on chapter 90 ordinance. Please. I motion my commission under second and by commissioner cut singer. Would either want to be a care to speak to it? Nope. Commissioner Cuttsinger? I just need to, we need to be able to enforce it. So I think that's really important. So. Great. Anything further from this board? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any pose? Chair votes, aye. Passes, was that unanimous? Yes. Okay. And passes unanimously for the clerk. Thank you so much Nicole, were you done with anything you needed? You wanted to? Okay great, let's do this real quick. Let's try and get just a couple of these upon requests and then we'll take a quick break here. We're gonna move into agenda item number four, which is a public hearing. The Sarasota County Charter requires the evidence and testimony presented during public hearings. She'll be under oath. persons presenting evidence and retestimony are required to complete and sign the request to speak card. Time limits are the practitioner presentation, 20 minutes, citizens comments, five minutes per speaker, unless otherwise determined by the chair and the practitioner rebuttal of five minutes. Agenda item number four is in four and five or upon request. It's my understanding from staff that four is being completely, oh there you are, Matt. Four is, would you like to take a minute for the record on four? Yeah, for the record chair. My name's Matt Oster, how Director of Plan Development Services Department, there was an advertising issue with this particular public hearing, and so we are rescheduling it to October date. Okay, great, thank you, Matt. Thank you. No action on four, then for A and B moving on to five is public hearing to adopt a resolution Redifying the water waste water reclaim water and other utility rates fees and charges for the service of the county utility system Super seating replacing resolution number two zero two three dash one four eight again. This is an upon request I don't have any request to speak cards from the public. No rebuttal necessary. I guess with any commissioner like full presentation on five. Seeing none again, I have no public comment cards for the record. Then with that, I will close the public hearing and a motion on five please. Motion by Commissioner Cuttsinger, seconded by Commissioner Nunder. Either one of you care to speak to it. Seeing none, anything further from the board? Seeing none, I'll call the question all of them favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Passes unanimously. All right with that, why don't we take a 10-50 minute break and we'll come back to agenda item number six. . . you . . . you I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit of the work. I'm going to do a little bit of the work. I'm going to do a little bit of the work. I'm going to do a little bit of the work. I'm going to do a little bit of the work. I'm going to do a little bit of the work. I'm going to do a little bit of the work. I'm going to do a little bit of the work. I'm I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. you . you I'm going to do a on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a on the top right corner of the head. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. We are back. I believe in live. Okay. Thank you. We are back to address agenda item number six. And this is a presentation that is scheduled for us today. Public hearing to adopt ordinance number 2024-050 approving a reason on petition number 24-07 for property located north of Proctor Road and east of discounted drive Sarasota from OUE1 to RSF3 and I believe Brookflemme is going to get us started here. Good morning commissioners for the record Brook Fleming planner with planning development services and I have signed a speakers card. This petition is being requested by contract purchaser Mr. Mayo who is being represented by the medrids of Genesis planning and development. Mr. Mejrid will provide a presentation on behalf of the applicant and I will return after for staff's presentation and any questions that you may have. With that, I would like to introduce Mr. Mejard. Great, thank you, Brooke. Good afternoon. You are recognized for 20 minutes. Great, thank you for the record bow matter with Genesis planning. I have turned out a speaker's card. Joe's handing out just a letter of support from the Jitskana HOA as well. So we're here to speak about Reson Petition 2407, which is a reason of 4.5 acres located on La Calina Street. It's adjacent to the Tuscana subdivision off of Proctor Road east of the interstate. And we're rezoning from OUV-1 to RSF-3 for eight single-family lots. The owner of the property is Edward O'Neill and the Edward O'Neill Trust. The contract purchaser is Adam Mayo, who's with us in the front row. And Joe and I are on here on behalf of Genesis Planning and Development and Process the Application before you. We're requesting the Reson to RSF-3 to permit the construction of eight single-family lots, and I would suggest to you, this is a classic case of infill development within the urban service area. This is Proctor Road to the South. This is the entrance to Tuscana. I actually worked on this Reson for Tuscana 20 years ago for the applicant at that time. So I'm familiar with it as well. There's a street that's stubbed right here to this property and that's what we're going to be gaining access. It's currently designated moderate density on the future land use plan map, which allows between two up to 4.99 units per acre. The existing zoning you can see around us is the RSF-1. We're proposing RSF-3, which is an implementing zoning district within the moderate density and consistent with policy 1.3.9 of your comprehensive plan. This is the development concept plan, just to help get you oriented again proctor road The end to scona drive comes in it's a gated access and then La Calina Street is stubbed to the property right here And so this point as you see it here is this point on the concept plan as well And so we're proposing eight lots there is an existing wetland the kind of drifts over to the property to the east and proposing that eight lots with access from La Calina Street from Tuscana, which is stubbed out. There's an access agreement in place with Tuscana subdivision. We are preserving the wetland, which is shown in that eastern portion which I mentioned which provides set back in buffering from the single family to the east We'll be providing landscape buffers consistent with the UDC St. John's United Methodist is to the south of the property And there is a sewer lift station here that we'll be tying into as well as there's water stubbed out on La Calina Street So it's very much set up for development. So we did do a neighborhood outreach because in 2022, there was a settlement agreement between this property, Mr. O'Neill and the Tuscana HOA as a result of, I'll talk about it in a second. But in anticipation of the application, we met with the Tuscana HOA board as a result of, I'll talk about it in a second, but in anticipation of the application, we met with the Tuscana HOA board and prior to the formal workshop back in October, we stayed in constant contact with the HOA representatives and then as Joseph just handed out, we have a letter of support submitted by the Tuscana HOA with two stipulations which we'll talk about. So the purpose of the agreement, there was a dispute between Mr. O'Neill and the Tuscana folks. Don't know really how it all started but that road was stubbed to them but they didn't want him to access. And so they got into a legal dispute and finally after I think a year or two they said,, look, let's just settle this thing. And so they settled it and came up with a settlement agreement. And it's a private agreement between the parties. And the parties in that settlement agreement agreed to no more than eight lots on the O'Neill property, which you see here. And that access would be allowed through La Calina Street. They would O'Neill would have to redevelop the La Calina Street in order to connect. And then if this came up during the planning commission, there was some concern by a couple of residents about what happens maintenance and things, but the settlement agreement, the agreement between the parties requires O'Neill to restore any easement areas as a result of construction. Interesting. Each lot owner, the eight lot owners would have to pay $75 per month to the Tuscana HOA to maintain that easement area. And O'Neill and the HOA agree that they should not become members of the master associations. They don't have to gel them together unless both parties really agree to it. So there's no requirement for that. And then the access easement is limited to only the O'Neill piece, this 4.55 acre parcel, and the agreement is binding on any the respective assigns or successors like Adam Mayer, who's with us today. So this was the letter that Joseph just handed out to you and the Tuscona requested two stipulations and that's the limit to eight single-fim of the lots and not require a second access or emergency access further to the east to hack more. And so we made that request at the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended two stipulations that the maximum number of units be limited to eight. So that's a proper stipulation on our behalf as well. We did that at the very beginning of the process, but they reiterated that in their letter. And then they also requested that a second fully functional access or emergency access to HACMOR not be required at the sign of construction plants in the middle. So with that, we respectfully request approval with two stipulations, proper by the applicant and the HOA and as recommended by the Planning Commission. I'd answer any questions that you might have. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, sir. Thank you. Again for the record broke Fleming planner with planning development services. This is reason petition 24 07 O Neil reason development services. This is Reson Petition 2407 O'Neill Reson. Again, as Mr. Mejrid mentioned, the request is from OUE1 to RSF3 for 8 units on the subject parcel. Mr. Mejrid did a good job at explaining the land use to requested zoning and the entitlements. However, I do want to address two issues that staff has with this petition, both being the requested stipulations. First, the private agreement with Tuscana HOA limits density beyond what our regulations require and justify today. And second, they're asking to limit their access to one fully functional access when the UDC requires that to be requested in a process to be followed during site development. For some context, approximately 50% of the site is within the I-75 corridor plan and designated low density residential, which permits two dwelling units per acre, and this reduces the permitted density on the subject parcel. Through the proposed rezone to RSF-3, the remaining 50% of the parcel would be permitted 4.5 dwelling units per acre, therefore permitting approximately 14 dwelling units on the subject parcel. However, as indicated, the applicant is only proposing 8 units as written in the private settlement agreement. Here's the applicant-proferred stipulation limiting the site to 8 lots. Staff does not agree with this stipulation as it originates from a private settlement agreement between the property owner and Tuscanna HOA. By limiting the number from 14 to 8 does not mitigate any significant factors such as compatibility. The site is already reduced through the cap and this stipulation is an additional governmental regulation that must meet the nexus and rough proportionality of the development's impact. Between site constraints and the critical area plan staff believes that a less intense zone district more comparable to the surrounding districts could have been used to achieve the same density requested by the applicant. Here's the non-binding DCP and again the applicant is proposing a cluster subdivision which trades smaller lot sizes for additional common space. I do want to reiterate that due to the non-binding nature the configuration and lot sizes can change at the time of site development. We can see on the non-binding plan that the applicant is showing two access points one through Tuscana and their other main as their main access and the other main access, and the secondary emergency access through private easement to Haccomor Road. This is another aerial showing the addition of the subject parcel to the 99 unit subdivision outlined in green on your side. However, at Planning Commission, a second stipulation was offered by the applicant removing the secondary access originally shown on their DCP. The stipulation is displayed on the side, and the development is proposing to add eight lots to an existing 99 single-family home subdivision, bringing the total to 107. The UDC requires a secondary access at 100 100 units and relief from this access can be made by the county engineer and fire marshal at the time of site and development. That is if it's determined that one access point can provide safe and reliable ingress and egress, which can be done through an administrative adjustment. The non-binding plan does not permit this level of review at this stage and the plan can change between now and site and development. the process is outlined in the UDC. It should be followed. With that, if you so choose to approve this petition, the motion is displayed on the slide. Staff is not available for any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Smith? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. for any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Smith. Yes, thank you. The additional easement for Egress, is that, maybe this is for the applicant, is that easement already secured? I'm not saying yes, but I'll defer to the applicant. So Mr. Mayo owns that property to the east. Okay, and so there's not an easement that exists today, but if required to, then he would's not an easement that exists today, but if required to Then he would provide that an access easement emergency access easement. We're just trying to address the the concerns of the association and That's why we've profit that one or on their behalf. Well, I appreciate that But you know, it's the fire marshal that we need to satisfy. And so my understanding is that if we weren't, if we let you off the hook, you might say on that second easement or second access, the fire marshal during site development review could put it back in, is that true? If we let you off the hook that they- Well, that you don't need the easement. And that what you're asking for is- Right. That you don't need the easement. But during the- You mean emergency access. Emergency access, right. Emergency access, right. So that would, in my, if it was a stipulation, that would rule over top of the LDR. I would make just a suggestion that maybe the stipulation would be modified to say that we apply for a variance, where the stipulation says you shall apply for a variance to eliminate the need for a second fully functional or emergency access. So that it's memorialized that way. All right, thank you. Sure. Okay, nothing. Commissioner Cuttsinger. Just out of curiosity. And you obviously dealt with the community there. Why are they opposed to an access there? An emergency. The concern for security and that over time that it wouldn't expand beyond that and that was their concern that was expressed. Okay and I don't know if you are staff for the one on this but normally I mean I'm somewhat surprised that staff is saying you know don't stipulate to only eight. I mean it seems to me and I'm a little confused on this and legally but if you're profaring that we're not it's I don't see that as an exaction but maybe it is if you're profaring well you know we're going to limit this to eight. That's the way I saw it as well. Yeah I'm a little bit confused as to why we wouldn't agree with that. So, yeah, just go ahead. So I would just say generally stipulations are additional government regulations that are on the property. Usually, even if the government starts to own it. And so that's just where in order to be, you know, with, with stand to legal challenge, there needs to be a nexus and it's got to be roughly proportional to the, the impacts of that development. So maybe the applicant can kind of go through of how it kind of meets those standards of limiting it to the eight. So I think it can't be done. It's just there's got to be, you stuff to meet the same requirements of any other regulation. And what do you mean, how could the applicant address that? Well, he's offering the eight. Yeah. And so I just don't know what the, what the, I think for the legal reasons would be for the government saying, hey, you're limited to eight. When I think it's 14 or 15 by right. 14, I believe. 14. I would just say for compatibility purposes and that it is a profit stipulation. And I don't, and I, I've profit stipulations in the past, and I don't think this has come up, but we're trying to honor memorialize what was in a private agreement so that it's memorialized in our zoning ordinance. So, as the applicant, you see this as compatible to the existing neighborhood. And also, of course, this is, from one understand, this is memorialized in a document of some sort that between the parties. Between the parties. OK. And one more time on the second stipulation that we would simply, stipulation would be that you request a variance. We would be required to apply for a variance. OK. All right. Thank you. OK. No one else on a variance. Okay. Thank you. Okay, no one else on the board. Okay, with that, I do have one request to speak card here. Miss Betty Butler. Good morning, ma'am. You're gonna be recognized for five minutes, and there's gonna be a clock over there to judge your time, and the microphone is very flexible. If you need to pull it closer to you, if you're doing something on the screen, for example. Can you hear me? Yeah, you're recognized, ma'am. OK, thank you. I'm Betty Butler, and I have signed a card to speak. I just want my opinion to be heard, even though there's a settlement agreement between the Tuscanna HOA and the developer, I'm still opposed to having our gated and secured community breached by this addition. Having another blade of grass or grain of sand covered by concrete is not about progress. It's about profit. Tuscana is not in a flood zone, but neither was Laurel Meadows and we saw all that happened there. I have concerns about all the overbuilding we have in our community. Tuscana has its own retention ponds and we were still flooded our gate. I do have. You can just lay it, ma'am, right, just lay it right down on that right there. Yeah, there you are. That's a picture of towards the south. That's our front gate there. I find it hard to believe that building these additional houses going to benefit our current neighborhood. The developer told us that the June 20 meeting that this edition will not be adhering to the Tuscana aesthetics and architecture. Nora will they be part of our HOA or bylaws. It was also mentioned that they will only contribute $75 a month to our maintenance fund, whereas we all pay $168 a month. This new development will be using our secure gate and beautiful entrance and having all the benefits of being part of Tuscana at half the fee. And meanwhile, I may have to purchase flood insurance and also worry about sandbagging my driveway due to this addition causing an increase in the impervious areas of our neighborhood. I've only lived in Tuscana for five years and was once an easy entrance and exit into our neighborhood has now become a game of frogger. For those of you who are familiar with that game, it's not even season, and with the ever growing housing construction, our traffic and congestion has gone up exponentially. This development will only, this congestion will only increase by this development of additional homes. It's a shame that once a quiet or a quaint quiet community is now turning into a big city with a bigger city traffic and a big city problems. Living in Sarasota is about quality not quantity. Ultimately if you want to build and the county wants their stipulations or the no stipulations I'm not really up on all that legal jargon I Feel that you can make your own entrance from the public County road of hack-a-moor. I had suggested this at the last meeting and it was stated that the developer Would then have to restart permitting or some something like to that effect you would have to start everything all over But I think it's never too late to do the right thing. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is we have, but I know there are requests to speak cards Matt reminded me, I shouldn't use the word variance. If you're going to modify stipulation number two, but we should request for an administrative adjustment. It's called an administrative adjustment with respect to the emergency or fully functional access. And then just to, I saw the picture that was just put on the screen. I know the engineer that was just put on the screen. I know the engineer that designed that development and I know some of the projects he's done for me in the past, the county allows you to store six to 12 inches of water in the streets at your low points during a storm event and then it's got to bleed down within 24 hours. So that may have been what that picture was, was that storage is allowed to store in that street and then it drops over time. So, but this will be designed to meet the criteria of Sarasota County storm water and also Swift mud as well. Don't have anything else to add to the rebuttal just that we respectfully request these approval with two stipulations and the modifications as stated today on administrative adjustment for stipulation number two. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I have no one on the board. Any questions for staff? Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, then with that, going once, going twice, I'm going to close the public hearing. I will close the public hearing, the will of the board. Commissioner Rainford. Yes, I would move approval of item number six with the applicant's Profford stipulations one and two with an adjustment to stipulation number two to include the language of administrative adjustment within that stipulation. Do you have a second? A motion by Commissioner Rainford, seconded by Commissioner Cutsinger, Commissioner Rainford, do you care to speak to it? I just want to clarify that that was what the Profford second stipulation talking about that they will apply for the administrative adjustment. Yes, perfect. Thank you. Commissioner Cutsinger, was that your intent of your second hearing? Yes. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Rainford, seconded by Commissioner Cutsner, Commissioner Rainford, did you want to speak further to it? No, I think it's great that the communities that already had the construct in place where they were in agreement on the number of units and the access. Commissioner Cutsinger. Yeah, I agree, I appreciate the stipulating to eight and with the applicants testimony that they feel that is compatible and fits in the neighborhood. This is an infill development. The other thing that I always appreciate, getting a letter of support from an HOA. I know that's not very usual. So thank you for the work you did with the neighborhood to do the right thing on that. So appreciate it. So happy to second it. Commissioner Smith, then Commissioner Nunder. Yeah I mean my concern after talking to the county attorney was the the whole eight lot limit and could have been forced but looking at the the site plan in the amount of wetlands, water retention, existing ponds. There's no more room. I mean, at this bottom line here, so it would take a major reworking of the earth in order to make that happen. And so I'm confident that with all the lepons and the wetlands and such that the drainage isn't going to be a problem and we'll see about that second exit later. Commission under. Yeah, thank you chair. Commissioner Smith, I think we're all very cognizant of stormwater and flooding. If the recent events here were hypersensitive and very focused on doing the right thing for our community. And I'm gonna assume this because I think and I believe it's true, you're designing 200 year flood events here in Sarasota County. And as I understand, as it exists within Sarasota County including municipal governments, we have the highest stormwater standards currently throughout the 550 square miles of Sarasota County. And so I think that's to the benefit of this project. In conjunction with, you know, working with an HOA and getting a letter from the HOA, my letters from the HOA are not this. There's usually something much different, but I think it bodes well that this infill project fits. I know our standards are high. And that's all I have to say. Okay, I have no one on the board any one need or want further comment. Seeing none then I'll call the question. All is a favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair Boots, I pass unanimously. thanks to all. Okay, we're going to move on to agenda item number seven here, which there's a bit of a change. We are not going to be addressing seven B. There's a clerical error with staff simply because this is going to be the first public hearing. They will convene at the second meeting as the Land Development Regulation Commission. just to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to just be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. So we're going to be able to do that. into the record here. 7a is a public hearing to adopt a resolution transmitting comprehensive plan amendment number 2022-D adding new policy 1.3.3E, allowing for voluntary demolition and rebuilding of multifamily structures, comprising of nonconforming density within the CSD key overlay district to the Florida Department of Commerce for Review and Comment. 7c is the first public hearing to adopt ordinance number 2022-053, approving Unified Development Code Amendment number 55, relating to voluntary demolition and rebuilding of multi-family structures, consisting of non-conforming density within the CS to keep overlay district. And it looks like ever it's's gonna get us started here this morning Good morning chair a good morning commission For the record my name is Everett Farrell a plan with Sarasota County planning and development services and I have signed a speakers card As you mentioned today, I'll be presenting comprehensive plan amendment number 2022 D and its companion UDC Text Amendment number 55 for potential transmittal to the State Department of Commerce. Collectively, this project is known as the voluntary demolition project, and these amendments are publicly initiated through board assignment number 2020-01. And before I begin, I would just like to draw attention to the fact that we did have several pieces of correspondence that have come in since publishing. Those have both been provided in your packet and provided to the record to the clerk. As stated, this project consists of two amendments, one being a comprehensive plan amendment, adding new future land use policy 1.3.3E, and UDC tax amendment number 55, which is modifying a portion of the caestaki overlay district language. The proposed amendments would allow for the voluntary demolition and rebuilding of multifamily structures of non-conforming density within the CSTK overlay district. This would allow the rebuilding of structures that generally predate current code requirements as well as consisting of possibly too many units on site or too tall for what would be allowed under today's UDC. This is what it's being described when I mentioned nonconforming structures in this presentation. Currently future land use policy 2.9.1 limits the density and intensity of barrier islands to what would have been allowed in 1989. There is an exception to this that nonconforming duplexes may be rebuilt within the original footprint. This project, as you may have noticed by its title, there's a bit of history here since it is a 2022 amendment to provide a little bit of history on this project. This was first discussed as an open to the public in relation to the C club 5 building on CSC key. C club 5 residents wish to demolish their existing building and rebuild a similar structure. The existing density onsite is nonconforming to the current zone district standards. Per UDC regulations found in section 124282, this reconstruction would be allowed if resulting from a storm, but not if the owners of the building wanted to demolish and rebuild in a blue sky situation. The board then requested staff to draft language for both a comprehensive plan amendment and a UDC text amendment. This would allow for the voluntary demolishing and rebuilding that limited the language to maintain the existing density, allow construction outside of the original building footprint, and to only apply that language to RMF properties within the CSTK overlay district, not solely on the C-Club 5 property. This is the draft of the Comprehensive Plan Language for new policy 1.3 E. To qualify for this policy, a building must be within the RMF Scott and consists of pre-January 2000 construction. As was stated previously, no increase in density would be allowed from what is currently identified. Housing type would remain the same with no additional use as being included in the project and no variances or special exceptions would be allowed but for the application of a golf beach setback line variance. The associated UDC text amendment goes into a bit more detail but covers similar elements. The process requires the zoning administrator to verify the unit count of the building to be rebuilt. Height of the original buildings would be able to be maintained, but would be measured by our current standards that are found in the UDC. This would allow any building currently over the maximum of the 45 feet allow in the RMF district to reconstruct their existing height plus an allowable two levels of parking as described in the UDC. All other reconstructed buildings would need to follow the maximum heights allowed in the zone district. And this chart kind of shows that here as you can see there's two levels of parking that would be allowed from the pre-development grade. If you were in RMF 1 or 2, the maximum height would be 35 feet, but it's measured at 35 feet above that two levels of parking, same with RMF 3 at 45 feet. Currently if you have a building that is non-conforming as to height at 65 feet, a reconstructed building under these regulations would be allowed to have two levels of 12 foot parking underneath that 65 foot tall building. As was mentioned in the board packet, staff was actively monitoring a proposed Senate bill 1526, which stood pass. This blocks a local government from preventing demolition and requires a municipality to allow for reconstruction at the zoning district maximums for allowances for height and setbacks, etc. What this bill did not cover and did not cover underneath our board assignment was the recognition of the nonconforming density or height of the potential original structure. Lastly, should you choose to support this project? The slide contains the suggested motions and I'm here for any questions. Any questions of the staff? Commissioner Smith? Yeah, well, first off, I need to make an announcement that I have filled out form a AP memorandum of voting conflict as I was hired by C-Club 5 when the original petition came before the board. And so for those out there, it means I can discuss the issue, but I can't vote on the issue. And the first issue that I have that is different than from what I originally brought forward. And again, for the folks out there, I was involved while working with C Club 5, and I went to the initial meetings, and then I was fortunate enough to become your county commissioner and couldn't go to any more meetings. So somewhere along the line, the height is not what I intended or initially to be part of this. And that is that the existing building heights, especially of the towers being allowed to be put on two stories of parking was not part of that. And I would suggest to the board that on Item C height is defined by the UDC that any of the new Construction would be in accordance with the underlining zoning district. So I don't know if you want to go back to that That once there you go. Well Well, there's the verbiage, but And it would be C, basically height as defined by the UDC section 124-72AC. The max, and I may not be saying this all in order to hear because I want to get rid of any reference to the existing nonconforming structures height and just say the maximum permitted height of the zoning district shall apply. So if you go one more page, I'm sorry, one more page there. What you see on the left hand side for ARMMF1 and RMF3, that would be the maximum height allowed by the Zoni district. And you could not go any higher than that. And the goal of this, of this, what I was trying to do is the architect and now what I'm trying to do is the commissioner is that properties on CSDK, condominium properties on CSDK could be non-conforming in several areas. They could be over the setbacks, they could be higher than what's in the code. They could be non-conforming as far as the flood elevation, both in the state building code, Florida building code. And the goal was to have the voluntary demolition, which would be allowed if a storm event were to happen. They would be allowed to be rebuilt. So this is a proactive move, but the new construction was going to be code conforming in every way, setbacks, daylight plane, flood elevation, building height. The only non-conformity would be that they would maintain the existing density and intensity and the intensity being the number of bedrooms that are in the current existing buildings. So there would not be any increase in density and intensity. And I could see with this height thing would definitely, it could be perceived as intensity and increase there. So I would just like, I'm not sure how we modify it at this table, but I definitely want to, for considerations, since I can't vote on it, say that we change the the verbiage to make sure that the new development is compliant with all current zoning codes and building codes, again, with the exception of being the number of units. So that would be, if that, I'll entertain any questions from the board. I'm not the applicant, the county is, but I'm a participant, I guess you'd say. Understood. Commissioner Cuttsinger. Well, again, you know, this, I've got Harper and with the whole thing. Frankly, there's a lot of uncertainties unknown here and unintended consequences, but on that issue, in a nonconforming zone, when they come back to build under the current code, isn't FEMA going to say you've got to be at 12 feet and you're at eight feet or whatever. I mean, so I'm confused on that issue. Can you clarify that for me because you're in this game? And of course, the FEMA 50% rule, I guess, is not going to go away. Well, since we've be building new the FEMA 50% rule would come into it because they would they would they would be required to build to FEMA. Oh, yeah, absolutely so how would that how would that work if you got a building that's Currently in the flood zone sure and you're tearing it down to rebuild it. Don't you have to be rebuild? Absolutely. We're talking about total demolition and rebuild on the property. Will that change the height of the building? It would change the height of the building, but no more than what our current zoning has right now. We have some buildings that are lower. And again, it has to do with the number of units that you have that you're going to be replacing. But you can't go higher than the underlining zoning requirement. So you would be code conforming based on the heights that we currently have and what you see on the screen right there are the heights that are allowed in our zoning code right now for RMF12 and also RF-3. So there wouldn't be any more. Now you also have, there may be dime-conforming in the percentage of life coverage. On CST key, you can only have 50% impervious, or pervious, excuse me, on the site. So which includes your parking and your parking garage as well as your buildings. So that will limit the amount of development that you can put on the site. Again, everything will be code conforming. 100% to our codes. Except the number of units which would be able to be replaced. And again, I want to keep in mind this is proactive. If the buildings are destroyed in a hurricane, they are allowed currently to be rebuilt to the existing density that they have now. So this is proactive. If a county or if a condominium wishes to take the enormous financial investment to tear down their buildings and rebuild, they could keep their density. Right now, in the case of C-Club 5, because of their acreage, it would only be allowed to have 18 units. They have 41 units. Again, trying to be proactive. As you may recall, when some of us met with the Florida Emergency Management head Down in Lee County. They had 3,200 permits per month after the hurricane they had 35,000 This is just to be proactive voluntary and active voluntary and again there wouldn't be any increase in density or intensity. Commissioner cut, Senator Redone, through thoughts. Commissioner Nunder. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Smith, just a quick question here. I want to make sure that I'm hearing and understanding this. This, the iteration of this comes from one C club five, one property owner on a Chiasdakee. Is that correct? Is there any other affected parties here? I know that you were hired to do this one, are there any other? Well, yeah, this, I was hired to pursue this for them. Correct. There's, I believe, 130 condominiums on CS to key that have been built, that were built before 2000, the year 2000. And the reason 2000 is the key year is that's when the Florida Building Code went into which means none of these condominiums, the 130 will withstand a hurricane disaster. And that's, as an architect, I can guarantee it. And you just can go down to Fort Myers. You can remember that image on Mexico Beach where that one building that was built to code was standing. If you go down to Fort Myers Beach in Sanabelle, the only buildings that were left are the ones that were built to code. So again, this is proactive. That's where, as we are. Thank you commission rainford. Yeah, so obviously I'm looking forward to hearing the testimony that we'll have here in just a minute but You know Just from from my my perspective initially is that you know we saw the surfside collapse. And after that, there's been a lot of legislation and different things with the funding on condos where they have to upgrade a lot of the different parts of the condos and the assessments have gotten significant to the point where you can't make a non-conforming structure many times able to withstand a hurricane or bring it up to today's standard So I certainly understand the concern but looking forward to hearing public testimony If I could just to respond the the milestone inspections that are now being mandated by the state They don't, whatever repairs or whatever their valuation is, they're not bringing them up to the Florida building code. They are evaluating where their buildings are in time. They may need to bring up their plumbing and so on and so forth. They may need a new roof. They may need things like that. And Matt Osterhauts here, he can also address that. So that's the milestone inspections, don't rectify the problem that you're not conforming when it comes to the Florida building code when it comes to surviving a storm. Obviously it doesn't do anything for your flat elevation. But I know that I've had some discussions where kind of many homeowners thought, well, we have the mouse on inspection, so we're OK. And I wish it was that simple but the building structure was not designed to withstand the wind and certainly not the water. Okay I mean no one else on the board and so with that let's move into some public comment. We have a reserve row up here. I'll name off a few names and feel free to come up here and stage if you'd like to save a few minutes here. I have a few cards. Let's start with four of them. Lordes Ramirez, followed by Dr. I think it's SCHLEEIFER. Followed by Tony RAT and I I think, and James Darling. Good morning. You're recognized for five minutes. I think and James Darling. Good morning, you're recognized for five minutes. Good morning, my name is Lorde Srameras and I have signed a speaker card. I am president of Protect Ciesta Key and Ciesta Key Community. The Protect Ciesta Key border directors urge you to either deny this petition or continue this until we have all the stakeholders together with our lawyers to go and discuss the concern of some of the legality of what's being proposed today. We have submitted to you a multi-page opposition paper regarding the proposed redevelopment of condos and multi-family structures on CSTK. There's so many concerns. There's so many legal concerns. We're also concerned about loophole since being created when you exempt something from 2.9.1. It just opens up a door. You know, Sarasota 2050, they had a concession and we had exemptions and look what it is today. And that's what we're concerned is happening here. There's a loophole and it's going to be exploited and it's going to be detrimental for CESDA key into the future. It comes down to this. It's been known for decades that CESDA key has the most intensive residential development all of the Sarasota County. No where else in the unincorporated county are there so many tall buildings like we have on CESDA key. We also have the highest number of buildings that has more density that's allowed in the zoning code. So that makes the 130 plus buildings on CSTK non-conforming. As my attorney, Richard Grasso wrote, no one who has a non-conforming use is entitled to make it more non-conforming, to do so would violate the intent and policies of our comprehensive plan. Another issue is of course concerns about when a building gets hit by a hurricane or another natural disaster, they can be built to the current height. But in this case, the non-conforming density who's voluntarily destroyed will have more rights. And that's something Commissioner Mark Smith has talked about. They could be taller. And that would be wrong compared to those destroyed in a natural disaster. And that would violate the 14th Amendment of our Constitution Equal Protection of the Law. I had the pleasure of meeting the representative C. Club 5 just now. And we talked about the fact that they're looking way into the future. And they want to be proactive, just like Commissioner Smith does. But I think we need to do is continue this. Have the lawyers talk, have us talk to them. Make sure all of these little loopholes are cleared up and just kind of clean it up. So that way we don't have unintended consequences into the future. I mean, the building itself is not unsafe because otherwise they wouldn't be renting it right now which is what they're doing so we have time we have time to do this right. We urge you to listen to the local residents that live there now and again we're concerned about particularly policy 2.9.1. We urge you again to put us first and let's just give us a little bit more time to come to an agreement. I think we all want to protect those density that exist. As you're going to hear, there are density that's listed in the property appraisers website that are not legal. They were just recognized because of the fact they had told the county that they had these units and I submitted you two examples in the opposition paper of particular issues with the county said sure okay you can keep it, of course you're getting taxes over it but you can't rebuild to that density. So how is that going to be protected as well and we make sure that we don't codify illegally created density. So how is that going to be protected as well? And we make sure that we don't codify illegally created density. So there are things we need to clean up, and I just urge you to continue us. Give us a little bit more time to work these things out. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dr. Schleffer, I believe. Sorry. Followed by Tony, R-A-T-E-N-I and I believe, followed by James Darling, followed by Mr. Ralph Brooks attorney. I have two cards for you, sir. It says 7 A.B.C. to soot oakers, which this is not to soot oakers, and it says 8 A.B.C. D. C.S. to key, so I think it was just inverted, but I'll make notice for the record. Okay. You're recognized, sir. Sorry for the delay. Thank you I'm Dr. Neal Schleifer vice president of the CSEC kind of council which represents over 100 associations and 7000 residences I Address you on this somber 9-11 We're grateful for our heroes and the freedoms that we have to speak on these issues and thankful for planning to have some input and appreciate Commissioner Smith's talking about changing something on the ordinance item C about the height. First of all, the council's big concern is again keeping the protections, especially a 2.9.1, for the key that protect against increased density and intensity, and especially as regards hurricane evacuation and emergency vehicles. These changes that are possibly proposed today are positive, but that means that this needs to be rewritten, it needs to be rewritten. It needs to be reconsidered. So I don't think you can accept this proposal as it was advertised and as it was brought today. It's going to have to be rewritten. We need to look at it. It may need to go back to planning and come before you again. I want to address a couple of the issues that were mentioned. We submitted a letter. I won't have time to go over all of them. But some of the things we want to be sure that density is not increased. You can't just go by the number of rooms. Some of the former rooms are 400, 600 square feet. What is the limit on them? What if they go to 3,000, 4,000 square feet? We've asked that lockout rooms be prevented, like in hotels, where you can take one room and split it, has a separate entrance, separate bathroom, and it can be rented out to different people, essentially, doubling the density. From the Condo Council, I know a lot about what's happening with the milestone inspections, and we can't make generalities. Engineers are putting their livelihoods on the line when they certify buildings. Some of the older buildings surprisingly are built to code. The changes that they're recommending and I know again, I know a lot of these cases where roofs are being replaced because of insurance. They are being often built to current code, replaced to current code. People are talking about, are replacing windows and doors to current hurricane requirements. So these are things that need to be looked at in greater detail. The planning commit, because of all the unintended consequences, that even Commissioner Cuttsinger mentioned, the planning commission recommended 8 to 0 not to pass this on and today we have some more uncertainties and things that need to be changed. So certainly I think this needs to be looked at. We're not opposed to one and this is a time share. This needs to be said. We're not opposed to changes that they might make, but we don't want the tail to wag the dog. There are 137, this is confirmed by planning, nonconforming properties, which cover over well over 500 acres, that's 28%, almost a third of the buildable area on the key. Before you make any change to the comprehensive plan, you're supposed to have a comprehensive study of infrastructure, and that we've recommended an independent traffic model. You have to consider the roads and bridges, the access to the key. We know from the recent storms, including Hurricane Tropical Storm Debbie, the no name storm before the North Bridge access was flooded reducing the hurricane evacuation and access only to the South Bridge and we know we've we've talked about problems there and sure enough there's a 200 day repair going on to extend the life of it. There's still a question if it'll need to be repaired. There's a 200 day repair going on to extend the life of it. There's still a question if it'll need to be repaired. There's also problems, as you all know now, on infrastructure with storm order and sewage, all these need to be studied comprehensively, you need data. You need to look at that before you pass something on that might increase the density on CSD key. So this needs to be discussed, as was mentioned. So we recommend that you don't approve this today, that you, we do, we are in favor of continuing the discussion and coming back on these issues. One other thing I'll just say quickly, this is not the residential condos. People do not want to have to move out of their condos for two years to do something like this. The only ones as in the letter I explained that this could possibly work for is a time share, which we'll have say instead of 50 shares, 2500 shares. So instead of 500,000, you know, 25 or 26 million dollars to spend. Thank you. And on the rebuild, if there's a storm insurance coverage, thank you very much. Thank you. Next up is Tony Riteni, followed by James Darling, followed by Ralph Brooks, followed by Robert Luckner. And that's all the cards I have on seven if someone would like to speak. For the public hearing of seven please get your card into the clerk. Good morning sir. Good morning, my name is Tony Ritini. I am the Resort Manager at C Club five and I did sign a card. I've been the manager there for 45 years. I've been here in Sarasota County. Honestly as the case is 1978, I'm familiar with the storms and the water problems that we have in surges and it's only getting intense. It's only getting more intense with these latest storms. It doesn't have to be hurricane to kind of wipe us out. Big, no name storms that we've had. We've had a lot of potential problems with the rainwater, but it does settle and But I'm here really to talk about C-Club 5 from what I'm hearing The last two speakers they're not opposed to C-Club 5 Can keep keeping our 41 units? We're not a developer These buildings are a 70 years old two of These buildings are 70 years old. Two of the buildings are 70 years old. The three story building, which is mandated by the state to have a sear study done. That's 55 years old. We just completed the sear's reports, and it's telling us that we're going to have to reserve $1.2 million just for that three story buildings to be compliant with the new codes. That's going to be a major assessment to the owners. We're looking at it now. We're going to see what the board is going to recommend moving some other reserves from our general reserves into the reserve. So it doesn't have to be mandated by the state. The ownership cannot vote to lower that amount, but they can vote to lower the general reserve amount. So what we're doing is taking monies from our general reserves to put into the Sears reserves. So you just take monies from one to another puble. You're going to have to then reduce the, we usually fund our reserves 100% general reserve. Now we're gonna have to looking at the budgets, we're gonna have to reduce it by 50%. Just because of the cost of assessments to the ownership. It's recently, for a few years ago, the ownership voted to continue the time share plan for another 40 years, meaning that they're in this for the long haul. These are owners that own their timeshare week. They're not renters. They actually own it with a fee simple deed. So there's 2,091 unit week owners that represent C-Club 5. We're not asking to add any more units. We're not asking to increase the densities. All we're doing is trying to maintain the safety and integrity of our unit owners. Recently, we went through different architectural firms. We used Alan Anderson at first to look at the ways that we can make it safer for the owners to access those three- story building. It's a not conforming building. The staircases have to be replaced. One of the staircases at an oris side is in front of our setback line, go off setback line. So we know we're going to have a difficult time getting a permit to replace that staircase. So the challenge was what do we do? So then we hired Commissioner Smith as an architect, what are our options? Well, it made sense that if we can rebuild, if a storm hits Hurricane hits us and wipes out 50% of the building, the codes will allow us to rebuild 41 units. But if we wanted to be proactive in and be a little bit, the board does have free to share responsibilities and looks into the future of CEECLE 5, what can we do now to us be safe. So this is where we are now. We're not asking to be, you know, adding any more units. We're just asking to allow the ownership to decide whether they want to spend $30, $40 million or continue to maintain these properties for the next 15, 20 years. The buildings aren't going to fall apart, but they're needed in desperate repairs. They're still these 55 year, 70 year old water sewer systems have never been replaced. So that's a big expense coming into the future. They're going to have to make a decision where they want to continue to maintain these buildings for the next 15, 20 years, or make the decision to go up. Well, they can't make that decision to go up because of the current zoning, which only allows them to build 18 units. We have 41. So you're going to disenfranchise half of more than half of the ownership. So that's not a viable option. So the only way to do it is hopefully propose a new ordinance which at least gives us the ownership allowance, allow them to make the decision whether they want to go up or not. It doesn't matter. It doesn't mean automatically that they're going to make that decision. It just gives them the opportunity to proactively consider that going up. Oops, sorry, my time's up. Thank you, sir. Next up, James Darling, followed by Ralph Brooks, followed by Robert Luckner. And again, that's all the cards I have. If you want to speak on seven, please get your card into the clerk. Good morning, sir. You recognize for five minutes. Good morning. Is there still for five minutes. Good morning. Just still morning? Yes I think. Yes. You hear me? Yes sir. My name is James Darling. I did fill out a card and I'm here representing the owners and the board. I'm the secretary of the board of C-Club 5 and I'm here representing the owners and the board. I'm the Secretary of Treasury of the Board of C-Tlob-5. And I do have spoke with the gentleman earlier, I have regards to the board from Mr. Tony Swain, who was our president for 38 years and is presidently our vice president, and has appeared before this august gathering, but probably before you guys were born. So first of all, Mr. Riteni covered everything that I have here. But it would like to make a correction. I think he did it pretty well, but it was stated by someone that, oh, I know it was the original presentation. We did not, the board and the owners did not request to build. We're only requesting to have the ability to build. We're only requesting to have the ability to build. There's no vote that has been taken about building. We have, as you heard, 2,091 owners. If we were to want to go ahead with this, if you approved it, and we would have to have a vote. And what is the vote? Two thirds. So we would have to get two thirds of 2,091. Could be. Could not be. So if you approve this, it doesn't mean that we're going to do it. We have to take a vote. And also, obviously, it would be well down the road because you got to destroy the building and then build. And those owners would have to find another place to go for two years or three years. That's all part of the thought process about voting for it or not. All of these comments that I heard earlier about, you know, corrections to the building now and that maybe it would be okay, we can we can short up and everything, but storm surge would still take out the first floor. It would be gone. So it makes no sense really and I've talked to several owners. It makes no sense to rebuild after a storm with 41 units but not be allowed to rebuild before the storm. Just makes no sense. I've talked to the people and I say that makes no sense. I said that to the people and I say, that makes no sense. And I said, that's right. That is correct. It makes no sense to do what's written down and what, you know, you could vote, you vote no. That's where we are. Of course, we still have to take the vote. There was another correction. We don't have renters. We have owners. If you were to build 18 units versus 41, you are disenfranchising 1137 people, owners. How do you do that? Where do you put them? What do you do about their fee symbol ownership of that unit? Also, we are not going to increase density nor intensity. We are required people buy a unit, it sleeps 2, 4, 6, 8. that's the maximum. There is no possible way that they can have more than that in each unit. Even if the unit were made bigger, because it's in our bylaws, they purchased something that sleeps six. For that week, the next week, somebody comes in, it's six. It's not seven Because the owners can say look there were seven people in here first of all we enforce it strictly Mr. Retini knows what he's doing You don't bring more than four people if your unit sleeps for they know So I think those two concerns are without, let's see, what else do I have? Probably running out of time here. We're proposing no increase in density, you know that. I want to read one thing from our, I spoke with Jeff Bentay, who is our president, president. He lives in Buffalo and he said, by not allowing us to rebuild to current code. I'm sorry, I got to keep it fair for everybody. I apologize to Jeff Bentay, thank you. Thank you. Ralph you. Thank you. Thank you. Ralph Brooks, followed by Robert Luckner. And again, just for the record, this will be speaking. Not unto so to acres. It will be on. Thank you very much. My name is Ralph Brooks. I'm an attorney. I'm a board certified in city county and local government law. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'm speaking not only on behalf of Mr. Jim, Dr. Jim Wallace III, but also some of the prior speakers in their organizations were all very concerned on CS the key that this will have unintended consequences. What started out for one time share, which may make sense for one building, one times your in their situation may not be applicable to all 137 buildings that are out there. This is a comprehensive plan amendment. Has to have two things. One has to have data and analysis and react appropriately to that data and analysis. And we don't have enough data and analysis right now for you to make a decision that this is not internally inconsistent with other policies in the comp plan. In 2.9.1 we adopted the LDRs as of 1989. With some people call the CS to key comprehensive plan or CS to plan that was developed after a bunch of community shiratsts community planning efforts. And we also have 2.9 point one which talks about hurricane evacuation and not increasing that. And 1.2 point three coastal high hazard areas. This is a very sensitive area served only by two bridges. We want to make sure that when we're doing something just for CSTO, club five, we're not causing problems for the entire key because there's 130 plus buildings that this is going to affect. Now, this is a voluntary demolition and build back and they'll say this is just for the timeshare owners but every developer that comes in is going to have to tear down structures that are on a property. Normally a developer comes into a built-out island like CSTK tears down an old structure and then builds a new building. And when they do that new building, they have to comply with the comprehensive plan as it exists, as a duly adopted density, intensity intensity and height, everything that exists at the time they redeveloped the property. This would allow a developer to come in, demolish the structure, and then rebuild, not in conformance with the comp plan, not consistent with the comp plan density, but more, more than they're allowed. The existing amounts there, but more than they're allowed. It's not just for time share owners, this is for developers. If a developer can buy a building, tear it down and build higher and taller and more density and more rooms than they're allowed, that's what they're gonna do. They're gonna take advantage of this provision. The way this is written, it's not just for this C-View-5 C-Club-5. This is for developers. They will take advantage of this. It would nullify the current density that's in the comp plan that these developers would have to comply with and give them more than they're entitled to. I can tell you in Southwest Florida, what's happened after Hurricane Ian is there are buildings that were damaged to more than 50% and that have to be torn down and rebuilt to meet FEMA. And what's happening is the condo owners aren't doing that. What's happening, it's very, very expensive. Developers come in and they buy out each condo and then they tell the condo owners if you want to buy in I may give you a 10% discount or a 20% discount on a 3 million dollar condo but they don't have the money even at the discounted rates to buy back into their own buildings because the rates they bought in the 80s 90s 2000s when they purchase their condo they've gone up now and they can't afford to stay. So this isn't really taking care of people in their own condos. This is about redevelopment, developers coming in, then putting buildings in that don't match the current comp plan. This proposal is a build back bigger proposal for developers. It allows them to build back more than they're entitled to. So the way it's written right now, you can't approve this. The planning commission voted eight to nothing. They had a motion to deny, not a motion to approve that failed. They had a motion to deny this because it would allow these developers to skirt and run, go around the comp plan densities and build more than they're allowed. It was eight to nothing to deny this from the planning commissioners that you appointed. This is not the time to approve this. We ask that you do not transmit this to the state for review that we take, keep this here, if we keep it anywhere. I mean, we're going to do something for C that we take, keep this here if we keep it anywhere. If we're gonna do something for C, view five that we need to make sure we're doing something for them but that we're not bringing along all the development and redevelopment on CS the key. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next up on the last card is Robert Luckner. Thanks, sir. Good morning commissioners. My name is Robert Luckner. Thank you. Good morning commissioners. My name is Robert Luckner. I'm a here representing the CES Tiki Association. And I have signed the speakers card. The amendment that is here today has evolved over time. And in general, SKA is supportive of the property rights of the condo members who want to rebuild. Many of our SKA members are also condo owners. What keeps getting talked about here though is that it got confusing as it went from a specific example for C-club 5 to 137 different non-conforming condos on C-S-T-K. Some of which are 17 stories high. So when we were in front of the planning commission, the planning commission said, what is this talk about building a 17 story condo on top of two stories of parking? This is not what the intent and I think C-Cloth 5 has said the same thing and we appreciate Commissioner Smith saying the same thing. This has not been the intent but it gets lost when you try to expand the concept out to 137 different ones. So here's an example of concepts. We know 2.9.1 of the flu says limit density and intensity to what was in the 1989 zoning code. Okay, why is it we feel a need to eliminate the word density and eliminate the word intensity and replace it with surrogates? In the case of density, the new proposal is to limit it to the number of units. Well, that's can make some sense. But in terms of intensity, that word is missing in action. It's no place in the proposal. Instead, what is the area is, we just have to comply with the zoning code. I think it'd be a mistake to eliminate intensity and density and replace some maserah guts when there's a well-established body of decisions that define what those two things mean. I think that for example the word type is used to define density. This is limit the type. When you look up type in the definitions of planning of the conference plan, it really doesn't say anything. I do appreciate what C Club 5 wrote in and you can look at it in your attachments. That in fact, type means a one bedroom condo, a two bedroom condo and efficiency. They're very explicit and apparently for that condo, it means something specific. I have no idea what's in the HOA rules of the 136 other condos, whether type means the same thing or not. I think if you leave it like it is, you're waiting for the courts to help define what type is. I had a couple more comments. One is that if you look at the comprehensive plan consistency analysis that's in your package, staff did a good job on that, except they said that you could find that this is consistent with flu policy 2.9.2, which says, bear on residential density shall be in cordons with flu policies 2.9 and 1.2.3 and shall not exceed the maximum gross density requirements existing as of March 13th 1989 Well, you can with this you propose to ignore 2.9.1 for condo rebuilds, but it's silent on 2.9.2, which is the same thing. How can it be that you can tell them to ignore the density requirements in 2.9.1, but then in 2.9.2, say, will you're in compliance with that, which has exactly the same density problems that you're trying to change with this. I think there's a fatal mistake that you don't wear away to the courts to fix. The last thing is that if you look at this, the approval mechanism, if you do this, is a blanket approval. You'll never see these kinds of building proposals again at the Planning Commission or at the BCC. There'll be no public hearings. In fact, there wouldn't be a workshop. What it says, if you look at in the zoning code, is that there'll be no reviews except the zoning code is that there'll be no no reviews except by the planning commission. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Just for people scheduling here we we we're coming right up on the lunch hour, but I think what we'll do unless I have An objection from my fellow commissioners. We're gonna push through this. We got a number of people here for number eight. If it's okay, we'll go right through lunch. Maybe take a break right after this one. Is that okay? Is there consensus for that? Okay, for folks to judge their time and lunch hour and such. Okay, with that, and this is a little untraditional, but we do have scheduled as a rebuttal from staff if they need or want it. And then of course, Commissioner Smith will recognize you as much as you need or want. No rebuttal needed, thank you. Okay. All right, Commissioner Smith, did you want to keep, whatever anyone, sorry, I take that back. I have Commissioner Nunder on the board then Commissioner Rainford. Okay. Commissioner Nunder. Commissioner. Okay. Gentlemen, this is obviously a bit unusual. Having a county commissioner appear. Recuse himself from the vote. But there's a couple items that came up. We're talking about creating conforming units, the Meet Today's Building Codes. And what we show, I'm gonna say it would page around, but back in the presentation, it showed the heights of the different buildings. And what we're talking about is we're going to make this new structure conforming as far as the setbacks and the building heights over parking and the same number of units. That's really what we're talking about is the only thing that's changing here. Because what we have is we have property rights. We have individuals that have bought into these condominiums. And if we can wait for a disaster and have them get wiped out and our code says you can build back, but you can't be proactive. You can't say, okay, we're going to wait until we have a loss of property and perhaps a loss of life, and then we're going to let you rebuild back to the same number of units that you had before. This is a proactive initiative to say, if we have a property owner that has, in this case, 41 units, they'd only be allowed to rebuild back 18. Let them do that and build to the current codes and get themselves out of the water, essentially, and out of danger. You know, I've heard that we need to have more time. This has been going on for two years. First brought to the board here. Some of you guys were two of you were commissioners when I brought it up as the architect, worker with C-Club-5, back in January of 22. And to answer a question that somebody had on type, each, the type has to do with the number of bedrooms. If you have, in the case of C-club 5. Here's the, let me see if I can, here we go. And the case is C-club 5. Is your mic on commissioners? I'm sorry, I'm fading away. One of the things I had to do is the architect has figured out after I told these folks I would try to go through this process, if they could actually rebuild on that property, because their property is unique because it got a peach access that goes down the middle. But I had come up with, and somebody had asked me, well, you're going to have these 4,000 square foot units if you rebuild. But in the case of C-Club 5, we're limited to the amount of area that we can build on. And in this case, we had the two-bedroom, two-bath units. Again, we're replacing like for like. If you have an existing two-bedroom, two-bath units. Again, we're replacing like for like. If you have an existing two-bedroom, two-bath, that's what you can put back in. But there are 1,500 square feet. The one-bedroom, one-bath, was 1,200 square feet. And the efficiencies, they have efficiencies there, it would be 900 square feet. It's not unlimited. What I'm hearing is there's a fear we're going to have these much greater density, but if we have the same number of bedrooms and the same number of baths and they're limited to the amount of area that you can have on your property because you're only allowed 50% lot coverage in pervious surface. It limits it in the height and we're talking about this is why that one correction that we need to make and however we handle that from staff to make sure there we're only talking about the 45 feet in this case above parking. So you're limited in area and height. It's not unlimited. And so I'm willing to answer any questions that you all might have. Okay, thank you. I got Commissioner Nunder than Commissioner Rainford. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Well, Commissioner Smith, I'll just go on the record and I think we all know your academic prowess in the field of architecture. You know, it speaks volumes. Your time on CS the key interacting with the community. It goes without saying. As we sit here today, I have several questions. A little heartburn on this as it sits here today. I think that in my mind, this probably, and I hear what you're saying, this is a two year project, I am still new to the board. So half of C.S. DeKee is my district on the southern half. As you know, I would be in favor of taking a little more time in the form of a continuance here to get more public input on this to really make sure that we're doing everything in our power to really protect CES to key. It is the jewel of Sarasota County, it is our beaches, it is our water, and I just feel you know inside here that it's going to require in my mind a little more time. So if we were to push this forward as it exists today, I would be a no and couldn't support it. However, I could support a continuance where we had a little more public input, a little more cleaning up of perhaps the vernacular around the language and making sure that, in the case of CS to keys, it's a jewel here. We wanna make sure we do it right. I know you appreciate that, so that's where I sit right now. Commissioner Rainford and Commissioner Cuttsinger. Yeah, I mean, I'll echo that to a certain extent. I mean, I think that you're driving at a real problem, Commissioner Smith, I mean, this is something that's going on across the state of Florida. It's not unique to a Sarasota or CS the key. We don't want to end up 20 years down the road and have a bunch of derelict buildings because they can't meet their assessments. They can't bring it to code. They can't get insurance because of storm surges and things of that nature. So I think it's a worthy conversation. It's going to sounds like it'll go on beyond my term on this board, but I definitely, you know, I'd be in favor of continuing the conversation and to look at, I think it's foolish to think that this only affects time shares. It's going to affect all 137 of these condos, for sure, and it's good to have a plan. When these condos are going to be rebuilt at whatever time frame that is, that's when you're going to get the new infrastructure underneath the slab. So I don't think it makes sense to keep growing money, good money after bad. So I think this day is coming and maybe it's already here but we need to define it very, very clearly so that there's not just a hodgepodge and to Commissioner Smith's last point there. I mean, even with what is being proposed, I mean, it would be, I think, more restrictive than people think when they hear that because of lot coverage, parking, things of that nature. I do see in the future that there will probably be developers that buy these up and end up being less units just to fit into the properties. Commissioner Kutsing. Yeah, I'm glad to agree with that. I think for what, I can't get comfortable with this right now. I frankly, I really appreciate the effort because I would rather be proactive. So I'm very supportive of that, but I'm still not comfortable with the unintended consequences here. We're talking a lot about C-Club, but boy, there's a lot of properties to be dealt with here. And if this would simply be okay, we pass this, and then each one of these properties, or I don't know their circumstances but we don't get another staff at the Apple we will be like powerless and so I'm very concerned about making sure we get this right it's very very important so I would I would support continuing this spending a little more time to make sure we get real we've already changed some in language and I'd really rather take take more time get this right. So I would prefer to do a continuance. I'm County Attorney if I could for a minute. Were you done commissioning or cutting over your thoughts? Sorry. I'm hearing the word continuance a lot. I need a little formal discussion on this. Is no action action on this? Is there formal continuance date certain open ended just overall thought please? This one's interesting just because it's not a privately initiated. It's county initiated so it's You guys directed staff to look into this and so really continuous. I don't think does anything No action would just mean that it doesn't proceed forward If you by continuing to me continue the conversation that I think staff are probably need some kind of more direction of what the board's looking for, but I'll kind of let Jonathan jump in now. So if we're bringing it back, Chair, at a later date to discuss more, is it, and we've done this before, where we're just team up the same conversation again, where you guys have had time, or is there additional things that you want my team to do in advance of that that would help you you all If that's the case so just that direction if you go that route. Sure Well, just this is not an ask of the board It's truly in the interest of discussion is that if you do know action This is a question I guess for staff if there's no on this, in the next whatever it is 55 days, you'll have a new board sitting here. If they want at a future date to bring that back up for discussion literally as we just did, would no action today lead to new board in the future could come about and say bring it back? Is that over thinking that under thinking? No sir. The new board always has that prerogative and no action would mean exactly that staff would not be working on until alternate direction from the board. Wonderful. That was truly in the interest of discussion. It was not not not a motion. It's a matter of fact the opposite. Commissioner Rainford, did I not take you off the board? Are you? No, I was on the board. I was essentially going to ask similar to what you just asked and then maybe ask for, maybe Mark's input on that as well. I think it's worthy of additional conversation at the board level whether that's a workshop or something. I mean, these are, this is a significant number of properties that are going to be affected by this. So I'm happy to take no action on it. Commissioner Cuttsinger, I have you on the board next, but did you want to let Commissioner Smith comment or thought, go ahead, whatever you want. Commissioner Cuttsinger. I'll be brief. I would say no action in the sense that I know that Commissioner Smith will be here after the new commissioners are here. And I'm sure that Mr. Commissioner Smith will be bringing it up in discussion. Commissioner Smith. All right. I'm going to be asking a question not as a commissioner but as the architect working with C-Club 5 is that I would appreciate and I don't know, I'll have to get the county attorney's thoughts on it. I'd love to answer every one of your concerns, because even though this is about C-club five lease sets who I was representing, this has to do with 130 some odd, other kind of, kind of many of them, Zanzi has to key that are vulnerable to flooding and destruction, just like on Fort Myers Beach and Santa Bell. And, and so, I guess I would ask you all, either in email form or however you can get to me your concerns that I can answer them and I can answer them for you that are still on the board as well as for the folks that are coming next time. But I need, I guess I'm looking for some direction. You have heartburn, but where can I help you be proactive? So I just want to keep in mind be careful when you're emailing because sunshine and so what applied is still on the same board. And this would be coming up for a vote eventually on this board. And remember right now, it's not that one app, it's not that one condo unit that's coming in. This is overall policy with the comp plan UDCMM it. And that's all that's before you today is the comp plan UDCMM at the policy setting, not applying it to a certain applicant. So I think any discussion that needs to happen would be at another public meeting either now or if it does come back at a future date either a workshop I think was mentioned or another board meeting. I would definitely recommend all those discussions happening in the public. Commissioner Smith, what that in mind I've taken that under consideration, of course. And may I suggest that the sport consider a workshop on this issue and that we could invite the public, I'm sure it workshops to come and give their thoughts and we could just discuss all the issues that have come up and maybe get some more public testimony and so that would be my suggestion if the board like to do that That's great commissioner reanford and commissioner cuts here. Yeah, no that was well Well, I was on the board is to just that without any specific. I think these are there's there's There'll be a significant amount of interest in questions from both the owners the potential developers lots of different aspects to it to be able to get it right. So, and I think it's gonna affect us, for many, many years to come. And the thing that you mentioned most is that, if the building falls down right now, they can pretty much do whatever they want. I think it's important to try to get ahead of that now than wait for a disaster. Commissioner Kutsinger. Yeah, I was just going to suggest that Commissioner Smith will have an opportunity to ask the commission for a workshop. So if we took no action, I don't know that we set the workshop, we could ask the new commission when they're seated to do this and put that on the schedule and do a workshop. I'd be supportive of that for sure. Okay. I have no one else on the board and Commissioner Smith, did you fill out a request to speak card? I'm just catching up. So unless the board tells me differently, then there's going to be no action on 7a, a, b, and c, but b again, then there's going to be no action on 7a, a, b, and c. But b, again, we're not going to address seeing no comment. We will go with no action, but I think it was pretty clear and looks like to be continued on that for sure. OK, a little bit of a change here. I sensed that comment. I made last on 8. I got another batch of cards. I roughly counted. We've got a couple hours of public testimony on that. So why don't we do this? Let's take it, unless there's a different thought of the board. Let's take a 10 minute break. We'll come back. We'll start eight, but I don't think there's any way we could make it all the way through without some type of 30 minute break for lunch possibly. Unless there's any different county County county attorneys that okay as far as public hearing. Yep, that makes sense. Again, it's our so it's 1210 now. So not a legal thing, but you can take the quick lunch now and come back and just have the whole thing. Talk to me, what is the board want to do? You want to take quick lunch, please? I take 30 minute lunch would be great and come back and finish. Okay, all right, then we'll do that. Let's we will be back at 1240. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit more careful. you . I'm going to have to go. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. and I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do to the next room. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to do it. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. the the Shhh! I'm going to do a the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. the I'm just a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the next room. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go. I'm going to go back to the place where I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to be there. I'm going to go back to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit more careful. I'm going to do bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. All right. Good afternoon, everybody. We're back from lunch recess here. Let me take a minute and read all this into the record. We have around agenda items A, B, and eight A, B, C, and D. We're going to have to take these in a little bit of a different order when it comes time for motions. But let me at least get these into the record here. Starting with eight A, which is a public hearing to adopt ordinance number 2024-054, approving comprehensive plan amendment number SA2023-10 for property fronting University Parkway approximately 665 feet east of the University Parkway and Northshade Avenue intersection, Sarasota to change future land use designation of approximately 9.4 acres from light office and LDR-2-0FF-slash-MF. 8B is a public hearing due adopt ordinance number 2024-055, approving critical area plan amendment number 922-01-SPW-2023 for property front university parkway approximately 665 feet east of the university parkway in Northshade Avenue intersection. Sarasota to amend figure 2A of the University Parkway corridor plan west to change the designation of a 4.4 acre portion of the subject parcel from light office to multi-family residential. We're then going to address 8C, which is not a public hearing, as the Land Development Regulation Commission to find ordinance number 2024-0555 to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And lastly will be 8D which is a public hearing to adopt ordinance number 2024-056 approving reason on petition number 23-41 for property-fronting university parkway approximately 665 feet east of the university Parkway and North Shade Avenue intersection, Sarasota, to rezone approximately 9.4 acres from RE1 to RMF3. And I believe Keaton's going to get us started here this afternoon. Good afternoon chair and kind of commissioners. Again for the record, my name is Keaton Osborne. I'm a planner here with Planned Development Services and they have signed a speaker's card. Before I continue the introduction of this application, I would like to state for the record we have received additional correspondence since publication and copies of that have been provided to you and the recording secretary. Today's three-part applications bring brought forth to you by the agent Robert Medrid of Genesis Planning and Development Incorporated who is presenting this on behalf of the applicant Chris Doherty of CEM Development Construction Services, LLC. Robert Meadron and his team were by the presentation on behalf of the applicant. And once you have included, I'll return to provide staff's presentation. So that's a moment I can introduce Mr. Meadron to the podium. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Meadron. You are going to be recognized, sir, for 20 minutes. Mr. Mayorrow, sorry. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Bill Merrill with the law firm of Bicarb Merrill and I have signed a speakers card and I'm happy to be here today on behalf of CEM. I request to re-designate a single 9.4 acre parcel on University Parkway from Light Office and Load Density Residential to Office Multifamily with a rezone to RMS-3 with a binding development concept plan to allow development of a 122 unit multifamily project. And the application team, again, our contract purchaser and who we represent the applicant is CEM Development Construction and Adam Kempis here on their behalf as well as Aaron and Michael Doherty. Now, I'll be introducing Aaron shortly. Also with Bo and Joe Medrid and representative Bill Connerley with Kenley Horn and Associates. Aaron? Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Dorety, and I'm here as the daughter of the Dorety family and an owner of CEM development. We are proud to call Sarah Soda County our second home, where we excuse me, where we have deep roots and strong connections through our five local car dealerships that employ approximately 600 hard working residents. Today I ask for your support of the Perot's Reson for a 122 unit apartment development which which our families committed to addressing the growing need for quality workforce housing in this community. This project is not just another development for us it's a long-term investment in Sarasota's future and the people who live here. We aim to create a beautiful and functional space that reflects the values of the community while meeting a real housing need. As long-time property holders, we are dedicated to building something that will benefit not only family but our future generations in Sarasota. We believe this development will positively contribute the county's growth and we are eager to see it become a part of excuse me a part of the community's continued prosperity. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you Aaron for the record bow, Madrid with Genesis planning and it did fail out of speaker's card. So on the screen is the aerial of the site. This is University Parkway to help orient you. We're on the south side. This is Tuttle. This is Shade Avenue. Those are both signalized intersections. This is the current future land use designation. This parcel is a 9.5 acre parcel that's bifurcated, meaning it has two separate with a line through it of two separate land use designations it is light office on the north and low density residential in the south We're proposing to go to the office Multi-family which is this designated color on your future land use plan map So office multi-family is defined within your comprehensive plan as recognizes existing areas but also identifies additional areas where such uses would be appropriate. These areas are along major roadways like University Parkway where parcels are deep enough to accommodate development. We're going to focus on that today and maybe integrate it into the existing neighborhoods and provide a good transition between the existing residential neighborhoods and those major roadways like University Parkway and multifamily is an implementing zoning district. So we're along a major arterial. We have six-centre feet of depth. We're integrated into the existing neighborhood and we're going to provide that transition from the existing neighborhood and we're going to provide that transition from the existing neighborhood. So, this is a future land use policy in your future land use element that talks about office multi-family development, shall be subject to a case-by-case examination and that's what I think we have to focus on today is a case-by-case examination. This property is unique and I'm going to show you how it is unique and merits the change in future land use. This is the 1945 DeSoto-Aikers record plat. And this is Lockwood Ridge, Tuddle, Shade, interesting enough, US 301 and all that industrial and multi-family that's on the west side of US 301 is actually part of the original plated de-soto-acres. This is what we're gonna focus on right here because this is an out parcel that was not included. It was an orange grove at the time. And this is our parcel kind of cross hatched in there. That's our 9.4 acre parcel. So you can see it does not touch any plated lots within the soda acres. This 9.4 acre parcel has created in 1957. So older than me, it's been around, and it's not a combination. We're not pulling together a combination of parcels. And it is in proximity to the soda acres, but it was never included in the record plat. And it does not touch any plat at lot within the soda acres. And as this parcel is intact, its only access is to University Parkway. Interesting on the soda acres, HOA website, here's the original marking brochure. And you can see here's the plat, and this was from the 40s, we believe, but this is, you can see the out parcel, it was about 80 to 90 acres of grove. But in 1994, the county adopted a critical area plan. I'm gonna refer to it as a cap critical area plan, and this is the University Parkway Quarter West plan. And the purpose was to redesign large lot residential properties, running along University Parkway to provide for future development opportunities and transition to adjacent platted to Soto-Aikers lot due to the widening of University Parkway. Staff listed very a variety of use options. Residential was a term not to be a viable future used along the University Parkway, due to the limited parcel depth. This is the Actions Planning Commission. We staff provide us with the actual staff report from back in 1994. And this is an excerpt within that on pages sixth and seventh that says, one important aspect in determining the viability of single family residential in this area in the quarter is that the lots average between 200 to 300 feet in depth. Because all of the platted lots were two acres and size originally. Some of them carved out to be smaller. Our parcel is 600 feet in depth. And so this severely limits options available to the property. So they were looking at other options, but because they thought everything was two to three hundred feet deep, they went with the light office. And it says for multifamily development to be viable along interstate connector roadways like University Parkways, parcels must be of sufficient depth to provide this is important visual and noise barriers to ensure compatibility with the adjacent lower density single-family development, which is the soda wakers to the south, and to allow the safe placement and orientation of access onto the major thoroughfare. Although this portion of the court, these requirements may be difficult to achieve, again, going back to that because of the limited depth. Parcel depth, assuming that everything was 2 to 300 feet in depth. The subject parcel is appropriate for multifamily because it is of sufficient depth at 600 feet. The size of the parcel is 9.4 acres. When you think about this, at some point, because of the right away taking, we were close to 5 times the size of a plated de Soto-Aikers lot but we lost some for the right away but at six hundred feet of depth it can be designed to provide adequate distance for visual noise barriers to ensure compatibility with the adjacent single family development. The only access for this parcel that is onto University Parkway and doesn't have any plated street within the Soto-Akers so there is no neighborhood intrusion as a result. In 94 it appears that staff drew that cat boundary, that line where you see, you'll see it again through the middle of the parcel and overlooked the fact that they created two different land use designations on this 9.4 acre unplatted parcel. Within the CAP ordinance, condition number 25, and PHA 5 said, the intent of the light office designation between 301 to Lockwood Ridge was to not adversely affect those living along 61st Street. Well, as you mentioned, this is the less out parcel. There is no 61st Street that went through here at all. There is no 61st Street. 61st is here, 61st is here, west of shade. And so we don't front on 61st Street and there would be no intrusion into the neighborhood for this parcel to develop. So not being adjacent to 61st, we will not have a very adverse effect those living along 61st because 61st does not exist adjacent to us. And then the subject parcels only access, as I mentioned, is the University Parkway. So this is our existing zoning, which is RE1. And our surrounding zoning to the east and west is OPI. To the south of us is RE1, and that was also a special exception. But there's no plated street on our south. The only access is north to University Parkway. Here are the recent rezones that were implemented. That's that OPI to the east and west of us. And if you notice, we're requesting office multifamily, office multifamily is a specific designation. So OPI and multifamily are considered to be compatible with respect to adjacency to each other. So the question is a lot of times, this is a, why should we change the cap? This was a, you know, we shouldn't change a cap. Well, no, that's not true. Critical area plans are meant to be updated and looked at periodically. And it says, this is from the county's cut sheet series. Can an approved critical area plan be changed? And it says, yes, a cap can be amended or changed. Changes can be adopted, can be initiated by either a private sector, that's us, or the public sector which is Sarasota County. Changes conducted as part of a public hearing process, which is what we're doing today. And then adopted caps, critical area plans, may also be re-evaluated. Re-evaluation may occur for the following reasons, changing conditions within the critical area plan, area built out in completion of conditions within the cap. So I would suggest to do that, and I'll show you there's been changing conditions within the cap that merits the change. The area is in a build out situation, getting approaching it, updates to the development standards and the zoning ordinance. This cap is so old, it has terms in it from the 1989 zoning code, but it's never been updated. So it was adopted in 92, 94. The last amendment was in 96, and the cap is outdated over near 30 years. I'm not saying that all components of it, but it needed to be looked at again and it hasn't been. And it still references that 89 code. But you have a policy of future land use policy 415A that talks about that existing critical area plans shall be reviewed for possible amendment or updating under the cap regulations developed through policy 415. So caps need to be examined and looked at on a periodic basis. So the conditions have changed. This is 1998. This was even after the critical airplane was adopted, particularly on the north side you can see the development that's occurred in 20 since 1998 through 2024. And then the office development on the south side as well. And so this is a part of the staff report on the critical area analysis. It says the purpose of the quarter of planning is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated by county planning and access management effort, which is we have an interlocal agreement between the counties and the plan establishes a set of land use transportation circulation and other urban design criteria. So this is our binding development concept plan. This is the concept plan that we are proposing today that's binding upon the property, University Parkway here as well. This originally at the time of application, the one on the left was what we were proposing to do, and it's just anything up. They got a jurisdictional determination, and the wetland actually grew on the south end of the property, and Mr. Connolly got involved on the storm water, and they need a little bit more storm water. So in May, we updated the plan and moved the buildings to the north as a result. So this is the development concept plan with direct access to University Parkway. We're required to have a 30 foot cross-access easement to the east and west, which is in stipulation number three. There is an existing forest at wetland, which I'll show you here in a second, on the south end of the property, depicted by theirs, and then storm- in a second on the south end of the property as depicted by theirs. And then the storm router retention on the south. This is a binding plan. So the storm water in wetland areas will create separation and buffering from the adjacent properties to the east, west, and south. We also have a showed a minimum building setback for that amenity. the amenity is a one story building. And then we've also requested a cap waiver which has been afforded to others for a buffer K. And a buffer K is one of those mentions it's from the 1989 code. It doesn't even exist. But we're going to conform to the requirements of it. So this is the overlay of that pink light office land use designation in critical area plan over top of our concept plan. So you can see buildings one and two are within the light office and the southern half of the property has a small portion of a two story, two unit townhouse right here in the amenity center in the southern half of the property. But notice the significant buffer that's created on the south side of the site. This multi-family development would not be viable on parcels that are only two to 300 feet in depth, which is that pink overlay. We're 600 feet, and that is on a case-by-case basis. Back in July, I went out with a drone flyer, and it was super interesting, but he flew the site, and we then took that and dropped in a 3D drawing of our development concept plan with the buildings. These are four story buildings. Max and Heith would be 45 feet, no understory parking, 45 feet is the max. This is the two story townhouse and this is the amenity center that you see right here. The property line is outlined in red and it's over 400 feet to the closest residence which is off our southeast corner right here to the amenity and then almost just short of 500 feet to the closest building. So over a football field in a half to the closest to the closest apartment building, four story to the closest residence. But I also want you to look at this wetland. It's a forested wetland. I asked the drone guy to drop into this area to look and see how high the trees were. They are anywhere from 50 to 65 feet in height. So the average is about 60 feet of these trees, which is higher than what the 45 feet for the buildings. This is that light office designation that is overlaid on top of the development concept plants. You can see the two proposed buildings one and two are within that light office. They do not intrude beyond the light office, current light office designation. And the only thing that's in that southern portion is the amenity center and half the townhouse. This is a picture of the stormwater retention area and the mass of the wetland preserve, which is a little over three acres in size for the site. But in our case, it works our advantage because it creates that separation and buffering from adjacent properties to the south and adjacent to us on the east and west. And so looking at that policy 281, we have to look at office multifamily on a case by case examination. And what do you look at office multifamily on a case by case examination and what do you look at the examination addresses compatibility mitigation Measures minimum parcel sizes and level of service in the the other application of the code and we would suggest you that we're consistent with policy 281 relating to the office multifamily because 281 relating to the office multi-family because buildings 1 and 2 are located in the north portion of the site and adjacent to the compatible OPI zone district and office uses. We've increased our building setbacks significantly. The site design uses that existing wetland and storm water pond and the south end to create both distance and natural buffering from adjacent properties. We'll still put in our .5 opacity buffers and the unified access is limited to university parkway and have 30 foot cross-ethesements as well. And our traffic circulation does not intrude into the any of the adjacent properties. By comparison, this was in our stand-tech report is that the proposed multifamily, the 122 units, actually generates less trips than the current light office and load-ensity designation. You may hear some testimony about the increase in traffic, but it's not. The potential is that it would be less traffic than the current designation. Compatibility is key policy 1, 2, 17 talks about the location of open space and perimeter buffers and landscaping to increase any increased compatibility or address any potential in compatibility. And we would suggest that we meet the criteria for all of those through the binding development concept plan, the perimeter buffers, the the access the increase building setbacks the stepbacks and building heights and increase open space and reduce building coverage this point I'm going to turn it over to bill. Thank you, bow and I'm just going to cover this real quickly. We have four preferred stipulations that we are in agreement with. And I really wanted to get to this. So the supporting facts for this are that the subject parcel, as Bob mentioned, is not located within the SOTO Acre subdivision. And its access, its only access, is on the University Parkway. The subject parcel is double the depth of the other parcels. It's over 600 feet. the next one is double the depth of the other parcels. It's over 600 feet and it's double more than four to five times the size. It's 9.4 acres compared to two acres of these other parcels. In addition, the project has been designed with the binding development concept plan is designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses. The apartment buildings are located entirely in the already existing light office portion and only part of the townhouse building in the amenity center, both of which are below the heights that are allowed in the surrounding areas. Both of those are the only ones that are up to the south of that line, even with the right of way taking in the cap cross access requirements that are in here. The proposed multifamily is a reduction in the PMP trick. Trips as Bo mentioned when compared to the existing light office and low density. The southern half of the property is open space and buffer with a minimum of 150 foot building setback. And finally, as I mentioned earlier, the conditions in land use character really have changed substantially over the last 30 years. So in conclusion, we would ask you to approve the conference of plan amendment, cap amendment, and rezone petition with the Bonnie Development Concept Plan that we proposed today. And we'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Great, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? If none, I'll move on to staff. OK, thank you both. Joe's gonna hand out a couple of handouts for you. There are some of the slides from earlier. Great, thank you. Mr. Osborne. All looks like, looks like Matt. Hi, Matt. Chair, commissioners for the record, Matt Osterhal, Director of Plan Development Services Department. I have slide A speakers card. Just one of the squads that I did conduct one-on-ones with the commissioners individually to talk about the contents of the staff report and with that I'll introduce Keaton Osborne. Good afternoon again Keaton Osborne-Alsborg and Planning Development Services. So this is a three-part application, the first being a small area conference of plan requests, amendment requests, the second being a critical area plan, a map amendment request, and then the rezone petition. So here we have the subject parcel outlined in red, surrounded by the unplotted block outlined in purple, as Mr. Mejard mentioned this block of properties are not part of the original flat, plated so acres which borders this purple outline to the east, south, and west. As we see here for the only aerial we can see that line of light office there in pink as well as the low density residential in yellow. As you see the consistent line of light office does not protrude past the low density residential in yellow. As you see, the consistent line of light office does not protrude past that low density destination of the yellow. So, Ellen and Red is the subject site, and on the northern portion of the subject site designated light office, this destination stretches approximately two miles along that university parkway between US 301 and Lockwood Ridge to the east. The intent of the office designation was to be a transition zone between the major employment center in the west, there in blue, to the commercial center and red to the east. Here we have the outskins proposal to change the map within the University of Parkway critical area plan. That changes for the northern portion of the subject property from light office to multifamily residential. Here we can see a large extent of the subject parcel outlined in blue with the context of the community. When county staff analyzes a legislative amendment, it's to be reviewed in its own capacity and not in relation to proposed land development, land use development. The critical area plan has been in effect for 30 years and has been a consistent line of light office. If approved, it will be the only future land use of multi-family within this two-mile stretch of University Parkway. I'd also like to highlight a few policies that you see there on screen that the conference critical area of plan map amendment may be found inconsistent with. That relating to appropriate densities shall be determined in part by land uses and land use designations surrounding the subject parcel. and the community. The community is in part by land uses and land use designations surrounding the subject parcel. The development of the conditions of approval within a critical area plan. And then in fill a development within an existing neighbourhood is to promote enhance and increase the move forward to the second request, which is the Conference of Plan Amendment. Here we have on left-hand side, the existing Fugiland Youth of Light Office and Lotus Residential, and then the Outcomes Proposed Office Multifamily. Just give you a little bit of context of depth, that light office on the subject parcel extends about 280 feet south of the University Parkway, and then that southern portion of low-density residential extends even further of 340 feet. So when we look into the applicants request of Office Multifamily, sorry, I got ahead of myself. So when we look at the request of the Office Multifamily Proposed to change the designations of light office and load-d to office multifamily. We essentially extend now that office multifamily 640 feet combining that length of the entire parcel which breaks that consistent 30-year line of light office and goes further into the load ins residential figure land use areas that you see in yellow there. I'd also like to highlight again, a few policies that the Conference of Planning Amendment may be found inconsistent with, that being the Density Ranges designated within the Future Land Use map shall be appropriate with what is designated. The second again being appropriate densities and context to the surrounding land use and land use designations. And then the development of the designation of Office Multiifamily is determined on a case-by-case basis, but it may be found inconsistent that the density and intensity of this request is more intense and densely surrounding area. We also have a critical way, sorry, I got ahead of myself again. So to recap both the critical area of planning amendment and the comprehensive planning amendment request, county staff recommends denial of these two applications due to being incompatible with the surrounding area and inconsistent with the University Parkway Corridor plan. There's also a critical area plan waiver request associated with this application. The applicant requests a waiver from condition number 25A through E found within that cap. The applicant also acknowledges the importance of this distance and setback separation within those parameters and is offered a 150-foot building setback. Currently, if that was applied to the site today, it would only apply to the light office designation, which is essentially the middle of the subject parcel. So that stipulation is to essentially move that 150 foot setback from the middle to the rear of the property line. Here is the Binding Development Concept Plan proposed by the applicant. And as you see, highlighted in various colors are the stipulations that I'll go through Later in this presentation and yellow is that 150 foot building setback to the rear property line On the northern end of the property with those two red lines is the 30 foot cross-access easement unfortunately does Have the potential to impact a grand tree on site And then Excuse me there is that de-acceleration lane the We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a We have a objectives. After that analysis, Resonant Petition 23-41 may be found consistent with these future land use policies, housing policies, and this economic development policy. With that same review, it may be found consistent with these future land use housing and economic development policies. There are five recommendations associated with this application. First being the binding to them a concept plan, the second being that 150 foot setback, buffer K landscape buffer and then the cross-access easement and that deacceleration line. So there are three motions there before you the first one being the small area comprehensive plan amendment to change that designation from light office and low density residential to office multifamily staff recommends denial the second being to amend the critical area plan, figure 2A, future land use map, from my office to residential multifamily. Again, staff recommends denial. And the third being the rezoned petition to change the zone district from RE1 to RMF3 with those five recommended stipulations. So with that, this concludes staff's presentation. I'm able to answer your questions in the ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, Keaton, thank you. All right, let's move on to some public comment. I've got a number of cards here. Feel free, please. We've got this front row vacant where I'll read off a few names. Feel free to sit up there and stage, maybe save a little bit of time with the cards that we have here. Let's start off, I'll read the first four. Ralph Brooks, followed by John King, followed by Tim Lynch, followed by Tom Bolt. I'm going to go to the committee. Sir, can't do it from the audience. Good afternoon again, sir. You recognize for five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. It's quite rare that I'm here when there's a planning staff recommendation for denial. Think about what that means. Your own planning staff that you have hired for their expertise. plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan and plan Many of them have been here for quite a long time. They're recommending denial of the plan amendment and denial of the rezoning. We ask that you take their staff opinions very seriously. I passed out a letter that was sent around. I wanted to point out a few things today before the citizens of Disoto Acres speak. I'm here today DeSoto Acres speak. I'm here today for DeSoto Acres Association Inc. I want to let you know that an applicant generated plan amendment is different than a county generated plan amendment. You heard of a county generated amendment on the last item. This one is by a developer who seeks to change the plan. Not only change the comp plan, but change the critical area plan for university parkway. There was both of these were developed with citizen input. Plan amendments are legislative. So you can deny a comprehensive plan amendment for any reason and you can't get sued. You can't lose a bird Harris claim. They purchase a property or contract it for a property that has a current land use designation and has a current zoning designation. You don't have to change a comprehensive plan even if there is of substantial evidence that's presented to you, you can simply say no, and you can keep the existing light office. The proposal to construct high density apartments in this area is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan. It's also inconsistent with the University Parkway Court or plan. It would be the only area so re-zoned within two miles. And also you heard from staff that would intrude into the RE1 zoning category where the DeSoto Acres residents live. It's much higher than their existing uses. It's much denser than their existing uses. It will constitute spot zoning in this type of scenario where you're putting this dot, this hole in the donut, even if it's at the top of University Parkway. And again, your planning staff is recommending denial. I'd ask you to look closely for that slide number 15 that your planning staff presented said this proposal is inconsistent with all these policies that are identified in slide 15 and those are policies that the Comp plan amendment has to be internally consistent with all other policies so That would fail for the component amendment are Resoning as a development order that has to be consistent with the compliment and your staff is telling you on slide 15 it's inconsistent with these numerous policies. Also, I wanted to point out a few other things from the legal perspective before the citizens come up. One is citizen testimony, competent substantial evidence. It can be if it's fact-based observations about their uses, the surrounding uses, the thing they see, the traffic they endure. This is different, for example, in traffic because it's a multifamily apartment building. And offices have traffic during the day, when people coming in going to an office to see a dentist or a professional. That's different than the traffic that's around an apartment building, which is all day all night. So they can be considered competent substantial evidence in their testimony, which is about the rezoning. Again, you don't need competent substantial evidence to deny a plan amendment. There's valid legislative reasons why this was set up for a light industrial, why the property was divided. So you have that continuous line that goes across. You can maintain that. That still allows them to develop their property. You're not denying them any development rights. Downed zoning can cause birth hares problems, but you don't have to approve an upzoning request. You're not subject to birth hares for keeping the existing 1995 zoning. That's the year where Harris came into effect. So you don't have to worry about that. You can deny this without having to to pay any damages. What is competence of substantial evidence may come up and what the Supreme Court has said is that it should be sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate. Thank you very much. Next up, John King, filed by Tim Lynch, filed by Tom Bolt, followed by Roland, Mo SCR Moser, and then Gail Harvey. Good afternoon sir, you recognize for five minutes. Okay. Hello, and thank you. I'm a resident of the Soto Acres. My name is John King and I've signed the card. I am your commissioners. As an association, we have a letter that Mr. Ralph Brooks has sent to you that I'll read from. And he already touched on a few of the items. But the petition to amend the comprehensive plan, SA 2023 10, and the University Parkway corridor plan, 92-01 SPW 2023, to construct high-density apartments, adjoining desotoeakers, is aggressively disrespectful to the policies and planning rules of Sarasota County and contravenes the universal development code and Florida statutes the government changes to those plans. We strongly urge you to concur with the county staff recommendations and deny these two. President set to deny by Sarasota County Commission density change within DeSoto acres. On May 22, 2012, the County Commission denied comprehensive plan amendment, SA 2011-02, to increase residential low density to multifamily residential. The County Commission denied, Reson, number 11- 1113 to increase zoning from RE1 to RMF1 within the Soto Acres. The 2012 Rational for the county commission to deny's a repetition and I'll go down. The petition documentation reviewed by the County Planning Commission does not comply with the process of relevant elements of Florida Statute governing Governance and Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 163-3177-6A requires analysis of a need-based on the character of the developed plan as well as a minimum amount of land required to achieve the housing needs of the county. 163-3177-6A, 2A and 2C, mandatory requirements for proposed land use changes to consider the amount of housing deficit and land required. This is a mandatory requirement for proposed land use changes. There is no demonstration or consideration of the existence of a housing deficit that is application. This application is necessary to meet. A housing justification would provide a rational to abide by the existing future land use. Designations, the petitioners have not made a case that this housing investment is needed. The density increase contravenes policy because incompatibility with various UDC and FLU goals. FLU policy 1-1-3 provides for transitioning from a natural environment to the most intense developed areas by gradually increasing density and urban character. The FLU provides for four levels of density. This petition proposes a change from the lowest to the highest density, skipping two intermediate densities. FLU policy 1.3.1, regulations shall set forth, he arc, he arc, he arc, the zoning districts based on the density and intensity of permitted use for the purposes of establishing appropriate development ratio standards. standards with the partial size and compatibility with adjacent uses. The adjacent use are historically and by express president intended to be low or moderate intensity. High intensity has no place in this or adjacent areas. We hope that you will find these arguments compelling and will vote to deny comprehensive plan amendment SA 2023 10 and the University Parkway Corridor Plan amendment 9201 SPW 2 2023. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you sir. Next up Tim Lynch followed by Tom Bolt followed by Roland Moser followed by Gail Harvey and then Pamela Bonavale Good afternoon, sirs a clock there to judge your time Good morning good afternoon my name is Tim Lynch and I have signed a card I'm here today as a homeowner and as a secretary of the DeSoto-owners, excuse me, DeSoto-Akers Association, to lend a voice to the 700 residents who live there, many of which are unable to attend today. We vehemently object to this proposed project on multiple grounds. There are so many reasons to just say no. This project is not compatible with the adjacent low density neighborhood. Going from RE1 to RMF3 represents a multi-step density increase, 30 times more than what's currently allowed. The proposed height is not compatible, putting a four-story apartment building next to a single-story house. Three of the planning commissioners voted for denial. County staff recommends denial. Please listen to this rare denial from these trained, unbiased, professional planners who had the county's best interests in mind. While this partial is not platted with in Disoto Acres, it is part of and will impact our neighborhood. I apologize my printer ran out of ink last night, but if you look at this picture, what do you see? Houses. This partial surrounded on all three sides by low density residential lots. Most of them with homes on. The Eva family who live here, they've lived there 26 years and they are adamantly opposed to this project. Mr. Jaldera, who I believe is speaking today, purchased this lot here at Jason and behind his home with a specific intent to prevent its development. This property, they mentioned a Reson petition, a special exemption, that was 17 years and four owners ago. It is not applicable. It is also important to note that that rezone was for the front half only. The rear was going to stay RE1. This project back then was fully compliant with a corridor plan and flume designations. There is a way to properly develop these properties. The agents stated that an office building would generate more traffic than their multifamily project. This is not the case. Per this transportation analysis in the staff report. Comparing the light office to the proposed 122 dwelling units, an additional 298 trips would be generated daily, an increase of 53%. The University Parkway Court of Planned was created to provide comprehensive and coordinated planning and is intended to be a long range plan that continues To be implemented until build out of the area It is not outdated it represents years of hard work by all stakeholders and has worked so far and proven its worth with 16 parcels rezoned to OPI and numerous projects successfully developed. This plan calls for office uses along a quarter. Based upon analysis of land uses, lot sizes, and character of the area, the same land uses, lot sizes and character still exists today in our neighborhood. The 2020 Disoto Acres Land Youth Study, prepared by county planning and development services, evaluates the need for flu amendments in the neighborhood. It states that there is no foreseeable reason for future changes in zoning or flu designation. In its recommendation, this study does not identify any flume changes, appropriate within the neighborhood or for properties at the perimeter of the neighborhood. We are for development, which is compliant with the quarter plan and current land use designations. This proposal is not. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next up, Tom Bolt, followed by Roland Moser, followed by Gail Gullsby Harvey, followed by Pamela Borneval, and then Celeste Watt. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon, and hello. My name is Tom Bolt, I have signed a card, and I'm currently a member of the Desoto Association Board. I wish to start by thanking the four of the commissioners who took some time during the past year to meet with me and a few of the other of our neighbors when we came and talked to you a little bit about our association and neighborhood. And we felt, you know, we appreciated your openness and frankness and we felt listened to and hurt. And so that was important. And we're going to thank you for that. If we're talking to thanks, I also want to thank the staff because we know what kind of hard work they're and we really believe they do good work. Anyway, the reason we had requested to meet with you back then is before us today. We knew the time would come. And so this is the first of what we hope will be only three attempts this year to break down the protections of the comprehensive and quarter plans that have been critical so far in maintaining the sort of acres as the desirable neighborhood that it is and the community that it is. So we fear the precedent. We really would like to make sure that we don't have a precedent coming that would inevitably lead to more of similar changes. It would also lead to more of similar changes. It would also lead to a change in an important power dynamic, we believe. Instead of having developers justifying a rationale for an exception, it would become the case of the county justifying why an exception should be, what exception should be refused, given that there is a precedent. As a community, we hope not to be eaten one case by case mouthful at a time. So that's why we really want to speak to precedent. So I'll speak to what I heard of the planning hearing for this petition, which by the way, only needed one yay vote to switch to nay for the petition to fail. So this lot, excuse me, I'm going to try to put this up. Does that come up? Yeah. This lot is perhaps not quite as unique as the folks would want you to understand. We had heard that nowhere are there deep parcels like this equivalent to the two by two lots along the university? Well, here is the parcel in question. And over here is another parcel if you check the assessor site that's four by four as well. And it's right there and it's waiting. It's also owned by a speculator who's just waiting for, you know, a press that has to come along to make it easier to monetize. All right, also we talked about how this street, 61st doesn't go through. Well, it kind of goes through. There is a street, but it's really for the same reason that happened down here in 47. These are wetlands. The wetlands are wet stopped people from putting a road in back in the day, you know, otherwise we believe that there would have been one. Incidentally, coming back to the wetlands down here, there are four lots owned by a speculator on a St. Pete, who I believe is just waiting for more precedents to be set so that things can go in their favor. All right. So if size, wetness, lack of road, and things like that justify the case by case changes, then we can already see the beginning of the queue of profit seekers are ready to invade the neighborhood. And that's what we fear. All right. And I put on the map as well or the picture. There's current targets. I mentioned there's two others who will be seeking to make complaint chains before you this year. I'm marking those targets. They're different from this project, but they're equally incompatible with a green, low density, attractive nature of our neighborhood. Indeed, one of them has already failed at the planning commission. So our community preservation relies on the county's help, making people stick to the rules as they stand. The CEM team will be correct. They will remind you that there are rules for exceptions too. But if we look at all those lots, as Tim pointed out, along University Parkway, they have all been developed so far, according to the OPI zoning, according to the agreements. And I'm sure if we're all patient and politely stick to the vision, the vision will get realized and all parties will be happy. Another point, one of the, during the planning session, they had mentioned a couple of my timers out, so I'm not gonna delay it. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Next up is Roland Moser, followed by Gail Gullsby Harvey, followed by Pamela Borneval, founded by Celeste Welch, and Moser, followed by Gail Gullsby Harvey, followed by Pamela Borneval, followed by Celeste Welch, and then Odette SIEM, is the last name. Okay, I'll answer. Good afternoon. I'm just here pretty much to repeat what my predecessor just said. I just here also to protect our neighborhood and point it out. The president, protect the president that will not happen again. I just want to point out that it will be the only development will be access to university. And I think we should help to stop that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Gail Goalsby Harvey, followed by Pamela Borneval, followed by Celeste Welch. Good afternoon, ma'am. Greetings. I hear the name of the name of Gail Goalsby Harvey. My name is Gaililles B. Harvey. And I have been a resident my entire life of Sarasota County as have my parents. And in 1963, they bought a piece of property on the corner of Shade Avenue and 59th Street. We have the oldest home in the community. And over the years, a lot of wonderful changes have happened. When we were kids, we would have loved to have a movie theater, to have a grocery store. That's fine. We're not opposed to growth. Growth can be good as long as it's done in the right way. Our street used to be a dirt road that the county came and oiled because it was so dusty and nobody went down it. There was no reason to. To now it is like a super highway. We have stop signs every so many blocks but nobody stops. In the mornings and evenings the North County going the people in Sarasota County going to Manatee County home they get off 301 and cut through on Shade Avenue and very few of them stop. I call our street now is simply Dysododragstrip South. That's what it is. It's sad there's going to be a terrible, terrible accident out there. I never see any policing of this situation. We are very concerned for our residents, and we just hope that you will take into note about the situation that's going on. Going north on Tuddle is gridlock. Going north on Washington Boulevard is gridlock, and Lockwood Ridge is gridlock. So they don't have anywhere else to get through. And I just beg of you, I appreciate your time serving the county. And I hope you'll take into consideration our community is a very, very special place. And every one of us are very, very concerned about the longevity of it. Thank you so much for your time, and I hope you oppose this change. Thank you, ma'am. Pamela Borneval followed by Celeste Weld, followed by Adet. I think it's SIEM and then Ashley Kramer. Good afternoon, ma'am. Hello, commissioners. I'm Pam Borneval, third generation Floridian and I have signed a speaker's card. The University Parkway West Quarter Plan, a critical area plan, has been working for a number of years and is not out of date. As recently as a few years ago, an office complex was built to OPI standards at the southeast corner of Tidal and University Parkway. Within the last five years, our planning staff, after a number of meetings between Dissoto Acres homeowners and neighborhood services, presented the Lockwood Ridge corridor study and included the entire Dissoto Acres area and emphasized there should be no changes to the RE1 designation for anywhere in Dissoto Acres, whether or not it was originally planted as Dissoto Acres, except along University Parkway, as previously adopted in the corridor plan. The corridor plan specifically does not allow beyond OPI. There are to be no special exceptions. This proposed development is calling for a multi-step density increase in zoning. The OPI zoning was developed to address development compatibility for the parcels along the high traffic university parkway corridor and the adjacent low density RE1 residential. This zoning has proven to be compatible. During Tropical Storm Debbie, we had not just rain, we had flooding. DeSoto-Aikers is historically wet. There are even designated wetlands, and this proposed development has already gone back to the drawing board to re-examine their wetlands. Our Planning Department staff has recommended denial, and this is rare. If we the people don't rely on our staff's expertise and wisdom, what are we paying them for? The future land use chapter requires orderly and balanced management. Approval of this proposed development takes the University Parkway West Quarter Plan out of balance and creates piecemeal changes to our comp plan. Our planning department staff have stated our comprehensive plan and future land use map would be changed inconsistently with many flu policies. When there are many policies found to be inconsistent, you must deny. This proposal is in conflict with the county's Unified Development Code, chapter 124, section 12, items five, which is to protect the character and the established pattern of development in each area by addressing compatibility. A four-story building is not compatible to two-story all along the rest of the road. Number 6 is to prevent and minimize land use in compatibility and conflicts among different land uses. Number seven, to establish processes that effectively and fairly apply the requirements and standards of this UDC that respects the rights of property owners and the interests of the citizens of the county. And number eight, to promote the beneficial and appropriate development of all land and the most consistent use of land in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is relied upon to make property purchases and investments in our community. The applicant's amendment, if approved, would demonstrate that the safeguards of the UDC are unreliable and can be arbitrarily bypassed. This proposal is in conflict with a comprehensive plan, future land use policies. A, the overall goals in guiding principles for the future land use plan is not respected. Goal number two seeks to avoid negative impacts by reason of intensity, density, and height amongst other things. Our planning department staff identified many flume policies that are conflicted as well as housing and economics policies as a result vote to deny. Planning commissioner Langler stated that in her year on the planning commission, this was the first time staff recommended denial. For that reason and others, she and several others voted no on the Planning Commission. The Comp Plan Amendment as formulated violates Florida statutes 163.317768.8 this requires analysis of need based on the character of the undeveloped land as well as the minimum amount of land required to achieve the housing needs of the county. One point sorry sorry, 163.317768.2A and 2C states there is a mandatory requirement for proposed land use changes to consider the amount of housing deficit and land required. Our county staff and your role as elected county commissioners does not include solving problems for speculators, developers, or landsellers. Maximum value for this property is developing according to the University Parkway, West Corridor plan. I'm going to run a time. Deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Deny the critical area of plan amendment. Deny the rezone petition. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Celeste Welch. Followed by a debt SIEM last name and Ashley Kramer. Good afternoon, ma'am. Good afternoon. My name is Celeste Welch and I signed a speaker card. I'm a longtime resident of Sarasota County and a business owner. I'm also a volunteer with Sarasota County. I live in the Sarasota County. I live in Dissoto acres with my husband and my four children. We purchased the property well over a decade ago because we wanted a safe neighborhood where our family could safely walk or bike to stores and drive golf carts to friends homes. We wanted land to grow our own food. We also wanted an older property as to not cause more land destruction and damage to wetlands. Wolf, please. DeSoto acres and its wetlands are home to many species including river otters, bobcats, insect eating bats, and many other plants and animals important to our counties biodiversity, health and economy. By building commercial buildings and parking lots adjacent to our wetlands, many of the benefits they provide will be negated. While wetlands are important for filtering pollutants, the amount that would be washed into our waterway would overwhelm the system. Water that would run off the buildings and parking lots being proposed would wash pollutants such as oil, petroleum, pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals, and plastics into the wetlands. This would overwhelm the wetlands, filtering capabilities as stated previously, and make it unhabitable for many of the species that currently exist. Even if the wetland is still partially intact, the new development would reduce the water percolation capabilities by removing part of the established wetland. This would result in more flooding and erosion, as well as reducing the amount of water replenishing to the aquifer that our residents rely on as many are living on wells. With my youngest daughter, now 20 being blind, I have been pushing for additional pedestrian safety measures in the soda acres for many years. Shade Avenue is currently the only safe route for us to take. This is Shade Avenue right here. The reasons Shade Avenue is the only way to take is the only sidewalks we have on University of Parkway. So my daughter depends on walking upshade where we have a stop sign at every intersection that like Diane said is not being obeyed. The change in zoning will cause additional traffic as people use the neighborhood hood for a cut through. And the reason for this we all know is that residents find cut through way more than somebody going to an office appointment that they might have once a year. And so these residents are going to be using shade to cut through our neighborhood. One of my other daughters was also hit by someone who ran a stop sign in this area at 45 miles an hour. No breaks on her driver's side door and suffer to concussion. My other daughter was also hit by someone who ran a stop sign in this area. At 45 miles an hour, no breaks on her driver's side door and suffered a concussion. Nothing became of that driver. She didn't go to jail, she didn't have anything happen to her, she didn't lose her license. In addition to safety, flooding is a big issue in our neighborhood. Right now, we saw this with Debbie that came through. These are the culverts. This is multiple days after Debbie came through. This is not within 24 hours. This is standing water that existed for four to five days. This is on 57th Street. This is me walking through my yard a week afterwards. We've never seen this kind of flooding ever. My yard is still flooded. I am 30 feet above sea level. I am 10 feet above shade Avenue. But the county has no stormwater drainage on Tuttle. They refuse to dig out the current stormwater drains that are there. And my farm has suffered tremendously due to this flooding that we've had for the past month. Residents have continually had to fight to prevent further changes to zoning. We love this neighborhood. We love the Soto-Acharts. It's a hundred-year-old neighborhood and with full-time residents. These aren't part-time residents. This isn't my second residence. This is my primary residence, my primary business, and it will be affected by these changes. Zoning changes along university, tunnel and shade would make the area less walkable, less bikeable, and less safe for residents. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Audet SIEM, my public pronunciation. Ashley Kramer, followed by Scott Blomelie, I believe. And then Wally O'Connor. Good afternoon, ma'am. I recognize for five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Lely Seamam and I signed a card. I'm going to speak to you about traffic. These developers are saying that dissato acres will not be impacted. Well, I beg to differ. This map shows three old ones. Ma'am, you can pull that microphone right to you. It's super fun. Oh, OK. Thank you. First, let me say The yellow dots are street lights The red block is the subject property Pink lines are roads that people should travel on and the blue lines are people taking shortcuts. From 301, traffic from the north will not be an issue, but traffic from the south already is, especially during rush hours. When traffic backs up at DeZodo and University, drivers are going to take the shortcut. It's a natural thing to do. And they'll either turn north on middle and go across to shade, shade north to university, and then east to the subject property. If they don't take middle, then they'll take shade. the state. Traffic from the north and the east, as there will be no direct access to the proposed site. Coming from the east on university, it will be necessary for vehicles to make a U-turn at the light at shade avenue, which will be very inconvenient. Remember, another developer is talking about developing at university and shade. So that'll be additional traffic. It won't take long for the drivers coming from that direction to realize that it will be easier to turn south on tunnel than west on ninth, on 59th, north on shade, and onto the eastbound university. Once again, the Soto-Akers narrow quiet streets will become a shortcut. And not only that, on middle, there are no stop signs whatsoever, and no speed limit signs. So people just bolt. Bolt. This map shows traffic from the south and the east. Traffic coming north to Tud total and Lockwood Ridge is already an issue in Disoto-Akers. Once again used as a shortcut, adding 102 dwelling units will only exacerbate this problem. When the traffic study presented in the proposal indicates its non-conforming use will produce fewer evening trips, then a conforming OPI use would generate personal observation of the existing OPI properties shows very few trips during morning and evening wish hours and virtually no traffic at night. Again the necessity. Sorry man. Time's up. Why don't we take three more cards and then we'll take a break here. Let's go with Ashley Kramer, followed by Scott B-L-O-M-E-L-E-Y, and then Wally O'Connor. Good afternoon, ma'am. We recognize for five minutes. I'm here to talk to you about this rezoning and this development project. I am a resident of DeSoto Acres, actually a newer resident. I moved there in 2022 and I was drawn there because of the large lots and sort of the country life in the city. And as you've heard from many of my other residents, over 300 residents that live here, they are pretty much unanimously opposed to this development, along with the city planners, we are all recommending that you deny this project and I am as well. There's a lot of different reasons to consider a denial on this project in addition to us being opposed to it because it would be adjacent to our current living area. And there are some things to consider that are unique within DeSoto D so to acres and a few of my presidents and neighbors have touched on that we do not have sidewalks in our neighborhood we do not have stormwater drainage I think almost and most of the residents in D so to acres are septic and well I do not have utilities down my road and don't expect them any time soon. This impacts our area when you develop so tightly close to it because it creates a greater problem for the residents that are already there who don't have the city planning or county that has gone into place in other areas where development has already happened. We don't have anything to move the water around. So as you pave and develop more in this area, even though they're proposing stormwater drainage, a lot of the runoff in areas are going to affect and impact our residents who don't have the means to necessarily invest in something huge in their yards and you know you're talking about a huge impact to the residents who have been here for a long time. I hope that you can consider the people that live here and how it's going to impact them and I hope you consider the precedent that this might set. I was recently here for some of the other developments that my neighbors have discussed that are also trying to rezone the University quarter plan. So this is not the first one in the pipeline that's coming down. So a vote on yes on this is going to lead to some catastrophic changes in university. I am not from Sarasota, but my husband is, and his family has lived here since university was dirt road, wasn't it like county line road or something. And he's seen a change and he's told me stories about when he was a kid and his mom lives off on a rain fruitville. And he has told me stories about how his cousins and him used to ride around to soda wakers and it was all dirt roads and it was a lot of fun and now it's not safe and we have two boys and one of my sons goes to Booker Middle which is right near to Soto-Wakers and I am shocked at how people drive through all of these areas already. I can't pull out of my neighborhood and I live at Tuddle and in between Tuddle and Shade actually on 49th Street and I can't pull out and take a left at certain times. I can't pull out and take a right. I'm lucky that I know the back roads because I'm a resident but I've seen people fly down my road and a lot of my family said why are you driving your Sunday school? Just let them walk. I'm like going to let him walk down Tuddle. It's not safe. And he's responsible. It has nothing to do with my child. But it has to do with the people that are coming through here. And they're not from here. They're not residents of Ducato Acres. They're using it as sort of a highway super speed to get to where they're going. So they're coming to the, you know, coming to the, you know, coming to work downtown or they're coming from Bradenton or Manatee County. And it really is an issue and I don't let my kids walk out in the street alone. I mean, it's not like a neighborhood that you can just walk the sidewalk. So, you know, adding all of these residents so tightly close to a non-dense area is gonna have an impact on us. And I think we should be considered in your decision making and not just you know proposed development and I hope that the county restores the reputation of not just building building building and not considering the residents of the pleat the people that live here so thank you. Thank you. Next up is Scott B L O M E L E Y sorry for the mispronunciation earlier and Wally O'Connor and then I'm not going to be a speaker. I'm going to be a BLEOM ELEY sorry for the mispronunciation earlier and Wally O'Connor and then we'll take a quick break. You did fine first time. I appreciate it. My name is Scott Blomley and I did sign a speaker's card and I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. So I'm a lot of what I was going to say would just be reiteration on my part, but two big things that really stick close to my heart. The first is that this proposal is indeed in conflict with the county's unified development code. If you look at chapter 24 section 12, there's items 5, 6, 7, and 8. And as residents, we rely on the comprehensive plan to make property purchases and investments in the community. So the applicant's amendment, if approved, would demonstrate that the safeguards of the Unified Development Code are unreliable and can be arbitrarily bypassed. And that certainly is not good practice. Secondly, this proposal conflicts with the comprehensive plan future land use policies. The overall goals and guiding principles for our future land use plan is not respected. Goal number two seeks to avoid the negative impacts by a reason of intensity, density, and height among other things. Goal number two seeks to avoid the negative impacts by a reason of intensity, density, and height among other things. And furthermore, county staff identified six future land use map policies that are in conflict, as well as housing and economic policies. And as a result, recommended to deny. And those are just a couple of the issues within the zoning proposal that I oppose. As duly elected officials, you are our choice to represent and preserve our interests as county commissioners. So really, we're all in this together. You work with us and you have staff who work with you. You've been blessed to each have a professionally trained staff who, just like us, are looking out for the best interest of our county. These professionals know county codes better than anybody. After attending the Planning Commission meeting where county staff recommended denial of these proposed changes, I felt abandoned because after our professional staff recommended denial, the commission goes on to approve it. To me, it defies all logic. Should you also approve these changes, after all is said and done here today, it would only leave me in grave concern about the integrity of this commission. Please deny those proposed changes and continue to adhere to the guidelines outlined in the University Park Court or plan as written. All developments along there to this point have been completed without radical changes to zoning. Unfortunately we cannot say that about this proposal. Not only does it want to increase intensity and density, it also wants to change an RE1 zoning in a residential area, which is encroachment, and is exactly what the University Park corridor plan was drafted to prevent from happening. I ask you, respect the University Park corridor plan by denying these proposals. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Last, before break, here will be Wally O'Connor. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I have signed a speaker's card. My name is Wally O'Connor. I'm a third-generation lifelong resident of DeSoto acres. I'm also a third generation licensed contractor holding a certified general contractors license. So I'm completely familiar with building and development. I come here before you today to express my concerns regarding the rezoning and development of this property. This proposed project is a perfect example why the University Parkway Court or plan was created back in 1996. The purpose was to allow homeowners on what would become a very busy roadway being University Parkway. The ability to go ahead and sell the residential property and rezone it from RE1 to OPI. This rezoning was only for the first two and a half acres plus or minus of the residential lots bordering university parkway from Lockwood Ridge Road to US 301. So far, all of the commercial development on university parkway and Lockwood on university parkway from Lockwood Ridge Road West to US 301 has only been single-story structures in all OPI zoning. There is only one exception with this being I believe could be a three-story building on the southwest corner of trailer and university. And of all of the OPI buildings, this is probably the least used building of all. I hardly ever see more than four cars in that parking lot. All of the OPI structures that have been built on what were residential lots before 1996. Every single one of those lots had a house on them. I've been there since 1972 since I was born. Like I said, third generation in that neighborhood, every single one of those houses with the exception of the property on the corner of Tuddle and University had a home on it. They were residential lots, including this one had a house. Yes, it was a larger piece of property had a house. Also another discrepancy with what they provided you 61st Street doesn't go through. It doesn't, but Johnson's lane goes halfway through my mother owns property on it. We are part owners of that road. So there are accessible homes back there past Tuttle Avenue. I'm going to get off the topic here. Thanks. All of the OPI zone structures that have been built on and what were residential lots before 1996 in University Parkway have suitable business hours. This project, however, will be wide open 24, 7, 365 days a year with 122 apartments and being forced stories tall. This will definitely not fit the University Parkway corridor plan and the OPI zoning. This proposed development also encroaches into the interior residential RE1 lots, which they had showed with their two story building and their rec house. It has also changed zoning for those as well, which is also in contradiction for University Parkway corridor plan. The folks involved with this zoning change and development are going to tell you that this particular piece of property is not actually part of the soda sodo acres and that is true But it is encapsulated by D sodo acres and all of the properties at one time had a residential home on them I know this firsthand for us the house that I was born and raised in and is still owned by my mother in this segment of land That is not is in this segment of land that is not part of DeSoto acres officially. Our house was built in 1961, is still owned by my family to this day. In addition, the zoning changes that they have done have overruled the University Parkway Corridor Plan. It is not named the DeSoto acres Corridor Plan. It is named the University Corridor Plan. So the fact that the property is not part of DeSoto acres is not relevant in my opinion. I now live on 61st street and there are seven acres of undeveloped property across the street on the north side of 61st directly across from my home. It is for sale to residential RE lots along with two OPI lots bordering university parkway. And I know the owners are waiting for the developers like this, but I think that's why I'm going to I know the owners are waiting for the developers like this to get past and zoning to be changed so that they can jump on the bandwagon as well and do the same for their properties and try to change the REO and watch to something other than RE1. I certainly do not want to look out my dining room window at the house that in the house that I built and look across the street at a multi-story commercial building or apartment in the future. Thank you. Thank you sir. We'll take a 10-50 minute break here and then when we come back we'll start with Jed Wolfson and Pat Wolfson. Blue back in about 10-50 minutes. you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . . . . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you you I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. you . . . I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. and and and and you . . Okay, we are back from break and we'll continue here. Please if you have any cards related to agenda item number eight, please get them to the clerk. As soon as you can, please. And we will, as I mentioned, start off with Jed Wolfson, followed by Pat Wolfson. Good afternoon, sir. You recognize for five minutes. Thank you. My name is Jed Wolfson, and I've signed the card that I need to sign. Put this up here. So I've lived in the third week, there's the last 34 years and have been very happy that I've been here. Actually, I wanna take exception to something that Commissioner Newhander said before. You said that C.S. the key is the gem of Sarasota County. The rest of us here think that it is indeed the Soto acres. I was just getting ready to comment about the back of the card and then I did. Okay, back to see. Well, I guess that was sort of serious. So, I've put this map up and it's got the property and question and the surrounding area. The red is the proposed piece highlighted there. And the proposal would allow for 122 housing units. Of course, this is in itself as a violation in zoning, which calls for commercial, not residential use of the property. And what they're asking for is a multi-step jump in the zoning. The area around the property, which is in blue, is also 122 units, housing units. And so you can see the difference here in the density that we have. The difference in population density is drastically different. And the proposal is absolutely incompatible with the existing neighborhood. The developers maintain that they must have this change in density in order to make enough of a profit because of the cost of buying the property, no one's forcing them to buy the property. It's not the responsibility of the commission to consider the profits for the developers or for that matter, the profit of the out of state owner. I would hope that you would be looking out for the well-being of your constituents, the people who live in the neighborhood and in Sarasota County. The proposal also calls for an exception to the present height limit. This will allow for a 45-foot height limit, four-story buildings are possible here, and again, it's incompatible with the surroundings. It'll create another terrible precedent. There's already another developer with a pre-application property, a pre-application proposing a four-story storage buildings just to the west. And they will, I'm sure, jump at the opportunity to point at the change in precedent to fit a curse. At a meeting before the planning board on a different issue, the developers, not we, the sort of acres, but the developers, pointed out that the University Carter is the first view that people coming in from the north have of Sarasota County. They proposed that this would be not the best foot forward if you want for Sarasota County. This property and any future development along the corridor should enhance, not to grade the neighborhood, and Sarasota County. I know it's been said a number of times. The staff has recommended that you deny this change in zoning. I encourage you to deny the changes in the zoning. And I thank you very much for your time. Thank you, sir. Next up, Pat Wolfson, followed by Tim Rehre, I believe it is, our E-E-H-E-R, followed by Barbie Bartels, and then Melissa Field. Good afternoon, ma'am. Good afternoon. I have a different map for you. If you're not sick of seeing that, I see if I can get this going the right way here. OK, good. All right. So my name is Pat Wilson. I lived in South Ackers for 26 years. I am speaking for Scottie Ledford, who is a realtor who lives in the area, who was not able to attend the meeting. So he's asked me to read this. This document is in response to, I put my glasses, I know I had them for some reason. Okay, this document is in response to the developers of the CEM projects, assertion that there is a need for more housing in this area. So that's the purpose of this whole thing. It says, hello, my name is Scottie Ledford, and I'm a full-time realtor licensed in Florida since 2004 and working exclusively in the Sarasota Manitia County market. I own a home in DeSoto acres where I have lived for the past four and a half years. I currently have one home listed for sale in DeSoto acres that has been on the market for seven months. I'm very well acclimated to the local real estate market in DeSoto acres and the surrounding areas. I also work with a group of investors who have aspired to be landlords that they have been building their portfolios. Unfortunately, the Sarasada rental market has been on the decline in the last couple of years. Many of these investors are unloading their rental properties as a result. We had transitioned from a seller's market to just over the threshold of a buyer's market in very little time creating approximately a six months inventory. He included, I believe he sent this document to you and there were five articles in there concerning the glut of property in this area. Hence our little map here. So this is University Parkway. Miami can pull that microphone right over to you. People tell me I usually talk to loud so I'm always a middle school teacher, so I'm project. Anyhow, okay, so these are the properties that are either under construction or had been approved. So we have Longwood Run, 99 units, Tabernacle Church, 103 units, Sianna Park, 114 units, Gracewater, which is under construction, as anybody who lives the pair of nose, that's projected 560 units. Lockwood Ridge is scheduled for 103 apartment units, and this Myrtle and tunnel is scheduled, it's approved for 1,479 units for a grand total of 2,458 units just in the small area here. This does not even include the massive development on the other side of university. So let me get to where my next page. Okay. I suggest that the addition of 120 tool apartments to the DeSoto Acres community adds stress to the existing infrastructure and is not logical based on the real estate market as described above. I would personally like to see this not pass as it is just not needed. Respectfully, Scotty Ledford and Pell Wilson. Who didn't write it but him. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Tim Rehre, I believe it is, our EEHER, Barbie Bartels, Melissa Field, then Colin Sheer, I believe. Then I have two more cards after that. So if anybody has cards related to eight, please get them to the clerk now. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. I'm Tim Rehre. I'm actually a general manager for Sarasota Subaru. I've lived in Sarasota for 40 years now and I'm actually third generation Sarasota resident. In fact, my grandfather bought the house at 2715 to Sarasota Road in Soto-Akers in the 1960s. My mother grew up there and then I grew up there. So we're pretty familiar with the community and the neighborhood itself. And we understand there are some traffic concerns in some parts of that neighborhood. I'm here to speak in support of the applications because as a general manager of a card dealership, well aware of the concerns with the employees, whether they're new or returning retaining current employees and the challenges that go along with that. Fortunately, we've got a really nice workplace, so most people stay, but there are times where retaining employees is difficult, and it's not usually because of happiness, it's usually because of cost of living. That's what it comes down to in almost all cases when our employees leave. It's because they move to a different market, whether it's another city inside Florida or actually moving out of state. So it's a big hurdle for us to deal with, and we're losing people that are long time residents or lifelong residents. I'm here speaking as a general manager of Sarasota Subru but more importantly as a third generation native who hates to see locals that don't already own a home priced out of their community. I think that this initiative, this community, this planning is actually helpful. It's going to address the lack of affordable housing in our area so that we can stay instead of being pushed out of the market by wealthy people from other states. There's people moving here from California and New York that are bidding for single-family homes. Not everybody that works a job in this area needs a single-family home. They don't aspire to have have million dollar houses some of them need apartments some of them need starter homes That's important and those are the people that work all the jobs that exist here. They're not all millionaires That's all I've got thank you. Thank you next up is Barbie our tells followed by Melissa Field followed by Colin shear Followed by Dave Moll, and then finally Janet Hunter. And that's again all the cards I have. Good afternoon. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Barbie Bartels. I'm employed as the controller of Sarasota Toyota, in which is owned by the Doherty family, and who are the applicants for these petitions. I've worked at Sarasota for over six years. I have dubbed Sarasota as my second home. I'm here to speak in support of these applications. Over the last six years as a hiring manager for a business in Sarasota County, I have faced numerous challenges with finding talented associates to add to our teams. Largely due to the lack of affordable housing in our area. In layman's terms, most of our applicants simply cannot afford to live here. No matter how badly they want to work here, which quite honestly many of them do, we currently have team members that live with family members or roommates to help with affordability, as well as a large number of team members that commute to work from more affordable areas. Personally, I commute 120 miles a day, sacrificing time away from my home, as well as valuable time away from my family, friends, and those closest to me. I make that sacrifice because as a higher level executive, I personally cannot afford to live in Sarasota County. Choosing to commute and lose time with my family while the sacrifice is a more affordable option than living here. The proposed development is a direct response to the challenges we are facing as employers in Sarasota County. The Doherty family is actively working to address the need for more affordable housing options. Benefending not only are employees, but Sarasota County as a whole. Excuse me. Instead of relying on others to tackle this issue, they are taking the initiative to invest in our employees as well as our community. I respectfully request your support of these petitions as well as the endeavor to provide more affordable housing options in our area. Thank you for your time and for your consideration. Thank you. Next up is Melissa Field, followed by Colin Sheer, followed by Dave Mollinsky. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Melissa Field. Thank you for allowing me this time for me to voice my support for these petitions. Sarasota is my home. I was born and raised here. Born in Sarasota Memorial Hospital. Went to school, graduated in Sarasota County. I've lived here my whole life. I have worked in Sarasota for a little over 12 years. I've worked for Sarasota Toyota for five years, first in various positions in accounting office, and for the last three years as an office manager. The Dirty Family Own Sarasota Toyota are the applicants for these petitions. So today I speak on behalf of myself as a resident and a hiring manager in Sarasota. In the last three years as a hiring manager, it has become increasingly difficult to hire employees to staff our admin positions. After countless interviews with capable applicants, we still struggle with hiring and employing retention. The biggest reason for this is affordable housing in Sarasota. The positions that I am tasked with filling are decent paying jobs in the admin office that pay well over minimum wage however alone this is not enough to support a growing professional to live close to their job. I have had employees cry while submitting their notice simply because they love their job but cannot afford to live here anymore. As we have tried to tackle this issue, we have expanded our search for applicants. Most of our employees in our office do not live in Sarasota. I have employees living in Brainton and Ruskin. There are two employees other than myself that live in Sarasota. One still lives with her parents because she cannot afford to purchase or rent a home. And the other has wanted to move for years but can't do to affordability. Neither of the situations are ideal. On the other end, how far are most people willing to drive for these positions? This ties into employee retention because short staffing issues ultimately affect the employees that we do have. They have to work long hours, cannot provide as fast of services as they could provide with the full staff, which leads to unhappy customers and very stress employees. From a resident standpoint, I myself have struggled with the idea that I may have to one day move because it is harder and harder to afford to live here. Personally, when I do research on homes or purchasing or renting, I quickly stop because the cost is just something I cannot even come close to supporting on my own. In leaving Sarasota is the last thing I want to do. I'm not an expert on the housing market, average cost, but every time I look, it looks like the average is a half a million dollars, for a single family home. I can't afford that. Cashiers can't, teachers can't, admin workers can't. My peers that I work with, or even when I went to school outside of my industry, are all experiencing the same things. I'm a proud employee of an owner who recognizes that issue and is trying to do something about it. As Sarasota grows, we need to support our workforce and by developing these affordable homes, we are taking a proactive step in doing that. So I respectfully ask you to support these petitions. Thank you. Thank you. Colin Sheer, followed by Dave Mollinsky, followed by Janet Hunter and those the last three cards I have. If anybody would like to speak on this topic, please get your card in. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. I'm going to be doing a lot of work. four years. I'm here to speak on the troubles and challenges we have with hiring people and retaining people that are able to afford to live here or people that are having to commute very far that in turn we're not able to retain because the commute's end up being too long and they end up not being able to endure the drive times and such to work long hours. And with trying to retain these people in higher room, they can't afford the down payments on a house, the large monthly payments on a house. And the affordable housing that they're trying to, they're trying to propose here, would help with this, would help us to be able to have people that don't have to commute near as far, and not travel worn out and tired after long days of work. So what I'm asking here is that this is considered, and I'm asking that this is something that you guys consider to approve here so that we can continue to have people that are able to be in the low-to-middle income workforce. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dave Mollinsky and last card is Janet Hunter. Afternoon, sir. Hey, my name is Dave Mollinsky. I am a 49 year resident of Sarasota County. My family has lived for 46 years in Dysato Acres. I am here to speak in opposition to the proposed future land use change of sorry. The county planning development board has done multiple studies in the Lockwood Ridge Quarter and the University Parkway Corridor. They've spent a large amount of time and money in these investigations into what the best plan is and moving forward. the planning process. So, I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. So, I think that's a good idea. the planning department did another investigation or whatever you want to call it, and they recommended no change. Before that in 2012, there was one in the Lockwood Ridge, corridor, 80% of the residents recommended no change, 1% were in favor only. The other 19 either abstained or had no response. And all the way up until today, you hear the county staff saying they recommend to deny these changes. We're here again and again, countless times defending our neighborhood. You hear countless residents in the neighborhood speaking out begging you to not approve these changes and over and over. I never hear anyone speaking in favor of those changes. That's not the developer, someone on their payroll, or someone that works for the companies they own. That's a huge sign to me, because this is about Sarah Soda County, not just our neighborhood, it's about our county. That's a huge sign of me of what really needs to be done in that neighborhood. The developers who are coming in don't live in this neighborhood. They won't live in this neighborhood. They don't even live in Sarasota County. So I don't think Sarasota County is in their best interest. I think profit is. And these please I heard for affordable housing. I don't think anyone would deny affordable housing is needed in Sarasota County. I've seen no evidence that this is going to provide affordable housing. With that being said, the design, this density, this is not the right place for what's been proposed where it's affordable or not. And I'm not speaking against affordable housing, but I am speaking against an opposition of what's been proposed in this, in these lots. Our neighborhood is very unique. It's the oldest subdivision in Sarasota County, where else can you find two and a quarter acre lots heavily wooded with one single family home. Anyone who's moved into this neighborhood, whether it's recently or decades ago, moved to this neighborhood, put their time, their life, their money into this neighborhood for a very specific reason, because it's a very specific unique neighborhood. President has been a huge word this afternoon. This was set a huge precedent for things to come, and it will destroy and change our way of life. Tremendously, there's hundreds of residents in this neighborhood who their lives are built here around the type of neighborhood it is, and that would just go completely out the window, and this would be a big step towards that. I live one block away from this proposed development. Flooding's been bad. Debbie was real bad. All the neighbors on one side of me, their house's water was in the house. I was lucky, I was spared. This is going to be developed in a land that absorbs a lot of that water. This goes down, I'm pretty sure my house is next. I don't want to see that. These properties need to be preserved, how they are for multiple reasons. There's such a huge difference. Two, the two properties they wanna put 122 units on it, four stories are zone to have two units. That's a massive change. The amount of traffic that will come in will be massive. And the focus on what's officially DeSoto Wakers is a moot point for two reasons. One, and I will quote, the county's 2020 DeSoto Acres is a moot point for two reasons. One, and I will quote, the county's 2020 DeSoto Acres Land Use Study. This is a quote from the county. The area between Shade and Tuttle Avenue's and North of 59th Street is not platted but considered part of the DeSoto Acres neighborhood. Besides that, this is not the DeSoto Acres Commission. This is about our neighborhood as well as our subdivision in our county. And I just don't want to see this and I'm sure most people don't want to see this change this neighborhood in our county. The risk of being repetitive all stopped there. Thank you for listening and I hope you vote too. Deny the changes. Thank you sir. Last card I have is Janet Hunter. Good afternoon, ma'am. You recognize for five minutes. Thank you very much. General, I'd appreciate your service to Sarasota County. At the risk of being repetitive, it's been a long afternoon. And like I said, thank you very much for your service to us. Our community is our community. And our community is our community. I think we are unlike any community in the state of Florida. As Mr. Mollinsky was saying, as Mr. O'Connor was saying earlier, he's a third generation resident. I've lived in DeSoto-Aikers for 30 years. I'm looking at the agenda, and I just kind of circled a few words that I want to emphasize. Please do not approve. Please do not amend. Please do not change. Please do not rezone. There's no reason for it. As Mr. Molinsky said, there's no evidence that these 220 units, or 120 units, pardon me, are going to be affordable housing that will benefit the applicant's employees. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. Other than the fact that they all will need automobiles, and if there are 120 residents in a multi-family development, multiply that times two people who usually live in a residence, now you've got 220 cars. We have massive traffic problems, and as the Wolfson's pointed out, right now there are a total of 2,458 available parcels, which have been built on, that are residences all ready to move into. And this does not count what's happening across the street from university right next to that bullet hole where there's a huge apartment complex being built. We can't walk our dogs anymore across shade Avenue because it's just way too dangerous. I'm just asking on behalf of DeSoto Acres, which is a gym, the gym of Sarasota, and something that you folks I'm sure brag about and are extremely proud of. Leave it the way it is. Your predecessors thought long and hard and spent a whole lot of time and energy looking at comprehensive plan, looking at corridor plan. And there's a reason for that. There's no need for change. Absolutely none. Thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience that like to speak on agenda? Item number eight. Seeing none for the record. First off, thank you so much for the polite testimony and being patient with some of the breaks we took. So thank you for that. All right, with that, any questions for a seeing none, then I am going to move on to rebuttal for five minutes. I'm going to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the committee to go ahead and ask the Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners, Bill Merrill again for the record. And again, appreciate your courtesy and hearing everyone out and certainly understand some of the concerns. But I'd like to start off with regard to the staff's report. And the staff, as of course, mentioned I believe, Attorney Brooks mentioned that the staff said that it is inconsistent. They didn't say that. They said it may be found inconsistent for various reasons, and it may be found consistent for various reasons. And if you sat there and weighed them, I think they had more consistency than non-consistency. They also, I think, staff also indicated that the main reason, despite these things, the main reason for their denial was because this straight line of light office has been there for 30 years. That straight line is that pink area. But what, but straight lines are not the reason for good planning. Good planning is you take into consideration the situation at hand, and in this case, this is one of only two parcels, the parcel where you see that large lake in the foreground and this parcel that are not platted lots in desotowakers and they are much larger than any of those other two acre lots. This is 9.4 acres. At the time, it was five times larger than any of the other lots. And those were not taken into consideration. And it's never been adjusted since then. So again, we think that the staff is ignoring the purpose of the cap that we laid out earlier, that bow laid out earlier, and the analysis that was presented in that regard that talked about the depth and if there was a depth that multifamily would be appropriate. So again, you also heard there's a strong need for multifamily in this area. There's single family housing that the one woman showed on her maps. Those are almost all single family. I was involved in a number of those, but those were, there were very few multifamily and there were no multi-family on this stretch of university. The other thing that Mr. Brooks brought up was about the legislative aspect of this, and that it's difficult to challenge or litigate a denial. It's also difficult to litigate an approval. It's legislative, and as Mr. Brooks would recognize, legislative does not set precedent. It does not set precedent. That's what we keep hearing to do. That's the number one issue. We didn't hear objections about the site plan. We heard about precedent. This is a unique parcel bow pointed out how unique it is for all the various reasons I won't go into But this is a unique parcel and the legislative aspect of this does not create precedent We also heard Well, but why don't you take it from there? I'll use I'll use this Layout here if you, there was no discussion opposition, specific mention about problems with our binding development concept plan. Because it's a great binding development concept plan. By virtue of the fact, can I have that back again? By virtue of the fact that it's got the intensity of University Parkway on the north, the high traffic, the commercial that's associated, then we put our multifamily buildings in the north, and then we transition down. They talked about this as a proper transition. It is a transition. It's transitioning for hundreds of feet from the low density all the way down to the adjacent property with the two story, then the single story amenity, stormwater, existing wetland, and that creates one and a half football fields of distance from here to here, from the adjacent plus the screening that occurs with the forested wetland and stormwater, which is three acres in size. Three acres in size is bigger than one and a half times the size of any plated lot into soda acres. And so if I could have the wolf very quickly, there was a concern about the pointing out about previous reasons. I happen to be a part of that ill-fated one that they mentioned in 1113. This was an internal lot for the RMF1, for an ALF that was denied is a two acre parcel platted lot two Three parcels in from the University Parkway. It had access on 59th We don't have any access to an internal roadway at all this one over here that that they mentioned potential for precedent That's four platted lots I would also point out that this is all industrially zoned and used property here that are platted lots and then also an out parcel. One of the speakers actually owns a business in here of a platted in the area of the platted lots that's zoned to ILW as well. And so I want to show you the transportation chart as well. There was a concern about that. This is out of your staff report. Don't take my work for it It's a reduction of negative four trips even when they put it in the reduction multiplier And that's from your staff report. Thank you mr. Madriuk commissioner Number of commissioners are get the commissioner rainford then commissioner Smith Can you go back to the kind of like the 3D rendering there? Sure. Yeah, yeah, that shows the red strip on it. Yeah, that one right there. So essentially half of that one townhouse building, that's a two story just to clarify. The other one is one story. So both of those are going to be under 35 feet to. Correct. Which is 35 feet is what's allowed in the RU. Okay. And then in terms of the entrance to the property, that's directly in the middle of the site there if we're looking at it. Correct, right here. Okay. And then when during development, obviously there's a wetland. So that is not like on a traditional development that doesn't have a wetland. You would go in there, you would take out that buffer more than likely, and then during development there's no buffer than after development, or towards the end of development you're putting in a buffer. That wetland is not going to be impacted at all during this. Correct, that will be preserved in its entirety. It's already been jurisdictionally determined by Swiftmide in the field as well. So that'll be preserved in its entire, it's already been jurisdictionally determined by swift mud in the field as well. So that'll be preserved. And then north of that is the stormwater area. Okay. In regards to the stipulations, I think there might have been some differences between the proffered stipulations and what the staff had. Is that accurate or no? No, I think those are just additionally proffered. No, no, these are the four staff recommended stipulations. I thought they said five. The only reason I'm asking is I thought they said they had five stipulations. Did I hear that wrong? Keaton. Excuse me, sir. So the stipulations between staff and the applicant are the same. I'm going through the staff report real quick. Page 20. Oh. So the only stipulation we have different is just the binding of the concept plan. One through four on the screen here are the rest that we talked about that buffer K landscape buffer the 150 foot building setback and then the cross-access and deceleration lane so stipulations are the same they're Binding development concept plan is just an added step that's there are they've already depicted Yeah, they've stated the new and a binding plan and that we always have that as a step. Fair enough. So I believe some of the confusion might be, I'm looking at the attached ordinance now and it's 1, 2, 3, 3, 4. So there's two number threes in your packet. So what does that three number those? Got it. OK, that was all my questions. Commissioner Smith? Yeah. That was all my questions. Commissioner Smith. Yeah, I'm here at some testimony about affordable housing. You know, I'm just, I like to move. I didn't see anything in the application that talked about affordable housing number of units, AMI, any of that. In the housing staff report, it said it could be. Right. There is nothing in the staff report that, but Adam is here to address what they do for their employees and also for first responders. Okay. So yes, sir, Adam Kim, CO for C even development. Just touch on that the rents that we plan on charging now are the market rate in Sarasota County, nothing more, nothing less, which is actually close to the 100% AMI. We plan to and certainly looking at the options of first responder type of discounts. Obviously we want to take care of our employees first, some of which you heard from today. The key thing, I think, with providing this type of housing on this roadway is that University corridor is severely underserved, as I'm sure you all know. I mean, this, the 1,400 units that we surveyed that were built since 2017 on University Parkway, two of which delivered in the last two years, already operating over 95% occupied, and that's at the average rent. So the issue is great, we need to bring units online here instead of sort of counting, because we have the largest discrepancy between renting a home today and buying a home today, and Sarah sort of counting is the largest ever been average rent of 1900, average price of month, owning a home today and buying a home today in Sarasota County as the largest ever been. Average rent of 1900, average price of month owning a home is $3,900. So we bring some more units online. We look at different incentives to bring and that's how we help the community meet. Were you done with your thoughts, Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Nunder. Thank you, Chair. And appreciate that Commissioner Smith. That was my question. One of them. Do you guys you know seem to recall you there may have been a slide where you you look at major employment centers. You label things relative to the project site. Do you guys have anything that Joe do you guys have anything that Joe, do you guys have anything that I mean? Yeah, we have aerials. I think you maybe talk about what typically we'll show the distance to Sarah Sonomorio or other major employment centers, but the universe, I think that's what you're talking about. Yeah, I have major employment center close, my handwriting's just how close or a visual is usually good in my mind where, you know, when you have people working in a particular area, such as a major employment center, very familiar with university, having housing that is either, you know, in this case, close, you know, in my mind speaks volumes on traffic and intensity in particular areas. I thought I saw it during the presentation, but I could be wrong. Yeah, this is the future land use. So, yeah, sure, the site is right here. This is where our site is right there. This is the commercial center at Lockwood Ridge and University Parkway. This is the ILOW that exists. That's the former platted lots of DeSoto-Akkers. It's a major employment center here. This is the major employment center of out parcel, but also platted DeSoto-Akkers lots right here, as well that's a industrial major employment center, as well to the south of us. And then you have all of the, that's not shown on this map, but all of the commercial that exists on the north side as well as the office complexes. I actually have my doctor right here as well, just north of this site on the North Side of University Parkway. So we believe that a multifamily site is suitable on major arterials and close proximity to those major employment centers, commercial centers, because the people don't have to travel as far in order to get to those services or to work. Okay, yeah, I mean, in my mind too, that's always worked in the past for me. I'm not saying anything yet here. Can I bring up Adam again real quick? Would you kindly come up? We did have some narrative, presumably from your employees that work at the dealerships, et cetera. Are you planning on, and not that this is even relevant to the app, but are you planning on helping out your employees here in Sarasota County with affordable housing on this project? Do you see that this gives you as a business owner in a more holistic type larger equation that this provides some housing for your employees. Yeah, of course. Of course. I've made some testimony to that. And just so that I'm clear, you and Commissioner Smith mentioned that the AMI percentage that was, was it between 80 and 100, or was it right about 100%? I would have to bring up my stats. I know that there's changed sometimes that AMI in a certain area. Essentially 1900, I believe that's right on the fringe of 100% AMI. And again, that's just the average. But yes, the vision is helping out not in the community, but our employees and giving us the flexibility to hire and make those decisions, especially when you're kind of transitioning into the neighborhood if we have to, you know, hire from elsewhere. You know, then this would be our second project. When we have one in South County that we didn't do affordable housing on, so we're certainly not against it. It's just the options based on the market changing at the time. Thank you. That's all for now. Okay, I do not have anyone else on the board and for the clerk, I do have Mr. Camp Sign Card for the record, public record request, request to speak card. Okay. I have no commissioner on the board here. Any questions for staff? Any questions for the applicant? If not, I am going to close the public hearing. Okay. Let's close the public hearing. Okay, let's close the public hearing. I do have to take a minute here. We have to do a little bit of gymnastics on this. We are going to take 8C first, and we will now recess as the Board of County Commissioners and convenes the Land Development Regulation Commission to address 8C, which is not a public hearing. It's a Land Development Regulation Commission to find ordinance number 2024-055 to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. As a reminder to my fellow board members, this would need four votes to move forward. With that, I have Commissioner Rainford on the board. Happy to move approval of 8C. I have a motion by Commissioner Rainford. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Cuttsinger. Commissioner Rainford, do you care to speak to it? No. Commissioner Cuttsinger, would you care to speak to your second? I'll speak to the reason. Anything further from the board? Commissioner Smith. Yeah I have difficulty with the comprehensive plan because of the quite frankly it's because of the University Parkway Court or Critical Area Plan and the corridor plan that I believe this this development is on violation of that plan and so I can't support the comp plan change. Anything further? Commissioner, I'm under. All right, Commissioner, this would be a question for legal. Josh, can you help me out? I forgot to ask that question and I don't know if we need to open the hearing again, air or not, but the University corridor plan, almost like an overlay district, right, correct, in that particular area, essentially, is any of this in violation of that. I meant to ask that, you know. So, I mean, with this, the ask today is the conference of plan amendment, as well as a critical area plan amendment. Okay, so that critical area plan amendment, plan amendment, I think was gonna make it so they'd be consistent with the plan today. All right, thank you. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Rainford seconded by Commissioner Cuttsinger. Would any commissioner care to speak further on the matter? Again, we're on 8C. Seeing none, I'll call the question. All of them favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Chair votes, aye passes four to one. We'll now recess as the land development regulation commission reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners and county attorney just for clarification, we can take AB and D together. That is correct. Okay. Then the will of the board on a motion for 8A, B and D. Commissioner Rainford. Yeah, happy to make a motion on 8A, B and D with the five recommended stipulations that included the binding development concept plan. Do you have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Cuttsinger. Commissioner Rainford, do you care to speak to it? Seconded by Commissioner Cuttsinger. Commissioner Rainford, do you care to speak to it? Yeah, yeah. I thought the testimony was very impactful. I've driven DeSoto acres almost every day. My son went to Tabernacle Christian schools so I came out the back entrance to that. It's one of the most beautiful communities. I thought the speaker that said that that was the gem over CES the key. I would have a hard time arguing that aspect of it. The thing about this particular petition is the amount of setbacks, the wetland buffer, I thought was significant. It's very rare that we see such a significant buffer, 492 feet to the taller buildings, 446 feet to the shorter buildings, direct access on a university parkway instead of onto this photo, with hopefully the goal of keeping that to the periphery of the photo acres, because you guys do live in a beautiful community. But that's all I want to add. Commissioner Cuttsinger, do your second. Yeah, I'll take a minute and I do appreciate the testimony and I certainly respect your lifestyle and it's fortunate to live in an area like that and to have that acreage. This particular rezone I think protects that. The way that it was designed to make sure that the development portion of this, the intense development portion of this, is along and within the area there that was defined. Interestingly, these old critical area plan, these older critical area plans, I could not have imagined when we first moved here, there would be a mall just down the road. That wasn't, you know, you couldn't have imagined 30 years what would happen in this area and the growth that's taken place. And so it's appropriate and rights to review these plans and say, you know, what has happened, what growth ever experience and what fits. And certainly here it needs to be updated. So I'm okay with the update to the critical area plan, especially for this parcel given the fact that it is a unique parcel. It is 600 feet deep. And what the developer has done is said, let's protect that back half of the property. Let's let that continue to be a buffer. The wetland will be preserved in full. I know there's some testimony about it being impacted. It will not be impacted, and there'll be a 30-foot buffer in addition to the wetland that will be maintained and present for me a healthy four or 500-foot distance between that building and the first home. And you know several things stood out here. I know that the traffic has been and will be an issue, but the truth is a light office development on this parcel probably could be more intense. And we know our traffic folks have said that it would create certainly an equal amount of traffic with the light office development. And so the traffic issue is there. I would recommend and I strongly hope that the community will work with our folks to bring some traffic calming and enforcement because folks should not use that as a pass through and I don't know how to stop that, whether it's whatever traffic calming issues can be brought to that area. But that problem exists today. This group didn't create that issue. And again, I know there's a lot of conversation about stormwater, and these folks, when they design this project they will not be able to impact the area. One one hundredth of an inch of water cannot fall off this property onto the adjacent properties when they do the storm water design other than they cannot have any adverse effects to the surrounding properties regarding flooding. And one good thing about new development is they're required to do that. This is a wonderful older development that wasn't required at the time the soda acres was done. This will be required of this development. So they will have to design this property to maintain that. So for those reasons, I'm happy to support this. Commissioner Smith, thank you. Commissioner Nunder. Yeah, I can't support this motion either. Because of the University Parkway Court or plan we're changing the zoning. This project, I think it's a very nice project, but once we cross that line into soda acres and in three zone, what happens 20 years from now? Let's say the property is going to get redeveloped again. And we do a wetland mitigation like they did at Wawa and University farther up the road. And suddenly, now we've got these folks developing the property right up against the Soto-Aikers. I just think that the University Parkway Corridor plan is a line in the sand and that we shouldn't allow the development to cross it. And maintain what is an extremely special area of Sarasota County. It's old Sarasota. You don't find this anywhere area of Sarasota County. It's old Sarasota. It's, you don't find this anywhere else in Sarasota and it used to be out in the Boundox and now it's in the middle of town. And so every effort to try to preserve that type of lifestyle in my opinion needs to be maintained and so I can't support it. Thank you. Commissioner Nunder. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'd like to begin by apologizing for the jewel comment. So it's well received and I will not make that mistake. Again, in perpetuity from here on out. So my apologies. I've grown up here for 37 years too. And I'd just like to take the time to acknowledge a high school buddy of mine who did come out here to give his public testimony, Mr. Merlinsky. It's always good to see people from the past, and certainly I have a pretty good history with you and your family, and it's great to see you, and I hope everybody as well, so I just wanted to say hi. This was a very hard application for me if I'm being very honest on the whole process. As the development was first drawn out with the bottom half kind of invaginating into the residential component before redesign on the binding plan, I would have been in a very, very hard know after the applicant went back to work and really kind of in my opinion mitigated the encroachment of the development into the line. It became a little more palatable for me. I think Commissioner Cuttsinger was very succinct and explaining and we're all very hypersensitive to the stormwater conditions in Sarasota County after Debbie. He's absolutely 100% correct with the 1-100th of an inch measurement that must be required on development to make sure that flooding as we is not an issue. I've also been a very big believer in working with development into communities. From the day I always try to say at the very end, be a good neighbor, the expectation is, as you're coming into a neighborhood, you communicate. And I think at the end of the day, I have said that often and I have not had anybody at this moment come back to me telling me that there has been impasse, there's no communication, there's no dialogue. But you know, there again, I think this with the setback and the distance, the line of sight between that first residential and where this development will be is at least palatable for me. Cerro Soda County is growing. We have some needs in that particular area especially. But those are the reasons and I wanted to San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco agenda items 8, A, B, and D. If there are no further comments from this board, I'm gonna call the question. Go on once, go on twice. Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes, aye. Passes four to one. Moving on, we do have a last open to the public. Agenda item number nine. Clerk, do we have any cards for open to the public? Seeing none, my follow-up board members, agenda item number 10, any other business for the good of the order? Seeing none, we're adjourned. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to make a little bit of a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. Thank you.