The City Commission and the County
Commission met in special joint session on April 24, 1997, in
the Commission Chambers in City Hall. Present were City Commissioners
Maddox, Meisburg, Lightsey and Bailey, and County Commissioners
Host, Yordon, Joanos, Thaell, Proctor and Sauls. Also present
were City Attorney English and County Administrator Alam, and
Deputy Clerk Sandra C. O'Neal.
Mayor Maddox called the meeting
to order at 6:07 p.m. for the purpose of taking public comments
on the proposed Cycle 97-2 Amendments to the Tallahassee-Leon
County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. He announced that the public
hearing on the Northeast High School Remedial Plan Amendment would
be held prior to the public hearing on the proposed Cycle 97-2
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He announced and recognized Mr.
Bill Montford, Leon County School Superintendent, who was in attendance.
Mr. Rick Geshwiler, Chief of
Comprehensive Planning, summarized that the remedial amendment
accomplishes two things: 1) it removes an amendment that the
County had previously adopted and 2) establishes new language
for an Agricultural/Silvicultural/Conservation land use category
and specific language about the high school siting process which
is applicable to the County only, and therefore, will be a County
only amendment. Mr. Geshwiler announced that there are two map
amendments which accompany the text amendments for the Northeast
High School. He outlined that the first map amendment extends
the Urban Services Area (USA) north along Thomasville Road to
include the high school site, designates it as an education facility,
and changes the land use designation on approximately seventeen
acres of the intervening Middlebrooks property to Mixed Use A.
He further outlined that the second map amendment takes five
large plantation tracts north of the high school and officially
places them in the Agricultural/Silvicultural/Conservation land
use designation. Mr. Geshwiler indicated that there are two ordinances,
one for each of the governments to adopt the remedial amendment,
and that the City Attorney would need to read the title of the
City ordinance into the record before the City Commission acts
upon it.
Mayor Maddox inquired if anyone
wished to speak to this item and the following persons came forward:
Mr. Terrell Arline, P.O. Box
5948, Legal Director representing 1000 Friends of Florida, (proponent)
appeared before the Joint Commission and announced that 1000 Friends
of Florida and its members fully support this remedial amendment
and he expressed his appreciation for the Joint Commission working
with them on it. He concluded by emphasizing that they were looking
forward to having a school built in this area.
Ms. Randie Denker, 7600 Bradfordville
Road, representing the Lake McBride Area Residents Association,
the Millstone Institute For Preservation, Inc., the Centerville
Rural Community Association, and the Lake Caroline Estates Homeowners
Association, (opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and
discussed a memorandum, dated March 25, 1997, that she had previously
sent to all the Commissioners explaining the problems those she
represents have with this amendment. She summarized the highlights
of the memorandum, the residents' concerns with changing the land
use designation on this site, the potential for urban sprawl,
and the precedent for infilling everything south of this site
that would be set by building a commercial development so far
north of the center of Bradfordville. Ms. Denker also discussed
concerns with the high school's effect on the area's environment
as well as the cost of support services. She expressed the opinion
that, although those she represented saw a need for the high school,
they did not see a justification for changing the rural land use
to commercial as necessary for building the high school and that
rezoning the thirty acres adjacent to the high school as commercial
was excessive. Ms. Denker emphasized that a less drastic or an
intermediate change in land use designation which would still
allow the extension of the USA, but not allow the higher densities
that the Mixed Use A land use designation allows, would be fully
supported by those she represents.
Mr. Bill Montford, Leon County
School Superintendent, appeared before the Joint Commission and
discussed the School Board and his confidence in the ordinance
which was before the Joint Commission as being the very best they
could bring forward. The School Board felt it was a good, workable
ordinance and one that would best serve not only the students
in that area, but the entire community. Mr. Montford concluded
by urging the Joint Commission to adopt this ordinance and he
expressed appreciation for the attention and assistance received
from the Joint Commission and the staff.
County Commissioner Joanos inquired
about the changes being made to several existing policies (Land
Use Policy 1.1.2 [Leon County], Land Use Policy 1.1.3 [Leon County],
Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.3.2[Leon County]) which were identified
as being amended in the Northeast High School Remedial Amendment
ordinances.
Ms. Wendy Grey, Planning Department
Director, announced that those three policies had been changed
by the Joint Commission and then found to not be in compliance,
so this revision would change them back to the way they were originally,
and the staff had also added the new Future Land Use category
and Map Amendments to implement the settlement agreement.
A lengthy discussion focused
on the new language (Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.3.2[D]) implementing
the policy that the School Board would not be allowed to site
any school outside of the USA and the finding by the Planning
Department that elementary and the K-8 schools were appropriate
outside the USA, but that this new language was just to apply
to high schools.
Mayor Maddox clarified and confirmed
with the staff that the legislative intent of today's action was
not to preclude middle or elementary schools from being built
outside the USA boundary.
Ms. Deborah Bickmire, Comprehensive
Planning, clarified that the changes in Exhibit A of the agenda
item were changes that were being repealed. She outlined that
the reason they were being repealed was because they were challenged
by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) and the
Board of County Commissioners made a determination that these
changes were not necessary to accomplish what needed to be done.
Mayor Maddox, in response to
continued concern by County Commissioner Joanos, again clarified
with Ms. Grey that middle and K-8 schools could be located outside
the USA, but the issue that County Commissioner Joanos was raising
was a broader issue that had not been solved, which is to clearly
state what kind of schools ought to be allowed where.
Further discussion focused on
County Commissioner Joanos' interpretation that Item D of Sanitary
Sewer Policy 1.3.2 would not allow the construction by the School
System of another school such as a Fort Braden Elementary. Additional
discussion focused on whether the School System had any plans
to construct another school in the near future, and if they did
not, the possibility that the broader issue of which types of
schools would be allowed outside the USA would be discussed and
perhaps solved before any plans developed. Ms. Grey established
that the language in Item D that County Commission Joanos was
referencing was not in the Comp Plan originally, but was put in
the ordinance as part of the settlement agreement so that existing
schools and their expansion could be served by water and sewer.
County Commissioner Host inquired
if the language in the ordinance was different than what the Board
of County Commissioners had approved and signed off on a an earlier
public hearing and it was established that the language in Land
Use Policy 1.1.2 [Leon County] and Land Use Policy 1.1.3 [Leon
County] was just changed back to the way it was before the FDCA
issued its objection to the new language and Sanitary Sewer Policy
1.3.2[Leon County] came about as part of the Northeast High School
Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Ken Goldberg, representative
of Tall Timbers during the negotiation for the settlement agreement,
appeared before the Joint Commission and indicated that the language
that was before the Joint Commission was formatted differently,
but was exactly word for word (verbatim) what the negotiators
agreed to and the County Commission approved. He further indicated
that the reason the language for serving existing schools with
water and sewer was placed in the ordinance was because of the
Fort Braden school and because the School Board wanted to be sure
that no one would be able to come forward and challenge the facilities
that are out there. Mr. Goldberg reaffirmed that the School Board
does not intend to build outside the USA and does not have a problem
with the new language.
Mr. Montford reappeared before
the Joint Commission and concurred with Mr. Goldberg, indicating
that the School Board had no plans to build any schools in the
near future outside of the USA and that they were satisfied with
the way things currently exist. He further indicated that the
School Board discussed this at length and knew the new language
was created in an effort to address the Fort Braden issue as well
as the others.
Discussion focused on whether
this language would allow the re-opening of the Concord or Miccosukee
Schools and it was established that the Concord school already
existed, but it would not allow the construction of a similar
school and also that the Miccosukee School was in a rural community
and this language would not preclude a school in a rural community.
City Commissioner Meisburg briefly
discussed his record of opposition to placing the School Board
in this type of situation, but he acknowledged that everyone had
been through a long negotiating process with all sides coming
to the table and negotiating in good faith and he opined that
what needed to happen now was for everyone to go forward and proceed
to build the high school as quickly as possible.
On behalf of the City, City
Commissioner Meisburg moved to adopt Ordinance 97-O-0017, an ordinance
adopting the Northeast High School Remedial 2010 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, and City Commissioner Bailey seconded the
motion.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
TALLAHASSEE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE 2010 TALLAHASSEE/LEON COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; AND PROVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The motion to adopt Ordinance
No. 97-O-0017 having been duly seconded, the vote of the City
Commission was as follows:
AYE: City Commissioners Maddox, Meisburg, Lightsey and Bailey
NAY: None
ABSENT: City Commissioner
Weaver
On behalf of the County, County
Commissioner Thaell moved to adopt the County Ordinance adopting
the Northeast High School Remedial 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and County Commissioner Host seconded the motion.
County Commissioner Joanos inquired
if the owner of the property that was being changed in land use
designation to Agricultural/Silvicultural/Conservation was doing
so on a voluntary basis and it was established that the change
in land use designation was a voluntary change. County Commissioner
Joanos also reminded those in attendance that, on the issue of
the schools, it was the Leon County school district and not the
Tallahassee school district and he opined that this issue would
some day come up again.
Discussion focused on the knowledge
that many people had different ideas during the negotiation process
on this agreement and for the agreement to work it would have
to be taken as a whole package, but would fall apart if anyone
tried to start taking out the small parts of the agreement they
did not agree with. Brief discussion focused on whether additional
discussion and approval was needed by the Joint Commission on
the creation of the Agricultural/Silvicultural/Conservation land
use designation and it was established that this was all the official
action that was needed from the Joint Commission, but there had
been discussion that this new land use designation should come
back before the Joint Commission in another amendment so that
the public could be made fully aware of and would have the opportunity
to take advantage of it.
County Commissioner Host discussed
the problems with the County's public notification of the discussion
on the creation of the Agricultural/Silvicultural/Conservation
land use designation and he suggested that the Commissions needed
to go through a more public process than what had been held during
the negotiated agreement. City Commission Lightsey concurred
with County Commissioner Host and she suggested that as long as
there is a joint comprehensive plan, issues such this one must
come before the City and County Commission and she expressed the
view that the Commissions were obligated to take positions on
them.
County Commission Chair Yordon
echoed the Commissioners' remarks to School Superintendent Montford
and thanked him for his leadership and guidance and willingness
to work so diligently on this issue and he indicated that the
community appreciated it.
There being no further discussion
on this issue, the vote of the County Commission to
adopt the following Leon County Ordinance Number 97-08 adopting
the Northeast High School Remedial 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
was as follows:
AYE: County Commissioners Yordon, Host, Proctor, Joanos, Sauls and Thaell
NAY: None
ABSENT: County Commissioner
Maloy
A brief discussion focused on County Commissioner Proctor's request to have the records reflect his abstention from this vote and it was established that his request did not meet the criteria required for abstention based on the current laws under which the Commissions operate. County Commissioner Proctor withdrew his abstention.
Mayor Maddox left the meeting
at 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Ken Davis, Assistant Chief
of Comprehensive Planning, announced that the following amendment(s)
had been withdrawn from consideration:
Application by Mr. Colin English,
Jr. ,Trustee, proposing to change the land use designation on
70 acres fronting on the west side of Capital Circle NW and the
south side of Northwest Passage from Heavy Industrial to Mixed
Use B
Mr. Davis announced that School
Superintendent Montford had asked that the staff point out on
the summary sheet that where the comments were listed as School
Board Recommendations be changed to Superintendent's Comments.
He further announced that the applicant for Amendment #005 had
requested information from the staff and the staff was prepared
to respond to his request prior to discussion being taken on this
amendment.
County Commission Chair Yordon
announced that, since all the proposed map amendments were inside
the City limits and since the County was in favor of the new procedure
of deferring to the City Commission's decisions on proposed amendments
within the City limits, the discussion would move immediately
to the text amendments. He inquired if there were any speakers
who wished to address the Joint Commission on the text amendments
and he questioned the staff as to whether any action was required
at this point. It was established that there were no speakers
on the text amendments and no action was required by the Commissions
at this meeting.
Brief discussion focused on the
new procedure for handling discussion or comments on proposed
amendments in the unincorporated areas by City Commissions and
discussion or comments on proposed amendments in the City by County
Commissioners.
County Commission Chair Yordon,
ascertaining that no one wished to address the Joint Commission
regarding Text Amendments #008 and #009, concluded the County
Commission's portion of the meeting and passed the gavel to Mayor
Pro Tem Meisburg.
Additional public hearings were
taken on the following proposed amendments:
Proposed Planning Staff LPA City Commission
Item Amendment To Amendment Recommendation Recommendation Action
97-2-M-001 | FUTURE LAND USE MAP
[Apalachee Parkway] (Application by Talcor Management Group proposing to change the land use designation on a 9.7 acre parcel located on Apalachee Parkway that was the Florida Division of Forestry tower site) | From: Governmental Operational
To: Activity Center | Approval | Denial
(Requested staff to take a comprehensive look at eastern half of Activity Center with regard to existing residential uses to determine if Activity Center is appropriate designation of this area.) | |
97-2-M-002 | FUTURE LAND USE MAP
[Capital Circle Northwest & Northwest Passage] (Application by Mr. Colin English, Jr. Trustee proposing to change the land use designation on 70 acres fronting on the west side of Capital Circle NW and the south side of Northwest Passage) | From: Heavy Industrial
To: Mixed Use B | Denial | Approval with modifications
(Approve Mixed Use B on frontage for a depth of 600 feet from CCNW. Deny change on balance of request.) | Withdrawn |
97-2-M-003 | FUTURE LAND USE MAP
[Meridian Road and East Tharpe Street] (Application by Mr. Tim O'Donnell proposing to change the land use designation on a .55 acre parcel located east of Meridian Road near the intersection with Tharpe Street) | From: Residential Preservation
To: Mixed Use A | Denial | Denial | |
97-2-M-004 | FUTURE LAND USE MAP
[East Park Avenue and Belmont Road] (Application by Mr. Robert C. Dean proposing to change the land use designation on a 1.13 acre parcel with an existing house on it located at the corner of Park Avenue and Belmont Road) | From: Residential Preservation
To: Mixed Use C | Denial | Denial | |
97-2-M-005 | FUTURE LAND USE MAP
[Beard Street & North Gadsden Street] (Application by Mr. Russell M. McGregor as agent for Majid S. Movaghar and Symin Massoudi proposing to change the land use designation on a .31 acre parcel with an existing duplex on it located at the northeast corner of the Beard Street and Gadsden Street intersection) | From: Residential Preservation
To: Mixed Use A | Denial | Denial | |
97-2-M-006 | FUTURE LAND USE MAP
[Raymond Diehl Road & Hadley Road] (Application by Watermark Associates, Limited Corporation, proposing to change the land use designation on a 1.28 acre parcel located with frontage on the north side of Killearn Center Boulevard - Raymond Diehl Road (north of Interstate 10) and approximately 200 feet west of Hadley Road) | From: Residential Preservation
To: Mixed Use B | Approval
(Low Density Residential Office Development Pattern) | Approval
(Directed staff to bring forth a comprehensive amendment for Hadley Road area in Cycle 98-1) | |
97-2-M-007 | FUTURE LAND USE MAP
[Update Year 2020 Cost Feasible Transportation Plan] | Year 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan | Approval | Approval | |
97-2-008 | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT | Update Schedule of Capital Improvements | Approval | Approval | |
97-2-009 | TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
& CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT | Transportation Policy 1.4.1 (LOS Standards)
& Capital Improvements Policy 1.1.3 (LOS Standards) | Approval | Approval |
Ms. Enid Ehrbar, Comprehensive
Planner, announced the following citizen appearances and amendments
being addressed.
Amendment 97-2-M-001:
Mr. Ed Murray, 2117 Jennette
Street, (proponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
problems associated with the discovery of underlying governmental
operation restrictions which had been placed on this property
during the Forestry Service's ownership. He indicated that this
discovery was made after the current owners had already purchased
the property and had met the concurrency and land use compliance
requirements. Mr. Murray concluded by outlining the development
plans for the property and indicating that resolution had been
reached with the one known person who had objected to the proposed
project.
Mr. Rick Moore, 805 North Gadsden
Street, representing Mr. Ed Murray, (proponent) appeared before
the Joint Commission and spoke in support of the staff's recommendation
of approval for this map amendment. He explained the circumstances
surrounding the conflict of current and future land uses for this
site and details associated with the change in ownership of the
property from governmental ownership to private ownership. Mr.
Moore concluded by emphasizing that the applicant was asking for
a map correction, "the fixing of a glitch", to be consistent
with the surrounding properties and felt it was an appropriate
request.
Discussion focused on what was
currently on the property, establishing that currently there are
office buildings which supported the Division of Forestry tower
structure and the efforts of the people who worked there, and
on the location of the property and the uses adjacent to it.
Mr. Mark Thomasson, 2399 Vega
Drive, a professional engineer representing the applicants on
the proposed project, (proponent) appeared before the Joint Commission
and detailed the technical steps that had been followed in acquiring
the necessary documentation, in preparing the site plan, and in
receiving other approvals for the proposed development of this
site (a four-story hotel). He explained that they were aware
of the unusual situation of bringing the site plan forward for
review prior to requesting this amendment and emphasized that
they fully support the staff recommendation. Mr. Thomasson concluded
by urging the Joint Commission to support this map correction.
Brief discussion focused on who
the hotelier for the project was.
Mayor Maddox returned to the
meeting at 6:41 p.m.
Mr. Kurt Hamon, 1723 Augustine
Place, (opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
concerns with the height of the proposed structure and explained
that he was satisfied with the current plan, but the problem had
been that when this project went through the site plan process,
it had been presented as a six-story hotel, rather than the currently
proposed four-story model. He emphasized that he wanted to make
sure this project stayed within a similar range of heights as
the other adjacent two-story commercial uses and the single-story
residences. Mr. Hamon concluded by emphasizing that he was in
agreement with the owners currently proposed plan, but wanted
the Joint Commission to support the Local Planning Agency's (LPA's)
recommendation to review the entire area as an activity center
and consider redesignating it to a land use designation that has
height controls.
Discussion again focused on the
land uses on the surrounding properties and on those properties
across the street, whether the single family residences in the
area were non-conforming uses, and whether the homeowners had
voiced any opposition. It was established that several letters
were included in the agenda materials that were presented by persons
in opposition to the proposed amendment, and that low density
residential is not a permitted use in the Activity Center Future
Land category, but both Commissions had approved a policy that
a single-family home is always a conforming use and could be replaced.
City Commissioner Lightsey explained
that when this activity center was approved it was known that
there were existing uses that were not consistent with the Activity
Center designation, but the intent of this land use designation
was to encourage a transition from existing uses to more intense
uses. She explained that this created a conflict between the
desires expressed by Mr. Hamon and others with single- and multi-family
uses in existence on that site with the absolute declared intention
of the Activity Center land use designation. City Commissioner
Lightsey emphasized to Mr. Hamon that he was correct, that unless
the land use designation was changed, he was going to see more
intense uses spring up around him, and she indicated that she
did not want him to leave the meeting with any false expectations.
City Commissioner Lightsey voiced
a concern about a new policy which had been instituted that the
City would defer to the County on map amendments outside the City
limits and vice versa and she felt extremely disturbed by that
policy because there had been no vote on it.
County Commission Chair Yordon
explained that the County had already taken action on that policy,
however, the City had not taken action, but there had been a request
by the majority of the City Commissioners to institute that policy.
City Commissioner Lightsey emphasized
that there had been no vote on that request either. She explained
that this was an extremely significant issue on which neither
Commission had asked for the slightest bit of analysis. City
Commissioner Lightsey expressed the opinion that if this policy
was instituted in this manner, it would be something the local
governments and citizens would regret, as it was reckless and
ill advised to make this kind of decision or even talk about it
without staff analysis, and she strongly suggested that the Commissions
get some analysis on this issue from both the Planning and Legal
staff.
County Commissioner Proctor left
the meeting at 6:59 p.m.
A lengthy discussion focused
on the scope of this policy and its potential to cause conflict
and how decisions by either of the governments affected both governments
and the territories under the control of the other government.
County Commission Chair Yordon
reminded the Joint Commission that the majority of the City Commissioners
at a joint meeting specifically asked the County to address this
issue, in a way that was very pointed, and this was the resulting
policy. He explained that the policy was not about anything that
affected the Urban Service Area boundary or text amendments, but
was simply for map amendments that were either in the City limits
or not in the City limits, and the County Commission would have
the ability to comment on. County Commission Chair Yordon exclaimed
that all the County did was respond to the City's request and
if the City wanted the County to revisit it or the City wanted
to review and talk more about it, the County would be willing
to go along with that.
City Commissioner Lightsey acknowledged
that she was at the meeting where that decision had been made,
but that the decision was hastily made and needed to be reviewed
much closer than it had been before.
Additional discussion focused
on what types of decisions and issues the new policy would cover.
It was established that if the Commissions were talking about
changing the fundamental basic issues (i.e., the water and sewer
agreement, the USA boundary), they would have to talk about them
together and come to an agreement, and that the County needed
to communicate to the City what the County felt they had discussed,
decided upon and passed with regards to the new policy, and then
convey that information to the City.
Ms. Linda Hurst, Acting Assistant
City Manager, indicated that if the Commissions desired, the staff
could review this policy issue and bring their findings back at
the next joint workshop. The Commissions concurred to have
the staff accomplish this.
Amendment 97-2-M-002:
This amendment was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
Amendment 97-2-M-003:
Mr. Dan McDaniel, 1907 Ivan Drive,
representing the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA),
(opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
the adoption of a resolution which pertains to Amendments #003,
#004, #005, and #006 by CONA and which he read into the record:
WHEREAS, the land use designation
Mixed Use was introduced seven years ago as part of the
Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and
WHEREAS, the original intent
of the Mixed Use designation was to create a village atmosphere
under a planned environment, mixing commercial and residential
uses,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
BY THE DELEGATES ASSEMBLED, that the Council of Neighborhood Associations
opposes further changes in land use designations from Residential
Preservation to Mixed Use codes,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that
CONA encourages the Site Specific Zoning process to be resurrected,
and that the public be given ample notice of a hearing schedule
as soon as possible because both the Tallahassee City Commissioners
and the Leon County Board of County Commissioners have realized
that Mixed Use zoning has been detrimental to the integrity of
the neighborhoods,
AND BE IT SOUNDLY RESOLVED, that
this resolution be presented to the Tallahassee City Commissioners
and the Leon County Board of County Commissioners at their next
meetings,
APPROVED, by the delegates assembled
on this 14th
day of April, 1997.
City Commissioner Bailey left
the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Mr. McDaniel further discussed
CONA's opposition, specifically, to the change in zoning to Mixed
Use because the property could then be rezoned under the Site
Specific Zoning process. He appealed to the Joint Commission
for a more definitive way of finding out what this property would
be rezoned under that process or for the properties to be zoned
to a land use designation other than a Mixed Use, noting that
this must be done before CONA could accept this change. Mr. McDaniel
concluded by presenting the Joint Commission with a number of
pictures of manufactured homes which would be allowed on the property
should its zoning designation be changed to the proposed Mixed
Use A and due to the City opting out of the recently passed County
ordinance regarding manufactured housing.
Brief discussion focused on the
exact location of this request.
Amendment 97-2-M-004:
County Commission Chair Yordon
explained details associated with the historical background of
this request, the neighborhood the property was located within,
and the reasons why he supported the staff's recommendation to
deny this amendment.
He emphasized this would be
the first "domino to fall" in the neighborhood and it
represented the commercial intrusion that the residents in the
area were always promised would not happen.
County Commission Host questioned
why the Joint Commission was re-designating properties from other
zoning categories to Mixed Use when they should be re-designating
them to some Site Specific Zoning designation. He was unsure
of why the Commissions were not going to the final step rather
than going through this interim process and having to then go
back and repeat the process. He opined that if it was a procedural
problem, there should be a way to overcome that.
Ms. Grey reminded the Joint Commission
that it had taken a position that it would leave the Mixed Use
Future Land Use categories on the Future Land Use Map. She indicated
that in this case a Future Land Use amendment was being dealt
with and what the Planning Department had normally done when a
change in zoning was made to the Mixed Use category was to make
a recommendation regarding what land use pattern is appropriate,
and that land use pattern is part of the Comprehensive Plan and
provides guidance for the zoning. Ms. Grey acknowledged that
the Commissions had held prior discussion on this issue and had
asked that at the time the Zoning Code is adopted and put into
effect, if a process could be created that would allow for the
concurrent review of these issues and she announced that the Planning
Department would review that and bring more information back to
the Commissions just prior to the step in which the Zoning Code
becomes effective.
Mr. Robert Dean, 601 Hillcrest
Street, applicant, (proponent) appeared before the Joint Commission
and announced that he had on another occasion withdrawn this application
in the hope that Site Specific Zoning would be in place soon.
He indicated that due to an existing overlay he was told he had
to apply for the Mixed Use A land use designation. Mr. Dean announced
his intentions were to use this 50 year old house on Park Avenue
as an office. He discussed the language in the Comp Plan relative
to the Residential Preservation land use designation and its associated
standards and he requested that when the Joint Commission heard
comments or discussion on this issue, that it evaluate all information
in light of the criteria mandated by the Comp Plan. Mr. Dean
discussed alternatives that he opined could be followed in the
resolution of this amendment. He concluded by discussing details
associated with the adjacent uses and physical features of the
property.
Mr. Stephen Bullock, 120 Reece
Park Lane, (opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and
had a large number of people in the audience raise their hands
who were in opposition to this amendment.
City Commissioner Meisburg inquired
as to how many of the people who had raised their hands had phoned
him. He emphasized that the Joint Commission tried hard to make
decisions based on what it honestly believed to be the best and
not on how many phone calls individual Commissioners received.
City Commissioner Meisburg explained that if he had made a decision
on Blair Stone Road based on phone calls, it would have been a
completely different decision and he made the point that the Joint
Commission would listen to everyone and do its best to make the
right decision.
Mr. Bullock further discussed
the erosion of neighborhoods caused by commercial development
in the course of the growth of Tallahassee. He discussed the
nature of this request, noting that it was the first commercial
development on Park Avenue east of Belmont Road, and he opined
it would encourage others to speculate on residential property
on northeast Park Avenue. Mr. Bullock concluded by opining that
the office use the applicant was proposing was a moot point because
once the property was zoned Mixed Use and then sold, other more
intense uses could be developed on it.
County Commission Chair Yordon
left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Dan McDaniel, 1907 Ivan Drive,
representing the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA),
(opponent) re-appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
CONA's position of opposition to this amendment and he concurred
with County Commission Chair Yordon's comments about the domino
effect in this area. He indicated that he felt the Planning Department
ought to be able to come up with a Zoning Code that was more suitable
and save the citizens this type of uncertainty. Mr. McDaniel
felt that approving the Mixed Use land use designation would be
detrimental because of the prospect that a more intense use could
be developed there at some time in the future. Mr. McDaniel concluded
by expressing the concern that as the Site Specific Zoning was
implemented, all the Mixed Use zoning categories would carry with
them some code standards that would not be related to the same
Zoning Code that had been in effect in the 1980's.
Discussion focused on whether
those who had concerns with this amendment would be agreeable
to the property being zoned to a land use designation such as
Office/Residential which would preserve the residential nature
while allowing the office use and whether the change to Mixed
Use zoning would lead to the further deterioration of that property.
Mr. Bruce Barrett, 1607 Valley
Road, representing the Reece Park/Inglewood Homeowners Association,
(opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and concurred
with the previous speakers in opposition and felt the "line"
ought to be drawn at Belmont Road. He discussed the increase
in vehicular traffic in the area and opined that the purpose for
spending millions of dollars on widening Park Avenue would defeated
by allowing additional development and if it were allowed it would
jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the area's residents
due to the increase in "cut-through" traffic. Mr. Barrett
concluded by discussing the nature of Belmont Road as a residential
street rather than a collector and he urged the Joint Commission
to support those in opposition to this amendment.
Mayor Maddox informed those assembled
that he had to leave for a brief meeting, but would return and
later would review the tape of the comments which he missed.
He left the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Tom Ledew, 1611 Valley Road,
(opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and encouraged
the Joint Commission to not approve this amendment.
Amendment 97-2-M-005:
Mr. Geshwiler announced that
Mr. McGregor, representing the applicant on this amendment, had
sent a letter to the Planning Department questioning the objectivity
of the staff's report. He further announced that a written response
had been sent to Mr. McGregor. Mr. Geshwiler explained that one
of the points which Mr. McGregor brought up was the issue that
the staff did not deal with the potential limitation of the OR-1
land use designation in the written analysis. Mr. Geshwiler explained
that this issue had been thoroughly discussed by the LPA and is
on the record as part of its consideration in making a recommendation
on this amendment. He discussed several other technical points
that had been brought forward by Mr. McGregor and he opined that
the staff felt they had prepared an objective and fair recommendation
on this amendment, looking at information that was similar to
the information Mr. McGregor looked at and had just reached a
different conclusion.
Mr. Russ McGregor, 3102 Ortega
Drive, representing the applicant for this amendment, (proponent)
appeared before the Joint Commission and objected to the process
whereby the applicant or agent for the applicant was required
to speak first. He discussed the meeting between the neighborhood
association, the applicant, and himself in which they had requested
feedback on this amendment from the neighborhood association which
they had not received. Mr. McGregor asked to take this opportunity
to get the neighbors' feedback and to speak last.
Mr. Dean Minarde, 913 North Gadsden
Street, representing the Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association,
(opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and emphasized
that he had apologized to Mr. McGregor and the neighborhood association's
responses were the same which had been made at the LPA meeting
over a month ago. He asked a number of people in opposition to
this amendment who were present to stand. Mr. Minarde discussed
the opinion that the applicant knew the zoning for this property
was Residential Preservation before he bought it, but probably
felt the applicant made the assumption that he would be able to
rezone it. He discussed the applicant's offer to put deed restrictions
on the property, the renting of the existing duplex, and his opinion
that the applicant was choosing to try and force an office on
the residents of Beard Street who did not want to be in a position
to fight a legal battle over some ambiguous deed restriction language.
Mr. Minarde concluded by urging the Joint Commission to go with
the staff and LPA recommendation and deny this amendment.
Mayor Pro Meisburg asked Mr.
Minarde to point out on a displayed map where his residence was
located.
Ms. Elinor Elfner, 2121 Spence
Avenue, (proponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
her support for this amendment. She discussed some of her personal
history in an effort to try to verify to the Joint Commission
that she was a credible witness and not just a relative of the
applicant and owner of the property which she emphasized she was
not. Ms. Elfner further discussed her appreciation for the Commissioners
listening carefully to the citizens and the way they tried to
weigh the information based on merit and not on phone calls received.
She discussed physical features,
existing land uses, and zoning in this area and she emphasized
that she felt it was reasonable to allow an office use on this
property because, although the map indicated a considerable amount
of Historical Preservation zoning in this area, this was the only
property which was Residential and there are other offices and
day care facilities in this area. Ms. Elfner concluded by supporting
CONA's recommendation that there be a more comprehensive way of
dealing with this type of issue (re-zoning Residential Preservation
properties to more intense zoning categories).
Mayor Pro Tem Meisburg inquired
of Ms. Elfner what use was currently existing on the property
she had referred to at the corner of 7th
Avenue and Gadsden and Ms. Elfner responded that it was the L.E.A.F.
(Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation) office and that a
nursery school and offices were located down from there.
Brief discussion focused on why
this area was still represented on the Future Land Use Map with
the color orange and the staff established that this area was
zoned Residential Preservation, but would have to bring back information
to the Joint Commission on whether those were existing uses or
why those uses were there.
Ms. Bickmire explained details
associated with the historical zoning of the properties fronting
Beard Street, noting that the applicant's parcel, which had been
zoned RM-1 at the time, was the only parcel not to be rezoned
to OR in 1971. She explained that this was a pre-existing condition
that is considered a non-conforming land use, but is legitimate
there.
Ms. Nell Stranburg, 409 Beard
Street, (opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
the nature of the property in this amendment as opposed to the
property in the 7th
Street amendment which was approved in the Cycle 97-1 amendment
process. She noted that the difference between the property in
the Cycle 97-1 amendment was that property was an unimproved lot
in which the owner also asked for the sale of an adjoining lot
and the property in this amendment fronts on a local street, Beard
Street, and is an improved lot. Ms. Stranburg discussed parking
and opined that there is already a problem with insufficient parking
for the businesses in this area and the residents have to deal
with cars parking in front of their residences. She discussed
the proposed parking plan for the property in this amendment and
opined that it was significantly more dangerous than if the property
was used as a residence rather than an office. Ms. Stranburg
concluded by discussing the parking standards of the OR-1 land
use designation and the problems this would cause in relation
to safety of the children in the area, the number of people and
organizations in opposition to this amendment, and she urged the
Joint Commission to deny this amendment.
Mr. Majid Movaghar, 526 Vinnedge Ride, applicant for the amendment, (proponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and explained that he bought the property in 1970 as a rental duplex. He explained that at the same time he was aware of the provisions for requesting a rezoning for qualifying properties which do not have appropriate existing uses so that a more suitable use could be placed on the property. He emphasized that was what he was doing because for the last seven years the problem with the property's use had increased. Mr. Movaghar explained that he was trying to change the use of the property to a more suitable one which will generate enough income to pay for the property's expenses.
He further explained that he
was not assuming anything about the rezoning of the property,
that the application would be reviewed on an objective basis,
and that there was a 1984 agreement to which the neighborhood
association agreed that the strip of land which this property
was a part of would be set aside for an office transitional type
of use and he produced a copy of the agreement. Mr. Movaghar
concluded by describing problems with this property being the
only residential use in the immediate area and it being surrounded
by other commercial uses and he explained details associated with
his suggestion and agreement to a deed restriction being placed
on the property.
Mayor Pro Tem Meisburg inquired
if there was a 1984 agreement for this property which was on file.
Ms. Grey explained that the Planning
Department had done quite a bit of research on the history of
the rezoning and Ms. Bickmire indicated that the staff did not
come across a copy of that agreement. Ms. Grey suggested that
if someone would provide them with a copy of that agreement, the
staff would review it.
Mayor Pro Tem Meisburg emphasized
that he would like to see the agreement.
Mr. James Maige, 1521 Woodgate
Way, groundskeeper for the property, (opponent) appeared before
the Joint Commission and discussed problems with the vehicular
traffic and the danger it presented to children in the area.
Mr. Tom Norman, 435 Beard Street,
(opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
vehicular traffic problems and congestion in the area, noting
that at a local day care a barricade had been erected to prevent
future traffic accidents at a nearby intersection from entering
the grounds of the nursery playground. He expressed concerns
about not being able to look out from his front porch and see
his children walking across the street because of the parking
down the length of the block which had begun to reach his property
until he complained and got relief from City staff. Mr. Norman
concluded by discussing details associated with his having rental
property in the area and not having a problem renting those units
out, and with Mr. Movaghar's rental property having been rented
for quite some time at a rate in excess of $500 and he urged the
Joint Commission to deny the amendment.
Mayor Pro Tem Meisburg discussed
his having child relatives in this area, noting that just today
he had noticed an incredible amount of parking there, and he inquired
of Mr. Norman if that was all from Chez Pierre. Mr. Norman responded
that he was not positive, but felt that all the parking could
not be attributed to Chez Pierre. Brief discussion continued
to focus on the businesses in the area and the increase in traffic
and parking in the area and whether this was an everyday occurrence.
Mr. Bob Fulford, 231 Westridge
Drive, owner of property on Beard Street (opponent) appeared before
the Joint Commission and discussed details from the book, God's
Little Acre, and how it related to the City's use of the Residential
Preservation land use designation. He discussed the intent of
the Comp Plan with regards to Residential Preservation was to
keep livable places inside the community.
Mr. Fulford expressed the opinion
that the property was very nice and could be rented and therefore
Mr. Movaghar's concern that he could not rent the property were
unfounded. He outlined details of his recent conversation with
a Commissioner regarding the issue of something being "cut
and dry" and he opined that with regards to issue of preserving
and protecting residential areas, the issue was cut and dry, and
they need to be saved. Mr. Fulford concluded by opining that
for the owner to buy this property with the full intention of
making it a commercial venture was not fair to the neighborhood
or community and he urged the Joint Commission to listen carefully
to those who have spoke in opposition and to deny this amendment.
Mr. Dan McDaniel, 1907 Ivan Drive,
representing the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) and
himself, (opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
the reasons for the parking and traffic problems in the area and
the history of these problems. He further discussed the reason
for CONA's passage of its resolution referenced earlier and its
opposition to the Mixed Use land use designation. Mr. McDaniel
concluded by emphasizing there was no mixed use involved in this
amendment, that there was a specific use, and all CONA was requesting
was an answer to the question, what is that use and what do you
really want to do, and then maybe one could get to that next step.
Mr. Tod Stupski, 718 Beard Street,
(opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
details associated with an article from Newsweek on how
to improve the neighborhoods of America. He emphasized that he
lived on a very diverse street and was fortunate in that aspect,
but expressed a concern for the safety and character of the street.
Mr. Stupski concluded by emphasizing that he would rather have
a fish tank at the end of the street than a fax machine, referring
to a return to "community values."
Mr. Russ McGregor, 3102 Ortega
Drive, representing the applicant for this amendment, (proponent)
re-appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed this amendment
as being a way to get to a specific use which would be in answer
to some of the expressed concerns. He addressed the concern for
using this property as a commercial use, noting that, with regards
to the 7th
Avenue Comp Plan amendment that was approved, that was more of
a threat because it had been an unimproved lot. He further emphasized
that the road was a highway as it approached this property and
he inquired as to who would want to live on a highway. Mr. McGregor
outlined that since 1994 there had been 53 accidents between Ingleside
and 6th
Avenue, and after assigning the appropriate number of these accidents
to each intersection, opined that the problem was not at Beard
Street, but started at the bottom of the hill, noting that it
was like a race track approaching this area and that this contributed
to most of the problem. He expressed the opinion that those using
this property would depart from it going northward and thus would
not add to the problem back at Williams Street, noting that the
problem was caused there with those persons heading back to Killearn.
He emphasized that the owner did not buy this property with the
intention of changing it to a commercial use, but was being forced
into it because of economic considerations.
Mr. McGregor also emphasized
that not all property zoned Residential Preservation should be
Residential Preservation, indicating that the residents in those
areas used that zoning as a way to become vested from consistency
and concurrency in the current Comp Plan when it was first implemented.
He concluded by presenting a copy of the map that was published
when the Lafayette Park neighborhood was rezoned, noting that
this particular property was excluded, a copy of the minutes of
that meeting, and by explaining the reason that the applicant
chose to request the Mixed Use A zoning designation was because
it was the least intrusive one that would still allow the property
to have access to the Office Residential land use designation
in the Site Specific Zoning process.
Mayor Pro Tem Meisburg announced
that he was unaware if the neighbors and Mr. McGregor had discussed
this issue together, but that Mr. McGregor was one of the few
people who comes before the Commissions consistently on a regular
basis whom they know has the utmost integrity and can back up
everything he says and he expressed appreciation for the fact
that when Mr. McGregor appears before the Commissions, they trust
the information that he brings. Mayor Pro Tem Meisburg expressed
appreciation for the speakers who came forward and announced that
the Joint Commission would give this the utmost consideration
when it deliberated on this issue.
County Commissioner Joanos emphasized
that credit needed to be given to County Commissioner Host for
making sure that the guardrail was placed in front of the previously
referenced day care in order to prevent vehicles involved in accidents
from entering the playground.
City Commissioner Lightsey asked
for the staff to bring back information on the number of parking
spaces at Chez Pierre and the surrounding businesses along that
corridor in order to gain a better understanding of the situation.
Brief discussion focused on the
statement made earlier that the Lieutenant Governor's Club was
not allowed to expand due to the lack of parking and the elimination
of the previously instituted transportation impact fee and its
effects. Further discussion focused on other information on problems
identified by the speakers including number of vehicles backing
onto Gadsden Street, peak hour accident rates, et cetera.
Amendment 97-2-M-006:
Mr. Dan McDaniel, 1907 Ivan Drive,
representing the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA),
(opponent) re-appeared before the Joint Commission and asked that
his earlier comments be considered for application to this amendment
also for purposes of consistency. He concluded by presenting
copies of the CONA resolutions and several pictures, requesting
that the pictures be returned to Debra Newhall.
Amendment 97-2-M-007:
No speakers appeared to address
this amendment.
Amendment 97-2-008:
No speakers appeared to address
this amendment.
Amendment 97-2-009:
Mr. Steve Fredrickson, 1280 Redfield
Road, (opponent) appeared before the Joint Commission and discussed
the immediate concerns of his community, including planning for
several developments in the area (Buck Lake Road). He emphasized
that, looking at the community as a whole with the Comp Plan revisions
that occur, the environmental and lake preservation issues, the
transportation issues, all these needed to be addressed globally
for this area. He discussed details associated with calls made
to Commissioners and his suggestion that a joint group of citizens
and representatives of the City and County be formed to look at
the Buck Lake Road area globally with regards to planning issues
and the Site Specific Zoning process, et cetera. Mr. Fredrickson
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to be heard and emphasized
that he knew that others might ask why anyone would want to speak
to this innocuous amendment, but he felt the activity in the Buck
Lake Road area, basically the eastern portion of Leon County,
was causing frustration among the area residents. Mr. Fredrickson
concluded by expressing a concern that the proposed increase in
the Level of Service (LOS) for Buck Lake Road was for the purpose
of receiving funds to improve the road, but that the road would
remain a Level E roadway, which he opined was equivalent to a
creating a "parking lot" with a huge gridlock problem
and that this increase in the LOS would also encourage growth
with regards to the southern strategy.
Discussion focused on how the
increase in the LOS related to the southern strategy and it was
established that this amendment would change the LOS for the purpose
of receiving road improvement funds for Major Collector roadways
south of U.S. 90, which includes Buck Lake Road, and this might
identify the Buck Lake Road area as being part of the southern
strategy.
Mr. Fredrickson asked that the
line be changed to south of Apalachee Parkway so that development
in the eastern sector and on the fringe of the USA, which was
not intended to be developed as part of the southern strategy,
would not be further encouraged by that plan.
Additional discussion focused
on whether Mr. Fredrickson's request would affect Capital Circle
and on the unintended consequences of general policies and the
effects of moving the LOS line to Apalachee Parkway.
County Commissioner Joanos indicated
that Woodville and Crawfordville Highways were already at capacity,
not with "ghost" trips, but with actual trips, and that
Mr. Fredrickson's government has allocated almost $100 million
for road improvements in the East. He further outlined that the
reason the government had done that was because they intend for
Piney Z and Welaunee Plantation to be ready for development and
he emphasized that the next large growth "node" would
appear to be in the East. County Commissioner Joanos opined that
it appeared that what Mr. Fredrickson was advocating was simply
that those dollars in all those infrastructure updates in the
East needed to be re-evaluated and perhaps moved somewhere else.
Discussion continued to focus
on the issue of encouraging additional growth and development
through the increase in the LOS for Buck Lake Road beyond that
which would otherwise occur and with this amendment's relation
to the southern strategy.
Mayor Maddox returned to the
meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Brief discussion focused on the
need for all the Commissioners to be present during these types
of meeting and the need for something to be done about attendance
or the lack thereof.
City Commissioner Lightsey asked
the staff to review the southern strategy area and make sure the
designation of the area did not need to be amended and Ms. Grey
responded that the staff would bring that information back to
the Joint Commission.
Mayor Maddox inquired if anyone
else desired to address the Joint Commission and, there being
no one else, the meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Gary Yordon
Chairman
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Clerk of the Circuit Court