MINUTES

SPECIAL CITY/COUNTY JOINT

COMMISSION MEETING

APRIL 24, 1997

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.

JOINT CITY-COUNTY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING

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.

Northeast High School Remedial 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment

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.

ORDINANCE NO. 97-O-0017

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:

MAP AMENDMENT 97-2-M-002

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.

2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, CYCLE 1997-2

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:

CONA RESOLUTION

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