MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, city Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner Delores Dry PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Merrill stated that the unfinished business and public hearing items scheduled tonight are to address properties whose amortization period expires in January 1999; that the amortization schedule will be enforced if no action or a 2.to 2 vote is taken by the Commission. Mr. Taylor displayed on the overhead projector a map of the City of Sarasota which identified each of the 30 nonconforming uses. Location maps and photographs of each nonconforming use was displayed on the overhead projector as the sites were presented. 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCON- FORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1434 9TH STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILX (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT (CASH FLOW ENTERPRISES) = NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0100) through (0241) Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission and stated that a data extract of police calls for service was prepared and forwarded to the Commission; that the extract parameters were January 1, 1993, through September 30, 1995, with an address range of 1400 to 1499 9th Street; that only five calls to 1434 9th Street were indicated since 1993; that the patrol shift commanders do not consider the 9th Street Beer Garden to be a problem site. Commissioner Patterson stated that the extract contains numerous police calls to 1406 and 1409 9th Street; that 1406 9th Street is the Capricorn II; and asked if the fenced area across the street from the Capricorn II is 1409 9th Street? Police Chief Jolly stated that the exact location will be researched and a response forwarded to the Commission. Book 39 Page 12454 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12455 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot asked for comment by Police Chief Jolly as to whether the report indicates the 1434 9th Street location as a source of difficulties to the neighborhood. Police Chief Jolly stated that no "smoking gun" is associated with that specific address; that calls in the vicinity of the location involving alcoholic beverages may have been associated with the Capricorn II as well as the 9th Street Beer Garden, for example, people taking alcoholic beverages into the Rosemary Cemetery and littering; however, he cannot state that as fact. Commissioner Pillot stated that some people consider the 9th Street Beer Garden as a place to go for relaxation; that he previously stated that continuing the use would be supported if a positive police record on the site was presented; that no major problems were indicated in the police report. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to exempt 1434 9th Street from the amortization schedule. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Merrill requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that during the public hearings any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes to address the Commission. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2311 MAPLE AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-4) ZONE DISTRICT (SARASOTA LODGE OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS) ) - EXEMPTED FROM AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE (AGENDA ITEM II-16) #1 (0281) through (0350) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #16 is located at 2311 Maple Avenue and surrounded by single-family homes and zoning; that according to Mr. Warren Davis, the contact person, the building is currently used as a community facility for church services and masonic meetings; that community facilities are permitted by special exception in the RSF zone distriçts; that the current use of the property as a private club does not appear to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff and Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) reçommend allowing the use to continue by exempting the site from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use restricted to the building area, hours of operation, number of members/employees and parking. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson it was moved to exempt 2311 Maple Avenue from the amortization schedule. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1509 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-2) ZONE DISTRICT (WILBERT & MARY SKIRBALL) - ENCOURAGED PROPERTY OWNER TO PURSUE HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESSES AT CITY EXPENSE WITH THE SITE TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A DECISION ON AMORTIZATION IF THE PROCESSES FAIL (AGENDA ITEM II-17) #1 (0351) through (1305) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #17 is located at 1509 South Osprey Avenue; that the structure was built as a single-family home and is surrounded by single-family homes; that the building and yard are well maintained and the structure is architecturally significant; that the property owner has filed for historic designation of the structure but has requested the petition not be processed pending Commission action on the nonconforming use; that the owner may apply for a special exception to allow the professional office use to continue if the structure is locally designated; that as deemed necessary, restrictions to the existing use, building area, hours of operation, number of employees and parking may be applied during the special exception process; that according to the owner, the building has been used as a residence and office since approximately 1950; that presently, approximately 1,700 square feet are used exclusively for office, 2,350 square feet are used as office and residential, and 750 square feet are used exclusively as residential; that three to six employees work at the site; that the hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; that off-street parking for 12 vehicles is available; that the business averages one customer per day. Mr. Taylor continued that the business has employees and generates traffic; therefore, the present use of the property as a residence and professional office does not meet the City's definition for home occupation; that the intensity of the use is inconsistent with the residential zoning and * use of the area; that the Staff and Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend enforcement of the amortization schedule. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. Book 39 Page 12456 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12457 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. The following people came before the Commission: Philip Skirball, 1509 South Orange Avenue (34239), stated that his presentation will require approximately seven minutes; and requested that his time limit be extended by two minutes. Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any objection to extending the time limit. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the time limit would be extended to seven minutes for Mr. Skirball's presentation. Mr. Skirball read a prepared speech which stated that he is a former partial owner and the current resident and tenant at site #17 (lots 3 & 5, Morton Terrace); that he is the owner of lot 2, Morton Terrace, which is a vacant residential lot contiguous to site #17 to the south; that lot 3 is at the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Floyd Street; that lot 5 is on Floyd Street, contiguous to the east, and less than one block west of the medical offices and parking structures surrounding the hospital; that the site is located across Floyd Street to the south and down the block from one of the three medical office buildings exempted from the nonconforming provision of the Zoning Code by the City Commission in 1992. Mr. Skirball continued that the house which was built in 1926 has been use as an in-house office for 42 years; that the allowability of the use was confirmed with the City prior to the purchase of the property and is evidenced by the payment receipt of occupational license taxes for the past 12 years; that the property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Florida Master Site File and was approved by the National Park Service as a certified restoration of a National Register propertyi that the restoration was achieved at great personal expense to him. Mr. Skirball further stated that the PBLP discussion regarding amortization of site #17 focused on the availability of a special exception in accordance with an historic preservation designation; that considerable time, effort and expense have been expended pursuing the continued use of the property; that although the special exception process may be available due to the historic character of the property, exempting the property from the nonconforming provision of the Zoning Code would provide a resolve to the zoning problem more quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. Mr. Skirball continued further that the existing use on the property is much less intense than the chiropractic use which existed at the site in 1974 when Zoning Code was adopted. Mr. Skirball requested that a motion be passed to grandfather forever the continued use at site #17 for professional office space with the following stipulations: 1. No additional area of office use is to be allowed beyond what is being used in office-related use at this time. 2. All parking for office use is to be accommodated on site. 3. No increase in intensity of use as measured by trips generated shall be allowed beyond what existed in 1974. Mr. Skirball cited the following reasons to support of his request for the motion: 1. Staff's May 8, 1995, draft report on the nonconforming uses stated that the present use at site #17 is not detrimental to the neighborhood; that no significant evidence was introduced at the PBLP meeting to the contrary; that the City Commission in Ordinance No. 94- 3765 found that accepting recommended amendments to the Zoning Code in regard to those uses which are determined not to have a negative impact on the residentially zoned districts in which they are located would be in the best interest of the City. 2. Twenty-four of 27 residents surveyed in the neighborhood have signed a petition indicating support for the continued use of the property. Mr. Skirball submitted copies of the petitions for the record; and stated that two residents did not want to get involved; that the one resident who opposed the use has since moved from the neighborhood. 3. The use is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Skirball stated that all parking is off the street, on the property, and well screened by hedges, fences, and tall plantings; that the amount of traffic is negligible due to the infrequency of meetings with clients and some of the work taking place off the site; that the office does not generate noise, heavy truck or frequent traffic, odors, fumes, large amounts of waste, outdoor storage, or any other objectionable features. 4. The continued use of the property as office/home furthers his ability to maintain the property in accordance with goals set forth in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance No. 86-3019. 5. The use pre-dates occupation of the surrounding residences. 6. Removing the office use would take away reasonable use of lot 5, which is noncontorming and cannot be built upon. Book 39 Page 12458 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12459 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. 7. Lack of proper notice to the property owners in 1974 may affect enforcement of the amortization. Mr. Skirball stated that, for the record, as an expert in building design, construction and sales and as a Florida licensed architect, contractor, and real estate agent, the useful life of a masonry wood structure is not 20 years as stated in the Zoning Code or 25 years as stated in recent Code amendments; that the useful life of masonry wood structures has exceeded hundreds of years in many areas and has greatly exceeded these time periods in Florida and similar areas; that other legal arguments to the amortization of the use may exist, but he hopes this situation can be resolved amicably tonight. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification of the traffic generated by the use. Mr. Skirball stated that clients do not frequent the office; that, on average, one meeting per day is held. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification of the nonconforming use associated with lot 5. Mr. Skirball stated that lots 3 & 5 comprise site #17; that lot 5 is a 50-foot wide nonconforming lot which is currently used for parking; that since a parking area would no longer be necessary, eliminating the office use would increase the degree to which lot 5 is nonconforming. Terri Krenn, 1611 Floyd Street (34239), stated that she has resided directly north of site #17 for the past two years; that the property is not viewed as a problem; that traffic is so minimal that approximately three months had passed before she realized an office was located on the site; that the continued use of the property is supported. Ryan Rock, 1623 Floyd Street (34239), stated that his wife and he have purchase a residence across the street from site #17; that four or more property owners have purchased homes since Mr. Skirball took occupancy on the site; that the continued use of the property is supported. Peter T. Currin, 1516 South Orange Avenue (34239), stated that he has resided in the neighborhood for three years; that the use has had no negative impact on the neighborhood; that the continued use of the property at its current intensity is supported. Mr. Currin asked for clarification on the traffic generated based on the intensity of the use which existed in 1974. Mr. Taylor stated that specific data on the intensity of use existing in 1974 is not available; that Staff is proposing that any continuance of a nonconforming use be at the existing intensity which can be documented after the Commission takes action and maintained in the future. Mayor Merrill asked for the basis on which Mr. Skirball has requested the intensity be continued based on traffic generated in 1974. Mr. Skirball stated that the date requested was based on the 1974 adoption of the Zoning Code at which time the use was permitted; that the theory was maintenance of the status quo. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification of the sign referenced by notation on one of the petitions submitted. Mr. Skirball stated that the sign is permitted in accordance with the Zoning Code; however, the sign was plastered and landscaping placed in front. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the busy chiropractor's office located on site #17 in 1974 was a much more intense use than the existing use. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Skirball acted responsibly in addressing the controversial issue surrounding the sign on his property; that an architect's office is not envisioned as a problem to the neighborhood; however, maintaining control over the property would be difficult if the nonconforming use is grandfathered; that one of the advantages of an historic designation is the design of a special exception which could, e.g., require an individual operating a business to live at the location. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to encourage the property owner to proceed with historic preservation designation and special exception approval with the associated fees to be paid by the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that the PBLP minutes reflect a desire to have the property designated historic to provide the ability by special exception to specify the intensity of the use; that she will support the historic preservation and special exception processes throughout. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to amend the motion to exempt site #17 from the amortization schedule but to require that all conditions and requirements of historic designation be applied to the grandfathered use while the property owner pursues historic designation. Amendment died for lack of a second. Book 39 Page 12460 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12461 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson asked if the property owner has ample time to pursue, at City expense, the historic designation and special exception processes? Mr. Taylor stated, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that the physical effect on the City is the same whether the nonconforming use is grandfathered or an historic designation is pursued; that the use should be allowed to continue if historic designation does not occur. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to have site #17 come back to the Commission for a decision on amortization if the historic designation or special exception process fails. Amendment carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the main motion to encourage the property owner to pursue historic preservation designation and special exception approval with associated fees being paid by City and to have site #17 brought back to the Commission for a decision on amortization if the historic designation or special exception process fails. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 1003 OREGON COURT IN A RESIDENTIAL MULFIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT (CHEKER OIL COMPANY OF FLORIDA I) = NO ACTION REQUIRED (AGENDA ITEM II-18) #1 (1306) through (1310) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #18 is located at 1003 Oregon Court; that the nonconforming use has been removed and the site is now used in compliance with the Zoning Code; therefore, no action is required. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2939 NORTH OSPREY AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-4) ZONE DISTRICT (CARLOS & JOGINA JONES) = POSTPONED MOTION TO EXEMPT THE PROPERTY FROM THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE UNTIL COMMISSIONER DRY IS IN ATTENDANCE (AGENDA ITEM II-19) #1 (1312) through (1572) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #19 is located at 2939 North Osprey Avenue; that the building is currently used by the owner as a residence and funeral home; that according to the owner, the funeral home conducts 125 to 145 funerals each year and operates 24 hours a day with viewing limited from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.i that a typical viewing includes 30 to 40 people; that the site is surrounded by single-family homes and zoning; that the north side of the yard is an open, unpaved area used as off-street parking for the funeral home; that the open area is also used by the adjacent grocery store to the north which is also owned by the Joneses; that the use of the property as a funeral home and commercial parking lot is inconsistent with the residential zoning and use of the area. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff recommends enforcing the amortization schedule; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommends allowing the funeral home and commercial parking to continue by exempting the site from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill Closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Staff recommendation differs from the PBLP recommendation; and asked which recommendation would be followed if no action is taken by the Commission? Mayor Merrill stated that the amortization schedule would be enforced for site #19 if no action is taken by the Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that a decision on site #19 is difficult to make without hearing from the property owner or surrounding neighborhood; and asked for the notification process followed regarding the nonconforming uses. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that based on the tax rolls, the property owners of each site received a copy of the Staff report by certified mail; that property owners within 500 feet of the subject sites were noticed of the public hearing; that the City received a certified receipt for site #19. Commissioner Pillot stated that the PBLP minutes reflect discussion on the importance of the funeral home service to the neighborhood; that no negative testimony has been received; that the PBLP by a 4 to 1 vote recommended exempting site #19 from the amortization schedule. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to exempt 2939 North Osprey Avenue from the amortization schedule. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification on the issue raised regarding the parking lot associated with site #19. Mr. Taylor stated that prior to the PBLP meeting, complaints had been received regarding traffic generated by the funeral home; that Mr. Pearcy, the resident who lives directly across the street from the funeral home, appeared before the PBLP and stated that vehicles Book 39 Page 12462 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12463 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. parking along the street on the public right-of-way was not a problem; that Mr. Pearcy indicated that the unpaved, vacant lot which was supposed to be used for parking was the problem; that the PBLP discussed requiring the lot to be paved if the use is allowed to continue. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the funeral home receives much use from the northern community; that action on site #19 should be delayed until the Commission hears from the Joneses or someone with a vested interest in the property. Commissioner Patterson stated that feedback on the majority of the nonconforming uses has been received; however, no feedback either positive or negative has been received regarding site #19; that the Staff and PBLP recommendations differ; that action should be delayed until the district Commissioner is present. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to postpone the motion until Commissioner Delores Dry is in attendance and input from the property owner is obtained through the Administration. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the intent of the motion is to postpone the item to the earliest possible meeting. Commissioner Pillot agreed. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to postpone. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yès; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3019 NORTH OSPREY AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-4) ZONE DISTRICT (CARLOS & JOGINA JONES) = AMORTIZATION. SCHEDULE TO BE ENFORCED (AGENDA ITEM II-20) #1 (1574) through (1720) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #20 is located at 3019 North Osprey Avenue; that the structure is leased to a proprietor and used as a grocery store; that according to the property owner, Carlos Jones, the store is operated seven days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and may close earlier on Sundays; that the store is frequented by both pedestrians and vehicular traffic; that the site is surrounded by single-family homes and zoning, with the Joneses' Euneral home and vacant lot located directly to the south; that the commercial use of the property as a grocery store is inconsistent with the residential zoning and use of the area. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff and Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend enforcing the amortization schedule for site #20. Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission and stated that over the past 30-day period, numerous narcotics arrests have been made both inside and outside the premises at site #20; that narcotics were confiscated behind the counter in a place accessible only to the proprietor of the business; that the property owner, who is not the proprietor, closed the store indicating the store most likely would not be reopened. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if police arrests at site #20 have been considerable? Police Chief Jolly stated, yes; that complaints are continuously received from neighbors. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Patterson stated that a grocery store in a residential zone is an intense use; that the Staff and PBLP recommendations concur. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to enforce the amortization schedule for 3019 North Osprey Avenue. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission should direct the Administration to encourage that the property owner not reopen store. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2440 SOUTH OSPREY AVENUE IN A RESIDEN- TIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-2) ZONE DISTRICT (IGOR KOLAR) = MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED; ENFORCE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULED (AGENDA ITEM II-21) #1 (1720) through #2 (0300) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #21 was discussed by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) on July 13, 1995; that based on specific improvements the property owner was proffering, the PBLP directed that a public hearing be scheduled for September 6, 1995, to consider exempting the site from the amortization schedule; that the public hearing was rescheduled at the request of the property owner and held on October 10, 1995; Book 39 Page 12464 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12465 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. that the supplemental information distributed to the Commission includes the minutes of the PBLP meeting, photograph copies of site #21, and a copy of a petition signed by Mcclellan Park residents who oppose the continuation of the use. Mr. Taylor continued that site #21 is located at 2440 South Osprey Avenue at the intersection of Osprey Avenue and McClellan Parkway, which are both heavily travelled roads; that the site is surrounded by single-family homes and zoning; that the structure has been in continuous operation as a service station since 1924; that the gasoline tanks were recently removed; that gas is no longer sold at the site; that vehicles to be serviced are stored on the south yard, in public view, as well as in the north yard, behind a fence; that although the Historic Preservation Board recommended local designation of the structure as one of the oldest service stations in the County, the historic designation petition filed in 1991 was denied by the City Commission. Mr. Taylor further stated that the commercial use of the property is inconsistent with the residential zoning and use of the area; that Staff recommends enforcing the amortization schedule for site #21; that the PBLP did not take action on site #21 at its October 10, 1995, meeting; that discussion was continued to the PBLP meeting of November 8, 1995; that the PBLP intends to discuss use of an historic designation and special exception for the site to allow certain specific improvements to be made consistent with the City's existing regulations. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Bruce Franklin, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., and Igor Kolar, property owner and proprietor of Auto Haus Kolar, 2440 South Osprey Avenue (34239). Mr. Franklin stated that two presentations have been made to the PBLP; that a site plan which includes 20 specific improvements was developed at the PBLP's request; that general consensus by the PBLP was, reached regarding the improvements; however, Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's office, had indicated concern about the mechanism by which the improvements could be implemented; therefore, the PBLP has yet to make a recommendation on site #21. Mr. Franklin continued that the specifics could be incorporated into an ordinance which would exempt site #21 from amortization or the more formal, historic designation and special exception processes could be pursued; that the Historic Preservation Board previously approved the site for designation; however, a poorly prepared and presented petition was denied by the City Commission; that other significant factors contributed to the Commission's denial, e.g., Car Care, the former establishment on the site, operated a tow/wrecking service; that proprietorship has since changed. Mr. Franklin requested that the Commission encourage the property owner to pursue the historic designation and special exception processes at the City's expense. Commissioner Pillot stated that site #21 has been referred to as the "oldest continuing service station in Sarasota County"; that the gasoline tanks have been removed; that the establishment cannot be considered a service station. Mr. Franklin stated that various aspects of automotive service have been in operation on the property continuously for 70 years. Mr. Franklin continued that attempts have been made to seek an acceptable solution to the amortization issue; that approximately 80% of Mr. Kolar's business is generated from the surrounding neighborhood; that the opposition raised at the October 10, 1995, PBLP public hearing was surprising since an enormous amount of positive input had been received regarding the property owner's efforts; that although the opposing neighborhood residents were invited to meet with the property owner to discuss the proposed site plan, no input has been received to date; that Mr. Kolar welcomes constructive input and attempts will be made to address the neighborhood's concerns and to incorporate comments received; that the special exception process requires a neighborhood workshop, which would assure neighborhood input. Chuck Robertson, 2115 Mietaw Drive (34239), president of the Mcclellan Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA), stated that many neighbors are opposed to allowing the nonconforming use at site #21 to continue; that the neighborhood which has grown up around the site has become more valuable; that the use is inconsistent with the neighborhood; that parents are concerned with the dangers associated with the ingress and egress to Auto Haus Kolar being located at the neighborhood school crossing for Southside Elementary school; that many parents may feel differently if that danger was eliminated; that Mr. Kolar's business not only repairs and services, but also sells automobiles; that vehicle sales is not a consistent use in the neighborhood. Mr. Robertson continued that a neighborhood meeting and Halloween party was held on Saturday; that the site plan prepared by Land Resource Strategies, Inc., (LRS) was displayed on the bulletin board; that the residents were opposed to the plan; that photographs of site #21 were presented at the October 10 PBLP meeting; that the resident directly behind the site has a continuous view of a hydraulic lift hoist; that additional equipment is proposed on the site, however, the plan does not Book 39 Page 12466 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12467 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. include improving the fence between site #21 and adjacent residential properties. Doug Kresge, 5103 Brandeis Circle North (34243), representing the Schmalz family, distributed photographs for the Commission's reference, and stated that his wife's 95-year-old grandmother is the resident to the rear of site #21 who has the view of two hydraulic lift hoists; that he has frequently visited the residence since 1980; that a fence was installed in the early 1980s and the property in general has increasingly deteriorated; that recovery of petroleum products and oil requires a large vendor equipment pick up; that the electrical wiring to the hydraulic lifts may not meet Code requirements; that the site plans prepared by LRS indicate removal of the hydraulic lift in the bay of the building and creation of a drive-thru bay to access the rear of the property; that in 1980, site #21 was used as a low-key gas station, servicing one or two vehicles at a time; that the rear of the property was open green area; that Auto Haus Kolar services numerous vehicles at a time; that the improvements proposed will increase the intensity of the use rather than maintain the original intent of the structure. Paul Guillaume, 2401 McClellan Parkway (34239), stated that he resides at the property next to Mrs. Schmalz; that the Auto Haus Kolar operation does not disturb the neighborhood; that noise is not heard in the evening; that the hours of operation are not inadequate; that the statements made by Mr. Robertson as to representing the Mcclellan Park Neighborhood Association are questionable; that he has never been approached by the Association; that five of his immediate neighbors also have not been approached; that the neighborhood meeting referenced was a Halloween keg party to which he was invited; that the party was not represented as a meeting scheduled to discuss the issue of Auto Haus Kolar; that the petition submitted is representative of only a small group of individuals who live in the area and associate with each other; that the so-called neighborhood association's intentions for open, green space on site #21 has not been discussed with the remainder of the neighborhood. Mr. Guillaume continued that the Auto Haus Kolar operation is not detrimental to the neighborhood; that the restrictions imposed by the City, i.e., limiting the dollar amount of annual improvements, made improving the structure difficult for a property owner to accomplish; that Mr. Kolar should be provided an opportunity to repair site #21; that an historic designation which would permit remodeling of the structure is supported; that the neighbors opposed to the Auto Haus Kolar operation should communicate their concerns to Mr. Kolar and attempt to mediate a solution that would benefit the entire neighborhood, of which Mr. Kolar is a part; that a survey of the entire neighborhood would not result in the same opposition represented tonight. Mr. Guillaume further stated that the school crossing guard who has worked at the corner of Mcclellan Parkway/Osprey Avenue for the past 12 years has stated that Auto Haus Kolar creates no traffic situation which would endanger children; that she also stated that Mr. Kolar has improved the conditions considerably, e.g., vehicles are kept off the sidewalks and away from the route which children travel to the school and the wall was improved to prevent children from cutting through the property. Mr. Guillaume continued further that the plans proposed by LRS have not been reviewed to date; however, the plan probably includes the relocation of vehicles from the front of the property where traffic could be a problem to a contained area to the rear of the property. Stanhope Tignor, 2160 North Oval Drive (34239), stated that he has resided in McClellan Park for 10 years and his children are third generation Sarasota natives; that the use at site #21 has intensified dramatically since Mr. Kolar assumed ownership; that Auto Haus Kolar caters to European imports and services the entire community; that the use is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood; that comments have been made and Mr. Kolar did address a concern raised regarding vintage year and sales prices being painted on the windows of vehicles for sale on the property; however, vehicle sales is not an appropriate use on the site; that the operation is hazardous to children who walk to Southside Elementary school; that a tragedy could occur in the future if the operation remains. Mr. Tignor requested that the Commission take appropriate action to have the use removed from the neighborhood. John Halliwell, 2105 Mietaw Drive (34239), stated that he vehemently opposes the continuation of the nonconforming use on site #21; that the use has greatly intensified; that, as an example, three tow trucks were viewed accessing Auto Haus Kolar via Mietaw Drive this past Saturday; that drivers conduct test drives on Mietaw Drive after reclaiming their serviced vehicles from Auto Haus Kolar; that the plan presented by LRS proposes an exit from Auto Haus Kolar onto Osprey Avenue with vehicles being directed in from Mcclellan Parkway; that the cones advising traffic to slow for the school zone are situated past site #21; that the proposed exit is well before the point where vehicles begin to decelerate; that the fence on the site impairs visibility for drivers exiting Auto Haus Kolar which poses a danger to children; that site #21 is not viewed as an historic structure; that the structure is an increasing eyesore to a neighborhood comprised of properties with $0.5 million values; that 10 to 20 vehicles with rusted parts are located at the site; that a special exception for the site would not be supported. Book 39 Page 12468 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12469 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Brooke (Guy) Asbury, 1938 High Point Drive (34236), stated that enforcing the amortization schedule on site #21 is opposed; that the historical structures in Sarasota such as the service station built in 1924 should be preserved; that Osprey and Orange Avenues are congested and backed up in both directions during the season; that green space should not replace the character of Sarasota; that the opposing neighbors have not attempted to mediate a solution to accommodate the use around which the neighborhood was built; that the community should be working together to preserve the historic character of Sarasota rather than supporting polarization of historic structures. Randy Topjun, 2250 Okobee Drive (34239), thanked the city government for expressing condolences during his recent tragedy and the loss of his wife. Mr. Topjun stated that he has resided in Mcclellan Park for 21 years; that the only time problems existed with the site is when Car Care was operating a tow/wrecking service at the location; that Mr. Kolar has developed a plan to renovate and provide a pleasing historic site on the property; that the nonconforming status of the property has hampered Mr. Kolar's ability to improve the property and adequately address many of the issues being raised. Mr. Topjun requested that the Commission either defer action on site #21 until a recommendation is provided by the PBLP or encourage the property owner to pursue the historic designation and special exception processes. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pillot stated that two people for whom he has a great deal of respect have spoken in favor of exempting site #21 from the amortization schedule; that a petition has been submitted and several McClellan Park residents have spoken in opposition to the nonconforming use; that a resident of McClellan Park since approximately 1924 who was contacted for comment regarding site #21 also did not support continuation of the nonconforming use; that strong arguments to both side of the issue have been presented; that unlike the Southside Village at Hillview Street and Osprey Avenue for which there is continuity of commercial in area, the commercial use on site #21 is isolated and out of character with the surrounding area. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to enforce the amortization schedule for 2440 South Osprey Avenue. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that historic designation was an option referenced; that the previously filed historic designation petition filed on site #21 was denied by the Commission on May 6, 1991; that the 4 to 1 motion to deny the petition was supported by Commissioners Gurney, Merrill, Patterson, and Pillot; that the original service station had one hydraulic lift hoist; that the site plan prepared by LRS reflects an increase from the two existing to three proposed hydraulic lift hoists; that the need for additional hoists indicates an increase in business and in traffic generated; that the site plan blatantly reflects an intensification of the use; that Mr. Franklin's statement that 80% of the Auto Haus Kolar business is generated from the neighborhood is questionable. Commissioner Patterson stated that the issues of intensification raised by Vice Mayor Cardamone are disturbing; however, a recommendation by the PBLP should be received prior to a Commission decision. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to postpone the motion to enforce amortization until the first Commission meeting following the PBLP meeting at which action is taken on site #21. Commissioner Pillot stated that the PBLP intends to review on November 8, 1995, the detailed site and development plan and inventory of uses which the property owner has provided to the Commission; that based on the site plan presented and the input received, his position would not be swayed by a PBLP recommendation to exempt site #21 from the amortization schedule; therefore, the motion to postpone will not be supported. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the petition submitted contains approximately, 12 signatures; that citizens' involvement may have been greater if the community perceived a decision would be made at tonight's public hearing; that she believes the community's expectation was that the Commission would delay a decision until the. . PBLP takes action on November 8; therefore, the motion to postpone will be supported. Mayor Merrill stated that he views amortization as an improper seizing of property and will vote against enforcing the amortization schedule; however, site #21 has always been viewed as inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood; that the previous historic designation petition filed was perceived as a granting of additional rights and was not supported; that a future petition for special exception would not be supported for similar reasons; that a proposal for the City to purchase the property would be supported; that since his vote will not be based on the PBLP's decision, he will vote against the motion to postpone. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to postpone. Motion failed (2 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. Book 39 Page 12470 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12471 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the main motion to enforce the amortization schedule for 2440 South Osprey Avenue. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would support the City's purchasing the property for use as a passive park. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1531 STRINGFIELD AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-1) ZONE DISTRICT (CM LIFE ESTATE 1/3 CRISTIANI) = EVALUATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN THROUGH THE EAR PROCESS TO ALLOW ILW ZONING AND PROVIDE A PROCEDURE BY WHICH A REZONING OF SITE #22 TO ILW WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OBLIGATION IS FULLY PAID (AGENDA ITEM II-22) #2 (0300) through (0875) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #22, located at 1531 Stringfield Avenue, is used for the storage and repair of circus and carnival equipment; that the site is surrounded by Industrial, Light Warehousing (ILW) zoning on the south, west, and north, and by the Ed Smith Stadium parking lot on 12th Street to the east; that the present use of the property is consistent with the character of the area and does not have a detrimental effect on the area. Mr. Taylor continued that Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend evaluating an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan by means of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to allow ILW zoning and to rezone the property if the Sarasota City Plan is amended. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following person came before the Commission: Nadio Cristiani, property owner, 206 St. Lucie Avenue (34282), stated that he and his brother have leased or owned site #22 since 1968 when the area was surrounded by swamp and the remnants of the former City dump; that the surrounding properties were subsequently drained and roads were installed; that when the Ed Smith Stadium was constructed, Stringfield Avenue and Euclid Avenue were improved to provide vehicular access to the 12th Street parking lot; that the surrounding property owners were assessed $3,000 annually in non ad valorem tax for 10 years to pay for the City-initiated improvements; that the annual taxes paid for the 10+ lots on site #22 exceed $4,000; that rezoning the property to ILW zoning would increase the amount of tax to approximately $6,000 annually; that $6,000 is an excessive amount of tax to pay for storing vehicles on 1.5 acres of land. Mr. Cristiani requested that either site #22 be exempted from the amortization schedule or that the rezoning to ILW be delayed until the special assessment obligation is fulfilled. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the cost associated with rezoning site #22 to ILW zoning. Mr. Taylor stated that the cost associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is approximately $1,000; however, site #22 would be evaluated as part of the EAR process at no cost to the property owner; that the cost associated with the rezoning process is approximately $1,000; that the cost of the rezoning could be borne by the City if the Commission so desired; that the amount of property tax assessed would be determined by the Property Appraiser based on market value of the property after the rezoning; that the entire process would take approximately two years. Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. Cristiani if a rezoning to ILW would be acceptable if the change coincided with the expiration of the special assessment district obligation? Mr. Cristiani stated, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Cristiani was assessed $30,000 in non ad valorem tax for road improvements that were not required until the City built Ed Smith Stadium; that the Commission should consider grandrathering the nonconforming use. Commissioner Patterson asked for the date on which the special assessment district obligation will be fulfilled. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the obligation would probably be satisfied in 1999. Commissioner Patterson stated that site #22 will become more valuable if a rezoning to ILW is initiated and paid for at City expense. Mr. Cristiani stated that retaining the site as a carnival winter storage quarters is necessaryi that a rezoning to ILW is desirable, but paying the associated property taxes would be difficult in conjunction with the non ad valorem tax currently assessed. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Cristiani's situation is unique; and asked if delaying the processes to coincide with the expiration date of the assessment district is feasible? City Attorney Taylor stated that procedurally the property could be addressed during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. Mr. Taylor stated that under the EAR process, as recommended, the property could be rezoned in two years; that currently, a one-year delay exists between the Property Appraiser's evaluation of a Book 39 Page 12472 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12473 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. rezoned property and placement of the new value on the tax rolls; however, legislation has been proposed which would advance that time delay. Mr. Taylor continued that following approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Mr. Cristiani could elect to delay the filing of an application for rezoning until the time the property is scheduled to amortize, which is January 1999. Mr. Sollenberger stated that rezoning site #22 to ILW would be appropriate; that the City-owned property used as a parking lot on the corner of Euclid Avenue and 12th Street is also zoned RMF-1; that a rezoning of the City's property to Governmental (G) and a rezoning of site #22 to ILW could be accomplished simultaneously at City expense. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the effective date of a rezoning can be delayed? City Attorney Taylor stated that in theory, an ordinance could be written to include a future date on which the ordinance would take effect. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to evaluate an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan by means of the EAR process to allow ILW zoning and to provide a procedure by which a rezoning of site #22 to ILW would not be effective until the special assessment obligation is fully paid. City Attorney Taylor asked for clarification of the Commission's intent regarding the cost of the rezoning. Mr. Sollenberger stated that site #22 could be rezoned when the nearby City parcel is rezoned to Governmental. Mayor Merrill stated that a separate rezoning should be handled at the City's expense. Commissioner Pillot, as maker of the motion, and Commissioner Patterson, as the seconder, agreed that the intent of the motion was to initiate a separate rezoning process for site #22 at the City's expense. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. The Commission recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:07 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1480 17TH STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULPIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT (TERENCE B. & VERONA W. SIMMONS) = ENFORCE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE (AGENDA ITEM II-23) #2 (0880) through (1175) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #23 is located at 1480 17th Street and surrounded by RMF-2 zoning; that the appearance of the structure is commercial; that the neighboring properties are primarily single-family dwellings; that the current use of the building as a commercial art studio is inconsistent with the residential zoning and use in the area. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff recommends enforcing the amortization schedule; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommends allowing the art studio to continue by exempting the site from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use. Mr. Taylor further stated a letter from the owner expressing discontent with the neighborhood was received on October 27, 1995; that to clarify a statement made in the letter, 17th Street is on the City's thoroughfare plan as a minor arterial; however, the expansion of 17th Street to Orange Avenue has been delayed. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Verona Simmons, property owner, 1480 17th Street, (34234), stated that she is a commercial artist who currently uses the site as an art studio but has no intention of remaining in the area; that an appeal is being made on behalf of the entire Newtown neighborhood; that criminal activity associated with crack dealing, especially on several of the surrounding dead-end streets, has continually increased; that the area is cut off from the larger community and becoming a ghetto; that threats are continually made by drug dealers; that four robberies have occurred at the property and her car windows have been shot out; that the fence surrounding the site has been replaced twice at a cost of $2,000; that the Police Department is to be commended for their efforts; that John Lewis, Dirèctor of Public Safety, is aware of the need to increase patrols in the area; however, apprehending drug dealers is difficult because of the ease of escape down dead-end streets; that law enforcement officers would be better able to patrol the area and apprehend drug dealers if 17th Street were extended; that the City delayed the extension of 17th Street; that tourists searching for The Meadows subdivision, located due east on 17th Street, inadvertently drive through the Newtown neighborhood and are petrified to find themselves in the drug-infested area. Book 39 Page 12474 10/30/95 6:00 P.M.. Book 39 Page 12475 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Simmons continued that the building will be renovated and sold for residential use and she will move to a safe area of Sarasota County. Commissioner Pillot asked if Ms. Simmons is opposed to or in favor of the enforcement of the amortization schedule? Ms. Simmons stated that the enforcement of the amortization schedule is a moot point; that the building will be renovated, brought into compliance with the Zoning Code and subsequently sold for residential use. Commissioner Patterson stated that the owner's insightful perspective on solving the problem of illicit drug sales on 17th Street merits consideration; and requested an opinion from the Police Department as to the potential effect the extension of 17th Street to Orange Avenue would have on the illicit sales of drugs in the area. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Police Department will be consulted; that the City Commission's vote last week to enforce the amortization schedule on a nearby property will contribute towards the reduction of illicit drug sales in the area. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to enforce the amortization schedule on site #23. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1421 6TH STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULPIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT (ALTON L. & RICKY C. HORNE) - EVALUATE DURING EAR PROCESS TO ALLOW THE LAND USES AND ZONING APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMPLISH THE CITY'S OBJECTIVES FOR THE ROSEMARY DISTRICT AND REZONE AT CITY EXPENSE (AGENDA ITEM II-24) #2 (1175) through (2184) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, camé before the Commission and stated that site #24 is located at 1421 6th Street and is used by the owner as a warehouse; that the appearance is unsightly; that the site abuts commercial, intensive (CI) zoning on the west but otherwise is surrounded by RMF-3 zoning. Mr. Taylor continued that future land use of the area as part of the Rosemary District revitalization is being discussed with the community; that a review of land uses will be performed during the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process; that prior to the July 13, 1995, Planning Board Local Planning Agency (PBLP) public hearing, Staff had determined that the site had been converted to a, legal residential use and was no longer a nonconforming use; that, subsequently, Staff reversed that determination; that the structure is nonconforming as a storage facility; that the distinction is important since no action would be required if the site were not a nonconforming use. Mr. Taylor further stated that the current storage facility use is consistent with the existing character of the area; that redevelopment of the Rosemary District envisions a mixture of uses, providing for livable spaces and commercial uses compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Taylor further stated that Staff recommends evaluating an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan by means of the EAR process to allow land uses and zoning appropriate to accomplish the City's objectives for the Rosemary District and to rezone the property if the Sarasota City Plan is amended; that the PBLP recommendation is similar but specifies a rezoning to Commercial, Intensive (CI). Commissioner Patterson asked if CI zoning is required to permit the existing use? Mr. Taylor stated that the existing storage facility or warehouse use would probably require Industrial, Light Warehousing (ILW) or Industrial (I) zoning; that CI zoning may not allow a warehousing use; that the property owner has expressed an interest in using the property for uses other than warehousing. Commissioner Patterson asked for examples of CI zoning uses? Mr. Taylor stated that CI zoning permits the most commercially intensive and least aesthetically pleasing uses, i.e., adult book stores and video stores, provided certain criteria are met; that retail activities, office use, etc. are also allowed; that a less- intensive commercial zoning would be preferable for compatibility with the City's vision for the Rosemary District. Mayor Merrill stated that site #24 would not meet distance requirements set forth for adult book stores and video stores. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: John Dart, attorney, 1549 Ringling Boulevard (34236), and Alton Horne, property owner. Book 39 Page 12476 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12477 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Attorney Dart referred to the 1973 and 1994 zoning maps and stated that site #24 was formerly zoned Heavy, Business (BC-1), which was the equivalent to the current CI zoning; that site #24 and one City-owned lot to the north on Central Avenue were subsequently rezoned to RMF-3; that properties to the south and west of site #24, and to the north of the City-owned lot are zoned CI; that Staff used an old photograph of the property for the illustration of the site; that the owner has spent approximately $21,000 to repair the building since the photograph was taken; that the building is no longer in violation of the Building Code; however, the building has not been painted since the RMF-3 zoning would require a house to be built on the site, which is improbable. Commissioner Pillot asked if the owner agrees with the PBLP recommendation? Mr. Dart stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the City Commission is very interested in the redevelopment of the Rosemary District; that site #24 could be rezoned in concert with the entire rezoning of the Rosemary District rather than implementing the PBLP recommendation at this time. Mr. Dart stated that no objection is raised to Vice Mayor Cardamone's methodology; that the objection raised at the PBLP meeting was regarding the inconsistency of the City's changing only two properties in the area to the RMF-3 zoning; that CI is not the only zoning category that would be appropriate for the site, but is the equivalent to the zoning in existence prior to 1974. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff does not support RMF-3 zoning for the site; that a zone district which is less intensive than CI may be supported. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Commission could approve a new zoning category to be determined after discussion between the City and the property owner? City Attorney Taylor stated, no; that the property must be placed in an Impact Management Area (IMA) prior to consideration of a rezoning; that the IMA and rezoning processes are quasi-judicial. Commissioner Pillot stated that the PBLP's motion does not specify CI zoning; and cited the following from the minutes of the PBLP meeting of July 13, 1995: It was moved by Mr. Annis; seconded by Ms. Almy, that the PBLP direct Staff to prepare the necessary documents to consider this property for inclusion in an IMA through the EAR process and the City to initiate appropriate rezoning of the property. Commissioner Patterson stated that the minutes differ from the PBLP recommendation noted in the Staff report. Mr. Taylor stated that the minutes may be inaccurate; that the intention of the PBLP was to pursue CI zoning. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to evaluate an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan through the EAR process to allow the land uses and zoning appropriate to accomplish the City's objective for the Rosemary District and to proceed with rezoning at City expense once the Sarasota City Plan is amended. Commissioner Patterson stated for clarification that "at City expense" refers to the associated City fees and not to the expense of retaining consultants, attorneys, etc.; that the intent of the motion is to proceed with rezoning if the petitioner concurs with the Staff's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the PBLP minutes of July 13, 1995, reflect a motion to rezone to CI zoning; however, no action was taken on the motion; that the PBLP amended the motion as cited by Commissioner Pillot; that the Staff report is inaccurate. Mr. Taylor stated that the discrepancy will be reviewed. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion includes the phrase, "appropriate to accomplish the City's objectives for the Rosemary District." Commissioner Pillot asked if Mr. Dart had any objection to the inclusion of that phrase in the motion? Mr. Dart stated that sufficient knowledge of the City's objectives in the Rosemary District are not known; therefore, a response to the question would be difficult; however, the phrase is vague as to the potential use of the property in the future; that in attending the PBLP meeting, he interpreted the PBLP's recommendation to include the CI zoning; that CI zoning would permit a use on site #24 which would be consistent with the surrounding area; that the property owner would not have a problem if the surrounding properties were also rezoned to meet the objectives of the City's objectives for the Rosemary District; that consistency is the issue being raised. Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. Taylor if the phrase referenced would inhibit the potential of rezoning site #24 to meet the objectives of the property owner. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission makes the final decisions during the IMA and rezoning processesi; that the objectives of the property owner are not known; that Staff has indicated the present residential zoning of the property is not appropriate. Book 39 Page 12478 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12479 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to postpone the motion until the city Commission meeting of November 6, 1995, to provide an opportunity for the property owner to obtain further clarification on the City's objectives for the Rosemary District. Motion failed (2 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Commissioner Patterson stated that the property owner has the opportunity to approach the Commission if the Staff's recommendation for rezoning is not acceptable; that residential zoning on the site is not appropriate; that the chances of the property remaining residentially zoned are zero; however, the Commission may regret specifying CI zoning for site #24 at this time if alternative plans are recommended for the Rosemary District. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to amend the motion replacing the words "zoning appropriate to accomplish the City's objectives for the Rosemary District" with the words "zoning appropriate to the location." Motion to amend died for lack of a second. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to evaluate an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan through the EAR process to allow the land uses and zoning appropriate to accomplish the City's objectives for the Rosemary District and to proceed with rezoning at City expense once the Sarasota City Plan is amended. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3135 N WASHINGTON BOULEVARD IN A RESIDEN- TIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT IITP-DEPARTHENT OF EDUCATION) - EVALUATE DURING THE EAR PROCESS TO ALLOW CN AND/OR OPB OR OPB-1 ZONING AND REZONE AT CITY EXPENSE (AGENDA ITEM II-25) #2 (2184) through (2344) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that a letter dated October 19, 1995, from Claud E. Leiby, Supervisor, Region IV, Title I Technical Assistance Center, a state agency which occupies site #25, was distributed today; that the letter indicates the property was purchased with Federal funds in 1974 for use as an office building and is owned by the State of Florida. Mr. Taylor continued that site #25 is located at 3135 North Washington Boulevard and serves as a buffer between a major thoroughfare and residential zoning; that the structure is well maintained; that the present use as an office does not appear to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Taylor further stated that Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend evaluating an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan by means of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process to allow Commercial, Neighborhood (CN), and or Office, Professional and Business, (OPB or OPB-1) and rezone the property if the Sarasota City Plan is amended. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following person had signed up to speak. Claud Leiby, 321 E. Lake Drive, (34232). deferred from speaking unless the Commission had questions. No questions were raised. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Staff and PBLP recommendation, replacing the word "if" with the word "when." Commissioner Patterson stated that the words "at City expense" should be included in the motion. Commissioner Pillot stated that including the words "at City expense" was the intent of the motion. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to evaluate an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan by means of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process to allow CN and/or OPB or OPB-1 zoning and to rezone the property at City expense when the Sarasota City Plan is amended. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 874 CIRCUS BOULEVARD IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY (RMF-1) ZONE DISTRICT (CITY OF SARASOTA) = REZONE TO GOVERNMENTAL (G) ZONING (AGENDA ITEM II-26) #2 (2347) through (2380) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that site #26 is located at 874 Circus Boulevard; that the structure was built to serve as a training facility for fire department personnel; that the Staff and Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommend rezoning the site to Governmental (G) zoning. Book 39 Page 12480 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12481 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to rezone the site to Governmental (G) zoning. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Patterson that the Commission has taken votes which attempt to take the uncertainty out of the EAR and rezoning processes; and asked City Attorney Taylor for comment. City Attorney Taylor stated that the IMA, EAR, and rezoning processes are quasi-judicial proceedings; that the Commission's decisions will be based on testimony and the record established; that the City plays an active role in establishing the record; that positive recommendations can be developed and evidence produced for the record to support that which is consistent with the votes taken tonight; that other persuasive evidence could be entered into the record during subsequent proceedings; that making a decision tonight would not be proper procedure. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL, MULFIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICTS ON LIDO KEY = EXEMPT 1121 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE (VISA PROPERTIES INC.) FROM THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE: EXEMPT 129 TAFT DRIVE (TRIO HOTEL CORP.) FROM THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE; EXEMPT 149 TYLER DRIVE (ROY & CAROLINE STEWART, TRUSTEES) FROM THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE; POSTPONED FINAL ACTION ON 528 SOUTH POLK DRIVE (LINDA HEVERN) AND DIRECTED STAFF TO REPORT BACK WITH A REÇOMMENDATION FOR BUFFERING (AGENDA ITEM II-27, -28, -29, -30) #2 (2454) through (3185) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that sites #27, #28, #29, and #30 are operated as motels/hotels on Lido Key; that the businesses allow daily rentals and therefore are classified as motels/hotels in the Zoning Code; that the uses would be conforming if rentals were on a weekly basis only; that the motel/hotel uses do not appear to have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Taylor continued that Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend allowing continuation of the uses by exempting the sites from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on 1121 Benjamin Franklin Drive. The following people came before the Commission: Andrew Andreikovics, manager, 1121 Ben Franklin Drive (34236), referenced a board display depicting an aerial view of Lido Beach to identify and describe the Surfview Resort Motel and its operation. Mr. Andrejkovics stated that the Surfview Resort Motel has operated on site #27 for the past 48 years and has the third oldest swimming pool in Sarasota County; that the site is surrounded by motels and time-share condominiums. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to allow the existing intensity of use to continue, restricted to the existing uses, building area, number of units, hours of operation, number of employees and parking. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on 528 South Polk Drive. The following person came before the Commission: Tom Rowland, 540 South Polk Drive (34236), stated that he has lived next door to site #28 for approximately three years; that the possibility of having a fence erected between the two properties was discussed with the previous manager; that management changed and the issue of a fence has not been readdressed; that motel customers gather at the picnic areas in the front yard of site #28; that without a fence dividing the property, his privacy is restricted; that the surrounding homes have been upgraded; that the use of the site as a motel may not be appropriate in the future. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that stipulating a requirement for buffering between Mr. Rowland's property and the motel should be considered. City Attorney Taylor stated that a requirement for buffering may already exist; that the Commission may choose to continue the public hearing to have the issue researched. Mr. Taylor stated that landscaping requirements in residential zone districts are being addressed in the Land Development Regulations (LDRS) Update; however, the RMF-3 zoning permits a duplex, triplex or quadriplex on the site; that the frequency with which people arrive and depart in such cases would be a similar or identical to the situation which exists with the current motel at the location. Book 39 Page 12482 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12483 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to postpone final action on site #28 to the next possible meeting and to direct Staff to report back with a recommendation for buffering between the residence and the motel. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on 129 Taft Drive. The following person came before the Commission: Karl Loevenich, 4008 Royal Palm Drive (34236), deferred from speaking. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to allow continuation of the motel by exempting the site from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use and restricted to the existing uses, building area, number of units, hours of operation, number of employees and parking. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on 149 Tyler Drive. Caroline Stewart, property owner, 165 Tyler Drive (34236), stated that she agrees with the Staff recommendation. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to allow continuation of the motel by exempting the site from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use and restricted to the existing uses, building area, number of units, hours of operation, number of employees and parking. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 14. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 96R-853, PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD; AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 95R-841 sO AS TO CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD FROM A TOTAL OF NINE (9) MEMBERS TO A TOTAL OF TEN (10) MEMBERS; AMENDING THE COMPOSITION OF THE ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD so AS TO CONSIST OF TWO (2) PERSONS WHO ARE EXPERIENCED AS AN ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, LAND PLANNER OR DEVELOPER RATHER THAN ONE (1) PERSON AS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED; PROVIDING FOR THE TERMS OF SAID BOARD MEMBERS; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR THE READING OF THIS RESOLUTION BY TITLE ONLY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (3203) through (3270) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 96R-853 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 96R-853. Mayor Merrill requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 15. OTHER MATTERS = ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT ON THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AROUND THE 17TH STREET AREA; THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONFERENCE CENTER WILL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 1995, AT THE SUDAKOFF CENTER; THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK WILL ASSURE A FOLLOW-UP TO THE AUDIT ON REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL USE OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (3275) through #3 (1752) VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that the description earlier by Ms. Verona Simmons of the deplorable living conditions on 17th Street due to illegal drug sales and criminal activity merits an investigation of the general area and a recommendation on action to clean up the neighborhood. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a report will be made. B. stated that the site for the proposed library is still a concern; that the desire of the City Commission for a delay in action regarding the siting of the library was conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners at their October 24 meeting; that the County Commission is apparently having difficulty respecting the desires of the City Commission concerning the siting of the library; that the County Commission should be responsive to the City Commission's desire to site the library at Five Points. Vice Mayor Cardamone referenced the following Commission actions taken since she has been on the Commission: Book 39 Page 12484 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12485 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. February 22, 1994 Adopted a resolution requesting the County Commission to reserve the Mission Harbor site for economic development and offering the Lemon Avenue Parking lot as an incentive to choose an alternate location for the library site. July 18, 1994 Voted (5 to 0) in support of a conceptual three-party agreement which would result in siting the library at Five Points. February 13, 1995 Approved the three-party agreement. March 6, 1995 Adopted a resolution to move forward with the three-party agreement. October 23, 1995 Requested the County Commission to delay site location and reinforced the City Commission's desire to site the library at Five Points. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the City Commission has responded to County Commission inquiries on five occasions, but the County Commission has chosen to ignore the City Commission's advice. Vice Mayor Cardamone continued that the following are three pertinent issues regarding the County's decision to site the library at Five Points: 1. The Vision Plan designates Five Points as the City's cultural and educational center. 2. Economic development of the Mission Harbor property provides an opportunity for the City to increase its tax base and spark redevelopment on the North Tamiami Trail. 3. The City has donated property valued at $827,000 in an effort to have the library sited at Five Points. Vice Mayor Cardamone distributed and explained a handout which reflected the Initial Project Cost to the County (January 1995) at $3.347 million, the Revised Projected Cost to the County (August 1995) at $3.042 million, and the Existing Proposal at $3.292 million; and stated that the existing proposal is less than estimated in January; that the Mission Harbor property has an appraised value of $2.65 million and a market value of $3.2 million; that the existing proposal is a "wash" for the County when the land costs plus the value of land donated by the City are calculated into the total value of the proposal. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the City Commission, as a group, should attend the November 7 County Commission meeting and request an opportunity to speak and express the desire of the City's elected officials to have the library sited at Five Points. On motion of Commission Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to: 1) direct the Administration to request scheduling of a combined discussion between the Board of County Commissioners and the City Commission at the November 7, 1995, County Commission meeting prior to a vote being taken on the proposed library site and 2) request the Vice Mayor to prepare and distribute a draft presentation to the City Commissioners by Friday, November 3, for approval at the City Commission meeting of November 6. Commissioner Patterson and Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that they cannot attend the County Commission meeting on November 7. Commissioner Pillot stated that his schedule could be altered to accommodate the November 7 meeting; that together with Mayor Merrill the presentation could be made and the absences of the other City Commissioners explained. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the strategy put forth by Commissioner Pillot is supported; that a personal statement will be prepared for submission; that attendance at the County Commission meeting is important to demonstrate City support for Five Points. Commissioner Patterson stated that a discussion at the November 7 meeting, less three City Commissioners, would not be considered a joint meeting; however, either or both Mayor Merrill and Commissioner Pillot could attend and represent the City Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion could be amended to delete the word "joint" and include that the Mayor will attend the November 7 meeting as the City's representative. Mayor Merrill stated that the majority vote of the City Commission does not reflect the position he has taken in the past; that the choice of Five Points as the library site is vastly superior to the Mission Harbor site, but renovating the existing Selby Library and building a library in the eastern area of Sarasota County is preferable to both; that an argument will be made for the Five Points location if the choices at the November 7 County Commission meeting are Five Points or Mission Harbor; however, the majority position of the City Commission will not be represented if a debate ensues on remodelling the Selby Library. Commissioner Patterson stated that the original vote of the City Commission was to site the library at the former Maas Brothers building located at U.S. 301 and Main Street, which was supported Bopk 39 Page 12486 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12487 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. by City and County Staff as well as the business community; that the Doctors Hospital site never seemed a viable option previously and was not available for the dollars discussed; however, the site may now be a possible substitute for building two libraries and may receive favorable consideration from the County Commission; that the site is more accessible to the eastern properties in the County than any location being considered downtown; that the majority of the City Commission voted to support the Five Points location; that the City Commissioners who supported Five Points may choose to attend the November 7 County Commission meeting; however, she has not been particularly supportive of the Five Points location. Commissioner Pillot stated that perhaps the City Commissioners should not attend the November 7 County Commission meeting given the understandable and respected differences among the Commissioners; that a presentation should not be made to the County Commission unless the strength of the City Commission is behind the position being proffered; that former Mayor Kerry Kirschner is in the audience and may wish to address the City Commission. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, former Mayor Kerry Kirschner, Paul Thorpe, and Rick Chalker will address the City Commission. Kerry Kirschner, Executive Director, The Argus Foundation, 1800 Second Street (34236), stated that the community is frustrated over the negotiations concerning the library site; that many people in the private sector have tried to deal with the County; that the City Commission has gone on record as to where the library should be sited but has not been recognized for the collective position taken; that any one Commissioner should not have to debate their position with the County Commission; that the city Commission should stand by its vote; that the community is looking for leadership either from the City or the County Commission; that the third or fourth generation of the Kirschner family may eventually see a library if the conversation continues to go on in this fashion; that the City apparently does not want to take the strongest position possible with the County; that the City should not allow the private sector or another governmental entity to make the decision as to where buildings should be built for the City; that the function of the Planning Department and the deliberations of the City Commission are to make decisions in such matters; that the City Commission has been deliberating, has contributed land to the project and is being ignored; that the City Commission, comprised of elected officials representing the City of Sarasota, should indicate to the County Commission that the decision has been made; that the power of the City Commission's conviction to be part of the process of where the library is to be sited should be expressed to the County. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director, The Downtown Association, 47 Palm Avenue South (34236), stated that he concurs; that the general public should benefit from the leadership of the elected officials who represent the City; that the majority of the City Commission has voted to support the Five Points site on five different occasions; that the private sector has done everything possible to secure the Five Points site; that the City Commission has voted to keep the Mission Harbor site for economic development, which was highly endorsed by the entire community; that the City Commission does not deserve the blame for what has happened concerning the siting of the library; that the County Commission has vacillated on this issue; that the City Commission must support the decision of the Five Points site and lead the City forward to the year 2040 and the realization of the Vision Plan; that the business community supports the City Commission and is seeking leadership to make the library a reality. Rick Chalker, The Downtown Association, 47 Palm Avenue South (34236), stated that the Vision Plan was put forth after many years of hard work by many people and was a communitywide effort; that the City must take the lead since the County Commission seems unable to decide on a library site; that the City Commission has voted for the Five Points site, which is the location envisioned by the Vision Plan; that the City Commission must now impress upon the County Commission that the decision has been made and Five Points is the selected site; that the County Commission should follow the City's lead on issues within the City's domain; that financial resources to secure the Five Points site are available; that Five Points is a good deal for everyone involved; that offers to purchase Mission Harbor at a profit to the County have been received; that the community is not being hurt; that the City Commission has asked many organizations to come together to insure that funds are available, which has been done; that further delay in building the library at the location chosen by the City should not occur. Commission Pillot asked for clarification concerning concessions reportedly made by RISCORP which may close the gap between the $150,000 originally projected and the $400,000 currently being discussed to secure the Goodyear site; and asked if this clarification will be communicated officially to the County Commission before or at their November 7 meeting? Mr. Chalker stated that he is not in an official capacity to respond to the question. Commissioner Pillot asked if someone in an official capacity will be making that statement to the County Commission? Mr. Chalker stated that the offer has already been made to one of the County Commissioners; that the County Commission knows the Book 39 Page 12488 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12489 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. funding is in place; that many of the business people involved in negotiations with respect to the Five Points location have agreed to certain arrangements so the deal can come to fruition. Commissioner Pillot stated that the business community should make a formal, official offer of funds to the County Commission; that the amount each business organization is willing to contribute toward securing the site should be presented to the County Commission in a formal, written statement; that absent a written commitment, the County Commission's uncertainty about the business community's support is understandable. Commissioner Patterson stated that three of the four City Commissioners at the table support the premise that the community is not adequately served by the existing library facility and that retaining the library at its current location is not an option; that her reluctance to support the Mission Harbor site was fear that the result would be that the library would remain at its current location; that she has no strong convictions that the library should be sited at Mission Harbor or Five Points; that the concern with Five Points is the smallness of the site but, other than that, Mission Harbor and Five Points are both good options; that the only reluctance in the past with the Five Points site has been the contributions required from the City; that quoting the Vision Plan as the linchpin as to why the City Commission should strongly support Five Points is a concerni that as the Vision Plan was being originated, a vote was taken by the City Commission to build the library at Mission Harbor; that the consultants touted a library on the Mission Harbor site as a great facility to help revitalize the downtown area; that without any discussion by the City Commission and never brought up by Staff, the proposal to site the library at Mission Harbor changed which was reflected in the pictorial example of the Vision Plan; however, Five Points is not mentioned in the verbiage of the Vision Plan as the site for the proposed library; that one difficulty in obtaining leadership at the City Commission table is that all the City Commissioners do not see eye to eye; that taking a leadership role supporting a position she has never strongly espoused is difficult; that those members of the City Commission who strongly support the Five Points site may choose to take the leadership role. Commissioner Pillot stated that one of the objections to Five Points, raised in the newspapers and by one of the County Commissioners, is the concern about inadequate parking; that the existing Selby Public Library could be expanded into a nice facility; however, the Selby Public Library also appears to have a seemingly insolvable parking problem. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she agrees; that The Friends of the Selby Public Library decided years ago that not only was the building inadequate but the parking was also totally inadequate; that the question is whether the County Commission should be told that the City Commission decided on the Five Points site, and that decision should be honored; that individual feelings of city Commissioners on the best site for the library should be put aside; that the City Commission should support the vote taken in support of the Five Points site. Mayor Merrill stated that at a recent dinner engagement he attended, no one at his table supported the Five Points site; that the reason the library has taken so long to site is that the majority of the community does not support the need for a new library; that the majority of the City Commission has stated that the existing library is broken and should be fixed, but it is not broken; that the city Charter does not state or imply that the minority opinion must follow the majority opinion on any issue; that tension on a board, which is elected by various constituents, is expected; that each Commissioner will argue on behalf of those constituents to assure every voice is heard; that the minority need not be silent because of a majority vote; that while such may not be the intent, the implication may be present; that mistakes in planning are made, i.e., the boat ramps at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall; that Mission Harbor would be a mistake in comparison to Five Points, but Five Points is not the perfect site; that if a County Commissioner would argue on behalf of a site which better serves the community than the one supported by the majority of the * city Commission, his commitment to the people is not to be silent; that his original decision was reversed due to a murder committed in the area of Mission Harbor; however, when queried as to a preference for the library site, he has been consistent throughout the deliberations. Mayor Merrill further stated that the business community's desire to have the City Commission take a leadership role is respected; however, the individual City Commissioners have taken a leadership role by representing their separate constituencies; that the people lead in a democracy, which is the reason for informing citizens and for holding public hearings; that the majority opinion of the City Commission is subordinate to the best interests of constituents, which is the leadership brought to this table. Mayor Merrill further stated that if County Commissioner O'Neil's position is to renovate the Selby Library, the original architect should be hired, not an architect whose plans would be used for constructing a new one; that a clear, obvious conflict exists when an architect who would design a new flagship library is asked to evaluate the old library and make a judgment as to its adequacy. Commissioner Pillot stated that foremost for each Commissioner is a commitment to one's constituency; that each Commissioner's integrity is based on that commitment; that no Commissioner should represent anything other than the wishes of one's constituency; and Book 39 Page 12490 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. a4 Book 39 Page 12491 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. asked if, given the frank and helpful discussion on the library site, the Commissioner who seconded the motion previously made would permit withdrawal? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that permission is reluctantly granted. On motion of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to direct the City Manager to draft a letter to the Board of County Commissioners expressing the position that remodeling the existing Selby Library will not suit the City's future needs. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Patterson stated that the reason for the motion was a belief that three Commissioners would agree with the position stated; that the Mayor does not agree and is not being asked to represent that position to the County Commission; that remodeling the Selby Library would be the worst decision for the City; that the Selby Library is oddly constructed and does not lend itself either to renovation within its existing shell or to adding a second story; that the structure would have to be bulldozed and a new building and parking garage constructed on the site; that any other renovation would result in a less-than-adequate library for the future needs of the community; that the proposed motion furthers the agenda of those who want the library to be constructed at Five Points; that a majority will clearly not vote in favor of another site. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to request that Commissioner Pillot address the Board of County Commissioners on November 7, express the City Commission's support of Five Points, and comment that the majority of the City Commission is opposed to the rebuilding of the existing Selby Library. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion was not seconded because the strength of the City's representation may be questioned by the County Commission; that the City Commission's past vote on the library is well known to the County Commission; that no new information would be brought to the November 7 meeting if the motion passed; that the attendance of one City Commissioner reiterating the very well-known position the City Commission has taken on the library site would not be a productive use of time; and that he thanked the Vice Mayor for putting the motion on the table. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Vice Mayor may wish to attend the citizen input session of the County Commission meeting on November 1, present the figures discussed tonight, and reiterate the fact that Five Points is supported by a majority of the City Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that attendance is not possible; that the library is not on the County Commission's agenda for November 1. Mayor Merrill stated that hopefully the County Commission has not decided on Mission Harbor as the preferred site; that, given a choice between Mission Harbor and Five Points, he would argue in support of Five Points at the County Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the County Commission's decision is now between Mission Harbor and Five Points. Mayor Merrill stated that County Commissioner O'Neil's current position is not in support of either site; that the vacant Doctors Hospital building, which is centrally located, near schools, and in the heart of neighborhoods, will be reconsidered and may alleviate the need for a second library; that to say the County Commission has ignored the City Commission is erroneous, given the division on the City Commission; that the County Commission is taking a position similar to that of the City Commission, which suggests that the City's position has been taken into account to some degree. Commissioner Pillot stated that respect is accorded the County Commissioners for their consistency, even considering the disagreement with their positions; that two County Commissioners agree with his position; that the general public may have more good, constructive influence on County Commissioner O'Neil than a City Commissioner; that the business community will continue to exercise constructive influence on County Commissioner O'Neil prior to the November 7 meeting; that the County Commission is aware of the vote by the City Commission; that the County Commission was courteous to the Vice Mayor in her reiteration of the City's position; that he will make an attempt will be made to speak with County Commissioner O'Neil again. Mayor Merrill stated that if a motion to support the Mission Harbor site was made based solely on the need for additional financial support to secure Five Points, his vote would be to put the money up to secure the Five Points site; that County Commissioner O'Neil is not arguing in favor of Mission Harbor; that if the deciding factor is the $400,000 needed to secure the Five Points site, support could be given to identifying the funds; that choosing the Mission Harbor site would be a terrible mistake. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that confusion has existed concerning the funds required; that $2.4 million has been indicated as the cost involved in building the library at Five Points; that $240,000 has been suggested as the actual amount spent in demolishing the old, low-rise buildings which formerly existed on Five Points Park; that the speculation is that the cost will be about the same to Book 39 Page 12492 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12493 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. demolish the buildings Goodyear and the restaurants occupyi that the dollars are not the problem; that the problem is convincing County Commissioner O'Neil that the numbers are realistic and an opportunity exists to sell the Mission Harbor propertyi that the County will be repaid immediately if the sale is a cash sale or will make a significant amount of money on interest if the sale is a mortgage sale; that everyone will win with economic development on the Mission Harbor property. Commissioner Pillot stated that the August 1, 1995, vote of the County Commission which was three to two in favor of the Five Points site included the figure of $275,000 to acquire Goodyear, rather than $150,000; that the difference between the two figures is $125,000, which he understands has been promised by private sources in the community; that County Commissioner O'Neil has indicated that the figure to which he will agree is $150,000, not $275,000; that $125,000 will be paid by private sources, leaving an additional $125,000 shortage to obtain the $400,000 currently indicated as necessaryi that The Downtown Association, The Argus Foundation and others with influence will hopefully continue to get dollars committed to close whatever gap exists to obtain the final approval of County Commissioner O'Neil. Commissioner Patterson stated that County Commissioner O'Neil could be asked the bottom line as to the amount to which he will agree. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that County Commissioner O'Neil could be asked for a response; however, he may not have a definite figure in mind. Commissioner Patterson asked the protocol to solicit the information? Commissioner Pillot stated that the question is best asked and best answered through a private-sector organization. Mr. Kirschner, who was seated in the audience, stated that the private sector has attempted to solicit the information and the response has been that a miracle would be necessary. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Mayor would call County Commissioner O'Neil and ask for his the bottom-line dollar figure? Mayor Merrill stated that he will be happy to call and will pass along any response. Commissioner Pillot stated that the County cannot build a library on the Mission Harbor site without the approval of the City Commission; that the property is zoned residential; that a library can be built on residential property only if a special exception is granted, which requires the approval of the City Commission; that two streets would have to be vacated in the area as well; that this comment is being made for informational purposes only. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that many areas exist where the City must cooperate with the County and vise versa; that several other issues exist in which the County will be discussing street vacations, etc.; that business is business. Mayor Merrill stated that one issue for discussion may be using part of Payne Park for stormwater retention. Commissioner Pillot stated that another issue may be vacating Adams Lane. Mayor Merrill stated that the City must cooperate with the County. Commissioner Pillot stated that is correct and cooperation is a two-way street with no threat implied. Commissioner Patterson stated that the issue of what should be done with the Mission Harbor property was hotly debated during the recent City elections; that a large majority at every forum at which she spoke supported Mission Harbor as the site for the library; that for the City Commission not to cooperate with the County Commission if a decision is made to locate the library at Mission Harbor would be very difficult. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that. her position in that event is unknown; however, the comment about the public's discussions concerning the Mission Harbor site during the recent City elections is valuable. Commissioner Pillot stated that he may take the position of not supporting the site for the library if the County Commission decides to locate the library at Mission Harbor. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that he had been requested to determine if another location could be found for the public hearing on the Conference Center; that the only Saturday the Sudakoff Center is available is January 6, 1996; that following are other dates available on weekdays: Wednesday, December 6; Monday, December 11; Tuesday, December 12; and Thursday, December 21. Mayor Merrill stated that he has no objections to a weeknight meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Patterson stated that Monday, December 11, 1995, makes sense as that is a normal City Commission meeting date. Book 39 Page 12494 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12495 10/30/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, the public hearing on the Conference Center will be held on Monday, December 11, 1995 from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that an audit was received from the City Auditor and Clerk regarding cellular telephone use together with an appropriate management response; that the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk should look at reimbursement for personal use of cellular telephones in a year. City Clerk and Auditor Robinson stated that follow-up reviews of an audit are typically conducted at a later time. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, the City Manager and the City Auditor and Clerk will assure a follow-up to the audit. 16. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VII) #4 (1902) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the special meeting of October 30, 1995, at 10:05 p.m. DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: > Bully E Rabenson BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK