MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 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. 1. INTRODUCTION: NONCONFORMING USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0042) through (0279) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the Zoning Code established that nonconforming uses would expire 20, 25, or 30 years from the adoption of the Code on January 10, 1974; that in April 1994, the City Commission amended the Zoning Code to extend the amortization period by five years to January 10, 1999, for those structures whose amortization period is 20 years and expired January 1994; that the intent of the extension was to allow time for Staff to provide the City Commission with sufficient information on which to base a decision regarding continuation of each nonconforming use; that the Staff report dated September 1, 1995, references 30 identified nonconforming sites which were scheduled to be amortized in January 1994 and provides a profile on each; that public hearings on the 30 structures have been held before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. (PBLP) : that the Staff report includes the PBLP recommendations for each location. City Attorney Taylor stated that the particular regulations being implemented are portions of the Zoning Code which were enacted in January 1974; that in the opinion of the City Attorney's Office, the proceedings are not quasi-judicial, but rather legislative procedures enforcing a provision in the Zoning Code; that the process followed subsequently may be quasi-judicial if a determination is made to reevaluate properties and a rezoning or Code change is required; however, Synder decision considerations are not applicable to the public hearings tonight. City Attorney Taylor continued that based on the number of years the amortization has been in effect and the research of case law Book 39 Page 12396 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12397 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. performed preliminary to undertaking this process, the recommendations set forth in Staff's report would be legally defensible in court, although each case would be subject to judicial ruling. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that a comprehensive report on the 30 sites, which includes Staff recommendations as well as the recommendations of the PBLP, has been provided as directed by the City Commission; that the Staff has recommended amortization of most of the nonconforming uses; that on the recommendations that deviate from amortization, Staff has recommended the least intensive method possible for continuing the uses; that property owners have been properly noticed; that a public hearing was held by the PBLP; that the PBLP has made recommendations on 28 of the 30 sites; that the PBLP did not make a recommendation on 1376 Fourth Street and did not complete deliberations on 2440 South Osprey Avenue. 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. 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 were displayed on the overhead projector as the sites were presented for public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1376 FOURTH STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-5) ZONE DISTRICT (GEORGE D. & JOANNE J. HEILAND) - OFFERED THE OWNER TWO ALTERNATIVES: 1) REZONING THE PROPERTY TO A CRT ZONE DISTRICT AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE AS PART OF THE EAR PROCESS OR 2) HAVING THE EXISTING USE CONTINUE AS A PERMANENT GRANDFATHERING (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0280) through (1131) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the structure at 1370/1376 Fourth Street is an office building with two sections, one of which is occupied for business by the owners, Mr. and Mrs. George Heiland, and the other is rented to Sunshine Scenic Studios; that the tenant has submitted a letter in support of continuing the nonconforming use. Mr. Taylor continued that the structure is located in the Rosemary District on a 50.5- by 105-foot parcel which is currently zoned Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-5); that the property in the Rosemary District is eligible for Commercial, Residential Transition (CRT) zoning; that the owners also have a duplex on the 50- by 105-foot parcel west of the subject site; that off-street parking is not available on either site; that a vacant lot west of the duplex is used for parking; that in addition, the owners have property on the northwest and northeast corners of Fruitville Road and Central Avenue which are currently leased to Blue Line, Inc.; that providing off-street parking and providing for residential units on a ratio basis, depending on the size of the commercial or office use, is a requirement of rezoning to CRT; therefore, the property owners would be required to provide three residential dwelling units and several parking spaces to be eligible for CRT zoning; that the owners also have other nearby property which could be used to provide the necessary parking; however, that property would have to be encumbered for the specific use of parking for this site; that the duplex would provide two of the three required residential units; that one additional residential unit or rehabilitative effort in the downtown area would be required. Mr. Taylor further stated that Staff recommends allowing a rezoning to the CRT zone district providing the standards for parking and housing can be met; that if the standards cannot be met, Staff recommends the amortization schedule be enforced; that the PBLP agreed the existing use should be continued but did not make a recommendation; that two members preferred continuing the use at is present intensity and two members preferred rezoning the site to CRT and exempting the site from parking requirements; that the PBLP debated whether or not the property owner should pay for the rezoning. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Joanne Heiland, property owner, 301 Central Avenue (34236), stated that the structure was built as a commercial building and has been occupied by commercial uses, since 1950; that the property abuts Commercial Intensive (CI) zoning; that with the taking of right-of- way for the widening of Fruitville Road, the City of Sarasota assisted in the relocation of the warehouse and service department for Blue Line Inc., by paying to remodel and install wiring and a lavatory at the - existing structure; that the parking required for CRT zoning is - not available at the site; that the duplex on the adjacent lot is mortgaged with a bank and cannot be demolished; that a decision by the Commission to discontinue the existing commercial use in the structure would be devastating. Book 39 Page 12398 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12399 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the two members of the PBLP supported exempting the property from the parking requirements of the CRT zone district; that rezoning to CRT usually displaces residential dwellings, which is not the case at this site; and asked if the Commission has the prerogative to waive such requirements of CRT zoning or to continue the existing use? Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission may waive the requirements; however, an amendment to the Zoning Code would be required. City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearings are being held for the purpose of the Commission making a decision on the fate of the structures; that the Commission could choose to continue the nonconforming uses indefinitely; however, criteria on which the Commission's decisions will be based should be established for the record since various actions may be taken as 30 sites are involved. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification of the City's involvement in the relocation of the warehouse and service department for Blue Line, Inc., and if the City's providing financial assistance to the property owner to establish the current use differentiates the site from the other 30 and provides an adequate record on which the Commission can base a decision to continue its use? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City did not order the relocation to a particular site; that in accordance with the condemnation procedure, the City was responsible for costs associated with relocating an existing business; however,. the property owners chose the location. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Patterson stated that the degree of impact a nonconforming use has on neighboring properties should be one criteria on which the Commission bases its decision; that the site does not appear to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood; that the City accepted the use at the time of relocation; and asked if those two items are sufficient to support the record if the Commission chooses not to enforce the amortization? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that the Staff report clearly identifies that the use of the structure as a commercial business does not have any effect on the neighborhood; that Staff attempted to find a method currently available which would permit the continued use; that the CRT Zone District is available; that grandrathering the use would require a Code amendment. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to offer the property owners the alternative of: 1) rezoning the property to CRT Zone District at the Çity's expense as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process or 2) having the existing use continued as a permanent grandrathering. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees that the use of the property should be permitted to continue; and asked for comment on the differences of the two options. Mr. Taylor stated . that CRT zoning would permit the property owner to use. the building for various commercial uses; that the second option pertains to grandrathering the existing use and would not provide for an alternative commercial use in the building in the future. Mayor Merrill asked if additional Commission : action will be required concerning the disposition of the nonconforming uses? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that any action at this meeting will require additional public hearings if the Commission determines a use should be continued. Mayor Merrill stated that an existing ordinance requires amortization of the 30 sites in 1999, which will have to be amended if the use is to continue; that the actions taken by the Commission tonight are only advisory in nature; and asked if the Commission has thè option of allowing the use on any of the properties to continue? Mr.: Taylor stated that the use at each property could be continued at the existing intensity if the Commission sO desires. Mayor Merrill stated that during previous Commission deliberations, he supported permanent grandfathering of previous nonconforming uses which have been operating well for the past 20 years; that although amortization may be legal based on - past Supreme Court rulings, forcing a property owner to downzone could also be viewed as a taking for which property owners are not compensated; that he considers such action wrong and will take the position to allow all the existing nonconforming uses to either continue at their existing intensities or to rezone to an appropriate zone district. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that enforcing a permanently grandfathered use could be difficult; that àn expanding customer base could increases the number of trips generated by a business; that additional staff may be hired in the future although the use which was grandfathered had only one employee; that, for example, Book 39 Page 12400 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12401 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. an additional type of repair use could be established in the interior of the building; and asked how the intensity of the grandfathered uses would be monitored. Mayor Merrill stated that his intent not to allow an increase in intensity referred to the physical structures in which the uses were grandfathered; that the same square footage would have to be retained even if a thriving business experiences an increase in their customer base. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that a method by which intensity will be controlled should be established. Mr. Taylor stated that the square footage, the number of employees, the existing operation, etc., will be documented for any of the uses the Commission determines should be continued; that the recorded information will be presented to the Commission for a determination on. which documentation should be incorporated into the ordinance which will exempt the uses from the nonconforming provisions of the Zoning Code; that additional traffic would be generated if an architect's office were converted to a physician's office; that the type of use as well as the square footage should be limited if the Commission intends to retain the existing intensity. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission is taking action with only four members present; that two to two votes could occur; and asked if the established amortization schedule will be enforced for sites on which the Commission takes no action? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. The Commission recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:16 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1434 NINTH STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULFIPLE-FAMILX (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT (CASH FLOW ENTERPRISER) ADMINISTRATION TO OBTAIN RELEVANT REPORTS; ITEM TO BE INCLUDED AS AGENDA ITEM #1 AT THE OCTOBER 30TH COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (1131) through (1761) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the structure located at 1434 Ninth Street, located on Ninth Street east of Central Avenue, known as the Ninth Street Beer Gardens, is surrounded by Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-3) zoning on the west, south, and east with Commercial Intensive (CI) zoning across the street to the north; that the subject property is eligible for Commercial Residential Transitional (CRT) zoning; that the use of the property as a nightclub and a bar is not permitted under the existing RMF-3 or CRT zone district; that the current use of the subject property is inconsistent with residential zoning and use for the area; that the recommendation' of the Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), is to enforce the amortization schedule. Commissioner. Patterson asked if a motion is required if the Commission agrees with the Administrative recommendation to enforce the amortization schedule? City Attorney Taylor stated that a motion is preferred if the property is to be.a amortized; that às'a matter of public record, the action taken tonight. should be documented; that a resolution will be forthcoming for the public record. Mayor Merrill opened. the public hearing. The following person came before the Commission: Henry Moultrie, property owner, 2807 Leon Avenue (34234), stated that he. has owned the Ninth Street Beer Gardens for at least 20 years; that. people in the neighborhood will have no place to go if the bar closes; that no other bars or pool rooms are open in this area; that people will hang. out in the streets for lack of any place to go; that African-Americans who live in the area were not consulted concerning the Staff recommendation; that Central Avenue will become like a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way. where people loiter in,the street; that the bar is a clean place, free of crime; that the Police have not been in the bar in ten years or more; that the people in the area do not frequent the beach or the downtown area and will have no place to go if thè bar closes. There was no one- else signed up to speak.and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Mayor Merrill stated that according to Robert's Rules of Order, accepting a motion that simply repeats the action of this ir Commission, is out of order; that the action of this Commission will be to enforce the amortization schedule if no other action is taken; and asked if there is a more appropriate way to proceed with the recommendation of the City. Attorney? Commissioner Patterson asked. for clarification. Mayor Merrill stated that the City Attorney is asking the Commission to make a motion for something that has already been affirmed, which is. to amortize. Commissioner Patterson asked if it is proper to take no action? Book 39 Page 12402 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12403 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Mayor may state that hearing nothing to the contrary from the Commission, the amortization will stand. Commissioner Patterson stated that she understood that if the property. is to be amortized a definitive motion is preferred. City Attorney Taylor stated. that the action of the Commission should be made cléar; that a resolution will be brought back. at a later time; that the issue of making a motion has not been considered from a parliamentary standpoint, which would require further investigation; that the Commission's action will provide the basis for bringing back a resolution covering all the properties the Commission intends to amortize. Commissioner Patterson asked if that resolution will deal with properties to be amortized as well as properties not to be amortized? City Attorney Taylor stated that the resolution will deal with those properties being amortized as other action will be required on those properties not being amortized. Commissioner Patterson asked if a definitive vote or a reason supporting that vote will appear in the record on a property which the Commission chooses to amortize? Mayor Merrill stated that a method can be found to create the record; that the recommendation of the City Attorney will be followed if there are no objections; that no motion would achieve the same result. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a motion will be made on some properties and not others? Mayor Merrill stated that a motion will not be ruled out of order in accordance with the desires of the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would like to know the record of the property in question; and asked if a different action can taken on the property later if a report for the Ninth Street Beer Gardens shows Police activity has occurred? City Attorney Taylor stated that a different action can be taken at a later time; that the public hearing can be closed and deliberations can take place at the public hearings on nonconforming uses scheduled for October 30, 1995. Commissioner Pillot asked if the current use as a nightclub/bar is permissible if the area is zoned CRT? Mr. Taylor stated that a nightclub/bar is not permitted in a CRT zone district. Commissioner Pillot asked how the current use can continue other than indefinite grandrathering? Mr. Taylor stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to provide a zone district permitting a nightclub or a bar. Commissioner Pillot asked if * the Commission can decide not to enforce the amortization schedule thus requiring no further action to allow the use to continue? Mr. Taylor stated that the property will require exemption from the nonconforming section of the Zoning Code, thereby, grandfathering the property in. Commissioner Pillot asked if a different action can be taken at a later time - if the Commission finds that Police records are not as represented concerning the Ninth Street Beer Garden? Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved that the Commission allow the continued use of the Ninth Street property with the understanding that the Administration will provide a full Police Report on the history of the property. Motion died. for lack of a second. Commissioner Patterson stated that a nightclub is not an appropriate use for a residentially zoned property. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that this area has been of concern for a number of years; that redevelopment is expected to take place in this area; that a member of the PBLP stated that this bar was definitely a problem; that more information would have been beneficial; that this type of use is troublesome in a single-family neighborhood due to the added noise and movement of people. Commissioner Pillot stated that - he had anticipated voting to approve the recommendation to enforce the amortization schedule on this property; however, the owner's statement is impressive; that historically, bars have been present in neighborhoods; that the owner's point that bars provide a wholesome outlet for recreational purposes for the community if safely and cleanly, run may be valid; that subject to confirming the property has been an enterprise run without difficulties and is a good place for people in the community to come, the request to allow the use to continue can be supported. Book 39 Page 12404 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12405 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if deliberations on this property can be continued to the next meeting so Police reports can be obtained? On the motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved that the Administration obtain the relevant reports and place this item as Number 1 on the Agenda for the Monday, October 30th meeting. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 1470 20TH STREET (ROBERT E. FULLER, JR. & PATRICIA J. FULLER), 1480 20TH STREET (JILL S. KING), AND 1490 20TH STREET (JAMES A. DIVITO, SR. & FLORI DIVITO) IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE NOT TO BE ENFORCED (AGENDA ITEM II-3, -4 -5) #1 (1762) through (2781) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the next three properties to be discussed are located side by side and will be presented at the same time; that the structures located at 1470, 1480, and 1490 20th Street are warehouses; that these properties are located at the end of 20th Street abutting the railroad tracks; that this area is zoned multi-family residential; that 1470 20th Street is a packaging business, 1480 20th Street is a fabrication plant for cabinets and 1490 20th Street is vacant; that the warehouses are inconsistent with the designated residential zoning and use for the area; that both the Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend enforcement of the amortization schedule. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on the nonconforming use at 1470 20th Street. The following person came before the Commission: Patricia Fuller 1470 20th Street (34234), representing Wiseco Packaging Products, Inc., stated that the business has been located at this site for more than 20 years and the current owner has owned the property for 8 years; that the owner, a wholesale packaging supplier, has developed positive relationships with the people in the neighborhood; that Wiseco Packaging is not a burden to neighbors as traffic is minimal; that businesses and residents can work together; that rezoning the business will be economically devastating to the owner; that the owner is uncertain how the property can be used if rezoned. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pillot stated that building a home next to a railroad track is unlikely; that the buildings will either sit empty or be torn down with the hope that residences will be constructed on the sites; that the Zoning Code allows the buildings to remain, but the business cannot continue to operate; that having the building sit idle will be a detriment to the neighborhood. Commissioner Patterson asked what abuts the properties on 19th Street next to the railroad tracks? Mr. Taylor stated that this is a Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF- 2) area and single-family and duplex houses are built throughout this area, roughly from 17th Street to 21st Street. Commissioner Patterson asked what is directly across the street? Mr. Taylor stated that duplexes are directly across the street. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked who was noticed concerning the public hearings for nonconforming uses? Mr. Taylor stated that neighbors within 500 feet of the properties received notice of the public hearing on this nonconforming use. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if that procedure was followed for all properties. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that in some cases 500 feet was exceeded. Commissioner Pillot asked if any of the neighbors noticed appeared at the public hearing conducted by the PBLP? Mr. Taylor stated that according to the minutes, none of the neighbors appeared at the PBLP. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to not enforce the amortization and allow the business to continue. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Merrill stated that lack of action means that the Commission will be enforcing the amortization schedule. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on the nonconforming use at 1480 20th Street. The following person came before the Commission: Jim Toale, 1605 Main Street Suite 705 (34236) representing the owner, David Wilson, stated that the previous owner purchased the Book 39 Page 12406 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12407 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. property in 1979 and operated a cabinet shop at that location until 1993 when the parcel and business assets were sold to the current owner; that the business at 1480 20th Street continues as a cabinet fabrication business; that neither the previous nor the current owner were aware of the provision in the Zoning Code requiring amortization of the use in 1999; that neither owner was represented by an attorney at the time of the sale; that the former owner still holds the mortgage on the property; that the current and previous owners are presently involved in litigation concerning the property; that this lot is very narrow, with a 30-foot frontage on 20th Street measuring 56 feet along the rear with an average lot width of 43 feet; that in an RMF-2 zone district, the minimum lot width for a single-family house is 50 feet; that the minimum lot width for a duplex, the use predominant in this area, is 80 feet and the minimum lot size for a duplex is 10,000 square feet; that this lot is less than 7,000 square feet; that other nonconformities will be created if the amortization is allowed to continue. Mr. Toale continued that two well-founded requirements must be met to assure procedural due process: adequate notice and a fair hearing; that in late 1973 and in early 1974 public hearings were conducted, the Zoning Code and the zoning map were amended; that the Commission minutes for those public hearings did not indicate notice being mailed to the property owners; that the minutes did indicate notice was given by publication; that notice by publication would have been adequate for modifying the Zoning Code as everyone in that zoning classification is affected; that direct notice should have been made by mail or by some other means to the owners of the subject properties, which was apparently not done. 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 that the amortization not be enforced on 1480 20th Street. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to include 1470 20th Street, due to concerns regarding notification in 1974. Amendment carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked what happens if amortization is not enforced? Mr. Taylor stated that the properties will be grandfathered in and will be allowed to continue their currently existing operations; that expansion or a change in use will not be permitted. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that if the use is a cabinet shop, it will always remain a cabinet shop. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct unless the Commission allows deviation. Commissioner Patterson stated that consistency of Commission action on the basis of notice concerns her; that all the properties are in the same categoryi that Staff was asked to examine the properties to determine whether or not the uses are compatible with the surrounding zone districts; that the PBLP spent a great deal of time analyzing the situations in order to make a recommendation. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the issues concerning each property are very different; that no objection from neighbors has been received concerning these particular properties; that these properties are located near a railroad track; that their lot size does not allow a duplex to be built; that no real solution exists for these properties. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as not to enforce the amortization schedule against 1480 20th Street, as amended to include 1470 20th Street. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on the nonconforming use at 1490 20th Street. There was no one 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 that the amortization schedule not be enforced on 1490 20th Street. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 4010 BRADENTON ROAD IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONE DISTRICT (TEDDY L. & MARGOT P. DAWN) - AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE TO BE ENFORCED (AGENDA ITEM II-6) #1 (2782) through (2999) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the structure at 4010 Bradenton Road is a single-family residence which has a flooring company operating out of a portion of the structure; that the structure is in a Residential, Single-Family (RSF-3) zone district; that this might be considered a home occupation if not for the fact that employees are coming to the site and parking in the right-of- way which disallows a home occupation under the existing Zoning Book 39 Page 12408 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12409 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Code; that the use is inconsistent with the residential zoning of the area; that both the Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend enforcement of the amortization schedule. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on the nonconforming use at 4010 Bradenton Road. No one was 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 that the amortization schedule be enforced on the property at 4010 Bradenton Road consistent with recommendations of Staff and the PBLP. Commissioner Patterson stated that she supports the motion as the current use is incompatible with the residential neighborhood; that the distinction between properties should be brought to the attention of the public. Commissioner Pillot stated that the company has been in existence for some time; however, it has expanded; that employees park trucks and cars at the property which is a detriment to the neighborhood; that this business would be viewed differently if operated out of the structure without that kind of involvement; that a business or profession will be evaluated differently when not generating vehicular traffic or other problems. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the property is in a single-family neighborhood; that all the residences in the area are single-family houses; that the business use in the structure at 4010 Bradenton Road is the only nonconforming use in the neighborhood; that a great deal of traffic exists and a number of cars are parked in the yard and on the street; that this type of use is not conducive to single-family residences. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion to enforce the amortization at 4010 Bradenton Road. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1703 CENTRAL AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-4) ZONE DISTRICT (BOBBIE J. GREEN) AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE TO BE ENFORCED (AGENDA ITEM II-7), #1 (3000) through (3350) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the structure located at 1703 Central Avenue is a grocery store in a Residential, Single-Family (RSF-4) zone district; that the structure was built as a single- family house and remodeled to accommodate the grocery store; that a vending machine and public phone are located outside the store; that the front yard is paved with concrete and used for parking; that the site is at the intersection of two roads on the City's thoroughfare plan, specifically 17th Street and Central Avenue which primarily serve local traffic; that the site is surrounded by residential zone districts with the west side of Central Avenue being zoned single-family while the east side is zoned multi- family; that the site has a history of individuals congregating on the property behind the building and is viewed as a nuisance to nearby residents; that a crime report dated January 1, 1993, through December. 31, 1994, was prepared and evaluated; that during that period, 142 calls for Police service were attributed to this site including calls for robbery, aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer, and narcotics violations; that the use is inconsistent with the residential zoning of the area; that both the Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend enforcement of the amortization schedule. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on 1703 Central Avenue. The following person came before the Commission: Tyrone E. Banc, 1703 Central Avenue (34234), property owner, stated that he and his mother, Bobbie J. Green, are the owners of the property; that the store is a "mom and pop" store; that the major problem is the calls for the Police Department coming from the pay phone located on the property; that the owners have been at this site for 20 years; that a drug problem does exist at this property; however, the owners are not the cause of this problem; that the owners have had meetings with the City Manager and the Police Chief to remove the drug dealers; that the Police have come to the property and removed the drug dealers; however, the drug dealers have returned; that signs prohibiting drinking and loitering have been placed on the property; that a private apartment is located at the rear of the property; that the individual who rents this property has guests who play checkers and drink beer; that the owners would like to be grandfathered in. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Police records for this property are unusual in the nature and number of calls; that though many of the calls came from a pay phone, the nature of the calls remains the same; that the records show the owners have wanted to stop this activity; however, the record of criminal activity is too large to ignore. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to enforce the amortization schedule at Book 39 Page 12410 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12411 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. 1703 Central Avenue. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USES OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3500 CENTRAL AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULPIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-1) ZONE DISTRICT (JOHN & JANET LEAP) AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE NOT TO BE ENFORCED (AGENDA ITEM II-8) #1 (3350) through #2 (0158) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came, before the Commission and stated that the structure at 3500 Central Avenue is a warehouse for vehicle batteries; that this property abuts the railroad tracks across from Booker High School; that the properties on the block north and south of this property are vacant; that a portion of the vacant property is owned by the same individual and a portion by another individual; that single-family homes are across the street on the other side of a Central Avenue apartment complex; that the warehouse is inconsistent with residential zoning and use of the area; that Staff recommends enforcement of the amortization schedule; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommends the continuation of the business by exempting the site from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use; that Staff can investigate the existing use, hours of operation, the building area, the number of employees, and parking space to define the existing intensity and character of the area; that the development of the vacant properties to the north and south of the site should be taken into consideration if this use is continued. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on 3500 Central Avenue. The following people came before the Commission: Mike Leap, 3500 Central Avenue (34234) and Kathy Martin, 5015 Eastchester Drive (3423), representing the owners, John and Janet Leap. Mr. Leap stated that the warehouse abuts the railroad tracks; that the building was constructed prior to 1974; that the building was purchased with the understanding it could continue as a business; that the property to the south of this site is also owned by John Leap; that the property to the north is vacant because it has been tied up in an estate and was not purchasable at that time; that the business operates Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with no activity after 5:00 p.m.i that the business is a wholesale business; that however, customers do come and pick up batteries from time to time; that the family business is owned by his father, John Leap; that no plans have been made to intensify the use of the warehouse; that if zoned multi-family, the building will not be used; that no plans have been made for the other lot. Ms. Martin stated that a request is being made to rezone the property to a compatible use at the expense of the owner; that the property owner wants to be in compliance with all applicable zoning regulations; that no complaints have been received from neighbors; that no negativé impact to the area exists. Mr. Leap stated that the multi-family dwelling across the street was built approximately five. years ago, long after the warehouse was constructed; that most of the property nearby was vacant when the building was purchased. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the land from Myrtle to 32nd Street is vacant with thè exception of the warehouse? Mr. Leap - stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked the current zoning on the property? Mr. Taylor stated that the current zoning is Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-1) on both sides of Central Ayenue from Myrtle to 32nd Street and further south as well. Commissioner Patterson asked the extent of the land owned? Mr. Leap stated that property. is owned from the site to 32nd Street. Ms. Martin stated that one vacant parcel between the edge of the warehouse and Myrtle Street is owned by an estate; that the owner of that site also owns property on Myrtle Street. Commissioner Patterson asked if a rezoning will be requested for the.entire property? Ms. Martin stated yes, if necessary. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if' the railroad is used to deliver merchandise from the warehouse? Mr. Leap stated no. Hartley Haines, 3293 Central Avenue (34234), stated that he has lived very close to the property for the last several years and would like to encourage the Commission to allow the business to continue to operate; that the business is very clean, quiet, and low volume; that little traffic moves in and out of the property; that the property owner maintains the right-of-way from Myrtle to 32nd Street; that the business creates no noise; that the neighborhood is multi-racial and everyone gets along well; that the only problems in the neighborhood come from the multi-family Book 39 Page 12412 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12413 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. dwellings across the street; that the Commission should allow the owner to continue to operate his business. Wanita F. Skiles, 3293 Central Avenue (34234), stated that few problems are found in the area from Myrtle to 32nd Street except for the apartments; that the owner should stay. at this present location; that no drugs, noise, or criminal activity are present. There was no one. else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pillot asked if a rezoning can be completed at any time if the Commission votes not to enforce the amortization schedule? Mr. Taylor stated that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required; that in order to keep the particular use in question, the property would have to be zoned Industrial, Light and Warehousing (ILW). Commissioner Pillot asked if the property owners could come to the Planning Department to determine the procedure required for a rezoning and if they could continue their business in the meantime? Mr. Taylor stated that first an evaluation of the property would need to be completed, the City's Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended, and third, the rezoning could then be accomplished. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved not to enforce the amortization schedule at 3500 Central Avenue. Commissioner Patterson stated that previously she voted against approving property to be used for storage in a residential neighborhood; however, no compelling reason to do so exists in view of the neighbors' statements. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion not to enforce the amortization on 3500 Central Avenue. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1740 SOUTH EAST AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, KULTIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT (ARETA J. BRYE). - AMORTIZATION TO BE EXTENDED FOR FIVE YEARS (AGENDA ITEM II-9) #2 (0158) through (1006) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that 1740 South East Avenue contains a residence in one building and two units in an adjacent building, one operating as a beauty salon and the other as a massage therapy business; that the owner originally started the business as a home occupation and operated it as a beauty salon; that she became unable to operate the business and rented some space to another beautician and another space to a massage therapist; that the owner still performs some duties at the business; that the business is relatively light in intensity with little traffic; however, the house is in a single-family area; that the present use of the property does not meet the City's definition of a home occupation because two businesses are operating and traffic is generated; that the business has employees or tenants and is located in a detached structure; that the use of the residence as a beauty shop does not have. a detrimental effect on the neighborhood; that the recommendation of Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) is to extend the amortization schedule by five years to January 10, 2004, for beautician use only, restricted to one operator or employee in the existing building. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing on 1740 South East Avenue. The following person came before the Commission: Connie B. Pierce, P.O. Box 49711 (34230) representing Areta J. Brye, stated that she is the licensed massage therapist working at Areta's Hair Salon; that there is only one business not two; that the establishment license shows that the massage business operates through the beauty salon; that the therapist started in 1989 and has conducted business since that time; that she is the only massage therapist located at this site; that in 1989, the owner was given an occupational license to have a massage therapist in the salon; that the massage therapist is located in a separate area to provide a quiet and relaxing environment; that she would like to be able to continue to offer massages to her clients; that massage is very much a part of beauty salons; that massage is part of Areta's Hair Salon and' that it is one business; that no expansion to the building has occurred. Commissioner Pillot asked if one occupational license permits both usages? Ms. Pierce stated yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that one business would seem to be suggested. Ms. Pierce stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot asked the hours of operation? Book 39 Page 12414 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12415 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Pierce stated that appointments can be made from 8:00 a.m. until about 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Commissioner Patterson asked if adding a second massage therapist would be possible under the current occupational license? Ms. Pierce stated that an additional therapist could be added with this license; however, the intention is to continue with one. Commissioner Patterson asked if another beautician can be added under the current occupational license? Ms. Pierce stated yes unless the City decided otherwise; that she is requesting one beautician and one massage therapist be approved. Commissioner Patterson stated that her understanding is that only one operator is allowed. Ms. Pierce stated that for the last six years two operators have been employed at the salon with the knowledge of the City; that she is requesting that this use be permanently grandfathered in; that no single-family residences face the street anywhere in the block; that the only property adjoining the salon is an attorney's office; that a residential neighborhood is not being disturbed. Commissioner Patterson asked why the recommendation was made to extend the amortization five years? Mr. Taylor stated that the original PBLP recommendation was to enforce the amortization schedule; however, based on testimony, the Staff and PBLP felt the recommendation for five years was appropriate. Commissioner Patterson asked why five years was recommended? Mr. Taylor stated that the recommendation was based upon the testimony heard by the PBLP and was to provide additional time for the business. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that separate occupational licensing categories exist for beauty salons and for massage therapists; that an occupational license is not a regulatory license. Commissioner Pillot asked if plans have been made for expansion if the business is allowed to continue at this location? Ms. Pierce stated that no plans exist for expansion; that the lease is written so time is available to go out and work with businesses. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a license is required for a massage therapist to work in any business? Mr. Schneider stated that a separate occupation license category exists for massage therapists. Ms. Pierce stated that no separate license was required until this year, when individuals from the County Offices were approached concerning chair massages in their offices. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked the zoning from East Avenue west to U.S. 41 between Mid-Town Plaza and Hyde Park Street? Mr. Taylor stated that the following zoning districts can be found in this. area: Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-3,-4,-5); Commercial Shopping Center (CSC); ; Governmental (G); Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI); Residential, Single Family (RSF). Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that East Avenue to Tamiami Trail has diverse zoning; that possibly four homes exist that are occupied by single families; that the remainder are occupied by doctors, lawyers, laboratories, a fire station, apartment complexes, etc.; that this area is a problem from Bahia Vista Street to Hyde Park Avenue; that the intensity of use of the salon is a concern; however, consistency on this particular nonconforming use is not critical. Commissioner Patterson asked what exists on East Avenue immediately on either side of this property? Mr. Taylor stated that single-family residences are present on East Avenue. Mayor Merrill stated that one home which has historic designation is located in this area and is used as a lawyer's office. Commissioner Patterson stated that this area is "low-key" commercial. Mayor Merrill stated that the property is very inconspicuous; that the property gives the appearance of residential property. Commissioner Pillot stated that in reviewing the record, only two property owners responded: one in favor and one opposed; that a significant number of individuals are not concerned. Book 39 Page 12416 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12417 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. On the motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved that the amortization schedule not be enforced at 1740 South East Avenue. Commissioner Patterson stated that the business has intensified; that the current use with a two-person business was not amortized for 20 years; that the City should prevent the increase in intensity of use by enforcing the amortization schedule; that voting to allow the intensity present in 1974 or allowing the property to go forward with a change in zoning is acceptable; however, not amortizing a use that should not be there is not acceptable. Commissioner Pillot stated that the intent of the motion is to allow one therapist and one cosmetologist. Commissioner Patterson stated that anyone who started a small business in the City six years ago could come forward and request the same privilege; that the intensity which existed in 1974 is not legal today and would be different from the use envisioned by the motion for the next three and a half years. Commissioner Pillot stated that the intent of the motion is to permit the current usage to continue given the absence of neighborhood objection but not to permit expansion. Mayor Merrill stated that the existing low-intensity use is not a problem; that with the exception of the multi-family zoning, this area has remained relatively stable for the past 21 years with the exception of a fire station and a home with historic designation; that when an inappropriate use for a piece of property is found, the City has the option of purchasing that property; that the attorney representing the property owner indicated at the PBLP meeting of June 21, 1995, that the owner would like to keep the property open for a few more years. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion not to enforce the amortization on the existing uses. Motion failed (2 to 2): Cardamone, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no; Merrill, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the PBLP recommendation to extend the amortization schedule by five more years to January 10, 2004, for the beautician use only, restricted to one operator employee, existing building area, hours of operation and parking. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would like to see the five years struck from the motion. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion has value because of consistency with the recommendation of the PBLP. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to include the operator and employee as well as the current massage therapist. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that every nonconforming use could have been shut down in 1994; that a conscious decision was made by this Commission to look at each situation one by one; that having a different result for each one does not concern her; that she will support the motion with the amendment; that the entire area should be rezoned to be compatible with everything west of East Avenue to the Tamiami Trail. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the amendment to the motion to include the operator and existing massage therapist in the use. Amendment passed (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill restated the motion to extend the amortization schedule for five years to the year 2004 for the beautician use and the massage therapist use, restricted to the existing building area, hours of operation and parking. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:16 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USES OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 221, 231, AND 226 GARDEN LANE IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-2) ZONE DISTRICTS (ELVIN L. WILSON/BROOKE G. ASBURY) - PROPERTIES TO. BE AMORTIZED AND STAFF TO EXAMINE AS PART OF THE EAR PROCESS CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL USE (AGENDA ITEM II-10A, -10B, -10C) #2 (1006) through #3 (2415) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that this site is comprised of three separate parcels: 221, 231 and 226 Garden Lane; that the parcels are respectively: a) the Siesta Key Fish Market, b) a vacant lot used as commercial parking for the fish market, and c) a single-family home and commercial fishing dock on the south side of Garden Lane; that the use of the properties as a commercial fish dock and fish house is inconsistent with the residential zoning and use of the area; that the recommendation of Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) is to enforce the amortization schedule on all three parcels; that the fishing dock located at 246 Garden Lane will be addressed separately. Stephen Rees, Attorney, representing Brooke (Guy) Asbury, came before the Commission and stated that he is a land-use attorney practicing with the firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Book 39 Page 12418 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12419 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Ginsburg; that he has practiced in the community for 23 years; that he is familiar with the Sarasota City Plan, the Zoning Code, and Sarasota's Land Development Regulations (LDRS); that remarks and legal opinions will be provided on these three adjacent parcels based upon facts which have been determined from his own independent investigation as well as conversations with his clients and other parties familiar with the subject properties; and requested that the five-minute time limit be extended for his presentation. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission has upheld the five-minute time limit for previous speakers; that she objects to extending the time limit for this presentation. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to suspend the rules and extend the time limit to ten minutes for this presentation. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Attorney Rees stated that Sections 370.1103 and 372.993, Florida Statutes, provide a definition for the historical and present operation of the Siesta Key Fish Market as a commercial fishing operation; that Section 370.1103 (4) addresses limitations placed upon local government in the regulation of statutorily protected commercial fishing operations as follows: (4) LOCAL ORDINANCE.-NO local governing authority shall adopt any ordinance that declares any commercial or recreational fishing operation to be a nuisance solely because it is a commercial or recreational fishing operation, or any zoning ordinance that unreasonably forces the closure of any commercial or recreational fishing operation. Nothing in this act shall prevent a local government from regulating commercial and recreational fishing operations, including by requiring the use of methods structures or appliances where such use will prevent, ameliorate, or remove conditions which create or may create a nuisance or, pursuant to the applicable local zoning code, by declaring a commercial or recreational fishing operation to be a nonconforming use. Attorney Rees stated that the identification of the historical commercial operation as a nonconforming use as a result of the Zoning Code adoption in 1974 is not objectionable; however, he disagrees with the City's legal department as to whether the City Commission may proceed to enforce an amortization schedule under the statutory protections of the operation and the limitations referenced; that the owner opposes the recommendations of Staff and the PBLP to enforce the amortization schedule which contravenes the referenced statutory sections; that previous legal counsel to the property owner expressed concerns as to whether procedural defects exist which could be asserted against the attempt to enforce the amortization schedule on this property. Attorney Rees continued that meetings have been held with the City Attorney's Office, the Planning Department, and the Zoning Department in an effort to identify possible uses in the Zoning Code and come up with a solution which will benefit both the property owner and the community at large; that assuming the amortization scheduled is deemed enforceable, which he does not agree will occur, the property owner is placed in an untenable position with a period of up to January 1999 to discontinue operations; that the market value for resale or for refinancing is depressed since the operation is deemed a "dying" or "dead" business; that the recent fish net ban legislation further exasperates the opportunity for a commercial fishing operation to be economically viable; that the ultimate effect of the legislative change on the revenues and the availability of fish products to be sold and/or served at the facility will not be known until later in the calendar year; that the current owner took over operation of the Siesta Key Fish Market in April 1993 under a land lease; that an option to purchase the property was exercised in May of 1995; that contrary to the Staff report, a change in ownership has occurred and the record owner on all three parcels is Mr. Brooke G. Ashbury, who has invested a substantial amount of money into the property and business and who is at risk depending on the outcome that legislatively results from the Commission's deliberations. Attorney Rees further stated that if the Commission does not enforce the amortization schedule and allows the operation to continue with its past and current nature and intensity of uses, the current owner would like favorable consideration to allow the property to be developed for appropriate residential use under a different zoning category; that the property, which was originally platted in Manatee County in 1912 and replatted when Sarasota County was formed, is currently zoned Residential, Single Family (RSF-2); that the 50- by 107-foot lots do not conform to the RSF-2 zone district standards; that the Zoning Code adopted in 1974 provided that properties of existing continuous frontage, not under separate ownership, could be combined into a buildable parcel and the legality of the separateness of the platted lot was lost; that in 1974 the lots had been combined in continuous frontage with two lots for a total of 100-feet frontage to form one buildable parcel of approximately 10,000 square feet; that the current property owner has invested in excess, of $300,000 into the purchase of the combined parcels under discussion; that an avenue by which redevelopment of the site can be accomplished is being sought in order to recover the individual platted character of each lot; that based on the preliminary projections prepared by two prominent, active, and successful developers on Siesta Key, who have made a Book 39 Page 12420 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12421 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. specialty of building on narrow and long lots, a rezoning to RSF-3 or RSF-4, permitting cluster housing or housing on 50-foot lots, would permit development of one single-family dwelling equivalent to one platted lot; that together with docking privileges, each dwelling could be marketed at the price range of $225,000, resulting in a potential profit of $50,000 to $75,000 per sale. Attorney Rees stated that in summary enforcement of the amortization schedule is opposed; that the Commission is requested to recognize an error in the recommendation to enforce the amortization schedule and to permit the continuation of the business during which time the property owner will work with Staff to request the appropriate zoning change to allow residential development of the property. Attorney Rees further stated that in 1974 Section 9-2 of the Zoning Code included recognition that certain RSF properties would be allowed to develop on 50-foot platted lots even though continuous frontage had been established. Commissioner Pillot cited the following from Section 370.1103, Florida Statutes: (2) DEFINITIONS. As used in this act, "commercial fishing operation" means any type of activity conducted"" on land, requiring the location or storage of commercial fishing equipment such as fishing vessels, fishing gear, docks, piers, loading areas, landing areas, and cold storage facilities, including any activity necessary to prepare finfish or shellfish for refrigeration. This definition does not include operations with the sole or primary function of processing seafood. Commissioner Pillot stated that Attorney Rees' legal background is respected; however, the commercial fishing operation definition does not seem to apply to the Siesta Key Fish Market; that the definition specifically excludes the function of processing seafood and does not refer to the sale of finfish or shellfish on premises, either prepared or packaged for home preparation; therefore, he cannot agree the City is prevented from enforcing the amortization schedule for the Siesta Key Fish Market as a restaurant and sale point for processed seafood.. Attorney Rees stated that the method by which the property owner would seek to contest enforcement of the amortization schedule would be to file an action for declaratory judgment in circuit court in which the court would be requested to declare whether the operation meets the definition and falls within the protection of the Statute based on the factual allegations demonstrated; that a judgment would also be sought to enjoin the City from any further enforcement until a court decision is rendered; that he believes a favorable ruling would be obtained from the court as to the intent and the operative effect of the statutory language as it relates to his client's operations. Attorney Rees continued that the property owner has a substantial, economic interest at stake and is attempting to remain economically viable until a better alternative can be achieved through a joint effort with the City, which would allow him graciously and at his own speed to find another means of recovering his investment in the property should he elect to terminate the existing operation; that the only way adequate recovery can occur other than by a commercial use would be to find a higher and better residential opportunity. Commissioner Pillot stated that the current amortization schedule permits operation of the Siesta Key Fish Market until January 1999; and asked if three years is adequate time to process the potential request referenced? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that the amendment to the Sarasota City Plan can be completed in approximately one year. Gary and Linda Parlin, 266 Ogden Street (34242). Mr. Parlin stated that his property abuts site 221 Garden Lane; that the property owner recently stated that the fish market is no longer a viable business; that the historical nature of the fish market will not continue if this statement is accurate; that attempts have. been made to upgrade and intensify the use of the property; that food is now being served, which did not occur previously during his 18 years of residency; that the intent seems to be to escalate the intensity until the operation becomes profitable; that an application for a liquor license was filed; that a fish market does not require a liquor license; that the owner has attempted to increase the intensity of the use from a fish market to a restaurant. to a bar; that the neighborhood is strictly residential. Mr. Parlin continued that the fish market has been in existence for 50 years, but the current property owner is a newcomer in the neighborhood; that the neighbors purchased properties next to a fish market not next to a restaurant and bar; that the criminal activity which previously took place at the site has been eliminated, but. the nonconforming use of the property has intensifièd; that the property owner's investment may be at stake, but the residents' investments as well as their way of life, which is beyond money, is also at stake. Mrs. Parlin stated that the PBLP recommended that the police reports be reviewed; that numerous murders, stabbings, hangings, shootings, etc., have occurred at the site; that the majority of criminal activity has abated since the current property owner took Book 39 Page 12422 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12423 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. over the operation, however, a fire bombing between rival fishermen has occurred; that the intensification of the use on the property is disturbing; that not only has the business operated as a restaurant, but bands have played on three occasions during which the need for additional vehicular parking resulted in vehicles parking in surrounding neighborhood yards; that the music which was extremely loud was played late into the evening; that the current property owner must have been aware of the fish net ban when the property was acquired in May 1995; therefore, she assumes his intent was to find an alternative manner in which to make the property a viable and economical opportunity; that the people who have supported the continued existence of the historic fish market do not reside in its back yard; that the suggested rezoning is not supported since a precedent would be set which could potentially change the complexion of Siesta Key; that similar rezonings could occur on contiguous lots throughout the neighborhood; that retention of the historical fish market is supported; however, the intensification to the fish market operation is not supported. Mrs. Parlin continued that the property owner is accumulating land in the area; that a fourth parcel on Garden Lane was recently purchased by the owner; that the property owner and a team of architects addressed the "community at large" last week in an attempt to gain support for intensified uses on the property; that the various ideas presented, i.e., quaint shops, a coffee shop, or a place at which a low-key band could play, concern her; that parking is not adequate; that the property is not currently zoned for the uses suggested; that the property owner has not played by the rules thus far and she is afraid similar actions will continue; that entorcement of the amortization schedule is requested. Mr. Parlin stated that no one objects to the historical fish market; that the intensified uses of the property are objectionable. Commissioner Pillot stated that the potential future rezoning of the property is not the issue being addressed this evening; that the issue of nonconforming uses is being addressed. Mayor Merrill stated that any question of a future rezoning will be handled on another day as additional hearings would be required. Bill and Sue Loiko, 210 Ogden Street (34242), came before the Commission. Ms. Loiko stated that she is here to beg the Commission to help save the neighborhood from the intensified use of what used to be a fish market but which is currently being used as a restaurant, sometimes with live bands; that alcoholic beverages are served at the location; that the property owner believes that, having been grandfathered in and due to the fact that the previous owners had a picnic table, meals should be permitted and a liquor license issued to allow the service of alcoholic beverages; that the newly- named restaurant has been advertised in a local publication; that a hearing was held previously before the Code Enforcement Special Master to address the nature and extent of the nonconforming use on the surrounding residentially zoned properties; that a memorandum dated June 22, 1995, to the City Manager concerning the Code Enforcement hearing indicates that the Acting Director of Building, Housing and Zoning was requested to send notice and argue the case prior to being able to develop the evidence properly; that the Acting Director of Building, Housing and Zoning also indicated a liquor license had been denied at the Siesta Key Fish Market; that the Special Master's finding was based on incomplete evidence and the matter should be thoroughly researched and reheard; that the property owner contends that the commercial use has not increased; however, people will testify that no on-site eating facilities were provided prior to January 10, 1974, and the fish market was just a fish market; that the property owner has been quoted as saying he intends to run his business as he likes with no one telling him how to do it; that the February 24, 1995, issue of the Pelican Press quoted the property owner as saying: "All I'm trying to do is settle all issues and keep the fish market alive without everyone telling me how to do it."; that this is the reason for the property owner's quest for historic designation; that the property owner indicated at the September 1995 Bay Island Association meeting that he would run his restaurant as he saw fit and could have live bands every night until 10:00 p.m.; that as a home owner and a member of the Bay Island community, she implores the Commission to vote for amortization; that the properties should be zoned for single-family use, which is consistent with the remainder of the neighborhood; that what is being done by the property owner is hurting the neighbor's investment; that the neighbors have worked hard all their lives to live in the dreamland of Siesta Key; that allowing the property owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market to recover his investment by intensifying an entire street into a commercial neighborhood while the neighbors' homes depreciate is unfair. Mr. Loiko stated that he is a small businessman and understands the requirement to make a profit; that public restrooms are required for a restaurant; that the restrooms in the residence on the property were converted to public restrooms, which was learned from one of the building inspectors; that his home is a stilt-house with a balcony which overlooks the fence into the backyard of the Siesta Key Fish Market; that at one point a half dozen people were observed eating at tables and the grass had been covered with river gravel; that his response was that the owner has to make a living; that the hours of operation were to be about 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for lunch and 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. for dinner, which was not a concern; however within a month, a live band was performing in the backyard and playing so loud the windows in his home vibrated; that this happened. a second time and then a third time; that at that Book 39 Page 12424 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12425 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. time, he decided to get together with the neighbors to see what could be done; that he has no problem with the fish market; that he signed the petition for the extension of the amortization schedule and another petition for historical designation of the property; however, the property owner cannot be trusted to keep his word as to how far the usage will be extended; that the property owner publicly indicated he will be at the location three and a half more years and will have a band every night until 10:00 p.m. if a compromise cannot be reached; that this type of intimidation is not appreciated; that the property owner has bragged about how cheaply the businesses were purchased and has indicated that the city cannot close the fish market because a State Statute will not permit that; the PBLP also tried to impose restrictions, but monitoring those restrictions would not be cost effective for the City; that the fish market is now in the hands of a "Johnny-Come- Lately" whose only concern is to make a profit with no concern for his neighbors; that the Commission should enforce the amortization schedule. Kenneth Wolford, 226 Ogden Street (34242), stated that he concursi that a letter dated October 17, 1995, providing the reasons for enforcing the amortization schedule was previously presented to each Commissioners signed by 25 people, 23 of whom are neighbors in the immediate area. Alice Biegel, 225 Freeling Drive (34242), stated that she is a member of the Bay Island Homeowners Association, of which the Siesta Key Fish Market is a part; that she represents a section of the homeowners on Freeling Drive who are against the continuation of the fish market's increase in intensity of use and who are upset over the serving of alcohol, the live bands, and the noise in the restaurant which has evolved over the past year; that the property owner has had loud bands three times and has said at a homeowners' association meeting that he will continue hiring bands if necessary to make money; that the intensity has increased; that a person in the audience lived in the area in the 1970s and has said a restaurant never existed at the location; however, the current property owner has been given the allowance to have a restaurant at the location. Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane (34242), stated that the property owner has admitted he cannot survive as a fish market as it presently stands; that the property should be amortized if it cannot survive as a fish market; that the fish market as it presently stands is not objectionable, but it cannot survive unless other activities are permitted; that the Attorney for the property owner has indicated the activity is commercial fishing operations; that the fish market does not fit into the definition of a commercial fishing operation; that many people in the audience have not signed up to speak but do represent the neighborhood; and requested everyone in the audience from the neighborhood who is supporting the amortization to stand; that the police reports, the shootings, the music, the application for an alcoholic beverage license, etc., have already been discussed; that the Commission is encouraged to support the amortization schedule; that the property owner will be able to do something with the property as he is making investments in the area. Vincent Brennan, 3953 Roberts Point Road (34242), stated that he lives on the bayou and is, therefore, not directly affected by what happens at the fish market; that the docks, the boats, the garbage in the canal, the disposal of waste into the waterways, etc., is discouraging to see; that residents of the area must be conscientious of the meaning of the bayou; that commercial fisherman * disregard the residents; that trash is found in the bayou, including large, five-gallon garbage bags, beer cans, fast- food lunch packaging, etc., drifting aimlessly down the bayou; that he and many of the residents on his street are opposed to the commercialization of fishing in the bayou; that the commercial fisherman are negatively affecting the resale value of the neighborhood and the enjoyment of the bayou. Gene Korienek, 3927 Roberts Point Road (34242), stated that the waterway forms a small pond approximately 100 feet in diameter near 226 and 246 Garden Lane; that 15 boats could be moored in a stacking pattern at the docks in the area during the operation of the fish market; that 226 Garden Lane is currently a residence and not a part of the commercial operation of the fish market and never has been; that the property is rented and well maintained; however, the dockage in front encompasses about 30% of the shoreline in the area and is fully used as commercial dockage in a nonconforming status; that 246 Garden Lane is also a residence, has always been a residence, is currently rented, has about one half the shoreline in the area, and is also used in a nonconforming commercial status; that these two properties are distinctly different from 221 Garden Lane as no business enterprise is associated with either one, other than commercial use of the dockage; that the boat traffic, navigational hazards, eco-death which occurs in the waterway including the spillage of petroleum products, the garbage, the waste, etc., is highly related to the density of boats; that the docks are in ill-repair; that partially submerged pieces of dock are often seen floating down the waterway, which is very dangerous; that the Commission is requested to consider 226 Garden and 246 Garden Lane as being distinctly different from 221 Garden Lane, which is the only lot in commercial operation; that 231 Garden Lane is innocent as it is an empty lot. Betsie Danner, 3953 Roberts Point Road (34242), stated that keeping the fish market as. a viable neighborhood business is not objectionable, if maintained appropriately and the property owner is willing to work with neighbors; however, the two commercially- used docks are not conforming with appropriate use patterns; that Book 39 Page 12426 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12427 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. the fishermen who use the docks have no regard for the neighbors or the bayou; that the problem is trash, the speed of the boats, etc., and the use is detrimental to the neighborhood and the bayou. Dwight Davis, 527 Freeling Drive (34242), stated that he supports the homeowners who are opposed to an intensification of use of these properties; that several people have talked about the investment of the current property owner and his desire to make a profit as if he were entitled to make a profit; that a person assumes the risk when making an investment; that neither the Commission nor anyone else has an obligation to assure a profit on the property; that the issue of profit should not be considered; that the increased usage of the property is not in the best interest of the people who live there or anyone else in Sarasota. Nancy von Lazar, 530 Freeling Drive (34242), stated that she is opposed to any action which would enforce the amortization schedule for the Siesta Key Fish Market. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the statement. Ms. Lazar stated that the Siesta Key Fish Market should remain. Joel Strom, 2340 Grove Street (34239), stated that both parties held at the Siesta Key Fish Market were sponsored by a church singles group; that the parties were not intense; that two country guitar players were playing music; that the two parties were within six weeks of each other; that no rowdiness or drunkenness was involved and the traffic was controlled by having people park in the parking lots and right-of-way; that one car parked on someone's bush, which appeared to be dead at the time; that the party ended before 10:00 p.m. so the neighbors would not be disturbed. Tom Nay, 1263 Panama Drive (34236), stated that he is a 36-year resident of Sarasota, has been buying fish from the Siesta Key Fish Market for the past 30 years; that he is a local real estate broker and owns an office on siesta Key in the Crescent Plaza; that the atmosphere at the location prior to its acquisition by the current owner was totally different; that local fishermen and their friends frequently loitered and generally created a poor environment; that the great majority of fishermen are now out of business; that this family-owned and operated business is now a definite asset to Siesta Key; that the property, including the rental units, the market and surrounding structures, has been continuously upgraded since the current owner took over the fish market; that the fish market is a land mark and has been the subject of many artistic endeavors over the years; that. . the fish market is the oldest, existing business on Siesta Key, having been in operation for 63 yearsi that the fish market was there when every property owner in the area purchased their property; that the property offers a very safe environment and lends a unique charm to siesta Key, which is unique in so many other ways as well; that to shut down this business would be a great loss forever to the residents of Siesta Kèy who have been supporting this neighborhood concern for 63 years and have always appreciated its convenience, great product and quaint charm; that allegations have been made that the property owner wants to create a nightclub; however, live music occurred on only three occasions, two of which were church functions; that a public bathroom was alleged to have been added, which did not occur; that the property owner simply wants to continue to run the fish market. Mark Smith, 5562 Cape Aqua Drive (34242), representing the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), stated that the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA was asked to go to a neighborhood meeting to offer the services of the local chapter to do a charette, i.e., brainstorming with the neighborhood, to see if a way could be determined to preserve what is there; that the neighbors and the Commission should look beyond the current ownership and the personalities to preserve the ambiance of the area; that losing the fish market and building an intense development is probably not what the neighbors want; that the services of the local chapter of the AIA were offered to discuss ideas and reach a consensus with the neighbors, which could be presented to the City at a later date; that the offer still stands because this is a special area of Sarasota; that he does not want to see the fish market go, although economically it may have to; that the fish market may have to change in some way, which would have to be explored with the neighbors. Scott Gilliland, 1919 Laurel Street (34236), stated that he was born and raised on Siesta Key and has been to the fish market many times by car and by boat; that he has taken people to the fish market by boat on many occasions to eat at the site or to purchase food to take on the boat; that murders and hangings did occurred at the site; however, none have occurred since the current owner took over; that a loud party is the worst that has happened; that the fish market represents some of the original architecture on Siesta Key; that he does not want to see the fish market go or change; that the waste and trash in the canal does not all originate from the fish market; that the owner replaced a fence on the property just last week, the trees are trimmed, the decaying fish boats have been removed, and everything has been in order; that the animosity from people who knew the fish market was there when they moved to the area saddens him; that the problem, if it exists, should be fixed; that communication should take place between the parties in the neighborhood; that a band late at night should not result in shutting down the operation. Rosie Turner, 3525 White Lane (34242), stated that she has owned property on White Lane for the past nine years; that she knew the fish market was there when she purchased; that the property was Book 39 Page 12428 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12429 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. purchased for her parents who were 83 at the time so her mother could sit on the dock and fish; that the crimes and killings cannot be laid at the door of this property owner or the one next door, at 246 Garden Lane; that crime exists everywhere in the City; that the ambience of the neighborhood was well known when she purchased; that she is at her parents' home almost every night of the week; that the area is not dangerous; that no one is out causing havoc late at night and nothing improper is going on or she, as a single woman, would not travel the area at night; that people buying with the fish market in their backyard are just like people buying where the airport runway is and who then complain about the airplanes; that the site is zoned for single-family residences now, but was not zoned single family when the fish market was established; that the fish market is one of the historical locations which should be saved; that the fishermen could not have been nicer or more polite to her parents; that good people and bad people exist in all walks of life, including fishermen, and stones should not be thrown at just one group of people; that one guitar picker does not make a band. Jeff Plugner, 2033 Main Street (34237), was no longer in the Chambers. Joe Speary, 4227 Hymount Avenue (34231), stated that he is a commercial fisherman and has been fishing out of the Siesta Key Fish Market for 16 years; that bad fishermen and good fishermen have worked there; that the fish net ban has had a big effect on the dock; that five or six boats are left that use the dock along with the stonecrabbers; that the fish market has not always been a good place in the past; that people have mentioned the restroom the current property owner added; that he has been using that restroom for the past 16 years, sO it was not just added on; that everyone says the fishermen throw things in the waterways and do not respect the water; that the fishermen cannot be blamed for the trash, pieces of dock, the spilled fuel; that he supports the fish market; that he used to make his living at the fish market, but now he will be stonecrabbing; that the fish market is one of the few places that a living can still be made on the water; that he supports the fish market and hopes the commercial use of the dock can be retained. Shari Asbury, 3322 Gerhard Street (34237) representing the Siesta Key Fish Market, stated that she is 32 years old and has been on siesta Key for 30 years; that she is not a newcomer to the area and has been going to the fish market for as long as she can remember; that she began fishing and crabbing out of the fish market at fourteen or fifteen years of age; that she now manages the market; that the fish market has smoked mullet forever and is now smoking tuna, swordfish, etc.; that the same smoker is being used; that a Christmas party and two church parties were held, all of which were over by approximately 9:30 p.m.; that the bands were acoustic bands, with a standup base, banjo, and acoustic guitar; that people have asked to haye beer and wine provided, so a license has been pursued; that the license was declined and went no further; that no expansion of the business has occurred but rather taking what is available and working with it, such as, making a chowder or smoking a different type of fish; that it breaks her heart to think something could be taken away which has been there sO long and is such a beautiful spot. Guy Asbury, 3322 Gerhard Street (34237), representing the Siesta Key Fish Market, stated that he has been vilified and had his character assassinated when he is only trying to clean up the area; that he used to walk around with a gun in his pocket and a bat in his right hand, which he did for a year; that all the people were not bad, only some of the people; that no bad people are there anymore; that some of the statements made about him are lies; that three parties were held, but he made no statements about having bands every night; that he did say he could build houses 47.5 feet high because that is the rule; that he asked if the neighbors were sure they wanted the houses; that a charette may have assisted in reaching a neighborhood consensusi that a real strong feeling seems to exist about him, which is the pattern of his life; that some people do not like him, which seems to be the case with the neighbors; that the point is not Guy Asbury; that the point is whether the area is being cleaned up, whether it is safer, whether the fish market is a nice fish market, whether it serves the neighborhood; that everyone has said yes to those questions; that the question is whether the fish market is capable of generating the income necessary to keep it as a fish market; that he does not believe that will be the case, especially with the fish net ban, but that fact will not be known until after the season in April 1996; that the Code Enforcement Special Master found tables have always been available at the fish market and only the type was changed; that shell was put down and new tables were put in; that smoked fish has always been sold at the fish market; that people have always eaten smoked fish at the fish market; that the intensification is that more smoked fish is being sold, sO the business is being intensified; that the business has to be intensified in order to survive; that he has put lot of time and effort into the endeavor, including seven days a week and in the middle of the night; that four of the police calls came from him; that the Planning Department recommends getting rid of the fish market, disallow the use of the commercial docks, but allow the owner of 246 Garden Lane to be the new fish landing zone because it cannot be taken away from the fishermen; that his efforts are directed at making the fish market a viable business; that lunch will be served, unless that is determined to be inconsistent usage; that the historical documents indicates an oyster shack which served beer existed on the property; that the entire site harkens to an era gone by; that the falling down docks are sturdy, although they are falling down, which is part of the ambiance; that tourists Book 39 Page 12430 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12431 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. come to the site as do students from the Ringling School of Art; that the fish market is a real piece of Sarasota history which ought to be preserved; that he does not know whether that can be done just as a fish market, but he will try. Commissioner Pillot stated that the site is historic in Sarasota; and asked why the request for historic designation was withdrawn? Mr. Ashbury stated that the reason for the withdrawal was to hold the possibility of historic designation in abeyance until the five- year extension of the amortization was heard so he could decide what to do; that the historic designation was indicated to him to be a shoo-in but the special exception was not; that the special exception would define how the site could be used; that historic designation would allow the buildings to remain, but without the special exception the business could not continue; that he was told to pursue the special exception first; that the historic designation is not required; that historic designation will not be requested and then the building bulldozed. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pillot asked what may be built under the current RSF-2 zoning? Mr. Taylor stated two single-family homes. Commissioner Pillot asked the limitations as to the types of homes? Mr. Taylor stated that setback requirements and a height limit of 35 feet above the finished floor elevation, which may be another 10 feet, are the only limitations; that uses other than single family would be permitted by special exception and probably would not be applicable to this property. Commissioner Pillot stated that both sides of the issues of noise, alcohol being served, clutter or trash have been heard; and asked the City's rights concerning clutter, trash, too many boats docked, etc., under current code entorcement regulations if the allegations are correct? Tim Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Housing, and Zoning came before the Commission and stated that violations of junk, trash and rubbish, unkept property, etc., can be enforced under current code enforcement regulations through notices of violations and citations; that the City can also enforce the noise ordinance against the property. Commissioner Pillot asked if the City can immediately begin code enforcement efforts and legitimately require that trash and clutter be cleaned up, boats moved if too are many docked in contravention of the Zoning Code, etc., - regardless of the Commission's action concerning amortization of the Siesta Key Fish Market? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked about code enforcement efforts at the Siesta Key Fish Market in the past year? Mr. Litchet stated that Code Enforcement has responded to some complaints over the last year, specifically the allegation of installation of an illegal restroom; that the building inspector was unable to determine that any recent illegal work had occurred; that a code enforcement was involved in a case two months ago regarding junk, trash and rubbish; that the building inspector reviewing the restroom situation determined that boards, palm fonds, etc., were located on the property and an official notice of violation was issued to have that cleaned up; that a boat which may have been in derelict condition was requested to be removed, which was done. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification concerning the issue of too many boats docked in the waterway. Mr. Litchet stated that he is not certain of the type of violation this could be considered. Commissioner Patterson stated that some complaints were received that 246 Garden Lane, which is a single-family residence, was being used to bring fish through; that many boats have been tied up to the docks in that area; that however, it is difficult to tell at which property the boats are tied up; that code enforcement was asked to conduct an investigation as code violations were suspected at the residence; that the issue has now changed as 246 Garden Lane is now included on the list of nonconforming uses. Mr. Litchet stated that he recalls that some code violations were found on the house; however, it has been quite some time. Commissioner Patterson asked for clarification concerning the hearing before the Code Enforcement Special Master. Mr. Litchet stated that a case was brought before the Special Master alleging intensification of the use at the fish market; that people would not come forward to testify in court; that the case was probably pushed through too quickly; that part of the problem is conflicting testimony; that in 1974 the City did not go through a documentation process, i.e., the uses, the intensity, etc.; that careful documentation on all the properties with nonconforming uses should be done this time; that it is one thing to say a violation is alleged and another to prove it; that the Special Master hearing Book 39 Page 12432 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12433 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. process is a court proceeding and the burden of proof is on the City, which is as it should be; that the City did not carry its burden in this case; that the testimony revealed some evidence of prior picnic tables and the serving of food; that the grey line of intensification of use is difficult as the Zoning Code is not specific. Commissioner Patterson stated that the question was whether the use was continuous since the use was not documented; that the historical evidence may not be controlling if the use was not continuous. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that if the use is discontinued for a certain period and can be documented, the opportunity to continue may be lost; that discontinuation of a use is difficult to document; that the neighbors get frustrated; that the building inspectors do the best job possible; that building inspectors have visited the location frequently this year; that the property owner has permitted pictures of the entire area to serve as documentation; that the Special Master's decision was not incorrect with the evidence available. Commissioner Pillot stated that in a letter dated June 13, 1995, responding to a citizen, the Acting Director of Building, Housing, and Zoning expressed the opinion that: "I believe the live entertainment is a violation of the Zoning Code."; and asked for elaboration. Mr. Litchet stated that, in his opinion, a band on a regular basis would be an intensification of the use. Commissioner Pillot asked if any live entertainment is a violation? Mr. Litchet stated that his opinion is that live entertainment for business purposes is an enlargement or expansion of the use. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Acting Director of Building, Housing, and Zoning has the prerogative of following up on his interpretation of the Zoning Code and could require that live entertainment be stopped? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if an intensification would result if food were served at night? Mr. Litchet stated yes; however, he is unsure whether that could be proven or if the Zoning Code supports that interpretation; that the Zoning Code refers to intensifications and enlargements in terms of expanding floor area; that the Zoning Code refers to expansion of a nonconforming use through a building, i.e., expanding the physical building or the land area; that the final ordinance on nonconforming uses should be clearer in this regard. Commissioner Patterson stated that the definition of intensification is the question; that a location serving two tables of lunch which begins serving four tables of lunch and dinner with an occasional party has intensified the use; that however, the City's Zoning Code may. not address the issue adequately. Mr. Litchet stated that he has the same interpretation; that however, the Zoning Code may not support that position. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that thirty years ago smoked mullet wrapped in a piece of paper could be purchased at the counter of the Siesta Fish Market; that purchasers would carry the fish out of the market and eat it on a bench, take it home for dinner, or take it out on- a boat for lunch; that today the smoked mullet is served at a table with a plate and a fork; and asked if the current use is different from the use as described thirty years ago? Mr. Litchet stated that the situation described is analogous to the situation the Special Master ruled was not a different use nor an intensification of use. Commissioner Pillot stated that a motion will be made based on the testimony heard, the documentation provided, the Special Master's ruling of July 19, 1994, and a nonscientific, but useful poll taken of citizens who are residents of the area and those who are not; that virtually without exception, people have enjoyed the fish market and would like it to continue; that people have indicated there is no objection to the fish market, but rather to the expansion of services at the site; that the history of the site has been as a fish market; that the Special Master's order of July 1994 indicated that "certain food for outdoor consumption at tables did pre-exist 1974 and should be allowed to continue"; and asked if the Special Master could be asked to elaborate on the definition of certain food? On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill, it was moved not to enforce the amortization of the fish market only with the outdoor consumption of certain not to exceed that which the Special Master finds appropriate and to provide immediate and consistent code. enforcement on all matters within the City's jurisdiction provided that such code enforcement does not constitute harassment. City Attorney Taylor stated that the jurisdiction of the Special Master is narrow in the code enforcement sense; that this proceeding - is at the Commission legislative level; that a supplemental order by the Special Master to guide the legislative process probably cannot be requested; that the Commission can ask Book 39 Page 12434 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12435 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. the Administration and City Attorney to review the record, talk to the Special Master, and to report back with a recommendation as to how limitations can be included. Commissioner Pillot stated that the intent is not for a second ruling but rather to explicate the first; that the suggestion is an excellent one and would be the intent of the motion. Commissioner Patterson stated that such action would be a mistake; that she has lived in the area since 1970 and has bought fish at the market; that benches and tables may have been there before; however, people would not have said the location was an operating restaurant; that the problem may be the definition of an operating restaurant as waiters or waitresses are not serving food; that the location is advertised as Cafe Crab in the Pelican Press; that the lunch business now is greater than in 1970 or in the 25 years she has lived in the area; that people have relatively expensive properties and homes in the area; that living next to a restaurant is not particularly desirable; that living next to something quaint where fish can be purchased may be desirable; that the property owner is creating something people do not want to live next to; that the people involved in wanting to set up a charette wanted to design an old-style, fish market where a cup of coffee or a newspaper could be purchased; that the economics may not be viable to make such a business endeavor work; that the property owner may simply be making a good faith effort to make a living but the attempt will come into conflict with the people who are protecting their property values and quiet life styles in a quiet neck of the woods on Siesta Key; that she would rather the amortization schedule be enforced while reviewing the property owner's request to build four homes on the sites in context with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and considering what the charette may produce; that no specific commitments can be made as the people in the area would be dismayed, as she would. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Special Master's ruling made 15 months ago regarding outdoor consumption of food at the siesta Key Fish Market is not reflected in the motion; and asked if the Special Master's ruling has some weight of authority? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Special Master's ruling would be used against the City if litigation arose concerning this matter; that the ruling may or may not be completely binding as it was done in a different context and under an administrative process; that the ruling may not preclude the City in a judicial forum from establishing a more complete, factual basis than previously provided; that the City may be able to present other evidence which a judge would find clear and convincing to rule other than the Special Master; that the code enforcement process involved looking at the specific question which will be taken into consideration in opposition to different action by the City. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City created the Special Master process several years ago; that the City should not pick and choose which rulings are liked and which are not; that the Special Master's ruling may be set aside by a court; however, the Commission should not set it aside; that he supported the Special Master process and feels an ethical obligation to continue to support it which is why he added to the motion the outdoor consumption of food to the extent allowed by the Special Master. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she will not support the motion; that the use should be amortized for the reasons heard both through Staff and the neighbors; that this situation is not like the airport; that many of the neighbors have lived there for 18 to 20 years and enjoyed a quaint fish market in their backyard with all its ambiance, historic significance, etc.; that the property owner apparently feels a change in use is required for the business to be viable; however, she opposes intensifying the use of the property; that people purchased properties adjacent to the fish market with believing the intensity of the use would remain consistent; that an analogy could be buying next to an airport which permits only single-engine airplanes and suddenly the runway is extended and jumbo jets are permitted; that the City took a great deal of time and energy in dealing with the request for historic designation, only to have the property owner remove the request; that the explanation for doing so was not impressive; that the property owner must have known strings were attached to the property as a nonconforming use when purchased; that the property owner chose to make the investment and the City's role is not to maximize the investment when the purchaser took the risk. Commissioner Patterson stated that she has lived in the area for 25 years and has been a realtor for 15 years; that the fish market has been advertised many times in multiple-listing services; that the caveat was always included that the use would be amortized in 1994; that she sold residential real estate and honestly believes that most of the people who bought in the area knew the fish market had a leash on its life; that unlike the airport, the fish market was to be zoned out; that the property owner knew that fact; that no one who buys next to an airport can anticipate the airport will disappear; that if the City were to consider a fish market operation, the historicispecial exception process would almost have to be used; that this process would allow the design of an operation that the property owner may have to reject as not being economically feasible; that the historicispecial exception process may be the only avenue against the Special Master ruling; that the needs of the property owner may, not be compatible with the needs of a single-family residential neighborhood; that what was purchased may not have been compatible with a single-family residential neighborhood as the business is not and was never just a fish market; that the site was a place where commercial fishermen Book 39 Page 12436 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12437 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. brought in their catch, trucks picked up the catch, and other related activities occurred. Commissioner Patterson stated that the operation at 246 Garden Lane and part of the operation at 231 Garden Lane is dockage; and asked for a comment on the question of the applicability and validity of the State Statutes protecting commercial fisheries in the event of a court case. City Attorney Taylor stated that the question was reviewed earlier; that his office did not conclude with the same confidence of the property owner's Attorney that the statutory language would protect the use; that the question will have to be judicially decided; that no absolute right or wrong can be determined; that the language is such that a judge will have to be asked to decide if there is a dispute about the interpretation; that declaratory relief would be sought since that is the purpose; that a judicial inquiry would have to be undertaken if two sides have different interpretations. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion of not enforcing the amortization schedule of the fish market only, with the outdoor consumption of certain foods in accordance of the ruling of the Special Master. Motion failed (2 to 2): Cardamone, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if resolution of the use on some properties will be pursued through the EAR process? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that all properties in the city will be evaluated; however, this property could be specifically evaluated with regard to the property owner's request. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved that the property be allowed to amortize in January 1999 and be evaluated as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process at no cost to the property owner in accordance with the property owner's request to develop residential use more intense than permitted by the current zoning. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion implies no endorsement; that the property owner has a little more than three years to make a decision; that people in the area are interested in coming forward with a proposal as to what may or may not be acceptable in the area; that the feeling of the neighbors is not known as some hard feelings exist; that she is not closing her mind to any proposal either for single-family residential or for a epecifically-designed usage at the site; that the historical) special exception process would be an avenue to pursue a designed usage which could not be overturned later; that a commitment is not being made but the possibility is not being shut out. Commissioner Pillot stated that one Commissioner is hospitalized; therefore, the proceedings continue with only four Commissioners; that this vote may be a two-to-two tie vote, meaning no action on the motion; that the choices are: 1) not enforce the amortization schedule for the fish market with certain food service permitted, 2) not enforce amortization schedule and allow the fish market to continue indefinitely which is not acceptable to him, and 3) the motion on the table at the present time; that the first option has already failed; that the second option is not acceptable; therefore, the motion on the table is left; that a tie vote on this motion would mean nothing would have been accomplished and the effect would be that the amortization schedule would go forward by default; that he does not want to see things happen by default; therefore, he will support the motion on the table. Merrill called for a vote on the motion to amortize the property and to have Staff examine the properties as part of the EAR process considering the property owner's request for residential use. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. The Commission recessed at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:28 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USE OF STRUCTURE AND DOCKS LOCATED AT 246 GARDEN LANE IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-2) ZONE DISTRICT (THOMAS W. WALLIN AND WALTER C. WALLIN, JR.) = NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM II-11) #3 (2385) through #4 (0254) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that 246 Garden Lane is adjacent to the Siesta Fish Market's docks; that the home is rented; that the docks are used for the mooring of commercial fishing boats and unloading fish; that the area is cluttered; that for the period January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1994, two calls for police services were placed due to domestic arguments; that the owner wishes to continue the present use with the following seven stipulations: no more than five dock spaces, docking limited to five boats, no expansion of nonconforming use, no storage of nets or traps, parking limited to six vehicles, continued use of the house as a residence, and no trucks greater than one ton; that the stipulations would require regular monitoring; that Staff is not enthusiastic about the stipulations; that the current use as a commercial fish dock is inconsistent with residential zoning; that Staff recommends enforcing the amortization schedule; however, the recommendation of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) is to allow the continuation of the commercial fish docks with the seven stipulations. Book 39 Page 12438 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12439 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Walt Wallin, 560 North Washington Boulevard (34236), stated that he wants to continue using the property as it always has been used, as a single family house with docking for five boats; that the boats are used for fishing; that fish is transported via pick-up truck to his market downtown. J. Geoffrey Pflugner, Esq., 2033 Main Street, Suite 101 (34237), stated that he represents the owners; that the property is bisected by the City limits; that the majority of the docks are not located within the City limits and this point should be considered; that the requests for police assistance were made three years ago and originated from the residence and are, therefore, irrelevant to the issue of the docks and fishermen; that the fishermen use the docks gratis for the sole purpose of unloading their catch for trucking and subsequent sale exclusively to Walt's Fish Market; that the current use is consistent with the past use; that no intensification of the use will occur; that the current use is not inconsistent with the area; that fishermen are not polluting the waterway; that the docks located at 226 and 246 Garden Lane are the sole remaining commercial fishing docks in north Sarasota, if not the entire County, and should be preserved because of their historic significance. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification regarding the statement that no other commercial fishing docks remain. Attorney Pflugner stated that his statement is factual. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for additional information about the City's jurisdiction as it relates to the docks. Attorney Pflugner stated that the southern half of the property is not within the City proper but that is not the basis for the request to continue the nonconforming use. City Attorney Taylor stated that the question of jurisdiction has been ongoing; that part of the property is within City limits; that the docks are an adjunct to the property; that jurisdiction may be joint with Sarasota County. Commissioner Patterson stated that the docks are only accessible through the property, which is within the City's jurisdiction. City Attorney Taylor stated that although the docks could be in Sarasota County, the only way to make reasonable use of the docks is to cross the property, which is within the City limits; that the site is treated as being wholly within the City limits. Sue Loiko, 210 Ogden Street (34242), stated that the property owner of 221, 226, and 231 Garden Lane and the property owner of 246 Garden Lane should be allowed to continue the nonconforming use of their respective properties or neither should be allowed to do so; that incidences of violence have occurred at both locations including murder, fire and illegal drug activity; that the amortization schedule should be enforced for 246 Garden Lane. Joel Strom, 2340 Grove Street (34239) and Tom Nay, 1263 Panama Drive (34236), were no longer in the Chambers. Alice Biegel, 525 Freeling Drive (34242), stated that she owns a waterfront home nearby and objects to commercial fishermen using residential docks; that the waterway is endangered due to oil and gas spills, etc., which the fishermen are not cleaning up; that she has witnessed commercial fishermen stealing from her and her neighbors' docks and boats; that the quality of the neighborhood is being eroded by the fishermen; that the two property owners should be treated equally. Gene Korienek, 3927 Roberts Point Road (34242), stated that he lives on the canal where the fishermen operate and within sight of the docks; that boats are docked nine to twelve, not five as asserted by the owner; that due to the fish net ban, mullet fishermen will no longer use the docks; that crabbers will use the docks, with all the necessary accoutrements for catching crabs; that the docks are commercially used and do not belong in a residential neighborhood; however, if approval for commercial use is granted, the docks should be repaired and brought into compliance with commercial dock standards. Betsie Danner, 3953 Roberts Point Road (34242), stated that an excessive number of boats are docked at the site; that debris is floating in the bayou; that commercial use is inappropriate and will negatively affect the bayou and the neighborhood; that if approval for commercial use is granted, the decrepit docks and surrounding area must be repaired; that the Commission should vote for amortization. Vincent Brennan, 3953 Roberts Point Road (34242), stated that although commercial fishermen have a right to earn a living and the sight of fishing boats going up the bayou is very scenic, the current location of the docks is inappropriate due to the residential nature of the area; that the City may have a responsibility to support the commercial fishermen by building a commercial fishing dock. Guy Asbury, 1938 High Point Drive (34236), stated that the State Fisheries Commission has established criteria for the designation of a commercial fish landing zone; that neither the docks at 226 Garden Lane nor 246 Garden Lane fit the criteria and, therefore, Book 39 Page 12440 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12441 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. cannot be considered commercial fish landing zones; that both properties have been cleaned up; that permitting use of the docks for commercial fishing at one property while denying the same usage at the other would be unfair; that both sites should be treated equitably. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Patterson stated that some coherence is necessaryi that if the right to use commercial docks is granted for one property, the same must be done for the other. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt the recommendation of the PBLP with an addition to the second stipulation as follows: at no time will the owners permit more than a total of five boats to be docked at the subject premises, inside or outside the City limits, unless other authorities permit more within their own jurisdiction. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission's inaction affects the owner's ability to have the property reevaluated through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process? Mr. Taylor stated that every property in the city can be reevaluated through the EAR process. Commissioner Pillot asked if the property owner has to request reevaluation and if a timeframe exists? Mr. Taylor stated that all land use Citywide will be evaluated in the EAR process; that the degree of evaluation differs depending on area; that Staff will consider the existing use of any subject property; however, if no one comes forward to request a change in use, Staff will not spend much time on it. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the properties at 221, 226, and 231 Garden Lane should be evaluated simultaneously and equitably with the property at 246 Garden Lane. Mr. Taylor stated that a review of the entire area would have to be completed. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USE OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1666 HILLVIEW STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-2) ZONE DISTRICT (FRANK A. AND DIANA A. COLSON.) - APPROVED NOT TO APPLY THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND TO ALLOW THE USE TO CONTINUE WITH ITS EXISTING INTENSITY (AGENDA ITEM II-12) #4 (0254) through (0472) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that 1666 Hillview Street and the adjacent property are designated as part of a historic district; that since 1963 the site has been used as an art studio and school; that this use is not considered a home occupation in the Zoning Code because the use is conducted in a detached structure; that the present use is not detrimental to the neighborhood; that the Staff recommendation is to allow a special exception to allow the art school to continue with a restriction to its existing use; that the recommendation of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) is to allow continuation of the business by exempting the site from the amortization schedule at the existing intensity of use. Commissioner Patterson asked for a clarification of the difference between the recommendation of Staff and that of the PBLP. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff chose the least intensive or an already available option before considering another option; that the PBLP would not disagree with the special exception; that the PBLP is concerned about the expense to the owner if the special exception process is utilized; that exempting the property from the amortization schedule would be done by an ordinance involving all affected properties, and no expense would be incurred by the owner. Commissioner Patterson stated that a problem may occur with either option since the property is in a historic district. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Frank Colson, 1666 Hillview Street (34239) came before the Commission and stated that the intensity of use has decreased; that in May 1995, the property west of the site was purchased and is historically designated both locally and nationally; that the site is part of an original art colony complex; that the owners have no intention of changing the present use. Commissioner Patterson asked if cost were not an issue, would the owner prefer the recommendation of the PBLP or Staff? Mr. Colson stated that the PBLP recommendation is preferred. Commissioner Patterson asked which method best serves the owner? Mr. Taylor stated that both have advantages and disadvantages; that applying for the special exception is more in keeping with the intent of historic districts. Book 39 Page 12442 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12443 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved not to amortize the subject property and to allow the use to continue with its existing intensity. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USE OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2172 HILLVIEW STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-4) ZONE DISTRICT (HUBERT AND MARGARET WEBB) - APPROVED NOT TO APPLY THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND TO ALLOW THE USE TO CONTINUE WITH ITS EXISTING INTENSITY (AGENDA ITEM II-13) #4 (0472) through (0554) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that 2172 Hillview Street is the home and law office of an attorney; that one secretary as well as clients come to the site; that the surrounding homes are single family; that the property does not appear to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood; that the Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend allowing continuation of the office use by exempting the site from the amortization schedule. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the recommendation is within the future guidelines for home occupation. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff is reviewing home occupation use; that Staff will make recommendations concerning home occupations to the Commission in the future. 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 not to apply the amortization schedule to the subject property and to allow the use to continue with its existing intensity. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONFORMING USE OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1927 HILLVIEW STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT (GARMONG & PADGET PROPERTIES, INC.) - APPROVED TO CONTINUE THE AMORTIZATION PROCESS (AGENDA ITEM II-14) #4 (0560) through (0690) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that 1927 Hillview Street is an office in a multi-family zone district; that the owner has applied for historic designation; that the property is not owner occupied; that the present use is inconsistent with residential zoning; that the recommendation of Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) is to enforce the amortization schedule. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Mayor Merrill asked for clarification of the use of the special exception process as compared to the historic designation process. Mr. Taylor stated he does not know what the Staff recommendation would be on a special exception; that the owner will probably apply for a special exception. Commissioner Pillot asked if the property owners have made an effort to have the amortization of the use set aside? Mr. Taylor stated that the owners have not. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to continue the amortization process on the subject property. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR NONCONPORMING USE OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2923 NORTH LINKS AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-4) ZONE DISTRICT (NAMON I. CLAYTON) = NO ACTION REQUIRED (AGENDA ITEM II-15) #4 (0690) through (0765) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission, and stated that site #15 is located at 2923 North Links Avenue; that the illegal use has been removed and the site is now used in compliance with the Zoning Code; therefore, no action is required. 14. BOARD APPOINTMENTS RE: ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTED JOHN DUNHIG, DANIEL BILYEU, KENNETH BAILEY, RICHARD BASS, JENCIE DAVIS, BETSY KELLEY, RHONDA PIERCE, NAN PLESSAS, ROY SMITH, AND PAUL THORPE; REVISED RESOLUTION TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NOVEMBER 6, 1995, CITY COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM IV) #4 (0765) through (1229) Commissioner Patterson stated that her preference is to expand the number of appointments to two in the architect, engineer, land Bpok 39 Page 12444 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12445 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. planner or developer category and two in the experienced real estate professional category. Mayor Merrill stated that the City Commission has the authority to change the composition of the Board. Mayor Merrill stated that nominations are open for the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board as follows: (a) A social service agency representative: Commissioner Pillot nominated John Duhig of The Salvation Army. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, John Duhig is appointed by consensus. (l) An experienced real estate professional: Vice Mayor Cardamone nominated Daniel Bilyeu. Commissioner Patterson nominated Marcia Wood and stated that Marcia Wood has a great deal more experience than Daniel Bilyeu; however, Daniel Bilyeu is more involved in the area. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports Daniel Bilyeu. Appointment of Daniel Bilyeu passed (3 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. (c) A banking, finance or lending representative: Commissioner Pillot nominated Kenneth Bailey. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, Kenneth Bailey is appointed by consensus. (d) An architect, engineer, land planner or developer: Commissioner Pillot nominated Pamela Hower. Commissioner Patterson nominated Richard Bass. Vice Mayor Cardamone nominated Nan Plessas. Mayor Merrill stated that he supports Nan Plessas; that two votes have been received for Nan Plessas; that one of the Commissioners could change their vote in order to have three votes for Nan Plessas. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she would also like to see Richard Bass serve on this board. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Pamela Hower. Appointment failed (1 to 0): Pillot, yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Richard Bass. Appointment failed (1 to 0): Patterson, yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Nan Plessas. Appointment failed (2 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill stated that Nan Plessas has two votes; that the appointment could be made by plurality vote. Commissioner Pillot stated that he objects to plurality vote. Commissioner Patterson stated that she agrees. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that two appointments should be made in this category. Mayor Merrill stated that no nominee received a majority vote; therefore, no appointment is made in this category. (e) A member of the Sarasota Downtown Association: Mayor Merrill nominated Paul Thorpe. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, Paul Thorpe is appointed by consensus. (f) A business owner or operator: Commissioner Pillot nominated Roy Smith. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, Roy Smith is appointed by consensus. (g1) Two residents of the Rosemary District - Seat One: Vice Mayor Cardamone nominated Jencie Davis. Commissioner Pillot nominated Betsy Kelley. Commissioner Patterson nominated Captain Lloyd Molby. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Jencie Davis. Appointment carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Betsy Kelley. Appointment failed (2 too): Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Captain Molby. Appointment failed (2 to 0): Patterson, yes; Merrill, yes. (g2) Two residents of the Rosemary District - Seat Two: Book 39 Page 12446 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12447 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that a new vote could be taken for the appointment of a second resident in the Rosemary District. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Betsy Kelley. Appointment failed (2 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Captain Molby. Appointment failed (2 to 0): Patterson, yes; Merrill, yes. (h) Representative of the Housing Authority: Vice Mayor Cardamone nominated Rhonda Pierce. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, Rhonda Pierce is appointed by consensus. Mayor Merrill stated that appointments are made in all categories except: an architect, engineer, land planner or developer and a second resident of the Rosemary District. Commissioner Pillot asked if a second appointee can be added in the architect, engineer, land planner or developer category? City Attorney Taylor stated that a second appointee can be added, subject to revision of Resolution No. 95R-841. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, a second appointee is added to the architect, engineer, land planner or developer category subject to a revised resolution being brought back to the next Commission meeting. Mayor Merrill stated that each Commissioner will have two votes for the following category: (d) An architect, engineer, land planner or developer - Two Seats: Mayor Merrill stated that the nominees are: Pamela Hower, Richard Bass, and Nan Plessas. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Pamela Hower. Appointment failed (2 to 0): Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Richard Bass. Appointment passed (3 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the appointment of Nan Plessas. Appointment passed (3 to 0): Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board now is comprised of ten members; that she proposes Barbara Cherry, a business owner who resides in the North Tamiami Trail area, as someone who could lend good experience to the Board. Commissioner Patterson stated that such a category is not available; that if desired, the category should be opened to applicants. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Ms. Cherry applied as a Downtown Association member. Mayor Merrill asked if the second appointment in the category of a resident of the Rosemary District can be resolved? Commissioner Patterson stated that she will switch her vote to Betsy Kelley sO that the vote will be: (g2) Two residents of the Rosemary District = Seat Two: Appointment of Betsy Kelley passed (3 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the appointments are to be for one, two and three years. Commissioner Patterson stated that the terms could be designated by random drawing to be accomplished by the City Auditor and Clerk. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the City Auditor and Clerk will handle the terms of appointment. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Resolution No. 95R-841 will have to be amended to add a tenth member to the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the revision will be brought back to the Commission meeting of November 6, 1995. 15. OTHER MATTERS - THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE COUNTY COMMISSION DELAY VOTING ON THE LIBRARY SITE UNTIL NOVEMBER 7i 1995; THE VICE MAYOR TO ATTEND THE OCTOBER 24, 1995, MEETING OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO ÇONVEY THE POSITION OF THE CITY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED LIBRARY SITE (AGENDA ITEM V) #4 (1237) through (2039) Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the County Commission intends to take any action on the library site at its October 24, 1995, meeting? Book 39 Page 12448 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12449 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that County Commissioner Robert Anderson was quoted in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune as saying he will make a motion in support of the Mission Harbor site; that one County Commissioner is anticipated to second the motion; that two County Commissioners will not support the motion; therefore, the vote of the fifth County Commissioner is crucial. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the final outcome of the County Commission's vote may be supportive of the Five Points site if a vote is delayed; that the County Commission could be requested not to vote on the library site at its October 24th meeting so a hasty decision is not made. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a member of the City Commission could attend the County Commission meeting and ask for a delay in the vote? Commissioner Patterson stated that the Vice Mayor may choose to attend. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she may not be the best choice but will attend if the Commission agrees; that the Mayor or City Manager would be a better choice. Commissioner Pillot stated that representation of the city Commission at the meeting is a good idea; that the City Commission is best represented by the Mayor or City Manager; and asked the Mayor's opinion? Mayor Merrill stated that his schedule is full; that the City Manager has been most involved in the discussions and is the logical choice. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his morning schedule is full; that a fax could be sent to the County Administrator for transmittal to the County Commission prior to the meeting. Commissioner Patterson asked if the City Manager will represent to the County Commission the majority position of the City Commission concerning the library site? Mr. Sollenberger stated yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that eminent domain is an option and asked if a majority of the Commission supports a statement to the County Commission that the City Commission is ready and willing to assist in raising $125,000 to secure the Goodyear site? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she supports such a statement. Mayor Merrill stated that eminent domain should be used; that a statement about raising the $125,000 may result in the private sector's dropping its efforts and relying instead on the City for funding. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that eminent domain may be a moot point if the County Commission votes to approve the Mission Harbor site. Commissioner Patterson stated that the County Commission can change any decision. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the County Commission should be apprised before. the meeting of the City Commission's willingness to raise funds. Commissioner Pillot stated that the letter from the City Manager to the County Administrator could include a statement that the City Commission is willing to assist in securing the funds necessary to make up the shortfall between the County's budget and the amount negotiated with Goodyear; that the County Commission may decide on the Mission Harbor site unless one of the City Commissioners attends the meeting tomorrow and indicates the City is willing to help raise the funds. Commissioner Patterson asked for claritication on the source of funds. Commissioner Pillot stated that many sources in the private sector are willing to contribute; that the City Commission need not be specific; that the important statement is the City Commission's willingness to help make up the shortfall; that a statement could also be made that funds are not available in the City's budget. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the business community would respond to a plea for funds; that the business community's willingness to help in securing the Five Points site has not been conveyed to the County Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that the business community is aware of the difficulty the County Commission is having in securing the Goodyear site; that the business community would be motivated to raise the funds if given the opportunity. Paul Thorpe spoke from the audience and stated that he supports the attendance of the Vice Mayor at the County Commission's meeting of October 24th. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she will attend the meeting and reference the letter to be faxed to the County Administrator from the City Manager. Book 39 Page 12450 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12451 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, there is a consensus of the City Commission that the Vice Mayor attend the County Commission meeting on October 24th and that the City Manager will fax a letter to the County Administrator to be delivered to the County Commission before its meeting requesting that no action be taken on the site for the library until the County Commission meeting of November 7, 1995. 16. REMARKS OF COMMISBIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - THE LANGUAGE OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ON THE LIBRARY SITE TO BE STRENGTHENED; THE CITY MANAGER TO REPORT BACK ON THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ASSESSMENT OF LIDO BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PRIVATE BEACH RENOURISHMENT: INLAND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FOUNTAIN PROPOSED BY MARINA JACK, INC.. TO BE DISCUSSED WITH THE OWNER #4 (2040) through (2511) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. distributed copies of the proposed Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County regarding the library site and stated that the section on environmental assessments is a concern; that the language does not completely protect the City against having to participate in a clean-up of the site if necessaryi that the section entitled "Joint Parking" references a parking structure; however, including a paragraph allowing the City to construct a multi-level parking structure is premature and implies an obligation on the part of the City Commission; that the section entitled "Right-of-Way Matters" references a possible vacation of Second Street; however, financial responsibility for the possible relocation of utilities is unclear; that the City Attorney should review the language in the Interlocal Agreement to strengthen the City's position in the sections mentioned. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees. Mayor Merrill asked the City Manager's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Interlocal Agreement originated in the Office of the City Attorney and any changes should also originate in that office. Mayor Merrill stated that the issue of the substance of the Interlocal Agreement is being discussed, which can only be addressed by the City Commission and the City Manager and not the City Attorney. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission may be agreeable with the Interlocal Agreement as written; that her concerns are for unforeseen circumstances and for the financial responsibility of some matters which has not been addressed in the agreement. Commissioner Pillot stated that the document should be strengthened. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objection, the language of the agreement should be strengthened. B. stated that she attended a Lido Key Association meeting on October 21, 1995; that she circulated letters drafted by the. City Manager and Staff addressed to government officials requesting funds for the renourishment of the public beach at Lido Key; that many people in attendance signed the letters; that many people who attended are condominium owners and expressed concern in supporting the effort to get State and Federal funds for the public beach and not the portion of Lido beach which is privately owned; that in the past the owners were not in favor of an assessment to pay for the cost of renourishment; however, the degree of beach erosion is much greater today; that the condominium owners may now be willing to consider an assessment in order to do a larger beach renourishment project; that she promised the owners of the private beach at Lido Key to bring their concerns to the Commission for a response on the assessment issue. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff can explore the possibility of an assessment of private property owners on Lido beach if the Commission wishes; that no government monies will be forthcoming for private beach renourishment. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, the Administration will report back to the Commission concerning the possibility of an assessment. C. stated that the auditorium of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park may not be the best site for the public hearing on the proposed conference center scheduled for December 2, 1995; that the date should be changed if another, more well-known meeting place can be identified. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the avallability of the Sudakoff Center will be explored and a report will be made at the meeting on October 30, 1995. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Sarasota High School cafeteria would be a good site for the December 2nd public hearing. VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: Book 39 Page 12452 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12453 10/23/95 6:00 P.M. A. asked the status of the proposed Island Park fountain? Mayor Merrill stated that a motion had been passed to refer the matter of the planned fence to the City Manager. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the issue has been discussed with John Strickland, Attorney for Marina Jack, Inc and the fence will be eliminated from the plans for the fountain. Commissioner Pillot stated that he surveyed Island Park recently; that an inland area about fifty feet in diameter may be a better location for the fountain. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objections, the City Manager will discuss an inland area with the owner of the Marina Jack restaurant. 17. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #4 (2620) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the special meeting of October 23, 1995, at 12:02 a.m. DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: ) BLVE Ralnser BILLY E ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK