Book: 35 Page 9853 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Mayor Gene Pillot PRESIDING: Vice Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 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 to the Flag. 1. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO CAROLYN M. DYER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WITH 10 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0024) through (0035) Carolyn M. Dyer was not present and the award presentation was postponed. 2. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 1993 #1 (0041) through (0154) Bill Hallisey, Public Works Facilities Operations Manager for Utilities, introduced Roberto Palacios, Utilities Mechanic in Public Works and stated that Mr. Palacios has been employed with the City for 14 years; that Mr. Palacios had spent 20 years with the circus prior to joining the City; that Mr. Palacios developed a safety program to protect all of the employees working around the high voltage equipment; that after hours, Mr. Palacios spends a lot of time doing volunteer work with the soccer youth program at the Boys Club; and that he Serves with Excellence and Pride." Vice Mayor Patterson presented Mr. Palacios with a plaque and certificate for Employee of the Month for October 1993 in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0155) through (0183) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove New Business Item VIII-1, Discussion Re: Lowering of the fee for Historic Designation Petitions by raising the fee for Demolition Permits, at the request of Vice Mayor Patterson Mr. Robinson stated that he would place this item on the Commission's Meeting of December 6, 1993. B. Add New Business Item VIII-3, Discussion Re: Sarasota Greenways Project Sarasota to Venice Circus Trail On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1993; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1993 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0185) through (0210) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Special Sarasota City Commission Meeting of October 28, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of November 1, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1993 = REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0211) through (0294) Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Housing, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and presented the following items from the Board of Adjustment's Regular Meeting of October 27, 1993: A. Petition 94-02 Mr. Hewes stated that this variance request was withdrawn because a number of contradictions were found in the application as the board members questioned the applicant. Book 35 Page 9854 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9855 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. B. Petition 93-30 Mr. Hewes stated that this variance request was denied because the board members felt the request did not reach a depth of water which justified the increase in the length of the dock. C. Administrative Appeal 94-01 Mr. Hewes stated that this was an appeal of a decision of his relative to the use of a building which has very restrictive conditional zoning on U.S. 301; that the board voted to uphold his decision. D. Application for a Building Permit for a Sign for which a Variance was previously granted Mr. Hewes stated that the sign was being changed slightly; that the change was approved mainly on the fact that the sign would be legal if the ordinance that was pending was approved. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the report of the Board of Adjustment. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 - ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS III-A-1, -2, -3, -4, AND -5) #1 (0295) through (0312) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the City to use third party administrator services through Healthcare Sarasota 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute Amendment #1 to the Project Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection, for Big Sarasota Pass/New Pass/Inlet Management Plans 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Gator Asphalt Company, Bradenton, Florida, (Bid #94-1), for pavement milling/resurfacing of various city-wide streets 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an easement, to provide electric power service to the site of Downtown Well No. 8, which is currently under construction 5. Approval Re: Award of Contact to Club Car West, Bradenton, Florida (Bid #94-16) (lowest bidder), for acquisition of golf cars for the Bobby Jones Golf Complex (replacement cars) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 Items 1 through 5. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 - ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-691) = ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3706) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3727) = ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3745) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3748) - ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3752) = ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3753) = ADOPTED; ITEM 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3755) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 9 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3756) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEMS III-B-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, AND -9) #1 (0313) through (0471) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-691, Ordinance Nos. 93-3706, 93-3727, 94-3745; 94-3748, 94-3752, 94-3753, 94-3755, and 94-3756 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-691, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3706, amending the zoning code to delete the prohibition against outline or strip lighting on portions of buildings or structures as set forth herein; making findings as to need; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3727, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 3, Police, of the code of ordinances of the City of Sarasota; to provide an amended definition of "Police Officer"; to provide an option for direct transfer of distributions qualifying for rollover treatment; to provide an amended definition of "salary"; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3745, amending Chapter 37, Water and Sewers, Article II, Rates and Charges, by providing for the establishment and transfer of Impact Fee credits under certain circumstances; providing for automatic repeal after three Book 35 Page 9856 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9857 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. years; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3748, annexing certain real property lying contiguous to the City limits into the corporate limits of the City of Sarasota, as petitioned by Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards and Roehn, P.A., for R & A Food Services, Inc. (lessees), and Shirley Jeffcoat and Martin Mortensen (lessor), said real property being described as follows; a parcel of land lying on the northeast corner of Bee Ridge Road and U.S. Highway 41, said parcel also known as 3875 Bee Ridge Road; more particularly described herein; making findings; redefining the boundary lines of the City of Sarasota to include said real property; etc. (Title Only) (Annexation Petition No. 94-Annex-01) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3752, amending Article XV of the zoning code pertaining to the 45 day waiting period currently required for permits to demolish structures 45 years of age or older, making said waiting period applicable only to permits to demolish structures listed on the Florida Master Site File maintained by the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, as set forth herein; making findings; setting forth procedures to find alternative uses to preserve said structures in lieu of demolition; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3753, amending Chapter 31, Personnel, of the Code of the City of Sarasota (1971), incorporated by reference in Chapter 24, of the Code of the City of Sarasota (1986), Article II, General Employees' Pension Plan, amending Section 31-18, subsection A. to provide for amended election procedures; amending Section 31-21 to clarify the return of accumulative contributions in the event of reemployment; amending Section 31-26 to improve and offer alternate forms of death benefits; adding Section 31-35 to provide for direct transfers of eligible rollover distributions; providing for severability of provisions; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; etc. (Title Only) 8. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3755, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; stating various findings of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as to the Transportation Element; adopting by reference the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designated 93-PA-02, as more particularly described herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) 9. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3756, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; stating various findings of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; adopting by reference the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan consisting of a Work Program to implement the Comprehensive Plan, as more particularly described herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Items 1 through 9. Vice Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that public hearings were advertised for 6:30 p.m., since it was not that time it was the consensus of the Commission to hear Unfinished Business Item VII-2 at this time. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT = REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #1 (0489) through (0572) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, came before the Commission and stated that the Main Street Improvement Project remains on schedule; that the brickwork is completed on the north side of Main Street; that the storm drain inlets are half completed and will be completed within the next few weeks; that the concrete sidewalk is 95% completed; that the foundations and conduit for the street lights are installed; that the basic irrigation system has been installed; that arrangements have been made to replace the sidewalk on the southeast corner of Main Street and Lemon Avenue. Commissioner Cardamone asked the anticipated date of completion of the project? Mr. Daughters stated that the required completion date is June 16, 1994; that the contractor feels the project will be completed ahead of schedule. Book 35 Page 9858 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9859 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it was still not time for public hearings, which were advertised for 6:30 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to hear New Business Item VIII-2 at this time since Item VIII-1 was removed under Changes to the Orders of the Day. 9. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION RE: LOWERING OF THE FEE FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION PETITIONS BY RAISING THE FEE FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS = REMOVED FROM AGENDA AND RESCHEDULED FOR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1993 (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) This agenda item was removed under the Changes to the Orders of the Day and rescheduled for the Commission Meeting of December 6, 1993. 10. NEW BUSINESS - APPROVAL RE: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY SPECIAL PERMIT TO ERECT A SALES CENTER AT 1854 BEN FRANKLIN DRIVE FOR A NEW CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX L/ELEGANCE = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #1 (0590) through (0772) Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, Housing, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that this is a request for a sales office for a new condominium project at 1854 Ben Franklin Drive, which is the site of the former Auku Tiki Hotel; that the Commission has approved a site and development plan for a hotel for this location; however, it appears that this hotel is not going to come to pass; that there is a good chance that the proposed condominium project will move forward. Mr. Hewes continued that the Zoning Code does not provide for the erection of temporary buildings; that the City has used contracts of this sort for projects such as the sales office for the Ringling Commons project; that he recommends approval of a temporary special permit because a building of this type requires a sales office since banks require that a certain number of units are sold before financing is approved. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends that the temporary permit be approved by the City Commission. Joel Freedman, representing the petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that he was present in case the Commission has any questions regarding the development. There were no questions from the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the request for a temporary special permit to erect a sales center at 1854 Ben Franklin Drive for a condominium project called L/Elegance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that item (d) on page 3 reads as follows: "At the termination of this Permit, remove the sales center from the Site in a timely manner. "; that she would like to know what "a timely manner" is based on the sales center that seems to have taken a life of its own at the Ringling Commons. City Attorney Taylor stated that the reason the sales office at the Ringling Commons has been in existence so long is because once a year the City Commission has approved it; that property owners are required to post a bond; that in the event that the sales office is not removed within the allotted time, the City may call upon the bond to pay the costs of removal. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Ringling Commons sales center is being or has been relocated to be used by the John Ringling Centre Foundation. Vice Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to approve the request for a temporary special permit to erect a sales center at 1854 Ben Franklin Drive for a condominium project called L/Elegance. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it was still not time for public hearings, which were advertised for 6:30 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to hear New Business Item VIII-3 which was added under Changes to the Orders of the Day. 11. NEW BUSINESS = DISCUSSION RE: SARASOTA GREENWAYS PROJECT SARASOTA TO VENICE CIRCUS TRAIL - REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER TO REPORT BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #1 (0775) through (0966) Commissioner Merrill stated that the Sierra Club has requested an application for Rails to Trails for the railway that extends from University Parkway to Venice; that the southern 13 miles of the railway is for sale at this time; however, he understands that the railroad is willing to consider selling other portions; that one issue is that the County is looking at this corridor as a transportation corridor; that most of this railway goes through residential areas and there was strong opposition to having the railway turned into an expressway. Commissioner Merrill continued that he could support some type of rail system; however, he does not feel a light rail system will happen for 20 to 30 years. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the material thoroughly to determine whether the use is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sollenberger asked who the applicant for the grant would be and who would own and maintain the bike trail? Commissioner Merrill stated that he thinks the answer would be the State of Florida since it is called the Florida National Scenic Trail Land Acquisition program. Book 35 Page 9860 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9861 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that it appeared that this is a fine proposal. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to refer this item to the City Manager for further review with a report back to the Commission as soon as possible. Commissioner Atkins stated that he was concerned about the area's need for a fast rail system that would connect Fort Myers with Tampa and further north; that he thought the area being discussed was the area where such a high-speed rail system would be; that he does not want the City to get itself in a position of eliminating the possibility of a high-speed rail system or have to purchase land already being used; that otherwise, he feels this is a good idea. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports what Commissioner Atkins said; that he thinks that the way the trail in St. Petersburg which is being used for bicycles today is with the full awareness that perhaps someday the land may be reused as a rail corridor; that he would like to be sure that the City protects this option. Vice Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to refer this item to the City Manager for further review with a report back to the Commission as soon as possible. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time the petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; than any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes; that he will time speakers and advise them when they have 1 minute remaining; that it has been determined by the Supreme Court that the City Commission will be sitting as a quasi-judicial body regarding the public hearings on land use, Items IV-3, -4, and -8; that the time limits will not be applicable to these items. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-688, STATING THE CITY OF SARASOTA'S INTENTION TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AS SET FORTH IN F.S. 197.3632, BY COLLECTING THE ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS THROUGH THE TAX COLLECTOR OF SARASOTA COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE ANNUAL TAX BILL OF THE ASSESSED PROPERTY; STATING THE NEED FOR THE LEVY OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LEVY; PROVIDING FOR MAILING A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, THE SARASOTA COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED AS MODIFIED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR CLARIFICATION (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1020) through (1261) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this presentation is in conjunction with the establishment of an assessment district on St. Armands Key to support an off-street parking lot on Fillmore Drive. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that this first step in setting up a special assessment district involves Commission action to establish a uniform method of collecting the assessment; that proposed Resolution No. 94R-688 states the City's intent to use the uniform method of collection; that there are Agreements with the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector to reimburse them for their expenses in collecting this special assessment for the City; that Florida Statutes 197.3632 requires that the City enter into the written Agreements, advertise its intent to use the uniform method of collection, and hold a public hearing on this resolution. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he recommends a motion to adopt the proposed resolution. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. Gil Waters, 1751 Mound Street, representing the St. Armands Commercial Property Owners, came before the Commission and stated that he is the Chairman of the Parking Committee and Vice President of the St. Armands Commercial Property Owners Association; that over 70% of the property owners who will be assessed have endorsed the program and signed petitions; that the merchants are strongly behind the program as well as the neighboring property owners whose residential streets are increasingly being used for overflow parking by shoppers. There was no one else who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-688 by title only. City Attorney Taylor stated that he would like to make a change in the first prefacing clause of the resolution due to the fact that the City has more than one parking lot project being reviewed on St. Armands Key; that for clarification he recommends changing the reference to "certain project improvements' to refer specifically Book 35 Page 9862 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9863 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. to "a vehicle parking lot at Fillmore Drive" so there will be no question to what area of St. Armands Key to which this pertains. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-688 as modified. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED SHADE AVENUE TRAFFIC ABATEMENT STUDY = ADOPTED THE TRAFFIC ABATEMENT PLAN PRESENTED WITH THE INCLUSION OF "NO THROUGH TRUCKS' 99 SIGNS AND A SECOND SPEED HUMP ON SHADE AVENUE BETWEEN HYDE PARK STREET AND THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1262) through (2466) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this item is in response to residents in the Shade Avenue area for traffic abatement measuresi that some concern had been raised about the affect on public safety vehicles, particularly Fire-Rescue vehicles; that he has included a report from the Public Safety Department which shows that there would be a 21 to 44 second delay on rescue vehicles (due to speed humps on Shade Avenue) . Mr. Sollenberger continued that he rode in a gurney in one of the City's Fire-Rescue units and he observed that the speed at which the humps were approached, as well as the contour of the humps, affect the ride inside the back of the vehicle; that the construction of the speed humps needs to be carefully supervised. Commissioner Merrill stated that he wanted to point out that people who live in this area are very close to the hospital and the level of Fire-Rescue service is excellent regardless of losing a few seconds. Mr. Sollenberger stated that was correct; that the area in question is much closer to the hospital than areas in north Sarasota or on the Keys. Commissioner Cardamone asked how many (Fire-Rescue) runs per year are made on this portion of Shade Avenue? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he did not have that data with him. Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that in December 1992 some residents of Shade Avenue requested relief from excessive traffic between Fruitville Road and the southern City Limits; that the City staff conducted a traffic abatement study and the results of the study were consistent with the complaints that had been presented; that four or five meetings had been held at the Waldemere Fire Station with the people who live on Shade Avenue as well as those who live on the side streets. Mr. Mohammed continued that the traffic counts were done to determine the daily traffic volume on Shade Avenue as well as the speed of the vehicles; that Shade Avenue was removed from the city's thoroughfare plan a few years ago; that accident data was also evaluated. Mr. Mohammed stated that some of the traffic abatement solutions evaluated were four-way Stop signs, speed humps, traffic diverters, and signage; that the neighborhood strongly recommends speed humps; that speed humps enhance pedestrian safety, which is very relevant because Shade Avenue goes through the school area; that speed humps are not very expensive to construct, between $700 and $1000 each. Mr. Mohammed explained the Staff recommendations using a map of the area on the overhead projector and stated that the following measures are recommended: (1) install signage stating Residential Traffic Abatement Ahead" at Ringling Boulevard and Shade Avenue and at the City Limits on South Shade Avenue, (2) one speed hump on Shade Avenue just south of Ringling Boulevard, (3) a four-way Stop sign at Pelican Drive and Shade Avenue, (4) three speed humps on Shade Avenue between Hatton and Tamisola Streets, (5) a four-way Stop sign at Floyd Street and Shade Avenue, (6) four speed humps on Floyd Street between Shade and East Avenues and (7) one speed hump on Shade Avenue between Clematis Street and Wisteria Circle. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the Commission is being asked to approve the speed humps on Floyd Street tonight as well as the traffic abatement measures proposed for Shade Avenue? Mr. Mohammed stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson asked who the City had notified about these measures, because she is concerned about putting speed humps on someone's street without notification of the residents of that street? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that everyone along Shade Avenue had been notified and an advertisement was placed in the newspaper with a map showing Shade Avenue from Fruitville Road south to the City Limits; that Floyd Street was not mentioned in the advertisement. Commissioner Merrill stated that if the Commission is concerned, perhaps the approval of speed humps on Floyd Street should be withdrawn for tonight. Mr. Mohammed stated that the issue of speed humps on Floyd Street could be brought back to the Commission at a later date after notification of the residents of Floyd Street. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is for the Commission to accept the report as it pertains to Shade Avenue and authorize the installation of the abatement measures recommended, and the impacts on surrounding areas monitored. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing and the following individuals came before the Commission: Book 35 Page 9864 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9865 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Major W. C. Welch, 2207 South Shade Avenue, stated that he fully supports this plan for traffic abatement; that he suggests that a provision be added to prevent trucks on Shade Avenue; that he has had some severe blows given to his property with 18-wheel trucks; that on one occasion during a driving rainstorm, a big truck knocked a 10 inch branch from his oak tree, which fell into the street blocking traffic, and the truck kept right on going; that Coca-Cola trucks and trailers abound on Shade Avenue daily; that he would like an additional speed hump installed on Shade Avenue between Hyde Park and Clematis Streets; that he hopes the Commission will approve this plan. Mrs. Porter, South Pelican Drive, representing the neighborhood, stated that the traffic on Shade Avenue appears to have doubled; that the speed of the traffic is incredible; that the speed limits need to be enforced; that she thought that "No Trucks" signs were going to be installed. Mrs. Porter asked how soon the speed humps and Stop signs would be installed, if this plan is approved tonight? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City could commence with the Stop signs right away; that the City's schedule would have to be checked regarding when the speed humps could be constructed. Mr. Mohammed stated that the speed humps are to be part of the Public Works Resurfacing Program. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Commission awarded the bid for the overlay work under Consent Agenda No. 1 earlier tonight; that this issue will receive priority placement on the Resurfacing Program. Mrs. Porter stated that she feels the intersection of School Avenue and Bahia Vista Street is very dangerous and needs a traffic signal; however, she understands that the City may be closing School Avenue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that at this time, there is no movement toward closing School Avenue. Halya Lauber, 565 South Pelican Drive, representing the neighborhood, stated that she urges the Commissioners to pass this plan. Dan Lobeck, 450 South Shade Avenue, representing himself and his wife, Karen, stated that he would consider approval of this plan as a personal favor since he lives directly on Shade Avenue; that time is of the essence regarding traffic abatement on Shade Avenue because people are going to be looking for alternative routes when construction begins on Tuttle Avenue; that hopefully traffic flow will be improved once the improvements to Tuttle Avenue are completed; that he wants to thank Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Daughters (City Engineer) and his staff, and Commissioner Merrill for the amount of time given to this concern for the people on this part of Shade Avenue. There was no one else who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt the traffic abatement plan presented with the inclusion of "No Through Trucks " signs and a second speed hump on Shade Avenue between Hyde Park Street and the southern City Limits. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there are no trucks permitted on Orange Avenue; however, strict enforcement would prohibit deliveries to residents' properties; that she hopes that the residents realize that trucks will not completely disappear from Shade Avenue. Vice Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that with regard to the proposal for speed humps on Floyd Street, she wanted the audience to understand that a lot of time went into the Shade Avenue traffic abatement program; that people should not be disappointed if they came to talk about Floyd Street because the Commission will entertain this issue as soon as possible. 14. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-696, GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE GOVERNMENTAL (G) ZONE DISTRICT FOR A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER/AUDIPORIUK AS REQUESTED BY PETITION 94-03; LOCATED ON THE BOOKER HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS BETWEEN 35TH AND 32ND STREETS AND ORANGE AND GOODRICH AVENUES; DESCRIBING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE; PROVIDING FOR READING OF THIS RESOLUTION BY TITLE ONLY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2498) through (2970) City Manager Sollenberger stated that ordinarily variances are granted by the Board of Adjustment; however, in the case the property is in a "G" (Government) zone district and should be handled by the City Commission. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:10 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission previously reviewed this matter at a public hearing on November 8, 1993 held jointly with the School Board and the County Commission; that she does not believe this is a controversial item. Book 35 Page 9866 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9867 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Housing, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed use is special and is one of the things for which the City has variances. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission was in the area of quasi-judicial activity; that whatever is approved or disapproved is on the record that is made tonight; that the Commission's written materials are part of the record; however, it does not hurt to make sure everyone has a fair opportunity to be heard, including the School Board, since they have the burden of proof in this issue. Mr. Hewes stated that he was able to give a favorable response to all of the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code, which is somewhat unusual; that he fully supports the variance. Charles Dan Bailey Jr., Attorney representing the petitioner (School Board), came before the Commission and stated that he had not been sworn in; that Stuart Barger (project architect) also needed to be sworn in. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson swore in Attorney Bailey and Mr. Barger. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:12 p.m. Attorney Bailey stated that he wanted to reiterate the necessity for this variance; that he would like Mr. Barger to make a brief presentation to the Commission. Mr. Barger explained an architectural drawing of the stage tower for the auditorium that will be 68 feet high; that it is needed in order to store flats vertically; that there will be a blocking gridiron where technicians service the blocks and rearrange the rigging. Attorney Bailey stated that the City Attorney addressed an issue concerning the application of the Zoning Code to heights for school facilities of this nature and rendered an opinion finding that this is subject to the Zoning Code; that he wants to go on record as not agreeing with this decision, although he does not feel it is unreasonable; that the Interlocal Agreement says that the Zoning Code does apply to the extent that it does not deal with subjects that are already regulated by the State Uniform Building Code, which does not have any height restrictions; that he feels it is a "gray" area. Attorney Bailey continued that he wanted to express his appreciation to the City Staff, Timothy Litchet (Building Department), and the Clerk's Office in connection with the expeditious processing of this variance application. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-696 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-696. Vice Mayor Patterson requested city Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3695, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RSF-3 ZONE DISTRICT TO RSF-4 ZONE DISTRICT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10, BLOCK C, FLOYD AND CAMERON'S SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 17, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = DENIED AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-697, PERTAINING TO SPECIAL EXCEP- TION PETITION 93-SE-08 TO ALLOW AN OFF-STREET PARKING LOT ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10, BLOCK C, FLOYD AND CAMERON'S SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 17, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN AN RSF-4 ZONE DISTRICT; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; APPROVING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 93-CO-2, 93-SE-8 AND 93-0, SILVERSTEIN) = DENIED (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (2980) through #3 (1660) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Ron Annis, Vice Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the item being displayed on the screen was an overhead of the site plan pertaining to this petition; that on October 6 the Planning Staff and Planning Board found the petitions consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Planning Staff recommended approval and the justification is reflected in the Planning Board's minutes and tapes; that the Planning Board recommended denial by a 3 to 2 vote based on criteria that the chairperson will present later; that the appropriate reviewing departments found that the proposal met all of the land development regulations, including the regulations of the Zoning Code. Book 35 Page 9868 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9869 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Annis stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PB/LPA) found Petitions 93-CO-2, 93-SE-8, and 93-Q consistent with the Sarasota City Plan by a unanimous vote; that the PB/LPA denied the petitions by a 3 to 2 vote; that the basis for the denial was premised on conditions 3-11(2), (5), and (10) of the Zoning Code criteria for granting special exceptions. City Manager Sollenberger stated that this was an unusual set of circumstances since the Commission has two separate recommendations from the Planning Board and from the Planning Departmenti that his recommendation is in support of the Planning Board's recommendation to deny the ordinance to rezone and to deny the special exception; that his formal recommendation is as follows: The City Manager recommends denial of conditional rezoning Ordinance 93-3695 based on incompatibility of the proposed parking lot with adjacent single-family property. The criteria for rezoning in Section 4-7 (b) (2), (8) & (12) of the Zoning Code are not satisfied as follows: (2) The office parking lot would be incompatible with the established residential land use pattern. (8) The office parking lot would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood by the removal of four (4) homes on the subject property and replacing single-family use with office use. (12) The removal of four (4) homes from the subject property and the replacement of them with an office parking lot will be a deterrent to the improvement and development of the property zoned single-family along Prospect Street between U.S. 41 and Osprey Avenue. The City Manager recommends denial of Resolution 94R-697 (also known as Special Exception 93-SE-08) based on incompatibility of the proposed parking lot with the adjacent single-family properties. Incompatibility is based specifically on Section 3-11(b) (4) (h) (2), (5) & (10) of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: (b) (2) The office parking lot would be incompatible with the established residential land use pattern which consists of residentially-zoned property to the north and west of the subject property. Existing homes west of Lasula Court would be particularly affected. (h) (5) The office parking lot would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood by the removal of four (4) homes on the subject property and replacing the single-family use with office use. (h) (10) The removal of four homes from the subject property and the replacement of them with an office parking lot would be a deterrent to the improvement and development of the property zoned single-family along Prospect Street between U.S. 41 and Osprey Avenue. Specifically, Lots 11-15 in Block B, west of Lasula Court, would be surrounded on the east, west, and south by office uses and therefore is less likely to be developed for single-family residential uses. City Attorney Taylor stated that there was a recent case which came out of the Florida Supreme Court involving Brevard County where activities such as rezonings and special exceptions which have traditionally been part of the legislative process are now part of the judicial process; that the process is not totally judicial as a court proceeding, but is quasi-judicial, which means that these proceedings from this point forward will be substantially more formal than in the past; that in the past, if someone is aggrieved by a decision made here, a lawsuit could be filed and the City would present to a court a complete legal case in justification of the issue as if there had been almost no presentation before the City Commission; that one of the large changes that has taken place with the recent ruling is that any appeals from the decisions that are made here tonight will proceed strictly on the record that has been made; that no outside testimony will be allowed; that there will never be anything more going before a judge than what is made a part of this record; therefore, it will be extremely important to the petitioners that they make a proper record in these proceedings to protect their rights; that it is important from the City's standpoint that it make a proper record. Attorney Taylor continued that tonight the parties are getting facts on the record in order to support a decision that needs to be made by the City Commission sitting in this quasi-judicial proceeding; that one thing that has never been done before as part of rezonings, which comes along with this new procedure, is the right to cross-examine; therefore, if the petitioner in presenting his case determines that he needs to elicit some testimony in this record from a member of the City Staff or the City Manager, this right is granted; that if something comes into the record tonight that is of sufficient concern to the petitioner, the petitioner has the right to cross-examine the person who makes a particular comment in the record, although they may not be a member of the City Staff. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that traditionally the Commission would allow a petitioner to make the presentation before asking questions; however, she feels that if the Commission is to sit as Book 35 Page 9870 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9871 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. judges over rezoning, the Commission should ask questions of import at the time. Jeff Russell, Attorney representing the petitioner, and Joel Freedman, representing the petitioner, came before the Commission. Attorney Russell stated that the Snyder court ruling says that it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove to the Commission by substantial competent evidence that the petition is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Planning Staff has said it is compatible; that the Planning Board has said it is compatible; that we are saying we are compatible; that once compatibility is proven, the burden shifts to the opponents of this petition to prove by substantial competent evidence that the petitioner is not entitled to the rezoning and the special exception. Attorney Russell continued that substantial competent evidence is not merely somebody's opinion; that it is provable demonstrable facts which are presented; that he will call on expert witnesses tonight to present the facts; that someone's opinion about their neighborhood is just that, an opinion. Attorney Russell stated that he would like all documents presented tonight to be put into the record and given to the Clerk as appropriately numbered exhibits; that he will be calling the City Manager and Planning Director as witnesses; that he requests the right to cross-examine any of the witnesses. Attorney Russell called Mr. Freedman as the first witness. Mr. Freedman stated that his name is Joel Freedman; that he lives at 5066 Village Gardens Drive; and that he has been sworn. Attorney Russell asked by whom Mr. Freedman is employed? Mr. Freedman answered Bishop and Associates. Attorney Russell stated that he wanted to qualify Mr. Freedman as an expert witness; that he knows Mr. Freedman has been before the Commission before; that he tenders Mr. Freedman's credentials to the board and asks that Mr. Freedman is accepted as an expert witness in the field of land planning. Attorney Taylor stated that he had no objection to the Commission hearing Mr. Freedman for the expertise that he has and professes to have based on what he is qualified to do for a living, unless the Commission feels otherwise. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is willing to accept Mr. Freedman as a professional in his field with the understanding that his field is not an exact science. Commissioner Cardamone stated that since the Commission has not participated in this type of forum before, she would prefer that the Commission follow this proceeding down to the letter of what the City Attorney thinks the Commission needs to do; that she would like to have testimony to Mr. Freedman being an expert witness. Attorney Russell asked Mr. Freedman to state his credentials. Mr. Freedman stated that he has a Master's Degree in Urban Regional Planning, from Texas A&M University; that he has been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1984; that he is a member of the American Planning Association in good standing since 1978; that he has been a practicing professional planner since 1978, working both in city, county, and regional governments as a public planner as well as a private consultant for his own firm and other landscape, architectural, planning, and engineering firms. Attorney Russell asked whether Mr. Freedman has ever testified as an expert witness before the City? Mr. Freedman stated that he had not. Attorney Russell asked whether Mr. Freedman has ever testified before the body of the Commission? Mr. Freedman stated that he had. Attorney Russell asked Mr. Freedman to name them. Mr. Freedman stated that he gave testimony in a court proceeding for verifying another consultant's fees and services provided in a condemnation case in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the City Attorney what was incumbent upon the Commission at this point? Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission's purpose is not to keep Mr. Freedman from having an opportunity to talk; that his advice is for the Commission to accept Mr. Freedman as whatever he is tendered as. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether a formal vote was required? Attorney Taylor stated that the Chairman could make acceptance without a vote. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission is willing to accept Mr. Freedman as a qualified planner. Attorney Russell submitted a copy of Mr. Freedman's credentials as Exhibit 1. Mr. Freedman stated that a proposal to develop an office building at the intersection of Floyd Street and Lasula Court is before the Commission; that the building is proposed as a 15,327 square foot office building; that not only the minimum requirements of the land development regulation are being met, but in many cases the requirements are being exceeded; that the required parking is 94 spaces; however, 110 spaces will be provided; that the project is getting credit for 8 spaces for tree preservation according to the City's ordinance; that the property will be heavily landscaped with existing trees as well as additional plantings; that based on the size of the parking lot, the interior landscaping. requirement for this project would be 975 square feet of interior landscaping; Book 35 Page 9872 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9873 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. however, 3,454 square feet (of interior landscaping) will be provided; that 10 interior trees would be required for this parking lot; however, 15 will be provided, 7 of which are existing trees. Mr. Freedman continued that the proposed height of the structure is 35 feet, which is the maximum permitted in this zone because the property abuts a residentially-zoned property; that the OPB (Office, Professional and Business) zone normally allows 45 feet in height; that the lot coverage is 30%, which is the permitted maximum; that he feels setbacks are very important to mitigate any potential visual impacts; that the requirement for the front yard setback is 20 feet in an OPB district; however, it is being proposed to have a front yard setback along Floyd Street of 64 feet and a 34 foot setback on Lasula Court; that the proposed setbacks are far in excess of the minimum. Mr. Freedman stated that the required setback along Prospect Street is 20 feet; that this area will be landscaped with no parking permitted in the buffer area; that a wall is being proposed in addition to trees and hedges; that the petitioner would be happy to work with the City on the design of the wall to make it an attractive addition to the neighborhood; that CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) requirements will have to be met. Mr. Freedman stated that he feels the zoning for the area has long been established by the northernmost boundary of any office or office-related uses; that this property was reexamined as far back as 1988 prior to the current adoption of the updated plan; that in 1989 the plan was readopted and amended and a lot of discussion occurred about this IMA (Impact Management Area); that he submits the Minutes of the meeting where both the Planning Staff and the City Commissioners were well aware at the time that this (property) was to be used either for residential or parking in association with offices along Floyd Street, which is what is being proposed. Mr. Freedman stated that the existing land use pattern and the predominant land use pattern along Prospect Street has offices at each end; that the subject property and the property to the west are still in residential use. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Freedman displayed and explained various slides at this time and stated that the office building at the intersection of Prospect Street and Osprey Avenue was approved in 1990; that in 1989 the City Commission heavily discussed whether or not the RSF-4 zoning was appropriate in the area as well as the concern about bringing parking in association with offices on Floyd Street; that after much deliberation, agreement was reached (by the City Commission) that no additional changes were needed. Mr. Freedman continued that the City should be commended for adopting the land use plan it has; that all that is being requested is a continuation of the implementation (of the City's land use plan). Mr. Freedman stated that the slide looking to the east down Prospect Street showed a parking lot and the residential area between the existing office building and the office building being proposed; that the next slide of the Women's Resource Center on Tuttle Avenue abutting a residential area is an example of the City's code and how it works; that he feels the residential area is in very stable condition and not being threatened by office creep. Mr. Freedman continued that the problem being dealt with tonight is in regard to the plan that has been in effect since longer than 1986 and reaffirmed again upon adoption in 1989; that the subject property is to be used for residential uses or parking in association with offices along Floyd Street. Mr. Freedman stated that the next slide is a rendering to scale of how the proposed office building would fit in with the existing uses; that the proposed office will be much lower and smaller than the hospital. Mr. Freedman continued that he wanted to address comments made by the City Manager with regard to where it is felt that the petitioner falls down in meeting the code; that the special exception and rezoning provisions are basically identical; that focusing on the special exception conditions, paragraph 2 pertains to whether the proposed use would be compatible with the established land use pattern; that he submits that parking in association with offices has been an established step-down buffering concept in the City of Sarasota for a long period of time; that paragraph 5 pertains to whether the proposed use would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; that he submits that a parking lot does not negatively influence the living conditions, rather the trees and landscaping will enhance the beauty of the area; that paragraph 10 pertains to whether the proposed use would be a deterrent to the improvement and development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; that all of the adjacent property is already developed in accordance with the code; that the property to the west of Lasula Court is also owned by the petitioner, who has stated on the record previously that he intends and would like to move two of the homes that are currently on the subject property onto the two vacant lots west of Lasula Court; therefore, the area is not losing four homes, but only two homes. Mr. Freedman stated that the property to the north of Prospect Street is the Houck property; that a letter from the owners of this property will be submitted later that they do not object to the proposed use; that he does not believe that approval of this proposal will be a deterrent to the development of any of the adjacent properties in accordance with existing code. Book 35 Page 9874 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9875 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Attorney Russell stated that he wanted to submit a letter from the owners of the property commonly known as the Houck property as Exhibit 2, which states that they do not believe tonight's request will have any impact on their property. Attorney Russell submitted a packet of Minutes of City Commission meetings as Exhibit 3. Mr. Freedman stated that Exhibit 3 consists of excerpts of City Commission Minutes, officially certified by the City Auditor and Clerk, as follows: (1) July 11, 1988 Joint City Commission/ Planning Board Workshop, prior to the adoption of the updated plan which occurred in 1989, (2) March 7, 1989 Special City Commission Meeting, (3) May 15, 1989 Regular City Commission Meeting, and (4) Regular City Commission Meeting of May 1, 1989. Mr. Freedman read from the Minutes of the July 11, 1988 Workshop as Eollows: "Memorial Hospital IMA: Ms. Robinson stated she would like to clarify that in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, just south of Prospect Street . . . that in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, the Hospital core area has been reduced, especially west of Osprey, and it was determined that, since offices already existed on Floyd Street, the northern portion of that block south of Prospect Street would be made eligible for 15,000 square foot lots and limited access; that in the meantime several people had assembled property there based on the 1986 Comprehensive Plan decision. Ms. Robinson continued that there could be a net increase of approximately four offices on the south side of Prospect Street; that on June 16th, the Commission had thought perhaps it would be best to go back to the 1979 proposal which provided for only parking south of Prospect Street. Ms. Robinson stated it was important to remember that on the north side of Floyd street offices were already developed; . - 9 Commissioner Cardamone asked whether the Minutes quoted said south "of" Prospect Street or south "on" Prospect Street? Mr. Freedman stated that the Minutes said south "of. Mr. Freedman stated that later in the Workshop Ms. Robinson responded to a question from Commissioner Kirschner as follows: "Ms. Robinson stated that the result was that the property south of Prospect Street could be used for single family residential at RSF-4 zoning or, if the offices on the north side of Floyd Street decided to expand, they could acquire the land for additional parking with RSF-4. Commissioner Kline remarked that was what the Commission was trying to provide." Mr. Freedman stated that the issue was sO controversial that Mayor Roehr made the following comment: "Mayor Roehr stated that she felt the Memorial Hospital IMA recommendations represented a big decision and because she did not remember the 1986 Comprehensive Plan provisions in this regard, she suggested that a decision be made later to give the Commission chance to review it." Mr. Freedman stated that the Commission reviewed this item further at a Special Meeting on March 7, 1989 and read from those Minutes as follows: "Mayor Roehr stated that the first matter to address was the approval to the proposed Staff amendments and the Capital Improvements Plan. . "The next property for a decision by the Commission was the area of Osprey Avenue and Prospect Street on page 38 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Roehr asked if this was presently in a zoning process. Ms. Robinson answered yes;" Mr. Freedman stated that the Minutes reflect that the Commission began discussion about what was on the rezoning process, which was the McAlpine property at Osprey Avenue and Prospect Street; that Mr. Tirabassi was the representative for this property. Mr. Freedman read from the Minutes as follows: "Mr. Tirabassi stated that they were asking for the '86 Plan, as it pertained to this property, to remain intact; that the '86 Plan had the IMA going from Osprey Avenue to U.S. 41; that the owners of the McAlpine facilities had acquired, in reliance upon the '86 Comprehensive Plan, properties along Prospect Street; that the petition for conditional zoning which they had just filed, only went up to lot No. 10;; that they had not filed a preliminary site plan or a petition for conditional rezoning on the balance of Prospect Street. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Kline it was moved to restore the area of Prospect Street to the IMA which had come into the City under site plan approval. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Kline, yes; Palmer, yes; Roehr, yes. After much discussion it was decided that nothing further would be changed in the RSF-4 area. Commissioner Cardamone asked who was the "they" referred to? Mr. Freedman stated that "they" referred to the McAlpines. Mr. Freedman stated that in May 1989 the rezoning came before the City Commission and the Commission went round and round; that the purpose of the meeting seemed to focus on the fact that the Commission did not want access given on Prospect Street; that in 1990 the McAlpine complex was approved. Mr. Freedman continued that he is pointing out that the City Commission has reaffirmed the establishment of the IMA for many years for the purpose of providing parking in connection with office buildings along Floyd Book 35 Page 9876 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9877 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Street as a step-down from the Hospital core area to the residential area to the north. Mr. Freedman stated that someone once asked him how he would like living across from a parking area; that the first place he lived in Sarasota was across from a parking lot; that he found it to be great because after hours there is no one there, versus living in an apartment complex, because there could be a lot of activity going on all night long. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she wanted the record to reflect that the (subject) property is not zoned for an apartment complex, nor is it an alternative with which this situation could be compared. Commissioner Cardamone asked how many square feet the office building would be? Mr. Freedman stated that it would be 15,327 square feet. Commissioner Cardamone stated that information before her says the building was 44,000 square feet, then reduced to 33,000 square feet. Mr. Freedman stated that originally the proposal was to acquire all of the RSF-4 land across Lasula Court as well; that after two neighborhood meetings, it was decided that this would not be approved; therefore, the building was downsized; that the building will be on the OPB zoned portion. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the petitioner wants buffering 64 feet off Floyd Street? Mr. Freedman stated that it was in order to provide additional landscaping because it would be best to have the building pushed back toward the parking area. Commissioner Cardamone asked why it was best to have the building pushed back closer to the residential portion of the property versus the street? Mr. Freedman stated that from an access standpoint, the building would be Closer to the parking area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Freedman had referred to the Women's Resource Center as a situation with adjacent parking to a neighborhood; that Tuttle Avenue is not a neighborhood street and she has difficulty seeing the relationship between Tuttle Avenue and Prospect Street, which is residential. Mr. Freedman stated that the relationship he was trying to point out was parking adjacent to single-family; that a building is between the parking area and Tuttle Avenue. Commissioner Cardamone asked how many houses existed on the subject property prior to the removal of the homes? Mr. Freedman stated that he is not sure; however, he feels there could not have been more than seven at the most. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a letter was put into the record from the owners of the May Houck Foundation property stating that the owners find the proposed concept compatible with their own development of this property; that if she is not mistaken, the owners of the (Houck) property took down a substantial number of single-family residential homes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that was correct. Mr. Freedman stated that at one time there may have been homes on the (Houck) property. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the area is single-family residential zoned property that is clear of houses; that for the record she stated that she feels it is common knowledge in the neighborhood that there used to be a collection of single-family homes (on the Houck property). Attorney Russell asked Mr. Freedman's professional opinion whether the proposed office parking lot would be incompatible with the established land use in this area? Mr. Freedman stated that he did not; that he feels the parking lot will be an excellent step-down and buffering to the neighborhood to the north. Attorney Russell asked Mr. Freedman's professional opinion regarding whether the office parking lot would adversely affect living conditions within the neighborhood? Mr. Freedman stated that he did not believe sO. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether, in Mr. Freedman's professional opinion, it would be possible to develop this office building, given a variance in height, to accommodate the parking without using the residential area and bulldozing the homes? Mr. Freedman stated that to get a ramp and a decking situation to accommodate 110 parking spaces would not work because the ramp would be too steep; that the existing Ear Research Foundation building would have to be razed and start over from scratch. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it would be possible. Mr. Freedman stated that if an existing office building was destroyed, he believes it could be done. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the size of the existing office building? Mr. Freedman stated that the current building is 10,000 square feet. Attorney Russell stated that the petitioner is not proposing to bulldoze the houses on the property; that the petitioner has offered the houses to the City if the City can make use of them; that a couple of the houses are going to be moved to adjacent lots. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she understands that the houses could be preserved if they are moved; however, the offer to the City has a substantial price tag connected with moving homes and asked whether anyone had information on the cost of moving homes. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:59 p.m. Book 35 Page 9878 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9879 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Attorney Russell stated that a good many years ago he represented Dr. Rosenbluth on the west side of Floyd Street where the City Commission granted the same approval the petitioner is requesting tonight; that Dr. Rosenbluth donated the houses to the City. Attorney Russell asked Mr. Freedman's professional opinion as to whether the removal of the four houses will be a deterrent to the improvement and development of the properties zoned single-family along Prospect Street, between U.S. 41 and Osprey Avenue? Mr. Freedman stated that he did not believe it would be a deterrent. Attorney Russell asked, with reference to the special exception conditions, whether the proposed parking lot would be incompatible with the established residential land use pattern? Mr. Freedman stated that he did not believe so. Attorney Russell asked whether the office parking lot would adversely affect the living conditions in the neighborhood? Mr. Freedman answered no. Attorney Russell asked whether the removal of the four homes from the subject property, two of which will be relocated, would be a deterrent to the improvement and development of the property zoned single-family along Prospect Street? Mr. Freedman answered no. Attorney Russell stated that he did not have further questions for Mr. Freedman; that if anyone wanted to cross-examine Mr. Freedman, they could do so. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her understanding is that Attorney Russell has the ability to cross-examine people and City Staff; that "anyone" is a pretty broad term. City Attorney Taylor stated that if someone has an interest in this proceeding, anyone can inquire to the extent that something has been said. Commissioner Merrill asked whether Mr. Freedman has read the book Edge Cities? Mr. Freedman answered yes. Commissioner Merrill asked whether Mr. Freedman was familiar with the premise in the book that somehow planners are always trying to plan communities the public does not really want and asked whether Mr. Freedman's testimony tonight has been an example of this? Mr. Freedman answered no; that he feels the Comprehensive Plan that has been adopted by the City of Sarasota is being implemented and the guidelines and rules of the land development regulations followed. Commissioner Merrill stated that perhaps planners do not understand the public. Attorney Russell stated that he wanted to call Richard Bass to the Commission table. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether this procedure is an unlimited open-ended hearing, because if so, she would suggest that in the future such types of performances would have to be scheduled other than during a regular Commission Meeting. Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission is seeing some of the limitations of this style of doing business; that it might be fair to ask the petitioner how long the presentation will take. because the Commission might want to continue this hearing to another day and time since the Commission has other business to conduct. Attorney Russell stated that Mr. Bass would be the last formal witness; that he feels Mr. Bass's presentation should only take ten minutes; that he wants to ask Ms. Robinson and Mr. Sollenberger a few questions before concluding his case. Mr. Bass stated that he had not been sworn in. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson swore Mr. Bass in. Mr. Bass stated that his name is Richard Bass; that he is president of Bass Associates, Inc., who are planners, economists, and appraisers. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission was willing to accept Mr. Bass's qualifications as a planner and appraiser. Attorney Russell asked whether Mr. Bass had prepared the report, which will be Exhibit 4, at his direction? Mr. Bass answered yes. Attorney Russell asked for the scope of the report. Mr. Bass stated that the scope of the assignment was to respond to two specific questions set forth in the special exception process, specifically questions 9 and 10 related to economic impact of the proposed rezoning and special exception to the adjacent property; that he proceeded with a study and identified nine additional locations within the City of Sarasota; that 74 individual properties were investigated; that an analysis of these properties was conducted for a six-year period from 1987 to 1992, which have been set forth in two property types; that Type I are those properties adjacent and/or nearby parking lots and Type II are those properties which are primarily abutting parking lots; that the two types of properties are identified beginning on page 8 of the report; that graphics are included representing the specific parcels and are outlined in yellow; that there is an overall analysis of how the assessed values of the properties have gone up over time; that a study was also done of the sales and resales of properties to look at the increases in value. Mr. Bass stated that the issue to be addressed was "Does a parking lot adjacent or in near proximity to residential dwellings negatively impact the value?"; that the report shows graphically and numerically that it does not negatively impact the value of the properties. Book 35 Page 9880 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9881 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it seemed to her that property values have gone up in many areas of the City; that she feels what needs to be addressed is the relative increase in value over the span of years being examined of properties that are adjacent to a parking lot versus properties that are not adjacent to a parking lot in order to see whether the appreciation is pretty much the same. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether such a comparison was done? Mr. Bass answered yes. Mr. Bass stated that in order to analyze properties which physically abut and/or are in close proximity to existing parking lots, he went outside to a block on the same street as a parking lot, which was not impacted in any way, to see what the relative values and increases were; that they were statistically the same; that this is set forth in the report as the Test of Reasonableness on page 33, with the statistical numbers contained in the addendum. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she protested a report of this complexity presented to the Commission without time to see whether the figures are logical and have been chosen in context; that it does not give the City Staff the opportunity to rebut these facts; that this type of information should have been presented beforehand; that it is a farce to pretend that the Commission could digest, understand, and evaluate this report at this moment based on a verbal presentation. Attorney Taylor stated that if the City Commission feels that additional time is needed in order to properly digest and review material submitted tonight, the Commission can take the additional time; that the public hearing could be left open in order to take and receive additional information. Commissioner Merrill stated that he wanted to have the opportunity to read Mr. Bass's report and there was not enough time tonight to do so. Commissioner Merrill continued that the value of a home is based on how desirable it is to the largest number of people and asked whether it was Mr. Bass's contention that in the marketplace it makes absolutely no difference in the market value of a home whether a home is in a single-family subdivision near other homes versus backing up to a parking lot? Mr. Bass stated that the question asked of him was whether or not the proximity of a parking lot impacts values negatively or positively; that based upon the analysis of 74 individual properties at ten different locations in the City of Sarasota, there is no negative impact; that in several instances, there was a positive impact. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mr. Bass has put together a bunch of numbers based on specific properties throughout the City; that he assumes the numbers now must be projected as to their affect on properties that are not in the study. Mr. Bass stated that he could not do that. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mr. Bass is saying that all he can tell the Commission is that out of the statistics, there was no affect on those homes, but Mr. Bass has no bearing on the homes on Prospect Street. Mr. Bass stated that he specifically studied the homes on Prospect Street. Commissioner Merrill asked how Mr. Bass knew the buyers of those homes would not care if they were next to a parking lot or not? Mr. Bass stated that some of the properties sold for higher values after parking lots were constructed on Prospect Street. Commissioner Merrill stated that the homes nearby the proposed parking lot will be less desirable; that he is in the business of selling homes and he can assure Mr. Bass that people would much rather have a single-family home with a single-family neighborhood than backing up to a parking lot. Mr. Bass asked why the properties sell and why have the values gone up? Commissioner Merrill stated that the values of the properties would have gone up more if the parking lot were not there. Attorney Russell stated that Mr. Bass was asked to make a study of the question asked by the rezoning and the special exception criteria in the City's Zoning Code, which is "Is there a negative economic impact by virtue of a parking lot being there?"; that Mr. Bass's response is that there is not a negative impact. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to page 16 of the analysis and stated that five properties on Bay Street adjacent to a parking lot have an average price of $61,608; that the average price of properties on Bay Street removed from a parking lot is $117,000. Mr. Bass stated that the properties removed from the parking lot have a price difference because they happen to be on the water. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that then it is a ridiculous analysis to juxtapose the two things. Mr. Bass stated that if the property is across from a parking lot, it is not (ridiculous). Commissioner Merrill stated that the value of a property is dependent upon the buyers; that buyers should be polled, because if buyers are driven away, the value of a property is going to fall. City Attorney stated that if the Commission has sufficient reasons, this testimony may be discounted altogether; however, he does not believe the Commission is going to get the expert to admit that his report is in some way flawed. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to page 27 of the report and stated that the average property value of houses on Rose Street adjacent to a parking lot is $56,000 and an average of $63,000 for properties not adjacent to a parking lot; that this is a difference of $7,000. Book 35 Page 9882 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9883 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked when a major reevaluation for investment purposes was last conducted? Mr. Bass stated that he believed it was 1990. Mr. Bass stated that he wanted to reiterate the question asked of him, which is criteria 9 and 10 of the special exception conditions as to "whether the proposed use would adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas and whether the proposed use would be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations", ; that to answer criteria 9, based upon the analysis, it is his professional opinion that the improvement of the subject property for a parking lot would not have a negative impact on property values; that with respect to criteria 10, that since he has written zoning codes he takes them literally; that when he sees development of adjacent properties, he takes that to mean the property immediately abutting it; that the subject property is abutted on two sides by roads and by office uses on the other two sides, so he does not feel there would be a detriment to the improvement or development of property. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 8:30 p.m. Attorney Russell called Jane Robinson to the Commission table to be questioned. Attorney Russell asked what her capacity with the City is? Ms. Robinson stated that she is Planning Director with the city. Attorney Russell stated that he trusted that he did not have to tender Ms. Robinson as an expert witness in these proceedings. Attorney Russell asked whether Ms. Robinson had prepared the Staff's recommendations relative to this rezoning and special exception request? Ms. Robinson answered yes. Attorney Russell asked what those recommendations were? Ms. Robinson stated that the recommendation was to find a consistency finding for the proposals and to recommend approval as per the site plan for the special exception and rezoning. Attorney Russell asked whether it was Ms. Robinson's professional opinion that this request met all of the criteria set forth in the code for a rezoning and special exception? Ms. Robinson answered yes. Attorney Russell asked whether the request was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Robinson stated that it was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Russell asked whether Ms. Robinson had reviewed Mr. Sollenberger's recommendation dated November 15, 1993? Ms. Robinson answered yes. Attorney Russell asked whether Ms. Robinson, in her professional opinion, agreed with it? Ms. Robinson stated that she thinks that in this case there is a matter of subjectivity; that she thinks that Mr. Sollenberger made some recommendations relative to residential compatibility that are valid; that she would like to note that in June 1993, the Planning Staff initiated a code amendment to eliminate off-street parking lots by special exception in residential districts; that she believes that at this point in time residential parking lots are not necessarily a compatible land use in residential districts; however, the Comprehensive Plan did take precedent and the Comprehensive Plan was not amended to incorporate the concern relative to off-street parking lots. Attorney Russell stated that this petition is proceeding under the prior version of the Comprehensive Plan, whereby this particular use was compatible. Ms. Robinson answered that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that what she recalls that took place at the (Commission) table was that the Commission decided, on Ms. Robinson's recommendation, to eliminate the ability to apply for a special exception for parking in a single-family residential neighborhood; that the reasoning was as Ms. Robinson had stated and asked why the City proceeded with this particular project? Ms. Robinson stated that the applicant was aware of the pending code amendment and had until second reading to file a petition, which he did; therefore, the petition was valid because the code amendment had not been officially adopted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was interested to know the dates when the Commission heard the beginnings of the discussion of this elimination and when the petitioner actually applied for the special exception. Ms. Robinson stated that she would have to check the record with the City Auditor and Clerk's Office as to when the petitioner applied; that in June (1993) the City Commission heard the recommendation that the code amendment be eliminated relative to parking lots in special exceptions. Mr. Sollenberger stated that on April 5 (1993) the City Commission held the public hearing on this issue of removal of the special exception feature from the RSF-4 zoning classification; that this (issue) was initiated by the Planning Board on January 25; that the Planning Board made a report to the City Commission on March 1, 1993 at which time the City Commission authorized setting the matter for hearing; that the hearing was held on April 5; that he believes that the application for the special exception and rezoning was submitted on April 1. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that was correct. Attorney Russell stated that he had no further questions of Ms. Robinson. Attorney Russell asked the City Manager whether he prepared the Agenda Request dated November 15, 1993 or was it prepared under his direction? Mr. Sollenberger stated that it (agenda request) was prepared under his direction. Attorney Russell asked whether the conclusions set forth in it (agenda request) represented his view on the proposal before the board tonight? Mr. Sollenberger stated that was correct. Attorney Russell asked whether Mr. Sollenberger Book 35 Page 9884 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9885 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. had any experience and/or degrees in land planning? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he did not. Attorney Russell stated that he had no further questions. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Sollenberger to state his qualifications as a City Manager and somebody who has worked with municipal areas and guided them in the past. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he has a Master's Degree in Governmental Administration from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania; that he has been a practitioner in local government administration for 31 years; that he has been a city manager for 24 years in four cities and three states. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing and the following individuals came before the Commission: Dr. Herbert Silverstein, representing the Ear Research Foundation, stated that he had not been sworn in. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson requested all individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings to stand and be sworn in. Dr. Silverstein distributed to the Commission copies of a letter he received in the mail today from the School Board of Manatee County concerning the children's migratory agricultural workers and stated that he wanted to read a paragraph from the letter as follows: Sarasota's Ear Research Foundation has provided medical services to migrant children for many years, including audiological testing, hearing aides, surgery, and other treatment. Appointments are promptly scheduled, and every effort is made to provide necessary audiological services despite the financial circumstances of some patients. On more than one occasion, the Ear Research Foundation has helped children whose parents did not qualify for financial assistance and could not afford needed treatment. The Ear Research Foundation has made a difference in the lives of numerous migrant children residing in Manatee County. We sincerely hope that the City Commission will respond favorably to your rezoning request so that you can build a facility and continue providing vital services not only to migrant children residing in Manatee County, but any person with a hearing disorder. Signed by Brigita Barobs Resource Specialist Dr. Silverstein stated that he wanted to present a little historical background of why he is asking for this petition; that in 1974 he came to Sarasota to practice medicine and specialize in ear diseases and treatment of people with balance difficulty; that in 1983 he built an office building on Floyd Street, at which time several houses were donated to the City; that in 1979 he founded a nonprofit foundation called the Ear Research Foundation dedicated to research, education of physicians and the public, and community service; that an indigent clinic was established as part of the community service to care for people who could not afford private physicians; that 11 years later, 23,000 patients have been cared for, 650 people have been operated on at no charge, half of whom are children; that this operation has been functioning out of a small old building at 1901 Floyd Street, which has 2,000 square feet; that administration offices, the clinic, and laboratories are in this building; that the building has bbecome too small and overcrowded; that early in 1993, the Foundation Board suggested that a new building be erected on the site for the Ear Foundation with parking to be placed on Prospect Street on the adjacent property. Dr. Silverstein stated that the City and Planning Board were contacted and he was advised to apply for a rezoning and a special exception; that he was told that the laws were changing and application should be made quickly; that he was told that if he applied at the appropriate time, the petition would be evaluated under the old laws and be grandfathered" in; that application was made in the appropriate time and numerous meetings were held with the Planning Board staff; that there have been two neighborhood meetings; that the project has been redesigned to reduce the size of the building; that a nice parking lot was designed that will be an addition to the neighborhood. Dr. Silverstein continued that a tremendous amount of money has been spent thus far; that the traffic analysis cost $8,250, the petitions to rezone cost $3,650 (3 petitions), which is almost $12,000 just to apply for the rezoning; that money was also spent on planners, lawyers, architects, and engineers for this project. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Dr. Silverstein had one minute remaining. Dr. Silverstein stated that the petition was turned down 3 to 2 by the Planning Board; that he has sympathy with the neighbors because the hospital (Sarasota Memorial) has erected the Waldemere Towers next to his office, which blocked the view from his office; that this is the reason why the building is being set back so it is not adjacent to a big tall building. Dr. silverstein continued that the Ear Research Foundation has an excellent reputation and has been dedicated to the people of Sarasota for the past 11 years; that on behalf of the Ear Research Foundation, he asks the Commission to allow proceeding with the project in order to be able to continue to help people with problems of ear diseases. Book 35 Page 9886 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9887 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she thinks the community has a great deal of respect for Dr. Silverstein's work in Sarasota, in Manatee County, and around the world; however, this is a land use decision and not based on the fine work being done in the community. Commissioner Cardamone asked when each of the lots had been purchased, Lots 1 through 10 and 11 through 15? Dr. Silverstein asked whether these lots were on Floyd or Prospect Streets? Commissloner Cardamone stated the lots were on Prospect Street and Lasula Court. Dr. Silverstein stated that the Floyd Street and Lasula Court lots were bought in 1979; that one lot on Prospect Street was bought in 1983 or 1984; that the corner lot on Lasula Court and Prospect Street was bought about 1987 or 1988. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether houses were on the lots when they were purchased? Dr. Silverstein stated that the lots still have houses on them; that the properties have stayed essentially the same since he purchased them, except that on Lasula Court there is a lot where the house was donated to the City and this lot is now a parking lot he uses. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether there had been only four houses? Dr. silverstein stated that he was not sure which lots to which Commissioner Cardamone was referring and asked that she point them out. Commissioner Cardamone pointed to the lots about which she was asking. Dr. Silverstein stated that lots 14 and 15 are owned by him; however, he does not own lots 11, 12, and 13; that referring to lots 14 and 15, one lot has a house on it and one is empty; that he proposes to move two of the houses from the other side of Lasula Court onto this property so that three houses will be on two lots; that he has already talked to Zoning and there is enough land for the three houses; that there are four houses on the property on the east side of Lasula Court, and always have been; that two of the houses are in disrepair and are owned by McAlpine property and were purchased for commercial use. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she refers to this as assembling land; that perhaps Dr. Silverstein did not do it; however, this was once residential property with possibly a home on each lot prior to '79; that the properties are assembled and because of being adjacent to the medical complexes and hospital, no longer have that (residential) character they once had. Dr. Silverstein stated that the lot adjacent to this property is the Planned Parenthood office between U.S. 41 and Lasula Court; that he is asking to continue a parking lot down this street; that he does not think the proposed parking lot would hurt the neighborhood at all but will improve the neighborhood; that the parking lot would be across the street from a vacant lot and would not affect anybody in the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether Dr. Silverstein had said that he was currently working out of a 2,000 square foot building? Dr. Silverstein stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what building was the 10,000 square foot building? Dr. Silverstein stated that is his private office building next door; that there are four offices in the 10,000 square foot building; that he wears two hats by being a private physician as well as being president of a private foundation which provides services to the community. Attorney Taylor stated that for the record, the discussion needs to refer to a number or something. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that in the future perhaps the maps should be coded in some way. Dr. Silverstein stated that the property the Ear Research Foundation is presently on is lots 4 and 5; that lot 3 is used as a parking lot. Vice Mayor Patterson asked about lot 16? Dr. silverstein stated that lot 16 is a small building that has a hearing center on it presently. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether this building was owned by Dr. Silverstein? Dr. silverstein answered yes; that his own offices are lots 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, which is the Floyd Street Professional Building with four doctors' offices in it. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether Dr. Silverstein was proposing to build a building on lots 3, 4, and 5? Dr. Silverstein stated that the building would be on lots 3, 4, 5, and part of 16 with the parking on Prospect Street. Edward Padgett from the Ear Research Foundation Mr. Padgett signed up to speak, but was not present. Ernie Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street, stated that when Mr. Sollenberger made his statement, he felt he would not have to come before the Commission; however, after the City Attorney reaffirmed that everything had to be precise, he felt he should speak; that Mr. Sollenberger is the expert in the City and is the boss of Mr. Hewes (Director of Building, Zoning, Housing, and Code Enforcement) and overrides all the zoning decisions as well as all decisions in the City; that the discussion has been about trees, parking, and cars, but no one has been talking about people. Mr. Babb presented a copy of the official County map from 1974 that was in existence when he bought his house in the neighborhood; that along Floyd and Prospect Streets there are houses, with only one office building; that the Xs he put on the map are what the City Commission, at various times for various reasons, has approved; that the Xs are houses that have been removed; that each little increment the Commission approves removes another house. Attorney Taylor asked whether the map could be made part of the record? Mr. Babb answered yes. Book 35 Page 9888 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9889 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Babb stated that the next map he had was from 1989; that at this time the City gave a special permit use for the property across from the other side of the property being discussed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Mr. Babb had one minute remaining. Mr. Babb stated that he understood that he would be able to present his position without a time limit of five minutes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that from the petitioner's perspective, this is a courtroom proceeding; that from the City's perspective, there is no attorney advocate calling people. Attorney Taylor stated that there is nothing wrong with telling each person that they have five minutes; however, if they cannot make their presentation in five minutes, a few more minutes may be added. Mr. Babb submitted several photographs he took recently in the subject area and described them to the Commission to show the difference between a parking lot look and a residential look. Mr. Babb stated that the Planning Director made a finding for the petition that was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that based on this, the Planning Board determined the petition was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that he believes that the Staff incorrectly asserts the proposition that anything allowed in the Zoning Code is automatically in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that the introduction to the Plan reads as follows: "The City, with its particularly fragile environment and high growth pressures, must look to comprehensive planning if the quality of life is to be maintained and enhanced. This plan is intended to manage growth in such a way as to preserve those features which constitute this quality of life, with priorities attached to the following tangible and intangible values: Neighborhoods: preserving the atmosphere, scale, and safety of the existing neighborhoods and providing a range of housing options. 77 Mr. Babb stated that the introduction to the land use element reads as follows: "Public hearings held during the preparation of the 1986 Sarasota City Plan, and during this update, identified neighborhood protection as the major growth issue that must be addressed. Mr. Babb stated that under opportunities it states as follows: "All large vacant parcels in the city are currently designed as IMAs, and as such there are strict guidelines for their development to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses." "Guidelines for the rezoning and development of all parcels designated as IMAs are provided in an appendix to this Land Use Element. 7 Mr. Babb stated that the Land Use Plan Objective is to continue base future land use patterns on compatibility of land uses, suitability of the land for development, and the availability of facilities and services; that the Policy in the Comprehensive Plan states that petitions for rezoning will be evaluated by the local planning agency for consistency with the Sarasota City Plan; that rezoning of land will be limited to those in the Impact Management Areas; that all rezonings must comply with the guidelines defined in Appendix C of the Land Use Element; that all development or redevelopment or changes in zoning or IMA designation shall be evaluated with a view toward the preservation of both the viability of and the quality of life in existing neighborhoods. Mr. Babb continued that the Definitions section of the City's Zoning Code states that a special exception as follows: "A use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction throughout the zoning division or district, but which if controlled as to number, area, location, or relation to the neighborhood, would promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity, or general welfare. Such uses may be permissible in a zoning classification or district if specific provision for such a special exception is made in the Zoning Code." Mr. Babb stated that the petition requires four elements for approval as follows: 1. It must be held in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. It must pass the scrutiny of the elements of the City Zoning Code. 3. It must pass the scrutiny of the elements for the special exception. 4. The elements of the Site and Development Plan must conform to the Zoning Code requirements. Mr. Babb stated that the land under discussion is currently zoned RSF-3 and is not vacant; that there are four houses on the property and they are all occupied; that it is incomprehensible that anyone could adduce that the elimination of viable housing to make way for a parking lot would be in accord with the Goal and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as quoted above. Mr. Babb continued that Book 35 Page 9890 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9891 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. the IMA description on future land use map 19 states that the eligible land use of sub-area 1, the area under discussion, is Residential; that the eligible zone district should be RSF-4 or less intensive; that Other Restrictions-Iandscaping and buffering of residential uses from nonresidential uses should be Limited Access; that these restrictions are not further defined nor do they specify which of the three sub-areas in the IMA they refer to; that there is nothing in these statements that implies that parking is a permitted or implied use; that these are the strict guidelines that the previous articles say are in existence to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Babb stated that the special exception for parking was included in the RSF-4 zone district at the time of filing; that the property was not zoned RSF-4 at the time, but was zoned RSF-3; that if the property had been approved for rezoning, there was no right accrued for the use of the rezoned property with a special exception. Mr. Babb continued that the petitioner filed for the development orders the day before the City passed an ordinance excluding the special exception which would allow the development order; that it is obvious that the City believed that the particular special exception to the RSF-4 district, which would allow parking in a residential neighborhood, was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Babb stated that the following criteria in the City Zoning Code are germane in establishing whether the petition for rezoning is reasonable: 4-7(b) (1): Whether the proposed change would be contrary to the land use plan and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan. 4-7 (b) (2): The existing land use pattern. 4-7(b) (8): Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 4-7(b) (12): : Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 4-7(b) (14): Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 4-7(b) (15): : Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. 4-7(b) (16). : Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use, in districts already permitting such use. Mr. Babb stated that he requests that the Commission deny this intrusion into the neighborhood and preserve the intent and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Edward C. Hendrickson stated that he wanted to know how far the city's rezoning plan would continue; that he resides at lot number 9 and asked whether this had to do with the hospital or the Ear Research? Attorney Taylor stated that the issue has nothing to do with the hospital. Mr. Hendrickson stated that houses make money and parking lots do not. Robin LaNu, representing the Ear Research Foundation, stated that she and her son started going to the Ear Research Foundation 25 years ago; that the Foundation has helped them a lot; that her son has chronic ear infections and will be undergoing surgery soon; that she is deaf in her right ear and has 70% hearing in her left ear; that the Foundation gave her a touch tone phone and has provided her with hearing aides; that she feels enlarging the building is a great idea and she hopes the Commission will consider approval of the rezoning. Kathy Bay had signed up to speak but was no longer present. Sally Mays, 1886 Prospect Street, stated that she is the Executive Director of the Ear Research Foundation and has been employed by the Foundation for the past nine years; that she is sure the Commission is well aware of the many wonderful things the Foundation does; that she would like to speak as a neighbor tonight; that she lives on the west side of Lasula Court adjacent to the proposed project; that she has lived in Sarasota since 1956 and grew up in the City of Sarasota; that she has lived on Hillview Street, Hyde Park Street, and Harmony Lane and attended Southside Elementary School, Sarasota Junior High, and graduated from Sarasota Senior High; that she has watched the community grow and is very proud of the growth of Sarasota; that growth is human nature and everyone wants to better themselves and their community; that she feels this project is a valuable one to the community; that she feels the proposed plan is a very appealing one for the neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone asked how long Ms. Mays has lived at her present address? Ms. Mays stated that she moved into the neighborhood in July. Ishmael Katz, 1891 Prospect Street, stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for ten years; that the houses on the east side of Lasula Court were residential until the past six months and for a short time were used as office space by Dr. Silverstein, until he was informed they were not zoned as such; that it seems that an attempt has been made in the neighborhood over the past few years to buy most of the houses that would be impacted by this project; Book 35 Page 9892 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9893 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. that it seems to him that part of the proof of whether or not the impact of having this kind of project is a negative or a positive in the neighborhood, apart from studies that might be done, is to see the reaction of the neighborhood; that the reaction of the neighborhood to the plan was unilaterally negative; that looking at a tall building is just as negative as looking at a parking lot; that if the project is approved, he feels the building ought to be right on Floyd Street, where there are no other single-family houses and the parking lot put as close to the back of the building as possible. Mr. Katz stated that he does not feel the example used regarding the Women's Health Center is comparable to the situation in this neighborhood; that there are no single-family homes anywhere south of Prospect Street until Hyde Park Street because it is all office buildings and medical offices. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Mr. Katz had reached five minutes. Mr. Katz stated that he thinks the process is going to exist until the offices reach Bahia Vista; that he would like to see this trend stopped at this point; that perhaps Dr. Silverstein could locate the Ear Research Foundation somewhere centrally located between Sarasota and Manatee Counties; that the proposal will bring additional traffic and fumes to his neighborhood. Maxine Leibert, representing the Florida Ear and Sinus Center, stated that she is the administrator of Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Silverstein's private practice, which is the Florida Ear and Sinus Center; that she has been a resident of Sarasota for 18 years; that she considers herself to be an environmentally- and civic-minded person; that at the Planning Board meeting it was her impression that the people in this neighborhood are upset by the encroachment of the hospital; that illness, hospitals, and medical care are necessities of life and must intrude in one area of the City; that the Ear Research Foundation is producing state-of-the-art medical care to the financially handicapped population in a most inadequate facility; that services cannot be increased; that the doctors donate their time; that she feels the facility would enhance the neighborhood. There was no one else who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson Closed the public hearing and stated that the petitioner could now rebut. Attorney Russell stated that despite all that has been said tonight, this property is governed by the prior section of the Comprehensive Plan; that section of the Comprehensive Plan permitted the property to be used as is being requested tonight; that the same section of the Plan was used by other properties on the same street under identical circumstances who received and are utilizing the same special exception and the same rezoning; that the fact that the City chose to change the Plan at some point in time does not affect the petitioner's legal rights to proceed under the then existing Comprehensive Plan; that Dr. Silverstein has spent a number of years and a great deal of money in gathering the properties together; that he is asking no more than what the Commission has granted to other people on this street; that to not do so in Dr. Silverstein's case would be unfair and confiscatory to him. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read a letter dated November 15, 1993 from Virginia Haley as follows: The Honorable Gene M. Pillot Mayor, City of Sarasota Dear Mayor Pillot: I deeply regret that it is not possible to appear before the Commission this evening to express the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations' opposition to the request for a special exception for parking in a residential neighborhood made by Dr. Silverstein. CCNA has taken this position because we have seen the direct link between this kind of special exception and the decline of neighborhoods. This will lead to an erosion of the single family homes which remain on Prospect. Historically, the negative impact of the expansion of hospital and medical facilities into the surrounding neighborhoods is well documented. With each expansion, neighboring properties move from owner occupied to rental and even speculative ownership. The City Commission has listed neighborhood preservation as its number one priority. We urge you to apply that priority to this case. Sincerely, Virginia Haley Chairman Attorney Taylor stated that he thinks the City should summarize the things the City Commission has had before it which are part of this record, which includes the agenda materials that were part of the Commissioners' packages, which he has asked the Clerk to number consecutively by way of pages and denote that they are the agenda materials that were submitted with the packages for the purpose of this meeting; that since this matter comes to the Commission on the recommendation of the Planning Board, which is part of the Zoning Book 35 Page 9894 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9895 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Code process, and the information that was submitted to the Planning Board, as well as the Minutes and recording of the proceedings, should be made part of the record. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the slides should also be part of the record. Commissioner Merrill moved that the Commission ask the City Attorney and City Clerk to prepare verbatim transcripts of tonight's presentation and that a second public hearing be scheduled after the Commission has time to review the transcripts. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that due to the lack of a motion, and the fact that this proceeding is a new experience, she feels an imposition of the parliamentary rule in Roberts Rules of Order whereby a motion needs to be on the table before discussion; that she is willing to entertain discussion at this time. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the Commission has to be careful to handle this issue in a truly judicial way; that if some community's Comprehensive Plan promised someone something and investments were based on the Plan, and the (governing) board tells them they cannot have what was promised, he feels the person would feel aggrieved; that if something was not mandated in the Comprehensive Plan, but a land grab was committed, he wants to make sure the case is presented very well, so that if the City gets sued, that it can defend itself; that the only way he knows to do this is to see what was presented, make sure each argument is taken and find out if the arguments are valid to make a decision; that he does not know how the Commission can make a decision tonight. Attorney Taylor stated that a focal point of the presentation of the petitioner is the reference to the petition being in accordance with the Sarasota City Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, because the Snyder case said that, procedurally speaking, when the rezoning is shown to be in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the petitioner has met his burden of proof and that the proof then switches to the governmental entity to make sure a proper record is made that says why a property should stay as it is. Attorney Taylor continued that he wanted to read from the Snyder decision as follows: "That a comprehensive plan only establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use . the present use of land may, by zoning ordinance, continue to be more limited than the future use contemplated by the comprehensive plan. > Supreme Court's words - "Even where a denial of a zoning application would be inconsistent with the plan, the local government should have the discretion to decide that the maximum developed density should not be allowed providing the governmental body approves some development that is consistent with the plan and the government's decision is supported by substantial, competent evidence." Attorney Taylor stated that he thinks what has been heard tonight is that although the property is in an IMA for RSF-4 for a parking lot, this does not preclude the property from being used for a lesser intensive purpose, i.e., RSF-3; therefore, he does not think this is an open and shut case. Commissioner Merrill asked whether the presentation put forth by the people opposed to this rezoning and special exception has enough detail not to be considered "nonarbitary"? Attorney Taylor stated that ultimately a judge will decide this; that he thinks that the Planning Board had sufficiently good reasons for making their recommendation and developed a record for this purpose; that he thinks the City Manager is a competent person to render his opinion concerning this; that he would like a more detailed record; however, he will take what was presented tonight. Commissioner Merrill stated that this was critical to him; that he does not feel the City is required to rezone this property; that he looks to the City Attorney to be accountable. Attorney Taylor stated that he cannot give the Commission a guarantee, but he thinks the City has made a sufficient record to defend its decision. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she wanted to clarify what is needed from the Commission; that she understands that it would not be inappropriate, given the Comprehensive Plan, for the Commission to say RSF-3 does not deny use of this property, if the Commission does not want to give an RSF-4 zoning; that she understands that the request is not a straight RSF-4 rezoning request, but a conditional rezoning that is inextricably tied with the special exception permit and the plan to create a parking lot; that if this were a straight RSF-4 rezoning request, she is not sure that RSF-3 would not necessarily be the choice. Attorney Taylor stated that the following things are being considered: the rezoning to RSF-4 as a conditional rezoning, which is tied by the Zoning Code to a specific site and development plan, for which there may not be deviation; that this site and development plan, which would also be approved as part of this process if the zoning is approved, is part of the ordinance that rezones the property; that he feels if the Commission turns down the ordinance, it automatically takes care of the RSF-4 zone and the use for a parking lot. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3695 by title only. Book 35 Page 9896 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9897 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 93-3695. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels there are many good reasons (to deny this petition) ; that the office parking lot would be incompatible with the established residential land use pattern; that he feels an office parking lot would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood by removal of four homes from the subject property and replacing single-family use with office use; that the removal of four homes from the subject property and replacement of them with an office parking lot will be a deterrent to improvement and development of the properties zoned single family along Prospect Street between U.S. 41 and Osprey Avenue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she concurs with Commissioner Merrill's conclusions. Vice Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. The meeting was recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:58 p.m. 16. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3696, TO VACATE A PORTION OF SERENA STREET DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SERENA STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BAILEY ROAD, GO SOUTH 89 DEGREES, 52 MINUTES WEST 483.80 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK H OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 36S, RANGE 18E AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 29 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE SOUTH 50 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK D OF SAID SUBDIVISION, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES, 52 MINUTES EAST 483.87 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SERENA STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF BAILEY ROAD, THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES, 05 MINUTES, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF BAILEY ROAD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-SV-02, JAMES R. KEYS, FIRST CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #3 (1687) through (1969) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the petition is to vacate a portion of Serena Street; that the street will be used for access purposes, circulation, and no parking or building will be on the street; that the Planning Staff and Planning Board recommended approval of this street vacation; that the reviewing departments, basically the Engineering Department, approved the street vacation per their criteria; that the Planning Staff and Planning Board's justification is in the Minutes and the tape; that a letter dated November 8, 1993 from Pastor Baucom outlining the benefits is included (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk); that the City received title to a portion of Beethoven Street, which would allow a continuous connection between Bailey Road and Lockwood Ridge Road, should Serena Street ever continue west to Lockwood Ridge Road. Commissioner Merrill stated that it seemed as though the City was not making a commitment to anyone that the street is being opened. Ms. Robinson stated that in the past, whoever develops first, either the commercial office park to the south or the residential portion to the north, would be responsible for developing the street. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City was not promising to open the street. Ms. Robinson stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she understands that the City would be trading one possibility of a through street with another possibility of a through street, with potential future usages of the City sO that if it were necessary, the City would not have to buy right-of-way. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his recommendation is to pass the ordinance on first reading. Pastor Larry Baucom, Senior Pastor of the First Church of the Nazarene, and Kirk Zahniser, 3256 Jolson Drive, representing the First Church of the Nazarene, came before the Commission. Pastor Baucom stated that the First Church of the Nazarene has been at its location on Fruitville Road since the property was purchased in the 1950s; that he has outlined the benefits of the proposed street vacation in the letter to which Ms. Robinson referred; that the church has tried to comply with all of the City's requests; that the church purchased and donated additional property to the City to make sure there will not be a dead-end street; that the church consists of 200 families; that he would appreciate the Commission's consideration of this request. Mr. Zahniser stated that he lives in the neighborhood and the church has the blessing of almost everyone in the neighborhood on this request. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3696 by title only. Book 35 Page 9898 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9899 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3696 on first reading. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she had requested documentation from petitioners outlining the public purpose on street vacations; that the first benefit is listed as the neighborhood image of the City Commissioners; that while the Commission treasures its image, it is not really considered a public purpose. Vice Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 17. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3721, AMENDING CHAPTER 36, VEHICLES FOR HIRE, BY DELETING THEREFROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH LICENSE HOLDER HAVE A DISTINCTIVE COLOR SCHEME; BY DELETING THEREFROM DIVISION 2, POLICE IDENTIFICATION. CARD, AS FOUND WITHIN ARTICLE II, TAXICABS AND OTHER VEHICLES FOR HIRE: BY ADDING THERETO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LICENSE HOLDER REGISTER ITS DRIVERS WITH THE CITY AND PROVIDE PROOF THAT THE LICENSE HOLDER HAS CONDUCTED A CRIMINAL HISTORY AND DRIVERS RECORDS CHECK OF DRIVERS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #3 (1970) through (2523) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the presentation would be made by Sergeant Ingram; that the proposed ordinance is basically an amendment to Chapter 36 to delete certain requirements that will lighten the load of Police investigation time, which could be used for higher priority types of activities. John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission and stated that an amendment to Chapter 26 is being requested that would delete the following requirements: (1) that each cab company has a distinctive color scheme, and (2) that the Police issue a Police I.D. card for drivers of vehicles for hire. Director Lewis continued that this proposal would save approximately 500 Police man-hours per year; that vehicle for hire companies would be required to provide proof of criminal history checks on new drivers to the City Auditor and Clerk; that the criminal history checks can be handled through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for a $15 fee; that fingerprints can be obtained through the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Atkins asked why the requirement for a distinctive color was proposed to be deleted? Sergeant Ingram stated that the distinctive color requirement did not seem to serve any purpose for the City and not enforceable from the Police's standpoint. Commissioner Atkins asked what distinctive color scheme meant to the City Auditor and Clerk? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that if a company chose white, then all of their cabs were white, and so forth. Commissioner Atkins stated that he thinks the distinctive color schemes are important to people hailing cabs; that cab companies can be recognized coming down the street by the color schemes. Director Lewis stated that very little time has been expended by the Police Department in enforcing the distinctive color scheme; therefore, he has no objections to the reference to color deleted from the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Merrill stated that use of a distinct color is to the benefit of a cab company. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she agreed that the cabs should be of distinctive colors; that the word 64, cab" should be written on them to indicate legitimate registered cabs. Director Lewis stated that he has no objection to leaving the requirement for the distinctive color scheme in; that the only requirement the Police Department requests deleting is the one for the Police I.D. card; that all of the other requirements on vehicles for hire pertain to the items the Commission requested stay in the City Code. Commissioner Cardamone asked that the requirements be reviewed with the Commission. Sergeant Ingram stated that cabs are required to have a certificate issued by the City Auditor and Clerk's office to be displayed on the rear window of the vehicle; that the company's rates have to be posted in the window of the vehicle. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. Dale Spencer, 2023 Princeton Street, representing Yellow Cabs of Sarasota, came before the Commission and stated that he was going to ask the Commission to keep the requirements for a distinctive color scheme. There was no one else who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he recommends passing the proposed ordinance on first reading to pertain to the licensing portion and that the distinctive color scheme should remain in the Code. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3721 by title only. Book 35 Page 9900 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9901 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill moved to approve the City Manager's recommendation. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Atkins moved to deny the Administration's recommendation. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3721 on first reading, eliminating the section that says "by deleting therefrom the requirement that each license holder have a distinctive color scheme." Commissioner Atkins asked what was going to be used to replace the Police I.D. and who would be accountable for the drivers? Mr. Robinson stated that he understands that the companies will have to provide proof that a check of the drivers' criminal records has been done through the Sheriff's Department before his office can issue a license to a cab company. Director Lewis stated that the fingerprints can be taken at the Sheriff's Department and then a request submitted to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement with the appropriate fee; that this information would then be taken to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk when application is made for permits. Mr. Robinson stated that each time a new driver is added to a company, the company is required to notify his office and provide proof of the criminal investigation. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether there was an allowance for hiring a driver today, putting the driver to work, and then proceeding with this licensing check? Mr. Robinson stated that this is the current procedure; however, he understands that the proposed ordinance will not allow this. Vice Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3741, AMENDING CHAPTER 26, POLICE, BY DELETING THEREFROM ARTICLE IV, REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-7) #3 (2526) through (2678) Russell Pillifant, Public Safety Department Support Services Commander, came before the Commission and stated that this past year the City's Departments were challenged to meet certain cost-saving measures; that the Police Services Bureau found three cost-saving measures that have no adverse impact on the internal or external customer; that one of these measures was a Senior Clerk dealing with issuance of I.D. cards and fingerprinting (vehicles for hire); that the budget submitted to the Commission saved $26,000 in personnel costs, as well as an additional $2,500 in supplies. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his recommendation is to pass the proposed ordinance on first reading. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3741 by title only. On motion of Commissloner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3741 on first reading. Vice Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 19. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3730, TO REZONE FROM RMF-2 ZONE DISTRICT TO MCI ZONE DISTRICT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 9, 10, 11, 12 AND 13, AND PART OF LOT 14, BLOCK A, MONTROSE PLACE SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 116, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ALSO THE SOUTHERLY 25 FEET OF VACATED TAMISOLA STREET ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF AFORESAID LOTS 12, 13, AND PART OF LOT 14, BLOCK A, MONTROSE PLACE SUBDIVISION: SAID PROPERTY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-CO-04, MERRILL/Y.M.C.A. = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-8) #3 (2681) through (3675) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that this item is a rezoning from RMF ultiple-Family Residential) to MCI (Medical, Charitable, Institutional); that on October 6, 1993 the Planning Staff and Planning Board found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval; that all of the reviewing departments found the Zoning Code requirements had been met; that the Minutes and tapes for justification of this recommendation are available; that the use is for counselling and educational purposes by Anabasis; that a site plan will be developed in phases; that this is a permitted use of a clinic; that no patients will stay all night; that some of the counsellors and educators may stay all night. Book 35 Page 9902 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9903 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his recommendation is to pass on first reading. William Merrill III, Attorney representing the petitioner, and Doug Watters, with Tichenor Group Architects, and Carl Weinrich, with the Y.M.C.A., came before the Commission. Attorney Merrill stated that the petitioner is requesting a conditional rezoning of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Block A, Montrose Place and the vacated Tamisola Street right-of-way adjacent to Lots 12, 13, and 14; that it is for a rezoning from RMF-2 to the MCI zoning district; that the rest of the entire block is zoned MCI with the existing Y.M.C.A. facilities and the old Anabasis property, which is being donated to the Y.M.C.A.; that the subject property will be rezoned to MCI under this proposal to round out the block in this regard; that under the site plan, the proposed uses for this property are biofeedback training and uses, accessory quarters for visiting medical personnel, reception area, workshops, counselling offices, rest rooms, and other MCI uses. Attorney Merrill continued that this meets the criteria of Section 3-12 of the Zoning Code; that it meets the intent of the Zoning Code specifically with regard to development, design, and layout; that Section 4-7 Findings deals with regular rezonings; that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since the property is located in an IMA (Impact Management Area) designated for MCI; that the existing land use pattern clearly indicates that this would round out the block for MCI since there is MCI catty cornered across the street from Doctors Hospital; that this would not tax any public facilities or overload the utilities; that it is a logical extension of the existing district; that there would be no adverse influences on conditions in the neighborhood. Attorney Merrill stated that there will be no drainage problem as a result of this development; that it will improve the drainage situation; that none of the adverse effects or impacts indicated in Section 4-7 will occur; that the existing zoning is not appropriate for the subject parcel. Attorney Merrill continued that the project is compatible with the City's tree protection ordinance; that the site and development plan meets all the criteria. Mr. Weinrich stated that Mrs. (Margaret) Buzzelli is donating the old building, which was valued at $1.7 million, for use for administrative offices and to open a transitional living program for homeless teens; that approval of a federal grant for this was received today. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3730 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins), it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3730 on first reading. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that cities are the places where services are provided; that Anabasis is a service provider and the area has the problems with which this organization is geared to deal. Commissioner Merrill stated that he wishes that sometimes such projects would be put on St. Armands Key or Siesta Key instead of the middle-class neighborhoods, because it drives residents out and down. Attorney Taylor stated that he wanted to remind the Commission that it was still under the special processes of the Snyder case; that with positive recommendations coming to the Commission, a record should be made for grounds of not passing this. Commissioner Atkins requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Atkins, yes. 20. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3757, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED ON DOCKS FOR A PERIOD OF NINETY (90) DAYS, AS SET FORTH HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR SAID MORATORIUM; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING AS MODIFIED (AGENDA ITEM IV-9) #3 (3681) through #4 (0298) Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, Housing, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that as a result of the City Commission's Joint Workshop with the Board of Adjustment on October 12, 1993, he was overruled relative to construction of small buildings on docks; that he admitted that the Code did not absolutely say that buildings could not be built on docks; that he had interpreted from other things in the Code that there was a requirement that nothing could be built 30 feet from the water's edge out; that the Commission felt it did not want to see a lot of little buildings on docks; that this proposed ordinance is a result of this Workshop discussion. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that from the Joint Workshop, she was under the impression that the Commission included dock building per se and not just structures, because of a concern that most people Book 35 Page 9904 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9905 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. wanting to build a dock wanted to build one longer than the 30 feet that is in the City's Code; that she had hoped for some address of what might be a more reasonable length that would not make dock approvals a career for the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hewes stated that this proposed ordinance simply states that no buildings will be built on top of docks for 90 days; that the ordinance the Commission will be presented will be a comprehensive dock ordinance that will deal with buildings and other things. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how a logical conclusion would be reached on the issues that had been discussed? Mr. Hewes stated that an ordinance would be drawn and presented to the Commission to determine whether it is what the Commission will want taken to the Planning Board. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she suggests that the ordinance be discussed with the Board of Adjustment before being presented to the Commission. Mr. Hewes stated that the Board of Adjustment will definitely be involved. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the fourth Whereas in the proposed ordinance reads that "it is the intent of the City Commission to cause Section 6-23, Zoning Code, to be amended to regulate the height of structures constructed on docks and to amend the definition of docks to include such structures " i however, he feels it is clear the Code amendment is to include other matters, including the length of docks; that he feels the preliminary language should address this. City Attorney Taylor stated that he suggests adding "as well as other matters to include length. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3757 on first reading subject to the change Attorney Taylor just offered on the fourth Whereas. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3757 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3757 on first reading as modified. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, noj Patterson, yes. 21. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3763, AMENDING CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE VI OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE PERTAINING TO EMERGENCY RESCUE AND TRANSFER FEES TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF FEES FOR ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT FOR RESCUE OR TRANSFER SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF SARASOTA; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE: PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-10) #4 (0300) through (0347) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission had quite a bit of backup material on this issue; that it is not a zoning ordinance and asked whether anyone needed to hear a presentation? It was the consensus of the Commission to dispense with the presentation. Vice Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one else who wished to speak and Vice Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3763 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3763 on first reading. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 22. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS (AGENDA ITEM V) #4 (0348) through (0350) There were no presentations. 23. CITIZENS . INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #4 (0352) through (0893) Bill Merrill, 2033 Main Street #600, representing the Historic Preservation (HP) Board, came before the Commission and stated that he is Chairman of HP Board for the City; that a motion was passed at the HP Board's last meeting this past Tuesday concerning a recommendation to the City Commission to reconsider adoption of the Historic Preservation Element in such a way that the Element could be budget neutral; that it is felt that it is very important for the Historic Preservation community to have this type of so-called victory; that the City Staff put a lot of time and effort into the HP Element; that as far as the City's budget goes, the HP Board feels that by taking one of the alternatives that had been presented by the Staff and that was suggested by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the same thing could be accomplished as was accomplished by taking no action whatsoever. Mr. Merrill continued that the DCA said that the City has expressed concern over its ability to fund many of the proposed implementation Book 35 Page 9906 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9907 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. activities; that while this is a valid consideration, it should not prevent the City from establishing reasonable and measurable objectives. Mr. Merrill stated that adopted objectives may always be revised to reflect change in local conditions; that the HP Board suggests that a date be put in the HP Element far enough in advance that would not require the City to expend funds and Staff time; that he asks that the City Commission revisit the HP Element and perhaps set it for a public hearing; that if the City is willing to do this, the only problem he sees with it is the time element; that he understands the 60 days from the State expires sometime around November 22. Commissioner Merrill stated that he likes the concept of the HP Element being revenue neutral with a heavy reliance on volunteers. Commissioner Cardamone asked how difficult it is to ask for an extension of the 60-day deadline? Ms. Robinson stated that she would have to contact the DCA. Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney Schenk told him that there is a new rule by the DCA that changes the deadline from 60 to 120 days. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is supportive of the preservation community; that she would like to see the Commission look at this issue one more time to see whether there is a way the HP Element can be put into the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it sounds as though there are two people who would like to see the HP Element looked at again; that she feels this Commission had the opportunity to overrule the chair if discussion had been desired at the time the Commission was considering the HP Element; that she is supportive of the historic preservation community and felt very uncomfortable through the public hearing knowing she was going to support the Staff recommendation; however, she feels more uncomfortable putting something in the Comprehensive Plan that she has no clear idea of how it will be funded; that she feels the City needs some Staff help with historic preservation or should hand the job to the County to do for the City; that absent a clear plan and clear identification, she does not want to proceed on a hurry up basis to get it into the Comprehensive Plan; that next year is another year and perhaps the City will have more in the way of resourcesi; that perhaps all of the volunteers will have demonstrated to the Commission how totally revenue neutral the City can be in the future. Commissioner Atkins stated that he did not intend to support this idea that was submitted by the Chairman (of the HP Board) ; that he feels the City did the best it could with the time it had; that he is ready to move on from it. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to say to the historic preservation community that there will be another dayi that this is not intended as a slap in the face by either her or Commissioner Atkins. Karie Levin, 4520 Bliss Road, came before the Commission and stated that she came to discuss what she feels is a very serious situation; that a sexual harassment problem occurred in October involving a City employee by the name of Ray Grady; that she commends the City and Police Department for a speedy investigation; however, the problem is still unresolved in her mind; that she received a letter from City Manager Sollenberger stating that he was going to seek help for Mr. Grady because of this complaint and prior accusations; that it seems as if Mr. Grady feels free to touch employees in private places without risk of reprimand; that she felt the letter was written to appease her and has as yet to see any actions taken by the City toward Mr. Grady; that there have been numerous complaints against Mr. Grady over the years; that she had pressed charges of battery on Mr. Grady because she feels the situation is more serious than believed; that she had to quit her job at Tavern on the Green, which took away her livelihood of income for fear of working in a stressful environment with Mr. Grady; that Mr. Grady was not her supervisor; however, she was told by other employees that he watched over her more suspiciously than any other employee. Ms. Levin continued that her purpose is to make the Commission see that Mr. Grady's position is not the correct position for this employee; that he does not work well with people and has no affinity or feeling for other people; that he is a poor representative as a City employee. Ms. Levin stated that she would like the Commission to reconsider its position in this matter and look long and hard at this situation; that the problem needs to be rectified; that if it is not, sexual harassment charges will come up again against Mr. Grady; that she is serious in her pursuit of a solution. Ms. Levin thanked the Commission for listening to her. City Manager Sollenberger stated that personnel matters fall within the realm of the City Manager; that Ms. Levin and he spoke on October 12; that he spoke to her for approximately 15 minutes between 1:30 and 1:45 p.m., at which time Ms. Levin made allegations that Mr. Grady had sexually harassed her; that he spoke with the Deputy City Manager and the Chief of Police within half an hour (after talking to Ms. Levin) ; that he asked the Police Chief whether the Police Department would be an appropriate vehicle to conduct an investigation; that the Police Chief told him that the nature of the complaint brought by Ms. Levin was of a potential criminal nature; therefore, would justify the involvement of the Book 35 Page 9908 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9909 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Police Department; that the Police Department made an investigation and interviewed Ms. Levin and Mr. Grady. Mr. Sollenberger continued that Mr. Grady denied the charges; that Ms. Levin told the Police Department that she would not prosecute, but maintained the charge; however, Ms. Levin said that the contact could have been inadvertent; that notification from the Police Department that Ms. Levin declined to prosecute meant that this matter was no longer of a criminal nature, at which time Mr. Davenport, Director of Human Resources, was asked to assume the internal investigation; that at this point both parties were asked to voluntarily submit to polygraph testing, which they did; that the result of the polygraph tests was that neither party was determined to be telling any untruths. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there was no substantiated or sustained basis for the charge against Mr. Grady; that he wrote a letter to Ms. Levin which reads as follows: October 26, 1993 Dear Ms. Levin: I have now been provided with results of the investigations regarding your concerns reported to me on October 12, 1993. First, let me say that I appreciate your having brought your concerns to our attention. The City of Sarasota and the Bobby Jones Golf Complex are committed to providing excellence in customer service and, in doing so, we need input from persons who, like yourself, are personally affected by our operations. Immediately upon receiving your complaint, I requested a police investigation to determine if legal action was warranted and an administrative investigation to determine if any personnel rules had been violated. Having been furnished the investigatory results, I have now determined that no criminal conduct took place. Further, disciplinary action for violation of personnel rules would not be sustainable on the evidence. For your information, the results of the polygraph tests disclosed no untruthful statements by any party. I did determine that Mr. Grady should receive positive instruction and guidance aimed at ensuring a suitable relationship between the Golf Course Manager and employees/contractors of Prestige Food Service. The steps I have taken are intended to promote continuous improvement in the operation of the Bobby Jones Golf Complex. I regret that circumstances arose that caused you to have to come forward to my office, and I feel that this type of situation will not develop again. Mr. Sollenberger stated that this concluded the City's investigation and handling of this matter. 24. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3729, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM I ZONE DISTRICT COUNTY ZONING TO I ZONE DISTRICT CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOODRICH AVENUE AND MYRTLE STREET, WITH STREET FRONTAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MYRTLE STREET OF APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET: SAID PARCEL IS KNOWN AS THE SCRAP-ALL RECYCLING CENTER WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1735 MYRTLE STREET; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-CO-05, MARK SCIME, SCRAP-ALL OF SARASOTA, INC.) = ADOPTED (AGENDA VII-1) #4 (0895) through (1506) City Manager Sollenberger stated that questions were raised at the last City Commission meeting as to the legality of the use of the subject property under the City's Zoning Code; that he asked Mr. Hewes (Director of Building, Zoning, Housing, and Code Enforcement) to review this matter and Mr. Hewes found that the use is legal; that he recommends adoption on second reading. Bill Hewes came before the Commission and stated that he visited the Scrap-All site and found that there was a large amount of material in the yard which could be classified as junk; that he talked with the manager and asked him to explain what went on at the facility; that the manager stated that he was operating a transfer and separation center in the recycling industry and none of the materials which were on the lot that day would be left at the close of business on Friday; that he had an inspector visit the site each day through Friday; that on Friday morning, the inspector said that it was obvious that none of the materials on the lot were the materials that had been there on Tuesday; that as a result of this investigation, it was his determination that Scrap-All is not a wrecking or junk yard in the sense as specified in the City's Zoning Code. Mr. Hewes continued that it was his further decision that this business is a transfer and separation center for recycling; that the City of Sarasota Zoning Ordinance was prepared approximately 25 years ago when no such operations existed; that Section O of the Zoning Code allows uses that are not unlawful to be used in addition to the uses specified; that he feels that this Book 35 Page 9910 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9911 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. business would not be an unlawful use and would be a use that was allowed. Mr. Hewes stated that he asked Tim Litchet (Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement) to call the County and ask the County's position when the permit for construction of the facility was issued; that Mr. Litchet talked with Mike Miller, the Director of Zoning for Sarasota County, and Mr. Miller stated that in the County's view, Scrap-All was a recycling center engaged in the transfer and distribution of recycled materials; that the County made a ruling in the past that allowed such a facility to go in an ILW (Industrial, Light and Warehousing) area, which is the next restricted area up from Industrial. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether ILW was more or less restrictive than Industrial? Mr. Hewes stated that ILW is more restrictive than Industrial. Mr. Hewes stated that the County recycling facility at North Washington Boulevard and 17th Street is in an ILW district; therefore, Mr. Miller gave it no thought at all when Scrap-All requested a permit for recycling in an Industrial district. City Attorney Taylor stated that his memorandum dated November 10, 1993 was in response to a question concerning the Zoning Code and whether or not this particular use was permissible within the district; that another question raised during the discussion of the last City Commission meeting was whether or not it might be possible to deannex the property. Attorney Taylor continued that he was also asked to sum up the City's legal position in this matter; that after talking with the representative of the owner, he came to the conclusion that if the City were to deny the rezoning and attempt to remove the water service, it was likely that a lawsuit would be filed to protect the right to water service. Attorney Taylor stated that the City started out with a contract between the City and the property owner which stated that the City would provide water in exchange for a petition filing for annexation; that he thinks this contractual obligation remains one way or the other; that after going this far, he feels that the City has a very poor legal position if the Commission turns down the rezoning of this particular property; that he feels there is a high degree of likelihood that the City would end up paying damages in a suit for breach of contract. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he recommends passing the ordinance on second reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3729 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the City Manager's recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it appeared to her that while the City might have the option of deannexing this property, the City has a contractual obligation to provide water service to the property; that if this issue is litigated and the City loses, the City might be obligated to provide water service anyway. Attorney Taylor stated that was correct; that this process went along through a number of acts over a period of months to a conclusion; that even if the City were to make a proper record to deny the rezoning, he is convinced the property owner is after the water service with or without the City's zoning. Commissioner Atkins stated that he feels a strong statement needs to be made on behalf of the community on which this petition impacts; that he feels legal jargon is just that; that when this Administration and the City Attorney want to support a petition, the language can be created to do it; that when it is decided not to support a petition, the language can be created to not support it, as was done on a previous petition tonight with the same type of history and the same type of votes; that the City Attorney has advised the Commission on other occasions that the City would not lose cases, but cases have been lost; that he believes the Commission has an opportunity to make a statement relating to its commitment to all of the people of the City of Sarasota; that if there is any community that would like to have a recycling junk yard in it, vote for this petition; that if there is any community that would not like to have a recycling junk yard, vote against this petition. Commissioner Atkins continued that the City could creatively decide whether to allow Scrap-All to have the City's water service and whether to allow them to be adjacent to our back door; that this Commission has not taken a position on behalf of the community yet; that it has only been a legal position and a tax collecting position and not a human position; that this is typical of all of the other hazardous waste dumping around the African American community of Sarasota. Commissioner Atkins stated that is just happens that because of discriminatory practices in housing in the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County, 90% of African Americans live in the same area of the city and all of the poison is right around their back doors; that he feels the City has legal grounds to fight this matter; that he is going to vote against this petition and is disappointed by what he perceived as a neighborhood preservationist Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this is the tail end of a series of votes taken by the same Commission sitting here; that unfortunately these concerns were not expressed earlier on when the City had a stronger leg on which to stand; that this property is Book 35 Page 9912 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9913 11/15/93 6:00 P.M. part of an industrial park that is not regulated to the extent that the city regulates things in this zone; that the City placed additional regulations on this property because of a great discomfort for the residential homes across from this usage; that nobody who votes for this is going to vote it without a very heavy heart on this issue. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 93-3729. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 25. BOARD APPOINTMENTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (1507) through (1509) There were no board appointments. 26. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (1522) through (1589) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: None COMMISSIONER MERRILL: None COMMISSIONER ATKINS: None VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that she has been assured by the City Manager that a fire that occurred on 17th Street is under investigation; that she urges this investigation to proceed with full speed because of the substantial property damage; that she feels the City needs to determine what, if any, responsibility the City has in this matter. City Manager Sollenberger stated that it is correct that the City is proceeding with an investigation; that there are two items of focus, one being the handling of the communications end of it and the other being the cause of the two fires; that as soon as the investigation is completed, he will review it with the legal staff and furnish the Commission with the outcome of the investigation. 27. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (1590) through (1592) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: None CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: None CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: None 28. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1594) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of November 15, 1993 adjourned at 11:24 p.m. Mora Aalleen NORA PATTERSON, VICE MAYOR ATTEST: Billyg Rwbene 6 BILLY EDROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 35 Page 9914 11/15/93 6:00 P.M.