MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot 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. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY #1 (0030) through (0052) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: 1. Add under Scheduled Presentations Item No. V-1, proposed Police operations to combat juvenile delinquency. 2. Add to Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-5, the proposed agenda for the November 22, 1993, Commission Workshop concerning crime in Sarasota. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION RE: PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS IN THE PIONEER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD #1 (0052) through (0884) Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Danny Bilyeu came to him as a private citizen with safety concerns for his family, and does not represent any particular organization, neighborhood, or otherwise; and that this presentation was at his direct personal request, not that of Mr. Bilyeu. Danny Bilyeu, representing himself, came before the Commission with a child's bicycle and stated that he has a wife and a five-year old Book 35 Page 9788 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9789 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. daughter; that his family went to purchase a bicycle for his daughter at Walmart for her fifth birthday; that he felt compelled to browse at the guns because of the crime in his neighborhood; that he fears for his family; that there was a murder at Sixth Street and Cocoanut Avenue this year; that he has owned a home on Cocoanut Avenue near Pioneer Park for ten years; that he purchased his home as a bachelor in 1983; that he got married in 1986 and his wife refused to live in the neighborhood although it is the best location in the City of Sarasota; that he used the house as a rental property; that he tried to sell the property; that he received negative responses from people as to the "bad" area; that crime has gone up and down without any resolution; that he and his family moved back into the house in 1991 and made major renovations; that the month his family moved into the house, a murder occurred across the street at the now named the La Cocoanut Apartments; that his family has purchased and trained a dog; that he fears for his wife and child's safety when he is called away at night; that 11th Street and Coconut Avenue is a "hot spot"; that he has had confrontations with the drug dealers and the prostitutes who ask "what are you doing here"; that he is a prisoner in his own home; that people may think "why doesn't he move?" Mr. Bilyeu continued that he wants to move on his own terms; that he does not want to take a loss on his property; that he will accept any offer of fair market value; that the Police can not do anything unless the criminal activity is caught in the act; that he had a confrontation one night while walking his dog; that his wife feared that the dog could be poisoned or killed by the man he confronted; that it is hard to understand how he feels unless you have lived like a prisoner in your own home; that he would like his opinion on crime publicly known; that crime is economically feasible to have; that crime can be stopped, but if crime were stopped numerous people would be unemployed. Mr. Bilyeu passed out an article from the October 11, 1993, Sarasota Herald Tribune and stated that he is not a criminal justice major; that his district Commissioner has done some good things regarding the social aspect; that Commissioner Merrill also has a good stand; that the judge who declined to participate in the upcoming crime summit on November 22nd should be ashamed of himself; that a good leader is necessary for the crime summit to work; that his neighborhood is willing, ready and able to contribute to the fight against crime; that the Downtown North Neighborhood Association has been organizing a Pioneer Park Crime Watch; that the City should pay for signs to be erected to deter criminals and criminal activity; that he admires and appreciates the effort his neighbors Sara and Paco Ramirez have shown in the Pioneer Park area; that if he were the Mayor, or a Commissioner, or the Director of Public Safety, or the Chief of Police, he would be ashamed that a citizen has to sit on his porch with a pair of binoculars overlooking a park when tax dollars are paid to the Police and others to do this; that he would like to know what to do. Mr. Bilyeu stated that his daughter can not ride her bicycle on the neighborhood streets; that she has to ride it in the house or be taken to another neighborhood because of the element; that he no longer wants to feel like a prisoner in his house; that he appreciates the Mayor allowing him the time to speak as a citizen without representing an organization. Mayor Pillot stated that he met Mr. Bilyeu three or four years ago when he was new on the Commission and attended the dedication of the improvements to Pioneer Park; that he has observed Mr. Bilyeu's interest in contributing as a citizen which is part of the reason he asked Mr. Bilyeu to speak; that Mr. Bilyeu's candid speech personalizes the issues of the November 22, 1993, Public Safety Workshop; that the bicycle represents the personalized aspect; that Danny Bilyeu shovelled dirt and helped to develop Pioneer Park, but his daughter can not ride her bicycle in that park; that safety can not be over emphasized; that it is a shame that Mr. Bilyeu wants to move from the City; that the Commission has emphasized and prioritized the redevelopment and assistance to Downtown North; that citizens such as Mr. and Mrs. Ramirez and Mr. Bilyeu are needed to make the community one of the best places to live, and if these citizens or their neighbors give up and move out, the City has lost. Mayor Pillot stated that citizens are allowed to speak on any subject on the Agenda; however, the Commission is required by advertisement to start the Public Hearings at 6:30 p.m.i that Mary Quillin will be allowed to speak at this time; that other speakers will be allowed to speak during the Citizen's Input section of the Agenda. Mary Quillin, President of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, came before the Commission and stated that she is the coordinator of five Neighborhood Watch Programs in the Downtown North area; that Vice Mayor Patterson has observed the commitment of the citizens in the Pioneer Park neighborhood; that the neighborhood is working together to get to know their neighbors; that this is the year of unification as neighbors in Downtown North; that the Downtown North Neighborhood Association is assisting to remedy the current code violations; that the people want a better community; that the Pioneer Park Neighborhood Watch program started in the spring of 1993 at a picnic in Pioneer Park. Ms. Quillin offered a piece of wisdom used by the Downtown North Neighborhood Association, "Cooperation, participation, unified, we can accomplish anything. Book 35 Page 9790 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9791 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Poco Ramirez, Coordinator of the Pioneer Park Neighborhood Watch, 1160 Cocoanut Avenue, came before the Commission and stated that he went door to door from 10th Street to 14th Street to Central Avenue to US 41 to invite the residents to join in the fight against crime in the Pioneer Park area; that many improvements have been accomplished; that more lights have been put in the park; that he has notified the Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department requesting that the ditch be cleaned because criminal elements are hiding in the ditch; that Sarasota County Parks told him it would take six months to address that problem; that he personally cut weeds in the ditch because there was little cooperation from the Sarasota County's Parks and Recreation Department; that he views activity from his porch through his binoculars and notifies the Police daily of criminal activity; that much of the crime element has moved from Pioneer Park to 11th Street; that more help in improving the park is necessary. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Bilyeu supplied him with a succinct list of recommendations including cleaning up the ditches; that the list has been referred to the City Manager; that if citizens contribute as Mr. Ramirez, Ms. Quillin, and Mr. Bilyeu have, then sections of the City that have been lost to crime will be regained. Mayor Pillot thanked the Commission for their indulgence of his scheduling Mr. Bilyeu's presentation. 3. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1993 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0895) through (0905) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of October 18, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: 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.) ) = PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH STIPULATIONS OF MAINTAINING A FENCE 8-FEET IN HEIGHT AND SHOWING NO VISIBLE METAL MATERIALS -= (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0946) through (3400) City Attorney Richard Taylor stated that his assignment was to review the public record and advise the Commission as to the particular circumstances of this rezoning request; that the Commission questioned the land use to be allowed by the rezoning to the (I) Industrial Zone District; that the potential problem that may be a result of the process followed is that there are a significant number of stages in preannexation circumstances which proceed a contract; that after completing many steps including public hearing steps, zoning code amendments, annexations, and comprehensive plan amendments, a final stage is arrived at; that the anticipated use for the property has been built and has been operating with the City's knowledge and consent; that the land use was allowed under County building and zoning regulations before the City annexation; that there have been many official actions; board reviews, recommendations, and approvals; that the question is now raised whether the City Commission can lawfully refuse to grant the conditional rezoning or if limitations can be placed on the conditional rezoning which have not been presented previously; that adjustments can be made if the record is properly documented to support it; however, he cautions that if the decision at the table appears to be arbitrary as compared to all of the time, effort, and study that has gone into the rezoning, then the City will be placed in a negative position if the decision is challenged; that the annexation and rezoning procedures need to be reviewed regarding development under other-entity zoning codes. Mark Scime, Petitioner representing. Scrap-All of Sarasota, Inc. 4112 West Osborne Avenue, Tampa, FL, came before the Commission and stated that this hearing is the fourth hearing in the annexation/rezoning process; that numerous plans, studies, staff reports, staff visits, staff meetings, and public hearings have occurred; that much time and money has been expended by his client, Scrap-All; that it was understood that his client would be able to continue to enjoy the property rights as in the County; that Scrap- All has complied with the intent and all the stipulations of the Preannexation Agreement with the City of Sarasota; that the site, surrounding land uses, and allowable land uses have been thoroughly studied by City's Staff; that the City Staff has recommended approval. Book 35 Page 9792 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9793 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Scime presented an aerial view of the property before Scrap-All purchased the property, and pictures of the property and adjacent industrial uses to date. Mr. Scime stated that an asphalt plant, a concrete plant, and an acoustical tile business are currently operating adjacent to the property; that an 8-foot buffer fence which completely surrounds the property adjacent to the residential area has been erected; that extensive landscaping has been performed to serve as a buffer; that his client is sensitive to the neighborhood and has built a new building at great expense; that his client purchased a site where industrial uses were allowed; that his client depended on continuing to use the property as originally zoned; that if the property rights are not allowed then, Scrap-All may secede from the City; that the City would lose tax revenuej that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan submitted to the state of Florida allows industrial uses in the property area; that Scrap-All is the best of the currently existing industrial uses on the street; that his client requests that the Commission grant the rezoning application based on the City's Staff report and the City Attorney's advice. Commissioner Atkins asked Mr. Scime the following: "Do you expect for us to accept the best of what is there as good enough for the City of Sarasota? Do you think that because you are less toxic than a concrete company or an asphalt company that we should accept you being across the street from residents and annex you into the City without any consideration for the residents there?" Mr. Scime stated that his client has attended numerous hearings; that none of the community members have publically come forward with any objections; that his client has completely buffered the site; that if no development occurred on the site, the previous unappealing site would still exist; that the best is better than what was previously there. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Commission has the responsibility to represent citizens who do not attend public hearings; that he is the district representative; that just because people do not come to public hearings does not mean they agree; that the City is allowing a junk yard to annex into the City of Sarasota; that the Commission has been discouraging similar types of industrial uses; that now there is no justification for the annexation; that he agrees with the suggestion to deannex Scrap-All from the City of Sarasota; and that he did not have a problem with the annexation of the property until Scrap-All started hauling major junk onto the property. Commissioner Merrill asked if Scrap-All plans to store any visible junk on the open space on the property? Mr. Scime stated no, that it is not their intention; that the property rights need to be protected to erect a warehouse or an industrial type building in the future; that the buffer fence is high enough to protect visibility; and that scrap metal is stored on the site which is consistent with industrial zoning. Commissioner Merrill asked if Mr. Scime is willing to set limitations to eliminate the effect of a junk yard? Mr. Scime stated that City Staff and the owner would have to develop an agreement; that there is not a measure of how much can be stored. Commissioner Merrill asked if Mr. Scime is willing to stipulate that the fence will be maintained in a first-class manner? Mr. Scime stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the County has no sensitivity to the residences aligning the edge of this industrial area; that no controls would be placed on the property by the County if it were to deannex; that the City obtains the ability to control the uses and enforce stipulations by annexing these areas; that the public hearings regarding annexation and rezoning should be held simultaneously; that the state's decision to disallow simultaneous hearings should be appealed. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing; there was on one who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. 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 pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3729 on first reading with stipulations that the property maintain a fence 8-foot in height with landscaping in a first-class appearance. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to stipulate that no visible scrap metals or materials being processed show above the specified level of the fence. City Attorney Taylor stated that if the materials are visible over the fence level, Scrap-All will receive a code violation; and that a civil action could be taken to enforce the ordinance. Commissioner Atkins stated that there is a junk yard moving into a City neighborhood; that the County allowed the Industrial Park because it is across the street from an African/American community; that the City has encouraged chemical plants to be relocated near Interstate 75; that this is another instance of hazardous waste Book 35 Page 9794 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9795 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. dumping in an African/American community; that there is no excuse, explanation, or justification for one poisoning of one child across Myrtle Street or one sooty, noisy, truck delivering materials at 3:00 a.m. Commissioner Atkins continued that other district neighborhoods are being preserved; that if the Commission votes for this ordinance they are condoning giving cocaine and poison to blacks. Mayor Pillot stated that code enforcement of the stipulations would be difficult; that the property is diagonally across the street from a growing major school campus; that the 8-foot high fence can not suppress noise, large vehicular traffic, or air-borne substances; that he does not want to compound an oversight or an error; that he does not object to Scrap-All deannexing from the City; and that he can not agree to the rezoning for the current use of the property. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City residents would be better protected if the property remains in the City where controls can be placed on it; that the petitioner could file legal suit against the City; that the zoning will be approved under a law suit and it will only cost the City money. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the Amendment to the Motion. Amendment carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would not vote to put something in this neighborhood that she would not put in her own neighborhood; that the usage already exists in this neighborhood; that the only thing that voting against the ordinance would accomplish is a point and a no-win lawsuit. Commissioner Cardamone asked Commissioner Atkins where he was on April 5th, April 19th, May 24th, and on June 7th when all the proposals were brought to the table and received 5 to 0 votes? Commissioner Atkins stated that at that time the usage was not a detriment; and that the usage has become more intense. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there is an opportunity to control industrial uses that abut the City's residential area; that Scrap-All is a model for the other industrial properties in the area; that a petitioner should not be brought this far in their usage of a property for the Commission to change their mind. Mayor Pillot stated that he did not contemplate the impact of the annexation and the rezoning that went with it; that he voted without full investigation which is an inexcusable way to vote; that when an error is acknowledged he will do his best to correct it; that his justification is not to condone that which will create, maintain, or continue a traffic hazard of large vehicles across the street from a growing school campus of children, or the generated noise or the possible air-borne pollutants. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Scime to address hazardous waste and noise; and advised him that the City of Sarasota has a noise ordinance. Mr. Scime stated that the site is regulated by the Department of Fire Prevention Environmental Regulation; that Scrap-All's type of use is inspected annually to maintain clean standards; that operation is from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday; and that the City Staff who have made several on-site visits have not noted any noise concerns. Commissioner Atkins stated that this ordinance is a rezoning; that the Commission has the opportunity to stop a mistake now; that there is no justification for it; that there are several different options available on conditional rezonings; that he is disappointed in the Commission, the Administration, and the City Attorney. Commissioner Merrill stated that although he will be voting against a district Commissioner, he feels that the City has stricter code entorcement ordinances than the County; and that the residents will be better protected in the City. Mayor Pillot stated that he is concerned about environmental protection; and that the only way to avoid certain elements and accidents is to be sure the industrial use does not exist; however if it does exist, he does not want to be a part of sanctioning it. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with tho roll-call vote. Motion carried as amended (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Commissioner Merrill asked if other Commissioners support having scrap or junkyards removed from the City of Sarasota's Industrial Zoning? The consensus of the Commission was to start the process to remove scrap or junk yards from the Industrial section of the City of Sarasota Zoning Code. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: 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 Book 35 Page 9796 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9797 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (3414) through (3573) Vice Mayor Patterson left the chambers at 7:28 p.m. William Hewes, Director of Building, Housing, and Zoning came before the Commission and stated that strip lighting is currently prohibited from the sign ordinance; that the outlining of buildings are now considered acceptable; and that a soft fiber-optic light is utilized for the strip lighting. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3706 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No 93-3705 on first reading. Mayor Pillot 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, Pillot, yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: 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 YEARS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (3575) through #2 (0157) Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Chambers at 7:31 p.m. Don Hadsell, Director of Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that the Community Development Department has been trying to increase home ownership opportunities throughout the Cityi that in the past year, 57 houses have been rehabilitated, 13 rental units have been converted to home occupancy, and 21 homes have been financially assisted with construction; that the ordinance requests limited relief of the Impact Fees for non-profit organizations; and that the ordinance provides for establishment of a transfer of Impact Fee credits in certain circumstances. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3745 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3745 on first reading. Commissioner Merrill asked if credits for roads could be applied to sewer and water? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:42 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: 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) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (0204) through (0553) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the property is the former Coast Bank building located at the corner of U.S. 41 and Bee Ridge Road; that it is being converted into a restaurant; that the existing County Zoning for the property is Commercial Intensive (CI); ; that the proposed City land use is Commercial Intensive; and that the petitioner is seeking annexation to gain City sewer service. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:45 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson requested a complete description of the intended use of the property; and stated that the annexation process needs to be changed. Commissioner Merrill stated that conditional rezoning is based on the site plan; however, a business can change to any allowable Commercially Zoned use; that the issue is the use classification not the site plan. Book 35 Page 9798 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9799 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Brent Parker, representing the petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that Boston Rotisserie Chicken is the restaurant property owner; that a portion of the property is in the City; that the request is to annex the remainder of the property; that annexation of this property will assist in future potential annexations. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the property will be used as a drive- thru facility? Mr. Parker stated that the property will have a pick-up window, but no menu board; that the pick-up window provides convenience to the customers who call or fax in an order. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3748 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 94-3748 on first reading. Mayor Pillot stated that this proposed use is surrounded by high commercial; and that it is not surrounded by homes or schools. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3752, AMENDING ARTICLE XV OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE 45 DAY WAITING PERIOD CURRENTLY REOUIRED 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 STRUC- TURES IN LIEU OF DEMOLITION: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #2 (0558) through (0610) Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 7:57 p.m. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed Ordinance regulates only the demolition of structures that are 45-years old or older and are on the Florida Master Site File opposed to those that are 45-years old and are not on the Florida Master Site File. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Historic Preservation Board has reviewed the proposed ordinance? Ms. Robinson stated that the proposed ordinance came from the Historic Preservation Element and was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3748 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 94-3748 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: 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 DISTRIBUTIONB PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #2 (0613) through (0910) Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:59 p.m. Doug Taylor, General Employees Pension Board of Trustee Chairman, came before the Commission and stated that the ordinance sets forth a districted concept with a mail-in ballot for Board Member elections; that there is a clarification in the formula for calculating the return contribution for employees rehired; that the death benefit for employees still employed is restored from 75% to 100%; that the certain benefit of 10 or 15 year is eliminated; and that it brings the code into compliance with the federal regulations regarding rollovers. Book 35 Page 9800 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9801 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that a general employee who resigned in good standing and withdrew their personal contributions and subsequently is rehired by the City has the right to repay the amount withdrawn plus the interest that would have been earned to regain the time lost by withdrawing the contributions; that this is a benefit to general employees which has been denied to Public Safety employees, and it creates a substantial inequity. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she did not realize that the general employees had this privilege; that a substantial actuarial difference would have to be made up by the Commission to provide a similar benefit to the Public Safety employees; that the different pension plans are not equivalent; that the plans have different normal retirement ages and different multipliers. Commissioner Merrill stated that the purpose of a pension benefit is to encourage longevity of employees; that excluding a penalty for rehired employees denies one of the reasons for establishing the benefit. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3753 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance 94-3753 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 10. BOARD ACTIONS - REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1993 = AFFIRMED APPROVAL OF PS&D 93R; AFFIRMED RESOLUTION FOR PETITION 93-SE-14; SET 93-SE-8 FOR PUBLIC HEARING IN CONJUNCTION WITH 93-CO-2; PREPARE CCBD ZONE DISTRICT ORDINANCE AND SET IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING; RE-PRESENT ZONE DISTRICT RANKING ORDINANCE WHEN THE CBN NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED; PREPARE ORDINANCE AMENDING NORTH TRAIL ZONE DISTRICT AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; REVISE ORDINANCE 93-3715 AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; ACCEPTED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #2 (0915) through (1630) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's Regular Meeting of October 6, 1993: A. Preliminary Site & Development Plan 93-P to permit construction of a 457 seat auditorium and classrooms at Booker High School. Ms. Robinson stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found PS&D 93-P consistent with all applicable code requirements and recommended approval; that the site is in a Governmental (G) Zone District and requires a public hearing which has been set for November 8th. B. Preliminary Site & Development Plan 93-R to permit a 3,200 square foot expansion to the 2nd floor level at Sarasota Memorial Hospital. Ms. Robinson stated that this is also in a Governmental (G) Zone District; and that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommends approval of the petition. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to affirm the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's approval of PS&D 93R. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. C. Special Exception petition 93-SE-14 to permit the extension of the Commercial General (CG) zone district boundary by (50) feet to the east. The Property is located at 1225 Fruitville Road. Ms. Robinson stated that petition 93-SE-14 is a Special Exception that allows an extension to the CG Zone District by (50) feet, which is a provision in the Zoning Code if there is a legal lot of record and the zoning line bifurcates the property in an unusual wayi that Staff recommended approval to the Planning Board and the Planning Board approved the Special Exception. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to affirm the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's resolution for petition 93-SE-14. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. D. Special Exception petition 93-SE-8 to permit off-street parking in the RSF-4 zone district. Parcels are located at 1906, 1918, 1926, 1934, and 1942 Prospect Street. Ms. Robinson stated that this petition was filed in conjunction with conditional rezoning Petition No. 93-CO-2 and Preliminary Site & Development Plan 93-Q; that the property is located on Prospect Street; that the Planning Board found the proposal consistent with Book 35 Page 9802 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9803 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. the Sarasota City, Plan; however, recommended denial, by a 3 to 2 vote, of the Special Exception and othèr petitions - Ms. Robinson stated that a conditional rezoning from RSF-3 Zone District to RSF-4 Zone District needs to be approved with the Special Exception. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Special Exception cannot be granted without the conditional rezoning. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how many existing houses are on the property? Ms. Robinson stated four. Ms. Robinson stated that the petitioner intends to relocate the four houses which are occupied single-family homes; that the petitioner's request is from an RSF-3 Zone District to a higher density to allow off-street parking by Special Exception. Commissioner Cardamone requested that street names and current zoning be documented on the zoning/suhdlivision map in the backup material in the future. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that all of the maps need to be well documented for clarity. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the public hearing for the Conditional Rezoning has been set for November 15th. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to set petition 93-SE-8 for public hearing in conjunction with 93-CO-2. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked the procedure if the petition had not been set for public hearing. City Attorney Taylor stated that Special Exceptions are within the purview of the Planning Board; that if a Special Exception is not acted upon by the City Commission within 45 days, the Planning Board action becomes final; however, the property is not eligible for the Special Exception until the rezoning has been approved. E. Proposed Code Amendment - CCBD Zone District Sign Changes Ms. Robinson stated that the Planning Board found the change consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended that the City Commission direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance and set it for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to prepare the necessary ordinance and set it for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. F. North Trail (NT) and Commercial Business Newtown (CBN) Ranking of Zone District by Intensity Ms. Robinson stated that a ranking for the North Trail (NT) and the Commercial Business - Newtown (CBN) Zone Districts is proposed; that the Planning Board found this consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended that proper ordinances be prepared and set for public hearing. Commissioner Atkins stated if the ordinance is changed now it will have to be changed again in the future to accommodate the CBN name designation change. Ms. Robinson stated that CBN now stands for Commercial Business - Newtown; that the CBN zoning works perfectly for the Hillview area as well; that the name will have to be changed; however, intensity ranking in the hierarchy chart will remain the same. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that if the new name was selected soon, two new ordinances would not be necessary. It was the consensus of the Commission to have the ordinance re- presented when the name change has been incorporated. G. Proposed Amendments to North Trail (NT) Zone District Ms. Robinson stated that the Planning Board found the amendment consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended appropriate ordinances be prepared and set for public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance and set it for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. H. Open-Air Dining Facilities Ms. Robinson stated that the proposal will allow open-air dining in several Commercial Districts; that the Planning Board found the petition consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended that the necessary ordinance be prepared and set for public hearing. Book 35 Page 9804 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9805 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins asked if Open-Air Dining will be permitted in the CBN zone. Ms. Robinson stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to Direct the City Attorney to make the necessary revisions to Ordinance 93-3715 and set for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the Planning Board's report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. BOARD ACTIONS - REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1993 = APPROVED QUARTERLY HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETINGS; AFFIRMED HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOMINATE RIGBY "LAPLAZA" TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER; ACCEPTED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #2 (1635) through (1965) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's Meeting of October 12, 1993: A. Quarterly Meetings of Historic Preservation Board Ms. Robinson stated that the Board was concerned about quarterly meetings; that the Staff and Administration recommended a change from monthly to quarterly meetings unless there is a need for a special meeting; that what the Historic Preservation Board currently does now is designation reports; however, they will be getting involved with the Planning Board and the Planning Staff relative to the conservation district. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Historic Preservation Board has to approve renovations to historically designated structures? Ms. Robinson stated yes; that renovations require a Certificate of Approval and will fall under the special meetings. Commissioner Cardamone asked what are the cost savings of changing from monthly meetings to quarterly meetings? Ms. Robinson stated that a secretary and a Staff person spend approximately one week per month administratively preparing for the meeting; that the Staff person will be assigned to other current duties such as the conservation district and land development regulations. Ms. Robinson stated that the County has agreed to review the Certificates of Approval and make the presentation to the Historic Preservation Board and to the City Commission; however, they will not provide Staff assistance to the Board. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County Administrator has offered to review the Certificate of Approvals which will considerably lighten the Planning Department's workload; that City Staff will handle the Conservation Zone; and that voluntary work assistance to implement the conservation element will be supervised by the Planning Department; and that the focus has been narrowed considerably at this time. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to hold regular Historic Preservation Board meeting on a quarterly basis, except as authorized by the Planning Director for special projects. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Nomination of Rigby "LaPlaza" Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommended approval of the report for nomination of Rigby "LaPlaza" historic district to the National Register; that Rigby "LaPlaza" is located on the west side of Osprey Avenue south of Hudson Bayou. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone it was moved to affirm the Historic Preservation Board recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the Historic Preservation Board's Report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. BOARD ACTIONS - REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1993 = APPROVED ALLOWING THE ARTIST TO WORK WITH THE SCULPTURE AS IS AND INTEGRATE TWO PIECES OF SCULPTURE INTO THE MAIN STREET PROJECT FOUNTAIN; ACCEPTED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-3) #2 (1968) through (2058) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Frank Colson, Chairman of the Public Art Committee, came before the Commission. Book 35 Page 9806 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9807 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Colson stated that the Public Art Committee unanimously recommended allowing artist Virginia Hoffman to work with the structure design as is and to integrate the two pieces of sculpture into the fountain for the Main Street Project. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to approve the Public Art Committee's recommendation to allow the artist to work with the structures as is and to integrate the two pieces of sculpture into the fountain. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the Public Art Committee special meeting of October 21, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 - ITEMS 1, 2, AND 3 - APPROVED = (AGENDA ITEMS III A-1, -2, AND -3) #2 (2059) through (2073) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to the Contract for Engineering Services with Smally, Wellford & Nalven, for St. Armands Municipal Parking Lots 2. Approval Re: Award contract to Pope Painting & Waterproofing, Inc., Bradenton, Florida, for painting of the Batting Cage & Scoreboard at Ed Smith Stadium 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Tenth Amendment to the Engineering Agreement with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., for basic engineering services relating to permitting of the Utopia Grove reuse site and acquisition of a system-wide operating permit On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No.1, Items 1, 2, and 3. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 = ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 934-693) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3749) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3750) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM 8 III B-1,-2, AND -3 #2 (2074) through (2141) 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-693, closing north Lido Beach Park, Ken Thompson Park, and Island Park between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; making certain findings that conditions exist or events have transpired in proximity to or within these parks which create a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens utilizing these parks or residing in the vicinity of these parks; directing that these parks be posted with signs designating the hours during which these parks will be closed; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 8:26 p.m. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3749, providing for the designation of the structure located at 25 South Washington Drive, historically known as the Casa Del Mar, as a structure of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 93-HD-19, Hartig) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3750, providing for the designation of the structures located at 3529 Jacinto Court, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title On- ly) (Petition No. 93-HD-20, Hartig) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Items 1 through 3. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS - POLICE OPERATIONS TO COMBAT JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (AGENDA ITEM NO. V-1): #2 (2152) through (3278) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he scheduled this presentation to apprise the Commission of the Police Department's new operation regarding juvenile delinquency. Gordon Jolly, Police Services Bureau Chief, came before the Commission and stated that large numbers of juveniles "hang out" late on school nights in areas where young children should not be; that the program has been coordinated with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) ; that Youth Services Detectives will be teamed with Community Resource Team Officers, Patrol Officers, ministers, and other members of the community; that beginning Sunday, November 21, 1993, after 11:00 p.m., juveniles Book 35 Page 9808 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9809 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. "hanging out" on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Way and in the vicinity will be contacted. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:30 p.m. Chief Jolly stated that if a child has no legitimate reason for being on the street late at night, the child will be taken into protective custody under the provisions of Chapter 39 Florida Statutes (Child in Need of Supervision) ; that an HRS case worker will be located at the Police Resource Center on MLK Way during the hours of operation; that computers connected with HRS will enable immediate processing; that parents or guardians will be required to pick up their child at the Resource Center and provide an explanation as to why their child was in that situation; that parents who refuse to pick up their child can be prosecuted for child neglect. Chief Jolly stated that a public meeting will be held on November 18, 1993, to explain the extent of juvenile crime and to solicit public support in the area of juvenile justice. Mayor Pillot stated that the effort being made is excellent; that the guidelines for the operation protect individual rights; however, he feels that the operation should encompass the City of Sarasota and not be limited to MLK Way. Chief Jolly stated that efforts will begin on MLK Way because the largest number of children gather on MLK Way late on Sunday nights; that juvenile ages range from age nine on up; however, the operation is intended to be expanded to other areas of the City; that the operation will be used to address the gangs which have formed in other areas of the City and the County; that the operation will be well-publicized in an effort to reduce the number of juveniles on the street. Mayor Pillot asked if a young child was walking on Mcclellan Parkway at 3:00 a.m. would an officer stop the child? Chief Jolly stated yes, that this is done now. Chief Jolly stated that a 16-year old is not required by law to go to school; however, a 15-year old is required to go to school; that one legal criteria of a Child in Need of Supervision is a school- aged child being out late on a school night; that coming or going to an activity and being on an errand for a parent are legitimate reasons for being out. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports the Police Department directly identifying a problem and attacking it; that the earlier a problem is identified the faster it can be solved. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the operation is a good plan; however, the aspect of what will be done with children whose parents are not home or are unable or unwilling to pick them up needs to be addressed. Chief Jolly stated that the action would take place in the custody of HRS; that the child is turned over to HRS as a Child in Need of Supervision; that the child remains in HRS custody until a parent, guardian or close relative is contacted. Commissioner Atkins stated that the name "Do You Know Where Your Parents Are" puts the responsibility on the children; that he wants the parents to be responsible; that the name should be changed to "Do You Know Where Your Children Are" It was the consensus of the Commission to have Administration change the Operation's name to "Do You Know Where Your Children Are." Commissioner Atkins stated that there are several "pockets" of children that need to be raised by their parents; that this is a City of Sarasota operation and not just an MLK Way operation; that the MLK Police Resource Center is the HRS processing center where children from any area of the City will be retained. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of a valid reason for a child to be retained, and asked if the guideline infers that there is no valid reason for a child to be out past 11:00 p.m. or reason for a child to be out late on a school night? Chief Jolly stated that this is not what is inferred; that there can be valid reasons on school nights such as coming home from a school activity; that loitering is not the issue; that the totality of the circumstances has to fit into the criteria that says the child needs supervision and needs to be taken into protective custody; that there is specific criteria that has to be elaborated in the written Police Reports to justify that the child was in need of supervision. Commissioner Merrill asked if a group of 16-year olds are standing in front of a residential home where there is a party, are they considered loitering and subjected to the operation? Chief Jolly stated that in that circumstance the child would not be considered in need of supervision. Commissioner Merrill stated that if an area has not been targeted as a criminal activity area, he does not want 16-year olds to be afraid to stand on the streets after 11:00 p.m. Book 35 Page 9810 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9811 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Chief Jolly stated that the operation is aimed at the nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen year-old children who are "hanging out" at 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. in vicinities of known drug dealers, or gun shot activity; that the operation addresses children in need of supervision; that it is focused on getting the attention of parents in the community on the juvenile crime problem; and that Constitutional safeguards will be carefully watched. Mayor Pillot stated that he has absolute confidence in the manner in which the operation will be done under Chief Jolly's leadership. Commissioner Atkins stated that no new ordinances are being drafted; that the Commission is supporting the Police Department on something which is policy; that the operation does not affect 16- year olds; that it affects children under 16 years of age. Commissioner Merrill stated that there are no new powers being granted to the Police Department; that the operation is an enforcement of existing laws in a targeted area. 16. CITIZENS . INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (3288) through (3350) Mayor Pillot called the following citizens who signed up to speak before the Commission regarding crime in the Pioneer Park Neighborhood and were not now present: Norma Richardson, Mr. and Mrs. Ramirez, Tina Stelmach, Bobbi Phillips, January Eldred, Judith Britton, and Robert Levy. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = DISCUSSION RE: TABLED MOTION OF OCTOBER 18, 1993 TO APPROVE THE TWO LANDSCAPED ISLANDS WITH MEMORIAL BRASS PLAQUES AND DEFER THE DECISION ON THE PIECE OF SCULPTURE UNTIL A LATER DATE; REMOVED TABLED MOTION; AMENDED MOTION TO STIPULATE DARK, COATED BASES TO BE MAINTAINED BI-ANNUALLY: APPROVED - (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (3352) through (3600) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson it was moved remove the tabled motion from the table. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the motion on the floor is as follows: to approve the two landscaped islands with memorial brass plaques and defer the decision on the piece of sculpture until a later date. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved amend the motion to approve the structure with the stipulation that the base be painted a dark color and the structure be coated consistent with the recommendation of Dennis Kowal and the City accept maintenance on a bi-annual basis. Mayor Pillot stated that he met with a citizen who provided data and input to him which eased his concerns regarding the sculpture; that he will support the sculpture as well as the landscaping and the plaques. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the Amendment to the Motion. Amendment carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the Main Motion. Motion as amended carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = DISCUSSION RE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT /APPEALS = NO CHANGE TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCESS (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (3608) through #3 (0253) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the first monthly report of the Board of Adjustment actions will be received at the second meeting in November as requested at the October 12, 1993, Joint Workshop. City Attorney Taylor stated that because of the cost of a grieved citizen to take an appeal of a Board of Adjustment action to the Circuit Court, the Commission had considered implementing an appeals process on the decisions of the Building Administrator concerning interpretation of the Code. City Attorney Taylor asked if the City Commission decided to accept that type of appeal, would the Commission want it restricted to the record made at the Board of Adjustment as a Rit of Certiorari; whereby no input outside of the record would be allowed? City Attorney Taylor continued that an alternative is that the New Testimony appeal which allows the parties to make a presentation; that a third alternative, which he doesn't support, is the Discretionary appeal; that the question is if the City Commission wants to establish an appeals process. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to make no changes in the Board of Adjustment appeals process. Commissioner Merrill stated that there is not enough of a problem that warrants spending more City Administration and City Staff Book 35 Page 9812 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9813 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. time, or more legal money developing the changes to the appeal process; that a grieved citizen can come before the Commission and request the Commission to pay the Circuit Court cost to sue the Board of Adjustment. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that at the Board of Adjustment Joint Workshop, the Administration had been requested to seek an opinion from the St. Armands' Merchant Association regarding lit awnings. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is also requesting that the Association's opinions on neon signage in windows be included. 19. ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93- 3733, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM OPB ZONE DISTRICT AND RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO COP ZONE DISTRICT ON REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRUITVILLE ROAD AT LOCKWOOD RIDGE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1.83 ACRES, A/K/A 3200/3210/3220 FRUITVILLE ROAD: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-CO-03, DON LAWSON, WARSKIP ENTERPRISES) - PASSED ON SECOND READING (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (0255) through (408) City Manager Sollenberger stated the ordinance was passed on first reading contingent upon review of the tree concerns; that the County Forester's Department made recommendations to the petitioner. William Hewes, Director of Building, Housing, and Zoning, came before the Commission and stated that islands have been enlarged to accommodate the Oak trees; that the required parking spaces are sufficient; that the building and retention pond remain the same; and that all the recommendations of the County Forester are met. Ron Skipper, representing Warskip Enterprises, 1313 LaDue Lane, came before the Commission to answer any questions of the Commission. The Commission asked no questions of Mr. Skipper. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3733 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 93-3733 on second reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. It was the consensus of the Commission to move forward on the Agenda to issues that citizens had requested to speak 20. NEW BUSINESS = ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-694, APPROVING A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD TO A PUBLIC STREET AT 625 FREELING DRIVE; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; IMPOSING CONDITIONS: DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) DENIED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (0426) through (1997) Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 9:05 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is a neighbor one house removed from Mr. Bartinikas; and that she will sustain from voting by declaring a conflict of interest. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:07 p.m. Mayor Pillot asked City Attorney Taylor if Vice Mayor Patterson has the right to discuss this issue in any way if asked. City Attorney Taylor stated yes. William Hewes, Director of Building, Housing, and Zoning, came before the Commission and stated that the property is located on Lot 32 and Lot 33 in the Bay Island Shores subdivision; that a single-family residence has been constructed across both lots; that previously, 10-feet of one lot was sold to a neighbor; that a variance was sought from the Board of Adjustment pertaining to the width of Lots 32 and 33, and was denied. Vice Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 9:13 p.m. Director Hewes stated that there are legal alternatives to acquiring a variance; that the owner has reconfigured the boundaries of Lots 32 and 33 to qualify as two lots if re-divided; but will require a private roadway access; that the Development Review Committee recommended that easements be provided for water and sewerage through the front lot; that the Commission is being petitioned to approve the proposed Private Access Roadway. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:16 p.m. The following citizens came before the Commission to speak: Book 35 Page 9814 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9815 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Jerry Bartinikas, representing himself as property owner, 625 Freeling Drive, stated that the original variance request was approved by the Board of Adjustments, but later rescinded; that properties on Bayou Louise and other streets in the Bay Island area have private access roadways; that except for the property across the street, his property is the largest piece of property on the street; that his property is 37,194 square feet; that the average property on Freeling Drive is 16,207 square feet; that his smaller proposed lot is 18,232; that there are 28 addresses that require access from public streets through other addresses using a private access roadway; that two addresses, 730 and 738 Freeling Drive, have private accesses 10 feet to the water. Mr. Bartinikas stated that the area is known as Bay Island Shores not Lido Shores Subdivision as stated in correspondence from the City Attorney; that his property on Freeling Drive is not in character with the neighborhood because of its size. Mayor Pillot stated that the 730 and 738 addresses front on Freeling; whereas what Mr. Bartinikas proposes will not. Mr. Bartinikas stated that the access is necessary for passage through an easement to enable entrance to the newly-designed parcel which will include the existing single-home structure; that new utilities will not be necessary for the waterfront lot; that he would use personal care to ensure tasteful treatment of the development; that the property would not change the character of the neighborhood; that there is no negative impact on the two closest neighbors; that the new home would be behind and to the side of both neighbors' garages; that the present over-sized lot is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood; that he intends to reside in one of the homes. Mr. Bartinikas stated that there are two driveways on the property; that a shell road driveway has been on the east side of the property since before 1974; that he would like to use the privilege of two driveways to provide access to a second property; that he has complied with the Sarasota City Plan; that there is no legal basis for his access to be denied; that the law will support him if he is not allowed to enjoy his property rights; and that he requests the opportunity to exercise his petitioner rights for rebuttal. Ginny Klute, 625 Freeling Drive, stated that she lives at the property; that Mr. Bartinikas has acquired the Police, Fire, and ambulance access; that he has permission for a permit from the Engineering Department for the right-of-way; and that Mr. Bartinikas has complied in all areas to obtain the access. Elizabeth Evans, 684 Freeling Drive, stated that Mr. Bartinikas has explained his intentions to her; that she gave Dr. and Mrs. Hanon an easement to their non-conforming property on Freeling Drive; that Mr. Bartinikas will not be harming the neighborhood. Martin Corry, 687 Freeling Drive, passed out letters from four direct neighbors objecting to Mr. Bartinikas' proposal and stated that Mrs. Evans has just listed her house for sale. Mr. Corry stated that he bought his home five years ago because of its size and the area; that Mr. Bartinikas' proposal will not be aesthetic to the neighborhood; that it will affect the property values in the neighborhood; and that it may set a precedent for Bay Island. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Corry, President of the Bay Island Siesta Association, why he abstained from the Association's motion objecting to the proposal? Mr. Corry stated that he felt it would be in conflict and unfair. Sandra Hanon, 690 Freeling Drive, stated that the neighborhood will be impacted by the proposal; that it will provoke other property owners to petition to divide their property; thereby increasing the density and devaluating the vicinity property values; that the lots are large and the homes are elegant; that her property is close to one acre; and that approval of the proposal will be a detriment to Bay Island. B.J. Jones, 4929 Hidden Oaks Trail, stated that his property is one of the smaller lots; that Mr. Bartinikas' proposal is a poor usage of land; that approving Mr. Bartinikas' proposal is not a good precedent to set for a barrier island; that the neighborhood was established in early 1900's and originally required boat access; and that Mr. Bartinikas' redivision makes no sense. Mr. Bartinikas came before the Commission and stated that he was not invited, in attendance, or represented at the Bay Island Siesta Association's May 3rd meeting; that the Association is not representing the neighborhood correctly; that Mrs. Hanon's lot is only 25,000 square feet with 95-foot frontage which is below the required 400 feet; that personal reasons are being stated for objections; that Mr. Corry offered to purchase the property; that there is no legal reason for his rights to be denied. Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission is compelled to grant the proposal? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission is reviewing the proposal under $6-14 of the Zoning Code which reads that anyone who doesn't have a public road access to their property may utilize a private roadway with the permission of the City Commission; that Book 35 Page 9816 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9817 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. if the Commission determines the individual circumstances will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood, they can legally deny the request. Mayor Pillot asked for any comments Vice Mayor Patterson may have? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would give factual statements rather than render an opinion on whether the request should be granted. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she has one neighbor who wants to do something, and one neighbor who doesn't want to do something which puts her in a difficult position; that Mr. Bartinikas has one substandard lot because in 1974 a 100-foot lot width was imposed; that he requested two 15-foot variances which were granted and then rescinded; that Freeling Drive does not have any private roads or lots configured with one house behind the other; although there are such properties on Bay Island. Mr. Bartinikas stated that Mr. Babb of the Board of Adjustment recommended that he divide his propertyi that he has two driveways, one of which is used to access the waterfront lot; and that neighbors have used the driveway to get to their houses. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Resolution No. 94R-694 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-694. The motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to deny the private road access and proposed Resolution No. 94R-694. Commissioner Merrill stated that it is ironic to him that Vice Mayor Patterson had to declare a conflict just because she lives near the property; that the burden is on the petitioner to prove that there is no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood; that increasing the density on a barrier island is an adverse direction. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is supportive of the Neighborhood Association's position and that of the neighbors. Mayor Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Merrill's statements. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Pillot, yes. 21. NEW BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX ALLOCATION = APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATIONLS RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOCATE COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX REVENUES TO THE COMMITTEE OF 100 AND THE PROPOSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD, WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO WORK OUT DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSURE COOPERATION AND THAT ADVERTISING DOLLARS ARE NOT DUPLICATED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (2020) through #4 (0455) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommendation is that the $55,000 County Occupational License Tax revenues, except for $5,000 which is budgeted for street and highway maintenance for unreimbursed special events costs, be allocated 50-50 between the Committee of 100 and the proposed Economic Development Board; that the Committee of 100 will promote leasing of office space in the downtown area; that the Economic Development Board will promote Sarasota as a retailing community; that 49% of all retail sales in Sarasota County occur within the City of Sarasota limits; that the allocation to the proposed Economic Development Board will be a one-time allocation; that an Equity Study Committee, directed by the legislature, will be appointed through the County; that beginning next year, the Occupational License Taxes collected in the unincorporated area will be distributed to an Equity Study Committee; that the balance will be distributed based on a population formula; whereby the approximate $61,000 of allocated funds would be reduced to $8,500. The following citizens came to speak before the Commission: Paul N. Thorpe, representing The Downtown Association of Sarasota, 157 Garden Lane, stated that the Economic Development Board consists of the Downtown Association of Sarasota members Chuck Jewett, Rick Chalker, and himself; the St. Armands Association members Rick Sanders and Beverly Wright; the Newtown Business Association member Jetson Grimes; the North Trail Merchant Association members Martha Lambert, Bohdan Guran and Barbara Cherry; the South Side Village Association members Terry Coffrin, Ed Morton and Charles Neubauer; and the Siesta Drive Merchants Association members Gus Sotir and Dick June. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board has met three times and discussed the Economic Development Program and the Occupational License Tax revenues assessed to the businesses in Sarasota County; that the Board would like the City's allocated funds to be directed to and used within the City by the Economic Development Board; that since the allocation will be reduced drastically next year, the Board requests that the full allocation of available funds be dispersed to the Economic Development Board to get them started. Mayor Pillot asked if the Administration referred to in the budget presented by the proposed Economic Development Board was the city Administration? Mr. Thorpe stated yes. Book 35 Page 9818 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9819 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for planned uses of the allocated funds? Mr. Thorpe stated that the Maddux Report Special Issue Ads would be used; that the whole City would be covered in an issue; that a pull-out section would be used which could be also be distributed to the tourist industry and other areas; that the Maddux report has distribution throughout the Southeast as far up as Atlanta; that the office market would also be serviced; that area guides have been discussed for areas such as South Side Village, the North Trail Association, and the Newtown Business Association; that promotions could be placed in the media with local based distribution such as Sarasota Magazine. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that both committees should be able to meet the concerns of both groups in one advertisement. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Economic Development Board can focus more on what takes place in the City; that the Chamber of Commerce and Committee 100 has a goal for the whole County. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the name Economic Development Board is too similar to the County's Economic Development Board name and should be changed; that the Board is really a Coalition of City Businesses. Mr. Thorpe stated that changing the name was not a problem. Rick Sanders, representing the St. Armands Association, 409 St. Armands Circle, stated that a letter from Jim McDonald, St. Armands Merchants' Association President, states that the St. Armands Merchants' Association is in support of a development board that will tie the various marketing entities throughout the City together; that the tax is being paid by the businesses and should be used to support them. Bill Little, representing the Committee of 100, 2364 Burton Lane, stated that the Committee of 100's program is to generate more jobs, more tax revenues, and more investment; that the Committee of 100 has a track record of accomplishment; that the vacancy rate has been reduced downtown from 35% to 15%; that a new business facility may be built in approximately 18 to 24 months; that four of the proposed Economic Development Board's six goals listed on their Mission Statement are assigned to the Committee of 100 under the County-wide contract; that the Committee of 100 is ready, willing, and able to make the City section an intricate part of a $500,000 program for which private funds have been raised from the business community supporting it; and that he supports the City Administration's recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the brochure proposed by the Committee of 100 can incorporate City retail space and Downtown office space? Mr. Little stated that the Committee of 100 would best be directed toward one effort rather than a division of efforts; that the City's office space is an intricate part of a coordinated marketing program; that if there was a desire to fill the void in the program which the proposed Economic Development Board can fill, then it should have been addressed during the past 6-months of presentations; and that the two functions are separate functions. Mr. Little stated that the retail aspects of the community will be used in the same manner as the cultural and artist aspects as an embellishment to attract office investment; that the Committee of 100 is addressing new investment; that the proposed Economic Development Board is addressing new prospects to fill the existing buildings. Mayor Pillot stated that the City Manager will have the authority to request resubmitted budgets from each board with more combined use of the allocated funds. City Manager Sollenberger stated that was correct; that the proposed budget submitted by the Committee of 100 is more defined than that submitted by the Coalition of Retail organizations which will be targeting the office building approach; that the retailing aspect is an amenity as an attraction for merchants to want the office spaces; that the proposed Board's effort should compliment and not duplicate the Committee of 100. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned about next year's fund allocations; that the City area, as a part of the County, generates a large portion of the Occupational Tax revenue. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the County plans to give some promotion to the area that has generated a portion of the revenue? Mr. Little stated that he has received no direction from the County; that all municipalities are an intricate part of the plans made; that the Committee of 100 "Lure" brochure and video will be completed next week and shows the City of Sarasota as an intricate part of the County; and that 90% of the matching funds came from the City of Sarasota business community because they are interested in promoting the City of Sarasota as well as Sarasota County. Terry Coffrin, representing South Side Village, stated that he would like to see the tax money. go towards the newly-formed organization because it is a coalition directly made up of the business people. Barbara Cherry, 3907 Bay Shore Road, representing the North Trail Merchants' Association, stated that she agrees with Mr. Coffrin; that she feels the monies should go to the newly-formed coalition because it is basically a one-shot deal; that she feels the people Book 35 Page 9820 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9821 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. involved with the coalition know how to promote their businesses in the City and how to promote the City. Jetson Grimes, 2741 N. Osprey Avenue, representing the Newtown Business Association, stated that he feels the videos and leaflets of the Chamber of Commerce should be checked because he feels Newtown is not represented; that Newtown has been neglected in many different ways. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins), it was moved to give $3,500 to the Committee of 100 for the office space marketing inventory and the balance to the newly-formed board (Coalition of Businesses) which hopefully will change its name to avoid confusion. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that since Commissioner Atkins is a member of the Economic Development Board, she would like to hear from him how this decision was made; that she realizes that the decision was a tradeoff because the State Legislature has refused for years to allow the City to increase its occupational license tax; that she understands that the new legislation gave the County a choice which they exercised. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is a member of the County's Economic Development Board; that this (choice) is not a law sent down by the State, but an option given to Economic Development Boards throughout the State; that the Economic Development Board in Sarasota County chose to dispense the money like this; that the municipalities throughout the County vigorously argued against this division of the money at a special meeting; however, the Economic Development Board was overwhelmed by business persons who have their own ideas about how this money should be divided and the municipalities lost against the business people. Commissioner Atkins continued that he feels there should be cooperation between the two entities. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was unaware that the monies were going to be used differently next year; that she is not happy with the lost opportunity for the City; that she feels the two business groups need to work together; that she is supportive of the City Manager's recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the reason she made the motion to have the bulk of the monies go toward the retailers of the City is because she feels the thrust of the Chamber of Commerce is going to be toward marketing Sarasota County as a whole and not specifically the retailers of the City; therefore, she feels this is the last opportunity for the retailers to get monies from this tax in which they participate. Commissioner Merrill stated that the business area at Beneva and Fruitville Roads and other areas are not represented by this group (Coalition of Businesses); that he feels the Chamber of Commerce will bring the City far more money through growth in the whole community; that he supports the recommendation of the Administration. Commissioner Atkins called for the vote on the motion to give $3,500 to the Committee of 100 and the balance to the Coalition of Businesses. Motion failed (3 to 2): Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Atkins, no. Commissioner Atkins passed the gavel back to Mayor Pillot. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the recommendation of the Administration (to allocate County Occupational License Tax revenues to the Committee of 100 and the proposed Coalition of Businesses, with the Administration to work out details of implementation). On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to ask the City Manager to assure cooperation and the use of advertising dollars so that there is not duplication. Vice Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the amendment to the motion. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson passed the gavel back to Mayor Pillot. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion as amended to approve the Administration's recommendation of a 50/50 split with the condition that the City Manager assure that advertising dollars not be duplicated. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot asked whether any citizens were signed up to speak on any remaining agenda items. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that people were signed up to speak on Item 4 under New Business. 22. NEW BUSINESS - APPROVAL RE: NONCONFORMING USES = APPROVED THE ADMINIBTRATION'S, RECOMMENDATION BUT CHANGED THE EXTENDED AMORTIZATION PERIOD TO FIVE YEARS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COMMISSION WILL MEET A RESPONSIBILITY TO STUDY EACH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ADEQUATELY TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1994 AS TO THE PERMANENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTIES, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY MANAGER MAY COME BACK TO THE Book 35 Page 9822 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9823 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO CONDUCT THE REVIEW (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (0460) through (2140) City Manager Sollenberger stated that certain uses deemed to be nonconforming with the adoption of the Zoning Code in 1974 will terminate on January 10, 1994; that there is a six-month period for these uses to be converted to residential use; that there are three options as follows: (1) enforce the ordinance as currently drafted, (2) extend the amortization period an additional ten years which would allow the Staff to evaluate individual uses to determine alternatives which might be available for some of the uses which may be compatible in their current locations, and (3) enforce a mixture of the first two options. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the City Attorney's Office views the third option with considerable anathema; that the Administration recommends the second option to extend the amortization period an additional ten years to allow the Staff to evaluate the various uses which are classified as nonconforming now. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Commission has a list of the nonconforming uses; that the ones the Commission was concerned about have been purged; that the administration of Sarasota Memorial Hospital plans to make a recommendation to the Hospital Board on November 8 that the former Palms Hospital property on a previous list be sold for single-family residential purposes. The following citizens came before the Commission: Stephen D. Rees, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600, representing. Mr. and Mrs. Randy Hayek, stated that he is a senior land use attorney with Icard, Merrill et al; that in 1989 Mr. and Mrs. Hayek purchased the property identified as item 2 on the list of nonconforming uses-hotel, which is a property at 148 Cleveland Drive; that the property has an RMF zoning and is comprised of two structures, each of which presently contains three dwelling units; that the property has been operated as a hotel/motel by reason of the duration of the intervals of occupancy of guests and not operated traditionally as a multiple family housing project, as defined by the City's Code. Attorney Rees continued that research seems to indicate that the buildings were constructed in 1952 or 1953 and are clearly of a residential character and appearancei that the property had been operated. as a hotel/motel for approximately 20 years prior to the City's January 1974 Zoning Code implementation; that 20 years is a long time for this use to be harmonious and coexistent with other uses on the surrounding properties. Attorney Rees stated that presently the City's Zoning Code permits the RMF districts the hotel/motel use in the higher districts (RMF- 4, RMF-5, and RMF-6) by a special exception; that he hopes the Commission will realize the dire consequences the property owners are in; that the property owners were unaware of the amortization period in the Zoning Code but are going to be impacted immediately and adversely by the implementation of the provision. Attorney Rees continued that he determined that the implementation of the provision requiring an amortization correction of removal of the nonconformity within a six-month period creates a substantial impairment to the security of the mortgage. Attorney Rees stated that he supports the most liberal option to extend the amortization period to make all of the types of properties equivalent at 30 years; however, he feels this is a band-aid approach and avoids the real question of how the City is going to deal with these properties over the longer term. Attorney Rees continued that he hopes that at the earliest possible date the Commission will grapple with the issues of recognizing which properties with these traditional historical uses should be made conforming by amending the district to recognize that existing structures with these uses do conform, because otherwise the situation is intolerable. Mayor Pillot stated that the last sentence in the City Manager's recommendation points out that the City could record in the public records the uses which will be subject to the provision, so new purchasers will be put on notice. W. E. Krueger, 138 Garfield Drive, representing the Gulfside Motel, stated that he purchased his property in 1971 and was opposed to the downzoning in 1974; however, he had been reassured by the Commission not to worry because his property was "grandfathered" in; that he is being handicapped as to what to do with his property now because of the Zoning Code. Mr. Krueger asked whether the City was going to condemn his property? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City does not intend to condemn properties; that the City Manager's recommendation asks for an opportunity for the City Staff to look at the zoning that applies to each of the affected parcels and determine what adjustments might be made to come up with appropriate future uses for sites to be implemented within the continued amortization period. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how Mr. Krueger felt about the Commission extending the amortization period an additional ten years? Mr. Krueger stated that he feels that would be a time bomb. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether there should have been a provision 20 years ago to legally notify the property owners on a deed or in some form advising them that the Zoning Code placed them in a sunsetting situation? City Attorney Taylor stated that he feels it would have been difficult for anyone to expect someone to come forward after all these years and say they did not understand Book 35 Page 9824 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9825 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. what was happening to their property after the publicity the 1974 Zoning Code got along with the many public hearings that were held; that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Krueger stated that he had been opposed to the Zoning Code in 1974 and if he opposed it, he was aware of it at that time. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how long City Staff has been aware that there were all of these properties whose zoning was going to sunset in January 1994? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he does not know how long the Staff knew the specific properties that were going to be affected. William Hewes I Director of Building, Housing, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the Staff was aware that there were a good number of properties affected; however, a complete survey was not completed until June 1993; that the law says that the structures either have to be removed or converted to a legal use; that converting a hotel to an apartment house is a legal use; that the law does not address whether the buildings have to be modified so efficiencies become one-bedroom units or whether a building simply becomes legal by becoming yearly rentals. Mr. Hewes continued that research needs to be done and an official opinion rendered on this for the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that perhaps some City-initiated rezonings should be done with input from neighborhoods; that she suggests that the City move quickly to resolve these issues. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson), it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to extend the amortization period to ten years to allow the Staff to evaluate the individual uses to determine alternatives which might be available for some of the uses which may be compatible in their current locations. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City is not denying people the right to sell their property, just at what price it can be sold; that he feels the recommendation of the Administration is excellent. Mayor Pillot stated that he feels the Commission should study and discuss each of the properties, with input from the public and the Administration, and then advise the property owners of a definitive decision as soon as possible sO people will know whether they have a "time bomb"; that he is in favor of treating everyone equally by allowing an amortization of 30 years regardless of the type of construction of the building. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports the motion. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there has been a reliance on the part of neighbors and citizens in the community since 1974 about certain uses of buildings sunsetting; that it never occurred to her that the owners of the subject properties did not have some form of legal recognition of the fact that these properties had major stipulations as to uses. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that if the Commission feels that the uses on these properties should remain unchanged, the properties should be grandfathered" in; that the City needs to finally determine what will happen with these properties sooner than ten years. On motion of Mayor Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins), it was moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to cause this Commission to examine and respond to each of the properties listed by December 31, 1994, with the understanding that the City Manager has the prerogative to submit a proposed budget amendment to the Commission (to cover the cost of this review, if necessary). Commissioner Cardamone stated that she feels the amendment changes the intent of the main motion. Commissioner Atkins stated that he would like to see an opportunity to accommodate the nonconforming uses that are not a problem and an opportunity to have the Commission vote on the ones that are problems; that he wants to be fair to the property owners and fair to the neighbors; that he feels 10 years is a long time for the ones he sees as problem spots; however, the City dropped the ball 20 years ago when the property owners were not properly notified and the property records not properly tagged so this issue could be dealt with straightforwardly now; that he would support extending the properties with nonconforming uses for an additional 5 years. Mayor Pillot stated that he would support changing the motion from ten years to five years; however, he needs time to learn about these properties because there are seven he feels comfortable in voting on now, but right now he does not know enough about the remainder. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Mayor Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to shorten the ten-year time period to five years. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she recommends that the motion and amendments be voted down and start over with a good, solid motion that is understood by everyone. Commissioner Atkins stated that all that is needed is to have the makers of the motions withdraw their motions. Book 35 Page 9826 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9827 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. The makers of the motion and amendments to the motion withdrew their motions. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation but change the extended amortization period to five years with the understanding that the Administration and the Commission will meet a responsibility to study each of the subject properties adequately to make a judgement on or before December 31, 1994 as to the permanent status of the properties, with the understanding that the City Manager may come back to the Commission to request additional resources to conduct the review. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 23. NEW BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A LEASE EXTENSION TO THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF SARASOTA COUNTY, INC. -= APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (2148) through (2268) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends the lease extension to the Humane Society of Sarasota County (H.S.S.C.) for the City-owned property between 16th and 17th Streets near Zacchini Avenue; that the present lease expires in 1994 and H.S.S.C. proposes some substantial investments into the animal shelter building and have asked for a long-term extension of the lease of 50 years. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to approve the lease extension. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to suspend rules on the adjournment time of 11:30 p.m. in order to complete the agenda. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 24. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT = REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #4 (2270) through (2351) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the concrete sidewalk portion of the project is 90% completed; that the drainage improvements will begin next week; that the test course of brickwork was approved and the brickwork started today; that the mainline irrigation is 90% completed; that the street crossings are yet to be done; that the footings for the street lights are 75% completed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she thinks the bricks look very nice. 25. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REGARDING THE AGENDA FOR THE NOVEMBER 22, 1993 COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONCERNING CRIME IN SARASOTA = CHANGED THE AGENDA TO LIMIT DIRECTOR LEWIS' . PRESENTATION TO TEN MINUTES, CORRECT THE DUPLICATION OF COASTAL RECOVERY; NOT INCLUDE THE "POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES' 99 AND THE "PLAN TO ELIMINATE DRUGS WITHIN THE CITY OF SARASOTA, 99 AND END THE MEETING AFTER THE COMMENTS LISTED UNDER ROMAN NUMERAL V (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #4 (2352) through (3132) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he conferred with Commissioner Atkins on the preparation of the agenda for the meeting for a plan of action to deal with crime in the City of Sarasota which is scheduled for November 22; that an agenda has been developed which starts at 6:00 p.m. but his concern with the agenda is that it goes from 6:00 until 10:18 p.m. and would allow for a variety of presenters with no time for questions from the City Commission; that the proposed agenda does not allow as much time as he would like to allow for some of the Police presentation; that he asks the Commission for guidance on several alternatives of either rescheduling this meeting to a Saturday, scheduling it as a two-evening meeting on November 22 and 23, or beginning the meeting earlier in the fternoon with a dinner break. Commissioner Atkins stated that he had conferred with the City Manager on the agenda; however, he did not agree previously and does not agree now with anything the City Manager said; that he agrees with the concept as presented tonight; that he feels seven minutes is long enough for any organization to make a presentation with two minutes to discuss a problem and four minutes to deal with solutions as the organization sees it; that he does not think the Police should have an hour of this meeting at this time because an opportunity was already allocated in the future for the Police to give the Commission an in-depth presentation of what they have not done. Commissioner Atkins continued that the Commission would have to be uncharacteristic in listening attentively without interrogating the presenters; that he feels the meeting is an opportunity for the presenters to make presentations to the Commission with the Commission making a compilation of the suggestions to present back to the community. Commissioner Merrill stated that after 10:30 p.m. his mind shuts down and he thinks it might be better to remove the Police report from the agenda; that perhaps Public Safety Director Lewis and Book 35 Page 9828 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Jo18 ue Aiqeqoad SBM zeuz pazezs supy euorssyuoo *opTM7 epuabe auz uo paastt ST KJeAoDag [ezseoo 2eyz pazezs IITIIOW zeuorssyuuos uofssyuuoo ayz 07 uorgequesezd e axeur 07 AaTungzoddo ue aAey 07 S0099Tuoo paas pue paaM UMOIMON pue zed afdsetiTo a47 OXTt ptnom ay 7eyz leotasnp Jo queuazedea a47 47TM uorgezastuywpy ysng 0y7 zepun aptse zas SEM yoTym uoTIITw I$ JoJ uoygeoyrdde que16 e panapuqns sey K4To 047 7ey7 pazezs rabIequeITos IW uorgezyuebIo ettaiqun ue aq 07 terauagod 047 aAeu Kayz steay au asnepaq seznurw VI sroquasad paas pue paaM 0uz bupmoite 47TM paazbe au zeyz pazezs supszy rauorssyumroo caste auohIeAs axTt seznurw uaAas uT auop aq prnoo suoraequasezd paas pue paaM 047 Ieyeym paxse pue suopaequesezd eanuyw-ugAes OM7 pannotte ST paas pue paaM 2eyz pazezs IITIIOW rauorssyuoo burzoau puopas auz JoJ epuebe a4z uo ST47 apeld pue epuabe 04z woay sepanos burpung ataissod anoqe uopssnostp S,7s/eM Kqqy burAowez Kq panes aq pinoo aurz auos pue saznupu uez 07 squawuoo sTy aurjuoo Kiqeqoad pinoo SMOT rogpata 7e47 pazezs Iobzaquetros : IW *u'd 00:9 uey? IaTtzea JO Aepinzes e uo ST AT ayzaym burzoau 047 JoJ etqetreAe stasury axeu IITM au 7eyz !uetqoad 047 Jo aITjoId 047 DAT6 07 STMaT zotpaapa Kzajes oTtqnd 07 pagepoIte saznurw ST a47 Jo aed aseat 1e OxTI pInoM ay 7eu7 !uo Tazet Karunuuos a47 07 xoeqpeay S,K4To ayz Jo azed aq pinoo uetd 0u7 asnepaq K77o 047 uTy7TM sbnap ageururte 07 uetd a47 Jo uorgequasezd aoTtod eyz OAQuaI 07 aazbe PInOM au zeyz Kayunuuoo a47 07 quesaid 07 Tesodod e etrduoo pue suoraequasaad 047 Jo ITe aenteAs uorssyuwoo 047 zeyz uorasabbns supsay teuorssyuuroo 47TM saazbe au 7eyz pazezs 70TITd IoKew quesaid aq IITM 7ey7 epuetpne 047 uey? I0667q yonu ST enssT a47 esnepaq stoau uorssyuuo, 047 aut? Ietnbar 047 1e 74bru Kepuow e uo einsodxe VOTSTAOT9A 7a6 07 ST IoAPopus ST47 Jo uorssyur a47 Jo aed zeyz staay ay zeyz pazezs supay rauorssyuoo 24b71 AT op 07 apIo uT Kep Jo azed Iazzeq a47 apnbaz pInOM burzoau STy7 sTaay ays zeyz !seads 07 soznupu 0a147 KIuo SIORBISTbeT pue sobpnf arnoIpo buTmOIte anoqe paurapuoo ST ays 'IOAaMoW Kepanges e uo burzoaur a4z burAey Jo aATazoddns ST ays 7ey7 pazezs auowepies zauorsspuros Kepmzes e uo burgoaur 04z burptou noqe sTaay uorssyuoo 047 MOY passe uosienged IoKew OOTA *uetd S,eptIod 047 o7uT woya egenw.Ioj pinop pue suoran[os 7saq a47 Jo ouos uo dn xord pinoo KITof Jaryo aoTtod *W'd 00:9 E6/To/IT 6286 abed SE s(o0g It was the consensus of the Commission to have ten minutes for Director Lewis' presentation; correct the duplication of Coastal Recovery; not include the Potential Funding Sources and the Plan to Eliminate Drugs Within the City of Sarasota, and end the meeting after the comments listed under Roman Numeral V. 26. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - ADMINISTRATION TO BEING CLUSTER HOUSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION - CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW RULINGS FOR RELIEF TO WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS - MR. SCIME, SCRAP-ALL REPRESENTATIVE TO BE NOTIFIED BY ADMINISTRATION OR CITY ATTORNEY OF A POTENTIAL PROBLEM - CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK CHANGE NOVEMBER 15, 1993, APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD TO AN AGENDA WITH A FULL COMMISSION - (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (3134) through #5 (0542) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that there was such a negative reaction from the residents of Indian Beach and Sapphire Shores to the massaging of the Cluster Housing Ordinance, that she met with a group of the residents later and tried to explain what the ordinance tried to accomplish and what the current ordinance on the books says. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that the consensus at the meeting was to remove all of it from the City's Zoning Code bbecause the way it currently exists, somebody is penalized for putting together a cluster housing project; that she would like to request that the Staff does whatever is necessary to bring this to the Commission to make a decision as to whether to remove cluster housing from the City's ordinances; that the IMA (Impact Management Area) that promoted this furor has a line in it addressing cluster housing that would have to be deleted. Mayor Pillot stated that he agreed with Vice Mayor Patterson. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission has asked the Staff to review the IMA situation anyway; therefore, she also supports Vice Mayor Patterson's suggestion. It was the consensus of the Commission to have the Cluster housing issue brought back to them to decide whether it should be eliminated. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. asked whether there are any plans to have a dedication ceremony for Pineapple Park? Book 35 Page 9830 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9831 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated there are plans and the dedication will probably be held in December. B. stated that she spoke to the City Attorney regarding a neighborhood issue on North Tamiami Trail about the people living behind the Women's Health Center and the protestors who are making life difficult for them on a regular basis. Commissioner Cardamone asked the City Attorney to check to see if any new rulings can provide some relief for the neighbors. Attorney Taylor stated that he would check into this matter. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that he wanted to express his disappointment on the scrap metal issue; that he thought this Commission would not vote for a scrap metal company to come into the City of Sarasota; that Ernest Babb happened to have the Zoning Code with him and checked it. Commissioner Atkins continued that to his surprise and pleasure, Mr. Babb gave him another opportunity to discuss this issue with this Commission because based on his layman's interpretation of what Mr. Babb showed him, the City already has codes that say that the City cannot have outdoor junkyards or scrap metal businesses and the like in the City of Sarasota. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is most pleased to give the Commission one more opportunity to do what is right by the neighborhood and community; that he would like to know what the Administration and the Planning Department was doing allowing this issue to get to this point; that he would like the Administration or City Attorney to speak to the issue as it relates to the City's zoning. City Attorney Taylor stated that Section 8-171 of the Zoning Code lists permitted principal uses and structures "I" (Industrial) zone districts as follows: Sec. 8-171 (d) Outdoor storage yards and lots, provided that: (2) This provision shall not permit wrecking yards, including automobile wrecking yards, junkyards or yards used in whole or in part for scrap or salvage operations or for processing, storage, display or sale of any scrap, salvage or secondhand building materials, junk automotive vehicles or secondhand automotive parts. Attorney Taylor stated he reads this that if the City is dealing with a use that is coming in as a permitted use that is an outdoor storage yard and lot, it would not be allowed under the Code if it fits the list of activities he read; that he feels this creates a problem which was not anticipated at the time this was reviewed and acted upon as a rezoning matter; however, he does not feel he is the person who should, in the first instance, make a decision on the impact of this because this is a function for the Building Administrator of the City and the City Manager. Mayor Pillot asked what the status of a mistaken action taken by the Commission to an existing Code would be? Attorney Taylor stated that with regard to an illegal act, the law would say that the Commission cannot sit in session and mistakenly do something which is illegal and would be deemed a voidable act. Attorney Taylor continued that if the rezoning of the property was a finality and the owners violated Sec. 8-171 (d) (2), the City would need to determine whether the business needed to be shut down immediately as an illegal use or whether the business is a nonconforming use. Mayor Pillot stated that he thinks this issue should be acted upon quickly regardless of the ultimate interpretation of the Code because Mr. Scime left the meeting tonight thinking that he had gotten approval. City Attorney Taylor stated that the owners need to be notified tomorrow that there is a potential problem. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the ordinance requires a second reading; that no final action has been taken. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission should receive the best and correct information to make a decision; that the Commission has been placed in difficult situations because of incorrect information provided. City Attorney Taylor stated that as the City Attorney, he does not make the interpretations in the first instance; that he is not the person who applies the codes; that the people who do apply the codes on a day-to-day basis should know what "outdoor storage yards" are. Commissioner Merrill stated that the code was in effect when the petitioner was annexed into the City; that currently, the petitioner is not violating the Zoning Code by storing metal or junk outside; that the Commission did the right thing by placing the business in the City under greater restrictions. Commissioner Atkins stated that the property should deannex. Mayor Pillot stated that if the petitioner is not violating the Zoning Code, then it is a Closed issue; that no scrap metal will be allowed outside. Book 35 Page 9832 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9833 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the petitioner has the right to rely on information presented to him by Staff? Mayor Pillot stated that when the United States Supreme Court never reverses itself, when the U.S. Congress never makes a mistake, when the Florida Legislature never makes a mistake, then the City Administration will be demanded never to make a mistake. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Commissioner Atkins how it will serve the purposes of the neighborhood if the property deannexes and continues to operate as a junkyard under County zoning? Commissioner Atkins stated that the property will not survive as a junk yard; that he believes that the petitioner is concerned with the contamination of the ground water. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she cannot control the junk yard being in Commissioner Atkins' neighborhood; however, she hopes to be able to mitigate it in some wayi; that if Commissioner Atkins can show that deannexing will cause the problem to go away or not to expand, she will support him and vote "no" on the second reading. COMMISSIONER MERRILL A. stated that Mayor Pillot, as the Chair, should speak last. Mayor Pillot stated that he is aware that he has violated that. MAYOR PILLOT A. asked for a finishing date on the Ken Thompson Park monument; and stated that it would be nice to have the dedication on Thanksgiving weekend. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he did not have the finishing date or dedication date at this time. B. stated that he will be out of town for the November 15, 1993, Regular Commission Meeting; that he requests approval of the Commission to delay the Appointments to Boards; that he would like the privilege to vote when people are appointed to the boards; that the City Auditor and Clerk stated that legally the appointments do not have to be in November. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports the Mayor's request. Mayor Pillot directed City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to agenda the Appointments to the Boards for the first meeting with a full Commission. Mayor Pillot directed city Auditor and Clerk Robinson to agenda the Appointments to the Boards for the first meeting with a full Commission. 27. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS: None. 28. ADJOURN The Regular Meeting of the Sarasota City Commission of November 1, 1993, was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. * - - GENE M. PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: 3illy E Relunson BILLY a ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 35 Page 9834 11/01/93 6:00 P.M. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING - - CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Sarasota. City. Commission Patterson Nora MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, ÇOMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT-OF: 707 Freeling Drive- : X CIrY. :: COUNTY * 11 OTHER LOCAL. AGENCY CITY COUNTY -NAME OF POLITICAL. SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Saraspta - a a E E City of Sarasota DATE ON W'HICH VOTE OCCURRED" MYI POSITION IS: : November I, 1993, X ELECTIVE a1 APPOINTIVE 100A Lu C M CIWHG MUSTFILEFORM 8B . This form is for use by any pèrson sérving at thé county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or commitree. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest undèr Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes: The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should. incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for, recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. MNi '(36 PAGE IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on November 1, 19. 93 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A Resolution came before the City Commission approving a private access road to a Lot not adjacent to a public street. I am a neighbor, one house removed, from the proposed private access road. November 8, 1993 a an chs 4014 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B 10-86 PAGE 2