BOOK 57 Page 28625 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2004, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Richard F. Martin, Vice Mayor Mary Anne Servian, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Lou Ann R. Palmer, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Martin The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:32 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1, ITEM NO. 6, WHICH WILL BE HEARD AS AGENDA ITEM VII-1, ITEM NO. 7, WHICH WILL BE HEARD AS AGENDA ITEM VII-2, CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2, ITEM NO. 1, WHICH WILL BE HEARD AS AGENDA ITEM NO. VI-6, AND ITEM NO. 3, WHICH WILL BE HEARD AS AGENDA ITEM VI-7 CD 2:32 through 2:35 Mayor Martin asked if any Commissioner wished to remove an item from Consent Agenda No. 1 or 2? Vice Mayor Servian requested that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 6, authorizing the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an agreement for the City Hall Renovation Project, be removed for discussion. Commissioner Palmer requested that Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1, concerning salaries of the City Manager and the City Auditor and Clerk, and Item No. 3, concerning amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, be removed for discussion. Mayor Martin asked if any other items should be removed from Consent Agenda No. 1 or 2? City Attorney Taylor stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 7, authorizing the City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interlocal Agreement for the transfer of administrative support for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program to an independent special district, should be removed to provide additional information. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 6, will be heard under New Business as Agenda Item No. VII-1; that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 7, will be heard under New Business as Agenda Item No. VII-2; that Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1, will be heard under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item No. VI-6; that Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 3, will be heard under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item No. VI-7. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:35 There was no one signed up to speak. 3. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2004, THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF AUGUST 23, 2004, AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2004, AND THE EMERGENCY CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2004, L AND SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 2:35 through 2:37 Mayor Martin asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Martin stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the Regular City Commission meeting of September 7, 2004, the Special City Commission meetings of August 23 and September 8, 2004, and the Emergency City Commission meetings of September 2 and September 10, 2004, are approved by unanimous consent. Commissioner Palmer asked if Emergency Ordinance No. 04-4583, declaring a state of emergency due to the threat of harm associated with Hurricane Ivan, has expired? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that language in the Ordinance indicates the Ordinance expires seven days after approval; that no rescinding of the Ordinance is necessary. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: : PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE ' S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2004 - APPROVED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO INITIATE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE A PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIE PLE - FAMILY CONSTRUCTION FOR PROPERTIES BOOK 57 Page 28626 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28627 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. LOCATED IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA (CRA) DISTRICT, NOT TO INCLUDE PROPERTIES CONSIDERED POTENTIAL "AFFORDABLE I OR "WORKFORCE' IT HOUSING, AND TO RECONSIDER OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC ART FUNDING, ESPECIALLY THE MAXIMUM OF $100,000; RECEIVED THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE JUNE 9, 2004, REGULAR MEETING (AGENDA ITEM III-1) CD 2:37 through 2:49 Virginia Hoffman, Vice Chair, Public Art Committee, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Ms. Hoffman presented the following item from the June 9, 2004, Public Art Committee meeting: Requirement for Public Art contributions for Multiple- Family Housing Ms. Hoffman stated that the Public Art Committee voted unanimously to request the Commission amend the Zoning Code, (2002 Ed.), to require public art for multiple-family housing within the Community Redevelopment Area; and quoted the motion from the June 9, 2004, Minutes of the Public Art Committee as follows: On motion of Hofiman and second of Randall, it was moved that the Public Art Committee recommend to the City Commission that staff be directed to initiate a zoning code text amendment to include multi-family construction as part of the public art requirement for properties located within the CRA district. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Hofiman continued that the dialog concerning the public art requirement has been ongoing by the Public Art Committee; that the landscape of the Downtown area is changing and the trend of new development is changing to include mixed uses; that the proposal would enact actions undertaken in several Florida communities; that the Public Art Committee believes expanding the public art requirement to multiple-family housing is a logical step; that Staff was requested to compose some models for implementation; that the Whole Foods Market Center Project will be used as a model through which an additional influx of much-needed funds can be incorporated into the public art program; that more dynamic art projects should be undertaken; that the City is changing; that public art should also change; that approximately $69,750 was contributed to the Public Art Fund by the developer of the Whole Foods Market Center Project; that the amount contributed for public art would have been approximately $100,000 if the contribution requirement included the residential portion of the project. Ms. Hoffman further stated that several projects in the community could be affected by the change; that the increased revenue would be beneficial; that the additional funds are small to developers but substantial to the public art program. Vice Mayor Servian asked if the Public Art Committee considered the additional cost per owner in multi-family developments? Mr. Burg stated that a per-unit cost analysis has not been performed; however, the charge is one-half of one percent of the construction costs of multi-family housing units; that the cost would probably be paid by the purchaser; that the Commission should exempt affordable housing if the request is approved. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the total amount per unit would be approximately a few hundred dollars; the amount is not significant; however, affordable housing should be excluded. Mayor Martin asked for clarification concerning the maximum of $100,000 indicated in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Burg stated that language in the proposed Ordinance indicates the contribution per unit is one-half of one percent up to $100,000; that regardless of the value of the project, the developer never pays more than $100,000. Mayor Martin asked if a mixed-use project would be considered a unified project? Mr. Burg stated yes. Mayor Martin stated that the term affordable housing" should be better defined. Commissioner Atkins stated that affordable, workforce housing should be excluded from the requirement; and asked if large projects must pay $100,000 per phase of a construction process? Mr. Burg stated that the cost is based on the total cost of the completed project. BOOK 57 Page 28628 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28629 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins asked if a developer pays a fee up front and if the City will not attempt to recoup further fees? Mr. Burg stated that is correct; that the developer would pay one-half of one percent of the cost of construction at the time of application for the building permit if not paid previously. Commissioner Palmer stated that the hope is a study will be conducted if the Commission approves the recommendation; that Staff should be able to determine the multiple-family housing which should not be included under the proposed requirement; that properties of equivalent size to properties in the Residential Multiple Family 1 (RMF-1) Zone District should not be included; that the hope is a thorough job of determining eligibility for the exemption will be done; that the maximum should perhaps be higher but not too high; that the maximum should be reevaluated; that other types of housing should be considered under the recommendation in addition to housing in the RMF-1 Zone District. Mayor Martin agreed, and stated that the point is good considering the potential awarding of increased densities under the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD). On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to instruct the Administration to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code, 2002 Ed., to include multiple- family construction as part of the public art requirement for properties located in the Community Redevelopment Area, not to include properties considered potential "affordable" or "workforce" housing, and to reconsider other elements of the public art funding, especially the maximum of $100,000. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to receive the report of the Public Art Board Committee's meeting of June 9, 2004. Motion Carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ' S REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2004 = ACCEPTED REPORT AND DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO BEGIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF THE CENTRAL -COCOANUT NEIGHBORHOOD AS A NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT (AGENDA ITEM III-2) CD 2:50 through 3:07 Christopher Wenzel, Chair, Historic Preservation Board, and James Hoglund, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, come before the Commission. Mr. Wenzel presented the following item from the August 10, 2004, Regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Board: Phase II Survey of Historical Resources Mr. Wenzel stated that the Historic Preservation Board is pleased to announce completion of Phase II Historic Resource Surveyi that the Phase I Survey was completed in May 2003; that Phase II, which included a survey of approximately 760 structures was completed July 20, 2004; that the Phase II report included a potential nomination of the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood as a National Register Historic District; that the Commission is requested to approve pursuit of the historic designation. Commissioner Atkins asked if the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood Association has participated in the process to date or must be approached at this time? Mr. Wenzel stated that the process is similar to the nomination process utilized for the Overtown Historic District, including neighborhood meetings and building consensus with the residents of the Cocoanut Avenue corridor; that the Overtown Historic District nomination as an historic district was successful. Mr. Hoglund stated that Staff met with leadership of the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood Association, who is aware the Phase II Survey is completed; that informational meetings will be held in October or November 2004 to inform all affected property owners to determine the residents' level of support for the historic designation before moving forward with the nomination process. Mayor Martin asked if affected property owners are those who own homes included in the area eligible for historic designation? Mr. Hoglund referred to a map of the area indicating the potential designated historic district displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that as with most historic districts, a BOOK 57 Page 28630 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28631 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. consultant manipulated the border to incorporate historically significant properties; that the area is not easily defined; however, all affected residents will be informed of the nomination processi that residents on the edge of the border will also be informed and educated; that a consideration is removing properties near the border whose occupants do not approve of the nomination process. Mayor Martin asked the level of support required for the nomination process? Mr. Hoglund stated that the City's requirement is 50 percent approval; that without a majority, the Historic Preservation Board will report to the Commission sufficient community support for the nomination does not exist; that the genesis of the historic designation proposal was in 2002; that a proposal was made to the Historic Preservation Board and brought before the Commission; that funds were approved to prepare the documentation required for the nomination process; that a nomination will not be submitted to the State until proof of community support for a nomination is established. Commissioner Palmer asked if the properties in a National Register Historic District must be contiguous? Mr. Hoglund stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that some occupants may wish to include properties meeting the requirements even though the properties are not contiguous to other historic properties. Mr. Hoglund stated that the border of the proposed historic district has been aligned to include as many historic structures as possible; that the spirit of an historic district implies all included structures are special and historically significant. Mr. Wenzel stated that a National Register Historic District carries a spirit of homogeny across the neighborhood; however, similar situations arose and were resolved during the Overtown Historic District nomination process. Commissioner Palmer asked if the current border could change as the nomination process proceeds? Mr. Hoglund stated that the addition of properties not currently included in the boundaries would affect the notification plans for the neighborhood residents as well as the nomination form; that some properties will likely not be added and some may be deleted; that the recommendation is to continue with the boundaries established by the consultant. Vice Mayor Servian asked if a copy of the map of the Central- Cocoanut Neighborhood can be provided to the Commission for further study. Mr. Hoglund stated that both the Phase I and the Phase II surveys will soon be accessible via the Internet; that the survey is a five-phase process to inventory all City buildings 50 years old or older; that funding has been approved for Phase III, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for which will be submitted the week of September 20, 2004; that the Historic Preservation Board will continue with the surveys until all significant preservation work in the City is completed. Commissioner Atkins asked for clarification of the proposed designated areas on the map of the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood. Mr. Hoglund stated that the nomination will include detailed information on the buildings included within the proposed district; that the border on the map indicates the proposed boundary of the proposed Historic District. Mayor Martin asked if the affected parties and neighborhood representatives will be contacted and educated concerning the nomination procedure, and the number of meetings planned? Mr. Hoglund stated that an information meeting will determine community response to the issue; that a second meeting will take place if demand is high. Mayor Martin asked if the affected homeowners who do not attend the information meeting will be able to voice an opinion? Mr. Hoglund stated that two or three neighborhood meetings are usually required to attract a sufficient number of property owners and residents. Mayor Martin asked if the attendees at the meetings would be homeowners and if, regardless of attendance at an informational meeting, an affirmative vote of greater than 50 percent of homeowners would be required to move ahead with the nomination process? BOOK 57 Page 28632 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28633 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Hoglund stated that an affirmative vote of greater than 50 percent of the homeowners is required; that an ownership list has every property in the neighborhood represented; that a letter will be sent to every affected homeowner requesting attendance at the first informational meeting; that the homeowner can also respond in writing; that each homeowner's response will be considered. Mayor Martin asked if the approval of 50 percent of the neighborhood residents is a requirement of the City or State? Mr. Hoglund stated that the 50 percent requirement is likely the State's threshold. Mayor Martin stated that the interest is in the number of properties which are owner-occupled or used as investment property and rentals. Mr. Hoglund stated that the answers will not be known until the nomination process proceeds further. Commissioner Bilyeu asked the effect of the designation on historically significant structures in the Overtown Historic District and the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood? Mr. Hoglund stated that the designation has different ramifications in different parts of the country; that the designation is a means of recognizing neighborhoods with historic qualities; that the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, is well-known for efforts to preserve historic districts; that county tax benefits are often available to owners of properties designated as historically-significant; that the designation is a means of formally recognizing some of the development patterns in the City. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the Phase I Survey included a survey of Laurel Park? Mr. Wenzel stated yes. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that some historically significant structures in Laurel Park are dilapidated and in need of refurbishing; that one property, 515 Osprey Street, is particularly significant. Mr. Wenzel stated that the owner of 515 Osprey Street is being consulted regarding the maintenance and refurbishing of the property. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that property in the Laurel Park area is being purchased, cleared, developed, and sold quickly. Mr. Hoglund stated that a number of areas have been recognized as potential historic districts through Phases I and II of the Historic Resource Survey; that the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood was recognized prior to the Phase II survey; that the nomination for the Historic District was included as part of the work for the consultant for the Phase II Survey; that many potential historic districts exist in the Cityi that more potential historic districts are likely to be discovered. Vice Mayor Servian referred to the minutes of the August 10, 2004 Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Board included in the Agenda backup material indicating Federal law would require some mitigation of historic properties on 17th Street in the event of a project in the area; and asked for clarification of the meaning of the term "mitigation"? Mr. Hoglund stated that the exact requirements of the Federal law are unknown; that since Federal funds are generally used in transportation projects, an evaluation of resources and the extent to which mitigation must be incorporated will be part of the project plan; that the Engineering Department has a consultant evaluating the issue; that the issue will be important. Vice Mayor Servian asked if mitigation implies historically significant homes will be moved or preserved in some special way? City Manager McNees stated that the belief is the Engineering Department's consultant will provide the answers to the issue of mitigation. Mayor Martin asked if the discussion with the consultant will be held in November 2004. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering, came before the Commission and stated that the discussion will be held in either November or December 2004. BOOK 57 Page 28634 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28635 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that regardless of the establishment of an historic district in the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood, the mitigation will take place. Mr. Hoglund stated that the answer is unknown. Vice Mayor Servian asked the motivation for the mitigation? Mayor Martin stated that issues of environment, historic preservation, and others will develop from the study by the Engineering Department's consultant. Commissioner Atkins stated that the importance of informing residents of the proposed historic designation is high; that residents of the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood are not known for activism or regular neighborhood meeting attendance. Mr. Hoglund stated that the files of the Overtown Historic District's nomination process have been reviewed, particularly concerning resident outreach; that residents must be informed of the positive and negative aspects of the historic designation for the neighborhood; that the issue may be more an issue of civic recognition than anything else; that historic designation will not prevent demolition of important buildings and will not add to the process of altering buildings; however, the historic designation is an important statement recognizing the City's history; that the Historic Preservation Board will work hard to ensure residents of the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood are well- informed of the responsibilities of the designation. Commissioner Atkins stated the promise is appreciated. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to accept the report of the Historic Preservation Board and direct the Administration to begin the neighborhood meeting process for the proposed designation of the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood as a National Register Historic District. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission has expressed interest in a joint meeting with the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Wenzel stated that the Commission's desire to meet the Historic Preservation Board is known; that the suggestion was a joint meeting tentatively scheduled for November 2004; that the members of the Historic Preservation Board are eager to meet with the Commission. Mayor Martin stated that the two bodies have many issues in common; that a joint meeting between the Commission and the Historic Preservation Board will be helpful. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 6 = REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION; AND ITEM NO. 7 - REMOVED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (AGENDA ITEM IV A) CD 3:07 through 3:08 1. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 04-4525, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 3, Police; amending Section 24-61, definitions by amending the definition of Average Compensation and the definition of Police Officer; amending Section 24-63, Board of Trustees; amending Section 24-91, Deferred Retirement Option Plan; amending Section 24-92; Reemployment After Retirement; providing for severability of provisions; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; etc. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to the Contract between the City of Sarasota and Rowland, Inc., (Bid #02-32M) for the City-Wide Sewer Rehabilitation Project 2002 (Part III Manhole Rehabilitation). 3. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc, (Bid #04-42K) for Lift Station #52 Force Main Extension. 4. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., (Bid #04-49K) for concrete and brick speed table and a contract to Lovin construction, Inc., for Asphalt Speed Tables on an ass needed basis. 5. Approval Re: Request for transfer of $195,000 from the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds budgeted for the 1st Street Streetscape Project to fund the construction of the lane closure at Gulf Stream Avenue and US 41. BOOK 57 Page 28636 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28637 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 through 5. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1808) REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1809) APPROVED ; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4565) - REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION, : ITEM 4 (04-4566) = APPROVED, ; ITEM 5 (04-4567) = APPROVED ; ITEM 6 (04-4568) - 1 APPROVED; ITEM 7 (04-4569) APPROVED : ITEM 8 (04-4574) = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 3:08 through 3:13 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1809, adopting the revised Position Classification/ Compensation Plan; authorizing employees, for whom collective bargaining is not required, except provided herein, an increase in the rate of pay as provided herein, effective October 6, 2004, authorizing the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk to continue to administer the revised Classification/compensation Plan requirements; providing compensation for longevity; etc. (Title Only). 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4566, amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, to change the Future Land Use Classification of the eastern 504.36 feet of a parcel of vacant property located at 4644 North Tamiami Trail and the Future Land Use Classification of an adjacent vacant parcel located at 935 46th Street from the Single Family Moderate Density Future Land Use Classification to the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification subject to conditions more fully specified herein; said parcels having a combined area of +2.83 acres; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) (Application No. 03-PA-04, Applicant Bruce Franklin, President, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., as owner). 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4567, amending the Euture Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, to change the Future Land Use Classification of a +1.09 acres parcel of property located on the east side East Avenue and the northwest corner of Dearborn Avenue and at the northwest corner of Dearborn Avenue and Hansen Street and having street addresses of 3917, 3921, 3925, 3929, 3935, 3941, and 3949 East Avenue and 3950 Dearborn Avenue from the Sarasota County Future Land Use Map Classification Medium Density Residential to the City of Sarasota Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification in accordance with City Comprehensive Plan Amendment Agreement Application No. 03-PA-11; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereoi; etc. (Title Only) (Application No. 03-PA-11, Applicant Charles D. Bailey, Jr., as attorney representing Geyer-Dickinson, a Florida General Partnership, as owner). . 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4568, amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the City Comprehensive Plan, the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, to revise Illustration LU-11 of the Future Land Use Map series to designate the area subject to the Newtown Redevelopment Plan as an urban infill and redevelopment area in accordance with Section 163.3217(4), Florida Statutes; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) (Application No. 13-PA-06, Applicant City of Sarasota). 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4569, annexing certain real property lying contiguous to the City limits into the corporate limits of the City of Sarasota as requested by Geyer- Dickinson, a Florida General Partnership; said real property being generally described as a parcel of property located on the east side of East Avenue and at the northwest corner of Dearborn Avenue and Hansen Street consisting of approximately +1.09 acres, and having street addresses of 3917, 3921, 3925, 3929, 3935, 3941, and 3949 East Avenue and 3950 Dearborn Avenue; making findings; redefining the boundary lines of the City of Sarasota to include said real property; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) (Application No. 04-ANX-01, Applicant Charles D. Bailey, Jr., as attorney representing Geyer-Dickinson, a Florida General Partnership, as owner). 8. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4574, to update and modify projects related to BOOK 57 Page 28638 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28639 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. level of service standards in the Capital Improvements Plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition; stating findings of fact; adopting by reference an updated schedule of level of service projects by reference into the Capital Improvements Plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1809 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 04-4566, 04-4567, 04-4568, 04-4569, and 04-4574 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: PARKS, RECREATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTED BRIE WILLET AND EDWARD SELLECK (AGENDA ITEM V-1) CD 3:13 through 3:19 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that two vacancies exist on the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board (Parks Board) due to the resignations of Maria Price and H. Bruce Rinker; that neither seat has a seat designation; that two applications have been received and are included in the Agenda backup material; that the vacancies for the Parks Board have been advertised several times over the past three months. Commissioner Atkins stated that the lack of interest in the vacant seats on the Parks Board is surprising considering the recent community interest in environmental issues. Mayor Martin stated that designating the Parks Board as the Brownfields Advisory Board was discussed at the September 7, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that enthusiastic member involvement on the Parks Board is important. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an additional advertisement specifying an interest in applicants with experience in environmental issues can be placed if desired. Commissioner Atkins stated that environmental specialization is desired of applicants; that experts in environmental issues are needed on the Parks Board. Mayor Martin stated that the background of Brie Willet is outstanding; that Ms. Willet works with the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP) and has worked at Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium (Mote Marine); that Ms. Willet developed Mote Marine's Peer Program which is the outreach education program regarding environmental matters, is highly qualified, and would make an excellent liaison between the Parks Board and the new, independent Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP). Commissioner Atkins stated that the application of neither candidate is criticized; that the thought was more applications would be received; that the Commission should approve the two applicants, Brie Willet and Edward Selleck. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to appoint Brie Willet and Edward Selleck to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board. Commissioner Palmer asked if Mr. Selleck has requested additional rights for rowers and boaters in the past? Mayor Martin stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that membership on the Parks Board should not be a means of advocating for personal causes. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission should discuss the issue further if advocacy on the Parks Board is a concern. Commissioner Palmer stated that no City advisory board is a platform for advocacy; that no objection exists regarding Mr. Selleck personally. Mayor Martin stated that the role of a member of the Parks Board will be explained to Mr. Selleck if the appointments are approved. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the role should be explained to all appointees, not just one if necessary to avoid bias; that a difficult decision would be required if a choice were necessary between the City and non-City resident applicants. BOOK 57 Page 28640 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28641 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that nominating the two applicants was an attempt to save the City advertising fees; that all advisory board members have biases which is the reason for majority voting. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to appoint Brie Willet and Edward Selleck to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board. Motion passed unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 9. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: : PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY = APPOINED JENNIFER WILSON (AGENDA ITEM V-2) CD 3:19 through 3:20 Mayor Martin stated that the vacancy on the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) is due to the resignation of Samuel Schackow. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the seat on the PBLP was advertised, resulting in only one applicant, Jennifer Wilson. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to appoint Jennifer Wilson to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. . 04R-1761, APPROVING THE JOINT APPLICATION WITH SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SARASOTA COUNTY /CITY OF SARASOTA ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE AREA FOR CONSIDERATION AS AN ENTERPRISE ZONE; DEFINING THE EXPANDED AREA THAT EXHIBITS EXTREME AND UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL DETERIORATION, AND ECONOMIC DISINVESTMENT, : FINDING THE MEANS OF REHABILITATION, CONSERVATION, OR REDEVELOPMENT OF SAID AREA; FINDING THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO INVEST ITS OWN RESOURCES THAT BUILD OR REBUILD THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF SAID AREA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 3:20 through 3:22 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Resolution No. 04-1761, concerning an application to the State Office of Tourism to amend the boundaries of the City's Enterprise Zone came before the Commission at the September 7, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that the motion to extend the boundaries of the Enterprise Zone resulted in a tie vote; that in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Procedure, items resulting in a tie vote are placed on the Agenda of the next Regular Commission meeting at which a full Commission is present. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Mayor Martin who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1761. Vice Mayor Servian requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion passed (3 to 2): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, no; Atkins, no. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE : FARMERS MARKET FUTURE LOCATION - AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S INTENT TO RETURN THE FARMERS MARKET TO LEMON AVENUE UPON COMPLETION OF THE LEMON AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT, : DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP TO INITIATE A PLAN FOR A CELEBRATION MARKING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FARMERS MARKET (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) CD 3:22 through 3:28 Mayor Martin stated that the item was placed on the Agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Servian and concerns the future location of the Farmers Market. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a representative of the Main Street Merchants Association presented a letter and petition from the Main Street Merchants Association requesting the Commission take formal action regarding the return of the Farmers Market to Lemon Avenue upon completion of construction projects in the area; that the letter was distributed to the Commission at the September 7, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that significant confusion regarding the future location of the Farmers Market has resulted in the need for a clear statement on the issue from the Commission; that the suggestion is to take affirmative action to bring the Farmers Market back to Lemon Avenue upon the completion of construction of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Project. BOOK 57 Page 28642 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28643 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. The following people came before the Commission: Alan Howes, 7537 Botanica Parkway (34238), stated that the Commission is thanked for the opportunity to speak; that the intention to present to the Commission was contingent upon the Commission's possible negative response to the request; that no need exists to speak as the Commission appears amenable to the request. Diana Hamilton, 533 Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that the Farmers Market has struggled at its current location on Pineapple Avenue; however, the businesses at Pineapple Avenue, Burns Court, and Herold Square have been gracious to accommodate the Farmers Market; that the area is beautiful, though not congruent to a farmers' market; that the residents and businesses on Pineapple Avenue have been gracious hosts; that the majority of vendors will be very pleased to return to Lemon Avenue; that the hope is the Commission reaches agreement to return the Farmers Market to Lemon Avenue upon completion of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Project. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to affirm the Commission's intent to return the Farmers Market to Lemon Avenue upon completion of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Project. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mayor Martin stated that knowing the time at which the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Project will be completed will be helpful, and asked if the project is scheduled for completion before Thanksgiving 2004? City Manager McNees stated yes; that completing the project prior to Thanksgiving 2004 is the City's goal. Mayor Martin stated that the 25th anniversary of the Farmers Market was celebrated at the time of the relocation to Pineapple Avenue; that the hope is the Commission desires to recognize not only the return of the Farmers Market to Lemon Avenue, but also the anniversary of a City tradition. Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer agreed. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is for the Administration to work with the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota (Downtown Partnership) initiate a plan for a celebration marking the 25th anniversary of the Farmers Market which could be brought before the Commission. Commissioner Atkins stated that the vendors had a concern regarding the manner in which the vendors were aligned near the fountain area on Lemon Avenue; that upon returning to Lemon Avenue, the vendors should be set up in a linear fashion sO patrons are not required to move off the main path. Mayor Martin stated that the Downtown Partnership will consider the logistics of the Farmers Market on Lemon Avenue. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the successful talks between Staff and the Downtown Partnership are recognized and appreciated. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SARASOTA COUNTY ' S 2050 PLAN'S TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAM - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO INITIATE A REQUEST TO THE SARASOTA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW THE CITY TO RETAIN THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE HI HAT RANCH AND VERNA WELLFIELD (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) CD 3:28 through 4:01 Mayor Martin stated that the item concerns Sarasota County's 2050 Plan (Sarasota 2050 Plan) and program for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). Douglas James, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, and Olga Ronay, General Manager, Growth Management Department, Sarasota County, come before the Commission. Mr. James stated that County Staff is present to provide information concerning the issue of TDRS as included in the Sarasota 2050 Plan and the relationship to Apoxsee, the County's Comprehensive Plan; that the Sarasota 2050 Plan recently became effective after being reviewed by the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) subsequent to a challenge issued; that a component of the Sarasota 2050 Plan is a program to preserve environmentally-sensitive lands, one of which is the acreage owned by the City totaling approximately 5,700 acres east of Interstate 75; that the majority of the acreage is near the Hi Hat Ranch; that a portion is under the title to the property BOOK 57 Page 28644 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28645 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. occupied by the Verna Wellfield; that the issue was discussed during the Regular Commission meeting of July 6, 2004; that the Commission concluded a meeting with a representative of the County familiar with TDRs and the Sarasota 2050 Plan would be beneficial. Ms. Ronay referred to computer-generated slides concerning the Sarasota 2050 Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors, and stated that presenting before the Commission after the adoption of the amenament to the County's Comprehensive Plan is pleasing; that some context for understanding the implications of the amendment and TDRs is necessary; that the Sarasota 2050 Plan is an overlay to the County's Comprehensive Plan and encompasses six geographic areas called Resource Management Areas (RMAs); that the Sarasota 2050 Plan is long-range and has simple goals which are to: create livable communities, both inside and outside the urban service boundary protect environmentally-sensitive lands and open spaces Ms. Ronay continued that the Sarasota 2050 Plan is incentive- based rather than regulation-Dased; that many City Commissioners were involved in the discussion which began with directions for the future which segued into an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the zoning and land development regulations to implement the amendment; that many challenges have been overcome; that long-term planning is important as the population of Sarasota County is increasing and will continue to increase; that the Sarasota Urban Service Boundary (USB) runs along Interstate 75 and protrudes slightly at Fruitville Road; that a rapid rate of growth will likely continue over the next 50 years. Ms. Ronay further stated that the County wishes to preserve the greenspace around the Myakka River to leave a respectable greenspace legacy to future generations; that another wish is to create better communities in existing and future neighborhoods; that outside experts were consulted to determine the manner in which the County can grow while maintaining quality of life; that the Sarasota 2050 Plan was meant to answer the question; that the foundation of the Sarasota 2050 Plan is some basic principles such as reducing automobile trips, preventing urban sprawl, and balancing jobs and housing. Ms. Ronay referred to a map of greenways displayed on the Chamber monitors, and stated further that the information on greenways was attained through extensive habitat mapping; that the map of greenways consists of two parts: areas in public ownership, conservation, or protection, and areas of privately- owned lands targeted for preservation; that the purpose is to create linkages between public lands such as Oscar Shearer State Park and the Myakka River system; that outside the USB, two new kinds of development exist in the Sarasota 2050 Plan: villages and hamlets; that villages adjoin the urban service boundary; that the State requests the County perform a growth analysis every seven years; that projections have the growth occurring in villages in North County; that the concept of villages is likely well-known; that two key components of villages are a village center and a definition and edge; that villages are large, encompassing approximately 1,000 acres with greenways and open space to complement the space; that features of villages in the Sarasota 2050 Plan include construction around neighbornoods, maintenance of a village center, a requirement of 15 percent of homes be affordable to those earning less than 100 percent of the area median income, requirements for schools, and a minimum density at three units per acre; that the point of the minimum density requirement is to build a framework for transit and bicycling as well as a pedestrian-friendly environment; that hamlets will be located farther east of the urban service boundary; that Old Myakka is an example of a hamlet, with a central focal point surrounded by houses; that 60 percent of the land in a hamlet must be reserved for open space. Ms. Ronay stated that villages, hamlets, and greenways have been the most discussed RMAs; that other RMAs are Rural Heritage and Estates, which protect existing neighborhoods outside the urban service boundary, including Hidden River and Old Myakka; that the protection for the Rural Heritage and Estates RMAs will be in the form of large lot development, conservation subdivisions, and agricultural reserves; that economic development is over time transitioning from car-friendly, large, commercial businesses to something which will become a center of a community; that a model called Planned Economic Development (PED) is modeled on Winter Park Village, Florida, a traditional suburban shopping center which went bankrupt and was rebuilt as a multi-story complex with a parking garage and retail and residential space; that residential space in Winter Park Village is selling out faster than expected; that the once large commercial behemoth now has a residential face; that the final RMA in the Sarasota 2050 Plan is the Urban/Suburban RMA which is the area in which most people in Sarasota County live today; BOOK 57 Page 28646 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28647 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. that maintaining the Urban/Suburban RMA is only a matter of continuing to fund existing projects; that coordination should be increased between the County and the municipal governments. Ms. Ronay continued that the Sarasota 2050 Plan was the winner of the Congress for New Urbanism Award in 2003; that the hope is to spread some of the innovations in the Sarasota 2050 Plan to the rest of the country; that an innovation of the Sarasota 2050 Plan is linking development with preservation; that to build the Sarasota 2050 Plan's model of a village, no vested number of rights associated with the property exist; that the rights must be transferred in from elsewhere, either from the open space or greenway as part of the Master Plan of the village or from offsite; that the result is preservation of the open space and the greenway, including offsite greenway. Ms. Ronay further stated that the incentive in the Sarasota 2050 Plan is in acreage; that a developer building a village can receive up to one unit in density per acre, plus the opportunity of non-residential space; that the inducement comes in the form of the TDR; that the TDRs average up to 1 unit per acre; however, TDRs are calculated based upon the public value of the land; that the highest valued land is high, dry, and can be developed; that the density range. is between 0 and 2 units per acre; that more environmentally valuable land is closer to two, while land developed as a village would receive the least amount of development rights per acre; that eligible lands, determined in the amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan, are lands held in private ownership as of July 2002, the adoption date of the amendment; that lands with a high value or multiplier are listed in the second policy: the Village, Open Space RMA, and the Greenway RMA; that the Agricultural Reserve RMA, which is large, does not receive significant credit; that the TDR inducements are focused upon village and greenway land; that a limit exists on the number of TDRS allowed per area; that the number of TDRS must be equal to the total number of acres in the Village and Open Space RMAs, minus the publicly-held greenway; that 47,500 acres exist in the areas designated; that the anticipation is between 82,000 and 110,000 dwelling units will be constructed in Sarasota County over the next 50 years. Ms. Ronay stated further that all buyers for TDRS initially had enough rights to build a minimum-sized village, 1,000 acres times three units per acre; that a transaction occurred with Schroeder-Manatee which has since changed the equation; that the three purchasing rights to add more density, as all three could increase from a minimum of three units per acre to a maximum of six units per acre; that the demand for more density creates the demand for TDRs. Ms. Ronay stated that the following can sell TDRs: the virommtalymitie lands program which purchased land after July 2002, owners of hamlets, which are generally generators of rights, and owners of private greenway; that the importance of the value of a TDR is worth considering; that the issue is the fundamental agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller; that the Sarasota 2050 Plan implementing codes indicates the rights go into the TDR Bank at the time the environmentally sensitive lands program purchases land with rights; that the policy only relates to the manner in which the price is established; that a willing buyer and a willing seller can come to any agreement mutually desired; that the Gumslue Conservation Easement is at the edge of the Schroeder-Manatee property, and is approximately 2,000 acres; that environmentally-sensitive lands program purchased the Gumslue Conservation Easement in 2004; that the total number of acres, multiplied by the habitat value discussed earlier brought the cost of the land to approximately $7 million which was paid; that the County paid approximately $2,200 per land development right; that the market for the prices as calculated has not been considered or studied in depth. Ms. Ronay continued that in summary, the proposed use of the land would be identified as the idea behind TDRs which is to protect the land forever through a conservation easement; that protection through a land management plan and a conservation easement in perpetuity which limits the rights, including. the development rights forever, would be necessary if the land changes from farming to native range; that a letter would be required by November 30, 2004, if the City Commission wishes the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider amending the Sarasota 2050 Plan; that data and analysis would be required; that any amendment would be part of the current cycle for amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, which is currently under consideration, with public workshops in the Winter 2004 and Spring 2005, going to the County's Planning Commission in the Spring/Summer 2005, being before the BCC in approximately September 2005, with final adoption hearings in May 2006; that the data and analysis should indicate the need for the additional TDRs to be on the market; that some greenway is in public ownership and is protected, while other greenway is BOOK 57 Page 28648 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28649 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. privately owned; that the County is a significant owner of property in the area and does not have rights under the Sarasota 2050 Plan, except for land purchased after 2002; that the State of Florida and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) are also significant property owners; that approximately 72,000 acres is in public ownership and is environmentally valuable land; that City-owned property such as the Hi Hat and the Verna Wellfield, County, State, and Federal property could generate significant funds through TDRs; that the County must understand the manner in which maintaining additional TDRs on the market can be supported with the knowledge of the population forecast and future needs. Vice Mayor Servian asked the reason the City was precluded from the original TDR planning discussion if the City has properties which may generate desired funds through sale? Ms. Ronay stated that the overall objective of the Sarasota 2050 Plan is preservation; that lands in public ownership under good stewardship were considered; that the City participated in the development of the amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan resulting in the Sarasota 2050 Plan; that the views of City representatives were not excluded; that little discussion concerning TDRS was raised at the time. Commissioner Palmer stated that the issue has been periodically raised for a few years; that the chief concern is the rights of the City; that the City should have better communicated with the County concerning the matter; however, communication can take place currently; that the Commissioners are stewards of the City's future; that public ownership of lands capable of being developed should be treated the same as privately-owned lands; that no Commissioners are likely ready to transfer TDRs of greenways and open space in either Hi Hat Ranch or the Verna Wellfield, though some City Commission in the future may decide to do sO based on the City's needs; that 5,700 acres of land is a considerable amount of money; that the City should initiate a change of some kind; and asked for claritication of the EAR in relationship to Apoxsee and the Sarasota 2050 Plan. Ms. Ronay stated that the Sarasota 2050 Plan is an amendment to Apoxsee; that a few items have been identified which require correction; that a few County-initiated amendments to the Sarasota 2050 Plan as part of the EAR cycle are in development. Commissioner Palmer stated that knowing amendments are being made is pleasing; that under Apoxsee, the City has limited TDRs currently. Ms. Ronay stated that the current TDRS are extremely limited in comparison to those proposed in the Sarasota 2050 Plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that residents in the City as well as the County unincorporated area voted in favor of the virotaly-mitive lands program; that the issue would not be contentious if the lands should be kept in public ownership and a conservation easement which could be purchased from the City to keep the land preserved could be arranged; that the City should be as fully eligible for the proceeds from the sale of City-owned land as private entities would be, or alternatively the City should be given the opportunity to make the changes or request the County make the changes to accommodate the City's future financial needs; that the understanding is a limitation exists in terms the 47,500 acres. Ms. Ronay stated that exact numbers are unknown and should not be used to make firm determinations. Commissioner Palmer stated that the hope is to gain a better understanding of the revenues which could be generated; that the revenues would be considerably higher under the Sarasota 2050 Plan; that the concern is some future City Commission may feel unduly bound by a decision made by the current City Commission; that the issue should be brought before the BCC for consideration. City Manager McNees stated that a maximum exists on the number of developable units which can be transferred into the area; and asked the reason for the maximum on the number of units which can be transferred out of the area? Ms. Ronay stated that either argument could be made; that the County argued vigorously with the State to assure the available TDRs match the needs; however, another system such as one in which the rights are phased in or some recognition of a preferential queue of sellers may work. City Manager McNees stated that the first answer is TDRs have been taken away by the State Legislature. Commissioner Palmer stated that a similar situation exists with the City's Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the Downtown BOOK 57 Page 28650 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28651 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Residential Overlay District (DROD) as a base number of 50 units per acre is allowed; that some projects will ask for the increase; however, not everyone will be allowed to obtain the additional density as the maximum density will be 50 units per acre. Ms. Ronay asked if any criteria or timing mechanisms are built in to differentiate the allowed density? Commissioner Palmer stated that criteria exist for determining which parties are allowed increased densityi that the comparison with TDRs is not exact; that the County's cooperation with Planning and Redevelopment Staff is appreciated. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to direct the Administration to initiate a request to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to approve an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan to allow the City to retain the Transfer of Development Rights for the Hi Hat Ranch and the Verna Wellfield. Commissioner Atkins stated that the City struggled to acquire both the Hi Hat Ranch and the Verna Wellfield; that the County was not supportive of the acquisition; that the City deserves the right to the TDRS. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to direct the Administration to initiate a request to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to approve an amendment to the County's Comprehensive to allow the City to retain the Transfer of Development Rights for the Hi Hat Ranch and Verna Wellfield. Motion passed unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mayor Martin stated that thanks are extended to Ms. Ronay and Mr. James for the presentation. Ms. Ronay stated that the BCC will be expecting a letter from the City Commission by November 2004. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE; : RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY AND BUILDING APPRAISAL FOR THE FORMER CLEAR CHANNEL RADIO STATION BUILDING LOCATED ON KEN THOMPSON PARKWAY APPROVED TO 1) DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDING AND INCORPORATE THE LAND INTO THE KEN THOMPSON PARK, 2) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS TO AMEND THE KEN THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 22-1, SARASOTA CITY CODE (1986 AS AMENDED) (CITY CODE) I AND 3) AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CITICASTERS, INC. TO ALLOW THE TENANT 120 DAYS TO CONDUCT DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING AND FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME (AGENDA ITEM VI-4) CD 4:01 through 4:07 Mayor Martin stated that the environmental survey and building appraisal for the building, formerly occupied by Clear Channel Radio Station and located on Ken Thompson Parkway, will be presented. Nancy Carolan, Director of General Services, came before the Commission and stated that at the June 21, 2004, Regular Commission meeting, the Commission directed Staff to determine the overall environmental condition of the building at Ken Thompson Park formerly occupied by Clear Channel Radio to determine if the building could be renovated for a future public use or should be demolished and the land incorporated back to Ken Thompson Park; that to accomplish the Commission's desire, Staff had an environmental survey and a building appraisal conducted. Ms. Carolan continued that the results of the environmental survey indicated a moderate amount of asbestos, mostly located in the floor tiles which cover approximately 3,300 square feet of the 4,200 square foot building; that evidence was found of the use of lead-based paint in various locations in the interior of the building along with evidence of mold; that the Summary Appraisal Report included in the Agenda backup material investigated only the value of the building as the City was attempting to determine the maximum the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would permit for renovation of the building which is located in a flood zone; that the Summary Appraisal Report established the value of the building at $100,000; that the appraisal limits improvements to approximately 50 percent of the total appraisal, or $50,000 under the current guidelines for properties located in flood zones. Ms. Carolan further stated that Staff has spoken with the Manager of Clear Channel Citicasters, Inc., to inform of the findings of the two reports and of the recommendation to the Commission which would be a motion to demolish the building and BOOK 57 Page 28652 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28653 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. incorporate the land into Ken Thompson Park; that the demolition would mean Clear Channel would have an amendment to the termination of lease agreement allowing Clear Channel an amount of time to effectuate the demolition of the building as discussed at the June 21, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that to renovate the structure would cost significantly more than the $50,000 allowable under FEMA guidelines; that the Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement estimates the renovation costs at approximately $60 per square foot, which at 4,200 square feet, brings the cost to over $200,000 for renovation. Vice Mayor Servian referred to the September 13, 2004, letter from Ms. Carolyn to the Commission included in the Agenda backup material indicating asbestos exists in the building; however, the Summary Appraisal Report indicates the presence of asbestos is not confirmed; and asked if additional testing showed evidence of asbestos? Ms. Carolan stated yes; that the building appraisal did not address the environmental conditions in the building; that as indicated, a separate environmental survey was conduced to address the environmental issues; that the environmental survey was summarized; that the entire report could be provided to the Commission if desired. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the question was meant to determine if an added investigation of the building's environment was conducted. Mayor Martin asked if the asbestos is only in the floor tiles? Ms. Carolan stated yes. Mayor Martin asked the manner in which the estimate of $60 per square foot for renovation was determined by Staff? Ms. Carolan stated that the estimate was based on a building standard; that the actual amount spent on renovations could be more or less than $60 per square foot; that based on the condition of the building and the amount of renovation necessary to bring the building up to current standards, the $60 amount was discussed as an average cost for planning purposes; that Staff desired to determine if any significant renovations could be undertaken for $50,000. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendations to: 1. demolish the existing building and incorporate the land into the Ken Thompson Park. 2. authorize Staff to commence the process to amend the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan as required by Section 22-1, Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code). 3. authorize the City Attorney to prepare an Amendment to the Termination of Lease Agreement with Citicasters, Inc., to allow the tenant 120 days to conduct demolition of the building and for the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute same. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1806, APPROPRIATING $1,064,450 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND THE ACQUISITION OF A NEW BUILDING DEPARTMENT LAND MANAGEMENT COMPUTER SYSTEM = ADOPTED; ; CONSENSUS TO INCLUDE CLYDE H. WILSON, JR. / IN THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS WITH CSDC SYSTEMS, / INC. (AGENDA ITEM VI-5) CD 4:07 through 5:08 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1806 is to approve acquisition of a new land management computing system. Timothy Litchet, Director, Kevin Wells, Business Analyst, Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, and Ramin Kouzekhanani, Director of Information Technology (IT), came before the Commission. Mr. Litchet stated that the proposal is for a major purchase for the City; that all the aspects of the proposed purchase will be clearly explained. Vice Mayor Servian asked who completed the Request for Information (RFI) ? Mr. Wells stated that he completed the REI. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the RFI is very good; that the thought was the REI may have been completed by a consultant. BOOK 57 Page 28654 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28655 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Wells referred to computer-generated slides concerning the purchase of the proposed land management computer system displayed on Chamber monitors throughout the presentation, and stated that beginning two years ago, Staff began mapping and defining business processes; that Staff considered the manner in which the City's business is conducted, the tools used, and the impact of the tools to help or hinder the processes; that last year, Staff made a presentation to the Commission indicating processes to save time and money and allowing Staff to become more efficient would be identified; that the improvements allowed Staff to process more building improvement applications and receive more building revenues this fiscal year than experienced in the past; that the capabilities of product enhancements have been exceeded due primarily to inadequacies in the existing computer system. Mr. Wells continued that over the past two decades, only surface repairs had been applied to the existing automated system; that the business model had already been changed dramatically at the time the current system was revamped to accommodate the new millennium, i.e., the Y2K issue; that the system has changed dramatically but has not been modified to meet business needs; that the system must keep pace with Staff's needs as the City's requirements change; that each year, the State imposes more unfunded mandates, each with reporting or data collection components; that new ordinances and codes bring change to the business model as the community changes and as the Commission works to manage change strategically; that the existing system is both expensive and difficult to manipulate to meet the new challenges; that each problem encountered results in additional compatibility problems with the City's existing automated system environment; that exchanging the existing system is expensive; that State and local laws and codes change constantly; that thanks to evolutions in technology, a number of generic advantages exist with all reviewed systems; that due to open architecture of new systems and the ability to access information in a wide variety of ways, citizens will find accessing and gathering information from and doing business with their government easier; that web-based and kiosk-based transactions make the process simple, relatively painless, and much less expensive for customers and Staff. Mr. Wells further stated that internally, newer systems are dramatically easy for IT Staff to integrate between departments; that accessing data is simpler and more robust between the systems; that while more general advantages of a new system will be discussed, a focus will be placed on the differences between certain systems; that a key advantage of newer systems is the way in which the systems fit into the City's five-year plans, both for the Building Department and Citywide for technology; that within the Building Department, the Commission has requested an increase in automation, an increase in reliability, and an increase in response time to make building within the City easier and less expensive; that the citizens and developers in the City require access to accurate and immediate information to make decisions, especially in view of the City's current building boon; that the Building Department must make the amount and quality of information to the Commission greater and better to aid in the Commission's decision-making processesi that the Commission has asked for emphasis on electronic government and an expanded array of access options such as kiosks; that IT Staff must ensure any steps taken support the standards IT has established, ensuring the projects resides within the City technology environment and can be leveraged as a springboard in other departments. Mr. Wells stated further that the Commission established two clear objectives for the Building Department: 1) determine necessary changes in the Building Department to help citizens, and 2) find an overall solution, including appropriate technology, which can be used by the City to meet strategic goals; that Staff began by mapping the necessary steps; that the next step was determining if and where the current technology systems were preventing progress and determining the necessary processes to overcome the obstacles; that Staff identified the key problems and created the RFI; that an RFI has several key advantages over a Request for Proposal (RFP) and a Request for Quote (RFQ), the primary advantage being the ability presented by the RFI to help open a dialog; that an RFP or an RFQ signals a vendor Staff's knowledge of problem and the desire to repair the problem; that an RFI indicates the vendor knows the technology better than Staff; that Staff knows the problems; however, the vendor knows the solutions; that the purpose of an RFI is for the vendor to enlighten Staff concerning issues not previously considered; that the RFI leads to a better, stronger solution for the citizens. Mr. Wells stated that a team of three tiers of Staff was assembled; that the first tier consisted of the City Auditor and Clerk, the City Manager, and the Director of Information Technology; that the lower tier consisted of frontline employees, ensuring the solutions suggested were easy to use, met the City's basic needs, and solved prosaic problems faced by Staff; that the middle tier, including Building Department Staff, examined the integration between the various functions, looking closely at each company's reputation for reliability; that the middle tier is BOOK 57 Page 28656 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28657 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. responsible for ensuring citizens can continue building in the City; that a smooth implementation and a reliable company are key to successi that subsequent to reviewing the responses as a team, some solutions appeared immediately unworkable; that three systems which could meet the Building Department's needs effectively, fit into the technical environment, and fit the City's long-term, strategic goals were identified; that the systems were Excella Software Technologies, Eden Systems, Inc., and CSDC Systems, Inc. (CSDC); that each vendor was requested to come to the City for a day of presentations; that each vendor presented solutions to various groups, each group representing a different level or type within the City; that the vendors introduced Staff to the software, customers, and implementation team members; that Staff introduced to the vendors a barrage of detailed problems faced daily by the City; that the vendors were asked the manner in which the problems are solved by the various systems; that the vendors were able to differentiate the three systems for Staff; that each of the solutions had one or more key advantages over the others; that after the third and final demonstration, which was delayed by Hurricane Charley, Staff had a clear favorite, and a compelling set of reasons for the choice. Mr. Wells continued that Staff, in individual rankings, voted CSDC as the best choice, often by a wide margin; that as Staff assembled to discuss the benefits of each system, the team agreed CSDC was the best choice for the Building Department and the City; that CSDC is the vendor with the best reputation for responsibility and successful implementation; that CSDC's system is called Amanda; that a key advantage of Amanda is CSDC is currently implementing Amanda for the Countyi that the head of implementation for CSDC is in the Chambers audience for questions if desired; that no other vendor could possibly be versed in the specific issues the City is facing and will face with any new system; that the taxpayers are already paying CSDC to fix problems in the County system; that the City can leverage the taxpayer investment in the County to fix the City's problems if the Commission approves the funds; that the City cannot receive a similar advantage with another vendor. Mr. Wells further stated that the Building Department uses core databases; that the City's investment can be leveraged to add functionality later to other departments since Amanda has several upgrade modules; that upgrade capability is a key element of the technology plan the Commission proposed and implemented to unify processes throughout the City; that the manner in which Amanda is set up aligns well with Building Department processesi that implementation will be smoother than with another system; that the flexibility of Amanda allows for easier adaptation as the processes change; that basic design elements such as interface is useful; that Staff is proposing a system which supports the entire Building Department, also adding critical functionality which the Commission has requested such as wireless updates from the field and web-based processing; that parts of the core system will also support electronic development application review and billable fees; that the items must be reviewed by the appropriate officials such as the City Auditor and Clerk, the City Manager, and individual departmental Staff involved in parts of the processesi that if the officials choose to utilize the system, the functionality is included, sO no additional, or very little additional, cost will be incurred; that the base system will expand the citizen relationship management (CRM) ability; that the technology team is currently operating through the Florida League of Cities Better Place, which was an introductory solution; that IT Staff is currently evaluating Amanda as a potential permanent solution; that Amanda also integrates seamlessly with the IT's ImaginesRQ initiative. Mr. Wells stated further that Amanda is easy to interface with other systems as business processes are integrated; that other departments may choose to use Amanda to automate processes; that the overall core investment will be made through the proposed initiative, sO additional functionality, as required, will be easier to implement; that the involvement with the County is the key to successi that the implementation of Amanda at the County is currently on schedule and slightly under budget; that the City will benefit from the implementation funds spent; however, the County benefits as well; that since both systems operate under the same underlying platform, exchanging information becomes easier; that the City can open a virtual window through which the County can easily access useful City information; that every dollar saved by either the City or the County is a dollar saved for taxpayersi that using a compatible system extends the savings for both teams and magnifies the savings for citizens; that the County and City are both researching the option of implementing wireless access in the area; that by implementing Amanda, the County and City ensure the goals are compatible; that the goal is not to work at cross purposes. Mr. Wells stated that the Commission has developed initiatives to foster community growth; therefore, a single, City-wide plan may not always be appropriate; that close integration with graphical information systems makes the Amanda system more effective; that BOOK 57 Page 28658 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28659 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. two examples are the Downtown Code and the Enterprise Zone; that both initiatives have necessarily suffered from the system's inability to adapt to neignborhood-leve. ordinances; that the current system either raises the amount of time manual review is required or increases the risk the citizens will miss out on entitled benefits; that vast amounts of information such as building layouts, code enforcement actions, and property histories is available and could be important to police officers and other first responders; that currently, Staff cannot offer the information effectively under the pressure of an emergency; that other departments such as the Public Works Department have information which could speed the Building Department's review; that currently, the information is unavailable; that the effectiveness of efficiency of code and building inspectors through Amanda could be increased; that overall, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) makes Staff more responsive and gives the Commission greater access to information to make decisions for the community. Mr. Wells continued that reporting is currently limited and expensive to access; that Amanda offers users instant access to the necessary information; that Amanda is a relational database; that a relational database allows cross-reterencing of all information sO users receive exacty the information desired; that with the existing system, Staff must contact a vendor in Canada for each report desired, incurring a cost for production; that no such process would be necessary with Amanda; that a recent, unfunded State mandate which related to school funding has a significant reporting burden; that the cost to the City to satisfy the requests for reports totaled approximately $4,000; that the process took about two months to implement; that the same changes could have been made through Amanda in minutes at no cost. Mr. Wells further stated that Staff at the Newtown Redevelopment Office work tirelessly to ensure citizens in the Enterprise Zone receive the benefits designed to boost development in Newtown; that currently, two departments and several Staff members are required to provide simple information which must be manually reviewed; that Amanda would provide the information needed; that as the Commission creates incentives for growth in certain City areas, Amanda can help implement the growth and help citizens receive benefits; that in the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, Amanda could have been used to integrate information in days instead of weeks; that the proposed Central-Cocoanut Historic District will be an overlay with zoning implications which Staff will be required to review; that the review cannot be effectivély conducted with the current system as neighborhood-level data cannot be accessed; that with Amanda, Comision-impleented changes to affect specific segments of the community can be supported easily, quickly, and seamlessly; that inherent in the examples is the information the Commission requires to effectively make decisions which support growth in the community; that modern systems provide the tools to relay data better; that trending increases predictability and allows the Commission to monitor the effectiveness of solutions; that the Commission works hard to make the City the most livable small city in the countryi that a tool such as Amanda provides the Commission better insight into the manner in which the Commission's decisions are better impacting the community. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Mayor Martin who passed the gavel to. Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to extend the afternoon session to finish Item VI-5. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, no; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mr. Wells stated that disaster recovery is an important issue; that the City has a strong disaster recovery plan; however, no effective means of smooth operation of technology in the event of a major emergency exists; that with Amanda, arrangements can be made with hot site communities outside the City area; that for instance, Staff could operate through another City's hardware with only a generator and an internet connection if the City were hit by a major storm; that the flexibility is critical to the success of a recovery effort. Mayor Martin stated that the City could use another city's hardware; however, the City's data would not be accessible. Mr. Wells stated that the data could be transferred instantly; that the City's computing business could be run from a remote location; that for example, at the time the maximums on public art are changed by the Commission, the changes could be implemented immediately by Staff with no outside funding and no outside consultants; that the flexibility is necessary to support the decisions made by the Commission. Mr. Wells continued that the presentation was to provide the Commission a complete picture of everything necessary to make implementation of Amanda work; that finding funding for the system without increasing millage rates, building fees, or affecting current fund balances is important and can be. done; BOOK 57 Page 28660 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28661 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. that the reason is record growth in the community was experienced in fiscal year (FY) 2003/04; that last year, the Commission approved a budget for the Building Department based on revenues of $1,976,178; that the Building Department has handled nearly three times the amount of building improvements review since the previous year; that since the time the Agenda backup material was submitted, revenues in the Building Department have increased by approximately $176,000; that two weeks remain in FY 2003/04; that the Building Department must focus on building revenues for a single reason: under Florida Statutes, revenues must be used for building-related services and operational needs; that a sudden deluge of large projects have come to fruition since last year; that to continue supporting the heavy development, the Building Department requires additional tools; that the new system project has been tailored to directly and immediately benefit developers, residents, and business-owners building the community and paying building fees; that the City network is in place to handle Amanda with no foreseeable problems; that some new servers will be required; that wireless capabilities throughout the area must be evaluated; that the wireless initiative will likely be a joint City-County project; that the project is being researched currently- Mr. Wells referred to the estimate of $1,064,450 included on the Agenda request form in the Agenda backup material and further stated that the estimate is an approximation; that the estimate for new servers is $115,000; that the wireless estimate is $30,000; that due to initiatives funded by the Commission over the past three years, Staff-use computers are up to date sO no additional cost will be incurred for Amanda; that a cost of approximately $23,400 will be incurred for the nine inspectors not currently using computers; that the software is the most expensive item; that the core software is estimated at $189,600; that the mobile components are estimated at $56,250; that the mobile components improve efficiency and lower the time of completion for many projects; that the web components are estimated at $159,300; that the web components have critical advantages; that the components aids citizen participation and access and aids in disaster functionality. Mr. Wells stated further that proper implementation is the key to the success of the project; that Staff has been unable to find a single CSDC client unsatisfied with the implementation process; that CSDC staff has solved many problems with for the County system the City is sure to experience; that the expected total cost of the CSDC implementation team is estimated to cost $360,500; that the hard work and trustworthiness of the CSDC team is worth the high cost; that CSDC has successfully serviced 65 cities with Amanda; that the cost includes 35 days of on-site system training and travel for the teams, estimated at $86,500; that internal costs are easy to overlook; that the Staff must travel to cities currently using Amanda to observe the operation firsthand; that Staff will run in parallel with the existing system and Amanda for approximately two months; that the costs incurred include compensatory time and overtime pay for Staff; that the totals for extra Staff time is estimated at $36,800; that the Commission should understand the extra staff time is included in the total cost of the new system; that a summary total of all components of the project yields an estimate of $1,064,450; that the investment is significant; that proving to citizens a return on the investment is critical; that money will be saved; however, the savings will not offset the cost of the project; that a return on the citizens' investment should be considered. Mr. Wells stated that the key advantage of the system is the time saved during the building process due to time saved while in the field; that through discussions with key members of the City's building and development community, saving weeks on a major project is possible if problems with the current system were eliminated; that the investment could be recovered in the first handful of projects using the new system; that the Commission must make a decision to invest the citizens' moneyi that the community will see a return on the funds invested; that the small projects, which are numerous, will be greatly aided by implementation of Amanda; that developers will have greater freedom in attaining permits for building and developing small projects; that the Enterprise Zone provides businesses and residents important tax incentives and development advantages; that a system which allows the City to target the benefits for citizens is another immediate return on the investment; that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) aid could be more easily located by citizens in need during an emergencyi that if a few days can be saved for each project, the community will have a return on the investment within the first year of implementation; that a return can be seen with the first few projects if the developers are correct and weeks can be saved on major projects. Mr. Wells continued that in October 2004, cities using Amanda will be visited, a contract with CSDC will be negotiated, and BOOK 57 Page 28662 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28663 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Staff will present the final contract to the Commission for review; that in November 2004, the contract will be finalized and a business analysis will be conducted by CSDC; that in December 2004, the servers for Amanda will be purchased and installed and work on the servers and an additional business analysis will be conducted by CSDC; that in January 2005, software for Amanda will be customized, City data will be prepared for the switch to the new system, the initial software will be installed, and initial training of City Staff will begin; that in February and March 2005, further training of Staff and additional customization of the system will take place; that in April 2005, the new system will undergo initial implementation; that in May through June 2005, double processing, or mitigation of the old and new systems, will take place; that in July 2004, the new system will be fully functional, having adopted all functions of the old system. Mr. Wells further stated that a new system is vital to support the growth and improvement the Commission is engendering in the community; that the Department recommends the Commission make the investment due not only to the support, but also the foundation which will be laid of City-wide processes and system improvements. Vice Mayor Servian stated that most questions have been answered with the excellent RFI and the very detailed presentation; that problems experienced currently and solutions offered by Amanda were addressed well; and asked if CSDC provides training for the individuals using Amanda or only for designated trainers? Mr. Wells stated that the CSDC will train both users and trainers; that three or four tiers of training will exist, including Staff from IT which will administer the system, the "super-users", that initial training will be provided everyonei that the objective will be super-users will train Staff as Staff turnover occurs. Vice Mayor Servian stated that good information tends not to move to users well if only trainers are trained; that much end- user trouble occurs, which is often blamed on the designers of the system. Mr. Wells stated that significant finger-pointing takes place; that training is key to the successful implementation of Amanda which is the reason for the high cost. Vice Mayor Servian asked if a draft contract has been completed? Mr. Wells stated yes; that the contract has not yet been submitted to the City's legal team; that the desire was to gauge the Commission's interest in Amanda before further pursuing the contract. Vice Mayer Servian stated that Clyde H. Wilson, Jr., one of the country's foremost legal experts on software, should be involved in the contract process, if the City Attorney has no objection. City Attorney Taylor stated that Mr. Wilson's extensive software expertise would be appreciated in the contract negotiations. Mayor Martin stated that including Mr. Wilson in the project is an excellent idea; that the Commission would have a high comfort level regarding the project with Mr. Wilson's participation. Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer agreed. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is to include Mr. Wilson in the contract negotiation process with CSDC. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the presentation was thorough and interesting; that many questions were clarified; and asked if the project is funded from the General Fund Balance? Mr. Wells stated yes; that the revenue expectation for the Building Department for FY 2003/04 was exceeded dramatically; that at the time the Commission was presented with budget numbers and expected balances, the number provided was lower than the actual amount generated; that the excess amount can be used to fund implementation of Amanda. City Manager McNees stated that subsequent to October 1, 2004, all transactions would appear in a special revenue fund which was created for FY 2004/05; that currently, all building permit activities take place in the General Fund; that although the funds are stored in the General Fund, the funds were generated from building permit revenues and must be spent only on providing service to the building industry. Mayor Martin stated that the funds are not unappropriated, but are committed to some currently unknown building purpose. BOOK 57 Page 28664 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28665 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Gibson Mitchell, Director, Finance Department, came before the Commission and stated that is correct. Commissioner Bilyeu asked the reason the funds are called unappropriated if the funds are reserved for a special purpose? City Manager McNees stated that the funds are not appropriated until dedicated to a specific project. Commissioner Palmer stated that all the funds have been generated through fees collected by the Building Department. Mr. Mitchell stated that is correct. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a portion of the General Fund Balance is always designated for special appropriations? City Manager McNees stated yes; however, a similar situation will not arise as all building-related activities have been segregated into a separate fund. Mayor Martin stated that the clarification was helpful. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1806 in its entirety. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 04R-1806. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Staff is commended for both the RFI and the presentation; that the proposed Resolution is supported due to Amanda's positive reception in 65 different communities, the fact Amanda can be integrated both internally and externally, and the fact the system can move from wireless- to web-based; that the system should be updated. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Staff is congratulated for the significant hard work on the project; that constituents have had concerns regarding issues Amanda will help address. Commissioner Atkins asked if the $1,064,450 figure has been negotiated, and if the cost is likely to significantly fluctuate during contract negotiations? Mr. Wells stated that the figure is more likely to decrease than increase; that Staff drafted the RFI and the presentation to include all associated costs; that additional functionality may be necessary at a later date; that any additional units purchased for Amanda would be separate items brought before the Commission and are not currently required; that discounts and combined features to lower the overall cost will be discussed during negotiations with CSDC; that discounts were deliberately left out of the material presented to the Commission as discounts are not guaranteed. Commissioner Atkins stated that the figure appears to have been finalized; that knowledge of the negotiation's early stage is reassuring. Mr. Wells stated that the process will likely be under budget. Commissioner Atkins stated that functionality may demand more technology as time progresses; that the hope is the negotiations will be thorough and fair to both parties. Mr. Wells stated that the negotiations will be thorough; that the intention was to present a liberal estimate of the cost which will hopefully be reduced; that as time progresses, new modules of technology may be required, though the modules will not be significantly expensive. Mayor Martin stated that the initiative represents some of the most important work the Commission has performed; that thanks are again extended to Staff. Commissioner Palmer stated that the initiative will help move the City into the 21st Centuryi that utilization of Amanda during an emergency situation would be highly beneficial; that the project is ultimately paid for by users; that Amanda will benefit the entire City. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to adopt Resolution No. 04R-1806 and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. The Commission recessed at 5:00 and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. BOOK 57 Page 28666 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28667 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. 15. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION FOR NEW COLLEGE OF FLORIDA 'S 40TH YEAR ANNIVERSARY (AGENDA ITEM XII) CD 6:02 through 6:08 Mayor Martin requested that Gordon Michalson, Jr., President, New College of Florida, (New College), John Cranor, President, New College Foundation, and Jono Miller, Director, Environmental Studies Program, New College, join him and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation; and recognized many former New College students present in the Chambers audience. Mayor Martin continued that New College students are everywhere; that the 40th Year Anniversary of the founding of New College is being celebrated; that Sarasota has always been a progressive community; that 40 years ago, members of the community realized the value of an intimate, world Class college in the community; that the founding of New College is being celebrated 40 years later; that banners displayed on Main Street proclaim New College's status in the community; that the display of the banners is pleasing; and read in its entirety the Proclamation declaring September 20, 2004, as New College of Florida Day, a day of special importance and worthy of the recognition of the citizens of the City of Sarasota; and presented the Proclamation appropriately framed to Dr. Michalson. Dr. Michalson stated that thanks are expressed to the Mayor who is a former New College student; that New College students are everywhere; that former New College students in the Sarasota/Bradenton area support public service, law, education and business in the region; that the contribution to the region, State and Nation is a source of pride; that the New College football team remains undefeated which is an major source of pride; that the recognition is appreciated; that the partnership between New College and the community is strong. Mr. Craner stated that he was a member of the first Class of New College 40 years ago, which is a source of pride; that New College has shaped his life; that he is eternally grateful to the citizens of Sarasota who continue to provide support through wealth and heart to make New College a wonderful institution; and expressed gratitude for being part of the community. 16. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO RICHARD J. TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY CD 6:08 through 6:11 Mayor Martin requested that Richard J. Taylor, City Attorney, join him and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation; and stated that the opportunity is taken to surprise City Attorney Taylor with a Certificate of Appreciation. City Attorney Taylor stated that he is surprised and speechless. Mayor Martin stated that as many are aware, the meeting held at this time will be City Attorney Taylor's last as a Charter Official for the City of Sarasota; that City Attorney Taylor's tenure has been extraordinary, that everyone has stories which can be recounted regarding the manner in which City Attorney Taylor has served the City over 25 yearsi and read in its entirety the September 20, 2004, Certificate expressing appreciation to Richard J. Taylor for his outstanding service to our City Government and our community and for helping to make Sarasota a great place in which to live and work. Mayor Martin stated that a reception honoring City Attorney Taylor for his 25 years of service and dedication as he completes his tenure as City Attorney will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., on September 23, 2004, in the grand foyer of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH); that the hope is everyone will attend and personally congratulate City Attorney Taylor; and expressed thanks to City Attorney Taylor. City Attorney Taylor expressed thanks for the recognition. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that nine public hearings are scheduled; that three are non quasi-judicial public hearings; that six public hearings are quasi-judicial public hearings; that for the three non quasi-judicial public hearings, citizens will be given five minutes to speak; that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; that the City Attorney will announce the time limits for the quasi-judicial public hearings; however, speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: BOOK 57 Page 28668 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28669 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 17. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1788, CERTIFYING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND THE TAX COLLECTOR OF SARASOTA COUNTY, THE RATES OF MILLAGE TO BE LEVIED BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE ST. ARMANDS SPECIAL BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2004; ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF SARASOTA'S GENERAL FUND OPERATING MILLAGE AT 2.6917 AND THE ST. ARMANDS SPECIAL BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OPERATING MILLAGE AT 2.0000 WHICH IS 11.3980 PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE AGGREGATE ROLLED-BACK MILLAGE RATE OF 2.4478; ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF SARASOTA'S DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE AT .3267; ETC. - ADOPTED (TITLE ONLY) AND NON QUASI-JUDICIAL SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4570, APPROVING A BUDGET; AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS OF SUMS OF MONEY FOR ALL EXPENDITURES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE ST. ARMANDS SPECIAL BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1, 2004, AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2005; PRESCRIBING THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS OF APPROPRIATION AND THEIR PAYMENT, ; PROVIDING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND REAPPROPRIATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-1) CD 6:14 through 6:25 Mayor Martin stated that the first non quasi-judicial public hearing is regarding proposed Resolution No. 04R-1788, certifying to the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector of Sarasota County, the rates of millage to be levied by the City of Sarasota and the St. Armands Special Business Neighborhood Improvement District (BID) for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2004, and the second public hearing for proposed Ordinance No. 04-4570, approving the fiscal year (FY) 2004/05 budget; and making appropriations of sums of money for all expenditures of the City of Sarasota and the St. Armands BID for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2004, and ending on September 30, 2005; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance came before the Commission and stated that the current public hearing is the second of two required public hearings concerning proposed Ordinance No. 04-4570 to adopt the budget for the City and the St. Armands BID; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4570, included in the Agenda backup material, adopts a budget for the City and the St. Armands BID for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2004, and ending on September 30, 2005; that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1788, is certifying to the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector of Sarasota County, the rates of millage to be levied by the City and the St. Armands BID for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2004, and must be adopted prior to proposed Budget Ordinance No. 04-4570; that the General Fund budget as proposed requires - no increase in the City's current operating millage of 2.6917 mills; that the St. Armands BID Board of Directors has approved a 2.0 mill levy on the BID for FY 2004/05; that the 2.0 mill levy on the BID will be in addition to the Citywide millage rate of 2.6917 mills; that the Truth in Millage (TRIM) Act requires the proposed operating millage rate for ad valorem taxes be measured in terms of the aggregate rolled-back rate which is the millage rate necessary to yield the same ad valorem tax revenue as generated for FY 2003/04; that the aggregate rolled-back rate is 2.4478 mills; that a 2.7268 proposed aggregate operating millage Citywide is proposed as the St. Armands 2.0 mills are averaged into the City's operating millage; that the higher operating millage is used to calculate the increase over the rolled-back rate; therefore, the percentage increase over the aggregate rolled-back rate of 2.4478 mills is 11.398 percent. Mr. Mitchell continued that the preliminary certification of taxable value of the City is $6,469,113,503 or a 15.97 percent increase over the FY 2003/04 preliminary certification of taxable value; that the proposed operating millage of 2.6917 mills will yield $13,918,378 in ad valorem tax revenue for the General Fund which is an increase of $1,444,128 or 11.58 percent over the FY 2003/04 budget; that the TRIM Act also requires the specific purposes for which the ad valorem taxes are being increased; that the specific purposes are increased police pension contributions of $932,777, fire pension contributions of $200,000, and health insurance contribution increases of $635,333; that the City's voted debt service millage is proposed at 0.3267 mills, a 28.70 percent decrease from the current debt BOOK 57 Page 28670 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28671 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. service millage of 0.4582 mills; that the total millage required to finance the proposed budget is 3.0184 mills which is a 0.1315 mill decrease or 4.17 percent less than the current rate of 3.1499 mills. Mr. Mitchell further stated that the impact of the millage decrease to the average owner-occupied taxable home of $167,680, as of October 2003, which in the City is $142,680 after the $25,000 Homestead Exemption, would be an $18.77 decrease; that the proposed Budget Ordinance also includes a 2.0 mill levy on taxable property within the St. Armands BID; that the certified taxable value of the St. Armands BID is $113,675,307 or a 14.3 percent increase over the FY 2003/04 preliminary certification of taxable value, which will yield approximately $210,000 in ad valorem tax revenue for the St. Armands BID; that the specific purposes for which the ad valorem taxes are being increased are promotional activities at a cost of $20,000. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin Closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1788 by Title Only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1788. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Administration did an excellent job on the FY 2004/05 budget, which is commendable; however, for the FY 2005/06 budget, the Administration is requested to carefully review the necessity of utilizing funds from the General Fund reserves. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4570 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4570. Mayor Martin stated that clarification is required regarding some personal philosophical differences based on Commissioner Palmer's remarks concerning the FY 2004/05 budget; that the FY 2004/05 budget is responsible; that raising the millage rate is the only other tool the Administration has to both follow the Commission's request to meet certain needs and also to properly fund the needs; that the majority of the Commission strongly feels the General Fund balance is healthy; that the General Fund balance is nearly 18 percent which in any governing district throughout the Country would be considered a source of pride and a secure fund balance; that Commissioner Palmer's continuing concern regarding the General Fund balance is appreciated; however, providing a record of his philosophical differences regarding the FY 2004/05 is the intent. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 18. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED LAUREL PARK TRAFFIC CALMING MASTER PLAN ADOPTED THE LAUREL PARK TRAFFIC CALMING MASTER PLAN; AND AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-2) CD 6:25 through 7:20 Mayor Martin opened the public hearing regarding the proposed Laurel Park Traffic Calming Master Plan and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Natalie Rush, Transportation Planner, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides of the Laurel Park Traffic Calming Master Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the Laurel Park Traffic Calming Task Force (Task Force) was formed in October 2002, at the request of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association; that the first Task Force meeting was held in November 2002; that members reported problem streets within the neighborhood; that a traffic study was performed for those streets the Task Force reported as problematic; that the study results indicated only two streets, Morrill Street between Osprey Avenue and Orange Avenue, and Oak Street between US 301 and Osprey Avenue warrant traffic calming; that the Task Force devised a Traffic Calming Master Plan (Master Plan), which includes two speed tables on Morrill Street with a neck-out on the western portion of the Morrill Street and Ohio Place intersection, and four speed tables and designated bicycle lanes on Oak Street; that the Task Force also requested BOOK 57 Page 28672 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28673 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. the speed tables on Oak Street be constructed with brick; that brick tables are extremely costly. Ms. Rush referred to a prochure indicating examples of a new resin based product called Jarvis Imprint, which resembles brick, displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the resin based product is heated, applied, and then stamped; that the product seems durable; that the desire is to construct the Oak Street speed tables with the product as a trial; that the speed tables will serve as a gateway entrance into the neighborhood; that the trial will provide insight as to the cost effectiveness and durability prior to constructing other speed tables with the product; that after the Master Plan was devised, surveys were sent out to property owners along Oak Street and Morrill Street and all the streets off Oak Street which dead end, such as Madison Court and Columbia Court; that the Task Force slowly moved forward despite problems with conflicting schedules and attendance; that good response was received from the entire neighborhood at the open house held in June 2004; that the overwhelming majority of neighbors were in favor of the Master Plan, which was good news. Ms. Rush further stated that the surveys came back indicating the majority of neighbors were in favor of the Master Plan; that many of the property owners did not return the surveys which is normal; that 13 property owners were in favor of the Master Plan; that six property owners were not in favor and 14 property owners did not respond. Vice Mayor Servian asked the need for the neck-out on the western portion of the Morrill Street and Ohio Place intersection. Ms. Rush stated that Morrill Street is a one-way street westbound; that the neck-out will provide a message to people traveling eastbound, which is the wrong way; that people will be required to come to a complete stop to allow another vehicle to pass; that some people tend to purposely disobey one-way streets. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the impact to Laurel Street is a concern since the street is narrow. Ms. Rush stated that once the Master Plan is approved, and traffic calming measures are implemented, a follow-up study will be conducted within a six month period after construction of the measuresi that during the time, all the surrounding streets will be observed; that the Task Force will be active and inform Staff of problems within the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Laurel Park is on Laurel Street which is another reason for concern. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Morrill Street is one-way traveling west; that Laurel Street is one-way traveling east; that the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) indicates the City discourages one-way streets, as one-way streets tend to increase speeds in volumes, isolate neighborhoods, and discourage pedestrian and bicycle travel; that personal research indicates some of the best traffic calming devices are to allow parking on streets; that parking is a premium in a significant number of neighborhoods; that the possibility of making the streets two-way with parking on one side would be less expensive and should be considered; that speed tables are not supported; that a number of speed tables have been constructed in the City which prove speed tables will likely bring traffic into other neighborhoods and other streetsi that an opportunity exists to make the streets two-wayi that the Director of Engineering has indicated a dislike of one-way streets; and asked if making the streets two-way rather than constructing speed tables has been considered? Ms. Rush stated that a study of the physical aspects of the streets would be required; that Laurel Street as a two-way roadway, would require widening to allow for two lanes of traffic and parking. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if two vehicles can pass side by side on the streets at this time? Ms. Rush stated yes; however, a certain requirement exists for parking, which is eight feet; that the requirement for a minimum travel lane is 10 feet; that 20 feet would be necessary if two travel lanes were constructed. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that other two-way streets exist in the City allowing parking, which slows down traffic; that the desire of the Master Plan is to slow down traffic; that people will not travel on roadways if required to travel slowly. Ms. Rush stated that presently, people park on Laurel Street, which is good. BOOK 57 Page 28674 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28675 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that on-street parking is working on Laurel Street; that on-street parking could work on Morrill Street; and asked the cost of a speed table? Ms. Rush stated that the cost of a speed table, is $3,875, which includes striping, signage, reflectors, etc. Commissioner Atkins stated that Commissioner Bilyeu's comments are intriguing since speed tables are disliked; and asked if Laurel Street was evaluated as a two-way street allowing parking? Ms. Rush stated that a discussion was held with the City Engineer concerning Laurel Street as a two-way street with parking; that presently, Laurel Street is too narrow to become a two-way roadway with parking; that widening of the roadway would be required which would be costly. Mayor Martin stated that the fact Oak Street from Osprey Avenue to Orange Avenue did not meet warrants was surprising; and asked for further clarification. Ms. Rush stated that the roadway segment between US 301 and Osprey Avenue met warrants and the other segment did not; that patterns of travel could be to avoid the traffic signal at US 301 and US 41; that US 301 and Osprey Avenue may be a faster route than traveling on US 41 sO people cut through the neighborhood to avoid more traffic. Mayor Martin referred to the Laurel Park Traffic Study Data included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that Laurel Street from US 301 to Osprey Avenue and from Osprey Avenue to Orange Avenue was not too far from meeting warrants; that Vice Mayor Servian's concern regarding Laurel Street is understood that the results of the follow-up study which will be conducted within a six month period aiter construction of the measures will be interesting. Commissioner Palmer referred to the Laurel Park Traffic Study Data included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the number of points accrued for the portion of Oak Street from Osprey Avenue to Orange Avenue was five, which is extremely close to meeting warrants; that the number of vehicles at 1,057 is similar to Oak Street from US 301 to Osprey Avenue having 1,110 vehicles and 6 points accrued, which did meet warrants; that the cut thru traffic is 36 percent compared to 55 percent for the segment of Oak Street from US 301 to Osprey Avenue; and asked for clarification regarding the manner in which warrants are met. Ms. Rush stated that a point system is used for cut through traffic; that 25 to 49 percent receives one point; that 50 percent and above will receive two points; that the speed for both segments of Oak Street is basically the same. Commissioner Palmer agreed; and stated that the speed for the segment of Oak Street between US 301 and Osprey Avenue is 30 mph compared to 29 mph for the segment of Oak Street between Osprey Avenue and Orange Avenue. Commissioner Palmer referred to the results for the Laurel Park Traffic Calming Master Plan Open House Survey included in the Agenda backup material; and continued that comments/concerns were indicated particularly with regard to working with the County to isolate County employee traffic in a permanent manner and to locate a speed table at Morrill Street at the County Administration building to slow the speed which will benefit the safety of the County employees crossing Morrill Street to the south parking lot; that a suggestion is indicated County employee impacts to the neighborhood can be minimized by 1) changing the direction of Rawls Avenue between Morrill Street and Laurel Street, and 2) dead ending Morrill Street at Pine Place directing traffic off Ringling Boulevard into parking from either Pine Place or Rawls Avenue; and asked if discussions have taken place with the County? Ms. Rush stated that discussions have been held with Donald Galloway, Traffic Operations Engineer, Sarasota County; that Mr. Galloway attended one neighborhood meeting and is aware of the concern; that a request has been made for a raised crosswalk; that the County has a parking lot on the south side of Morrill Street; that Gaia Goldman, President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association sent a letter to Sarasota County Administrator James Ley expressing the concerns of the County employees cutting through the neighborhood at a high rate of speed. Commissioner Palmer stated that having the Commission authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Mr. Ley as well may be appropriate; that some positive reaction may be received from the County; that the safety of the County's employees is involved as well; that BOOK 57 Page 28676 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28677 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. County employees should be discouraged from cutting through neighborhoods. Mayor Martin stated that the conversation has been held with the County many times over the years; that clearly the conversation should continue. Commissioner Atkins asked if traffic calming is planned for North Sarasota and for clarification regarding the manner in which a community receives a speed table versus a speed bump or hump? Ms. Rush stated that the Task Force makes the determination; that the Task Force is provided a traffic calming tool box; that with the assistance of the Engineering Department, the Task Force chooses the measures deemed most effective. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a great opportunity will be missed if speed tables are constructed; that true traffic calming in an urban setting in which people walk and ride bicycles is addressed in the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the Laurel Park neignborhood is not included in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; however, Laurel Park is the Closest residential neighborhood to the Downtown; that Laurel Park is in an urban setting; that alternatives to constructing speed tables are available; that two-way streets with parking exist in the City of St. Augustine, Florida; that traveling in and out of the streets is difficult; that Morrill Street is 18 feet wide; that parking a vehicle on Morrill Street is no worse than parking in narrow parking spaces in shopping centers; that people receive nicks and dents due to narrow parking spaces; that simple, less costly alternatives to speed tables are available; that people will slow down if vehicles are parked on the side of the roadway and traffic travels both ways; that the City has problems with people parking in the right-of-way and in front yards; that a question is where people will park if not allowed to park in the street; that residents of Laurel Park walk to the Downtown; that a questions is if other alternatives have been discussed. Ms. Rush stated that the understanding is allowing on-street parking with a two-way roadway is preferred. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the principles of new urbanism do not include speed tables; that other alternatives should be considered. Ms. Rush stated that on-street parking is not forbidden; that people are personally encouraged to park on the street since doing sO tremendously slows traffic; that making a roadway two-way depends upon width and other physical aspects; that Morrill Street and Laurel Street would require widening; that fortunately, Sarasota does not have many one-way streets; that the City has a good grid pattern. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Morrill Street and Laurel Street were two-way roadways until 1960 and could likely be two-way streets again; however, signage indicating no Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) may be necessary. City Manager McNees referred to a schematic of traffic calming on Morrill Street west of Osprey Avenue, included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that Morrill Street is indicated as a 17.5 foot wide roadway; that the standard for a neighborhood street is two 10 foot travel lanes; that two 8 3/4 foot travel lanes with no parking would exist without parking if the roadway was made two-wayi that the lanes would not be sufficiently wide for travel according to the City's standards; that the roadway could be two-way without parking and a smaller than standard travel lane or the street could remain one-way with street parking; that another oossibility is to take some additional yard frontages to widen. the pavement. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that people are parking on Laurel Street which is the same width as Morrill Street. City Manager McNees stated that parking is allowed on Morrill Street; that Morrill Street cannot be a two-way roadway with parking without widening the street and taking some of the yard frontage; that Staff is suggesting the least intrusive method of traffic calming which is to continue to allow on-street parking and for the street to remain one-wayi that the option to make the street two-way is available; that the pavement would be widened to create safe two-way travel; that a two-way roadway with on-street parking would require additional widening. Mayor Martin stated that the view expressed by Commissioner Bilyeu regarding the manner in which the City has pursued traffic calming for many years is appreciated; that a workshop could be scheduled to identify alternative methods for traffic calming; however, policies and a point system have been developed which neighborhoods have used as tools; that pursuing alternatives at this time is not possible; however, the points raised are good and respected; that the issue could be examined in a more BOOK 57 Page 28678 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28679 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. comprehensive manner to determine if other tools are available; that the manner in which warrants are determined has been used for approximately ten years; that new ideas should possibly be considered. Commissioner Palmer stated that the difference in cost between the standard asphalt speed table and the new resin based product is requested. Ms. Rush stated that the Jarvis Imprint resin based product is new; that the price of asphalt has increased; that therefore, the speed tables are more expensive; that the price of the new Jarvis Imprint resin based product for one table is $2,800; that the traditional cost for a plain speed table is $3,875. Mayor Martin asked if the $2,800 is in addition to the cost of the plain speed table? Ms. Rush stated yes. Mayor Martin asked for clarification of the technique. Ms. Rush stated that the technique is new; that the brick speed table on McClellan Parkway and Orange Avenue cost over $12,000 for one brick speed table, which is extremely expensive. Vice Mayor Servian asked if the process is similar to Stampcrete? Ms. Rush stated that the product is resin based and actually rubbery. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the product is likely different; that Stampcrete is used all over Disney World in Orlando, Florida; that Stampcrete is extremely durable; and asked if the resin based product is being used locally? Ms. Rush stated that the County recently constructed two crosswalks utilizing the resin based product at the park at Wilkinson Road and Lockwood Ridge Road. Commissioner Atkins asked if the impact of parking on both sides of the street to slow the traffic has been studied. Ms. Rush stated that on Morrill Street, 8 feet is required on each side for parking vehicles. Commissioner Atkins stated that 8 feet required on each side seems excessive. The following interested persons came forward: Diana Hamilton, P.O. Box 1371 (34230), stated that Engineering Staff's efforts on behalf of calming Laurel Park are appreciated; however, referring to the traffic calming as a Master Plan is considered a misnomer; that a Master Plan would imply many of the issues raised by Commissioner Bilyeu were discussed; that she was a member of the Task Force at the outset; that the issue of a one-way street was raised at the first meeting; that traffic calming on Osprey Avenue was also raised, which is the street on which she resides; that for six blocks from Mound Street to Morrill Street, the street becomes a primary A Street; that Osprey Avenue is a minor collector; that the average speed on Osprey Avenue is 42 mph to 45 mph; that Laurel Park, in theory, is a residential only neighborhood; that people cannot travel across the crosswalks; that the Task Force indicated no more traffic calming can take place on Osprey Avenue which was discouraging; that she is forced to take Laurel Street to travel to City Hall due to the backup up of traffic at the intersection of Oak Street and Orange Avenue; that Laurel Street is always used to travel to City Hall. Ms. Hamilton continued that the preference would be to take Morrill Street; that traffic is forced to take one-way streets; that issues such as widening streets could be addressed if the intent was to truly master plan the Laurel Park neighborhood; that Laurel Park was left out of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 which removes the possibility of being considered an urban neighborhood and the basic traffic calming tenets which live within a new urbanist doctrine; that the Laurel Park neighborhood was not part of the City of Sarasota Downtown Mobility Study; that at the middle of Morrill Street on Osprey Avenue, Osprey Avenue is no longer a minor collector but suddenly becomes a primary A street; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would not be required to provide Laurel Park with the same traffic treatment in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 as received by other neighborhoods. Ms. Hamilton further stated that the discussion of Morrill Street should be separate from the discussion of Oak Street; that 34 surveys were sent out to the neighborhood; that 19 were returned; that two surveys were from property owners on Morrill Street; that one property owner was in favor of traffic calming BOOK 57 Page 28680 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28681 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. and one was opposed; that a tremendous amount of development will be taking place along Morrill Street; that traffic on Morrill Street will become heavier and more difficult; that the streets may eventually be required to become two-way; that the engineering term "technical derivation" is familiar; that although required, a street does not have to be a specific width; that an urban street allows the opportunity to pull over and allow another vehicle to pass; that pulling over to allow another vehicle to pass is polite and slows people down; that Laurel Street is a speedway; that the concern of the people living on Laurel Street is understood; that children are in the area; that Laurel Park is on Laurel Street; that Laurel Street, remaining a one-way street may not stop people from speeding through; that the fear is speed tables will be a contagion spreading to Laurel Street and other areas. Ms. Hamilton stated further that ultimately, the City has not taken a holistic approach to the neighborhood; that the neighborhood deserves more; that the crux of the issue has not been addressed; that other methods of traffic calming on Osprey Avenue are available, even if involving a four-way stop sign; that people are observed from her porch speeding up and down Osprey Avenue every day of the week, including Sundays; that the reason people speed is Osprey Avenue is a speedwayi that people can speed on Osprey Avenue from Mound Street to Ringling Boulevard; that a more holistic approach to the issue is necessary; that a design charrette for the neighborhood is suggested; that the Commission is requested to consider denying the proposal for the Master Plan or to continue the discussion of the traffic calming issue this evening. Martha Hefner 1841 Oak Street (34236), representing Laurel Park Traffic Calming Task Force and Jolie McInnis, 1742 Laurel Street (34236), representing Laurel Park Traffic Calming Task Force, came before the Commission. Ms. Heiner stated that she has two young children; that she has been a member of the Task Force for one and one half years. Ms. McGinnis stated that Engineering Stafi has been extremely responsive and helpful regarding a significant number of issues; that Laurel Park has many issues; that the main issue is Morrill Street, use of the street by the County and increased development; that the process is ongoing and Engineering Staff remains available to assist; that further studies will be conducted in six months after the Master Plan is implemented to ascertain if other areas of the neighborhood are affected; that once identified other affected areas will be addressed; that she resides on Laurel Street with her two children; that Laurel Park has many new families, which is wonderful; that driving up the section of Laurel Street which is a one-way street, a person will notice the road is narrow; that driveways are scattered on either side of the road; that most of the parking would be eliminated if an engineering study was performed due to the driveway distances required by the new Downtown Code; that making the street two-way would not be supported by the residents on Laurel Street; that numerous requests to keep Laurel Street one-way have been sent over the years and are on file; that another survey can be conducted if the Commission desires; that the request is to construct the speed tables on Osprey Avenue as a first step to slow down traffic; that further studies will be conducted in six months to ascertain if other areas of the neighborhood are affected; that Engineering Staff has indicated any other areas identified as problems will be addressed; that the Master Plan is supported. Ms. Hefner stated that the views expressed by Ms. McGinnis and Ms. Hamilton are shared; that Ms. Hamilton spoke eloquently of the frustration experienced; that the process began with ideas of a Master Plan for the entire neighborhood; that many problems were identified which should be addressed in a larger format; that traffic devices are poorly timed; that part of the reason people speed down Oak Street is to make the green light since the red light at US 301 is extraordinarily long; that the Task Force could not address traffic lights; that the traffic light at the County Administration Building is poorly timed; that Osprey Avenue is a collector; that the necessity for a four-way stop sign at Oak Street and Osprey Avenue is obvious; that her children wait for the school bus at the intersection; that luckily people observe her with two small children and allow them to cross on the crosswalk; that an accident at the intersection is inevitable; that the Task Force held many meetings in which many debates were held; that the speed tables are considered a beginning to calm the traffic; that the Commission is requested to support the Master Plan; that follow- up as to the manner in which neighboring streets are affected is promised. Ms. McGinnis stated that the President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association sent a letter to the County; that a response was received; that the County has notified County employees to follow the traffic pattern the City had BOOK 57 Page 28682 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28683 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. recommended; that the issue has been somewhat addressed; that issues with the County are long term issue for which input is desired; that some adjustments will be necessary if the County expands. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the request for the designated bicycle lanes on Oak Street. Ms. McGinnis stated that the reason for the request is not known; that the section of Oak Street is a two-way street but has a median down the middle. Ms. Hefner stated that the possibility of having parking on the side of the street was considered; however, Gold trees planted in the median could be harmed by a truck traveling too close the median; that the speed tables appear as the best alternative. Mayor Martin asked if the section of Oak Street is a truck through-way? Ms. McGinnis stated no; however, delivery trucks come into the neighborhood. Mayor Martin requested that Engineering Staff provide clarification regarding the request for the designated bicycle lanes on Oak Street. Ms. Rush stated that Oak Street is indicated as a connector between Payne Park and Hudson Bayou in the Parks + Connectivity Plan. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that stop signs could be placed at every corner; that stop signs cost approximately $100; that the Hyde Park neighborhood has problems with Sarasota Memorial Hospital employees and visitors traveling through the area; that not many people are observed speeding; that a vehicle traveling 25 mph seems like 50 mph to a person standing on the side of the road; that people may believe people are speeding; and asked if stop signs were considered at the intersection of Osprey Avenue and Oak Street and Osprey Avenue and Morrill Street? Ms. Rush stated that stops signs are traffic control devices and must be warranted; that stop signs are not traffic calming devices which is the reason stop signs were not considered; that a study will be conducted if the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association requests a multi-way stop. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that traffic control rather than traffic calming may be necessary, that supporting the Master Plan is difficult. Mayor Martin asked if construction of the neck-out came about due to traffic traveling the wrong way? Ms. Rush stated that Ms. Hamilton suggested the neck-out at the western portion of Morrill Street and Ohio Place intersection as an alternative; that the neck-out will be an effective message to people traveling in the wrong direction. Mayor Martin asked if the neck-out will have typical landscaping? Ms. Rush stated that the neck-out will have a vertical element. City Manager McNees stated that a street such as Osprey Avenue travels through a neighborhood and has more than one function; that one function is to serve the neighborhood; that the other function is to serve other people in the City who need to travel through the neighborhood to arrive to a specific destination; that the decision as to whether a street is an arterial, collector, or a neighborhood street are made at a different level than at the level of a neighborhood Task Force; that Engineering Staff is not provided the tools to either change the City's Comprehensive Plan or the designations of the streets in a neighborhood traffic surveyi that Osprey Avenue's designation as a collector would have to change if the desire is to provide the opportunity to consider a four-way stop on Osprey Avenue; that the frustration of the neighborhood regarding the inability to control Osprey Avenue is understood; however, Osprey Avenue serves another purpose, which is as a collector; that the tools for traffic calming are only for streets having the neighborhood designation; that a discussion can take place regarding if Osprey Avenue should be a collector or narrowed to a neighborhood street; however, other issues will be triggered; that the discussion must take place in a completely different forum. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the entire neighborhood should be involved in one master plan; that addressing the issue only on one street will cause a problem for another street; that Bay Road was closed on Wood Street; that consequently the residents BOOK 57 Page 28684 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28685 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. on Wood Street experience traffic from children traveling at a high rate of speed after leaving school; that the speeders have been observed; that continuing the discussion to determine if the entire neighborhood can be included in a master plan is preferred; that Laurel Park is the perfect neighborhood to begin the process due to the proximity; that the City of Jacksonville, Florida, has a Park and Ride system; that the City and the County should take the lead to encourage people to park out in the County off Interstate 75 and ride a bus into work, which will eliminate a significant number of vehicles in traffic; that developing a traffic calming master plan for only two streets will not work. Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Mayor Martin, who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to adopt the Laurel Park Traffic Calming Master Plan and authorize the Administration to implement the plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that the conversation has been interesting; that she does not disagree with a number of points raised by Commissioner Bilyeu and others; however, the Master Plan has been through a lengthy process with the neighborhood; that the neighborhood has worked hard to identify a resolution for particular problems; that all of the issues raised cannot be addressed at this time; that the importance of moving forward in consideration of the significant work performed by the Engineering Department and the citizens in the neighborhood is stressed; that the idea of the new Jarvis Imprint resin based product is appealing; that the plain asphalt speed tables are not particularly appealing; that acting on the Master Plan at this time rather than continuing the discussion is appropriate; that other issues can be addressed at a later time; that the request has gone through the City's process and should be approved. Mayor Martin stated that the crying need for traffic calming in the neighborhood has been observed for many years; that people can obtain signs from the City which can be displayed on lawns indicating children at play and requesting people to obey the 25 mph posted speed limit; that the City can help with the problem; that the entire City has been designed for vehicles rather than for people; that speed tables are one tool to calm traffic and make people driving vehicles pay attention; that speed tables indicate people and children live in the neighborhood; that the will of the neighborhood through the process is supported; that Commissioner Bilyeu's in-depth thinking concerning the issue is appreciated; that the time has come to identify new comprehensive solutions; that speed tables on Oak Street and Morrill Street will make a significant difference in the neighborhood which is the reason for supporting the Master Plan. Commissioner Atkins stated that a question is if the neighborhood received a fair opportunity to address the holistic problem of calming and controlling traffic; that the neighborhood may have been brought to a table having only a fork and nothing to eat; that the concern is an opportunity to resolve the issues was not provided to the neighborhood; that the neighborhood may have only been provided with one solution to the problem; that consequently, the neighborhood will be forced to accept the solution; that a negative impact is then created to surrounding streets and : no issues will be resolved for the entire community; that the problem will simply be moved to another street; that a similar issue occurred with Shade and School Avenues and Wood Street; that traffic was diverted and a problem still exists; that the Alta Vista neighborhood still has problems; that nothing has been resolved; that the same situation exists at this time since the City does not approach the entire problem; that the motion is not supported. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that alternatives are available; that the motion is not supported. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the original intent was not to support the Master Plan until hearing the views expressed by two fellow Commissioner; that the process is in place; that changing minds mid-stream is not fair to the neighborhood who has worked on the issue for the last year and one half; that a new look regarding the manner in which the process is conducted should be reviewed going forward; that the entire neighborhood should be reviewed rather than reviewing the situation in six months; that Commissioner Bilyeu indicated Laurel Park is the perfect neighborhood to perform a holistic study of both traffic control and calming; that the residents and children should be protected; that other vehicles traveling through the area should be slowed; that the motion is supported; and called for a vote on the motion to adopt the Laurel Park Traffic Calming Master Plan; and to authorize the Administration to implement the plan. BOOK 57 Page 28686 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28687 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, no; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 19. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4575, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE VI, FINANCE, PURCHASING AND SALES, DIVISION 3, COMPETITIVE BIDS sO AS TO MODIFY THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD AT WHICH COMPETITIVE BIDDING SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTIES HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-3) CD 7:20 through 7:26 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4575, is amending the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code), Chapter 2, Administration, Article VI, Finance, Purchasing and Sales, Division 3, Competitive Bids so as to modify the minimum threshold at which competitive bidding shall be required for certain contracts; opened the public hearing, and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Nancy Carolan, Director, and Pamela Hayes, Manager, Purchasing, General Services, came before the Commission. Ms. Carolan stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4575 amends Section 2-351 and Section 2-355 of the City Code; that the purpose of the amendment is to raise the City's current bid threshold requirement from $10,000 to the threshold requirement in Section 287.017 (1) (b), of the Florida Statutes, which is currently set at $25,000; that the purpose of raising the bid threshold from $10,000 to $25,000 is to enable the City to be consistent with the State and surrounding communities and to provide and extend the consistency in bidding to the vendors and contractors doing business with the City. Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is at the present time, City projects must go through the bidding process if $10,000 or more; that a direct purchase can be made if under $10,000. Ms. Carolan stated that the City currently has an informal process for projects below $10,000; that written quotes are required for projects between $5,000 and $10,000; that verbal quotes are required for projects under $5,000; that the intent is to have competition and to receive the best price if a project does not go through the formal bidding process. Mayor Martin stated that projects above the amount of $10,000 and the proposed amount of $25,000, will go through the formal bidding process. Ms. Carolan stated that is correct. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification. Ms. Hayes stated that a formal competitive bid is required if a project is over $10,000; that the new threshold of $25,000 would replace the $10,000 threshold; that the threshold of $25,000 would be in alignment with the Category Two threshold set forth in section 287.017(1) (b), of the Florida Statutes, as amended from time to time; that the City's threshold will change if the State's threshold changes; that a public hearing would not be required if the threshold changes. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding more informal written or verbal bids. Ms. Carolan stated that a revision would be made administratively: that no quotes would be required up to $1,500; that the current procedure is no quotes required for $500; that three verbal quotes would be required for $15,001 to $10,000, which would be tabulated on tabulation sheets to assure the three firms were contacted and provided a price; that three written quotes would be required for the limits $10,001 up to $25,000. Mayor Martin asked if the informal quotes would be solicited rather than advertised? Ms. Carolan stated that the informal quotes would be solicited; that the requirement would be to ask for a minimum of three bids. Mayor Martin stated that the formal bidding process is more widely broadcast. Ms. Carolan stated that the formal bidding process is currently done through DemandStar, which is a formal bid process. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. BOOK 57 Page 28688 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28689 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4575 by Title Only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4575 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. Mayor Martin requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that six quasi-judicial public hearings are before the Commission; that five of the quasi-judicial public hearings relate to rezonings; that one quasi-judicial public hearing is the designation of an historic structure; that the requirements of quasi-Judicial public hearings were defined by the judicial process; that during quasi-judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that time limits will be established at the appropriate time; that all interested persons will be allowed to speak; that Applicants, the City, and Affected Persons will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and for cross-examination, that Affected Persons are individuals especially interested in the proceedings due to proximity to or other special interest in the subject property; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject matter of the public hearing and to briefly state the nature of the subject of the communication; that ex parte communications include one to one conversations, telephone calls and mail. 20. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4559, TO REZONE A + 0.11 ACRE PARCEL FROM THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT (CGD) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PARCEL BEING LOCATED AT 1995 N. TAMIAMI TRAIL; THE PURPOSE OF THIS REZONING IS TO IMPLEMENT THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998); THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT (CGD) ZONE DISTRICT IS AN IMPLEMENTING ZONE DISTRICT FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION; SAID PROPERTY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-RE-14, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-1) CD 7:28 through 7:42 City Attorney Taylor stated that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person; that the City is the Applicant; that the recommendation is to allow five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have three minutes to speak. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved. Mayor Martin requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Martin, Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, and Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department came before the Commission. Mr. Parsons referred to computer-generated slides of the 2010 Future Land Use Map and a Summary of Future Land Use Classifications displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that next five quasi-judicial public hearings are regarding City-initiated rezonings; that a brief introduction will be provided prior to the discussion of the first public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4559. Mayor Martin stated that a brief introduction will be helpful. Mr. Parsons stated that the next five quasi-judicial public hearings are City-initiated rezoning cases; that most rezoning cases coming before the Commission are initiated in the private sector; that the City does not typically rezone properties; that the City-initiated rezonings are part of a process which began with the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called BOOK 57 Page 28690 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28691 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan). Mr. Parsons referred to the City's adopted Future Land Use Map displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map are the foundation for development related decisions which would be made over time; that the decisions should be consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Classifications; that in 2002 the City's Zoning Code underwent a substantial rewrite of the implementing Zone Districts to be consistent with the Euture Land Use Classifications. Mr. Parsons referred to a summary of the various Future Land Use Classifications with implementing Zone Districts displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that each Future Land Use Classification has intended Zone Districts; that following the adoption of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), the City then initiated a review of all zoning enclaves; that zoning enclaves are situations in which the existing zoning on the property is inconsistent with the long range plan of the Future Land Use Mapi that Action Strategy 1.5 in the Future Land Use Chapter obligates the City to review the zoning enclaves throughout the City and to bring the decision regarding determination of which zoning enclaves should potentially be considered for rezoning to the Commission; that Staff conducted a review of the zoning enclaves; that the Commission authorized Staff to initiate the rezonings of the enclaves in July 2003; that Staff closely reviewed the enclave sites in the down-zone category, which are less intense areas than allowed by existing zoning; that the enclave sites in general have the greatest potential for incompatible redevelopment; that market forces and property owner decisions generally assure properties which are available are eligible for up-zoning; that decisions regarding up-zoning take place through the private sector; that Staff generally left up-zoning enclaves sites alone. Mr. Parsons stated further that situations also exist of equivalent zonings; that new office and commercial Zone Districts were adopted; that many of the Zone Districts are similar in many respects; that for example, the Office Professional Business (OPB) Lone District is similar to the Office Community District (OCD) Zone District; that the OPB and OCD Zone Districts are equivalent Zone Districts; that many of the zoning enclaves fall into equivalent zoning categories; that properties within the down-zone category are generally unlikely to be rezoned unless initiated by the Cityi that upon completing a review of all the zoning enclaves, Staff concluded most of the enclave sites did not merit rezoning at this time. Mr. Parsons referred to a map indicating five rezone sites displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the Commission authorized Staff to proceed with the five rezones in July 2003; that the five rezone sites are in the existing Industrial Light and Warehousing (ILW) Zone District and Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District; that both Zone Districts are production intensive, commercial type sites; that the industrial or commercially zoned properties can be redeveloped; that the properties have existing uses in many cases; that based on the Euture Land Use Map, the properties can be redeveloped with intense uses which are incompatible with surrounding uses; that three. City-initiated enclave rezonings have been completed thus far; that in November 2002, the City rezoned the Laurel Park neighborhood to Residential Single Multiple 9 units per acre (RSM-9) Zone District; that the second City-initiated enclave rezoning was completed in January 2003, which dealt with properties which were annexed from the County into the City in the 1990s; that the properties were generally south of Bee Ridge Road; that the third City-initiated enclave rezoning was along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way to allow for an outdoor market; that the property was up-zoned to the Commercial General District (CGD) Zone District, which was within the City of Sarasota-Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan through 2020 (Newtown Redevelopment Plan). Mr. Parsons continued that the enclave rezone properties before the Commission contain active uses with the exception of a couple of vacant properties; that in some cases the uses will be made noncontorming; that nonconformities are created at times in which Zone Districts are changed or at times the zoning regulations are changed; that the City's Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) offers protection in cases in which the standards or Zone Districts change; that Article V, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) vests the existing uses and structures which would otherwise not be conforming; that the intent of the vested : rights provisions is to protect private property rights, recognize preexisting uses, structures and developments which in part help define Sarasota's character; that nonconforming uses will be part of the continued discussion; however, nonconforming uses help define Sarasota's character; that the intent of changing the zoning to be consistent with the City's long range plan is to guide future uses rather than to eliminate existing uses; that existing uses are allowed to continue in BOOK 57 Page 28692 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28693 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. perpetuity; that repair and maintenance is allowed; however, expansion of uses which are nonconforming is not allowed. Mr. Hoglund referred to the Zoning/Sabdivision Map regarding Rezone Application No. 04-RE-014, displayed on the Chamber monitors, also included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4559, is a City initiated rezoning of a 0.11 acre parcel located at 1995 North Tamiami Trail from the CI Zone District to the CGD Zone District; that Rezone Application No. 04-RE-14 was initiated by the Planning and Redevelopment Department to eliminate a zoning enclave; that the property is located on the south bank of Whitaker Bayou, on the west side of Tamiami Trail; that the property is next to the Yacht Center site and is under separate ownership; that the Yacht Center could have been included in the rezone; however, the Yacht Center is undergoing another Comprehensive Plan Amendment; that the subject property is designated Community Commercial on the Future Land Use Map and is undeveloped; that the property is likely not developable unless consolidated with the Yacht Center at some point; that the property has issues regarding access; that a billboard currently exists on the property which is likely the only use possible as a free standing property. Mr. Hoglund stated that the process began by holding a neighborhood meeting which is the case with any rezoning; that Staff met with representatives from the neighborhoods and from the Neighborhood Partnership Office to present the concept of the enclave rezonings and the particulars of each property; that the meeting for Rezone Application No. 04-RE-14 was held on May 18, 2004; that approximately 8 to 10 people were present; that all the people understood the rezoning was a step in the right direction since the proposal is to rezone the property from the CI Zone District to the CGD Zone District which is the implementing Zone District most suitable for locations along the North Tamiami Trail; that Planning Staff recommends approval of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4559. Commissioner Palmer referred to the May 18, 2004, memorandum to Michael Taylor, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, from Michele Mician, Neighborhood Coordinator, regarding the Required Neighborhood Meeting, included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the Neighborhood Partnership Office is working with Planning and Redevelopment Staff, which is pleasing; that the memorandum does not indicate the presence of a City Planner; and asked if a City Planner attended the neighborhood meeting? Mr. Hoglund stated that he was present at the meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that answers were not provided for a number of concerns/questions raised; that many of the questions could likely have been answered by Planning Staff. Mr. Hoglund stated that the recollection is he was responsible for most of the answers. Mayor Martin stated that initials are indicated in the reply column of the memorandum, which may not have been readily noticeable. Mr. Hoglund stated that the intent was to emphasize the comparison between the CI and the CGD Zone Districts; that the minutes are often not a verbatim transcription of the meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that the memorandum provides a close verbatim transcription, which is well done and appreciated. Mr. Hoglund agreed; and stated that a tremendous change has taken place in the substantive content of the neighborhood meetings in all cases, which is pleasing. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Staff indicated the neighbors supported the rezone; however, the minutes included in the memorandum do not indicate support by the neighborhood; that the minutes indicate the neighbors have some suspicion the rezone is tied in with the Yacht Center; that a conclusion is not included in the memorandum. Mr. Hoglund stated that the exact final conclusion of the neighborhood meeting is not recalled; that Staff clearly indicated the rezone was not in association with the Yacht Center; that the site being developed independently cannot be imagined since the site cannot be accessed; that the property could become part of the Yacht Center if the Yacht Center were to move forward with a proposal in the future; that the property is being rezoned from an industrial zone to a general commercial zone which must be viewed as a step forward in an attempt to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. BOOK 57 Page 28694 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28695 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4559 by Title Only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4559 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes. 21. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4561, TO REZONE + 1.35 ACRES FROM THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) AND RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY-3 (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICTS TO THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (CND) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PARCELS BEING LOCATED AT 700 AND 711 SOUTH OSPREY AVENUE AND 1713 NOVUS STREET; THE PURPOSE OF THIS REZONING IS TO IMPLEMENT THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998); ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTIES ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (CND) ZONE DISTRICT IS AN IMPLEMENTING ZONE DISTRICT FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION SAID PROPERTIES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; : SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, : PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-RE-15, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-2) CD 7:42 through 7:52 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4561, to rezone 1.35 acres from the Commercial Intensive (CI) and Residential Multiple Family 3 (RMF-3) Zone District to the Commercial Neighborhood District (CND) Zone District; that the parcels are located at 700 and 711 South Osprey Avenue and 1713 Novus Street; that the purpose of the rezoning is to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan). City Attorney Taylor stated that the following person has filed for certification as an Affected Person but has not signed up to speak: Marjorie McKeever City Attorney Taylor continued that the City is the Applicant; that the recommendation is to allow five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have three minutes to speak; that if present, the Affected Person will have five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved. Mayor Martin requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Martin, Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, and Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department came before the Commission. Mr. Hoglund stated that Rezone Application No. 04-RE-15 was initiated by the Planning and Redevelopment Department to eliminate a zoning enclave; that the properties are on the edge of the Laurel Park neighborhood and are zoned in the Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District; that an automobile dealership existed on the east side of the site; that a dry Cleaning business presently exists on the west side of the site; that the automobile dealership building has been renovated and forms an attractive entrance into the City from the south; that the building has been renovated and is available for occupancy for some sort of general commercial use; that a spectrum of retail uses would be permissible within the building; that the building will likely be occupied in the future; that a noncontorming use exists on the west side of the site which is allowed to remain; that a property at the west end of Alderman Street was included in the rezoning since a proposal to rezone the site to the CND Zone District in association with a street vacation was requested for which Staff was not supportive; that the application was withdrawn and included as part of the rezoning; that all are designated Community Commercial on the Future Land Use Mapi that neither the existing CI Zone District nor the BOOK 57 Page 28696 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28697 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. RMF-3 Zone District are among the implementing Zone Districts of the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Classification. Mr. Hoglund continued that the neighborhood meeting was held on May 11, 2004; that approximately 15 to 20 people attended; that the neighbors were supportive of the rezone since the existing buildings and the vacant property would be brought into conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan for uses which would be more suitable for the neighborhood; that the recommendation is to rezone the properties from the CI and RMF-3 Zone Districts to the CND Zone District. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Staff indicated some retail uses would be allowed in the CND Zone District. Mr. Hoglund stated that a variety of retail uses are allowed. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a convenience store is considered a retail use? Mr. Hoglund stated yes; that a convenience store is allowed in the CND Zone District; that the renovated building will likely not be suitable for a convenience store; that a more upscale retail use is envisioned. The following interested persons came forward to speak: Diana Hamilton, P.O. Box 1371 (34230), stated that the rezone is an excellent idea and will allow uses which are appropriate in the neighborhood; that the property at 1713 Novus Street was owned by Dr. Mark Kauffman; that Dr. Kaufiman proposed to rezone the property from the RMF-3 Lone District to a Zone District in which a 70 vehicle parking lot could be constructed; that the property backs up to the area in which kayaks were planned through the Parks + Connectivity Plan; that the property is at the end of Ohio Place which is residential; that the neighborhood's concern at the time was the impact to the neighborhood; that the neighborhood desired to approach Dr. Kauffman to identify ways in which vehicle headlights, etc., could be ameliorated; that ultimately, the question became the reason Dr. Kauffman would need a 70 vehicle parking lot and the type of building which would be constructed requiring a 70 vehicle parking lot; that the neighborhood supports the City- initiated rezone; however, a concern exists as to the type of use which will be allowed on the site; that once the City- initiated rezone is approved, the neighborhood should have an opportunity to speak to the type of use which will be allowed; that an inappropriate use which would impact the neighborhood is not desired; that Planning Staff is requested to provide further information regarding the type of uses which would be appropriate on the site and the opportunity which will be availed to the neighborhood to speak to concerns regarding the uses; that the rezone is supported; that the efforts of the City are appreciated. Mr. Hoglund stated that letters were sent to each of the property owners whose land was being rezoned; that Dr. Kauffman attended the neighborhood meeting and is aware of the rezoning; that a proposal for reuse of the property is likely in the future; that a site plan would be presented under the City's normal site plan approval processi that the neighborhood would then become involved. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4561 by Title Only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4561 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yesi Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. The Commission recessed at 7:51 and reconvened at 8:04. 22. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4542, TO REZONE + 1.3 ACRES FROM THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT WAREHOUSING (ILW) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE OFFICE COMMUNITY DISTRICT (OCD) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PARCELS BEING LOCATED AT 295 AND 301 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE; ; THE PURPOSE OF THIS REZONING IS TO IMPLEMENT THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998); ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTIES ARE IN THE COMMUNITY OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE PROPOSED OFFICE COMMUNITY DISTRICT (OCD) ZONE DISTRICT IS AN IMPLEMENTING ZONE DISTRICT FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION; SAID PROPERTIES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, i SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT i BOOK 57 Page 28698 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28699 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-RE-12, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-3) CD 8:04 through 8:09 City Attorney Taylor stated that the following person applied for and complied with the rules for obtaining Affected Person status but has not signed up to speak: Myron Nickel City Attorney Taylor continued that the City is the Applicant; that the recommendation is to allow five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have three minutes to speak; that if present, the Affected Person will have five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. Mayor Martin requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Martin stated that through the course of time discussions have taken place with several property owners; that conversations have been held with the Lovingood family regarding the redevelopment potential of the Lovingood property and along School Avenue; that the discussion was not specific to the proposed rezoning; that the Lovingood family supports the rezoning; that specific dates of the discussions will be provided; and opened the public hearing. Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4542, is to rezone 1.3 acres located at 295 and 301 South School Avenue from the Industrial Light and Warehousing (ILW) Zone District to the Office Community District (OCD) Zone District; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, and Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department came before the Commission. Mr. Parsons stated that the Staff Report included in the Agenda backup material for Rezone Application No. 04-RE-12 and Rezone Application No. 04-RE-07 which is incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4572, were accidentally reversed; that apologies are extended. Mr. Parsons referred to an aerial photograph, the Future Land Use Map and the Zoning/Subdivision Map, indicating the enclave rezone site displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the property is located on the east side of School Avenue; across from Payne Park; that the rezone involves two parcels; that the aerial map date is from 2003; that the Skate Park is indicated in the northern portion of the site; that the remainder of the site will become Payne Park; that the two parcels are bifurcated by a road which is an entrance way into the public shopping center; that the Future Land Use Map is the basis for the rezoning; that the property is designated Community Otfice/Institutional on the Future Land Use Map; that the existing zoning of the ILW Zone District is not among the implementing Zone Districts of the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification; that the proposed OCD Zone District is one of three possible implementing Zones Districts and the most suitable at this location due to the surrounding land use patterns. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4542 by Title Only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4542 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes. 23. UASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4572, TO REZONE + 7.8 ACRES FROM THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT WAREHOUSING (ILW) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY-4 (RMF-4) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PARCELS BEING LOCATED AT 325, 575, 581 AND 601 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE, ; THE PURPOSE OF THIS REZONING IS TO IMPLEMENT THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998); ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTIES ARE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY (MEDIUM DENSITY) FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE BOOK 57 Page 28700 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28701 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. FAMILY-4 (RMF-4) ZONE DISTRICT IS AN IMPLEMENTING ZONE DISTRICT FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION SAID PROPERTIES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF, : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-RE-07, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-4) CD 8:09 through 8:20 City Attorney Taylor stated that the following person applied for and complied with the rules for obtaining Affected Person status but has not signed up to speak: Myron Nickel City Attorney Taylor continued that the City is the Applicant; that the recommendation is to allow five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have three minutes to speak. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved. Mayor Martin requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Martin stated that discussions have taken place over time with the Lovingood family; that the conversation was specifically regarding the redevelopment potential of the property; that the discussions were not specific to the rezoning; that the Lovingood family has indicated support of the rezoning; and opened the public hearing. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, and Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department came before the Commission. Mr. Parsons referred to an aerial photograph, the Future Land Use Map and the oming/Subdivision Map, indicating the area displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the property is directly south of the previous enclave rezone site and involves four properties; that the proposal is to rezone 7.8 acres located at 325, 575, 581 and 601 South School Avenue which is directly east of Payne Park, from the Industrial Light Warehousing (ILW) Zone District to the Residential Multiple Family-4 (RMF-4) Zone District; that one of the parcels is triangular shaped and travels along some railroad tracks and fronts on School Avenue; that the parcel has active warehouse uses; that the property is zoned in the ILW Zone District similar to the properties north of the site; that the warehouse uses are permitted under the ILW Zone District; that to the east, along the railroad tracks is a fairly large vacant tract; that directly north of the vacant tract is a small parcel in use as a cellular tower site, which is a permitted use under the ILW Zone District; that directly north of the small parcel is Scotty's Hardware Store, which is also a permitted use under the ILW Zone District. Mr. Parsons continued that the Future Land Use Map indicates all of the subject properties are in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the type of use allowed is being changed from a nonresidential or industrial use to a residential type of Zone District; that the proposal is to rezone the property from the ILW Zone District to the Residential Multiple Family 4 (RMF-4) Zone District, which is the mid-range of the implementing Zone Districts for the Multiple Family Medium Density Future Land Use Classification; that Residential Multiple Family 3 (RMF-3) and Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5) Zone Districts are implementing Zone Districts; however, Staff is proposing the RMF-4 Zone District; that the RMF-4 Zone District allows maximum heights up to 70 feet and 18 dwelling units per acre; that all the properties subject to the public hearing are zoned in the ILW Zone District; that the enclave rezone is intended to implement the Future Land Use Classification; that the impetus for the enclave rezone to the residential classification of the RMF-4 Zone District is to take advantage of some of the change in use which will occur with development of Payne Park; that the character is changing from an industrial type area to a residential type area. Commissioner Atkins stated that the idea of rezoning the area is good; that a question is the reasoning behind choosing to rezone the property to the RMF-4 Zone District rather than the RMF-5 Zone District; that the property facing Payne Park provides a tremendous opportunity to bring some work force or affordable type housing to the area; that density can be increased which may encourage a developer to bring forth a project more quickly. BOOK 57 Page 28702 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28703 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Parsons stated that the decision is at the discretion of the Commission; that the reason for choosing the mid-range of implementing Zone Districts is due to the trepidation existing on behalf of the public if maximum intensities are allowed, which mostly relate to height; that the RMF-4 Zone District allows 18 units per acre and the RMF-5 Zone District allows 25 units per acre; that the difference in density can generally not be determined from the street; that people become concerned with maximum allowable height; that by rezoning the property to the RMF-5 Zone District, the stage will be set for someone to come in with a site plan, and if meeting all the standards, could construct a building 90 feet in height. Commissioner Atkins stated that the RMF-4 Zone District allows building up to 70 feet in height and the RMF-5 Zone District allows buildings up to 90 feet in height; that the difference in height between the RMF-4 and the RMF-5 Zone Districts is 20 feet. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct; however, the Commission has the discretion to rezone the property to the RMF-5 Zone District if a more intensive Zone District is deemed appropriate for the area. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4572 by Title Only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4572 on first reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that the City may be missing an opportunity; that a residential use will exist across from Payne Park; that family oriented activities will take place; that a rezoning will be necessary in the future if the zoning is limited to the RMF-4 Zone District; that the City could control development of the site through the site plan approval process if the property is zoned in the RMF-5 Zone District. Commissioner Palmer stated that the points raised by Commissioner Atkins are good; however, developers can come in and request a rezoning; that the City would have the ability to see the developer's plans; that at the neighborhood meeting, the comments related only to the RMF-4 Zone District; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) reacted to the rezone to the RMF-4 Zone District; that she is reluctant to change the rezoning to the RMF-5 Zone District at this point without going through the entire process all over again. Commissioner Palmer referred to the January 14, 2004, letter to Mr. Parsons from Johnson Savary, law firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford and Gordon, Chartered, representing the interests of the owners of the Stem and Savary School Avenue Warehouses located at 601 School Avenue, and expressing opposition to the rezoning; and continued that the degree to which the Mayor related any positive impact of the rezoning to effectuate a change in position from the previous opposition is not known; however, the result is pleasing; that the Mayor is congratulated for any positive resulting impact; that having a residential use across from Payne Park is excellent. Mayor Martin stated that having a residential use across from Payne Park as redevelopment of the park moves forward has been the intent; that the park should be a central park for use by neighborsi; that neighbors living across from the park can also keep watch over activities taking place in the park; that the hope is the rezoning will encourage development; that a considerable amount of housing is available, even at 70 feet; that six story buildings can be constructed which would have a substantial number of units; that the quandary is if the property will be developed as high-end residential or can be developed as workforce housing; that the Commission should research possibilities other than zoning and density to encourage and incentivize development which includes workforce housing. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4572 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 24. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4560, TO REZONE A + 0.91 ACRE PARCEL FROM THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (CND) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PARCELS BEING LOCATED AT 3416 AND 3440 SOUTH OSPREY AVENUE; THE PURPOSE OF THIS REZONING IS TO IMPLEMENT THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998); ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTIES ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOOK 57 Page 28704 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28705 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (CND) ZONE DISTRICT IS AN IMPLEMENTING ZONE DISTRICT FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION SAID PROPERTIES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; F PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-RE-13, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - DENIED i REQUESTED THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY STUDY AND ASSESS THE TIME PERIOD NONCONFORMING USES CAN REMAIN DORMANT WITHOUT BEING CONSIDERED ABANDONED IN DIFFERENT ZONE DISTRICTS AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-5) CD 8:20 through 9:03 City Attorney Taylor stated that the following person has applied for and compiied with the rules for obtaining Affected Person status: Edward Kapreilian City Attorney Taylor continued that Mr. Kapreilian is represented by legal counsel; that Mr. Kapreilian's legal counsel has signed up to speak; that on August 11, 2004, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) conducted a public hearing and voted unanimously to deny approval of Rezone Application No. 04-RE-13; that the City is the Applicant; that the recommendation is to allow the City and the Affected Person seven minutes for presentation and five minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have three minutes to speak. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved. Mayor Martin requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Commissioner Palmer stated that a September 15, 2004, letter to the Commission was received from Craig Colburn, Attorney, Norton, Hammersley, Lopez and Skokos, PA, regarding the City- initiated rezoning of the Practical Car Rental property at 3146 South Osprey Avenue; that the letter was received by all the Commissioners. Commissioner Bilyeu distributed the letter; and stated that he signed and dated the letter acknowledging the letter was reviewed; that a telephone conversation was held with Attorney Colburn on September 16, 2004, which was recorded on the letter and initialed; that the conversation was in reference to the opposition indicated in the letter. Commissioner Atkins stated that an appointment was scheduled with Attorney Colburn; however, the meeting did not take place. Mayor Martin stated that he was made aware of the owner's concern and opposition to the rezoning by brief verbal communications with Attorney Colburn and also by the letter as presented. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, and Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Parsons referred to an aerial photograph, the Future Land Use Map and the Zoning/Subdivison Map, indicating the enclave rezone site displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the enclave rezone site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Siesta Drive and South Osprey Avenue; that the enclave rezone involves two sites; that both properties have active uses; that the properties are zoned in the Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District; that the Shell service station is on the corner of the property which is on the way out to Siesta Key; that directly north of the Shell service station is a Car Rental business; that the intent of the enclave rezone is to implement the, Neighborhood Commercial Euture Land Use Classification; that the neighborhood commercial uses exist on both the north side of Siesta Drive and the south side of Siesta Drive; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4560 is to Rezone a 0.91 acre parcel located at 3416 and 3440 South Osprey Avenue from the CI Zone District to the Commercial Neighborhood District (CND) Zone District; that the zoning for the property indicated on the Future Land Use Map directly south is zoned in the CND Zone District. Mr. Parsons continued that on August 11, 2004, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) conducted a public hearing; that the PBLP meeting minutes included in the Agenda backup material confirm one of the property owners appeared to testify in opposition; that the PBLP voted unanimously to deny approval of Rezone Application No. 04-RE-13; that Planning Staff recommends BOOK 57 Page 28706 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28707 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. approval of Ordinance No. 04-4560; that the purpose of the rezoning is to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the PBLP indicating concern regarding the existing uses once becoming nonconforming due to the rezoning; that rezoning from the CI Zone District to the CND Zone District would make both the Shell service station and the Car Rental business nonconforming uses; that nonconforming uses are provided protections; that nonconforming uses are allowed to continue in perpetuity; that the City does not intend to eliminate the uses; that the intent is, over time, as redevelopment occurs, the use would not be commercial intensive; that the CND and CI Zone Districts are commercial districts; that the CI Zone District is grouped with production intensive commercial in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that automotive type uses, vehicle servicing, and warehousing uses are allowed in the CI Zone District and are not allowed in the CND Zone District; that intensive commercial uses will most likely be inappropriate next to a single family residential neighborhood. Mr. Parsons Eurther stated that the existing uses would be allowed to continue; however, the concern is the type of redevelopment which could take place under the CI Zone District; that generally, the intent of the CI Zone District is to allow uses which are more intensive in use; that the difference between the. CI and the CND Zone Districts is in the type of warehousing and vehicle servicing type uses; that the CND Zone District is intended for smaller, commercial sites and areas which are in or near residential neighborhoods; that the emphasis of the CND Zone District is on uses providing services for the nearby residential areas and uses which are smaller in scale; that the two parcels are small; that the two parcels are less than one acre in size. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification regarding uses allowed in the CND Zone District. Mr. Parsons stated that the emphasis of the CND Zone District is on uses which provide services for the nearby residential area and other uses which are small scale and have little off-site impact; that the CND Zone District is a commercial Zone District. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a service station would serve the residential area; that the Shell service station has been servicing the area. Vice Mayor Servian asked for clarification if the existing businesses desired to expand? Mr. Parsons stated that expansion would not be allowed; that only repair and maintenance of the existing facility would be allowed; that a change in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) increased the threshold if a building was destroyed; that prior to the change, a building could be constructed if 50 percent of the assessed value of the building was destroyed; that the building would be required to rebuild to existing standards if the damage exceeded 50 percent; that in 2002, the percentage was increased to 75 percent of the market value; that the use could not restart if the use were to cease for six consecutive months. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the understanding is neither one of the existing uses can be expanded. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct; that the use of the service station and the car rental business would become noncontorming uses if the property is rezoned; that the businesses can expand under the current zoning of the CI Zone District. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the business cannot expand if the properties are rezoned. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct. Mayor Martin stated that the car wash was added to the Shell service station use approximately 20 years ago; that operation of the car wash is limited; and asked for clarification regarding the potential redevelopment and impacts under the CI Zone District. Mr. Parsons stated that as long as the potential redevelopment is a permitted use, meeting the standards of the Zone District, the use would be allowed to occur without any proffering of hours other than prescribed hours allowed by the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code). Mayor Martin stated that the reason for prescribing hours for the car wash would be interesting to know. Mr. Parsons stated that the Applicant may have proffered prescribed hours during the public hearing to meet the concerns of the neighborhood or the Commission. BOOK 57 Page 28708 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28709 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that a drive-through bank and restaurants, etc., exist south of the site; and asked if all the uses are conforming? Mr. Parsons stated that reviewing the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) will be necessary to definitively answer the question; that the belief is the uses are contorming; that the distinction is warehouse and motor vehicle servicing type uses; that a service station would fall under the motor vehicle servicing categorization, which is also the case with the car rental business. Mayor Martin stated that if the property were redeveloped, an automobile service station, operating 24 hours per day would be allowed in the CI Zone District. Mr. Parsons stated yes; that warehousing or wholesale type facilities would not be allowed under the CND Zone District; that warehousing and wholesale type facilities are unlikely at the location; that the concern is the potential redevelopment; that neighbors did not indicate support or nonsupport of the existing uses which could mean the existing uses may be appropriate and do not negatively impact the area. Vice Mayor Servian stated that an issue raised during the PBLP meeting was if the owner needed to refinance the property if the bank would lend money with the knowledge the property is noncontorming; and asked the lending status if the property was destroyed beyond 75 percent of market value and the owner could not rebuild with the current use. Mr. Parsons referred to the August 11, 2004, PBLP meeting minutes, included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, attended the meeting; that Mr. Taylor had experience with nonconformities during development of the new Downtown Code and the upcoming new Downtown Zone Districts. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, also provided information during the meeting. Mr. Parsons stated that the feedback received by Mr. Taylor from insurers and bankers was the issue is the percentage of financing a person is seeking; that the nonconformity issue could affect a person seeking financing for 90 percent of the value of the property. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the City would be hamstringing the owner from refinancing the amount which could be financed at this time, if the rezone is approved. Mr. Parsons stated that Mr. Litchet indicated at the meeting the nonconforming status actually does have an impact on the ability to secure financing; that a range of opinions exist regarding the issue. Mayor Martin requested that the Affected Person come forward. Craig Colburn, Attorney, Law Firm of Norton Hammersley, and Edward Kapreilian came before the Commission. Attorney Colburn stated that he has been retained by Shell Oil Company (Shell) as well as EMAK Industries, Inc., which is Mr. Kapreilian's company located at 3416 Osprey Avenue; that the owners of both properties are involved in the involuntary rezone; that Mr. Kapreilian owns the property and Practical Car Rental, which is a family run business and operates at the property; that both Mr. Kapreilian and Shell oppose the City- initiated rezone; that the City is undertaking a voluntary exercise; that the City does not have to rezone the property; that the reason for the City rezoning the property is questioned; that a purely academic exercise might make sensei however, real businesses and uses exist on the site which provide services. Attorney Colburn referred to Section IV-1106, Standards for Review, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), Paragraph 7, which indicates the following: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Attorney Colburn continued that nothing has changed in the neighborhood to make the rezoning necessaryi that the use has been in existence since 1980; that Mr. Kapreilian has owned the property for the last three yearsi that the business has been operated by the family for 24 years; that neighbors have never complained about the business; that mostly rental housing surrounds the property; that the PBLP devoted significant time to the necessity of the Shell service station at the intersection of Osprey Avenue and Siesta Drive; that members of BOOK 57 Page 28710 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28711 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. the PBLP reflected on personal experience regarding use of the Shell service station; that people use the businesses; that the businesses provide services to the neighborhood; that more harm than good would take place if the proposed Ordinance is approved. Attorney Colburn referred to a map indicating the surrounding area of the property displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that no other service stations exist within a half mile of the site; that a person will be required to travel to US 41 or Bee Ridge Road to obtain gas, which is inconvenient to people coming from Siesta Key and also to people living west of US 41; that the July 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting minutes, included in the Agenda backup material, indicated the former Chief Planner of the Planning Department testified that one of the goals of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) is to eliminate nonconforming uses; that meetings were held with Mr. Litchet; that Mr. Litchet indicated problems will ensue if the properties become nonconforming uses as a result of the rezonei that the problems will affect Shell and Mr. Kapreilian in different ways; and distributed a September 20, 2004, letter addressed to the Commission from Michael Worthington, Executive Vice President, Senior Lending Officer, First State Bank. Attorney Colburn stated further that First State Bank is Mr. Kapreilian's lender; that First State Bank also holds the mortgage on the property; that financing is a central part of Mr. Kapreilian's business due to the nature of the business and the need to maintain a fleet of vehicles; that the letter was composed after the situation was discussed with First State Bank; and quoted the following portion of the letter: As the mortgage holder we feel that the City proposed rezone of his property from CI (Commercial Intensive) to CND Neighborhood Commercial) will negatively impact the value of our collateral. Attorney Colburn stated that the action will have an immediate financial consequence to Mr. Kapreilian due to his need to maintain a fleet of vehicles; that the property is an essential part of financial arrangements; that the value of the property directly relates to Mr. Kapreilian's ability to provide collateral for financing; that the involuntary rezoning will automatically render the property non-conforming and a significant number of lenders make an immediate lending factor in his ability to use the property for financing purposes; that based upon discussions with Mr. Litchet, no real substantive changes could be made to the service station if the properties become noncontorming; that the petroleum industry is fluid; that a great deal of re-branding and marketing goes into the sale of gasoline; that the City's codes are drafted to make sure over time the nonconforming uses are eliminated; that the PBLP recognized the fact and unanimously rejected the City-initiated rezoning for the properties; that the City has not demonstrated a need to rezone the property; that the property provides services to the community and the harm which will be brought by the rezone will greatly exceed any benefit being put forth at this time; that Planning Staff indicated the properties would not be out of business if rezoned; that Planning Staff indicated the intent is not to put the properties out of business; that the City should not rezone the properties in a manner which is designed to facilitate the elimination of the business; that the Commission is respectfully requested to deny proposed Ordinance No. 04-4560. Commissioner Palmer referred to the PBLP minutes included in the Agenda backup material; and asked for clarification regarding Mr. Kapreilian's comments as follows: changes in restrictions on the property, maybe some type of arrangement under the CI Zone District with a special permit if he was to change his business in some way. Attorney Colburn stated that in the past, the City has approached individual property owners having property zoned more intensively than anticipated by the Future Land Use Map; that the City and the property owners have gotten together and negotiated a set of conditions which would apply to the particular piece of property to avoid potential problems which could arise in more intensive Zone Districts; that some opportunity exists to develop a set of conditions for Mr. Kapreilian's property in the future; that Shell has not responded regarding the issue; that the Commission is requested to reject the City-initiated rezone; that discussions can continue if the City desires to come back to the individual property owners. Commissioner Palmer stated that a major problem with a more intensive use than presently existing is possible in the future; and asked if an initiative exists on behalf of both property owners to review the type of uses possible in the future? BOOK 57 Page 28712 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28713 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Kapreilian stated that the City should take the initiative; that the request is for the City to do nothing; that the situation on the properties at this time is good; that Planning Staff should come to the property owners if the City has concerns for the future and would like to see a change; that Mr. Kapreilian is a reasonable person and will certainly welcome a discussion with Planning Staff. City Attorney Taylor stated that circumstances under which the Commission has imposed restrictions on uses in the past have been at times the Commission is taking official action, such as to rezone a property, approve a site plan or something which is part of a process; that a time in which the City has gone to a property owner to request the property be restricted is not recalled. Mr. Kapreilian stated that the Commission's consideration of Attorney Colburn's presentation is appreciated. Mayor Martin requested that Staff come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Parsons stated that non self-service car washes are minor conditional uses in the CI Zone District; that Attorney Colburn referred to the July 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting minutes, included in the Agenda backup material, in which the former Chief Planner of the Planning Department indicated the intent is to eliminate nonconforming uses through rezonings of propertyi that eliminating nonconforming uses through rezonings of property is the intent; however, the elimination is meant to occur over time; that Article V, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) provides protection to existing uses sO the use is not immediately being turned into a nonconforming use and a use which must cease; that the use can continue in perpetuity although is certainly restricted in terms of additions to the building; that the intent is to eliminate the nonconforming uses over time; that the development plan is not immediate; that the City is encouraging the type of development indicated on Future land Use Map over time. Mayor Martin asked if an existing structure could be remodeled? Mr. Parsons stated yes; that repair and maintenance is allowed. Mayor Martin asked if an existing sign within the same dimensions could be changed? Sarah Schenk, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that maintenance and repair of a sign is allowed for noncontorming uses if the exterior message is not changed; that a difference exists between a nonconforming structure and a noncontorming use; that a nonconforming use cannot be expanded or enlarged. Mayor Martin stated that an interest in adding transportation service to and from the airport was indicated in the PBLP minutes, which would be considered an expansion of the use; and asked if mechanical services could be added to the Shell property under the CI Zone District as long as sufficient space was available. Mr. Parsons stated yes. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4560 by Title Only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 04-4560. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that thanks are expressed to Staff for the hard work; that the detailed explanation is appreciated; that Staff's position regarding the enclave rezone is understood; that the reason for denying proposed Ordinance No. 04-4560 at this time is due to several factors; that the PBLP minutes indicate the rezoning should be considered but not at this time; that Planning Staff's discussion of noncontorming uses was a factor in the decision; that Attorney Colburn indicated no reason exists at this time to rezone the property; that the neighbors have raised no objection to the existing uses; that a hodgepodge of land uses exist on Osprey Avenue from Mound Street to Siesta Drive, which works fine; that most of the uses are nonconforming; that residential uses exist across from office uses; that the subject businesses provide a service to the community; that he purchases gasoline from the Shell service station once per month; that causing discomfort to the owners is not necessary. BOOK 57 Page 28714 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28715 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the motion to deny is supported purely on the basis of financing; that impinging on the ability of the owner to obtain the maximum revolving financing possible for fleet financing and also diminishing the underlying value of the collateral creates an overwhelming concern; that the rezone would restrict the small business owner from being able to maximize avallable financing tools. Commissioner Palmer stated that the motion to deny is supported; that the Shell service station is the only station in the area; that the reason for supporting the motion to deny is not on the basis of financing; that 1,800 parcels are being rezoned in the Downtown under the new Downtown Code; that financing will likely be an argument; that the circumstances with Mr. Kapreilian property may be different than properties which will be subject to the Downtown rezoningsi that Attorney Colburn has presented a compelling case; that the PBLP meeting minutes indicate a nonconforming use would be deemed abandoned if the use was abandoned for six consecutive months; that time was extended to two years in the Downtown; that the Commission should consider if a time period of two years should be implemented Citywide to assure fairness; that the Commission by consensus could request the PBLP to review the possibility or perhaps the PBLP will review the possibility without consensus of the Commission. Mayor Martin stated that the motion to deny is supported with some wariness; that the wariness is not regarding the existing uses but about the potential uses in redevelopment; that the parcels are not large which provides some feeling of comfort; that the potential for redevelopment and more intensive uses is not likely; that the highest and best use will likely not be warehouses or an automotive mechanic use; that the City proceeded with the City-initiated enclave rezone based on the same philosophy, which is respected; that the intersection is a commercial hub within the City; that surrounding uses have some kind of business office or commercial use, which have existed for some time; that compatibility with the neighborhood has been achieved; that multi-family uses exist near the site as well; that everyone seems pleased with the existing uses; that neighbors have not complained; that the consideration of the enclave rezone by Planning Staff is appreciated. Commissioner Palmer stated that the views expressed by Mayor Martin are shared which is the reason for asking Attorney Colburn's plans for coming back with suggestions to help the Commission deal with the situation in the future; that the properties are not consistent with the Future Land Use Map, which causes difficulty; that the use has existed for yearsi that the possibility of the property being developed more intensively is a concern. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to deny proposed Ordinance No. No. 04-4560 and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that all the public hearings related to the enclave rezonings, with the exception of the current public hearing which the Commission denied, will come back for a second public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the second public hearings will be on the Agenda for the October 18, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Palmer asked if Commission consensus exists to request the PBLP to review the possibility of extending the time period to two consecutive years for nonconforming uses which would be deemed abandoned if the uses are abandoned for six consecutive months; that the issue concerns fairness. Mayor Martin stated that ne does not have an interest since special circumstances in the Downtown were the reason for extending the period to two years; that the point may be worthy but is not a point which can be considered spontaneously and asked the will of the Commission. Commissioner Atkins stated that the PBLP's consideration of the time period regarding cessation of a business with a nonconforming use is a worthy suggestion; that the Commission could then make a decision based on the PBLP's report. Commissioner Bilyeu agreed; and stated that the consideration of land use issues should be fair; however, special situations may exist in the Downtown. Mayor Martin stated that some Commission support to consider the difference in the time period is apparent; however, a motion would be appreciated as a motion concerning extending the time period will likely not be personally supported. BOOK 57 Page 28716 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28717 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to request the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency consider the inconsistency in different Zone Districts of the time period of six months compared to two years nonconforming uses can remain dormant without being considered abandoned. Commissioner Palmer stated that the issue is the cessation of the business for the specified period of time. Commissioner Atkins agreed. Mayor Martin restated the motion as to recommend the Planning Board/Local Planning consider expanding the time period regarding cessation of a business with a noncontorming use from six months to two years. Commissioner Palmer stated that the understanding is not to recommend the PBLP extend the time period from six months to two years but rather study and assess if the time period should be extended and report back to the Commission. Mayor Martin restated the motion for clarification as to request the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency study and assess the time period nonconforming uses can remain dormant without being considered abandoned in different Zone Districts and report back to the Commission and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yesi Servian, no; Martin, no. 25. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4578, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE SITE LOCATED AT 1310 38TH STREET I SARASOTA, FLORIDA, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE SPARKMAN PROPERTY, HOME OF THE SARASOTA SUCCULENT SOCIETY, AS A SITE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-HD-04, APPLICANT MIKKI HARTIG, AS AGENT REPRESENTING THE SARASOTA SUCCULENT SOCIETY, A FLORIDA NON- PROFIT CORPORATION, / AS OWNER) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-6) CD 9:03 through 9:12 City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4578 is an historic designation; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person; that the recommendation for the City's presentation is five minutes with three minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have three minutes to speak. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved. Mayor Martin requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Martin, Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4578 to provide for the designation of the site located at 1310 38th Street, historically known as the Sparkman Property, Home of the Sarasota Succulent Society; and requested that the Applicant come forward for the presentation. Mikki Hartig, Historical & Architectural Research Services, representing the Sarasota Succulent Society, and Wilda Meier, President of the Sarasota Succulent Society, came before the Commission. Ms. Hartig stated that the property is unique; that discovering the hidden treasure was surprising; that the request is to historically designate the entire site; that an historic 1938 frame residential structure exists on the property which has had little modification over time; that Mr. Sparkman was born in Wauchula, Florida in 1884, the son of a farmer; that Mr. Sparkman was a visionary and a botanist; that Mr. Sparkman was always interested in native plants, specifically in xeriscape, before the term was known, but eventually became a minister; that he came to Sarasota in 1924 and bought a printing business on Lemon Avenue; that he purchased the property in 1938 due to the high elevation and an adjacent creek; that Mr. Sparkman built the home and created an extensive personal garden; that at the time, the County decided to extend Whitaker Bayou for the dolomite mines, Mr. Sparkman requested the dirt and rock debris remain since mounds could be created to allow good drainage for his succulent plants; that in 1950, many people were interested and became involved in the propertyi that many people regularly came to assist Mr. Sparkman with the substantial gardens; that BOOK 57 Page 28718 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28719 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Sparkman formed the Sarasota Succulent Society with six members; that in 1954, part of the property was deeded to the Sarasota Succulent Society and the house was enlarged for use as the newly-incorporated Sarasota Succulent Society; that in 1964, the Sarasota Succulent Society obtained the remainder of the property and have existed on the site since the time; that the residential structure standing on the site is significant under Section IV-806(2) (c) of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), representing a geographically defined entity whose individual structural components collectively convey a sense of time and place in history; that the structure is a well-preserved example of simple Depression era architecture and in the area of landscape architecture; that many of the planting beds and plant material were planted by the original owner have been allowed to thrive with the care and nurturing of the Sarasota Succulent Society; that five buildings exist on the site; that a map of the properties is included in the Agenda backup material. Ms. Hartig referred to a map of the properties displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the original house, which is used as club house is indicated; that Mr. Sparksman's original chicken coup is indicated which is still standing; that greenhouses and storage areas existing on the property were built over time by the Sarasota Succulent Society and are considered historic; that the entire property will be designated but the Historic Preservation Board will be concerned regarding any new construction; that alterations will be limited to the two historic buildings on the site. Mayor Martin stated that he and his wife often walk by the Sarasota Succulent Society property and volunteered to assist with cleanup a number of years ago; that the site is a hidden gem in the neighborhood. Ms. Hartig stated that Sarasota Succulent Society property has little problems with any kind of disturbances. Commissioner Atkins stated that the property is amazing and has always been sacred especially to children; that a swimming hole exists on the property; that in the past, an Oak Tree served as a diving board. Mayor Martin requested that Staff come forward. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department came before the Commission and stated that another diagram was included in proposed Historic Designation Application No. 04-HD-04 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4578; that the diagram clearly indicates the relationship of the two buildings which were discussed at the Historic Preservation Board meeting; that some outbuildings exist on the property which obviously do not rise to the level of historic designation and could be replaced or altered without special approval; that any new construction on the site would require a Certificate of Appropriateness; that a Certificate of Appropriateness would also be required if either of the two buildings indicated on the diagram would be changed in any wayi that Staff from the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources determined the property possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship and association and is of historical significance; that the Historic Preservation Board met on April 13, 2004, and recommended Commission approval of historic designation for the property based on the following criteria under Section IV-806(a) of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) as follows: 1. Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of the City of Sarasota, the State of Florida, or the United States of America; and; 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style or period, or a method of construction. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4578 by Title Only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4578 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes. BOOK 57 Page 28720 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28721 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. 26. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 9:13 There was no one signed up to speak. 27. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE : SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4565, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN, 1998 EDITION) TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A +0.51 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN LIME AVENUE AND SHADE AVENUE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-03; SAID PROPERTY HAVING STREET ADDRESSES OF 2324 AND 2346 MAIN STREET; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-03, APPLICANT LAND RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC., AS AGENT REPRESENTING M.P.P. ASSOCIATES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM XVI- 1) CD 9:14 through 9:15 Commissioner Palmer stated that the item was removed since she does not support proposed Ordinance No. 04-4565. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4565 by Title Only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4565 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Martin, no; Palmer, no; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. 28. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE : AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES WITH D. E. MURPHY CONSTRUCTORS INC., FOR THE CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT - APPROVED, ; REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO DETERMINE IF SUFFICIENT TIME IS AVAILABLE TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE REGARDING A NEW CITY COMPLEX (AGENDA ITEM XVII-1) CD 9:15 through 9:39 Vice Mayor Servian stated that the item was pulled regarding a police station and a City Hall City Complex; that discussion is desired regarding the future renovations of City Hall; that the Commission will be discussing in the near future a bond issue and building a new police station; that the City will expend close to $2 million, to accommodate the growing Staff and to make aesthetic changesi; that certain changes in the Annex Building are required immediately as a "sick building" syndrome exists; that a question is if the possibility exists to request the Administration to research if the future of City Hall should be considered in the context of building a City Center which includes a police station and a new City Hall which will accommodate the growth; that City Hall is located on a significantly valuable piece of property which the City is outgrowing; that City Hall is obsolete in many areas; that additional future renovations will be required; that restrooms must be upgraded; that sufficient conference space does not exist; that merely patching a building is not sufficient; that eventually a decision must be made regarding rebuilding; that the current meeting is an appropriate time to request the Administration to consider the issue in a bigger picture and report back with a recommendation to either include the issue into the police station discussion or not; that the Commission should not miss the opportunity to have a discussion. Commissioner Atkins stated that the suggestion is intriguing; that a public safety building is suggested; that a new fire station is necessary; that he is open to suggestions; that the issue should be researched in an all encompassed manner; that the suggestion is generally supported. Mayor Martin stated that the Annex Building must be repaired. Vice Mayor Servian stated that is correct; that the ultimate answer is the Annex Building of City Hall must be repaired; that band-aid repairs at City Hall are not supported. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the details, the coordination, and the interrelation of the first and second phases. City Manager McNees stated that a formally phased plan is not in place at this time; that the most immediate concerns are the BOOK 57 Page 28722 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28723 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. issues regarding the third floor of the Annex Building and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system which requires significant remedial work throughout both buildings; that a definite schedule has not been prepared; that the schedule will be based on a chain of events rather than a schedule or phases; that a report of the most critical health/safety priority groups can be prepared; that a timing issue must be considered given the City's commitments to the County to have a police station site available to the County; that the City will present a referendum to the public in March 2005; that siting, analyzing, and gathering information for the police station required significant time; that providing meaningful information to the voters regarding a new City Hall will be difficult as no planning work has been completed to provide information and be included in a March referendum; that rebuilding could occur subsequent to the March referendum; that March 2005 is not far away and a preliminary space analysis, siting work, scheduling, etc., is a large task in a short time. Vice Mayor Servian asked if a November 2005 referendum would be more suitable? City Manager McNees stated that the desire is to have discussions with the County and Court Administrators regarding deadlines. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a deadline precluding making a decision which is a holistic, long-term solution for the City is disturbing. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the building is loved; that City Hall sits on valuable propertyi that discussions have occurred regarding relocating City Hall at the Federal Building or the US Post Office on Ringling Boulevard in the past; that the debate is good; that he could support the Administration researching moving the referendum to November 2005. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concept is respected; however, the concept is not supported; that a commitment has been made to Staff; that many areas of City Hall are in dire straits with the HVAC and other problems; that to separate one project from another at this time will not be meaningful to the City and Staff working on a day-to-day basis in closet-sized areas; that a commitment has been made and the City is moving forward with the project; that the project should not be stopped; that the timing is not correct; that Staff requires the additional space; that the current plan is good and can serve City Hall for a long time; that additional space can be considered in the future; that now is not the time to stop the process; that the suggestion to postpone renovations is not supported; that no validity exists for stopping the process. Vice Mayor Servian stated that stopping the process is not suggested; that the problem areas of City Hall must be repaired; that some aesthetic issues should be foregone to determine if an opportunity exists for another date for a referendum; that the US Post Office's lease expires in 2008 which may work well for relocation; that missing an opportunity to provide a public safety building, fire station, police department, City Hall and a shelter should be avoided. Mayor Martin stated that the issues are separate; that the building is valuable and should be renovated; that City Hall can expand to the Annex Building; that the ability exists to build additional stories on the City Hall building; that expansion can occur in the Federal Building; that some measured growth regarding the number of Staff will occur; however, City government will not grow significantly; that a City/County government center is a good concept; that going forward with the renovation is supported; that a concern exists regarding defining and presenting the bond issue to the public. Commissioner Atkins stated that stopping the renovation process was not the intent; that the required renovations must occur. Commissioner Palmer stated that knowing the intent of the suggestion by Vice Mayor Servian, the concept is supported. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to extend the meeting until the end of the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the consensus heard is to move forward but to look at a bigger picture if consolidating the bond issue with a public service building to include a police department, fire station, City Hall, and shelter makes sense. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Agreement for Construction Manager and General Contractor Services indicates a fee of eight percent of the price; that materials are in very short supply and the costs may increase considerably due to the recent BOOK 57 Page 28724 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28725 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. hurricanes; that construction material costs are a concern; that the fee is based on a percentage of the cost. City Manager McNees stated that the time at which the guaranteed price is set is the time which the City accepts the contract with the construction manager; that fluctuating prices will not affect the amount; that the eight percent number is based on current information; that the City is only subject to price fluctuations until the time the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is adopted. Commissioner Palmer stated that due to the destruction in the State of Florida, the Guaranteed Maximum Price will likely be greater than would have been two or three months ago; and asked if a flat fee is appropriate? City Attorney Taylor stated that projects have occurred in the past with flat fees; however, the common practice is to use a percentage basis. City Manager McNees stated that a contractor would take issue with the City desiring the contractor to manage a project in an environment where materials are scarce, scheduling will be problematic, labor will be scarce, and taking a larger risk by locking into a price; that the vagaries of the market go both ways. Mayor Martin stated that Mr. Murphy has worked in Sarasota for a long time; that the City can depend on fair negotiation; that concerns regarding the increasing cost of materials are legitimate. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an agreement for Construction Manager and General Contractor Services with D. E. Murphy Constructors, Inc., for the City Hall Renovation Project. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 29. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EECUTE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM (SBEP) FOR THE TRANSFER AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FOR THE SBEP FROM THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM XVII-2) CD 9:40 through 10:03 Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, and Mark Alderson, Executive Director of the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, came before the Commission. Attorney Singer stated that the City Attorney's Office has been working with Mr. Alderson to create the Interlocal Agreement; that in July 2004, the City, Sarasota County, Manatee County, Town of Longboat Key, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and the City of Bradenton, entered into an Interlocal Agreement entitled the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Interlocal Agreement which separated out and created the NEP Entity, but which from hereon forward will be referred to as the Sarasota Bay Estuary Bay Program (SBEP); that the word national is eliminated from the name; that the SBEP was created to be free- standing; that in 1995 and 1996 the SBNEP whose funding primarily comes from the Federal government was under the tutelage of SWFWMD; that the City agreed in the 1990's to temporarily administer the housing and support of the program with contributions from other local governments as grants originally intended as temporary; that the temporary situation stretched into eight or nine years; that the time has finally arrived to separate the agencies; that the Interlocal Agreement approved by the local government entities effected the separation; that the Interlocal Agreement provides for the transfer and administrative support; that recommended changes received by the City Attorney's Office at 5:00 p.m., September 17, 2004, were made in the Interlocal Agreement; that the SBEP entity has not had administrative support since created in July 2004; that the Manatee County Commission agreed to lending the assistance of County Attorney, William Clague, to assist the SBEP to become operational. Attorney Singer continued that numerous meetings have been conducted to deal with financial, housing, and technology issues to function as seamlessly as possible; that employee issues were discussed; that completion took significant time due to the lack of Staff; that the anticipated timeline was August 2004 for Commission approval; that the most significant change is the Interlocal Agreement has been revised downward to a one year agreement rather than a five year agreement which has no significant impact as a 90-day termination is included in the Interlocal Agreement; that either party can terminate the BOOK 57 Page 28726 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28727 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. agreement for any cause by providing 90 days' written notice; that the purpose of the original five year period was typically for a lease; that the five year lease indicated the cost for five years; that a one year lease will require review in nine months; that the City Attorney's Office prefers a longer lease term as some certainty will be provided concerning the future rent and eliminates the worry of forgetting the Interlocal Agreement must be renegotiated; however, the SBEP has requested the lease term be one year; that the Indemnity Clause has been modified to clarify the SBEP entity will not indemnify for occurrences prior to October 1, 2004, which is the transfer date; that indemnification for occurrences prior to the transfer was not intended; however, the SBEP requested the modification; that refinements were made to language regarding pensions; that employees of the SBNEP who transferred to the SBEP participate in the City's General Employee Pension Plan; that significant discussions occurred regarding the transier of the employees to ensure the employees have a choice between participating in the Florida Retirement System or remain in the City's plan; that the transfer will be governed by the State Statutes. Attorney Singer further stated that language was added to indicate the transfer is made in accordance with the City Code and the State Statutes; that time is short as an allocation is not included in the 2004/05 fiscal year (FY) budget for the SBNEP; therefore, the transier must occur October 1, 2004, as no funds exist to support the program thereafter; that Mr. Alderson has received the grant funds required sO financial assets will exist effective October 1, 2004, to take over a complete, independent operation; that the City will provide temporary basic support; that the SBEP will continue to operate in the Federal Building under the terms of the existing Interlocal Agreement; that the City is reimbursed under the current program and will continue to be reimbursed at the same rate during the one year term of the Interlocal Agreement; that currently, General Services provides administrative support for procurement; that the services are billed on an hourly basis; that information and technology support does not exist; that installation of any wiring facilities will be under the supervision of City Staff; that subsequent to approval by the Commission, the Interlocal Agreement will be presented to the Policy Committee. Mr. Alderson stated that the SBEP is a Special District in the State; that SBEP will soon hire an attorney; that the SBEP Board will make decisions regarding the expenditure of funds; that the board members of the SBEP must live up to the commitments included in the Interlocal Agreement; that the pension plan issues must be addressed by the board members of the SBEP. Mayor Martin stated that the primary concern is the ability of the employees to choose. Mr. Alderson stated that the employees will be presented the differences; that representatives from the Florida Retirement System will make a presentation; that City Staff will also make a presentation; that the Policy Committee members must determine the appropriate pension plan; that meetings were cancelled due to the hurricanes; that a special meeting was conducted to receive authority to establish bank accounts and transfer funds. Attorney Singer stated that a high level of confidence exists the SBEP Policy Committee will accept the Interlocal Agreement; that one significant issue is the employees should be given an option to remain in the City's General Employees Pension Plan; that Chapter 24 of the City Code provides employees must be given an option; that the attorneys for the SBEP did not have a copy of Chapter 24 of the City Code; that benefits provided by the General Employees Pension Plan cannot be reduced under State law; that transfer to another entity and not providing an option when the City Code provides for an option would result in a decrease in benefits; that due to time constraints the recommendation is to approve the Interlocal Agreement as presented. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the problem of the SBEP attorney concerning a transfer option. Mr. Alderson stated that the SBEP attorney is not familiar with the City Code. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the item should not have been placed on the Consent Agenda; that decisions cannot be made without having sufficient time to consider ramifications; that making a decision of such complexity at this time is not supported. Commissioner Palmer stated that the City has transferred two groups of employees to the County; that both had the option of remaining with the City's plan or participating with the Florida Retirement System; that the issue does not make sense. BOOK 57 Page 28728 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28729 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that the crux of the issue is whether the SBEP Policy Committee will abide by the City Code; that the issue for the SBEP attorney is the SBEP is not a City agency or obligated by a City Ordinance; that not allowing the terms of the City Code will create a diminution in the benefit which is not allowed; that Staff and the Administration have been working on the issue since April 2004; that a last minute issue was not desired; that many modifications were made; that the intent was to have an agreement by October 1, 2004; that not delaying the agreement any longer is the attempt. Mayor Martin stated that substantial changes are not presented; that significant work and numerous parties to the agreement have been involved which took more time than anticipated. Mr. Alderson stated that the SBEP is a Special District effective October 1, 2004; that public funds have been expended to initiate the SBEP on October 1, 2004. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP) for the transfer and administrative support for the SBEP from the City of Sarasota to an independent Special District pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Vice Mayor Servian's concern such a complex issue should have been on the Agenda for discussion is understood; however, approving the Interlocal Agreement is supported; that Attorney Singer's recommendation is trusted; that the Interlocal Agreement is supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Interlocal Agreement is supported. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Interlocal Agreement is supported; that the only outstanding issue concerns the pension issue; that the opinion is an issue does not exist. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP) for the transfer and administrative support for the SBEP from the City of Sarasota to an independent Special District pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, no; Martin, yes. 30. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R- 1808, AUTHORIZING THE SALARIES OF THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 6, 2004, DETERMINING WHICH OFFICES SHALL BE SET FOR SURETY BOND AND THE AMOUNTS THEREOF; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR LONGEVITY, ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED WITH THE CHANGE TO A $1 MILLION SURETY BOND FROM $100,000 (AGENDA ITEM XVII-2) CD 10:03 through 10:07 Commissioner Palmer stated that the City Manager is only bonded for $100,000; that other City officials are bonded for $1 million; that the difference in the figures does not make sense under the circumstances of turning over the authority of the City to the City Manager three times during the last month; that the City Manager should be bonded equally with the other officials. Mayor Martin stated that the point is well taken considering the Commission has been handing emergency powers to the City Manager; that increasing the bond amount is supported. Vice Mayor Servian asked the reason the Commissioners are not bonded? City Manager McNees stated that the Commissioners have no spending authority. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the bonding involves only spending authority. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the Administration will increase the bond for the City Manager to $1 million; that the logic for the $1 million for the officials is the individuals can control the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash; that all officials will be bonded at $1 million. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1808 by title only. BOOK 57 Page 28730 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28731 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1808 with the change to a $1 million surety bond from $100,000. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. 31. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: CD 10:07 There was no one signed up to speak. 32. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO FOLLOW UP ON ASSIGNMENT OF A STAFF MEMBER TO ATTEND THE COMMUNITY ALLIANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS (AGENDA ITEM IX) CD 10:07 through 10:14 COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that he attended the Tourist Development Committee (TDC) meeting was attended; that a Tourism and Economic Development Board meeting will be attended September 21, 2004; that the TDC meeting presented the contemplated advertising campaign; that the TDC is going in the right direction; that a report was presented regarding the renourishment issue as a result of the hurricanes; that a major loss of sand did not result; that, as a matter of fact, a significant amount of sand was deposited at Turtle Beach. COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that the last Manasota League of Cities meeting was cancelled; however, the City will be represented at the next meeting to consider the legislative agenda for the upcoming legislative year. VICE MAYOR SERVIAN: A. stated that Florida league of Cities Policy Committee meeting was attended on Friday, September 17, 2004; that an issue for review is the wholesale tax exemption; that the direction will be to indicate the exemptions which are supported; that the indication to the legislature will be the exemptions which are not supported should be eliminated. B. stated that a Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 21, 2004; that Rudy Vazmina, Executive Director, Sarasota Housing Authority / indicated United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has reduced the rating of the SHA based on a recent assessment; that confirmation has been requested but not yet received; that the SHA Board blamed HUD for all the problems. Mayor Martin asked the status of the application process regarding the vacancies in the various boards? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one application has been received; that a gentleman was referred to contact the Commission regarding a position on the Citizens With Disabilities Board. Mayor Martin asked the status of advertising for the vacancies? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the advertising began September 10, 2004. Mayor Martin stated that a meeting should be scheduled with City Auditor and Clerk Robinson regarding advertising and filling the positions. COMMISSIONER BILYEU: A. stated that he attended the Community Action Agency Board meeting; that discussions involved the funds available to assist in rent and mortgage payments for people in need. B. stated that the Juvenile Justice Council of the Department of Juvenile Justice met September 13, 2004 regarding school closures due to the hurricanes; that an issue is to ensure juveniles have mentors; that a month in early 2005 will be designated as a National Mentor month. MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that the Community Alliance of Sarasota County requested assignment of a Staff member to attend BOOK 57 Page 28732 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28733 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. meetings; that the Community Alliance group meets on the third Monday of each month; and asked the status of the assignment? City Manager McNees stated that the issue will be considered during the current week. 33. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH COUNTY OFFICIALS AND OTHER PRINCIPLES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A CONFERENCE CENTER (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 10:14 through 10:44 COMMISSIONER BILYEU: A. stated that he traveled to Jacksonville, Florida to the Neighborhood Conference; that attendance was poor due to the hurricanes; that many compliments were received regarding the City's recent Neighborhood Conference; that Staff is appreciated for the success; that many Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees were in the area. B. stated that the City is well prepared for before and during hurricanes; that a concern is after the hurricanes; that he will be meeting with people who will assist the people who choose to remain in their homes during the storms; that communication with the utility agencies after the storms is important. VICE MAYOR SERVIAN: A. stated that thanks are expressed to City Attorney Taylor for the good work for the City. B. stated that the Cultural District Master Plan may be on the Agenda of the October 4, 2004, Regular meeting; that she will not be in attendance and is requesting the item be continued to the October 18, 2004 Regular meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that postponing the meeting is supported; that confirming the consultants can attend at the later date is necessary; that all five Commissioners should be in attendance. Mayor Martin asked if the consultants were scheduled to attend the meeting? City Manager McNees stated that the consultants will be requested to attend. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus has been heard to place the item on the October 13, 2004 Agenda. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that the bond issue should be addressed as soon as possible. C. stated that the status of improvements to Fredd "Glossie" Atkins Park is requested; that the last activity was the boarding up of a building at the site. City Manager McNees stated that the building will be removed in the near future. COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that the status of the appointments for the Tree Committee is requested. City Manager McNees stated that a Tree Committee has been appointed. Commissioner Palmer stated that a list of the appointees would be appreciated. B. stated that she is deferring comments regarding the Sister Cities trips; that Mayor Martin performed an incredible job in Vladimir, Russia; that Mayor Martin represented the City in an excellent manner; that she was proud to be a part of the delegation. C. stated that a meeting was recently conducted regarding neighborhoods and the business community regarding a conference center; that representatives from the Sarasota Quay, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., and the Hyatt Sarasota are developing a three- dimensional concept plan of a conference center; that the hope is the plan will be presented to the Commission. BOOK 57 Page 28734 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28735 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. D. stated that the Sarasota High School building presentation to the Sarasota County School Board is at 7:00 p.m., September 21, 2004; that two or three uses have been recommended; that the Sarasota High School building will be preserved. E. stated that thanks are extended to Vice Mayor Servian and Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, for sharing information regarding issues concerning US 301 and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). F. stated that thanks are extended to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and Jim Freeman, Internal Auditor, for the work to prepare for the trips to Perpignan, France, and Vladimir, Russia. G. stated that thanks are extended to City Manager McNees for the leadership during emergencies. H. stated that thanks are extended to City Attorney Taylor; that working with City Attorney Taylor has been an honor and a privilege; that the service and commitment to the City for the past 25 years is appreciated. Vice Mayor Servian asked if Commission consensus should be to make a recommendation for the Administration to work with the groups regarding the conference center? City Manager McNees stated that informal work with groups has been conducted; that general consensus is welcome. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a concern is a formal discussion has not occurred to direct the Administration to work with the group. Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer stated that the direction is supported. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is to direct the Administration to continue to work with County officials and other principles regarding development of a conference center. MAYOR MARTIN: A. distributed a letter dated September 17, 2004,from Ali Ebrahimi, President, Ersa Grae Corporation, and a letter dated September 20, 2004, from John Harshman, agent for the Golden Apple Dinner Theatre; that the letter from Mr. Ebrahimi expresses frustration regarding negotiations between Ersa Grae Corporation and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater and The Sarasota Opera House; that Mr. Harshman has requested a Confidentiality Agreement regarding the Term Sheet; that Ersa Grae Corporation was concerned executing a Confidentiality Agreement was not possible as Ersa Grae Corporation is dealing with the City in a transparent method which has held up further negotiation; that The Sarasota Opera House indicates progress at this time; that another proposal has been presented by The Sarasota Opera House which will be mutually exclusive from the Ersa Grae Corporation proposed project; that Mr. Harshman's letter clarifies, if not refutes, Ersa Grae Corporation's understanding; that the request from Ersa Grae Corporation is if the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) will agree to a Confidentiality Agreement with both the Ersa Grae Corporation and The Sarasota Opera House; that the 90-day deadline is September 28, 2004,; that the request is if the CRA will consider a reasonable extension to continue and complete the negotiations; that the CRA can schedule a meeting on Friday October 8, 2004, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.i that a mediator is suggested. City Manager McNees stated that Staff is frustrated with the slow pace of the negotiations; that the hope is progress will be made prior to the October 8, 2004, CRA meeting; that the issue will be further discussed at the October 8, 2004, CRA meeting. Mayor Martin stated that a concern regarding an October 8, 2004, meeting is an agreement may not be reached until the CRA formally agrees Confidentiality Agreements may be executed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a date prior to September 29, 2004, which is the date Vice Mayor Servian is leaving, will be researched. Commissioner Palmer stated that all three parties should be involved in the discussion. Commissioner Atkins stated that a frustration is with the process as a golden opportunity exists; that another such opportunity may BOOK 57 Page 28736 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 57 Page 28737 09/20/04 2:30 P.M. not exist in the near future; that attempting to extract the maximum out of the opportunity is not necessarily in the best interest of anyone; that working out the issue and moving on is vitally important. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the CRA should appoint a neutral party as a mediator; that the issue of the confidentiality must be considered to determine if confidentiality is appropriate. Mayor Martin stated that a concern is the suggestion all three parties should attend the CRA meeting; that the CRA is responsible for making appropriate decisions regarding issues and appointing a mediator. Vice Mayor Servian agreed. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that developing a project with a developer and one person can be difficult; that many entities are involved in the Ersa Grae Corporation project which is causing difficulty; that a CRA meeting is required for further discussion. Mayor Martin stated that a meeting may be scheduled prior to September 29, 2004; that the October 8, 2004, meeting will remain scheduled. Commissioner Palmer asked the problem of having the three parties involved in the Ersa Grae Corporation project attend the CRA meeting? Mayor Martin stated that the meeting will be open to the public. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the CRA should not negotiate with the parties. Commissioner Palmer stated that learning the problems is not negotiation. Mayor Martin stated that consensus has been reached the problems should be discussed as the CRA. B. stated that an Commission Informal Workshop is scheduled for September 23, 2004, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. C. stated that Sarasota and Manatee Counties are installing red light monitors; that the City has not installed monitors; that monitors are placed at intersections which photograph the license plate of individuals who run red lights. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the monitor indicates to a police officer in the area if a red light has been run; that taking photographs is not allowed. Mayor Martin stated that the monitors should be discussed with Sarasota Police Department Chief Peter Abbott. D. stated that an update on the Public Information Officer position is requested. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that interviews will commence during the following week. E. stated that travel to Perpignan, France, and Vladimir, Russia, will be discussed at another time; that the group was welcome in Russia; that not canceling the trip due to the recent terrorist attack was appreciated. 34. OTHER ASTESANANIETRATTVA OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 10:44 through 10:45 CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: A. stated that he will not miss the late night meetings; that he will miss the good people he has worked with at the City. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that thanks are expressed to City Attorney Taylor for help over the years. 35. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVIII) CD 10:45 There being no further business, Mayor Martin adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of September 20, 2004, at 10:45 p.m. / Beckadlaffir RICHARD F. MARTIN, MAYOR ATTEST 3E Rolasoon BILLY E2 ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 57 Page 28738 09/20/04 2:30 P.M.