MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone, and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. CHANGE TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY #1 (0029) through (0048) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: 1. Add to Board Appointments, Item No. IX-2, Appointment Re: Housing Authority Board On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Change to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. PRESENTATION RE: VIDEO OF THE SERVICES AND PROGRAMS OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER #1 (0049) through (0530) Dr. Sandra Adams, Executive Director of the Child Development Center (CDC), came before the Commission and stated that she has been informing the Commission for several years about the programs and services delivered by the CDC to Sarasota's youngest and most vulnerable children; that CDC is an early intervention program for children from birth to five years of age who are developmentally delayed or at risk for delay due to a mental, physical, social, emotional, or environmental condition; that she requested placement on the agenda to show the CDC video when Commissioner Cardamone toured the CDC facility; that she thanks the Commission for the support given to the CDC program, and applauds the Commission's understanding and appreciation of the link between investing in a child and investing in the future. Book 36 Page 10192 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10193 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Dr. Adams stated that the following members of the CDC Board of Directors are present at tonight's meeting: former State Senator Bob Johnson, Terry Copland, and Asim Mohammed. A video of the services provided by the Child Development Center was viewed on the Commission Chamber monitors by the Commission and members of the audience. Dr. Adams stated that she hopes the video conveys to the Commission, the audience, and those watching on television, the effectiveness of early intervention in helping to reduce or entirely eliminate conditions so that children can grow up reaching their maximum potential; that the point was stressed to John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, who recently toured the CDC facility, that if the CDC is able to provide the prevention and early intervention services to these vulnerable children and their families, the need for jail cells and prison beds could be reduced. Mayor Pillot thanked Dr. Adams for presenting a video and stated it was clear, informative, and moving. 3. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1994, AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1994 (AGENDA ITEM I-1, -2). #1 (0531) through (0603) Mayor Pillot asked if there were any changes to the minutes of the January 27, 1994, or the minutes of February 7, 1994? Vice Mayor Patterson referred to the February 7th minutes, Item 27, New Business: Report Re: Intersection Improvement at U.S. 41 and Bee Ridge Road, draft one page 10177, and stated that more wording was used in the motion made was than just to have the Administration monitor the situation; that (the motion) was clarified at the request of Dennis Daughters; that the minutes should reflect a stronger motion; that the motion (as reflected on draft one page 10177) states that "it was moved to take no action. = Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she thinks what happened is the Commission rejected all the alternatives on the table. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that motions are recorded in the minutes verbatim and taking no action would reject the alternatives; however, he will review the audio tape. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the minutes of meetings of January 27, 1994, and February 7, 1994, with a correction to be made in concert with the audio tape. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill: yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. BOARD ACTIONS (AGENDA ITEM II) There were no Board Actions. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 = ITEMS 1, 2, AND 3 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0608) through (1050) Mayor Pillot stated that City Manager Sollenberger has requested that the Commission remove Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 1, so that additional information can be provided. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a one-year agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Red Sox of Florida, Inc. to allow the Florida State League to utilize the Sports Complex during the 1994 Championship Season City Manager Sollenberger requested Patrick Calhoon, Sports Facility Manager, and the members of the Red Sox organization to come to the Commission table. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Commission was furnished with a draft agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Red Sox of Florida, Inc.; that the agreement was not finalized at the time the agenda was distributed; and that discussions were held Friday evening with Mr. Calhoon, City Attorney Taylor, and Howard Pizer, of the White Sox organization, regarding (the impact of the Red Sox agreement on the White Sox organization, in an effort to finalize the agreement with the Red Sox of Florida, Inc.) Mr. Calhoon stated that this item will hopefully give Sarasota baseball in the summer, and continue the tradition which started in 1989 with the Chicago White Sox; and introduced Bill McKay, Director of Florida Operations with the Boston Red Sox, and Kevin Cummings, General Manager of the proposed Red Sox franchise in Sarasota. Mr. Calhoon stated that the majority of the lease agreement has not changed since the discussions Friday night; that the Chicago White Sox (CWS) had requested that the CWS be included as a third-party beneficiary to the agreement; that the request was negotiated by including a statement to the consent letter whereby the City would enforce all provisions of the agreement and especially those which may negatively impact the CWS; that (Mr. Pizer) agreed, in a subsequent conversation today, that the City's agreement to (provide a statement in the consent letter) would coincide with the 30-day period default clause in the agreement (and be acceptable). Book 36 Page 10194 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10195 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. A memorandum from Patrick Calhoon to V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, dated February 22, 1994, was displayed on the overhead projector. Mr. Calhoon stated that the expenses for the season will remain the same as expenses which have been incurred (by having the Sarasota White Sox summer league) over the past five years; that regarding revenues, the City realized $14,282 last year through the Florida State League (FLS) Sarasota White Sox season which had record attendance; that the proposed agreement has the Red Sox of Florida, Inc. guaranteeing the City of Sarasota a minimum of $14,000 (in surcharges on paid attendance) for the season; that gate receipts revenue (which was received by the Sarasota White Sox) has been negotiated out of the revenue source, but has been made up in other revenue streams; that parking revenue for the previous Sarasota White Sox season was $8,000; that since the Red Sox have gotten a late start on marketing, the attendance is not expected to meet the attendance of the last (Sarasota) White Sox season; however, $7,000 in revenue has been estimated for parking. Mr. Calhoon continued that the monthly rent (as listed in the agreement) will be $5,300; that $1,500 will be applied as a revenue stream to the City, and $3,800 will be applied for the City's pass-through cost for water, sewer, electric, refuse, and gas; that $5,300 per month will be paid during the five-month season of April through August, and $500 per month will be paid during the remaining months; Mr. Calhoon further stated that concession revenue should cover the outline cost paid to the CWS to maintain the field; that costs for grounds keeping are estimated at $31,400 based on a full-time groundskeeper, a (chief) groundskeeper who will attend each game, and additional rain duty labor which may be necessary to save a baseball game; that a $3,000 material cost has been included for resodding which may be required due to heavy play on the field; that if the concession revenue does not meet the $31,400 grounds keeping cost, Red Sox of Florida, Inc. is financially, responsible (for the deficient amount); that concession revenue in excess of $31,400 will be retained by the City; that $12,000 of excess concession revenue is estimated based on two-thirds of the concession revenue realized last season by the Sarasota White Sox; that a $5,000 net increase (of revenue) to the City is estimated for the 1994 season with the same expenses (as the 1993 season). Mr. Calhoon stated that the sign revenue with the CWS lease in accordance with the major league lease comes back to the City in the event that the CWS do not have a FSL team; that sign revenue is estimated at $15,000 - $20,000; that the term of the proposed Red Sox of Florida, Inc. lease is through December 15, 1994; that the Red Sox of Florida, Inc. have expressed interest in making a longer term agreement, if all goes well, and the concerns of the CWS are satisfied in that the impact on their Sarasota operation would be minimal with the Sarasota Red Sox playing at Ed Smith Stadium. Mr. McKay stated that the Red Sox have had a relationship with the city of Sarasota in the past for spring training and instructional league programs; that the Red Sox look forward to fielding a Class A team in Sarasota; that the fine facilities, market, and (previous success of a Class A team) is a good baseball base; that a former Sarasota citizen, Greg Blosser, is one of the team players who is looking forward to having the Red Sox in (Sarasota) Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration requests a motion to approve the agreement and authorize execution by the Mayor and attesting by the Auditor and Clerk. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to M.C.S. Concrete, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, in the amount of $19,995.00 (R.F.P. #94-44), for completion of the John Ringling Causeway sidewalk construction 3. Approval Re: Traffic engineering and other auxiliary services for the proposed expansion of the Sarasota High School and Alta Vista Elementary School, as defined in the Interlocal Agreement between the City, County and the School Board On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 (Items 1, 2, and 3) with the additional information on the Red Sox contract. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that it was 6:30 p.m., the time advertised for public hearings, and requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE INSTAL- LATION OF BEACH PROTECTION DEVICES ON LOTS 17, 18, 19 AND 20, SAID LOTS EXTENDED WESTERLY TO SARASOTA PASS AND EASTERLY TO BAYOU LOUISE, BLOCK 38, REVISED PLAT OF SIESTA SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A. PAGE 38, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 3710 BAYOU LOUISE LANE, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; ETC. - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1062) through (1440) Book 36 Page 10196 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10197 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that this (request to install a beach protection device) is the final phase of an ongoing (rock revetment) project (on Bayou Louise Lane properties) ; that this special permit is for the McCarver/Moser property which is partially protected (lby a rock revetment); that (the petitioner) is requesting permission to complete protection on the property, and to improve the existing rock revetment; that the petitioner is trying to maintain a portion of beach, and may not complete the work immediately; however, obtaining this special permit will allow the petitioner to immediately protect the full length of their property, if the beach cannot be saved; and that agents of the petitioners are present for any Commission questions. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following individual came before the Commission: Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane, representing himself, stated that he is registering a protest (against) this special permit; that the (partial) rock revetment was installed illegally; that rocks were brought in the middle of the night onto a property to protect a house that should not have been allowed to be built; that the builder told the Commission that rocks were brought onto to the property for protection without a permit; that the action defies the system and should not be condoned. There was no one else who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) and second of Vice Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins), it was moved (to approve the Special Permit for the installation of beach protection devices at 3710 Bayou Louise Lane). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that as previously announced, E. McCarver and R. Moser are clients of her husband, but he is not representing the petitioners on this issue; and that she has obtained a memorandum from City Attorney Taylor stating it is appropriate for her to vote on this issue. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that Mr. Thorpe's statements may not be entirely accurate; that the petitioner may have a different version of how rocks were added to an existing rocked area; that this property will be the only unprotected property in a hardened (shoreline) area if this special permit is not approved; that denying the special permit for one property does not seem appropriate at this point. Mayor Pillot stated that he neglected to allow the petitioner a rebuttal opportunity and requested that Commissioner Atkins (acting as Chairman) correct his mistake. Attorney Taylor stated that allowing the petitioner rebuttal will help the record; that the process (for a special permit) puts the burden of proof on the petitioner to come before the Commission and make a case under the (Zoning) Code; that by not having any presentation by the petitioner, it makes for a slim record in support of what is being requested. Commissioner Atkins requested that Kristina Tignor and Pat Ball come before the Commission. Kristina Tignor stated that she is the Vice President of Tignor Group, P.A., the engineer of record on the McCarver/Moser project. Pat Ball, Ball Construction, Inc., stated that he is the contractor. Ms. Tignor stated, in response to the allegation of illegally placed rocks, that the (MCCarver/Moser) acquired the property last year, with a rock revetment existing; that aerial photographs show that the rock revetments have existed on the property for 20 years. Mr. Ball showed the Commission a blown-up (aerial) photograph depicting the property prior to any improvements by McCarver/Moser). Ms. Tignor stated that the survey provided (to the City) shows existing rocks, including a rock jetty which is perpendicular to the shoreline; that allowing the rock revetment to take place will fill the gap between what was existing and what has been recently permitted on the southerly properties; that denying the special permit will place a hardship on the property owner; that any protection provided to the property is justified because of the uncertainty about erosion conditions due to the new revetment installed to the south, and the uncertainty of the sand shoal that serves to protect this portion of Big (Sarasota) Pass. Ms. Tignor continued that the property owners enjoy the beach area and want to delay putting the entire rock revetment on the property; unfortunately, the erosion pattern identified by an aerial study has shown that some beach protection is necessary. Ms. Tignor stated that rocks were legally placed on the property to repair an existing rock revetment; that she has paperwork from the State agencies, and a letter from Federal Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) approving (the proposal presented to the City); that she will provide a copy for Commission review, if so desired. Book 36 Page 10198 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10199 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3751, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 12, OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (C-CBD) ZONE DISTRICT; AMENDING SAID SIGN REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DIRECTORY SIGNS, IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, AND SIGNAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF BUILDINGS IN THE C- CBD ZONE: MAKING FINDINGS AS TO NEED: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS: (1) "EACH ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED" LISTED UNDER SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (2) BE CHANGED TO "INDIVIDUAL ESTABLISHMENTS LOCATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR SHALL BE PERMITTED", AND (2) ROOF SIGNS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR OFF-SITE ADVERTISING BE ADDED (AGENDA ITEM #1(1442) through (2448) city Manager Sollenberger stated that the city is the petitioner for Proposed Ordinance No. 94-3751. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated (the Commission passed this proposed Ordinance on first reading and) requested that the public hearing be reopened at second reading. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, and Bruce Franklin, petitioner, representing Sarasota City Center), came before the Commission. Mr. Hewes stated that at the last Commission presentation of this proposed ordinance it was found that more aggregate signage was being allowed than was intended; and that changing the ordinance may cause buildings with current signage to become non-conforming. Mr. Hewes stated that (adjustments were made) to allow the (property) owner to decide whether to remain with existing signage, or to use the new system; that the number of square feet allowed was adjusted to 350 square feet for buildings up to and including three stories, 250 square feet for buildings four to eight stories in height, and 300 square feet for buildings nine stories or more. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this ordinance is difficult to understand; that she would despair at trying to explain the ordinance to others; and that she would appreciate a succinct definition of the various options (available to building owners) contained in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hewes displayed and explained diagrams on the overhead projector. Commissioner Cardamone asked if frontage pertains to only one side of the building? Mr. Hewes stated that (frontage pertains to per street frontage) ; that buildings located on street corners are allowed (the maximum amount of signage) on each of the two streets. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that maximum signage could conceivably be placed on each of four sides of a building. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that (the graphic displays assist her understanding), i however, the graphics will not be available for property owners who will be reading the ordinance; that the ordinance should be clear enough for property owners to be able to construct similar graphics for themselves. Mayor Pillot stated that the presentation is well done, but uses an example; that many examples can exist, therefore, he does not find the (graphics) useful. Mr. Hewes stated that he will read through the proposed ordinance for those Commissioners who are having trouble understanding: that (individual establishments located on the ground floor) in a single building containing two or more separate activities or establishments shall be permitted to install identification or advertisement of services or products available in such establishments. The aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed three square feet of area for each foot of building frontage occupied by the business. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she does not believe the statement made by Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, reflected in the Planning Board hearing minutes, that "there is no increase in overall allowed square footage" is true. Mr. Hewes stated that after the presentation at first reading, a number of instances were found whereby more signage, than is currently permitted, would have been allowed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed ordinance allows a building identification sign, and asked if up to 600 square feet will be allowed for a building identification sign? Mr. Hewes stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that "and roof signs are not permitted for off site advertising" has been deleted on page four of the proposed ordinance where roof signs are addressed. Mr. Franklin stated that (that wording means) that XYZ building cannot use its sign to advertise the dog track. Book 36 Page 10200 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10201 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that is what will be allowed by deleting the wording; and that the possibility of erecting billboards on top of a building will exist. Mr. Franklin stated his view is that (the body of the ordinance is sufficient to protect against that possibility). Attorney Taylor stated that no question should be left about the intent of the ordinance; that the intent is clearly not to allow advertising of a business which is not at the site; that he suggests leaving the language in the ordinance to make it clear that (off site advertising) is prohibited. Mr. Hewes stated he does not have a problem with that. Commissioner Cardamone asked, in regard to her previous concern, who had been noticed (of this change)? City Auditor - and Clerk Robinson stated that a copy of the proposed ordinance with a cover letter directing questions to Mr. Hewes was sent to 427 commercial buildings in the C-CBD Zone District. Mr. Hewes stated that he received no calls. Mr. Franklin stated that this proposed ordinance was initiated because numerous business owners had pursued requests for variances through the Board of Adjustment; that the original draft came from the Downtown Association; and that he agrees with Mayor Pillot that the Building and Zoning Administration is equipped to interpret the ordinance (to building owners). Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the second floor signage is dictated by the footage of the additive number of businesses? Mr. Hewes stated that the signage is dictated by the footage along the street plus the number of businesses; that a business with 20 feet of frontage will be allowed a 20 square feet of signage; however, a business with more than 40 feet of frontage can only have the maximum 40 square feet of signage. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the reference for businesses above the first floor only having signage displayed on the second floor has been removed by deleting "Individual establishments located on the second floor; that with the deletion, "(f) Individual establishments located above the first floor" which governs sub- paragraphs one and two will apply to (all floors of the building). Mr. Hewes stated that "Each establishment shall be permitted" listed under (1) and (2) will be changed to "Individual establishments located on the second floor shall be permitted to install." Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3751 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Ordinance No. 94-3751 with the addition of (1) the change mentioning establishments on the second floor, and (2) that roof signs are not permitted for off-site advertising. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she will vote for this motion; however, ordinances should be drafted for regular, ordinary people to read and understand; and that she protests the difficult language used in this proposed ordinance. Mayor Pillot stated to Mr. Sollenberger that language directed to the public should be as clear and simple as possible. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3771, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 463 SAPPHIRE DRIVE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE NAGIRROC, CORRIGAN HOUSE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-01, MIKKI HARTIG) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2499) through (2641) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Mikki Hartig, Petitioner, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that this public hearing is for designation of the Corrigan House, located at 463 Sapphire Drive; that the Historic Preservation Board recommended approval (4-0); and that Lorrie Muldowney, of Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources, also recommended approval. Commissioner Cardamone requested that Ms. Muldowney come before the Commission and be introduced. Ms. Muldowney stated that she is Sarasota County's Historical Resources Specialist; that she has been cooperatively working with the City of Sarasota Planning Department reviewing historical designation petitions; that the arrangement is working well, and she looks forward to continuing it. Ms. Hartig displayed slides on the overhead projector, and stated that the Corrigan House is a 1926 Mediterranean revival; that the Book 36 Page 10202 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10203 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. name of the house is "Nagirroc" which is Corrigan spelled backward; and that this house has been approved by the State Historic Preservation Advisory Board for nomination to the national register of historic places. Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioners had questions on this matter? No one had any questions. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3771 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to (pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3771 on first reading). . Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3774, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 1622 NINTH STREET, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE WILLIAM T. FINCH HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-04, J. WHITCOMB RYLEE & JEREMY O. CAPLIN) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (2641) through (2689) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist came before the Commission. Mayor Pillot asked if the Petitioners, J. Rylee and Jeremy Caplin, were in the audience. The Petitioners were not present in the Commission Chambers. Ms. Robinson stated that Historic Preservation Board voted (4-0) in support of the petition to historically designate the William T. Finch House. Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioners had questions on this matter? No one had any questions. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3774 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to (pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3774 on first reading) . Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the. roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3775, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 121 EDMONDSON AVENUE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE MORRISON HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-05, MIKKI HARTIG) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #2 (2689) through (2793) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development; Mikki Hartig, Petitioner, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that historic designation of the Morrison House was unanimously supported by the Historic Preservation Board and also supported by the County Historical Resources Specialist. Ms. Hartig displayed slides on the overhead projector and stated that the Morrison House, located on Edmondson (Avenue), was built in 1940 as a winter home for a northerner; that all original windows are in tact; that she and the Historic Preservation Board felt that the (structures are) significant by representing the second stage of settlement on Siesta Key. Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioners had questions on this matter? No one had any questions. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one else who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3775 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to (pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3775 on first reading). Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3779, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION - OF THE FOUNTAIN LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF CAMINO REAL AND FORTUNA STREETS, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE GRANADA FOUNTAIN/MARKER. AS A FOUNTAIN OF Book 36 Page 10204 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10205 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-09, MIKKI HARTIG) PASSED ON FIRST READING; FUNDED PROJECT TO MAKE THE GRANADA MARKER/POUNTAIN OPERATIONAL AND ACCEPTED CONTRIBUTION FROM GRANADA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF $500 TOWARD THE CAPITAL COST AND $100 PER YEAR TOWARD THE OPERATIONAL COST (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #2 (2803) through (3432) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development; Mikki Hartig, Historic Preservation Board Consultant, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist were before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the historic designation of the Granada Fountain/Marker was supported unanimously by the Historic Preservation Board and the County Historical Resources Specialist. Ms. Hartig displayed slides on the overhead projector and stated that she is not acting as consultant on this petition; that she is representing the Granada Neighborhood Association (GNA) of which she is president; that every resident, property owner in the neighborhood signed the petition presented to City Manager Sollenberger; that the marker is a fountain in Granada/Bonita Park located at the intersection of Camino Real and Fortuna Street; that the fountain was erected in 1925 by Charles Tyson, developer of the (Granada) subdivision; that the marker/fountain is used by neighborhood children as a meeting place for Christmas carolling, Easter egg hunts, etc. Ms. Hartig stated that she would like to address the Commission with a related request after a vote has been taken on the historic designation. Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioners had questions on this matter? No one had any questions. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance 94-3775 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3775 on first reading). Commissioner Atkins asked if the discussion referred to by Ms. Hartig could be heard before a vote was taken on the motion? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the request is not related to the designation of the structure. Ms. Hartig stated that the request involves repairs to the fountain. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Ms. Hartig stated that there are 63 homeowners in the Granada/Bonita Park area; that approximately two years ago, Virginia Haley, (President) of GNA at that time, petitioned the City and requested improvements be made at Granada/Bonita Park; that in conjunction with that petition, $700 was collected by GNA to pay for plantings in the park; and that the neighborhood had contributed to the improvements. Ms Hartig stated that in conjunction with this petition for designation, she directed a letter to Mr. Sollenberger on behalf of the GNA, to explore the feasibility of having the fountain operational; that, in a timely manner, City Administration had the fountain inspected; that the fountain was turned on for the first time in 50 years and was operational; however, problems existed with the drain; that the City employee inspecting the fountain had told her that replacing the drain would not be a major problem; that a timer placed on the fountain by Florida Power and Light (FPL) would have the fountain operating only during daylight hours; and that a water source was available because of the existing park sprinkler system. Ms. Hartig stated that, as stated in her proposal to Mr. Sollenberger, the (GNA) is willing to share in the cost of painting and making the fountain operational; that on January 20th a letter received from Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, estimated $3,400 for a pump (to make the fountain operational), and estimated $500 for yearly maintenance on the fountain; that she requests that the Commission have the figures explored for accuracy since she saw the water running the day the fountain was inspected; and that the GNA pledges $500 toward the cost of making the fountain operational. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he thinks Mr. Mountain's estimates are accurate; that surplus Local Option Sales Tax dollars could be used for this matter, if the Commission accepts the proposal, and the $500 yearly maintenance will have to be included at budget time; and that he recommends approval of the request. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the park was maintained by the City or the County? Book 36 Page 10206 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10207 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City maintains items considered as landscape and beautification in nature; that the County maintains features for active, recreational purposes; and that Granada/Bonita Park) is maintained by the City. Mayor Pillot stated that a sum of money is being requested to make the fountain operational and for maintenance. Ms. Hartig stated that she will also pledge $100 per year on behalf of the GNA toward the annual maintenance cost. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that some areas of the City are more needy than others; that each area of the City is entitled City investment on a unique feature of an area so that citizens can feel good about contributions made toward areas that are more needy; and that the Granada fountain is a unique feature of that neighborhood. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to fund the project to make the Granada Marker/Fountain operational and to accept the offer by the (GNA) to contribute $500 toward the capital cost and $100 per year toward the operational cost. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot asked whether the Commission was agreeable to move to Item 3 of New Business because the Sarasota Memorial Hospital officers present have other responsibilities this evening. There was consensus of the Commission to move Agenda Item VIII-3 forward to be addressed at this time. 12. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PHASE I OF THE SOUTHSIDE VILLAGE STREETSCAPE PROJECT - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #1 (3454) through (3610) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer; Mr. Dan Bailey, Attorney, and Mr. Carlisle, of Sarasota Memorial Hospital, and Terry Coffrin, President of Southside Village Merchants Association, came before the Commission. Attorney Bailey stated that the Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) has supported this Interlocal agreement; and that the SMH Board has approved the Interlocal Agreement (for Phase I of the Southside Village Streetscape Project). Mr. Coffrin stated that it is a great project. Mr. Mohammed stated that it is a wonderful project and he hopes the Commission will approve it. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that the Commission's gratitude for SMH support be conveyed to the SMH Board. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the hospital is providing 50% of the cost; that the City will provide 50% through an Intermodel Surface Transportation (ISTEA) grant in the amount of $280,000 plus $70,000 of Local Option Sales Tax dollars which have previously been approved by the Commission for this purpose; and that he recommends approval of City participation through this Interlocal agreement. Attorney Bailey stated that, for clarification, the hospital will provide 41% and the City will provide 59% (or $350,000), which is primarily funded by a grant. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to (approve Interlocal Agreement for Phase I of the Southside Village Streetscape Project). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 ITEM 1 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3758) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3759) ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3760) ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3761) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3768) ADOPTED: ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3778) ADOPTED; AND ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3781) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (3610) through #2 (0182) Karen McGowan, Deputy city Auditor and Clerk, read proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3758, 94-3759, 94-3760, 94-3761, 94-3768, 94-3778, and 94-3781 by title only: 1. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3758, amending Chapter 11, Article III, relating to the Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licensing by the city of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in contracting and for the regulation and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings; providing for the authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed contractors; providing for the authority of the Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board; providing for standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; providing for such Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a contractor certified by the State of Florida under certain conditions; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition, Book 36 Page 10208 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10209 02/22/94 6:00. P.M. pertaining to certain contractors to amend such sections to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 7:28 p.m. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3759, amending Chapter 11, Article IX, relating to the Electrical Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licensing by the City of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in electrical contracting and for the regulation and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of such disciplinary proceedings; providing for the authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed contractors; providing for the authority of the Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon such locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board; providing for standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the National Electrical Code, 1990 Edition, pertaining to electrical contractors to amend such sec- tions to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:29 p.m. 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3760, amending Chapter 11, Article V, relating to the Mechanical Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licensing by the City of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in mechanical contracting and for the regulation and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings; providing for the authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed contractors; providing for the authority of the Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board; providing for standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a mechanical contractor certified by the State of Florida under certain conditions; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the standard Mechanical Code, 1991 Edition, pertaining to mechanical contractors to amend such sections to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:30 p.m. 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3761, amending Chapter 11, Article VI, relating to the Plumbing Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licen- sing by the City of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in plumbing contracting and for the regulation and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings; providing for the Authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed Contractors; providing for the Authority of Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board; providing for standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a Plumbing contractor certified by the State of Florida under certain conditions; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the Standard Plumbing Code, 1991 Edition pertaining to plumbing contractors to amend such sections to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida and to amend the schedule of permit fees relating to hot water heaters; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:31 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 7:31 p.m. 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3768, providing for the conditional rezoning from CG Zone District, Sarasota County Zoning, to CI Zone District, City of Sarasota Zoning, on real property described as follows: a parcel of land of approximately 100 foot frontage on the north side of Bee Ridge Road lying just East of School Avenue, said parcel is known as Book 36 Page 10210 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10211 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. the Sparkle Car Wash with a street address of 2215 Bee Ridge Road; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-CO-01, Ron & Gloria Marvin) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3778, providing for the designation of the structure located at 1882 Fifth Street, historically known as the Spiegel Apartments, as a structure of his- toric significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title On- ly) (Petition No. 94-HD-08, Community Housing Corporation) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3781, amending the definitions of "Average Com- pensation" and "Salary" in Section 24-21 of the City Code to exclude lump sum payments of accrued leave unless paid as part of a uniform policy; amending the definition of "Firefighter", authorizing eligible rollover distribution; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3758, 94- 3759, 94-3760, 94-3761, 94-3768, 94-3778, and 94-3781. Motion carried (3 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS (AGENDA ITEM V) There were no presentations. 15. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0187) through (0189) There were no citizens who wished to speak during Citizens' Input. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:33 p.m. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX REVENUE APPROVED $30,000 FOR FRANKLIN MANOR; APPROVED $30,000 FOR ED SMITH STADIUM LIGHTS; APPROVED $300,000 FOR OSPREY AVENUE STREETSCAPE APPROVED $50,000 FOR LITTLE FIVE POINTS; APPROVED $75,000 FOR ISLAND PARK LIGHTING; APPROVED $28,000 FOR STREET RESURFACINGI APPROVED $449,149 FOR CENTRAL AVENUE/AREA NORTH OF FRUITVILLE (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (0190) through (2400) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he reported to the Commission in December, 1993, that excess earnings of $1.2 million from the arbitrage accounts of the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) were available and presented possible projects; that at Commission's request, a meeting was held on February 9, 1994, with the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA) ; that a letter was received from Virginia Haley, CCNA Chairman, expressing CCNA's opinion on the priority uses for the L.O.S.T. funds. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Sollenberger stated his recommendations as follows: 1. Franklin Manor - $300,000. This proposal was recommended by the CCNA; that a matching Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) grant application in the amount of $100,000 has already been submitted; that the $300,000 would be used for additional matching fund grant applications; that David Johnston, Landscape Architect, is currently developing a master plan and has estimated a development cost of $500,000+. 2. Ed Smith Stadium Lights - $30,000. To replace lighting on the practice fields enables community youth to use the practice fields in the evening; that CCNA recommended $30,000; that the total cost of the project is $102,500; that the balance of funding would be acquired from other sources outside City government. 3. Osprey Avenue Streetscape = $300,000. This proposal has been made by the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) and supported by CCNA. 4. Little Five Points = $50,000. A plan and estimate has been prepared by David Johnston in the amount of $100,000; that CCNA has recommended that the project be scaled back and additional funding be sought from foundations; that those avenues will be explored; however, foundation funding may be difficult since the foundation relied upon in the past is shifting its interests away from beautification projects toward children concerns; that if neither is feasible, the matter will have to be revisited. 5. Island Park Lighting - $75,000. CCNA did not include recommendation of this project; however, concerns have been expressed by the public to have Island Park lighted; that the old fashioned style of lighting as found at Five Points Park is being recommended. 6. Street Resurfacing - $28,000. This would provide for repaving of Pompano Avenue and Aspinwall Street in the vicinity of Tuttle Elementary School, where complaints have been received about the condition of the streets; Book 36 Page 10212 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10213 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. and that CCNA did not include recommendation of this project. 7. Central Avenue/Area North of Fruitville - $449,159. Mr. Sollenberger stated that, in addition, the Finance Director has advised him that as a result of refunding existing infrastructure sales surtax bonds, a total of $1,016,291 of L.0.S.T. funds are additionally available for use in the 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program; that the Commission authorized restructuring of two bond issues; that restructuring of the bond issue concerning the Stadium was not completed due to an interest rate increase which would have negated the expected savings. Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioners had questions on this matter? No one had any questions. Mayor Pillot proceeded to public input, and the following people came before the Commission: Bob Gorevan, 2075 Main Street, representing Police Benevolent Association (PBA) distributed a list of requests to the Commission and stated that in his presentation at the January 24th crime summit he mentioned that several areas within the department were lacking; that Mr. Sollenberger's recommendations are necessary, but not essential; that the PBA listed areas are essential to the operational needs of the Police Debarment and the officers therein. The PBA requested consideration of the L.0.S.T. funds as follows: 1. $20,000 Portable hand-held radios for Criminal Investigations Division 2. $250,000 = Renovations and improvements to employee work areas at the Department of Public Safety, 2050 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota FL 3. $50,000 Miscellaneous equipment and expenses to the Department of Public Safety: Police Services Bureau: Criminal Investigations Division (Vice, Narcotics Division) 4. Funding (be) set aside for purchase of necessary 800 MHZ radio equipment. Mr. Gorevan requested that the Commission come to the Public Safety building and tour the employee work areas to understand what is being expressed by request #2. Vice Mayor Patterson (referred to #3 and) asked what are the miscellaneous equipment and expenses to the Department of Public Safety? Mr. Gorevan stated that the Police Services Bureau: Criminal Investigations Division (Vice, Narcotics Division) are constantly requiring additional equipment which would be inappropriate for him to discuss due to the sensitivity of its use; however, it is equipment necessary for investigations such as video cameras and surveillance equipment; that the Narcotics Division can put forward a list of equipment necessary to combat narcotics within the City of Sarasota. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if those items have been regularly addressed by votes taken by the Commission using the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF)? Mr. Gorevan stated that funds from the LEFT are not readily available; therefore, he felt obligated to request funding for the purchase of this equipment from the additional L.0.S.T. funds. City Manager Sollenberger stated that all of the PBA itemized requests may not be eligible for L.0.S.T. funding; that improvements to the Police Department building had been postponed due to possible consolidation with the County; however, that possibility is now unlikely, and Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, has been requested to make proposals through the Capital Improvements Process; that the Administration can talk with the PBA about their concerns; that most of the concerns can be addressed through the budgetary process or the LETF. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Sollenberger for comment on the 800 MHZ radio equipment. Mr. Sollenberger stated that funging eligibility of funding the 800 MHZ radio equipment through L.O.S.T. dollars will have to be reviewed; that new equipment is necessary for City participation in the 800 MHZ County system; that questions of operational responsibility and various other concerns need to be negotiated with the County; that he is not prepared to make a commitment on funding of the 800 MHZ radio system, but that the City will participate in the 800 MHZ system; that Police, Fire, and possibly Public Works will be equipped with hand-held units or vehicle mounted units; that in a disaster situation, or with evacuations of St. Armands, better communication is necessary between Public Safety and Public Works employees; that this system can provide that communication. Virginia Haley, 1646 S. Orange Avenue, representing CCNA, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to meet with the Administration and staff, and stated that the CCNA supports using the L.O.S.T. Book 36 Page 10214 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10215 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. funds as seed money whenever possible to obtain additional grants for City projects; that the CCNA is unanimously opposed to the expenditure of L.0.S.T. funds for police equipment; that although the legislature now allows funding for police equipment, the citizens supported the one cent sales tax for projects not funded by the City of Sarasota budget, which is primarily consumed by Police and Fire funding; that the sales tax was supported for Capital Improvements throughout the City that citizens could observe; that the CCNA feels that parks, streets, and streetscape should be the emphasis of these funds; that the CCNA also supports pocket parks in neighborhoods throughout the City rather than major recreational parks. Heidi Clendenon, her daughter Josephine, 634 Ohio Place, and Karen Lybrand, 1716 Oak Street, representing Laurel Park, came before the Commission. Ms. Clendenon thanked the Commission for developing Laurel Park and stated that the park is a wonderful place to congregate every day and enables neighbors to meet neighbors; that the neighborhood is executing planting of Washingtonia Palms on the neighborhood streets, which is being paid for by the residents; that she hopes the Commission will supports the Osprey Avenue project for beautification and possible traffic abatement. Ms. Lybrand stated that she is a recent homeowner in the Laurel Park area; that formerly living in Los Angeles, she did not have the opportunity to be involved with such a local, and organized neighborhood; that the Laurel Park neighborhood pulls together; that, hopefully, Laurel Park can be an example for the rest of the City with the planting of the Washingtonia Palms. Juliette Reynolds, 17185 Laurel Street #9, and Devin Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street, representing Laurel Park, came before the Commission. Ms. Reynolds stated that in the three years she has resided in Sarasota many improvements have occurred downtown: the Bayfront, Main Street Beautification, and Laurel Park, from which she lives across the street; that she looks forward to future improvements in her neighborhood which will only increase the size of the community and security in the neighborhood; that she hopes the Commission will support the endeavor for the neighborhood to be distinguished as a City neighborhood with street beautification and appropriate signage on Osprey Avenue; and that this neighborhood is a window through which downtown is perceived, and the residents would like that view to be the best view possible. Mr. Rutkowski stated that he appreciates the effort put forth by the Commission, and the support given to the neighborhood for the past three years; that exciting things are happening in this neighborhood, and several people are house hunting in the Laurel Park vicinity; that the neighborhood has established a good working relationship which is a result of the Administration and Commission turning attention toward downtown neighborhoods; that he looks forward to the result of the City's commitments to Audobon Park, Gillespie Park, and Downtown North. Mr. Rutkowski continued that changes will be seen in the Laurel Park neighborhood within the following 12 months by neighborhood efforts as well as efforts put forth by the City. Mr. Rutkowski stated that Laurel Park is on the move to improve, and presented the Commissioners with T-Shirts. Mayor Pillot apologized to the Laurel Park community for not attending the dedication ceremonies held at Laurel Park on Friday, February 18th. Thorning Little, 534 Columbia Court, stated that he is an architect whose office is located at 537 South Pineapple Avenue; that he supports the Osprey Avenue project; that neighborhood residents are documenting existing trees that line Osprey Avenue, as well as other streets in the neighborhood, so that the removal of the invasive exotics and large Oak trees can be coordinated by neighborhood volunteers; that the Osprey Avenue project will be a vast improvement; that driving north along the Osprey Avenue corridor, the wide open boulevard space is a beautiful opportunity for an aesthetic improvement in a formal or informal manner in working with what is existing and what can be proposed. Mr. Little continued that he has been involved with the potential improvements for the Little Five Points site; that a potential site layout was developed and presented to the Commission some years ago; that the Commission's decision to (install white) striping and install a stop sign made a vast improvement toward eliminating the mass confusion at that intersection; that traffic continues to cross over the white striping; that the addition of landscape improvements to the white striped area could achieve the following: 1. Help coordinate the traffic in the area and support the safety issue; and 2. Help reduce traffic proceeding across Pineapple and Orange Avenues to Oak Street which was originally one of the Engineering Staff's priorities in an effort to eliminate cut-through traffic on Oak Street. Mr. Little continued that the beautification of that intersection would be greatly appreciated by businesses in the area; that many businesses have improved their buildings and landscaping in that core neighborhood; that the district has regular pedestrian traffic, and the (proposed) crosswalk will be a great improvement; Book 36 Page 10216 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10217 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. that (the Little Five Points) intersection is perceived as a gateway into the City. Mr. Little presented the Commission with a petition stating: "I support the intent to improve the intersection of Orange Avenue, Pineapple Avenue and Oak Street" which was signed by 112 petitioners, 66 of which signed in 1990. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the City Manager's recommendation for seven specific expenditures of L.O.S.T. funds. Commissioner Atkins asked for further explanation of the Administration's intent for the additional $1 million dollars (from restructuring the bond issue)? City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would like to discuss the additional $1 million of L.0.S.T. funds during the Capital Improvement presentation (of the budget process); that any suggestions the Commission has would be appreciated; that one Capital Improvement project which needs attention is the Public Safety building; and that input from the Commission during the next few weeks would be timely for an examination to be conducted by the Administration (since the presentation on development of the Capital Improvement Program is scheduled for May). Commissioner Cardamone asked if there is a time limit on the use of the L.0.S.T. funds? Mr. Sollenberger stated that no time limit is associated; that the funds can be invested or reserved for future projects. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she will support the motion; however, concerns have been raised by the Commission during previous discussions of L.0.S.T. funding in regard to the many millions of dollars needed for drainage improvements to prevent structural flooding and to protect Sarasota Bay; that this concern was not part of the presentation made to the CCNA on the various needs competing for dollars in the City, nor was the 800 MHZ radio system which will have to be funded; that she is supporting this motion in the hope that the additional $1 million will be tucked away and not spent as quickly as the formerly "found" $2 million; that she urges the Commission to "sit" on the $1 million until the Administration can present the Commission with real costs associated with drainage improvements and the 800 MHZ radio system. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) and second of Vice Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins) it was moved to amend the motion to vote on each (recommended) item separately. Mayor Pillot stated that he is supportive of most of the recommendations, but not of all; that, specifically, he is not supportive of the $300,000 Osprey Avenue Streetscape or an amount of money more than is necessary to make Little Five Points safe; that during his campaign last year, he committed that his #1 priority would be the area north of Fruitville Road and north; that the $300,000 Osprey Avenue amount should be added to item seven (Central Avenue/Area North of Fruitville); and that other funding needs exist such as for Public Safety and drainage problems. Mayor Pillot continued that he will have to vote against the motion if the items are not voted on separately. Commissioner Atkins called for the vote on the amendment. Amendment carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson), it was moved to approve $300,000 for Franklin Manor. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the amount was increased from $150,000 to $300,000 by the CCNA? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the CCNA suggested increasing the amount (so that $150,000 could be used as seed or matching grant money to have the development of the park completed); that the project may span over a couple of fiscal years to maximize matching grants. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports enhancing this North Central Avenue area as well as reserving money for future grant applications. Commissioner Atkins stated that Franklin Manor is a valuable piece of property and that he does not support it becoming another park on the Bayfront; that he will vote against this motion because Franklin Manor should only be cleaned up, not developed into a park. Mayor Pillot stated that his commitment to Franklin Manor, during his first term, predates his commitment to the North part of the City; therefore he is honoring a commitment (by supporting the motion) . Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she spoke with Parks and Recreation Board member John Browning who was present at the CCNA discussion; that Mr. Browning interpreted the CCNA recommendation to her differently than has been presented in the Administration recommendation. Book 36 Page 10218 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10219 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that other options for matching funds had been discussed with the CCNA; however, because of the funding schedule, the City applied for a matching grant which has maximum of $100,000 rather than $150,000; that the particular grant is offered two times a year; that verification of grant acceptance will be received in May. Vice Mayor Patterson restated the motion to approve the City Manager's recommendation on Franklin Manor. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve $30,000 for Ed Smith Stadium lights. Commissioner Cardamone asked if funding was available through the Sports Committee? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the County has declined participation; that the school superintendent is submitting the item to the School Board; and that the Sports Committee has indicated a willingness to participate. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a fee will be charged for use of the lighted fields? Mr. Sollenberger stated that there is a charge for the maintenance of the fields to recover the City's operational costs for groundskeeping and the electricity demand fee. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve $300,000 for the Osprey Avenue Streetscape. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve $50,000 for Little Five Points. Mayor Pillot asked whether or not a lesser amount could be spent in the simplest aesthetic way to make the intersection safe? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the $100,000 plan as developed has already been scaled back to $50,000 to meet the current recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she will vote yes with some reluctance; that she is lured on by that area of the City looking so nice, and is willing to make the investment to finish the improvements; that she requests Administration to review cost overruns to ensure that the original $90,000 is not actually spent. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the street resurfacing necessary in the area is included (in this $50,000)? Mr. Sollenberger stated no. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City has a statue in storage of two little boys fishing which was removed from an area on (Gulfstream Avenue); that the statue is compatible to the (Little Five Points) area and could be used as a cost savings. Mayor Pillot stated that a curbed, raised, landscaped area filled with soil and planting is necessary to prevent the crossover traffic and is common-sense aesthetics, and asked if the $50,000 would be opulent opposed to minimum to accomplish this? Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, came before the Commission and stated that drainage factors, adding to the cost, have to be taken into consideration; that a relatively minimum improvement can be expected for $50,000; however, the traffic problem of vehicles crossing over the striping would be solved. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to approve $50,000 for Little Five Points. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve $75,000 for Island Park lighting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve $28,000 for Street Resurfacing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve $449,159 for Central Avenue/Area North of Fruitville. Commissioner Atkins stated that this (issue) is his top priority; that this area has been neglected for the eight years he has been on the Commission; that the Commission needs to direct the Administration to start doing something even though it may need to be modified or enhanced to be compatible with the grand, potential upscaling of the area; that Central Avenue needs help immediately. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she concurs with Commissioner Atkins. Mayor Pillot stated that aside from Public Safety, (Central Avenue) has been his second priority commitment; and that the $450,000 is minimal. Book 36 Page 10220 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10221 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. There was consensus of the Commission to move Unfinished Business, Agenda Item VII-3 forward to be addressed at this time. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3784, PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RSF-3 ZONE DISTRICT TO OPB ZONE DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT 9, ALL OF LOTS 10, 11, AND 12, BLOCK C, WASHINGTON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, AS REÇORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 27, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; REQUIRING THAT A PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE SUBMITTED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING THE CONTINUATION OF THE EXISTING ZONING; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 87-CO-02, KEYSER, RUBIN & STENZA) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (2495) through (2903) City Attorney Taylor stated that a public hearing was held on this proposed ordinance; that changes were to be made to the ordinance between first and second reading to determine a time frame with the petitioner; that, as finally drafted, the petitioner agrees with the proposed ordinance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3784 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to (adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3784 on second reading). Commissioner Cardamone asked for a brief review of the changes made to the proposed ordinance which was received by the Commission late this afternoon. Sarah Schenk, Assistant city Attorney, came before the Commission and stated that the original proposed ordinance required the petitioner to file the site and development plan within 12 months; that the petitioner had requested additional time to obtain approval of a site and development plan and to obtain a building permit; that the Staff and the Petitioner have agreed to an additional period of nine months (to obtain approval of a preliminary site and development plan and) to obtain a building permit; that the proposed ordinance has been revised to reflect these changes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is not suggesting delaying approval of this site specific ordinance; however, the ordinance needs to be addressed on a broader basis to review expiration of approvals as well as the criteria of what is allowable under low intensity uses. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. There was consensus of the Commission to move New Business, Agenda Item VIII-1 forward to be addressed at this time. 18. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: COURTELIS DEVELOPMENT INTEREST/LIBRARZ LOCATION - CONSENSUS TO DELETE THE WORDS "BY COURTELIS DEVELOPMENT" AND THE WORD "COURTELIS" FROM PROPOSED RESOLUTION 94R-716; ADOPTED RESOLUTION 94R-716. (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #2 (2803) through #3 (2129) City Manager Sollenberger stated that discussion was held at the end of the last Regular Commission Meeting regarding the interest of Alec Courtelis in developing the Mission Harbor property; that the County Administrator has been informed of the consensus of the City Commission to encourage the County to make the Mission Harbor property available for retail development and to encourage location of the library to another site; that the item has be placed on the agenda to have formal action taken, as requested by the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the municipal parking lot located on Lemon Avenue, bounded by First and Second Streets and the former Southeast Bank parking lot, was offered by the City to the County for an alternate library site; that the property is 51,441 square feet; that a task force was appointed in 1987 by the City and County Commissions to investigate the feasibility of this site; that he was on the task force which included: John Wesley White, County Administrator; Joan Hopkins, Library Director; Don Jakeway, Director of Redevelopment; County Commissioner Jim Greenwald; City Commissioner Bill Kline, and Ed Rathke, Library Advisory Board member. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the task force recommended that the site on Lemon Avenue bounded by First and Second Streets be designated as the location for the new main library; that the recommendation was based on an update of the Sarasota County Library Facilities Analysis conducted in 1985 by library consultants, Cecil Beach and Darro Willey, which recommended the Lemon Avenue location for the public library; that at that time the Downtown Redevelopment Plan had contemplated construction of a Book 36 Page 10222 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10223 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. parking structure on the same block; however, the concept did not materialize. Mr. Sollenberger stated that his recommendation is to offer the County the City-owned parking lot on Lemon Avenue bounded by First and Second Streets, provided the County replaces the lost parking spaces through structured parking; that he is suggesting, if necessary, that the City Hall parking lot be made available for the erection of a parking structure to replace the lost parking spaces as well as provide additional parking for the new library; and that a resolution has been drafted for Commission approval. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R- 716 in its entirety. Mayor Pillot stated that the offer of the Lemon Avenue site does not have the status of a recommendation by the City Commission that the site be used for the library; however, if the County Commissioners choose that site, the City will make the site available. The following people came before the Commission: Bernie Wagman, representing Selby Library, stated that he is a member of the Selby Library Advisory (SLA) Board; that the basic problem is "What is in the best interest of the people, citizens of Sarasota City and County?" Mr. Wagman stated that another shopping center is not necessary in that part of the City; that Courtelis shopping centers appeal to a narrow segment of Sarasota's population, not the general public; that the SLA Board believes that the location of the new main library at the Mission Harbor site will be a tremendous asset to all citizens of Sarasota; that he is against the library being located downtown because the existing traffic problems would limit access; that the Mission Harbor site is beautifully situated, located between 6th and 9th Streets, for easy access from Central Avenue and Tamiami Trail; that Mission Harbor has approximately 500,000 square feet of land; that the library will need 50,000 square feet on two levels which leaves 450,000 square feet for a beautiful park; that the site lends itself to a central, cultural center which could be used for the library, an archive building which the County needs, and for various other buildings which would enhance the lifestyle of the City of Sarasota and the County; that an architect (has been hired), the plans are in the works, the money has been funded, and he objects to any change in the site location of the library. E. W. Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street, stated that he finds it odd that the City Manager is requesting Commission action on a non- proposal; that a County Commissioner received a letter of intent from the Courtelis Company to purchase the former Mission Harbor site with stipulations on the part of the City and the County to allow them to acquire 30-50 acres of property in the City; that no official interest of the Courtelis intent by the County has been made public; and that absent a formal proposal of interest by the County, how can the City Commission pursue an informal petition as if it were a formal petition to develop, and take formal action? Mr. Babb stated that the current Comprehensive Plan makes no mention of allowing or anticipating a project of this magnitude; that without a report from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) regarding the merits or feasibility of such a project, how can any formal action be suggested or implemented? Mr. Babb continued that if the PBLP Agency does consider a proposal allowing a qualified development of regional impact, public meetings must be held; that the components of concurrence, particularly traffic, must be studied, especially when the proposed developer specifically mentions these impacts; that if the PBLP Agency accepts the concept of dedicating 30-50 acres to such a project and recommends the proper Comprehensive Plan amendments, which the City Commission legally approves, and the County and State agree are acceptable, then any developer in the United States should have the opportunity to bid or investigate the site for development, not just the Courtelis (Company). Elizabeth McCall 964 Alameda Lane, stated that she has several points to be considered on building the new library at the Mission Harbor site: A great deal of money and time has already been expended in consultants' fees, County staff time, and citizen committees. A large pleasantly planned beautifully landscaped site would make a lovely gate-way to Sarasota. This site will provide adequate parking and future growth of the library which must be contemplated; that the Lemon Avenue site leaves no room for growth. This is a high-elevated site, the highest in the City and among the highest in the County; that many sites east of the City are in a flood plain. Mrs. McCall stated that as a cultural center on the west coast of Florida, Sarasota is expected to have an outstanding library with diversified research and reference materials to fit the needs of the diversified and educated population; that the future of the children of the County must be considered by providing, the best educational materials to enhance what is provided in school libraries, which are far from adequate; that the present level of library materials is far below the minimum national standard; that a library should have several private meeting rooms; that Sarasota Book 36 Page 10224 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10225 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. is blessed with weather that is conducive to such outdoor events as lectures, music bells, learning and fun time for children; that many of the patrons are single woman who are not comfortable in entering a parking garage alone at night; that garage parking will be the only parking at the Lemon Avenue site; that a new building especially designed as a library with back-up services is needed; that the planning has been ten years in the making and should not be delayed further. Mrs. McCall stated that the congestion caused by a shopping mall at the Mission Harbor site would be horrendous; that other upscale- typed shopping centers (in City limits) have failed such as Maas Brothers and Sarasota Plaza; that the Quay is struggling with less than 50% shop occupancyi and that millions of taxpayer and merchant dollars have been spent to revitalize downtown. Mrs. McCall continued that a new library is needed now; and that no alternative site offered is acceptable. Mayor Pillot stated that Mrs. McCall is a person who has devoted many years of service to the library as a volunteer, and is a librarian in her own right. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint & Environmental Organization (GEO) and self, 450 S. Shade Avenue, stated that he is president of GEO; that this (resolution) is a major policy decision, one with consequences related to the City's Comprehensive Plan by concurrences, land use matters, and tax and spending matters; that this action is being undertaken without public hearings on the total scope, and without Staff analysis of these various different issues: How much traffic will be generated from this mall? Where will the said traffic go? Will the traffic be permitted to have accesses onto U.S. 41 or will all access be required off Central Avenue? Where will the traffic feed to the new huge mall? What neighborhoods will be affected by the development of the mall? Will people be forced off of U.S. 41 and onto Osprey and Orange Avenues as a result of the traffic created by this mall? Mr. Lobeck stated that for the Commission to say that a particular commercial development is wanted on the Mission Harbor site and offer another parcel to the County as inducement to build the library without being in context of a deliberative cogent analysis of all policy ramifications doesn't seem to be the responsible leadership that the City has been receiving from this Commission; that he wonders what has been going on behind the scenes regarding the (Courtelis matter) that the people don't know about? Mr. Lobeck stated that he wonders how a major step can be taken with all the ramifications on taxes and spending, the transportation policy, the land use policy, and the quality of life of neighborhoods and people travelling throughout the City, without (the ramifications) being taken in context. Mr. Lobeck stated that the Mission Harbor site is the site that the advisory committees and the support groups have recommended for the library; that the package presented (to the Commission) seems to suggest that the Friends of the Library want a Lemon Avenue site as opposed to a Mission Harbor site, when in fact the opposite is true. Mr. Lobeck stated that the Commission is proceeding too fast on this concept; that the policy consequences must be reviewed at an open, public debate with public input and open Commission discussion, not behind closed doors, not piecemeal, but in a conscious, deliberative, open way, which would require defeat of this (resolution). Mayor Pillot stated that the words "closed door" have been used pejoratively; that any implication by Mr. Lobeck that any member of this Commission has acted improperly, unethically, or illegally in (the Courtelis matter) is offensive and refuted; that the Commissioners may have discussed this matter with the City Manager, as he has, which is not illegal. Mr. Lobeck stated that as a (former) school superintendent, Mayor Pillot must realize the case law specifically states, in the Attorney General's opinion, that a one-on-one consensus adopted by Commissioners meeting with the City Manager is illegal, and is a violation of the Sunshine Law; that if (the Mayor) is acknowledging that is what happened, he should consult with counsel. Mayor Pillot stated that he does have long experience and he does understand the Sunshine Law; that he also knows from other Attorney Generals' opinions and case laws that for an elected official to be informed by CEO, or other staff members is not only legal in the State, but is necessary for (Commissioners) to have information when coming to the table; that the Commission discusses consensuses and commitments in the Sunshine Law. Mr. Lobeck stated that it appears to be that a consensus was developed outside of this Commission meeting. Commissioner Merrill stated that a consensus to was reached at a previous Commission Meeting after Vice Mayor Patterson brought (the Courtelis development) issue to the table for discussion. Paul Thorpe, The Downtown Association of Sarasota, stated that the Commission is acting in a responsible manner; that consideration of Book 36 Page 10226 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10227 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. alternative offers is all that is being asked of the County for this property; that over $200,000 is being spent for a Vision Plan; that the Commission would be remiss in its duties if all possibilities were not considered for the Mission Harbor property, whether it is the library, Courtelis, a conference center, hotel, or whatever; that he appreciates the Commission bringing this issue to the table and requesting public input to make a decision; that a public meeting is what is currently being held. Mr. Thorpe presented the Commission with a petiton signed by 81 petitioners which stated the following: We the undersigned residents or property owner of the area north of Fruitville Road, east of U.S. 41, south of 10th Street, west of Orange Avenue, the downtown north section of the City of Sarasota support and encourage the development of an upscale shopping complex in our area which will provide employment for 1200 people or more and will provide a substantial tax base for the City of Sarasota. We also feel that a project of this size will encourage the further development of moderate housing in north Sarasota. Mr. Thorpe stated that a speaker previously remarked on the transportation and congestion in the downtown area in regard to limited access to the alternative, offered site for the library; that the Lemon Avenue site is located next to the bus terminal which every bus in the City of Sarasota transits; therefore, many people would have access to that particular area. Johnny Nugent, 400 N. Tamiami Trail, stated that he is a Sarasota person; that he likes Sarasota; that he does not like Miami or the people in Miami; that Courtelis wants to bring a Miami development to Sarasota; that the Commission should not consider the Courtelis offer; that shopping centers supposedly increase the tax base; however, when a shopping center doesn't make enough revenue to conduct a first class operation, it loses security and deteriorates, becoming a slum where people are frightened to go; that this is occurring on north Tamiami Trail. Mr. Nugent stated that encouraging this Miami-type development will increase the tax base, but harm the other shopping centers such as Southgate; that an increase of the tax base in one area decreases the tax base in another area; that the City doesn't need more shopping centers; that he doesn't want to see the City of Sarasota make the mistakes which have been made in the County. Mr. Nugent stated that during the Ringling Bridge hearings, charm, charisma, and old Sarasota was stressed; that what Sarasota once had is slipping away and allowing a Miami-type development will just accelerate it. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that study after study on the library site has been conducted; that on August 4th, the County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 92-209 providing for an acquisition of real property for library purposes from which she quoted: The County Commissioners held public hearings on May 8, 1992, and July 21, 1992, during which it was presented with studies, investigations, an analysis, and public input pertaining to various properties considered to be potentially eligible for consideration as suitable for youth as a public library site including the property described in Exhibit A, Mission Harbor. Ms. Quillin stated that the property was purchased by the County on October 27, 1992; that prior to that date, she had approached the Commission since the Downtown North area was chosen second to the Maas Brothers site as a suitable site for the library and also for the Administration center; that in response to a question raised, Mr. Sollenberger confirmed to John Wesley White on June 18, 1992, that the Mission Harbor site was located in Downtown North. Ms. Quillin stated that the letter contained in the Commission packet from Jacqueline Doe, President of the Library Advisory Board was dated April 5, 1991; and Ms. Quillin read the following letter into the record: "November 30, 1992 Mr. Robert Anderson, Chairman Board of Sarasota County Commissioners Dear Mr. Anderson: The Library Advisory Board was very pleased to learn that the Board of County Commissioners had approved the purchase of the 11-acre Mission Harbor site for the new Central County Library. However, we are concerned about rumors that a portion or all the property may be resold for commercial development. While the entire 11-acre site may be more land than necessary for the new 100,000 square- foot library, we believe this very desirable acreage would be perfect for two other badly needed County facilities, namely, a new archives building and a County museum. Since the function of the library, archives, and the museum are all interrelated serving the same clientele, their location on the 11- acre site would be very advantageous. They could be connected by covered walkways and provide one-stop shopping for researchers. Such a complex should also prove economical for the County in terms Book 36 Page 10228 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10229 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. of land acquisition and maintenance. This complex would still leave enough space for adequate parking and a desired screen area for outdoor activities: children's theater, lunch-time musicals, book fairs, etc. Therefore, the Library Advisory Board urges you serious consideration of this concept, and your firm commitment to use the entire Mission Harbor site for the new Central Library and eventually the archives and museum facilities. We cannot emphasize too strongly the need to move ahead immediately with the Central Library projects sO that we can hold to the three-year building plan. (Jacqueline) Doe, Chairman Library Advisory Board" Ms. Quillin stated that by obtaining the Mission Harbor site, the taxpayers finally got an even break; that property was obtained not only for today's uses, but also for future uses at a cost incomparable in the future; that the public has gone through the process by speaking and petition drives; that the County Commissioners reaffirmed their vote in June of 1993 that the library is to be built on the Mission Harbor site; that no more muddy waters should stand in the way of the Central Library being built. Vice Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 9:32 p.m. Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street, stated that many of the people speaking of "the sweetheart deal" with Courtelis do not suffer from the criminal activity which for the last 30 years has caused the (the Central Avenue) neighborhood to decline; that law enforcement has problems with the element because the constitution gives criminal drug pushers and prostitutes more rights than honest people; that he strongly supported the library site at Mission Harbor; however, the welfare of the whole City could benefit by the proposed commercial development; that the City of Sarasota does not have the resources to change the neighborhood overnight; that if money is to be raised to change this neighborhood, taxes will have to be increased or a developer will have to be allowed to build a commercial development on the Mission Harbor site; that the north part of Sarasota is an ideal location for this type of project; that many tourists shop in America for high-class items and apparel; that this type of project can attract additional tourism in Sarasota; therefore, bring money to the City; that additional jobs and more tax money can be achieved; that a commercial development at Mission Harbor can be the best thing to happen not only to the north part of Sarasota, but to the entire City of Sarasota; that this project can give poor people a chance to work instead of being criminals; and that the development of this project could lead to further development of (the Central Avenue) area. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:34 p.m. Jerry Simons, 988 Blvd of Arts #1216, stated that he lives and works within a short distance of the Mission Harbor site; that from a business standpoint, the proposed complex could create competition for him; however, as a resident, he feels investigation of the potential is worthwhile; that he commends the people sitting on the library committees; that a new library is needed and will be a reality, if not at Mission Harbor, somewhere else; that the library will work wherever it is placed, but the success of a mall depends on location; that this project could be an intricate part of the conference center and hotel which are also planned for the area; that he recently visited Courtelis developments in Naples and in a southern suburb of Miami, which is not in the part of Miami to which a previous speaker referred; that the Naples development is a beautiful complex, and if it had been developed six years ago he would have chosen that location for his business rather than his present location at the Quay; that the (Courtelis development) has the contacts behind it to make the complex work; that the project would be an asset for the community; that the library and the shopping center are both very important; that additional consideration should be given to this development; that the City had given earlier approval to a retail complex by which the site was named Mission Harbor; that studies in terms of traffic have been done previously on the area; and that he has faith the Commission will use its good judgement and do what is right for the community. Bill Couch, representing Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, stated that Sarasota County passed an Economic Development Master Plan in December of 1992 regarding the attraction of quality business and industry to the Sarasota area; that while the proposed Courtelis project does not represent the exact type of business and industry identified in that plan, the interest of the Courtelis Company in this particular piece of property presents an opportunity that should be further explored; that this project has been referred to tonight as a "sweetheart deal" for the Courtelis Company; that the (exploration) need not be limited to that particular project; that passing the resolution as presented would be an important first step to take in opening the entire subject up to further exploration; that he encourages the Commission to pass the resolution. Eileen Linxwiler, 337 N. Shore Drive, stated that she is a member of the County Library Advisory Board; that she takes her job seriously, and has worked many hours on the site selection process; that she thought the site selection was completed, and the site would take the library from 1994 into the future with enough room Book 36 Page 10230 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10231 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. for expansion; that she has a degree and is a media specialist in addition to a librarian; that she has looked at libraries and shopping centers in all of the 50 states; that she has seen the Courtelis development in Naples at Pelican Bay, but she strongly feels that Mission Harbor is the site for the library; that Maas Brothers and Main Plaza did not succeed, and the Quay is struggling. Mrs. Linxwiler asked where will all the customers come from to support a huge shopping center in the northern part of town? Mrs. Linxwiler stated that she belongs to the Commission of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA), and that the CCNA supported the Mission Harbor site over all other studied sites for the library; that the children and citizens need the library more than they need another shopping center. Cynthia Lee Binder, 1661 8th Street #8, stated that locating the library on the Mission Harbor site would be convenient for the old- age home, and the disabled people residing in the Central Avenue area; that a potential alternative site for commercial development is the parcel located between 12th and 20th streets on U.S. 41 which was formerly the Hanson Marina; that this area would be better suited for the type of development Courtelis wants to bring to Sarasota; that this site would provide water access to the rich people who will shop in these upscale stores. Joanie Mills, 668 Cohen Way, stated that she lives between 6th and 9th Streets off of Lemon Avenue; that the Mission Harbor site is not the best site for an upscale mall; that the developer may use, as one previous speaker referred to, "the poor people" to build the mall; however, the developer will not employ those same people to work in the mall once it is built; that residents of that particular neighborhood would not be hired to work in an upscale mall. Ms. Mills continued that all residents could benefit by using the property for a library. Mayor Pillot stated that for clarification, the resolution before the Commission does the following: 1. Understands that the authority of the placement of the library rests with the Board of County Commissioners, not with the City Commission; 2. If adopted, expresses the opinion of the City Commission to be presented to the County Commissioners as asking that the possibility of a potential shopping area be explored; and 3. If the County Board of Commissioners should consider the possibility of a different site for the library, that the City Commission is offering, not recommending, to make the Lemon Avenue site, which was at one time listed as a potential site, available at the discretion of the County Commissioners. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson it was moved to approve Resolution 94R-716. Commissioner Merrill stated that he has previously stated he would support a mall on the Mission Harbor site; that the library and the mall could be on the same site; that the Doctor's Hospital site will soon be available; that the Doctor's Hospital site is centrally located within neighborhoods, and he proposes it be considered as a potential library site. Mayor Pillot recognized the presence of County Commissioner David Mills in the audience, and invited Mr. Mills to make a statement. Mr. Mills stated that he had no statement to make at this time. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that when she became a Commissioner, the Mission Harbor site property was zoned for commercial development; that the property was zoned for a hotel-shopping center combination similar in intensity to what is being proposed; that there is no intent by this resolution to subvert the concurrence process or any of the planning process which would be involved in any expansion beyond this property or rezoning it back to commercial; that this Commission, minus Commissioner Cardamone, down-zoned the property with the specific idea of making the property more available for commercial development; that the Commission is not proposing that the entire neighborhood be swallowed by a development, or that (the Courtelis development) is rubber stamped; that the City may have an opportunity, and the Commission would like the County to explore it. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports the resolution; that she has some questions as to how (the resolution) fits into the Comprehensive Plan process; that she is concerned with having the specific developer's name written in the resolution; that she has respect for the members who spoke in regard to the library site; however, she would like the door left open to explore the feasibility of commercial development on the Mission Harbor site. Commissioner Atkins stated that he never supported the library location on the Mission Harbor site; that Mission Harbor is the best site for commercial development in the entire City of Sarasota; that he will be glad to see alternatives developed and become more concrete. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Babb's and Commissioner Cardamone's concern with the specificity of the word Courtelis is valid and suggested rewording the resolution to make it less specific. Book 36 Page 10232 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10233 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that this could be accomplished by omitting the words "by Courtelis Company." There was consensus of the Commission to delete the words "by Courtelis Company" from the title and the first paragraph, and to delete the word "Courtelis" in the last line of the first whereas. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion (to adopt Resolution 94R-716). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. County Commissioner Mills was presented a copy of Resolution 94R-716. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CRIME PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELIMINATE CRIME AND ILLEGAL DRUGS IN THE CITY OF SARASOTA SUBMITTED AT THE JANUARY 24, 1994, COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING APPROVED; DISCUSSION OF ENTIRE COMMISSION ATTENDING ACTION DAY IN TALLAHASSEE TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (2137) through (2538) City Manager Sollenberger stated that a number of the 55 recommendations included in the Police Services Bureau plan to eliminate crime and illegal drugs in Sarasota relate to legislative matters; that with the legislature in session it is timely that the Commission take action to represent the City's concerns and positions to the legislators; and that the Administration requests the Commission's action on the 55 recommendations presented to the Commission on January 24, 1994. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue, came before the Commission and stated that the presentation of the Action Plan was very good; that the summary of recommendations are very direct and concise; that she is encouraged by some of the specific actions being proposed, and fully supports all of the recommendations; that the recommendations include practical solutions that the community and the Police Department can accomplish as a whole. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the 55 crime plan recommendations presented at the January 24th workshop. Mayor Pillot stated that at the last national meeting of mayors held in Washington D.C., President Clinton had hosted (a luncheon for the mayors in attendance) at the White House; that a major part of that luncheon was President Clinton's emphasis on crime prevention and additional police enforcement throughout the nation. Mayor Pillot requested that a copy of the relevant parts of the City of Sarasota's Action Plan be addressed to President Clinton's office. Commissioner Cardamone referred to Item #53 "Establish a Police Chief's Advisory Board" and stated that she encourages starting that Advisory Board as soon as possible. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Staff plans to undertake a lobbying effort on the State priorities with the current legislative session? Mr. Sollenberger stated that lobbying efforts will commence once Commission approval is received; that the Public Safety Director and the Chief of Police will identify appropriate actions for which the Commission needs to become involved. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she will be in Tallahassee on behalf of the (Manasota) League of Cities on March 23rd for the specific purpose of meeting with State legislators; that (if a specific work-up of the City's concerns and positions to be presented to the State legislators regarding the crime action plan is prepared), she will "piggyback" her lobbying efforts. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission should discuss the attendance of the entire Commission at the March 23rd Action Day to bring the (City of Sarasota's) crime and action plan to the attention of State legislators and the Governor; that the Florida League of Cities Action Day is March 23rd from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she believes there is strength in numbers, and that this is an opportunity of which the Sarasota City Commission should take advantage. Mayor Pillot asked if registration is required for the Commission to lobby the State legislature? City Attorney Taylor stated that he does not believe registration is required, but he will review the current state of the law. Mayor Pillot repeated the motion to approve the 55 recommendations to distribute and support them as appropriate at the various levels of government. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-715, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 94R-708; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (2590) through (2736) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that this issue is a housekeeping matter; that when the resolution on January 18th was presented and adopted by the Commission, wording requiring a reserve fund of 50% of the maximum debt service, included in the original resolution that authorized Book 36 Page 10234 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10235 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. the bonds in 1989, was left in the resolution; that surety bonds were not secured as expected, and the insurers are requiring a $1 million reserve fund; that since the resolution adopted on January 18th includes the 50% wording, he is requesting an amendment revising a reserve fund of $1 million. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Resolution 94R-715 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved (to adopt Resolution 94R-715 amending Resolution 94R-708). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, WORDING FOR HISTORICAL ETCHED GLASS PORTHOLES CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS WORDING TO "INDIANS WERE THE FIRST INHABITANTS OF SARASOTA, THE EARLIEST... .": CONSENSUS TO REVISE THE CHANGING SHORELINE WORDING TO "AND IS SYMBOLIZED BY THE BLUE AND TAN BRICKS LOCATED BEHIND YOU.": HYPHENATE "ICE-AGE DESCENDANTS" UNDER NATIVE AMERICANS AND "WOVING-PICFURE HOUSE" UNDER OLD CITY HALL: APPROVED WITH CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #3 (2736) through (3715) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, and Alexandra Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and displayed the wording for the Historical Etched Glass Portholes on the overhead projector. Ms. Hay stated that once the wording for the historical etched glass portholes is approved by the Commission, it will be forwarded to the artist to develop conceptual plans for the etching, and design the style and size of the lettering; that the artist's conceptual etchings and wording will be presented at a joint meeting between the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) and the Public Art Committee (PAC) for review, and then be presented to the Commission at the next Regular Commission Meeting (March 7, 1994). Ms. Hay stated that several people assisted with the wording; that Lillian Burns contacted her today requesting that The Scots paragraph be modified as follows: John Hamilton Gillespie came to Sarasota in 1886 to manage the interests of the Florida Mortgage and Investment Company, the Scottish firm which platted Sarasota. He was the town's first mayor and became a major influence on the city's early development. Bringing with him his love of golf, he built a two-hole golf course behind his home the year he arrived, probably the first in the U.S. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has a problem with the first three words of the Native Americans wording, "A vanished race". There was consensus of the Commission to change the first sentence of the Native Americans wording to "Indians were the first inhabitants of Sarasota, the earliest..." Commissioner Atkins asked if there was any attempt to include the African/American in (the historical glass etched portholes)? Ms. Hay stated that she is unaware of how the specific subjects were arrived at for the portholes; that attention was focused on what was happening at the Bayfront area (at the time Sarasota was founded). Commissioner Cardamone referred to The Changing Shoreline wording "by the blue and tan wave" and stated that she assumes the wording references a picture; however, it is the only wording in this narrative that refers to the picture by description, and is confusing. Mr. Daughters stated that the blue and tan wave are colored, concrete, paver blocks that will be in the roadway of the Gulfstream Avenue area; that the wave is also symbolized in the historic display. Mayor Pillot stated that a brief reference should be made to locate those bricks for the readers. Mr. Daughters stated that room is limited for the wording. There was consensus of the Commission to revise The Changing Shoreline wording to "and is symbolized by the blue and tan bricks located behind you." Mayor Pillot stated that "ice age descendants" under Native Americans and "moving picture house" under Old City Hall should have the double adjectives to a noun hyphenated (ice-age, moving- picture). On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (approve the wording for the Historical Display) with changes as discussed. Commissioner Atkins stated that a porthole denoting the Blacks contribution to Sarasota should be included, and he cannot support this motion; that the Commission should not participate in a monument neglecting the contributions of persons of African/American decent. Mayor Pillot stated that the Atrican/American contributions to the City are significant; however, this historical display refers to Book 36 Page 10236 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10237 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. the founders of Sarasota; that African/Americans as well as other ethnic groups have contributed to the growth and development of Sarasota, none of which are specified in the historical display. Betsy Kelly, 930 North Tamiami Trail, came before the Commission and stated that she is a member of the Historical Society; that at Tuesday night's meeting, a program was presented on the Indians and Blacks in Florida before the Spanish settled; that the (presenter) had written a book on (the Indians and Blacks) and spoke of the free Blacks. Ms. Kelly suggested that Mr. Daughters contact Lillian Burns for the (presenter's) name. Mayor Pillot stated that the wording has been reviewed by Lillian Burns, and Jeff LaHurd (of the Historical Society of Sarasota County); and that the historical etchings reference only one specific ethnic group, the nationality group of the Scots, the founders of Sarasota. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion which he restated as to approve the five paragraphs with the changes already accepted by the Commission. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 1365 AND 1375 FRUITVILLE ROAD PROCEED WITH NORMAL CODE ENFORCEMENT (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #4 (0059) through (0217) Mr. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the City has been working since October 23, 1991, to have something done with these buildings; that the City was ready to tear the buildings down on July 8, 1992; that the buildings are in worse shape today than ever; that the owner had previously attempted to keep the area fenced and the buildings boarded up; however, the fence is now down, and most of the windows and doors are gone; and that structural stability is a concern. Mr. Hewes continued that his understanding of the Commission's last instruction was to allow (the owner) time to salvage the buildings but that was some time ago; and that he feels the Commission should now authorize continuing with normal code enforcement. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if there was a time schedule with the last Commission action? Mr. Hewes stated that a time schedule and a bond in the event of nonpertormance had been requested; however, no action was taken on either. City Attorney Taylor stated that there were time limits in the rezoning for pulling building permits; that he recalled the City Commission did not require posting a bond. Mr. Hewes stated that he has been unable to find (time restrictions) in the minutes; that he has written the owners asking for time frames (for corrective action) but he has received no response. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels something should be done about this (property) . On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to accept the City Manager's recommendation to remove the Commission hold on normal code enforcement action against the buildings (1365 and 1375 Fruitville Road). Mayor Pillot asked whether Mr. (Mark) Famiglio was aware of this action. Mr. Hewes stated that (Mr. Famiglio) was not aware of this action; and that Mr. Famiglio would be renoticed immediately as a first notice. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she brought this matter to the Commission after driving by (the property) two days in a row and realizing how bad it looked; that (this property) is a very important part of old Sarasota; that this Commission has gone on record many times as supporting preservation (of historic properties) ; that (the condition of the property) is an out-and-out case of flagrant abuse of a privilege granted by this Commission; that she feels the Commission must not be compromised by (the owner's) inattention to (the property); ; that the merchants and (members of the) business community who drive by this property every day on Fruitville Road must wonder how (the Commission) can allow this to exist; and that she supports the motion. Mayor Pillot stated that it would have been a courtesy to let the owner know this (action) was on the agenda tonight. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the owner has not been very courteous to the City or this Commission. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to remove the Commission hold on normal code enforcement. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 23. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: LAST SEVEN (7) NON- CONFORMING BILLBOARDS ENFORCE THE CITY'S PREROGATIVES Book 36 Page 10238 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10239 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. AGAINST THE THREE SIGNS NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAW (AGENDA ITEM VII-7) #4 (0217) through (0764) Mr. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the 15-year grace period for nonconforming signs has expired; that more than 300 nonconforming signs existed at the time of expiration and 7 remain, all of which are billboards; that the Commission requested an appraisal of a typical billboard sign which has been completed at a cost of $5,000. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the appraisal cost $5,000? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it was an economic analysis. Mr. Hewes stated that a good study has been conducted; and that other billboards were compared as well as the income flows. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City has (given a directive) ; that the "good guys" eliminated their off-site signs that seven have not; that the City may not be able to fight the signs on Federally-assisted highways. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that Jungle Gardens had to go through a whole procedure to get its (sign) approved, declared historic, and a special exception granted; that the issue was hotly debated and almost did not pass; that the Jungle Gardens invited all the Commissioners to see how wonderful (the sign) was; that the sign had to be renovated according to the dictates of the Historical Preservation Board at considerable cost; that they would have been home free (if they had done nothing) which is not fair. Mayor Pillot asked if Vice Mayor Patterson wanted to move to spend $200,000. Vice Mayor Patterson stated no, but at least those (signs) not on rederally-assisted. highways should be made to comply. Mr. Hewes stated that according to the survey all the (signs) produce significant income flow, particularly in relation to the signs' value; that he would anticipate the owners would not simply take the signs down when given a notice by the City; and that he anticipates the action will be litigated. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission is now enforcing something passed 20 years ago? Mr. Hewes stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the removed signs probably also had an economic value; that the City is open to litigation from those owners; that the City should know if it will face the consequences in terms of litigation and enforcement when an ordinance is passed; and that, if not, the City should not pass the ordinance. Mr. Hewes stated that he wants the Commission to know the likely costs involved. Commissioner Cardamone asked if (the costs would be high) even if the owners have known for 20 years (that the signs are nonconforming). City Attorney Taylor stated that it is a question of economics; that the seven (signs) left are high revenue producers; that a risk is run that action by the City will be challenged because amortization-type (situations) are ripe for litigation; that the City will have to make it stick in court; that the City will have to pay just compensation, including attorneys' fees, costs, etc., for federally-assisted) highway signs; and that no federal law protects the other three (signs) so the process should not be as expensive for them. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that (the City Attorney's report) indicates that Florida case law speaks towards amortization. Attorney Taylor stated that this is the reason (the owners) were given 20 years to take down the signs. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved not to take action against those signs on rederally-assisted highways where a problem exists with slim likelihood of winning the litigation and enforce the City's prerogatives on the other three signs. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as to proceed against the three (signs) which do not enjoy federal protection. Mayor Pillot stated that he feels if the motion passes and an action brought, the Commission should have another opportunity to decide whether to pursue (the action) before money is spent in defense. Commissioner Merrill stated that, although he sympathizes with the wishes of Vice Mayor Patterson, he will vote no on the motion; that many of the (court) rulings are very recent; that the previous Commission may have overreached its bounds; that unconstitutional (action) against one person does not warrant its extension to another; that the note from the City Attorney leads him to believe the City does not stand much of a chance (of winning in court) : and that he would rather accept the recent court rulings which indicate (the City) must pay for the signs. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if that were true, then what should be done about the issue of nonconforming uses in residential zone districts? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that these properties Book 36 Page 10240 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10241 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. probably became nonconforming in the same period of City zoning and reform; that she doubts there is case law on amortization of properties; that the staff should not go through 14 months of analyzing and (the owners) should not live in fear for another five years if the City does not want to buy the income stream of these properties; that the Commission should say it will not enforce old ordinances and label (properties) nonconforming; that she is looking for consistency; and that it is not right to reward people who stand firm and say they will litigate while those who comply in the spirit of good citizenship lose an income stream. Commissioner Merrill stated that he does not disagree; that the highest law of the land, the judges, have said (cities) must pay; that (the judges) have not yet spoken for nonconforming hotels, but they mayi that there are specific cases on signs; that courts are changing; that (U.S. Supreme Court Justices) Thomas and Scalia make a big issue about property rights; that government may have gone too far and must pull back; that consistency cannot be achieved until the courts are fully consistent; and that (cities) must live within (those bounds) . Attorney Taylor stated that the issue of non-conformity, and amortization may be reviewed as part of the process of rewriting the Zoning Code; and that during the last 20 years, the City has not (generally) amortized people out. Attorney Taylor continued that the law on parking lot conformity was changed at the last minute so that those who did not conform did not have to conform; that there are other examples; that he anticipates it will be legally justifiable that nonconformities can be amortized out given a sufficiently long period of time; and that not a lot of case law exists in Florida on the costs to terminate nonconformities. Attorney Taylor stated that (the City) is going to have to pay (to remove the signs) on Federally-assisted highways in the same way, as if condemning property under eminent domain, which is an expensive process; that the general body of law is a right which exists to amortize out the billboards (not covered by federal law) for a public purpose over the course of a sufficient number of years; that there are precedents indicating five or ten years is a sufficient number of years in some circumstances; that, therefore, 20 years should be adequate; but that, ultimately, a court has to make that determination. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she likes to stand on principle. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that (City Attorney Taylor's) report cites a 1982 and a 1984 case; that (the court) ruled against the City of Ormand Beach in the 1982 case and in favor of the City of Daytona Beach in the 1984 case; and that the (federal) statutes did not apply since the signs were not next to an interstate or federally-aided primary road. Attorney Taylor stated that this is correct; and that (case) would apply to the three signs. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there is case law supporting (the city); that she had faxed a law review article to Attorney Taylor but did not know how on point it was; and asked if it had any bearing? Attorney Taylor stated that he is not saying he is not comfortable going to court to amortize out the three signs which are not on Federally-assisted highways; that he expects the City would win that litigation; that the Orlando Outdoor Advertising case (the City of Ormand Beach case) would be the prime case used; that he is relying on this singular case; that the City can stop these processes once it gets involved in them; and that the case can be dismissed at any time if (the City) does not want to proceed. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as to take action against the three signs where there is a legal right to do so; and stated that the Commission informally agreed to decide later whether to spend money to defend (an action in court). Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that he voted in favor in favor of the motion with the understanding that he will not support money to defend a lawsuit. 24. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP = PAY THE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #4 (0764) through (0994) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has an invoice for annual membership dues to Sister Cities International which is not a budgeted item; that discussion has ensued about additional sister cities; and that he has not authorized payment (of the invoice) but knows there is a lot of interest (in this program) by the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that he has discussed (the item) with Asim Mohammed, Chairman of the Sister City organization; that the group intends to recommend adding a sister city in France and the groundwork has been laid; and that international affiliation is important if (the City) wishes to continue with the current two and, possibly, four sister cities. Commissioner Merrill stated that he had the enjoyment of dining with the Friendship Force which hosted a number of people from Book 36 Page 10242 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10243 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Latvia and Estonia; that commercial benefits between the cities were discussed; that the purpose of the Sister Cities program is to generate business and understanding between communities; that he is surprised more organizations do not receive enough benefit from the Sister Cities program to pick up the membership fee of $480; that he does not view the Sister Cities Program as a trip for Commissioners to travel internationally; that a private organization should be the driving force behind it; and that the organization should show it is a viable organization and pay the bill. Commissioner Cardamone asked what other financial obligations the City has in this program? Mayor Pillot stated that travel, which is discretionary by the Commission, is part of the program; that former Mayors Palmer, Kirschner, and Gurney went to Santo Domingo on separate occasions; that he and (his wife) went at their own personal expense; and that he does not know who paid for the other trips. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that (Mayor Pillot) was probably unique. Mr. Sollenberger stated that travel is involved; that from time to time the City is asked to host a reception involving some expense; that nothing was included in this year's budget; and that employees have been laid off to put together (the current year's) budget. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a delegation of City employees went to Santo Domingo to offer advice when Jack Gurney was Mayor; and that also an out-dated fire engine was shipped to Santo Domingo. Commissioner Atkins stated that medical supplies were also shipped to Santo Domingo. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that those items were individual Commission decisions; that an economic benefit depends on which city (is involved); that she suspects Sarasota derives an economic benefit in its relationship with Hamilton (Canada) while Sarasota is probably the donor with Santo Domingo, since Santo Domingo is very poor; and that it is a philosophical (decision) as to whether the Commission wishes to pursue the program. Mayor Pillot stated that the probability exists of Sarasota's hosting a Sister Cities (function) in 1995 which could bring representatives from seven or eight nations for four or five days; that this is speculative and is only one example; that such a function would have to involve Sister Cities International; that the dues would not necessarily have to be paid to (participate); and that he is presenting this as the likelihood of an activity which would probably get international attention. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pay the $480 membership dues to Sister Cities International. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 25. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DESIGN ISSUES APPROVED A NEW TASK TEAM; APPROVED NOT TO RETAIN EXISTING BRIDGE AND REPLACE TONY SAPRITO PIER WITH SAFE, DIRECT PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (0994) through (1419) Mr. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has hired Greiner Engineering, Inc. and Kunde, Sprecher and Associates, Inc. (KSA) to design the project; that the firm met with the City Engineering Department and discussed items on which input and direction of the City Commission is desired as follows: Mayor Pillot left the Commission table. 1. Aesthetic Task Team Mr. Daughters stated that the original MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization) Task Force completed its task; that five options were presented and his recommendation is to select option two which is a new, smaller task team; that it is important for the City to have strong input into the aesthetics of the bridge which will otherwise be done in the (FDOT's) manner; and that other options are listed in his February 14, 1994, memorandum. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to appoint a new, smaller task team (to decide aesthetic issues) . Motion carried (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 2. Tony Saprito Fishing Pier Replacement Mayor Pillot returned to the Commission table. Mr. Daughters stated that he told FDOT the City did not want to remove the pier entirely and did not want to retain part of the abandoned bridge structure because: a) it would require more maintenance and repair and b) it would not be very attractive to have the old bridge close to a very attractive, higher bridge. Book 36 Page 10244 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10245 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the staff recommendation of not retaining the abandoned bridge structure. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is annoyed that (the FDOT has said) the left-turn (pocket to Hart's Landing) was shown earlier to the Commission earlier; that the Commission was not made aware of (the left-turn pocket to Hart's Landing) i and that it appears that the approach to the new bridge is a design problem of which the Commission is unaware. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if (the City) would get a new fishing pier? Mr. Daughters stated no; that the waterward end of the Tony Saprito pier would be retained and the landward end would have to be reconstructed. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if (the City) will have a fishing pier if the (Engineering) recommendation is chosen? Mr. Daughters stated that the option is: a) to remove the Tony Saprito pier and retain the old bridge or b) to reconstruct the Tony Saprito Pier. Mayor Pillot asked who would bear the expense (of either of the options)? Mr. Daughters stated that it would be an FDOT expense. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what the access to the reconstructed (pier) would be? Mr. Daughters stated that this is issue number 3, which is the most significant issue. 3. Access To Tony Saprito Pier Vice Mayor Patterson stated that cars and drivers will not want to stop for pedestrians; and that people cannot be expected to cross over (the highway) to get to (the fishing pier). Commissioner Cardamone stated that she wants to see the layout of the approach and how the configuration works. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if (the answer to this issue) is necessary before the next MPO meeting? Mr. Daughters stated that only issue 1 must be addressed at the next MPO meeting. Mayor Pillot asked whether Mr. Dennis Hart (of Hart's Landing) has been involved in the discussions. Mr. Daughters stated no. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Hart is probably available again; that he had been hospitalized but is doing well. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the FDOT promised no recreational uses would be destroyed, which means retaining a park and the fishing pier; and that option 2 is acceptable as long as it is stipulated that the replacement (pier) will have appropriate pedestrian access. Commissioner Cardamone stated that (the fishing pier) may have to be relocated to another part of the bayfront. Mayor Pillot asked if there is the understanding that FDOT will replace the Tony Saprito Pier? Mr. Daughters stated that it was clear to him that FDOT will replace the Tony Saprito Pier. Mayor Pillot asked if it could be part of the motion (that FDOT will replace the Tony Saprito Pier)? Commissioner Merrill, as the maker of the motion, and Commissioner Cardamone, as the seconder of the motion, agreed to include (that FDOT will replace the Tony Saprito Pier) as part of the motion. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as to reply "No" to retaining part of the existing bridge, with the understanding that the FDOT will replace the (Tony) Saprito Pier without any specific statement as to location or access. Mr. Daughters stated that the FDOT indicated it will replace the landward end (of the pier); and that the waterward end (of the pier) is not within (FDOT's) right-of-way. Mayor Pillot stated that, therefore, (the pier) will be in the same location. Commissioner Cardamone stated that (the same location) makes a curve approach out to the waterway creating something which may be difficult for access; that she is not comfortable with this (configuraton) until she sees how the bridge access will work; and that she is not hearing replacement or relocation of the pier but rather replacement of the approach to the waterward end of the pier. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct (it is replacement of the waterward end of the pier). Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is not happy with that. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she remembers the FDOT stating money was no object. Book 36 Page 10246 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10247 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked if it is important to have a statement in the motion concerning access; that the motion is (the City): 1) does not want to retain part of the old bridge, and 2) understands that the necessary parts of the existing (Tony) Saprito Pier will be replaced with a new landfall; and asked if it should be added that the Commission is on record as expecting safe, direct access (to the pier)? Mr. Daughters stated that he understands the Commission's direction for safe vehicular and pedestrian access; that the FDOT indicated that pedestrian access will not be difficult; that westbound (vehicular) access from Gulf Stream (Avenue) will be a left turn to park at Hart's Landing; that one would then walk under the bridge (to gain access to the pier); that to obtain the clear height for a vehicle would be difficult for the FDOT; and that the FDOT is also attempting to avoid the seagrasses on the north side. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as to say "No" to retaining the old and "Yes" to replacing the necessary parts of the (Tony) Saprito Pier with the understanding about access. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is not happy with this (motion) and will vote against it. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the FDOT made it totally and perfectly clear that the Commission's vote on the size and height of the bridge would have an impact on (FDOT's) decision; that she feels (the Commission's vote) had nothing to do with (FDOT's) decision; that she is upset about the bad pictures and the graphics presented by the FDOT which misrepresented (the project) to the Commission; that she is not happy that a left turn in front of traffic coming off a very high bridge would have to be made if one wanted to launch a boat or jet ski at Hart's Landing; and that she is not happy with any part of the second motion. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees even though she voted against Commissioner Cardamone. 26. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY ADVISORY BOARD JAMES O. RUSSELL REAPPOINTED JOHN HARTUNG REAPPOINTED TO SARASOTA COUNTY BICYCLE /PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #4 (1419) through (1467) Mayor Pillot stated that the temporary appointment of Mr. Russell to the Sarasota County Stormwater and Environmental Utility Advisory Board has expired; and that the Clerk of the Circuit Court has written asking the City either to reappoint or replace Mr. Russell. City Manager Sollenberger requested that Mr. (John) Hartung, who has done a good job for the. City, also be reappointed to the (Sarasota County) Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to notify the Clerk of the Circuit Court that (the City) reappoints Mr. James O. Russell to the Sarasota County Stormwater and Environmental Utility Advisory Board and Mr. John Hartung to the Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 27. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD DOROTHY JONES AND DIANA OLIVIERI APPOINTED (AGENDA ITEM IX- 2) #4 (1467) through (1905) Mayor Pillot stated that he previously requested that Commission consideration of appointments to the Housing Authority Board be added to the agenda; that at the February 7th Commission meeting he recommended Dorothy Jones to replace Doris Gipson, Diana Olivieri to replace Karen McAllister, and the reappointment of Mr. (Nathan) Coon; that he had stated at the previous meeting that he would not reconsider his appointments of Ms. Jones and Olivieri; that he had stated he would review the service of Mr. Coon due to Commissioner Atkins' valuable points in that regard; that he has done so and found satisfactory evidence overcoming any negatives; and that he, therefore, reappoints Mr. Coon as well. Mayor Pillot continued that he reaffirms for the Commission's consideration the appointments of Dorothy Jones and Diana Olivieri to fill vacancies and the reappointment of Mr. Coon with the understanding that the vacancy caused by Mr. (Paul) Rowell's leaving the City will remain open; that he is convinced the service of an attorney on the Board is valuable; that the City Clerk is accepting applications. (for the vacancy) but none is yet ready and, therefore, (the position) will remain vacant. Mayor Pillot stated that he recommends Dorothy Jones, Diane Olivieri, and Nathan Coon (for the Housing Authority Board). Joanie Mills, 668 Cohen Way, and Queen Esther Curry, 624 Cohen Way, representing the Housing Authority Tenants Association, came before the Commission. Ms. Mills asked how someone's performance can be found satisfactory when they have missed too many important meetings. Mayor Pillot stated that he is responsible for making a judgment which he has done and accepts that responsibility; that he has Book 36 Page 10248 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10249 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. reviewed Mr. Coon's attendance over the last six or eight months and has talked to people; that he feels Mr. Coon deserves reappointment; that he will not withdraw the nomination, but the Commission can turn it down; and that he will not withdraw his other two nominations. Ms. Mills stated that the City Commission is supposed to serve every City resident; that the people nominated for the Housing Authority Board will not properly or effectively serve the tenants, the residents, or the employees of the Sarasota Housing Authority which is under the City Commission; that she and her babies live (with the Board's decisions) every dayi that she has hands-on experience of living with the decisions of Mr. Coon and other Board members; that she does not know the other two nominees or their work in the community; and that she feels there are other candidates who have effectively worked in the community and could better serve (the community). Ms. Curry stated that her portfolio speaks for itself. Commissioner Merrill moved to accept the Mayor's recommendation. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the nominations of Dorothy Jones and Diana Olivieri. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she spent some time talking to Dorothy Jones and Diana Olivieri; that Dorothy Jones has lived in one of the Housing Authority's residences for eight or nine years; that Ms. Jones is very articulate and has attended a number of (Housing Authority) Board meetings in the interest of the community in which she lives, which she considers to be a nice place; that Ms. Jones feels she can contribute (to the Board); that Ms. Jones has had volunteer experience in the past with Housing Authority functions as a worker and as an organizer; that Ms. Jones has no axes to grind; that Ms. Jones is not a particular friend of the current director but is acquainted with him; that she feels Ms. Jones makes a good choice and will make independent decisions and not be pushed and shoved by any particular interests and will represent the community well. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that Diane Olivieri lives outside the area and is a resident of Commissioner Merrill's district; that Ms. Olivieri is a worker with HRS (Health and Rehabilitative Services) and is an Hispanic who lived for some years in Puerto Rico; that Ms. Olivieri supervises eight or nine people with HRS and that she is extremely articulate; that Ms. Olivieri applied for this appointment with no motivation other than it fits well with her own experiences in working with people in the area, which is specifically where many of her cases and her workers' cases originate; that Ms. Olivieri has never met the current Executive Director; and that Ms. Olivieri will be a responsible Board member. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she has read all the minutes of the Housing Authority for the last 14 months; that she feels Mr. Coon does a reasonable job, nevertheless, she does not feel it is appropriate for someone who is a close family member to serve on a board with supervisory authority over an executive director. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like a workshop to learn more about the Housing Authority in order to be updated on something about which she knows little. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she has read the State Statutes on the Housing Authority; that Board members are appointed for four years and cannot be removed without public hearings and grounds; that the members have enormous authority; that (residents of the Authority housing) represent about 6% of the population of the City; that the Commission has almost no input into (the Authority's) decisions; that the Board appointments are the only Commission input; that she strongly encourages the Commission to find out about the candidatès before a Mayor's appointments are ratified; that (the Housing Authority) even has powers of eminent domain; and that she would support having a workshop. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Mr. Coon continues to serve until someone is appointed to replace him. Mayor Pillot stated that (any nomination) for this position will be the responsibility, of the succeeding Mayor because he will make no different nomination; that he will make no nomination for the vacant position formerly held by Mr. Rowell until an appropriate attorney candidate is found and available; that otherwise (that nomination) will succeed to the next Mayor. 28. REMARKS OF THE COMMISSIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: ADMINISTRATION WILL EVALUATION TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION ON OSPREY AVENUE AND WEBBER STREET (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (1905) through (2696) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that there is a Commission memo from Mr. Hewes (Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement) regarding murals which advises: that the Board of Adjustment overruled (Mr. Hewes') decision that the flea market murals are advertising and ruled instead that it Book 36 Page 10250 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10251 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. was a mural; that some discussion ensued after the (Board of Adjustment) meeting and the Board felt it was a sign; and that, therefore, (Mr. Hewes) was going to tell them to remove it. Mr. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that his department has done research on what constitutes murals and past decisions as to what is a mural and what is a sign; that a number of cases outside of Florida establish something called "Commercial Speak"; that "Commercial Speak" is not a mural but rather a sign; that the Administration will be presenting an ordinance (for Commission consideration) providing for murals with guidelines; but that the murals could not cross over and become "Commercial Speak." Vice Mayor Patterson asked who makes that decision? Mr. Hewes stated that he makes the decision and his decision is reviewed by the Board (of Adjustment). Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Hewes' memorandum states: "It is my (Mr. Hewes') feeling that too much discretionary power rests with me relative to deciding what is or is not a mural." Mr. Hewes stated that this is correct and, therefore, he needs additional guidance; that (this guidance) will be provided in the amended zoning ordinance. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that any mural should be approved by the Public Art Committee (PAC). Mr. Hewes stated that (approval by the PAC) could be done because the mural does become public art; that (the owners) have been told they can have the sign on which the Board of Adjustment overruled him; and that a letter has been issued telling the Main Plaza tenants there is a question on that (sign). Mayor Pillot asked if the Board (of Adjustment) ruled that Art (Werks) is a sign? Mr. Hewes stated that is correct and "Commercial Speak" becomes a sign. Mayor Pillot asked if Mr. Hewes' actions are consistent with the Board of Adjustment's decisions. Mr. Hewes stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the three murals on the back side of Art Werks facing (Fruitville Road) will remain. Mr. Hewes stated yes until there is a new law; that he will not ask (Art Werks) to remove (the signs); that he has put (Art Werks) on notice that there may be a problem. Commissioner Cardamone asked if (Art Werks) will fill out the rest of the space on the wall? Mr. Hewes stated that was the reason (Art Werks) was were told there may be a problem; that to do so would be at (Art Werk's) own risk; and that he would talk to (Art Werks) personally (to assure they understand) . Mr. Hewes continued that a reasonable amendment to the Zoning Code can be developed which should be in place before any action is taken. Commissioner Atkins asked if the murals on the back of Main Plaza (the Mona Lisa) are against the City Code? Mr. Hewes stated that there is nothing about murals in the Code; that a sign is anything that attracts attention and all murals attract attention; that some murals have been allowed; that the problem is determining when (a mural) moves over and becomes a sign; and that he is proposing a new ordinance with guidelines as to what can and cannot be done and called a mural. Mr. Hewes continued that Vice Mayor Patterson suggests a mural should be reviewed as to whether it is aesthetically pleasing by someone who has grounds for making the decision. Vice Mayor Patterson asked about the flea in the middle of the flea market and the (displays) inside the windows. Mr. Hewes replied that the flea is a sign and is permitted as a sign; and that displays inside the windows are not signs. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the murals are very interesting; that the Code does not have a requirement that murals must be maintained or weatherproofed; that the question is who has a good copy of the Mona Lisa; and that it bothers her when she rides by as to what is it going to look like a year from now. B. stated that she would like the Engineering Department to review the timing on the stop light at Osprey (Avenue) and Webber (Street); that traffic is backed up at all times; that the other day the traffic was backed up to Siesta Drive, making it impossible to cross the intersection; that she has seen the light stay red when no cars were coming from Webber (Street); that it is not related to school hours because it occurs at all hours; and that cars cannot be allowed to back up to Siesta Drive even if it is related to school hours. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he will arrange to have (the traffic light) checked. C. stated that she received a letter from the Treasurer of the Lido Key Residents Association saying that the people living in the area of the Three Crowns are being infested by a plague of rats; that the Commission is concerned but does not want to lay out hundreds of thousands of dollars; and that she urges the staff to keep looking (at alternatives) because it appears there is a health hazard in addition to a visual hazard. Book 36 Page 10252 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10253 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that an O&E (Ownership and Encumbrance) report has been ordered so that (the City's) position can be determined. City Attorney Taylor stated that he will have recommendations this week concerning Florida statutory help. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that he would like to encourage the Police Department to continue working on those targeted areas in the north (area of the City); that the Police are being appreciated in the 24th (Street) and Osprey (Avenue) area right now and it is becoming quiet around there. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she went by the (Police) substation at MLK (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way) this afternoon and it was closed; and that she realizes from the Administration's letter that the substation is to be open eight hours a day, seven days a week beginning January. John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission and stated that the two officers assigned to the resource center are in the vicinity and not necessarily in the station those eight hours; that the officers have a cellular phone so the call is forwarded to the portable phone if they are not in the resource center; and that the officers are in the resource center part of the time and on the street part of the time. Commissioner Atkins asked if they are wearing the T-shirts? Director Lewis stated yes. B. stated that she wanted to thank the Commission for its indulgence in watching the video on the Child Development Center; that the CDC is a unique facility in the United States and something unknown to her and many of her associates; and that she thought it was a good program for the Commission to see. C. stated that she would to like to address the writing of the ordinance (94-3784) for the Rubin property; that the language was changed to make it very specific; that the City is getting out of the regular process of conditional rezonings; that something different is being done with site and development plans; that the Planning Board should see the changes in the procedure; and that she is not comfortable with changing procedures to assist one property. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission risks being in violation of its rules (of adjournment) and, therefore, asked for a motion to extend the meeting for an additional five minutes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to suspend the rule of adjournment and extend the meeting five minutes. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that (the Rubin property) was one of those typical situations where everything expired; that there was no longer a site plan; that the Commission was confronted with the question as to whether it was going to rezone the property back to an inadequate, improper zone classification or leave it where it is and help the people out; that it came to the Commission with the question being asked by the property owner: "Will you listen to me if I bring a petition in?"; that since there is nothing in the (Zoning) Code to prevent it, the Administration was happy to go along with the Commission's determination as to the best interest of the community; that these are being done on a case-by-case basis with no guidelines; that the City could just as easily stop (approving such requests) which would mean that (City Auditor and Clerk) Robinson would bring (requests) back to the Commission as an ordinance to rezone back to the original zone category the property was in before the conditional rezoning was granted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like to be careful about doing this. MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that he would like to thank Commissioner Merrill for suggesting a modification to the agenda; that the Commission got through an important and difficult subject with a lot of input from the people in an hour which was better than doing it later. B. stated that he has had half a dozen calls about (the traffic abatement installations) on Shade Avenue; that he has explained that he was out of the country at the time of the vote and he accepts responsibility for not having input; and that all the calls he has received are negative. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has had calls also and she has referred them to Commissioner Merrill. Commissioner Merrill stated that the traffic abatement is working. 29. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (2696) through (2754) Book 36 Page 10254 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10255 02/22/94 6:00 P.M. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that he wanted to remind the Commission of a public input workshop on the budget on Tuesday, March 1 at 4:00 p.m. B. stated that the Red Sox have scheduled a press conference at the Stadium tomorrow announcing their minor league season in Sarasota and Commissioners are invited to attend and participate. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that there is a statutory meeting on March 11 at 12:00 noon for the purpose of selecting a Mayor and Vice Mayor. 30. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2754) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of February 22, 1994, adjourned at 11:35 p.m. - RLa GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATEST: - a Bablis E Rebinsen BILLY Ez2 ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK