MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins and Mollie Cardamone City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner Gene Pillot PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: VETERANS DAY PROCLAMATION #1 (0030) through (0257) Bill Dooley, Patriotic Observance Committee (POC) Chairman, came before the Commission, explained the purpose of the POC and the activities occurring within the school system during Veterans Week. Mr. Dooley requested that the following veterans stand in the audience to accept the proclamation: Larry Angel, President of the Sarasota County Veterans Commission, POC member, and Vietnam veteran; Dan Kunkel, President of the Vietnam Veterans of Sarasota and Manatee County, POC member, and Vietnam veteran; John Carter, American Legion Service Officer in Sarasota County and World War II veteran; and John Early, a 98-year-old World War I veteran, who served as an American Legion Service Officer during World War II, and is a former Mayor of the City of Sarasota. Mayor Patterson read the City of Sarasota Veteran's Day Proclamation in its entirety and presented the proclamation to Mr. Angel and the other veterans referenced. 2. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO DANIEL W. MAJOR, LIEUTENANT PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, POLICE SERVICE BUREAU, WITH 25 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0258) through (0314) Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, and Daniel Major, Lieutenant, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission. Police Chief Jolly stated that Lt. Major has concluded his employment with the City of Sarasota after 25 years. Police Chief Jolly thanked Lt. Major for all his efforts and congratulated him on his retirement. Book 37 Page 11038-38 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-39 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented Lt. Major with a plaque. 3. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO DALE OSWALT, FIRST CLASS FIREFIGHTER, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE/RESCUE BUREAU, WITH 25 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0335) through (0403) Julius Halas, Chief of Fire-Rescue Bureau, and Dale Oswalt, First Class Firefighter, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission. Fire Chief Halas stated that Mr. Oswalt has concluded his employment with the City of Sarasota after 25 years. Fire Chief Halas thanked Mr. Oswalt for all his efforts and accomplishments and congratulated him on his retirement. Mayor Patterson summarized the Retirement Award and presented Mr. Oswalt with a plaque. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0404) through (0450) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-8, Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to sell the vacant lot at 1650 8th Street to Mr. and Mrs. Juan Aranda. B. Add under New Business, Item No. VIII-4, Approval Re: Request for authority to settle suit based upon mediation. C. Remove under Scheduled Presentations, Item No. V-1, Presentation Re: request for extension of six month time period as the artist for the sculpture for the Main Street Project, per the request of Virginia Hoffman D. Remove under Board Appointments, Item No. IX-5, Appointment Re: Housing Authority Board, per the request of Mayor Patterson On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0450) through (0459) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Hearing no changes, Mayor Patterson stated that the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of October 17, 1994, were approved by unanimous consent. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE : PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1994 - SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3835 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE 95-3838 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; REPORT ACCEPTED (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0461) through (0742) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of October 5, 1994: A. Proposed Code Amendment, Ordinance No. 94-3815 Sidewalk Cafes Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 94-3815 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends approval to the City Commission subject to the changes made to the ordinance by the PBLP at its August 31, 1994 meeting; that the PBLP received adequate public input on this controversial item; that controversy and disagreement with Staff was experienced regarding this proposed ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP's views have been clearly expressed in the minutes of the August 31, 1994, PBLP meeting; that no action will be taken on this item at this time; that the item will be further addressed later on the agenda under New Business, Item No. 1. B. Proposed Ordinance No. 94-3835 = Political Signs Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 94-3835 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends approval to the City Commission. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3835 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Book: 37 Page 11038-40 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-41 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 95-3838 - Sign Regulations in the C-CBD zone district (Commercial, Central Business District) Mr. Annis stated that this proposed ordinance permits placement of small signs indicating the nature or name of a business on awning valances without including that square footage in the calculation of the number or aggregate area of all signs permitted on the property; that the PBLP amended the proposed ordinance to read: "Business names on one awning valance per street frontage." Mr. Annis continued that the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 95-3838 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends approval to the City Commission as amended. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed ordinance before the Commission specifies only one awning valance. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 95-3838 for public hearing, amended to include the PBLP's recommendation permitting one six-inch high awning sign per street frontage. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the PBLP's report. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 8 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0744) through (0959) Mayor Patterson requested that Item No. 8 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3833, amending Article VII, Chapter 33, Sarasota City Code, revising the designation of certain streets where through truck traffic is prohibited as more particularly set forth herein; making findings as to need; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the License Agreement between the City of Sarasota and RISCORP Management Services Inc., for additional downtown parking in close proximity to the Five-Points area 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to LandTech Services, Inc. Contract, extending the agreement for one (1) additional year for landscape maintenance for Bayfront Park 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to Occupational Health Conservation, Inc. Contract, to provide Asbestos Abatement Consulting Services on City projects 5. Approval Re: Award a Purchase Order Contract to Burman Builders, Sarasota, Florida, (Bid # 95-2) for the renovations for exterior/interior improvements to an existing mobile home for conversion to a library/cardroom located within the Mobile Home Park 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Tri-Tech Construction and Design Company, Inc., Bradenton, Florida, for the alterations to City Hall first floor public/employee rest rooms and other miscellaneous work to meet compliance requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County to include necessary City utility work as part of the Tuttle Avenue Roadway Improvements Projects On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 7 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to sell the vacant lot at 1650 8th Street to Mr. & Mrs. Juan Aranda for $13,874, including closing costs; and, to permit the Community Housing Corporation (CHC) to reallocate the HOME CHDO set aside funds approved by the City Commission on April 4th to construct a new house at 1864 4th Street to 1650 8th Street Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned with the loan ratio related with this arrangement; that the HOME CHDO funds will go further to help more families if the ratios are less; that the purchase price was $72,000 of which the suggested contribution is $42,000; and asked why the City is contributing 60 percent toward the purchase price? Don Hadsell, Community Development Director, came before the Commission and stated that this deal was arranged to assist the Book 37 Page 11038-42 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-43 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. eight-member family now residing at 1646 8th Street, property which the City purchased with federal funds; that under the Federal Uniform Act, the City is responsible for relocating that family to a decent, safe, and sanitary unit within the family's ability to pay and to subsidize the difference of the current rent paid and the new rent required; that the subject family doesn't have the ability to pay on a loan greater than $30,000; that the use of $42,000 of HOME CHDO funds, given to the CHC to buy down purchase prices, was the best use of funds available since this situation included an outstanding obligation associated with the redevelopment of 5th and 8th Streets; that the $42,000 serves as a deferred loan which will be repaid at such time the Aranda's sell the property. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 8. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson 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. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3844, AMENDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS INCLUDING A HISTORIC HOTEL, AS SET FORTH HEREIN; REVISING REGULATIONS AS TO THE REALLOCATION OF DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAME PARCEL AS THE HISTORIC HOTEL AS AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC HOTEL; PROVIDING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF SAID INCENTIVE SHALL NOT CAUSE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE DENSITY WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED IF THE ENTIRE PARCEL WERE VACANT LAND; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (DIETZ, AS AGENT FOR FIRST SUNSET DEVELOPMENT, INC.) (AGENDA ITEM IV-2, JRT-3) PASSED ON FIRST READING; STIPULATED AN AMENDMENT BE MADE TO THE TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT BE TWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS TO REQUIRE: 1) A COST ESTIMATE OF DEMOLITION INCLUDING ANY ASBESTOS ABATEMENT BE PROVIDED AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND 2) ESTABLISHMENT OF A SATISFACTORY MECHANISM FOR THE JRC FOUNDATION TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO INDEMNIFY THE CITY FOR THE DEMOLITION COSTS ESTIMATED AND 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3822, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS SITE CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.86 ACRES FROM THE CG ZONE DISTRICT TO THE RMF-5 ZONE DISTRICT; APPROVING PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN PETITION 94-B PERTAINING TO THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS SITE AS WELL AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY COMPRISING A TOTAL OF 11.27 ACRES; SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED AT 111 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 94-CO-02 & 94-B, FRANKLIN AS AGENT FOR FIRST SUNSET DEVELOFMENT, INC.) (AGENDA ITEM IV-1, JRT-1) = PASSED ON FIRST READING AND 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION NO. 94-SE-02 TO PERMIT USES NECESSARY TO PERPE: TUATE THE VIABLE CONTEMPORARY UTILIZATION OF A HISTORIC STRUCTURE KNOWN AS THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS IN A RMF-5 ZONE DISTRICT (PETITION NOS. 94-CO-02, 94-B & 94-SE-02, FRANKLIN AS AGENT FOR FIRST SUNSET DEVELOPMENT, INC.) (AGENDA ITEM IV-1, JRT-2) - APPROVED #1 (1010) through #3 (2541) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission. A revised, modified preliminary site and development plan (PS&D) was displayed on the overhead projector. Ms. Robinson stated that the arrangement including the City of Sarasota, John Ringling Centre (JRC) Foundation, and First Sunset Development, Inc., began in July 1993 with a three-party agreement which effectuates the rehabilitation of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) and development of approximately nine acres to the west of the JRT; that the three items scheduled for discussion are a rezoning and PS&D plan, a special exception, and a code amendment; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), at its September 7, 1994, meeting, recommended approval to the Commission of proposed conditional rezoning Petition 94-CO-02 and PS&D Petition 94-B with two caveats: 1. that Staff provide a site plan which included off-street parking on the JRT site prior to the City Commission meeting; and 2. that traffic circulation issues be addressed. Ms. Robinson continued that the special exception relates to uses which would be allowed in the JRT building. A list of office, commercial, residential, institutional, and cultural uses, refined Book 37 Page 11038-44 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-45 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. by the JRC as requested by the PBLP, was displayed on the overhead projector. Ms. Robinson further stated that the revised, modified PS&D plan showing the parking and traffic circulation solutions was reviewed by the Development Review Committee last Wednesday. Mr. Daughters stated that the proposed project will meet concurrency for stormwater and will not result in degradation of the adopted Level of Service, providing that the design and construction are in compliance with the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) ; that a review of the final plans and inspection of the construction will assure compliance. Mr. Daughters continued that pursuant to a November 3 meeting with representatives of First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation, the report on the Stormwater Concurrency and EDCM Review and Transportation Concurrency and Traffic Circulation Review previously submitted by memorandum on October 11, 1994, was revised. Mr. Daughters reviewed the revised report submitted by memorandum on November 4, 1994, in detail, and explained the following revisions: Engineering Design Criteria Manual Review: 4. Construct the proposed access road between Cedar Point and Sunset Drives, prior to occupancy of Building One, including changes at the southerly end of Cedar Point Drive as approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Daughters stated that the following was added under Item 5 regarding showing the proposed pedestrian "Bayway" access from the Sarasota Quay property at the northerly First Sunset property line on the site plan: The Petitioner is agreeable to the first four items but does not wish to volunteer Item 5. The City Attorney opines that we do not have legal authority to require Item 5. Mr. Daughters further stated that the subject property has been reviewed for transportation concurrency; that the project is concurrent and will not result in a degradation of the Level of Service of impacted roadways below the City's adopted Level of Service; however, the proposed driveway to the JRT on U.S. 41 offers a potential for conflict with the large volume of traffic traveling on U.S. 41; that the traffic study prepared by Barton Aschman Associates, indicated that the intersection of First Street and U.S. 41 will operate at deficient Level of Service and will pose a potential safety hazard for motorists turning left in or out of the roadway; that approval of the site plan is recommended with the following conditions with which the petitioner is agreeable: 1. Require the City Engineer to pursue a right turn-in and right turn-out only driveway configuration to the JRT on U.S. 41, opposite Second Street, through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Mayor Patterson asked if the City's intent is to pursue that type of configuration without requiring it for approval of the PS&D? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. 2. Require the City Engineer to pursue construction of a traffic separator or other appropriate device on U.S. 41 from Gulf Stream Avenue to Second Street, through the FDOT. Mr. Daughters stated that, hopefully, the FDOT will fund such construction; that a similar project has been pursued which the FDOT is considering; that further development would add to the traffic conditions which currently exist in this area; however, the City would be required to fund the construction if FDOT will not since the construction is not necessary for concurrency. Mayor Patterson asked for the cost associated with the construction? Mr. Daughters stated that he did not have that information. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City Engineer should not be required to pursue two specific items which could prevent the City from finding a more creative solution; that she is still interested in pursuing the removal of the U.S. 41 designation from Fruitville Road to the Bayfront; that the requirements should be open-ended. Mr. Daughters stated the words, "or other appropriate device" were included in the recommendation to provide flexibility in finding solutions to restrict the left-turn movement; that the word "require" could be changed to "authorize." Mayor Patterson stated that the City traditionally requires a developer to pay for part of the cost of making improvements if a major roadway in the City will be impacted by a proposed development. City Attorney Taylor stated that the developer's position was that a cost in proportion to the burden created should be contributed; however, no methodology was developed to ascertain a ratio of benefit or detriment since many turns across U.S. 41 in both direction occur at that location. Mayor Patterson stated that the retention area on the PS&D submitted to the PBLP has been changed to a parking area on the modified PS&D; and asked how the retention function was substituted? Book 37 Page 11038-46 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-47 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the developer will respond to that question during their presentation; that the parking arrangement is based on an agreement reached between the JRC Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc. Mr. Daughters stated that quantity and quality are the two items evaluated relative to stormwater drainage; that quantity is not regulated for properties which discharge directly to marine waters; that the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) requirements deal with water quality; that the City accepts the SWFWMD requirements as a standard; that a development cannot proceed if SWEWMD requirements are not met. Commissioner Cardamone asked if all three JRT items will be addressed at the same time? City Attorney Taylor stated that the conditional rezoning and special exception should be heard simultaneously as a quasi- judicial proceeding; that the proposed ordinance to revise the density regulations allowed on the site retained by First Sunset Development, Inc., does not require a quasi-Judicial proceeding; however, all three items can be heard simultaneously if the Commission so desires. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he recommends the Commission hear all three items simultaneously, but take individual votes on each. Mayor Patterson stated that sufficient parking does not appear to be included in the modified PS&D; that she calculates 250 necessary parking spaces; however, only 194 available parking spaces are indicated on the property deeded to the JRC Foundation; that she is concerned a building may be renovated which will be unable to obtain a certificate of occupancy (CO). Mayor Patterson continued that the PBLP's recommendation for approval was subject to parking requirements necessary for occupancy and the access issues being addressed by Staff and included in the PS&D presented; and asked if those requirements have been met? Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that there is not a specific parking requirement relative to historic structures in the proposed RMF-5 zone district; that the parking requirements of a historic structure are based upon the recommendation of the PBLP; that the Planning Department has estimated the building at 70,000 square feet which is consistent with the C-CBD requirements; however, the parking requirements will be based on the actual mix of uses approved for location at the site; that the mix of uses proposed require various parking calculations; that determining the number of parking spaces required is difficult until the actual uses are known; that a section of the Code allows exclusion from the 70,000 square feet for common corridors, public restrooms, etc; that adequate parking has been indicated in the PS&D to meet the parking requirements as the building becomes occupied. Bruce Franklin, ADP Associates, Inc., representing First Sunset Development, Inc., Petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that Susan Hanson, Vice President of First Sunset Development, Inc., and George Dietz, Attorney for the Petitioner, are present in the audience. Various areas of the modified PS&D displayed on the overhead projector were referenced by Mr. Franklin as he explained: 1) how the direct access off of First Street for the Bickel House parking area would be vacated once a joint-use access off of First Street is constructed across which will provide use by both properties through an easement, 2) where the walkway for the proposed "Baywalk" would be located, and 3) how sufficient parking has been designated. Mr. Franklin stated that the Petitioner is in full agreement with the provisions outlined by Mr. Daughters; that multiple property owners have access off U.S. 41; that pursing construction of an access obstruction from Gulf Stream Avenue to Fruitville Road with State and Federal governments is a proper function of the City; that the traffic study prepared showed that the project is concurrent under concurrency management regulations; that any pro rata contribution associated with potential impact to the roadway would be offset by the impact fees paid by the developers. Mr. Franklin continued that a note stating I, John Ringling Centre surface parking and/or parking structure" was added to the plan which indicates the potential of a parking deck being constructed to meet the parking demand generated in the future; that a phased project is planned for which multiple COs will be issued; that multiple PS&Ds will be submitted in conjunction with building permit applications; that parking requirements will have to be continually met based on the mix of uses proposed. Mr. Franklin further stated that Bishop and Associates, engineering consultants, were consulted regarding the additional parking and its effect on stormwater levels; and cited the following from Bishop and Associates' letter dated October 18: The loss of the referenced parcel would result in the loss of .23 acres of the proposed stormwater lake shown on the first Sunset site plan; however, the remaining lake areas shown have more than the required capacity to handle the necessary treatment volume from the proposed First Sunset Development, Inc. project. Mr. Franklin stated that future development plans will have to meet the City's EDCM requirements and SWFWMD permitting requirements; that flexibility to meet those future requirements has been Book 37 Page 11038-48 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-49 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. retained; that cross easements for access, drainage, and pedestrian access have been created; that the drainage area for the JRT development will be westerly of the JRT parcel; that under the terms of the agreements, those cross easements will be drawn ànd granted to accommodate mutual interests at the time the property is deeded to the JRC Foundation; that the original intent was to process these projects as a unified development plan; that the Petitioner is comfortable with the recommendations included in the City Engineer's memorandum as conditions to the rezoning and PS&D approval. City Attorney Taylor stated that the significance of Ordinance No. 95-3844 relating to the density issue should be addressed as part of the record. Mr. Franklin utilized the PS&D displayed on the overhead projector to explain the significance of the density ordinance, and stated that, initially, the parcel including the JRT and Bickel House in a straight line to the north property line was the portion of property to be deeded; that the land area as originally contemplated would leave a net land area available; that the current amendment to the historical ordinance allows for that land area to be multiplied by 125 percent to permit the transfer of density to the parcel retained by First Sunset Development, Inc.; that the 125 percent multiplier does not work in this situation, thereby, penalizing First Sunset Development, Inc. Mr. Franklin continued that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3844 allows for: 1) the density permitted within the deeded area to be shifted, but in no event shall exceed that which is permitted in the overall site, and 2) the intent of the previously adopted amendment language to be met without penalizing the property owner for the deeding of that property; that the intent, parking area, and the building locations of the conceptual area remain the same; that constructing a building up to a maximum of 18 stories to accommodate the density and net land area remaining is another benefit. Don Smally, President; Deborah Dart, Executive Vice President; and William Merrill, Attorney; representing the JRC Foundation, came before the Commission. Attorney Merrill stated that pursuant to the recommendation and concerns expressed by the PBLP regarding parking at the JRT, the JRC Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc., discussed alternatives to address those concerns; that the JRC Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc., felt more comfortable with having additional property deeded to the JRC Foundation from First Sunset Development, Inc., to provide the additional parking necessary; that the discussions and negotiations held over the last. several weeks has resulted in the revised, modified PS&D presented as well as an amendment to the two-party agreement between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation, entitled "Second Amendment to Agreement," a copy of which was distributed to the Commission. Attorney Merrill apologized for the late distribution of the document and stated that the document was signed only moments earlier. Attorney Merrill reiterated the key provisions of the modified PS&D, and stated that an attempt was made to simplify the access issues by indicating: 1) a realigned access on U.S. 41 which is intended to align with Second Street, and 2) noting the access to the Bickel House from First Street would be temporary and eliminated once the adjacent, main access was built. Attorney Merrill continued that the concerns of the PBLP have been met in the revised, modified PS&D. Attorney Merrill explained the amendments to the two-party agreement which included the following: 1. An early deed out option on the JRT portion of the property and a deed out of parcels "A", the northern square of property, and "B", the additional 1.1 acres to be deeded to the JRC Foundation; 2. First Sunset Development, Inc., will allow JRC Foundation to substitute an 18-month construction period deadline for the $3 million fundraising deadline; 3. Inclusion of a deed reverter Clause that states the JRT would be demolished if the deadlines pursuant to the three-party agreement are not met and the deeded property would revert to First Sunset Development, Inc.; City Attorney Taylor stated that the 18-month deadline appears only to be indicated by a reference to the July 1993 three-party agreement. Mr. Smally stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson asked City Attorney Taylor if he has examined the amended document? City Attorney Taylor stated that he is viewing the signed agreement for the first time; however, draft of the document which has been under significant negotiation have previously been reviewed; that he is not aware of the document's entire contents; that an opportunity to compare this document with the previous draft prior to being asked for his opinion would have been preferred. Mr. Smally stated that a change in the three-party agreement between the City of Sarasota, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation is not being requested. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission tentatively agreed to the items being requested from the City based on approval of the agreement the JRC Foundation had with First Sunset Development, Inc.; therefore, the amendments of the two-party agreement are Book 37 Page 11038-50 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-51 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. relevant; that a comfortable response from the City Attorney on the amended document is necessary for her to cast a positive vote. City Attorney Taylor stated that two documents of written background were produced as this proposed project evolved: 1) the two-party agreement between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation, which relates to the business transaction between those two parties, and 2) the three-party agreement between the City, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation which incorporated portions of the two-party agreement into an agreement with additional, separate items which was basically a demolition document; that the three-party agreement sets out responsibilities and goals to be met within a time frame, and, in the event those goals are not met prior to the transfer of the property, First Sunset Development, Inc., would be responsible for securing the cost for demolition of the buildings; that after the property is transferred, the three-party agreement requires the JRC Foundation to assume the financial responsibility for demolition in the event that the 18-month construction deadline for rehabilitation of the first two stories and the facade is not met. Attorney Merrill stated that the following conditions precedent are set forth in the amended agreement under paragraph 3, items A through D: Full disclosure to and acknowledgment by the City of Sarasota of the terms and provisions of this Second Amendment to the Agreement which includes the elimination or waiver by First Sunset Development, Inc., of any requirement for the JRC Foundation to raise the sum of $3 million by December 31, 1994, as a condition to proceeding with the transfer of title to the JRT/Bickel Property House to the Foundation. Approval by the City of Sarasota of the conditional site plan, the rezoning and special exception, and the amendment to the Historic Preservation ordinance. Mayor Patterson referenced "the full disclosure to and acknowledgement by the City of the terms and provision of this Second Amendment" and asked for clarification of what is required by the City. Attorney Merrill stated that the Second Amendment has been presented to the Commission for approval without requiring a formal motion, resolution, or ordinance, hence the use of the word acknowledgement. City Attorney Taylor stated that the three-party agreement and the previous two-party agreement contain an obligation of the JRC Foundation to the City to raise $3 million by December 31, 1994; that the Commission is being requested to acknowledge that such a fundraising condition will no longer exist between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation as a condition to receive the deed, but will remain a condition of the three-party agreement. Attorney Merrill stated that is correct; that no amendments to the three-party agreement are being requested; that City acknowledgement of the amendment is a precedent condition of the document, without which the parties agree to continue to pursue the site and development plan as originally presented without the additional parking or the other revisions mentioned. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the JRC Foundation has a fundraising deadline to meet, and, therefore has to move quickly on certain items; that additional time to study the amended document would have been preferred; however, many responsible people have set a goal to save the JRT; that security for the worse case scenario, demolition of the building, has been addressed; that the Commission should attempt to accommodate the JRC Foundation to assist them in meeting the tight deadlines imposed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that responding to a five-page document of legal language is difficult without prior review; and requested comment from the City Manager. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he is hesitant to make a recommendation on a legal document without first conferring with the City Attorney; that the minutes of tonight's meeting would acknowledge disclosure of the document to the City; that the "full disclosure and acknowledgement" statement is unclear as it is used in paragraph 3 (A). Attorney Merrill stated that this agreement does not affect the land use decisions before the Commission tonight; that it is a side agreement between the JRC Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc., that the parties wanted the City to be aware for informational purposes. Mayor Patterson stated that the guarantees to the City as to the party responsible for demolition costs would be affected; that the City entered into an agreement which stated that once a fundraising goal was achieved, title would be transferred to the JRC Foundation who would have 18 months to rehabilitate the first two floors of the JRT. Mayor Patterson continued that the three-party agreement calls for First Sunset Development, Inc., to provide the City with an up-to-date estimate prepared by a licensed contractor as to the cost to demolish the historic structures; that the agreement also provides that the estimate be subject to the approval of the City Manager who has the right to obtain a second estimate if the estimate provided is not acceptable; and asked if a letter from Bruce Franklin estimating the cost to demolish the structure has been the only document received? Book 37 Page 11038-52 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-53 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a letter was received from Mr. Franklin; however, a letter prepared by a contractor has not been received. City Attorney Taylor stated that the three-party agreement contains obligations of First Sunset Development, Inc., prior to deeding the property, and obligation of the JRC Foundation after the title is transferred; that the obligation of First Sunset Development, Inc., with regard to demolition is to provide an estimate of cost and a form of security within 10 days of the occurrence of certain contingencies, i.e., the transfer of property; that the intent at the time of negotiations was not to require a demolition cost estimate at preliminary stage since estimates change over time; that the three-party agreement does specify that the City be secured for the full cost of a demolition estimate approved by the City Manager. City Attorney Taylor continued that the contingencies which would trigger demolition at the expense of First Sunset Development, Inc., are as follows: 1) denial of previously approved extensions on submittal of the PS&D, 2) disapproval of the modified PS&D, or 3) the failure of the JRC Foundation to achieve the fundraising goals of June 30, 1994, which was met, and December 31, 1994. Mayor Patterson stated that it was assumed that First Sunset Development, Inc., would own the property until such time the $3 million was raised. City Attorney Taylor stated that the two parties have agreed to alter their business agreement and place the responsibility for demolition on the JRC Foundation. Attorney Merrill stated that is correct; that the JRC Foundation will have the same security requirements as First Sunset Development, Inc., originally had. Mayor Patterson stated that the JRC Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc., do not have the same financial status. Attorney Merrill stated that the same opportunities for bonding and letters of credit still apply; that the JRC Foundation has adequate funding available to demolish; however, the JRC Foundation is confident the fundraising goal will be met and demolition will not occur. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not feel comfortable with the arrangement presented; that the implications of the transfer are unclear. Attorney Merrill stated that the transier would still occur close to December 31, 1994; that there is no change to the City regarding the demolition or the security requirement; that parallel provisions for both the JRC Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc., are contained in the three-party agreement; that the triggering mechanism is the only difference. City Attorney Taylor stated that the $3 million requirement was not a contingency of the JRC Foundation's obligation to fund the demolition. Mayor Patterson stated that that triggering mechanism is what made the Commission feel comfortable; and asked how much available cash the JRC Foundation has to secure demolition? Mr. Smally stated that the JRC Foundation will receive $250,000 from First Sunset Development, Inc., upon the transfer of the deed which could be retained by the City as security. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission requested a written demolition estimate from a contractor be provided between first and second readings of the original hearing on this subject; that whether $250,000 is adequate security is not known. Ms. Dart stated that she attended a meeting with the Administration last Thursday during which she was informed an estimate was on file. City Attorney Taylor stated that he attended Thursday's meeting; that the subject of the demolition estimâte was raised; that he had stated he understood a submission had been made to the City Commission which included, along with Mr. Franklin's letter, a short document providing a cost estimate for demolition; that he had intended to search the records in his office for that document; however, that was not done. Attorney Merrill stated that a demolition estimate will be provided by the JRC Foundation if the City does not have one; that the JRC Foundation understood the City had received an acceptable estimate. Ms. Dart stated that the asbestos report requested during Thursday's meeting was presented to the City Manager this morning. Mr. Sollenberger stated that an asbestos report prepared by Ardaman & Associates, Inc., was received this morning but has not yet been reviewed. Mayor Patterson stated that, previously, she expressed the December 31, 1994, deadline was too tight and would be willing to extend it; and asked how the deadline is affected by this situation? Ms. Dart stated that announcing an early deed and obtaining property ownership would improve the public perception and make it easier to raise funds; that knowing the JRC Foundation has control of the property is important to major gift donors; that the additional acreage to provide parking for the JRT separate from the First Sunset Development, Inc., property is an important step; that major gifts are anticipated; that December 31, 1994, is a realistic Book 37 Page 11038-54 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-55 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. goal which the JRC Foundation intends to meet; that the JRC Foundation will secure funds for future demolition if the deed is received early, but demolition will never happen. Attorney Merrill cited the following from paragraph 6 of the three- party agreement: Security = FOUNDATION: As security for the aforementioned obligation of demolition, FOUNDATION shall provide CITY, at the time hereinafter set forth, a letter of credit or bond. Alternatively, FOUNDATION agrees to place in escrow with a bank located within the City of Sarasota or with the CITY, as escrow agent, upon such terms as are acceptable to SUNSET, CITY, and FOUNDATION, an amount equal to the estimated cost to demolish the Historic Structures, as determined pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph. Attorney Merrill stated that the referenced paragraph continues to list the same provisions which are in place for First Sunset Development, Inc. Attorney Merrill explained the remaining sections of the amended two-party agreement in detail and stated that the deed for parcels "A" and "B" would be transferred to the JRC Foundation 45 days after all conditions precedent were met; that the original $500, 000 donation from First Sunset Development, Inc., would be reduced by $250,000 in consideration of the JRC Foundation acquiring 1.1 additional acres and other benefits. Attorney Merrill stated that the JRC Foundation is ready, willing, and able to fully comply with the existing three-party agreement, and comply with the fundraising requirements initially established in that agreement; that approval of the following is requested: 1) the petition rezoning the property on which the historical structures are located from CG to RMF-5, 2) the revised, modified PS&D presented, 3) the special exception identifying the acceptable uses for the historic property, and 4) the Historic Preservation ordinance amendment; that finalizing these items in an expeditious manner will assist the JRC Foundation in raising funds; therefore, it is requested that these items, if passed on first reading, be scheduled for second reading as soon as possible. Mr. Smally stated that the JRC Foundation can provide the City with the necessary guarantees once the new deed is transferred. Mayor Patterson asked City Attorney Taylor if the three-party agreement would have to be altered? City Attorney Taylor stated that the agreement should be altered; that First Sunset Development, Incorporated's obligation includes the fundraising goal as a triggering mechanism to obtain demolition estimates and security for demolition; that the triggering mechanism would be deleted if First Sunset Development, Inc., no longer owns the land; that the only change necessary to the three- party agreement would be * to have the JRC Foundation acknowledge that the triggering mechanism still remains between it and the City. City Attorney Taylor continued that $250,000 was mentioned as an amount which could be provided by the JRC Foundation as security for demolition; that the full estimated cost of demolition would have to provided, i.e., if a $700,000 estimate was received, $700,000 would have to be posted. Attorney Merrill stated that the JRC Foundation is confident the demolition estimate can be met; that Eagle Demolition previously provided a $180,000 cost estimate for demolition. Mr. Franklin came before the Commission and stated that a $169,000 estimate, indicated as $180,000, was obtained from the Tampa-based firm, Eagle Demolition; that the information was attached to and transmitted in his letter that was forwarded to the City. Mayor Patterson stated that the renovation estimate for the historic structures was $3.5 million; that the fundraising goal was set at $3 million since $0.5 million was to be donated by First Sunset Development, Inc.; that pursuant to the amended document, the $0.5 million would be reduced to $250,000; and asked if another $250,000 would have to be raised? Attorney Merrill stated that the recent construction contract figures negotiated have been well under $3.5 million. Attorney Merrill continued that the amended two-party agreement will benefit all the parties involved as well as the public; that the Commission is urged to take the approval actions necessary to complete this great project. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for comment by the City Manager. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommendations have not been part of previous quasi-judicial proceedings; that the parking, drainage, and other issues with regard to the PS&D presented have met with the approval of the Staff; that pursing a solution through FDOT relative to the property access issues has been recommended to the Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that approval of the proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3822 and 95-3844 and the Special Exception Petition No. 94- SE-02 would be the only documents required for this project to proceed as requested? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct; however, the JRC Foundation made an offer to attain the fundraising goal as a triggering mechanism if approval is granted tonight; that an Book 37 Page 11038-56 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-57 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. amendment to the three-party agreement should be pursued so that the JRC Foundation is contractually obligated to the City with reference to the fundraising goal. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of The Downtown Association, read the following into the record and a hard copy was presented: "The Board of Directors of the Downtown Association of Sarasota unanimously voted to recommend that all zoning or development changes be consistent with the future Vision Plan and that before any changes of any type are considered, they should be reviewed by the Planning Department to make sure they are developed pursuit to the 50 year Vision Plan, now being formulated. Charles Jewett President Downtown Association" Ernest Peters, 99 Sunset Drive, stated that he does not understand why such a tremendous change of density is being considered; that the three-party agreement requires the JRC Foundation to raise $3 million by December 31; that Ms. Dart would not disclose the funding raised thus far; that the items before the Commission tonight should not be considered until after the December 31, 1994, deadline; that title should not be transferred until the JRC Foundation has met their fundraising obligation. Philip Dasher, representing 888, 926 Boulevard of the Arts, stated that the PS&D indicates digging up a large area of ecological, breeding ground; that further degradation of the Hyatt/Quay basin is of concern; that letters regarding the traffic access difficulties experienced during the winter months of the past two years by Boulevard of the Arts residents and Hyatt staff members have been forwarded to the Commission; that it is inconceivable that limiting the left-turn movement at First Street was the only recommendation generated by a traffic study of the area; that the traffic issue should be further addressed. Mr. Dasher continued that he is a member of the Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee whose recommendation was not to continue the pedestrian/bicycle path through the subject property, but to have the paths connected through City streets; that difficulty connecting the pedestrian/bicycle path to the Sarasota Quay is realized; however, this area is an important part of the bicycle route which begins at the north side of the City and connects to the Bayfront. Martha Ardren, Golden Gate Point Association Vice President, 632 Golden Gate Point, read a letter sent to the Commission which expressed unanimous member support for the JRC Foundation fundraising efforts by: 1) conducting a neignborhood-wide garage sale and donating voluntary contributions to the JRC Foundation, and 2) pledging a $500 donation from the Association treasury contingent upon the JRC Foundation meeting its goals; and stated that many of the members feel strongly that the rehabilitated JRT would greatly enhance the neighborhood and the entire community. Ted Bogusz, 6509 Waterford Circle, stated that he owns a business in the City of Sarasota and is a member of the JRC Foundation Board of Directors. Mr. Bogusz distributed copies of the JRC Foundation Business Plan and stated that the plan represents a viable business operation of combined private and non-profit rental space after renovation is complete. Mr. Bogusz continued that a comparison between the JRT building and the situation occurring with a building located on Lido Key should not be made; that the JRC Foundation Board of Directors are a group of volunteers most of whom were born and raised in this area and who are very interested in a successful project which can benefit generations to come. John Schaub, III, 1938 Ringling Boulevard, stated that he has resided in Sarasota for 40 years and has operated a business downtown for over 20 years; that he appreciates the Commission's questions from a taxpayer's point of view; that the JRC Foundation and its Board of Directors should be thanked for all their efforts; that many citizens feel this is a positive project; that raising funds for this project will be a challenge but can be accomplished; that he owns property on Golden Gate Point and in the Sunset Towers Condominium; that he is fully in favor of the project; that although a portion of density from the 1.1 acre parcel would be transferred, the appraised value of the property could adequately serve as collateral to cover the costs of demolition, the worse case scenario. Mayor Patterson stated that all the density would be transferred. Nancy Wilke, representing the Historic Preservation Coalition, 1675 South Orange Avenue, stated that the Historic Preservation Coalition is comprised of 15 Sarasota County organizations with a total membership of 5500 members who support this project; that the details can be worked out; that necessary City approvals are requested to allow the project to move forward with plans to provide a community center which will benefit the entire community. Georgia Nicholson, 1839 Alta Vista Street, stated that she is a confused citizen who is concerned with the magnitude of the spècial exception presented; that the property would be rezoned to residential and the special exception would, "permit uses necessary to perpetuate the viable contemporary utilization of a historic Book. 37 Page 11038-58 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-59 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. structure." Ms. Nicholson asked if the special exception allows for commercial uses in residential areas? City Attorney Taylor that the language to which Ms. Nicholson referred is contained in the Zoning Code; that the City committed to allow alternate uses in certain zones to preserve the economic viability of a historic structure, although the zoning itself without a historic structure would not allow such a use; that the Special Exception process is designed to determine if any of the acceptable uses in the proposed zone district would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mayor Patterson stated that the Special Exception process allows the Commission to determine that commercial use is not appropriate in a particular residential area; however, it would be difficult to make that argument with regard to the subject property which borders Tamiami Trail. Ms. Nicholson stated that her concern is with regard to other historically designated properties in residential neighborhoods throughout the City. Mayor Patterson stated that the history of this Commission has not been to approve special exceptions that would change the residential character of a neighborhood. Ms. Nicholson stated that this "hole" in the Zoning Code should be addressed. William R. Dooley, President of Dooley & Mack Constructors, 2750 Stickney Point Road, stated that renovation and restoration cost estimates for the JRT were prepared by his firm approximately 1.5 years ago at the request of the JRC Foundation; that the estimate totalled $3.373 million of which $1.753 million was for exterior work, $1.620 was for interior work, and $171,000 was for contingency of unforeseen conditions; that the scope of work was based on documents provided by ADP Associates, Inc., an asbestos report from Ardaman & Associates, Inc., and Historic Preservation considerations prepared by the Division of Natural Resources and included the following: complete restoration of the exterior of the building, restoration of the historical elements of the first and second floor, renovation of the first floor and partial renovation of the second floor, new plumbing, electrical, and HVAC. Mark Smith, President, Gulf Coast Chapter of American Institute of Architects (AIA), 5562 Cape Aqua Drive, stated that the AIA encourages the Commission to support the ordinances to keep the project which is beneficial to the City; that the JRC Foundation, and First Sunset Development, Inc., are moving forward. John Harshman, President, Harshman & Company, representing the JRT, 1800 Second Street #808, stated that his company is contracted by the JRC Foundation to provide leasing for the commercial space on the first floor of the JRT and 2800 square feet on the second floor; that revitalization similar to the revitalization which has occurred in the downtown area over the past three years can be anticipated for the JRT; that the market response has been phenomenal; that contract negotiations for leasing the entire first floor are near finalization; that non-profit organizations have expressed an interest in floors two through six; that City assistance to encourage this project would be appreciated. John MacDonald, 950 S. Tamiami Trail, stated that the City has entered into a contract and taken enormous risks and exposure to create some provisions for performance in that contract; that a fund and debt clause specified funds must be raised; that various extensions have been granted; that he would personally like to see the buildings restored; however, continuing to grant extensions will not improve the situation; that a high demand of funding for similar projects exists throughout the community; that the Commission should consider that funding for projects of this nature is limited. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth Environmental Organization (GEO), 450 S. Shade Avenue, stated that he shares the same concern as the previous speaker; that the goals of his organization include a high value placed on historic preservation and concern of overdevelopment; that the items before the Commission will not assist in preserving the JRT, but foist a tremendous amount of development on already over stressed roads; that development rights being transferred over to the new development has been expanded significantly by the proposed transfer of the parking lot; that the density on the new development will increase substantially; that a new traffic study should be generated; that substantial, competent evidence or testimony which would justify approval has not been presented with regard to the environmental impact or the traffic impact of the proposed rezonings; that adverse testimony has been heard; that testimony related to stormwater has been negative; that Bruce Franklin acknowledged that ponding would occur on the JRT site as a result of the additional pavement and elimination of the retention area; that an amended document which did not receive Staff review prior to being presented at the last minute contains significant changes; that the Commission should be concerned with the impacts from this proposal on the quality of life of its citizens. Mr. Lobeck continued that $0.5 million per week will have to be raised for the JRC Foundation to meet its December 31 goal; that massive increases of density should not be transferred over to another parcel if the JRT will be demolished; that the proposal is inconsistent with the Vision Plan which includes realignment of Sunset Drive; that additional impact will be generated if the JRT is demolished and future development rights are granted for that parcel of land; that other communities have Book 37 Page 11038-60 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-61 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. required the saving of historic structures as a condition of development; that restoration of the JRT should be a condition of granting the requested land use amendments to the developer. Jon Susce, East Sarasota Neighborhood Association, 524 Erie Court, stated that the PBLP minutes express concern with the status of the Petitioner, the incomplete site plan, and the double standard used regarding the JRT; that he is concerned that Charles Githler, Chairman, Investment Seminars, Inc., may be conspiring to use the JRT project to generate a hotel/convention center; that the roads cannot handle the magnitude of traffic generated by such a project; that the Commission should review this proposal closely. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing with regard to public comments. Bruce Franklin came before the Commission and stated that any comments with respect to traffic have been addressed through the technical analysis performed by City Staff and City-retained consultant with a finding of concurrency made; that the following facts of finding from the PBLP report should be made part of the record: 1. Zoning Code section 4-7 (B) (1 thru 16) with respect to the rezoning petition and the conditional site and development plan; and 2. Zoning Code section 3-11 (B) (5) (a thru h) with respect to the Special Exception petition. Mr. Franklin stated that the comments made regarding additional density being added to the site are not accurate; that the density calculations for the entire property remain the same; that the intent of the shift in density remains the same; that the original agreement provided for the transfer or deeding of a portion of property defined; that provisions were included for the JRC Foundation to acquire, at a later date, additional parking; that the PBLP required a clearer definition of the parking arrangement; that negotiations took place and the site plan was amended to include additional parking; that the modification to the ordinance allows the developer to retain its original density although additional acreage will be transferred to the JRC Foundation to accommodate the additional parking; that the density will not exceed the overall density permitted in an RMF-5 Zone District for 11.5 acres. Mr. Franklin continued that to his knowledge Charles Githler is not involved in this project. Mayor Patterson stated that the PS&D presented could be a sham since the ultimate developer and actual development of the site is unknown; however, in accordance with the three-party agreement a PS&D was presented. Mayor Patterson asked what happens to the previous PS&D whose densities and permissions were cemented in place by the results of a lawsuit once this PS&D is submitted and approved by this Commission? City Attorney Taylor stated that his legal interpretation would be that the former PS&D would be superseded once a modified site plan and rezoning was approved to include the development rights obtained thereunder as well as the variances and other related items. George Dietz, Attorney, First Sunset Development, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that First Sunset Development, Inc., is the owner of the entire 11-acre parcel; that First Sunset Development, Inc., agreed to work with the JRC Foundation to deed over a parcel of land, now being expanded, provided that assurances were granted by the Commission to First Sunset Development, Inc., or successors in title, that the same rights of development with regard to intensity or density on the remaining acreage would remain when development commenced, which was the intention of the original ordinance adopted; that the purpose of requesting a minor change in that ordinance is to accommodate the intention of agreement made at the outset of negotiations between the three parties. Mayor Patterson asked if the preservation of the development rights of the donated parcels would be under today's Zoning Code? Attorney Dietz stated yes. Mayor Patterson stated that the former PS&D which was approved under a previous Zoning Code, litigated, and found to be invalid in the City's own interpretation of what could be granted with regard to density and kitchens in an Adult Care Living Facility (ACLF) becomes invalid if the PS&D proposed tonight is approved. Attorney Dietz stated that is incorrect; that the right to kitchens would not become invalid. Mayor Patterson stated that her statement was misinterpreted; that the new PS&D, which may be changed in the future, will be governed by today's Zoning Code; therefore, anything gained through previous litigation would be lost. Attorney Dietz stated that is correct; that an ACLF with kitchen would be comparable to today's Zoning Code. Mr. Franklin stated that the modified PS&D notes the three different scenarios with regard to ACLFS governed by today's Zoning Code. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a previous speaker was concerned that First Sunset Development, Inc., would ask for greater development rights if the historic structures were demolished; and Book 37 Page 11038-62 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-63 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. asked for comment from a First Sunset Development, Inc., representative. Attorney Dietz stated that First Sunset Development, Inc., has no intent to approach the Commission for further density rights if the JRC Foundation does not meet its goals, the historic structures are demolished, and the reverter clause is exercised; that the density of the property could not increase by one unit. Attorney Dietz continued that a mention was made regarding ponding of surface water on the property which will be transferred to the JRC Foundation; that building permits require an exact location of retention area; that the precise location, width, depth and other variables will be determined by an engineer; that provisions will be made for off-site water retention at the appropriate time. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the easement referred to in the amended document would allow the JRC Foundation not only to discharge stormwater onto First Sunset Development, Incorporated's property but also to build a retention pond on that property to hold, store, and treat stormwater? Attorney Dietz stated that is correct; that the cost of building the retention area will borne by whichever party develops their property first. Mr. Franklin stated that the modified PS&D shows an exact location for the stormwater area; that the proposed pond is as much for stormwater as for aesthetic purposes. Attorney Dietz stated that cross access easements, easements for stormwater retention off site and two deeds, one for parcels "A" and "B" and another for the main parcel will be executed simultaneously. Mayor Patterson stated that First Sunset Development, Incorporated's obligation to provide the off-site drainage for the JRC property should be made clear in the amended document. Attorney Dietz stated that specific, detailed documents could be provided to the Commission prior to second reading. Mr. Smally came before the Commission and suggested the inclusion of a note on the PS&D indicating a unified drainage system constructed as needed with the phasing of the project. Mr. Smally continued that drainage and landscaping plans are required for PS&D approval. Mr. Franklin stated that the petition includes one sheet devoted to drainage calculations showing the impervious surfaces of the entire property, piping, directional flow, etc., as a unified plan to be further codified by the easements mentioned; that the City Engineer indicated that the stormwater calculations met the necessary requirements at this time. Mayor Patterson stated that decisions made regarding this project have been predicated on a reasonable possibility of achieving a renovated, operating JRT; that the efforts may prove fruitless if there is insufficient parking on that site due to the limited number of parking spaces, drainage, or other reasons which would prevent acquiring a CO; that her concern is with providing the JRT project with a chance at real viability. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a copy of the detailed documents should be forwarded to the Commission prior to second reading as offered; and the note on the PS&D should be added as suggested. Attorney Dietz and Mr. Smally stated that would be accomplished. Commissioner Cardamone stated that would satisfy her. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission may wish to agenda this item under Unfinished Business for further deliberation at which time the documents offered could be presented and discussed. Mayor Patterson stated that she is very uncomfortable with the items as presented for approval. City Attorney Taylor entered the following references into the record: 1. City of Sarasota Zoning Code 2. Engineering Design Criteria Manual 3. Sarasota City Code 4. The proceedings and record made before the PBLP 5. The documents and materials submitted to the City Clerk as well as the City Commission for the purposes of this particular hearing. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if proposed Ordinance No. 94-3822 which rezones the property, PS&D 94-B, and Special Exception 94-SE-02 are the items for which approval is requested? City Attorney Taylor stated that the approval of the rezoning initiates the density transfer; therefore, a motion on proposed Ordinance No. 95-3844 which contains the incentives for preservation of hotels should be made prior to a motion on the rezoning ordinance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3844 by title only. Book 37 Page 11038-64 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-65 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3844 on first reading. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Patterson stated that she understands the Commission has little leverage in terms of whether or not the property would or would not revert to First Sunset Development, Inc., if the JRC Foundation's goals were not met; and asked City Attorney Taylor for comment. City Attorney Taylor stated that an agreement with regard to the deed has been reached by two parties; that the City does not have any course of controlling that arrangement. Mayor Patterson stated that the property will be transferred prior to achievement of the fundraising goal which had been assumed as a triggering mechanism of that transfer if the Commission approves the three items requested tonight; that once that property is transferred her discomfort increases; and asked the City Manager if he feels comfortable that the following items have been sufficiently addressed: 1. the asbestos issue; 2. the demolition area with regard to protecting the City from assuming the burden if the fundraising effort fails; 3. the parking as indicated on the PS&D although it appears to be 808 of the amount recommended by Staff; and 4. the drainage issue for which additional documentation will be received between first and second readings and an indication made on the final PS&D. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Staff is satisfied with the drainage and parking issues; that in accordance with the three-party agreement the estimated costs of demolition would have been provided at certain times, based on events which have not yet occurred; that he does not feel confident with an estimate of $169,000 or thereabout which was provided 1.5 to 2 years ago without a breakdown; that there is not sufficient information with regard to demolition costs; that the asbestos report received this morning has not been reviewed. Mayor Patterson stated that the drainage is too complicated for her to evaluate; that Staff has not presented evidence that the parking has been adequately addressed for an RMF-5 Zone District which requires one space for every 350 square feet. Commissioner Atkins asked if the Commission can agree to the zoning changes without agreeing to the amended two-party agreement? City Attorney Taylor stated that the amended two-party agreement is between the JRC Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc.; however, a condition of that agreement is that the City acknowledge full disclosure of its contents; that the agreement could be fulfilled without the City's acknowledgement, however, the amended two-party agreement sets conditions between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation which would undermine the ultimate outcome of the property transfer should acknowledgement not be provided by the City. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 9:31 p.m. Commissioner Atkins stated that the December 31 fundraising deadline remains an issue of concern by the Commission; that the information provided by the JRC Foundation tonight did not secure a position of comfort with him; that actual dollar figures were withheld; that he will withhold his support until actual dollar figures are presented by the JRC Foundation. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:34 p.m. Mr. Sollenberger requested that Tim Litchet come before the Commission to answer Mayor Patterson's question with regard to the parking issue. Mr. Litchet stated that assuming 70,000 square feet of property is developed, the PS&D has met 80% of the required surface parking; however, the exact amount of developed area, or floor area as defined under the Zoning Code, is unknown at this time; that certain exclusions may apply dependent upon how each floor is developed; that the number of required parking spaces could vary depending on the mix of actual uses; that, in addition, a potential parking deck has been noted on the PS&D to provide additional spaces if necessary; that Staff recommended approval based on these variables. Mayor Patterson stated that she shares Commissioner Atkins' discomfort; that she would feel more comfortable with a clear view of the status of the fundraising and adequate time allotted for Staff to review the two issues on which Mr. Sollenberger did not have a comfort level, the cost of demolition and the asbestos survey. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Deborah Dart would like to present the Commission with fundraising figures. City Attorney Taylor stated that receiving information for clarification and asking questions with regard to collateral issues, i.e, the demolition or amended two-party agreement, would be appropriate. Book 37 Page 11038-66 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-67 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she spent considerable time reviewing the agendaed items and had intended to support them until a five-page legal document was presented for review at the onset of the public hearing; that she is willing to hear additional information; that a deal is a deal; that the December 31 deadline is part of an agreement with which she intends to hold firm. Deborah Dart came before the Commission and stated that the JRC Foundation is not asking for the December 31 deadline to be waived; that the deadline will be met; and cited the following breakdown of over $1.75 million raised: Two State grants: $ 32,500 478,000 One *ISTEA, FDOT grant: 698,000 Cash paid and in pledges: 399,000 In-kind provided and pledged: 134,300 *Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Ms. Dart stated that it costs money to operate and keep a project running for three years; and cited the following funds applicable to the rehabilitation: ISTEA grant: $ 150,000 Cash paid and in pledges: 174,000 In-kind provided and pledged: 23,700 Sub total for rehabilitation: 858,200 First Sunset Development, Inc., pledge: 250,000 In-kind design and engineering pledge: 113,000 Total towards the rehabilitation: $ 1,221,200 Ms. Dart stated that gaining trust of the community has been an important element of the fundraising campaign; that now is the most important time to collect fundraising. Mayor Patterson stated that she supports approving the additional 1.1 acre with the transfer of density and the PS&D; that she does not support deeding over the property until the $3 million is raised; that she realizes the deed transfer does not require a Commission vote, but that adds substantially to her level of discomfort. Ms. Dart stated that the JRC Foundation's major focus at this time is completing their fundraising campaign; that conveyance of the deed provides a comfort level for major, individual donors; that she does not understand where the problem exists if the JRC Foundation is willing to post the same security as First Sunset Development, Inc., was obligated to post with regard to the demolition of the buildings and the appropriate funds are raised by December 31. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she understands the transfer of the deed is the key to the last series of fundraising efforts; however, she has a problem with aspects of the amended two-party agreement which she has asked City Attorney Taylor to address. City Attorney Taylor stated that Commissioner Cardamone asked him for his opinion on refusing to accept section 3( (A) of the amended two-party agreement with regard to full disclosure to and an acknowledgement by the City of Sarasota of the terms and provisions of the Second Amendment to the Agreement which includes the elimination of the $3 million fundraising goal; that he has asked and the Petitioners have no objection to removing that section if the City sO insists; that section 4 (A) serves as acknowledgement by the two parties that First Sunset Development, Inc., will not hold the JRC Foundation to the $3 million fundraising goal; therefore, any demolition contingency will occur after the transfer of the title is made and the JRC Foundation would be responsible for properly securing and funding that demolition. Mayor Patterson asked how the removal of those paragraphs would influence the City's position? City Attorney Taylor stated that the two-party agreement is a covenant between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation; that the City is nota party to that agreement. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has authority over the three items requested; that paragraph 3(A) is a security for First Sunset Development, Inc., whereby the City will not come back at them in a future lawsuit and say, "You weren't suppose to do that." City Attorney Taylor stated that based on the structure of the two- party agreement, it also defines and deals with the legal movements as between those two parties to accomplish their developments. Commissioner Atkins stated that he agrees a deal is a deal; that he wants the December 31 deadline included and the surety that the City will have money in escrow for demolition if the $3 million goal is not achieved; that the petitioner's attorney has attempted to make the amended two-party agreement clear; that last minute presentation of documents did not help this situation; that the City still has a deal to uphold. Book 37 Page 11038-68 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-69 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3844 on first reading. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not see the comfort level of the funds appropriate for the demolition of the structure since the demolition cost is unknown. Commissioner Atkins stated that he understands the JRC Foundation will adhere to the obligations of First Sunset Development, Inc., under the first agreement. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she also understands that. Mayor Patterson asked at what point a legitimate demolition cost estimate will be made and a security bond or escrow be posted? City Attorney Taylor stated that the triggering event will be the deed itself; that a window of opportunity will exist for the documents to be prepared; that posting security will then be required. Mayor Patterson stated that once First Sunset Development, Inc., deeds the property to the JRC Foundation, they will no longer have an obligation and the JRC Foundation will be responsible for posting an unknown amount of security for demolition. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson asked Ms. Dart how much cash the JRC Foundation has in the bank? Ms. Dart responded $70,000. Mayor Patterson stated that $250,000 will be donated at the time of transfer; therefore, a total of $320,000 could be posted for security. Ms. Dart stated that $70,000 is the sum as of today; that the conveyance of the deed will take some time and that sum will increase. Mayor Patterson asked the City Manager if he felt comfortable that demolition including asbestos removal will not exceed $320,000. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he did not. Mayor Patterson stated that she will not feel comfortable voting for the items until the City Manager can express a comfort level. Ms. Dart stated that she understood the JRC Foundation had to provide an estimate agreeable to both parties and post security between now and the time the deed is conveyed. Mayor Patterson stated that language to that effect should be included. Ms. Dart stated that the JRC Foundation would agree to that stipulation. Attorney Merrill stated that the stipulation should be put on the JRC Foundation, not First Sunset Development, Inc. On motion of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Cardamone) and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to require between first and second reading that an appropriate amendment be made to the two-party agreement between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation requiring: 1) a demonstration to the City Manager's satisfaction of the dollars necessary for demolition including any asbestos abatement, and 2) a satisfactory mechanism that the JRC Foundation can demonstrate the capability of fulfilling that amount to indemnify the City. Commissioner Cardamone restated the amendment and called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the main motion to pass Ordinance No. 95-3844 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson asked the City Attorney on which item action should be taken next? City Attorney Taylor stated that the request for rezoning which includes within it the site plan approval should be taken next; that the site plan for approval is the amended, revised. site plan as explained tonight which includes parcels "A" and "B" as parking for the JRT. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3822 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3822 on first reading. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3822 with PS&D as amended and submitted tonight on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that the final item requires action on Special Exception 94-SE-02 which would include the uses submitted tonight and parcels "A" and "B" for parking. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Special Exception 94-SE-02 with the uses as Book 37 Page 11038-70 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-71 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. submitted by the JRC Foundation and to include parcels "A" and "B" for parking. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the JRT could at some time be a hotel, again? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that hotel is not included on the list submitted. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to add hotel to the list of uses. City Attorney Taylor stated that RMF-5 Zone District allows hotels; therefore, a special exception is not necessary for that, or any other use, allowed in an RMF-5 Zone District. The motion to amend was withdrawn by the maker, Vice Mayor Merrill, and the seconder, Commissioner Cardamone. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to approve Special Exception 94-SE-02 including parcels "A" and "B" for parking. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that the second reading should not be agendaed until the Administration feels comfortable with the documents presented. The Commission recessed at 10:04 p.m. and reconvened at 10:14 p.m. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-776, APPROVING A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD TO A PUBLIC STREET FROM A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING PROPOSED BE CONSTRUCTED AT 912 CITRUS AVENUE; IMPOSING CONDITIONS; DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #3 (2517) through (3165) Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that this Citrus Avenue property was replatted and sold as two buildable lots without the easement coming before the City Commission for approval as a private roadway; that this request was reviewed by the Development Review Committee and meets all Zoning Code requirements and other Code requirements in terms of land width, lot width, etc.; that approval of a private access road from 912 Citrus Avenue is being requested. Vice Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Charles D. Bailey, agent for Geoffrey and Nancy Liss, stated that a proposed resolution, a draft letter from him, and a parcel/address map designating the layout of the two lots and the right-of-way has been included in the Commission packets; that the draft letter was subsequently modified to correctly reflect Curtis Avenue as Citrus Avenue; that he is available to answer any questions from the Commission. Susan Chapman, 1621 Baypoint Court, stated that she and her husband have concerns regarding this private access road; that the road will be pointed directly at their property allowing headlights to shine into their bedroom window; that address of this concern sO as not to affect the quality of life in their home is requested. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Mrs. Chapman has discussed this concern with Dr. Liss? Mrs. Chapman stated that she has not been approached for comment regarding this private access road; that she became aware of the Liss' intent from the notice of the public hearing. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Bailey for comment. Mr. Bailey stated that the waterfront along the properties located at 912 and 916 Citrus Avenue limits the alternatives available to gain access to 912 Citrus Avenue; that he will relay Mrs. Chapman's concerns to Dr. and Mrs. Liss. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following references into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition City of Sarasota local amendments City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R- 776 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve proposed Resolution 95R-776. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Book 37 Page 11038-72 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-73 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3818, AMENDING CHAPTER 33, TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES, SARASOTA CITY CODE, ARTICLE IV, STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING, DIVISION 1, GENERALLY, TO ADD AS SECTION 33-120 REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO MOTOR VEHICLE VALET SERVICE; DEFINING TERMS; REQUIRING A PERMIT AS A CONDITION TO PROVIDING VALET SERVICE; SETTING FORTH STANDARDS FOR THE REVIEW OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS; REQUIRING A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TO STORE MOTOR VEHICLES; SPECIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF CITY- OWNED LAND OR CITY-OWNED PARKING LOTS; SETTING FORTH A PERMIT REVOCATION PROCEDURE; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - POSTPONED UNTIL ADEQUATE INPUT IS RECEIVED FROM THE AFFECTED PARTIES (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #3 (3165) through (3615) City Manager Sollenberger stated that increased restaurant activity has been encouraged in the City, especially in the downtown area; that the popularity of valet parking service has resulted in a number of problems with regard to the safety of using the public right-of-way and in using public parking spaces to store vehicles; that this proposed ordinance establishes regulation for valet parking services. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance addresses a process and procedure to establish and operate valet parking businesses within the City with regard to use of the public right-of-way as a staging area and public or private property as storage areas; that the proposed ordinance does not regulate valet services which stage and store on private property; that the City Manager recommended that between first and second readings additional language be added to Section 1 (k) having this regulation not apply to governmental agencies operating a valet service on public property which is not a public right-of-way; that the language would refer to properties such as the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, the Asolo Center. for Performing Arts, and Ringling Museum. Mayor Patterson cited the following from Section 1 (g) (3) which she feels is unnecessary: At no time shall the public parking lot be reconfigured for the purpose of the valet service without the prior written consent of the City Engineer. Mayor Patterson stated that she assumes no valet service could come onto public property and reconfigure it; that this paragraph creates a scenario for reconfiguring a public parking lot which otherwise would come before the Commission. Mr. Schneider stated that the reconfiguration refers to, for example, the City's arrangement with the Opera House whereby portions of a parking lot are leased and barricades are allowed to be placed. Mayor Patterson stated that more specific language should be used; that re-laying out the entire parking lot is perceived when the word "reconfigure" is used. Mr. Schneider stated that will be corrected. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that letters of endorsement from the affected merchants are usually attached to these type of requests; that no letters are attached to this request; and asked if the merchants and business associations have been notified of the City's intent to regulate valet services? Mr. Schneider stated that letters were sent to the Downtown Association and St. Armands Merchants Association last week requesting that members of their organizations who used or would potentially use valet services be contacted. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that adequate time for response was not given; that the Commission should receive input from the associations prior to making a decision on this critical, controversial issue; that the item should be postponed. Mayor Patterson stated that Vice Mayor Merrill has a valid point; that a proposed ordinance normally comes to the Commission to be set for public hearing creating a time delay during which affected parties can be notified; however, that did not occur in this case; that the proposed ordinance appears to be well done, but she agrees the item should be postponed. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to postpone this item until input has been received from merchants who would be affected by this regulation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she thought merchants and restaurant owners initiated this regulation. Mr. Schneider stated that regulation has been discussed for some time; however, the final version of the proposed ordinance was not distributed until last week. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 13. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS: REQUEST FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO SAVE THE "ALBRITTON" OAK TREE ON THE CORNER OF FLOYD STREET AND TUTTLE AVENUE = APPROVED TO SEND A LETTER TO SARASOTA COUNTY REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF THE Book 37 Page 11038-74 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-75 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. OPTIONS TO PRESERVE THE "ALBRITTON" OAK TREE TO BE FUNDED BY THE COUNTY STREET TREE PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM V-2) #3 (3650) through #4 (0240) Ellen Maloff, President of RELEAF, and Dr. Arthur Costonis, Plant Pathologist, came before the Commission. Dr. Costonis stated that he has 40 years of experience dealing with trees in the urban setting; that the objective of this presentation is to inform the Commission that technology is available which could save the 100-year-old oak tree located at the 1400 block of Tuttle Avenue; that preliminary discussions were held with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Department of Forestry regarding the technology available to relocate trees of this magnitude; that the County has scheduled the "Albritton" oak tree for removal in connection with the Tuttle Avenue street widening project; that several trees of this magnitude have successfully been relocated; that a letter from the City Commission to the County supporting the effort to maintain the "Albritton" oak tree would assist in the relocation efforts. Ms. Malofi stated that the "Albritton" oak tree existed before Tuttle Avenue was a street; that the Adolfus Albritton family owned the property many years ago; that the tree has a 75-foot canopy, is one of the most magnificent trees in Sarasota, and is worth preserving; that saving the tree would be a wonderful precedent of saving rather than destroying street trees which happens so frequently; that the technology is available and Sarasota could make history for something positive. Commissioner Cardamone asked the life expectancy of the tree? Dr. Costonis stated that oaks can live 300 to 500 years and the tree could live a couple of hundred years even if moved. Ms. Maloff stated that a meeting was held with County Administrator John Wesley White and Norm Easy of the Sarasota County Department of Transportation; that a letter to the County supporting the tree's relocation is being requested since the property is located in the City. Dr. Costonis stated that the response of Mr. Easy was very positive. Dr. Costonis continued that he would not like the tree moved; that the first option is to relocate the road and avoid moving the tree which is his preference; that the second option is to move the tree to a large circular park south on Tuttle Avenue which would be a magnificent spot for the tree; that the third option is to move the tree back towards a building owned by the hospital; that the option to kill the tree is not viable. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to send a letter to the County to consider the options for preserving the "Albritton" tree as presented by Dr. Costonis. Mayor Patterson asked the cost of the various options? Dr. Costonis stated that the cost could range from $6,000 to $15,000 and the tree has a value of $50,000. Ms. Maloff stated that the road improvements cost $15 million and relocating the tree would cost a small percentage of the road budget for Sarasota County; that the tree has historical significance in addition to being a magnificent specimen; that the cost is a small amount considering the amount spent on roads. Mayor Patterson stated that relocating the tree could be paid from the County street tree program which is funded by City general fund dollars; that the County is refusing City residents saying those funds are not for the City, and a number of taxpayers have expressed resentment about this. Vice Mayor Merrill with the approval of the seconder amended the motion to include that the funding for relocating the tree should come from the County street tree program. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 14. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS: ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE PROPOSED RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE - THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS (AIA) AND THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY REI PLACEMENT BRIDGE AESTHETIC TASK TEAM TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF STAFF TO HELP BUILD A BETTER BRIDGE (AGENDA ITEM V-3) #4 (0240) through (0738) Bill Halstead, President-Elect, and David Hourquin, Member of Ringling Bridge Design Committee, of the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) came before the Commission. Mr. Halstead stated that he served on the City's Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge Aesthetic Task Team (Task Team); that great cities have great bridges which is the reason the AIA feels the Ringling Bridge is sO important; that the bridge will change the Sarasota skyline; that the AIA would like to have a design charette for the proposed Ringling Causeway Bridge. Mr. Hourquin stated that he is a consulting structural engineer in Sarasota and Associate Member of the AIA; that he has been involved with the Ringling Bridge Design Committee of the AIA for several weeks; that information is necessary on which to base a design Book 37 Page 11038-76 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-77 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. charette but the only information the AIA was able to obtain was sketches done for the Task Team meetings; that there are no plans for the bridge as of yet; that City staff has provided comments to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on the 30% design documents for the bridge roadway approach, including the park-like setting elements; that the 608 design documents will be forthcoming in the near future; that he has spoken with the FDOT staff, the project managers, and a consulting engineer for the project to gather the facts and status of the project; that a Bridge Development Report (BDR) which analyzes span and design is being complied; that a design charette or conceptual sketches cannot be done until the BDR is received; that the structure will be a Level 3-type structure, and the criteria for a Level-3 structure mandates the bridge be elegant, graceful, and well designed; that girder options are being considered by the structural engineers; that his view of a girder bridge is an interstate bridge which is not particularly graceful in structural and aesthetic design, but this option must be considered due to the economic value; that the structural engineers also mentioned a steel girder bridge which is not appropriate over salt water, however, this option must also be pursued from an economic perspective; that the FDOT has employed the world-renowned firm of Jon Mueller International (JMI) which participated in the design of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, the Seven-Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys, and others all over the country; that a post-tension segmental design which is beautiful in its simplicity is being studied as an alternative by JMI; that the BDR is due at the end of December and will have cost estimates, design spans and options, and various structural configurations for review and evaluation; that comments will be considered and incorporated in the BDR as appropriate for a 30-day period; that actual design documents will be based on the BDR and will be used to determine economic viability; that the planning process is proceeding smoothly and the AIA members are excited about being involved and would like to continue to work closely with the City as documents are presented for comment; that the AIA can make a valuable contribution and is committed to making the bridge the best it can possibly be for the City. Mr. Halstead distributed computer- and nand-generated sketches of the proposed Ringling Bridge and stated that the span of the 65- foot bridge could not be determined from the information available; that bridges must be designed from the beginning with proper scales and proportion; that a drawing was made based on the FDOT sketch to determine the width of the center span and to start studying the proportions; that the sketches show the existing bridge and the significance of the new bridge; that the AIA would like more time to study the drawings and to have the design charette. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission would like to provide more time but she does not know if additional time can be inserted in the process. Mr. Hourquin stated that the Commission can insist upon additional time; that the citizens of Sarasota pay the tax dollars to build the bridge and the democratic process is not working if it is not possible to have input in a professional, cohesive manner; that it is absurd to think someone could design the bridge and put it in Sarasota in a vacuum and not allow participation. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is made up of elected representatives but most do not live in this municipality; that the other communities are having bridges forced on them and as soon as someone appears before the MPO saying Sarasota wants a bridge designed in a certain fashion sO will Manatee and the State will put its foot down; that the MPO makes the decision; that the AIA could coordinate with the Technical Advisory Committee of the MPO; that. the City Commission knows the scale change resulting from the 65-foot bridge. Mr. Houquin stated that mediocrity should not be supported in the bridge design. Mayor Patterson stated that it was her understanding that the City would get whatever the FDOT foisted on it if input was not given quickly. Mr. Halstead stated that construction of the bridge will not begin until 1997. Commissioner Cardamone stated that architects of bridge design made presentations to the Task Team, of which Mr. Halstead is a member, and the Commission and asked how FDOT responded to the fact that no architectural drawings of the bridge had been made? Mr. Halstead stated the citizens on the Task Team were not given a fair chance to make design recommendations but rather were permitted only to select option A, B, or C; that the design should start with the function. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission was unanimously opposed to the high bridge; that the Commission sensed the bridge would be significant in scale on the waterfront; that the sketch being presented is the first depiction the Commission has seen indicating the bridge's height in comparison to the surrounding area. Mr. Halstead stated that the AIA intentionally avoided the question of height as the AIA also opposed the proposed height and is attempting to keep their current comments positive; that the AIA would like to help with the design since the structure will be seen from any place in the bay, the islands, and downtown. Book 37 Page 11038-78 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-79 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked how to proceed sO that the bridge, even if huge, will be aesthetically pleasing? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the AIA and the City could work together in the constructive approach suggested by Mr. Halstead and Mr. Hourquin; and asked if the Task Team should be sunsetted and the AIA group take over that activity? Mayor Patterson stated that she is not willing to sunset the Task Team since the members are representatives of neighborhood associations and, with one exception, are not architects; that she suggests Mr. Halstead and Mr. Hourquin make a presentation to the Task Team; that the Commission could vote to endorse the concept proposed by AIA and ask the Task Team to cooperate and provide input into the process; that the Commission recognizes the Task Team was not given many options and the AIA would like to present additional possibilities. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to support the efforts of the AIA in developing an outstanding bridge while working with the Task Team. Mayor Patterson stated that City Manager Sollenberger should facilitate the process. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to work with the AIA, the Task Team, and ask for staff help to build a better bridge. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS: REQUEST BY ARLINGTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR FUNDING FOR AN INDEI PENDENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON SHADE AVENUE SOUTH OF BAHIA VISTA STREET REGARDING THE SARASOTA HIGH/ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO STUDY THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC SOUTH OF BAHIA VISTA STREET INCLUDING SHADE AVENUE AND WOOD STREET (AGENDA ITEM V- 4) #4 (0738) through (3389) Jack Gadsby, President, and Robert and Carol Ostling, Members, Arlington Park Neighborhood Association (APNA) came before the Commission. Mr. Gadsby stated that the neighborhood is bordered by U.S. 41 to the west, Tuttle Avenue to the east, Bahia Vista Street to the north and Hyde Park Street to the south and encompasses about 850 residences and 150 businesses. Mr. Ostling stated that he would like to thank the Commission for the traffic abatement on Shade Avenue which has done what was intended by alerting drivers they are in a neighborhood; that the Sarasota County School Board has voted to propose to the Commission the closing of School Avenue at Sarasota High School and the rerouting of traffic to Shade Avenue which will jeopardize the quality of the neighborhood; that the rerouting will make a direct connection between the Sarasota County Courthouse and Bee Ridge Road; that he is presenting a petition to the Commission for an independent traffic impact study on Shade Avenue south of Bahia Vista Road; that the School Board Claims the closure of School Avenue and rerouting of traffic will not increase the traffic volume on Shade Avenue and he disagrees; that he attended the meeting of the School Board at which the closing of School Avenue was discussed and asked at the meeting if the increased traffic volume had been considered; that the School Board's traffic engineer stated traffic would not be increased which he finds absurd; that if one street is closed and the traffic put on another, increased traffic will result; that this neighborhood is one of the only neighborhoods in the City which represents all people, all races, all ages, and all income levels; that to divide the neighborhood with a high volume street will destroy its heart; that crossing the street west of Shade Avenue to go to Arlington Park and the pool will be difficult and dangerous, especially for children; that he lives on Shade Avenue and is concerned about the resulting quality of life if School Avenue is closed; that the continued support of the Commission for the neighborhood is requested. Ms. Ostling stated that more people walk their dogs and ride bicycles and more children are seen walking along Shade Avenue since the traffic abatement was installed in February, 1994; that previously the traffic was travelling 40 and 50 miles an hour in an area with a 30 mile-an-hour speed limit; that the traffic study from March, 1992, through May, 1994, indicated a 50 percent decrease in the traffic volume on Shade Avenue; that people not travelling the street because of traffic abatement will return resulting in more complaints about speed humps and stop signs; that Sarasota County Commissioner David Mills insists Shade Avenue is a major thoroughfare but it was removed from the listing of major thoroughfares in 1988; that the commitment of the Commission to neighborhoods is all the residents have in their stand against the School Board's statement that traffic will not be increased on Shade Avenue. Mr. Gadsby stated that APNA is having a crime-watch meeting next Monday night and the Commissioners are welcome to attend to see the feelings the School Board has engendered by trying to reroute traffic in the neighborhood. Mayor Patterson stated that it is her understanding that the issue is to be treated as under the auspices of the Snyder ruling Book 37 Page 11038-80 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-81 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. (Brevard County V. Snyder, Case No. 79720); that she does not understand why as the Snyder ruling did not address site and development plans and Shade Avenue is a City street. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Snyder ruling applies to a site and development plan process which was not true originally, but the question has now been addressed in the affirmative by the court system; that the question is whether closing School Avenue is a site plan issue; that the process has been established in a series of Interlocal agreements; that the Commission agreed in writing that the traffic study would take place, which has occurred, and a public hearing process would ensue for the purpose of determining in joint session with the School Board the abatement measures necessary; that closing School Avenue is a separate Zoning Code process which is not quasi-judicial but rather legislative in nature; that he has tried to juggle various questions posed on a case-by-case basis; that he understood a request would be received in this meeting to hire a traffic consultant which he views not to be under the auspices of the Snyder ruling and the Commission has the right to receive that input; that he does not object to Commissioners attending a community meeting if it is not an opportunity to chorale and influence individual Commissioners outside of the regular process on a matter specifically related to the location of buildings, etc., of the development site; that he is not certain where the line is drawn and the City's involvement has to be considered on a case-by-case basis; that some relationship exists between closing School Avenue and the site plan since the staff has made it an issue in the site plan process, however, other non-quasi-judicial processes must be accomplished with reference to the issue. Mayor Patterson stated that School Avenue is a City street and not part of a site until the Commission sO decides. Mr. Gadsby stated that where the School Board decides to locate buildings is of no consequence to whether School Avenue remains open or traffic is rerouted; that the APNA is opposed to rerouting traffic. City Attorney Taylor stated that the School Board cannot reroute traffic as the Commission is in control of that process. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Commissioners can or cannot attend the neighborhood meeting? City Attorney Taylor stated that he would not advise not to go to the meeting; that the APNA can do whatever they choose at the meeting but it has little to do with what comes before the Commission in the site plan process; that the Commissioners do not have to be concerned with the Snyder decision as long as the closing or vacating of the street is the question. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commissioners could attend the meeting but the discussion should be confined to School Avenue while the Commissioners are in attendance. Mr. Gadsby stated that no political discussion will occur at the meeting as the purpose is the crime watch; that the APNA thought the Commissioners may like to get in touch with the community which the School Board has failed to do for the last several years; that the APNA wants the Commissioners to have the opportunity to talk to the residents to determine their concerns; that the residents of the APNA will be affected and not the people at Forest Lakes, Bent Tree, etc.; that the APNA is confident the Commission will preserve the neighborhood. The following people came before the Commission: Tom Sterner, Arlington Park Neighborhood Association, stated that he has lived in Sarasota since 1943 and raised his children, who attended Sarasota High School, at his residence of 2375 Temple Street; that he is a Sarasota High School graduate, class of 1945; that he has travelled north on Shade Avenue to work for 25 years and is familiar with the traffic volume; that entering Shade Avenue from Temple Street has become increasingly difficult due to the traffic speed; that traffic abatement has made a difference in the volume of traffic, and going in the opposite direction by funneling more traffic on Shade Avenue is not desired; that increased traffic will be the result of closing School Avenue. Jeff Beward, 2404 Hawthorne Street, stated that he lives on the southeast corner of Shade Avenue and Hawthorne Street; that a number of young families have moved into the neighborhood; that some of the current Commissioners came to the neighborhood at election time and told the residents they supported neighborhood preservation; that the residents liked what those candidates said, voted accordingly, and the candidates were elected; that he is concerned some of the Commissioners are supporting something which will have a disastrous effect on the neighborhood; that Mayor Patterson has stated the Commission supports saving the character of neighborhoods; and asked if there is a still a commitment to the preservation of neighborhoods? Mayor Patterson stated that each Commissioner would respond "yes." Mr. Beward stated that the Commissioners' actions will speak louder than words; that the citizens voted for the Commissioners on their platform, will hold them to that commitment, and expect them to follow through on the issue of neighborhood preservation. Dan Bailey, Sarasota County School Board, stated that he is a graduate of Sarasota High School, class of 1964; that he was born the year the previous speaker graduated from Sarasota High School Book 37 Page 11038-82 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-83 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. and has the same allegiance to the school, with three of his children having attended; that on behalf of the School Board he takes mild issue with City Attorney Taylor on his suggestion that the process may not be covered by the Snyder ruling. Mr. Bailey continued that the site plan is clearly covered by the Snyder ruling as City Attorney Taylor has indicated; that staff has appropriately made School Avenue an issue; that the Planning Board's recommendation to the Commission is conditioned upon the closing of School Avenue and the construction of a Hatton Street connector as part of the site plan; that it is inappropriate to preempt the public hearing at which time a record will be kept of the comments of the fine people here as well as others who will speak in favor of the proposal; that the people he represents are not in attendance; that a lot of people, enough to fill Robarts Arena, can be produced by the School Board if the Commission wishes but that cannot be done tonight; that a process of Interlocal Agreements has been conducted, a traffic engineer consulted, and a Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) established; that the NAC, of which two members are present, voted in favor of the proposal; that a process is in motion to include an upcoming public hearing at which time the information will be presented to the Commission, and no purpose is served by requiring the School Board defend their position prematurely. City Attorney Taylor stated that he agrees with Mr. Bailey; that this is not the time or place to deal in an adversarial sense with whether an alternative is liked or not; that the item on the agenda is for the City to pay for a traffic engineering study which may have some relevance to the upcoming proceedings and processes. Mayor Patterson stated that the problem is an agendaed item with a specific right granted by the Commission to speak to the issue; that people should speak directly to the agendaed item which is to commission a traffic study. Mr. Bailey asked if the presenters requested a traffic study? Mayor Patterson stated the presenters gave the Commission a petition requesting a traffic study. Mr. Bailey stated that the City has retained an expert under the Interlocal Agreement to which Sarasota County, the School District, and the City were parties; that with the School Board's consent, the City selected the expert who was paid by the School Board; that the expert has already performed the traffic study and is prepared to render an opinion; that another problem exists if the concern is that the answer to a specific question will not be liked in which case the problem is not solved by hiring another expert to give a desired answer. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the independent report commissioned by the City will be torn apart; that the City did not commission this report; that the City requires traffic studies for projects must be done through the City; that the potential for subjectivity is limited but not eliminated by having the City write the check for the study. Mr. Bailey stated that the City selected the engineer and the School Board wrote the check. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a loyalty exists to the party writing the check; that the same firm did another study for the City at Booker High School and knows the source of the money; that the independent consultant was hired as a "street-closing" consultant; that he helped with the study at first until he determined the notion of objectivity was a sham; that he has watched the manipulation of data on traffic counts, construction costs and timing, safety, etc.; that he asked the APNA to come to the Commission for that reason; that the APNA should not be placed in the weak position of being at a public hearing at which the School Board has brought in a dog-and-pony show; that the School Board has a budget of $100,000 and he represents a small neighborhood which does not want the project rammed down its throat; that the people who live in this corridor of the neighborhood voted 4 to 3 against closing School Avenue; that some people on the NAC do not live in the neighborhood. Mr. Bailey stated that Vice Mayor Merrill has lost his objectivity. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is trying to restore objectivity; that the study should be done with real data and he is prepared to delve into the study to determine who is being objective. Mr. Bailey stated that he has a concern about a Commissioner being involved as an advocate for a position instead of confining his decision-making to the matters presented and the record at the public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that the public hearing will not provide an opportunity for another engineering study without delaying the School Board; that if the Commission decides on another study, it would be better for the School Board that the Commission arrange for the study now rather than wait until the public hearing. Mr. Bailey stated that he objects to departing from the spirit and intent of the Interlocal Agreement to which the School Board and the City were a party. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has no advocates for any position other than that of the petitioners when making decisions in a quasi-Judicial mode. Book 37 Page 11038-84 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-85 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Bailey stated that experts are not to be advocates but rather professionals and the City has already employed one who is being paid by the School Board. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he would like to respond to the notion that once someone is elected they can no longer lead; that Mr. Bailey can elect politicians who do not lead but one of the problems in American is politicians who sit back to determine which direction the wind is blowing; that he intends to stand up for the neighborhood which elected him; that the minutes of the School Board indicate the person hired is a street-closing" consultant which is not objectivity. Dan Lobeck, 450 Shade Avenue, stated that this issue is very important; that he lives on Shade Avenue, although not in the area which will be most impacted; that he cares about integrity in the decision-making process; that the process sO far has not been to bring the Commission an objective traffic analysis but rather is skewed to an outcome; that the minutes for the October 15, 1991, School Board meeting at which the consultant was hired indicate the individual is a "community street-closing" consultant; that the consultant contract of the School Board indicates two schools are separated by School Avenue and states that: Consultant shall serve as a liaison with such other professionals and shall assist in coordinating the activities and presentations of such professionals to the advisory committee. Mr. Lobeck continued that the NAC was hand picked with the objective of achieving the preconceived outcome of closing a street; that the Commission has not had an objective process; that Richard Doyle of Tampa Bay Engineering addressed the NAC on September 29, 1994; that the committee had voted 9 to 5 at a previous meeting not to recommend the closing of School Avenue but rather to recommend another alternative; that Mr. Doyle had previously indicated that closing School Avenue was not his preferred choice but completely turned around and said closing School Avenue was the best alternative and he supported Mary Kumpe's call for a revote on the issue; that the NAC members were prompted to elucidate upon their recommendation if they favored closing School Avenue; that Mr. Doyle said: "A small majority voted against closing School Avenue at the previous meeting, but the vote was 9 to 5; that Mr. Doyle is not objective if he characterizes a 9 to 5 vote against the favored position as being a "small majority"; that it is clear that Mr. Doyle was coached to favor the preconceived outcome; that Mr. Doyle's report indicates traffic coming from the two schools and the parking garage tend to travel south on School Avenue; that to indicate redesigning the streets will not increase traffic on Shade Avenue is absurd but that is the result the consultant wants; that Mr. Doyle is a hired gun paid by the School Board; that the Commission must hire an independent traffic engineer if there is to be any integrity in the process; that according to the Snyder ruling, decisions must be based on the facts, evidence, and testimony at the public hearing; that an independent traffic engineer is necessary if the Commission cares about neighborhoods and he supports the recommendation of the neighborhood association. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that it is now 11:30 p.m. and a motion is necessary to continue the meeting. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Cardamone), it was moved to continue the meeting. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he hoped the motion would pass as residents are in attendance who are pleading for the life of a neighborhood and who will not have an equal footing at the next meeting; that the residents are trying to keep their comments short. Commissloner Atkins stated that he will support the motion. Commissioner Cardamone called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that the speakers are requested to confine their comments to the agendaed item SO as not to jeopardize any position the Commission may take which could result in litigation with the School Board and in both sides spending taxpayers dollars. Melody Johnson, Arlington Park Neighborhood Association, stated that she lives on 1904 South Shade Avenue; that an independent traffic study is being requested; that the citizens voted the Commissioners into office; that many citizens have appeared before the Commission on the issue of Shade Avenue; that she assisted gathering petitions; that she knows people who work for the School Board who would not come tonight or sign the petition because, in their words, the School Board is very vindictive and controlling; that a study financed by the School Board and which appears to be one sided is difficult to trust when people will not put their names in print because of fear of the ramifications; that she recently moved and was excited about the traffic abatements; that she received a letter from the City asking if she would water trees to be planted next to her house on Shade Avenue and she said - yes"; that she is now hearing Superintendent of Schools Dr. Charles) Fowler wants to make changes on School Avenue; that it is amazing how things can change in a couple of weeks because one person changes his mind. Book 37 Page 11038-86 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-87 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Tom Hamilton, 1415 South Euclid Avenue, stated that he served on the NAC which met every month for the entire summer; that the issue is about 2,000 children per class change moving from one campus to another; that the NAC wanted to redirect School Avenue traffic to Shade Avenue which is simple and which was done at Waldemere Street and U.S. 41; that the answer is a stipulation that traffic westbound on Bahia Vista Street must turn left or right on Shade Avenue; that most cars will be coming from the downtown area, down School Avenue, and onto Shade Avenue going south. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the process of the committee work was as skewed as has been indicated? Mr. Hamilton stated that the people on the NAC own businesses, are members of the YMCA, represent the nursing home, or are members of the church; that he is the President of the Parent-Teachers Association of Alta Vista Elementary School and is very active in children's issues which is why he was chosen; that he lives next to Arlington Park; that problems existed with information not being received sequentially; that one set of information would be received and a vote taken and a subsequent issue would develop; that school classes change at all times of day; that people will go to work the easiest way possible. Vice Mayor Merrill asked which alternative Mr. Hamilton supported in the last two votes? Mr. Hamilton stated that he supported the overpass. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that this alternative keeps School Avenue open. Mr. Hamilton stated that his second choice is rerouting traffic from School Avenue to Shade Avenue. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Hamilton's preference is, nonetheless, to keep School Avenue open which is also the preference of the majority of residents and asked if Mr. Hamilton believed the traffic study which indicated no traffic impact on Shade Avenue? Mr. Hamilton stated he does not believe there will be no impact. Beverly Melton, 2382 Waldemere Street, stated that she is against closing School Avenue; that she lives on the corner of Waldemere Street and Shade Avenue and more traffic will be generated on Shade Avenue. Mayor Patterson asked if Ms. Melton supports an independent traffic study? Ms. Melton stated yes. Diane Davis, 2114 Floyd Street, stated that she was on the NAC and is not an expert on anything; that she has a daughter and son who attend Alta Vista Elementary School; that she attended Sarasota High School; that she is good at listening and what she hears is upsetting; that people have indicated they are afraid as if a conspiracy existed around every corner; that the attitude is "them versus us' # which is not a good way to approach the problem; that property values will not decrease because a couple of blocks of School Avenue are closed; that a traffic light can be installed for a left and right turn on Bahia Vista Street; that she does not believe a hidden agenda existed to close a section of School Avenue; that the schools were originally set up to go from the elementary grades through the twelfth grade in one area; that a lot of traffic was generated by Sarasota Middle School, Pine View School, the school bus maintenance location, and the School Board; that all have moved away except Alta Vista Elementary and Sarasota High Schools because of growth; that a section of School Avenue should be closed and traffic rerouted from Hatton Street to Shade Avenue; that right and left turns could be utilized; that the NAC was not steered and she voted originally in favor of closing School Avenue; that the past is feared but everyone should look toward the future for the students and the community. Shannon Snyder, 1985 South Jefferson Avenue, stated that he favors hiring an engineer for the traffic study; that County-elected officials orchestrating and dictating the traffic pattern in the City is disturbing; that he is disturbed the County is orchestrating through legal means an attempt to silence City residents; that a large crowd will speak in favor of closing School Avenue at the joint meeting with the School Board; that a large contingency from the neighborhood is still upset about the issue; that the County Commission jams roads through neighborhoods in this fashion; that the City is supposed to stand up for its neighborhoods; that if this is the way the County does things, why is the City here; that the Commission has repeatedly told the School Board it will not close School Avenue but the School Board continued with the process; that the neighborhood is comprised of everything south of Fruitville Road on Shade Avenue and east of U.S. 41 and the effect on the neighborhood should be studied; that a look should be taken at the issue outside of the rhetoric and the emotion; that closing School Avenue will damage the neighborhood; that none of the Commissioners would want to direct 5,000 more cars a day on Orange or Osprey Avenues or to take two lanes away. from U.S. 41 in front of Sarasota High School and asked why it will be done on School Avenue? Mayor Patterson stated that this is the first time the Commission has addressed the issue and has no preconceived position in terms of hiring a traffic engineer. Mr. Snyder stated that someone must be misleading the School Board as many of its employees are of the opinion that School Avenue is a Book 37 Page 11038-88 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-89 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. secure option; that the School Board would not be coming to the Commission with a site plan if it did not feel closing School Avenue was a secure option; that the neighborhood is upset for this reason. Commissioner Cardamone stated that part of the reason why the neighborhood is upset is a letter indicating she is going to widen Shade Avenue or remove the speed bumps. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if any member of the audience has a copy of the letter and would bring it to the Commissioners? A member of the audience presented a copy of a letter entitled "A Call to Arms." Commissioner Cardamone stated that this has gone way beyond the normal realm and the comments made this evening were directed at her; that she will make a good decision based on all the available information; that she has stayed away from every neighborhood meeting; that she has received numerous calls and has told everyone that she cannot talk about this issue; that she has never heard about an increase of 5,000 cars on Shade Avenue; that she has not seen the referenced letter; that the process has broken down due to scare tactics in the neighborhood; that it is unusual that one Commissioner knows everything and the others know nothing. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is having to take a strong leadership role on the issue and will not allow it to be presented on a Monday night with the neighbors facing $100,000 in consulting fees and an inaccurate study. Commissioner Cardamone asked why these tactics are supported? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the comments made about his violating the law by getting involved in the issue have been hurtful. Mayor Patterson stated that the comments should be confined to the issue on the agenda; and asked if the Administration had a recommendation concerning a traffic study? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a traffic study will not be completed in time for the public hearing and will require a minimum of three weeks; that the staff's recommendation to the Planning Board reflects the policy of the Commission which is not to close School Avenue, however, the staff also indicated the alternative is for traffic to be diverted from School Avenue to Euclid Avenue via a rebuilt Hatton Street if the Commission decides to close School Avenue; that the Planning Board rejected the staff recommendation indicating the staff had no technical data to support the recommendation; that the recommendation of Tampa Bay Engineering to reroute traffic to Shade Avenue would have the effect of continuing traffic southerly on Shade Avenue and would create an additional traffic impact; that a study is a valid step if the Commission departs from its position of not closing School Avenue but no study will be available for the public hearing. Mayor Patterson asked if the request is for a study of the impact of rerouting traffic to Euclid Avenue? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Euclid Avenue rerouting was the original proposal by the School Board; that solving the school's problem at School Avenue by passing traffic to this neighborhood is wrong; that this neighborhood felt aggrieved and wanted additional data; that the data will not be useful if it cannot be obtained in two weeks in order to refute the School Board; that he supports a traffic study; that an alternative is for the City's traffic engineers to review the issue; that the School Board's consultant indicated 300 additional cars per hour would travel the north section of Shade Avenue but none would be on the south section which is not believable; that he trusts the independence of the City traffic engineers if an independent study cannot be obtained in time; that the City traffic engineers prepared the traffic patterns in the neighborhood and did the traffic abatement. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to have the City engineers determine if additional traffic on Shade Avenue south of Bahia Vista would be generated if School Avenue is closed and the "S" curve reconfiguration proposed by the School Board implemented. Commissioner Cardamone asked if information concerning the number of cars using School and Shade Avenues is available? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he noticed traffic counters in the area today; that the numbers are not in the School Board's study; that someone put out counters today but he will not presuppose what can be done; that at the present time a lot of data is not available on the area south of Bahia Vista Street. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she lives and works in this neighborhood; that she spends a great deal of time on School Avenue since she travels the street Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 9:00 a.m. from the YMCA; that the strip of businesses where her business is located would have concern with the closing of School Avenue; however, she is on the street frequently and does not see a lot of cars on it. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there are 4,000 cars and, if the road is closed, he does not know where the 4,000 cars will go. Book 37 Page 11038-90 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-91 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that she has a concern as to what would happen to other streets in the area, i.e., Wood, Bay, Browning, etc.; that the east-west streets may be substantially impacted. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to ask the City Manager to have the City traffic engineers study the issue of traffic south of Bahia Vista Street. Vice Mayor amended the motion with the approval of the seconder to include Wood Street. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 16. CITIZENS' INPUT: (AGENDA ITEM VI) #4 (3375) through (3389) There was no one signed up to speak. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : PROPOSED EASTWOOD PARK CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #4 (3389) through (3414) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the conceptual plan for Eastwood Park. Commissioner Cardamone asked the cost of the plan? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the budget is $40,000. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PLAN FOR POLICE SERVICES IN THE LEON AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (3417) through #5 (0536) Vice Mayor Merrill left the Chambers at 11:56 p.m. Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Chambers at 11:59 p.m. Police Chief Jolly stated that he discussed the plan with Ms. Dorothy Clark; that Leon Avenue was reviewed very critically after the last Commission meeting to determine the problems which could be addressed directly; that six problems were identified and strategies developed as follows: 1. Drug dealers live in the neighborhood: The tactical narcotics unit has conducted four operations between the last Commission meeting and this one resulting in ten arrests, and uniformed police presence has been increased to 24 hours per day through the use of the Community Resource Team (CRT), the SABRE unit and Patrol Officers on overtime; and 2. Owners of rental properties do not adequately screen their tenants nor do they take action when their tenants are arrested for drug dealing: A "Nuisance Abatement Board" is being considered for implementation and the letter currently being served on property owners where drug activity can be proven is being strengthened to inform owners of the Asset Forfeiture Law in Florida and the provisions of the strengthened Public Nuisance Law taking effective January 1, 1995; also, property owners will be encouraged to cooperate with Police by carefully screening out tenants who have been convicted of drug dealing; and 3. Code violations leading to a deteriorating appearance of the neighborhood which is attractive to drug dealers: The SABRE unit will note violations and provide a list to code enforcement for action; also the railroad has been contacted concerning their right-of-way which is overgrown with weeds about 8 feet in height resulting in no clear line of sight for Police Officers or residents and providing a hiding place for drug dealers; and 4. Pay telephones are conveniently located for use by drug dealers using telephonic pages, for example, a pay telephone is situated at the corner of 24th Street and Leon Avenue where there are no legal businesses: The telephone company is being requested to disconnect the ringers or switch to rotary dial telephones sO a digital pager cannot be used; absent cooperation, an ordinance to require a permitting process for public telephones located on public right-of-way or parking lots should be explored; and 5. Drug dealers and other criminals are frequently released "on their own recognizance" and dealt with lightly at sentencing: The neighborhood watch group is being assisted in initiating a court-watch program; and 6. Street lights at 24th Street and Leon Avenue are shot out frequently: Florida Power and Light (FPL) is being requested to increase the lumens and install hard-to- destruct lightheads. Book 37 Page 11038-92 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-93 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Police Chief Jolly stated the plan for Leon Avenue has been in progress beginning 4 to 5 days after the last Commission meeting and is going well. Commissioner Cardamone stated she is pleased with the program, particularly the fact that the problem has been identified with a strategy and a person has been assigned responsibility sO someone knows it is their job; that a temporary substation was not identified and asked if that is in abeyance? Police Chief Jolly stated he is opposed to a temporary substation as the resources are not available for staffing; that dollars can be invested into a temporary location but can be better utilized elsewhere; that the cost of the plan is minimal, although there is some overtime cost; that a great deal of expense should not be invested if nothing will be achieved except an empty building. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the SABRE unit is a major portion of the plan. Elsie Ball and Dorothy Clark, Leon Avenue Crime Watch, came before the Commission. Mr. Ball stated that he owns three pieces of property and three houses on Leon Avenue; that he commends the Police Chief and his staff for the accomplishments over the last three weeks but he does not believe this will be a long-range solution; that six to seven unmarked cars and seven to eight blue and white cars have been in the area for the last two weeks sO no one will sell any drugs; that as soon as the cars leave, drug dealers will come back; that this is not the solution but he cannot offer one; that the street looks like a war zone with sO many Police cars lined up which is not helping; that all the cars with the signs and flashing lights are not getting the job done; that the drug dealers are driven out and cannot be seen until the cars leave; that the Police Chief is opposed to substations and he partially agrees because sitting in the substation will not help; that people are selling drugs and playing dice across the street from the substation at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Osprey Avenue; that the criminals must know the Police are coming back and will not be gone for long. Ms. Clark stated that she appreciates what is being done for the neighborhood; that the first sting raid was like a convoy which she met when it entered Orange Avenue; that the street was clear that day and, as she told Police Chief Jolly, there must be a leak somewhere because the street should have been full on a Saturday afternoon; that only one person was arrested that day and he was out the next morning; that 6:00 p.m. on a Saturday is a good business time; that someone sits at the telephone booth on Orange Avenue in front of the project and alerts the people on Leon Avenue; that she does not believe the Police can sit around the area most of the day and night much longer; that money is not available to set up a substation; that the same problem will exist until a solution can be found; that she does not know the solution but the Crime Watch is doing what it can to help. Mayor Patterson asked if Ms. Clark has read Police Chief Jolly's memorandum outlining the crime-prevention plan? Ms. Clark stated no but she would like a copy. Mayor Patterson stated that there are positive suggestions in the memorandum which will have some long-term effects; that the suggestions include the removal of telephones and change of the telephone mechanisms; that the establishment of a Nuisance Abatement Board will be a mechanism which will help the Leon Avenue neighborhood as well as others; that problems exist throughout the City with landlords knowingly renting to people who commit crimes or are problems to the neighbors which has stumped the legal staff and Police; that she would like Ms. Clark's comments when she has read the memorandum; that she is pleased a recommendation has been developed with as many hard suggestions and the commitment to doing something; that Mr. Ball may have a point in using more unmarked cars and fewer blue and white cars. Police Chief Jolly stated that the problem is one of resources; that the narcotics unit consists of a small group of personnel who are required to address all the narcotic and vice problems in the City; that each detective is working at least six cases, all of which are very complicated; that putting Police Officers on Leon Avenue mean other areas are not being handled; that other neighborhoods are in dire need of attention, i.e., 29th Street between Osprey Avenue and Pershing Avenue; that a number of problem areas exist and the resources must be utilized as well as possible; that this number of Police Officers cannot be devoted to Leon Avenue indefinitely. Mayor Patterson stated that she has been downtown on a Friday or Saturday night and seen as many as four Police Officers standing outside the Gator Lounge; that there may be a greater concentration of Police on Main Street or downtown than necessary as an off-duty Police Officer is paid at the Lemon Avenue mall area; that a presentation of how the staffing is utilized would be interesting. Police Chief Jolly stated he would be happy to make a presentation, however, he can say there are not four Police Officers assigned downtown; that an upcoming workshop to update the Commission on the Crime Plan is an appropriate time to present this information. Ms. Clark stated that the Police were taking tag numbers on Collins Street; that the neighbors in the Leon Avenue area thought this would be a good idea in their area as well; that a large number of older residents live in the area, and the members of the Crime Book 37 Page 11038-94 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-95 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Watch cannot ask them to take tag numbers; that the residents are willing to do anything else to help; that the K-9 dogs may help. Mayor Patterson stated that the use of Law Enforcement Trust Fund (L.E.T.F.) dollars was discussed to pay overtime if a temporary need existed. Police Chief Jolly stated that a request will be made to appropriate funds to reimburse the overtime expenses on this operation when there are dollars in the L.E.T.F. Mr. Ball stated that he understands the show of force which worked but does not understand why the large number of cars are there now; that one Police car in the area will stop the drug traffic along Leon Avenue. Police Chief Jolly stated that his direction to the staff was for one car in the area 24 hours a day; that the Police are trying to assure the area is clean. Mayor Patterson stated that other neighborhoods need assistance. Police Chief Jolly stated that the cars are primarily assigned to the SABRE unit which moves from neighborhood to neighborhood; that one car is to be in the area at all times on the evening shift; that the Community Resource Team covers the area on days; that the midnight shift patrol covers the area at midnights; that additional cars will be in the area at times, for example, on arrests, etc.; that he is pleased the Police Officers took his direction sO seriously and are taking the initiative. Mayor Patterson stated that it is now 12:10 p.m. and asked the wishes of the Commission for the balance of the agenda? Commissioner Atkins asked if the Administration requires response on any of agendaed items? City Manager Sollenberger stated that Consent Agenda 2 should be handled before adjournment. Mayor Patterson stated that Jerry Simons is in the audience to speak to the issue of sidewalk cafe tables but the issue is complicated and will take some time to discuss. Mayor Patterson asked if Mr. Simons would like to comment? Jerry Simons, representing Emphasis, came before the Commission and stated that his comments would best be made after the presentation concerning sidewalk cafes. 19. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95R-777) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-778) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3800) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 94- 3806) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3823) - ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3834) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3839) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #5 (0545) through (0645) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 95R- 777 and 95R-778 and Ordinance Nos. 94-3800, 94-3806, 94-3823, and 94-3834 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-777, accepting reports of abatement of nuisances, and costs incurred, pertaining to the demolition of buildings or structures in accordance with the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by the City; directing the assessment of liens against the real property upon which such costs were incurred; providing for the recording of said assessments in the City's "Assessment Book for Local Improvements" and in the Official Records of the Clerk of Circuit Court in and for Sarasota Countyi providing for the accumulation of interest on said liens; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-778, supporting and encouraging the continued network affiliation of WWSB, Channel 40, serving the Sarasota- Bradenton area since 1971, with the American Broadcasting Company (ABC); etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3800, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, of the Code of the City of Sarasota (1986), Article II, Pensions, Division 2, Fire, amending Section 24-29 (b) to provide for the death and performance of duties benefit for surviving spouses to provide that such benefit shall not cease upon remarriage consistent with Chapter 94-171, Florida Statutes; amending the definitions of average compensation and salary in Section 24-21 to comply with the Federal Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806, amending Article VIII.5, Zoning Code, areas of special flood hazard, to provide for the applicability of flood plain regulations to properties annexed into the City of Sarasota in certain circumstances; repealing ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) Book 37 Page 11038-96 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-97 11/07/94 6:00 P.M. 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3823, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 3, Police, of the Code of ordinances of the City of Sarasota; amending Section 24-69 (b) of the Code, death in pertormance of duties, and Section 24-73, to delete termination of spousal benefit upon remarriage; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3834, regulating dogs; setting forth findings; defining terms; requiring dogs be on a leash, except when swimming at Bayfront and Island Park; requiring that fecal matter be removed from Bayfront and Island Park; specifying that a dog under reasonable control at a place other than the Bayfront and Island Park, shall be no further than 100 feet from the owner; providing for the severability of parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only ) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3839, amending Article VIII of the Zoning Code pertaining to the maximum height of structures in the RMF Zone Districts; increasing the maximum permitted height in the RMF-7 Zone from 140 feet plus an additional 20 feet for interior parking within the structure to 160 feet plus an additional 20 feet for interior parking within the structure; making findings as to the need for said amendment; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-CA-04, Michael Furen representing Tangerine Development Company) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 7 inclusive. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 20. REMARKS OF : COMMISSIONERS / ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: (AGENDA ITEM X) #5 (0645) through (0658) There were no remarks from the Commissioners. 21. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS: (AGENDA ITEM XI) #5 (0658) through (0674) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a workshop and special meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 14, at 1:00 p.m. to interview consultants to review the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); that the top three consultants will be interviewed and the Commission will be asked to select one. 22. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #5 (0675) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m. Hora Alur NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST:4 Bill.E. Rabenson "BILLY EROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 37 Page 11038-98 11/07/94 6:00 P.M.