MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2002, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Mary J. Quillin, Commissioners Richard F. Martin and Lou Ann R. Palmer, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen D. McGowan, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER 2001, LISA A. ARCABELLA, PLANNING PROJECTS COORDINATOR, PLANNING DEPARTMENT #1 (0000) through (0220) CD 6:01 through 6:08 Mayor Mason requested that Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, and Lisa Arcabella, Planning Projects Coordinator, Planning Department, and December 2001 Employee of the Month, join her and the Commission at the Commission table; and requested that City Manager McNees join her at the Commission table to make the presentation. Ms. Robinson stated that she worked with Ms. Arcabella prior to joining the Planing Department; that Ms. Arcabella always demonstrates an outstanding work ethic and handles responsibility well, exhibits enthusiasm in her role of serving the Public Art Committee (PAC) and the Historic Preservation Board, and strives to complete difficult tasks and provides creative solutions to difficult issues and problems; that Ms Arcabella's efforts and assistance to the Planing Department are deeply appreciated; that Ms. Arcabella serves with excellence and pride due to her enthusiasm, customer service skills, positive attitude, and organizational ability. Book 51 Page 22484 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22485 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Mr . Burg stated that Ms. Arcabella provides excellent service to citizens despite a challenging job assisting historic preservation applicants during the development review and approval process and handling the public art approval process; that great care is taken in assisting the applicants throughout the development review process; that Ms. Arcabella's work ethic is excellent and unquestionable; that Ms. Arcabella has excellent organizational skills and always ensures the details of any project are accurate and complete; that working with Ms. Arcabella is considered a pleasure. City Manager McNees stated that Ms. Arcabella is a self- motivated employee; that self-motivated employees instill confidence in administrators and managers and improve the management of the City; that Ms. Arcabella is an excellent motivator of fellow employees and her supervisors and is encouraged to continue employment with the City until retirement. Mayor Mason stated that she worked with Ms. Arcabella prior to retirement from an employment position with the City; that working with Ms. Arcabella was considered a pleasure; and presented Ms. Arcabella with a plaque, a certificate, and a City-logo watch, as the December 2001 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding performance. Ms. Arcabella stated that the many career opportunities provided during 15 years of employment with the City are appreciated; that working for the City is a wonderful learning experience; that serving in the position of Planning Project Coordinator is considered personally rewarding; that the network of equally dedicated fellow City employees ensures projects are thoroughly completed; that a recent example is the placement of the artwork, The Runners" by artist Jorge Blanco, in the US 41 median in front of the Municipal Auditorium; that in particular, the efforts of the Public Art Committee, Luther Rosebaro, Infrastructure Maintenance Supervisor, Public Works Department, David Hegel, Traffic Control Systems Analyst, Engineering Department, Debra Rossnagle, Police Officer 1st Class, Sarasota Police Department, Larry Hobbs, Risk Manager, Finance Department, and many Public Works Staff members are appreciated in completing and installing the many public art projects throughout the City; that the efforts and assistance of Miles Larsen, Government Access Program Coordinator, Office of the City Auditor Clerk, to produce videotape documentaries of the City's historical sites and homes and public art for display on AccessSarasota, Channel 19, are appreciated; that the continued support of Mr. Burg and Ms. Robinson is also appreciated; that serving the City with excellence and pride for another 15 years until retirement is anticipated; that the recognition as the December 2001 Employee of the Month is considered an honor. 2. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 2001, POLICE OFFICER 157 CLASS DEBRA A. ROSSNAGLE, POLICE DEPARTMENT / CRIME PREVENTION UNIT #1 (0220) through (0440) CD 6:08 through 6:15 Mayor Mason requested that Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police, and Debra Rossnagle, Police Officer 1st Class, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), and Employee of the Year for 2001, join her and the Commission at the Commission table; and requested that City Manager McNees join her at the Commission Table to make the presentation. Chief Jolly stated that presenting the Employee of the Year for 2001 Award to Officer Rossnagle is a pleasure and an honor; that Officer Rossnagle has served with SPD since April 1990 and is a self-motivated employee who voluntarily assumes a variety of duties, tasks, and assignments; that Officer Rossnagle's work with the SPD Crime Prevention Unit is outstanding; that Officer Rossnagle initially served her first nine years with SPD as a patrol officer who took problem-oriented policing and community policing very seriously by understanding the patrol beat, the residents, the issues, and local troublemakers; that Officer Rossnagle is well respected in the community, was recently elected as an officer to the Suncoast Crime Prevention Association, is considered an authority on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles, and serves on the Development Review Committee (DRC); that Officer Rossnagle is also actively involved in managing the SPD Citizen Volunteer Program, conducting residential and business security surveys, and providing crime prevention presentations and guidance to local business and civic groups; that Officer Rossnagle serves with excellence and pride. City Manager McNees stated that informing Officer Rossnagle of the distinction of being selected as the Employee of the Year for 2001 was an honor; that Officer Rossnagle is a model employee who serves with excellence and pride but is not Book 51 Page 22486 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22487 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. concerned with recognition for her hard work and efforts; that the efforts and dedication of Officer Rossnagle to serve the City and the public are appreciated. Mayor Mason concurred and stated that Officer Rossnagle is a professional employee and an excellent person, is always cooperative, and provides assistance wherever and however required; and presented Officer Rossnagle with a plaque, a certificate, and a City-engraved watch as the Employee of the Year for 2001 in appreciation of her unique performance with the City; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. Officer Rossnagle recognized her brother, Lieutenant Ronald Rossnagle, SPD, present in the audience, and stated that the nomination for the Employee of the Year for 2001 by Lieutenant William Wall, SPD, is appreciated; that selection as the Employee of the Year for 2001 is a great honor and is deeply appreciated. Carolyn Fishel, Member, SPD Citizen Volunteer Program, came before the Commission, presented Officer Rossnagle with a bouquet of flowers in recognition of her service to the community on behalf of the SPD Citizen Volunteer Program, and stated that the SPD Citizen Volunteer Program could not have continued without the efforts of Officer Rossnagle. 3. PRESENTATION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 02R-1467, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF KENNETH HENDERSON; ETC - ADOPTED #1 (0440) through (0595) CD 6:15 through 6:20 Mayor Mason requested that Vice Mayor Quillin and James Henderson, son and Sergeant, Sarasota Police Department, join her at the Commission Table for the presentation, and read Memorial Resolution No. 02R-1467 in its entirety recognizing the January 9, 2002, passing of Kenneth Henderson, an active member of the community in City affairs, and indicating that Mr. Henderson was born in Chicago, Illinois, came to Sarasota 34 years ago from Augusta, Georgia, and graduated with Bachelor of Science and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in economics from the University of Florida and was a veteran of the Vietnam War, earning the rank of Captain; that Mr. Henderson served on the City's Police Officers' Pension Board of Trustees from January 26, 1998, until his death; that the knowledge of economics and financial matters helped guide the Board in the management of the pension assets; that Mr. Henderson also served as a member of the City's 911 Blue Ribbon Committee from August 31 to November 13, 2000; that Mr. Henderson's knowledge of technical issues, computer systems, and the business work environment was instrumental to the committee in evaluating and understanding the Consolidated Communications Centers' operation; that Mr. Henderson was a knowledgeable and eloquent speaker in addressing issues of importance to the City. On the motion of Commissioner Palmer, and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 02R-1467. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. Mayor Mason presented Officer Henderson the Memorial Resolution appropriately framed on a plaque. Sergeant Henderson stated that the City"s recognition of his father is appreciated; that his father enjoyed serving on the Police Officers' Pension Board of Trustees and the 911 Blue Ribbon Committee and would be honored by the City's recognition of his efforts to the serve the community and provide assistance to local law entorcement officers. 4. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO MEMBERS AND ADULT LEADERS OF BOY SCOUT TROOP 103, TWO RIVERS DISTRICT, 5 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COUNCIL, WHO ADOPTED A PROJECT TO CLEAN UP WOODLAWN CEMETERY #1 (0595) through (0810) CD 6:20 through 6:26 Mayor Mason requested that the members and adult leaders of Boy Scout Troop 103, Two Rivers District, South West Florida Council of the Boy Scouts of America, present in the Chambers join her before the Commission table for the presentation, and stated that the following members and adult leaders of Boy Scout Troop 103 are recognized for their efforts to clean up Woodlawn Cemetery: Book 51 Page 22488 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22489 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Nick Jason, Project Leader, Dr. Bill Aippersbach, Dennis Berkery, Taylor Cleary, James Fetterman, Charles Gendrea, Julie Gustafson, Sarah Hime, Chris Jason, Marc Jason, Sue and Jennifer Lehmann, Steven Longo, Sam Parks, Ryan Phillips, James Roberts, Allan and Gary Sobie, Chris Tappan, Shaun Vaupel, John Vetri, and Sara Wilson. Mayor Mason stated that the City and citizens should encourage young persons to assume an active role in the community; and read the Mayor's Citation in its entirety indicating that the scouts and adult leaders donated a total of 176 man hours to the project, removing 100 bags of trash, dead vegetation, and several piles of illegally dumped construction debris for pick up by the Public Works Department; that the scouts also erected many fallen grave markers and performed detail work around the tombstones, including the placement of American flags on the graves of known veterans as well as painted the gate and pillars to the entrance to the site; that the attention paid to the area will help preserve the site for the enjoyment of future generations; that Mr. Jason planned the effort as his Eagle Scout Project, organized all necessary resources, and supervised other scouts and adult leaders in the important community renovation endeavor; thanked them for their dedicated volunteer service; presented the Mayor's Citation to Nick Jason and Chris Tappan; and requested that the Mayor's Citation also be accepted on behalf of the other Boy Scouts and adult leaders not present in the Chambers. Nick Jason stated that the assistance and efforts of William Vest III, Supervisor of Maintenance Operations, Michael Woodman, Neighborhood Planner, Department of Neighborhoods, and Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police, Sarasota Police Department, to facilitate the cleanup of the Woodlawn Cemetery are appreciated; that the support and encouragement of his mother, Chris Jason, and Chris Tappan, fellow Boy Scout, to pursue the cleanup of the Woodlawn Cemetery are also appreciated. 5. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0810) through (0930) CD 6:26 through 6:29 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-11, Approval Re: Request by GWIZ to construct improvements to the Leasehold and to waive Section 9 of the Lease Agreement, per the request of General Services Director Carolan. B. Move consideration of New Business, Item No. VII-1, Presentation Re: Request by the Pelican Man's Bird Sanctuary that an area of the leasehold currently being used as open space be converted to bird cages and flight aviaries, prior to Non-Quasi Judicial Public Hearing, Item No. IV-A-1, Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342, per the request of Bruce Franklin, President, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., representing the Pelican Man's Bird Sanctuary. Mayor Mason asked if the Commission had any objections to the Changes to the Orders of the Day? Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. 6. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 2002 - APPROVED AS CORRECTED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0930) through (0945) CD 6:29 through 6:30 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the following change is recommended: Delete from and renumber accordingly the following indicated in the motion as subparagraph 5 and the restatement of the motion as subparagraph 4 of Agenda Item No. IV-A-2 of the minutes of the January 7, 2002, Regular Commission meeting: Require a drainage plan only for new single-family dwellings or additions creating new impermeable areas exceeding 500 sq. ft. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2002, Regular Commission meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer yesi Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Book 51 Page 22490 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22491 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, AND 11 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 5 APPROVED AND RESCHEDULED COMMISSION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT, /CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WORKSHOP TO APRIL 29, 2002 (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0945) through (1040) CD 6:30 through 6:33 Commissioner Palmer requested that Item No. 5 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Contract between the City of Sarasota and Triadd Software, Inc., in the amount of $27,252.50 for the purchase of the GAIN 2000 Records Management Software Upgrade 2. Approval Re: Insurance Claim Checks Policy Guidelines 3. Approval Re: Subordination of Liens Policy Guidelines 4. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Chaz Equipment Company, Inc., (Bid #02-11M) in the amount of $129,450 for the Wastewater Pump Station #7 Rehabilitation Project 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County, for the West Coast Inland Navigational District (WCIND) Grant for construction of boat ramps at Ken Thompson Park 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, Schedule C, Agreement for Feasibility Study between the City of Sarasota and Florida Power and Light, for Florida Power and Light Energy Efficiency Services on the condition that Special Appropriation No. 965 is adopted 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute FY 2002 Annual Funding Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Manatee County, in the amount of $50,000 for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 9. Approval Re: Monthly activities report from the Downtown Association 10. Approval Re: Monthly activities report from the Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team (GDSAT) 11. Approval Re: Request by GWIZ to construct improvements to the Leasehold and to waive Section 9 of the Lease Agreement, per the request of General Services Director Carolan On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 5. Approval Re: Proposed 2002-2003 Budget Calendar Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission Capital Improvement Element/Capital Improvement Program (CIE/CIP) Workshop is tentatively scheduled for April 24, 2002, at 2 p.m.; that she has a prior commit tment and will be unable to attend; that the request is to reschedule the CIE/CIP Workshop. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the CIE/CIP Workshop could be rescheduled to April 29, 2002, at 2 p.m., if desired. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting is scheduled during the morning of April 29, 2002, until approximately noon; that April 29, 2002, is an acceptable date for the Commission CIE/CIP Workshop; however, Commissioners may have difficulty arriving by 2 p.m. i that the CIE/CIP Workshop could be rescheduled again if necessary. City Manager McNees stated that the CIE/CIP Workshop could be tentatively scheduled for April 29, 2002, and rescheduled if any further complications occur with Commissioners' schedules. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5, and to reschedule the Commission Capital Improvement Blement/Capital Improvement Program Workshop for April 29, 2002, Book 51 Page 22492 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22493 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. at 2 p.m. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 02R-1463) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1040) through (1090) CD 6:33through 6:34 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 02R-1463, appropriating $61,500 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to provide funding for an energy efficiency study for City facilities, etc. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 02R-1463 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Quillin, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 9. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: : REQUEST BY THE PELICAN MAN'S BIRD SANCTUARY THAT AN AREA OF THE LEASEHOLD CURRENTLY BEING USED AS OPEN SPACE BE CONVERTED TO BIRD CAGES AND FLIGHT AVIARIES - REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION THE REQUEST OF THE PELICAN MAN'S BIRD SANCTUARY, INC., TO AMEND THE CITY'S LEASE AGREEMENT TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF THE LEASEHOLD USES WITH THE INTENT OF MAINTAINING THE EXISTING DESIGNATION AS OPEN SPACE- - RECREATIONAL CONSERVATION LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO ALLOW FOR AN AVIARY AND PICNIC TABLES (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (1090) through (3050) CD 6:34 through 7:19 Bruce Franklin, President, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., (LRS), John Dart, Attorney, Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell, Professional Association (PA), and John Mercurio, Treasurer, Pelican Man's Bird Sanctuary, Inc. (Pelican Man), came before the Commission. Attorney Dart stated that Dale Shields, President and Founder, Pelican Man, could not attend the current meeting due to illness; that the opportunity to address the Commission is appreciated; that the request is to amend the City's agreement with the Pelican Man for the leasehold located in Ken Thompson Park to allow the construction of a new veterinary hospital and the expansion of the existing aviaries; that the Pelican Man rescues more wildlife on a daily basis than any other wildlife rescue organization in the United States and has the largest facility to rehabilitate and retrain injured birds to fly; that approximately 4,000 to 7,000 birds are rehabilitated by the Pelican Man annually; that the Pelican Man is staffed primarily by over 800 volunteers yet offers rescue services every day of the week; that over 80 species of migratory birds are regularly rehabilitated at the Pelican Man; that many birds are displayed to the public during rehabilitation; that over 100,000 people and over 10,000 school children visit the Pelican Man annually; that 25 staff members are employed; that local veterinarians frequently volunteer at the Pelican Man, which is supported solely with charitable donations; that over 25,000 members annually provide regular financial support to the Pelican Man; that a new and expanded veterinary hospital is required to maintain and improve the level of rehabilitation services for injured wildlife. Attorney Dart continued that the City's original lease agreement with the Pelican Man was approved at the September 6, 1998, Regular Commission meeting; that an amendment to the lease agreement was approved at the November 2, 1992, Regular Commission meeting, to expand the leasehold; however, the amendment included a scrivener's error in the legal description of the property which was identified by the Engineering Department and should be corrected; that the Engineering Department recommended expanding the leasehold slightly; that a stipulation of the lease agreement is to provide a public recreational area on the leasehold but should be revised. Mr. Franklin displayed and referred to architectural drawings of the current and proposed uses of the leasehold and stated that the original use and site plan approved for the Pelican Man has not been altered significantly since the approval of the original lease agreement; that the native vegetation has grown significantly around the Pelican Man since 1988; that the current veterinary hospital is located in a small, overused trailer on the leasehold and is insufficient for. the increasing demand to rehabilitate injured wildlife; that the Pelican Man Board of Directors has raised sufficient funds to construct the proposed veterinary hospital; that the original proposal was to Book 51 Page 22494 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22495 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. locate the veterinary hospital on a portion of the leasehold designated in the Open Space-Recreational Conservation (OSRC) Land Use Classification and which was utilized for public recreation space as stipulated in the lease agreement; however, the public never utilizes the provided public recreational space; that the Pelican Man previously installed picnic tables in the public recreational space which were vandalized and dumped into but subsequently removed from Sarasota Bay; that the public recreational space remains an open area rarely utilized by the public; that the original proposal was to locate the proposed veterinary hospital in the public recreational space; that Staff indicated a veterinary hospital is not allowed in a property designated with a OSRC Land Use Classification. Mr. Franklin continued that the proposal was revised to construct the veterinary hospital in a portion of the original leasehold designated in the Community/Office Institutional (COI) Land Use Classification, which allows the construction of such facilities; that the proposal was further revised to relocate a number of the existing aviaries to allow the construction of the veterinary hospital and also to construct new aviaries in the portion of the leasehold designated for public recreational space in the OSRC Land Use Classification; that shell walkways, public sitting areas, and picnic tables will also be constructed in the public recreational space; that locating aviaries in the public recreational space will encourage the public to utilize the area; that the request is to authorize the Administration and the City Attorney's Office to initiate amending the lease agreement with the Pelican Man; that a site plan will be submitted to the Development Review Committee (DRC) for approval; that the site plan and amendment to the lease agreement will be presented to the Commission for approval. Mr. Franklin stated that Staff indicated the veterinary hospital would not be an allowed use in the OSRC Land Use Classification; however, the aviaries as utilized by the Pelican Man are for a passive, conservation use; that the aviaries are utilized to rehabilitate injured birds and thus to conserve local wildlife; that the proposal was subsequently revised to relocate existing aviaries to and construct new aviaries in the public recreational space; that aviaries are a consistent use with the OSRC Land Use Classification; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), would be required to construct the veterinary hospital in the public recreational space and would cost the City significant funds; that the City also serves as landlord over the leasehold and can approve or disprove of any use; that the Pelican Man is a non-profit organization with the sole purpose of rehabilitating and releasing wildlife and would never seek to construct an undesirable or commercial use in Ken Thompson Park; that the proposed uses are for conservation purposes; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is not required; that only an amendment to the City's lease agreement with the Pelican Man is required to allow the construction of the veterinary hospital on the portion of the leasehold designated in the COI Land Use Classification and the relocation and construction of aviaries on the portion of the leasehold designated in the OSRC Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if new construction is only proposed for the existing leasehold and not the areas the Engineering Department recommended adding to the leasehold due to a scrivener's error? Mr. Franklin stated that is correct. Michael Furen, 2033 Main Street (34232), Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, representing Sarasota Bay Explorers, Inc. (SBE), came before the Commission and stated that Sarasota Bay Explorers operates a marine environmental tour named " Sealife Encounter Tours" in conjunction with Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium; that the Pelican Man is a unique community and conservation asset; that the proposed expansion of the aviaries and construction of a new veterinary hospital are supported; however, the proposal to amend the lease agreement also includes the construction of a large dock extending from the public recreational space; that Sarasota Bay Explorers, the Sarasota Outboard Club, Inc., and the Sarasota Ski-A-Rees, Inc., expressed opposition to the proposed dock at the July 12, 2001, neighborhood meeting to discuss the Pelican Man proposal; that the Pelican Man indicated the dock was proposed to allow operation of a commercial sightseeing boat operation; that the commercial sightseeing boat operation is currently operated from another location on Sarasota Bay; that the proposed dock is not an allowed use in the OSRC Land Use Classification; that the proposed veterinary hospital and aviaries should be approved and will improve the leasehold; however, the proposed dock is a commercial operation which is not appropriate for any property designated in the OSRC Land Use Classification; that allowing the proposed dock represents an initial step towards the further commercialization of Ken Thompson Park. Book 51 Page 22496 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22497 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Franklin stated that the proposed dock was included in the original proposal; that pilings of a previous dock still exist near the location of the proposed dock; however, the proposed dock was eliminated from the proposal to focus on Pelican Man's primary goal to gain approval to construct the veterinary hospital and additional aviaries; that the proposed dock may be discussed with Staff and the Commission in the future. Commissioner Servian asked if the Pelican Man's intent is to commercialize the leasehold further? Mr. Franklin stated no; that the leasehold is primarily a public greenspace in Ken Thompson Park; that the Pelican Man intends to continue the leasehold as a greenspace use open and accessible to the public; that the commercialization of Ken Thompson Park is a shared concern of the City and the Pelican Man; that the desire is to maintain as much greenspace as possible in Ken Thompson Park; that the proposed improvements will only increase public use of Ken Thompson Park; that the Pelican Man does not charge any admission fees and is visited by the public frequently. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the proposed veterinary hospital will be located close to the existing public access to drop off any injured wildlife? Mr. Franklin stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the existing chain-ling fencing spans the entire perimeter of the Pelican Man including up to the waterfront areas? Mr. Franklin stated no. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if additional chain-link fencing will be installed as part of the proposed improvements? Mr. Franklin stated yes; that the purpose of the additional chain-link fencing is to provide additional security for the public and the injured birds; that the existing public access to drop off injured wildlife will be maintained; that the proposed shell walkways in the public recreational space will be closed at night for security purposes; that picnic tables will also be installed in the public recreational space; that all improvements will be reviewed and initially approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). Vice Mayor Quillin asked if a seawall currently exists along the leasehold's waterfront? Mr. Franklin stated that the majority of the leasehold's waterfront consists of rip-rap; that a portion of a previous seawall exists along the public recreational space; that the leasehold's waterfront also includes natural coastline and mangroves. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the proposal includes the installation of a seawall? Mr. Franklin stated no. Attorney Dart stated that remnants of a previous seawall are located near the previous dock; that the majority of the waterfront is rip-rap, mangroves, and. natural coastline. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a concern is the safety of the public wading, snorkeling, or boating near the waterfront of the leasehold; that an injury could occur; that the Pelican Man should prohibit the public from entering any dangerous areas; that the safety of the public recreational space should be enhanced if possible. Mr. Franklin stated that safety improvements will be included in the site plan presented to the DRC; that the pilings from the previous dock are still located along the waterfront. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Pelican Man's intent is to expand the leasehold? Mr. Franklin stated no; that the Engineering Department recommended expanding the leasehold due to a scrivener's error in the legal description. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Pelican Man's intent is only to expand the existing uses? Mr. Franklin stated yes; that the Engineering Department proposed expanding the leasehold to improve the consistency of the leasehold boundaries with abutting City leaseholds; that the recommendation to expand the leasehold was desired and developed by the Engineering Department and not the Pelican Man. City Manager McNees stated that the Staff's opinion is an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be required to allow the expansion and construction of the aviaries on the portions of the leasehold designated in the OSRC Land Use Classification; that the term Conservation" included in the Book 51 Page 22498 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22499 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. OSRC Land Use Classification refers only to the conservation of land and not wildlife; that Staff's recommendation is to designate the entire leasehold in the COI Land Use Classification; that the City is also planning to renovate the Ken Thompson Park boat ramps during fiscal year (FY) 2002/03; that the boat ramps abut the public recreational space of the leasehold; that the improvements will increase public use of the boat ramps and the public recreational space. Commissioner Martin stated that the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 93-3719; and asked if the improvements to the boat ramps are part of the improvements recommended in the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan? City Manager McNees stated yes. Commissioner Martin stated that Staff's previous indication was the Pelican Man's current leasehold uses are consistent with the OSRC Land Use Classification; and requested clarification of the allowed uses in the OSRC Land Use Classification? Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, came before the Commission, referred to the October 12, 2001, memorandum from Staff to the Pelican Man concerning the proposed expansion of the leasehold uses, and stated that Staff's recommendation is for a City- initiated amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to amend the Future Land Use Map from the OSRC to the COI Land Use Classification for the entire leasehold; that Staff supports the current and proposed uses for the leasehold; however, an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is required and should be initiated by the City; that the Pelican Man could be allowed to proceed with seeking approval of a site plan and constructing the proposed uses during preparation of the required amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan if desired. Commissioner Martin asked if Staff's opinion is the proposed uses are only consistent with the COI Land Use Classification? Ms. Robinson stated yes. Commissioner Martin stated that the required amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is minor and would require neither significant Staff effort or time nor a significant City expense; that the City should initiate the required amendment. Ms. Robinson concurred. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan prohibits the further expansion of any leasehold in Ken Thompson Park; that the City has already allowed the expansion of other leaseholds in Ken Thompson Park; that little public recreational space will remain if the City continues to allow the expansion of the leaseholds in Ken Thompson Park. Ms. Robinson concurred and stated that the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan prohibits the further expansion of leaseholds in Ken Thompson Park. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that he served as the Chairman of the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board (PREPAB) at the time the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan was developed and adopted by the Commission; that PREPAB's intent was to prohibit the further expansion of the leaseholds in Ken Thompson Park. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the primary intent of the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan was to maintain the existing designations of property in the OSRC Land Use Classifications to encourage public use of Ken Thompson Park. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concern is allowing the expansion of any leasehold in Ken Thompson Park; that the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan specifically prohibits the expansion of leaseholds in Ken Thompson Park; that the Pelican Man leasehold should not be expanded; that remaining portions of the Pelican Man leasehold should be designated in the COI Land Use Classification to ensure a conflict does not occur; that the City should initiate the required amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City should prohibit the expansion of leaseholds in Ken Thompson Park. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the proposed veterinary hospital is not a conservation use and therefore not appropriate for a public recreational space designated in the OSRC Land Use Classification; however, an aviary is an appropriate conservation use for a public recreational space; that the proposed aviaries are not permanent structures, can be modified or changed, and will encourage public use of an underutilized public recreational spacei that the Pelican Man frequently alters the composition and structure of the aviaries to correspond to the rehabilitation needs of a particular injured bird; that the intent of the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan is to allow permanent structures only on properties designated in the COI Land Use Classification; that the proposed veterinary Book 51 Page 22500 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22501 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. hospital will be located with the existing Gift Shop and Office in the portion of the leasehold designated in the COI Land Use Classification; that the proposed aviaries will encourage public use of the public recreational space; that the existing designations in the OSRC Land Use Classification should be maintained; that the COI Land Use Classification will allow future commercialization of an environmentally sensitive waterfront area of Ken Thompson Park; that the OSRC Land Use Classification should allow wildlife conservation uses which do not require permanent facilities or structures and should be redefined to provide further clarification of the allowed uses if required; that any further commercialization of Ken Thompson Park should be prohibited. Commissioner Servian concurred and stated that the existing designations in the OSRC Land Use Classification should not be changed to the COI Land Use Classification, which could allow commercial uses in the future; that the further commercialiration of Ken Thompson Park must be prohibited; that an aviary is a conservation use; that the proposed aviaries are an appropriate use for the public recreational space, are not permanent structures, will not encroach upon the environmentally sensitive areas of the leasehold, and will encourage public use; that amending the Future Land Use Classification for the leasehold is not supported. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that Staff recommended changing the existing designations from the OSRC to the COI Land Use Classification to ensure the consistency of the leasehold uses; that the majority of the. leasehold is designated in the COI Land Use Classification. Ms. Robinson stated that the Commission serves as the landlord for the leasehold and approves any proposed or desired use. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the City has previously changed the designation of public parks from the OSRC to COI Land Use Classification; that as a result, the parks were eventually commercialized and fully developed; that the City must maintain as much open public recreational space as possible; that maintaining the designation in the OSRC Land Use Classification will prohibit future commercialization and development of the City's parks and greenspaces. City Attorney Taylor stated that the leasehold is owned by the City; that the Commission serves as the landlord for the leasehold and can decide an appropriate use for the property; that the Commission can amend the lease agreement with the Pelican Man to allow any desired use. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Commission could choose to maintain the OSRC Land Use Classification and allow the construction of the proposed aviaries on the leasehold? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the OSRC Land Use Classification should be maintained for the leasehold; that maintaining the designation of portions of the leasehold in the OSRC Land Use Classification will ensure further commercialization does not occur in Ken Thompson Park. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to refer to the Administration the request of the Pelican Man's Bird Sanctuary, Inc., to amend the City's lease agreement to allow an expansion of the leasehold uses with the intent of maintaining the existing designation as Open Space-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification to allow for an aviary and picnic tables. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mr. Franklin stated that the Pelican Man will submit a site plan for approval by the DRC and will begin developing an appropriate amendment to the City's lease agreement; that the amendment and site plan will be submitted to the Commission for final approval; and asked if the approval of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) will be required? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that Ordinance No. 93-3719 indicates the following: it is the intent of the City Commission to adopt a Master Plan for Ken Thompson Park which designates the existing nongovernmental leaseholds and restricts the expansion of existing leaseholds or the creation of additional leaseholds to those areas already designated in the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan Book 51 Page 22502 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22503 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer continued that Ordinance No. 93-3719 clearly restricts the expansion of existing leaseholds. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Ordinance No. 93-3719 also indicates the following: Any modification to the boundaries of existing nongovernmental leaseholds or the creation of new nongovernmental leaseholds shall require an amendment to the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan by adoption of an ordinance of the City Commission, after a duly noticed and advertised public hearing. Vice Mayor Quillin continued that the leasehold in Ken Thompson Park is not being expanded; that any expansion of a leasehold requires an amendment to the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 10. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4342, AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.511, FLORIDA STATUTES, WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4342 TO THE FEBRUARY 4, 2002, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) #1 (3050) through #2 (2910) CD 7:19 through 8:46 V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, and Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Mr. Schneider stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is an enabling ordinance to authorize the creation of Special Residential and Business Neighborhood Improvement Districts (NIDs) i that the creation of Residential and Business NIDS in the City was discussed at the January 7, 2002, Commission Workshop. Attorney Connolly stated that the current public hearing concerns first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 to allow the creation of Residential and Business NIDS in the City; that the purpose of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is: Section 1. The City of Sarasota hereby authorizes the creation of either Special Residential Neighborhood Improvement Districts or Special Business Neighborhood Improvement Districts within the municipal limits of the City of Sarasota soO long as all requirements of Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, are met. Attorney Connolly continued that the Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands, Inc. (CLAS), recently approached the City to request the creation of a Business NID for St. Armands Circle; that Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, governs the creation and management of Residential and Business NIDS and requires the adoption of a general enabling ordinance by the local jurisdiction; that adopting proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is a significant legislative policy decision and allows citizens and property owners to seek the creation of Residential and Business NIDS for any area of the City; that CLAS is seeking the creation of a Business NID for St. Armands Circle; that 20 percent of affected property owners must sign a petition seeking a referendum concerning the creation of a Business NID; that the City will be required to conduct the referendum by mail if receiving the proper notification from 20 percent of affected property owners; that an affirmative vote is required from property owners of more than 50 percent of the assessed value of the property within the defined area to create a Business NID; that the City is required to create the Business NID if the referendum is approved by the requisite majority of property owners. Book 51 Page 22504 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22505 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Attorney Connolly further stated that the procedures for creating a Residential NID are slightly different; that 40 percent of the affected electors must sign a petition seeking a referendum to create a Residential NID; that an affirmative vote of more than 50 percent of the electors residing in the defined area is required to create the Residential NID; that the City is also required to create the Residential NID if the referendum is approved; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 only concerns authorizing the creation of Residential and Business NIDS and is not to approve a specific Residential or Business NID. Attorney Connolly displayed and referred to a list of potential powérs and limitations on the powers of Residential and Business NIDs; and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 does not specify the specific powers allotted to Residential or Business NIDs; that creating a specific Residential or Business NID requires the adoption of an ordinance specifying the powers and limitations on powers; that Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, generally allows the powers to: 1. Levy up to 2 mills ad valorem tax on real and personal property in the District; 2. Impose up to $500 per year per parcel non ad valorem assessment, subject to referendum approval of a majority of registered voters in District; 3. Enter into contracts; 4. Sue and be sued; 5. Own and dispose of real and personal property; 6. Have exclusive control of its funds; 7. Promote and advertise the District; 8. Improve public infrastructure; 9. Hold powers of eminent domain; and 10. Employ a manager, staff, and legal representatives. Attorney Connolly continued that Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, also allows the enabling local jurisdiction to impose the following limitations on the powers of and requirements for a Residential or Business NID: 1. Limit the ad valorem millage to something less than 2 mills; 2. Limit non ad valorem assessment to something less than $500 per year per parcel. 3. Reserve the right to receive, hold, and secure any District funds by the appropriate fiscal officers of the enabling local jurisdiction, and to charge the District the cost of such services provided to the District; 4. Withhold the powers of eminent domain, or any other power; 5. Require the District to establish an annual budget pursuant to Chapter 200, Florida Statutes; and 6. Approve or disprove of the annual tentative budget and proposed millage rate for the District. Commissioner Servian asked the reason CLAS is named in proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 if the intent is to adopt generic enabling regulations allowing the creation of any Residential or Business NID in the City? Attorney Connolly stated that CLAS is only named in the introductory clauses of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 to indicate the facts necessitating the drafting of the ordinance. Commissioner Servian asked the procedure for determining the powers of a Residential or Business NID if approved in a referendum? Attorney Connolly stated that the Commission will be required to schedule a referendum to approve the requested Residential or Business NID if the required petition is submitted to the City with the requisite number of signatures of the affected property owners or electors; that the City is required to hold the referendum within 120 days of the submission and verification of the petition; that the Commission is required to adopt an enabling ordinance specifying the powers and members of the Board of Directors of the Residential or Business NID within 30 days after approval of the referendum; that an affirmative vote of the property owners of 50 percent of the assessed value of the property within the defined area of the proposed Business NID is required for approval; that a public hearing is required to adopt the enabling ordinance for the requested Residential or Business NID; that the specific powers allotted to the Residential or Business NID will be determined during the public hearing and incorporated in the specific enabling ordinance. Book 51 Page 22506 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22507 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Servian asked if the Commission can choose to limit any powers the State grants to Residential or Business NIDs? Attorney Connolly stated yes; that the City possesses home rule power over the Residential or Business NID and can choose the powers allotted. Commissioner Palmer asked if the City can withhold the powers of eminent domain from a Residential or Business NID? Attorney Connolly stated yes. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Commission can require all Residential or Business NID funds are received, held, and distributed only by the City's financial officer? Attorney Connolly stated yes. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Commission can approve the specific millage rate allotted to a Residential or Business NID? Attorney Connolly stated yes. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Board of Directors of a Residential or Business NID is required to hold a public hearing concerning the proposed annual budget and millage rate prior to submission to the Commission for final approval? Attorney Connelly stated yes. Commissioner Palmer asked if Residential and Business NIDS are governed by the requirements of Florida's Sovermment-in-the- Sunshine Law? Attorney Connelly stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the indication was only an affirmative vote of the registered voters in a Residential or Business NID is required to approve a non ad valorem tax assessment up to $500 per year per parcel; however, a registered voter is very different from a property owner in a Business NID; that registered voters could encumber property owners; and asked the voting procedures to approve the non ad valorem tax assessments? Attorney Connolly stated that the language of Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, is somewhat unclear as to any difference in the voting procedures to approve non ad valorem tax assessments in Residential and Business NIDs; that the requirement to approve a non ad valorem tax assessment is the affirmative vote of a majority of the registered voters in either a Residential or Business NID. Commissioner Palmer stated that a Residential or Business NID is limited to a ten-year period; and asked if an additional referendum would be required to extend a Residential or Business NID for an additional ten-year period? Attorney Connolly stated yes; however, adoption of an additional enabling ordinance would not be required of the Commission. Commissioner Martin stated that the City is limited to a maximum millage rate of 10 mills; that a Residential or Business NID could be allowed a millage rate up to 2 mills; and asked if the millage rate of a Business or Residential NID could potentially limit the City's millage rate? Attorney Connolly stated that only one other Business NID has been created in the State at this time and is only funded with non ad valorem tax assessments; therefore, the potential impact to the City's ad valorem millage rate is not clear; however, the millage rate of a Business or Residential NID would only affect the City's millage rate levied on the properties in the defined area; that an hypothetical example is a Business NID with a millage rate of .5 mills; that the City would only be allowed to levy a maximum millage rate up to 9.5 mills for properties in the Business NID but could still levy a maximum millage rate up to 10 mills for properties in the City not in the Business NID. City Manager McNees stated that the Commission will have the power to approve the millage rate for the City and any Business or Residential NID and could choose to limit the millage rate for a Business or Residential NID to adopt the desired millage rate for the entire City. Commissioner Servian asked the requirements for appointing members to the Board of Directors of a Business or Residential NID? Attorney Connelly stated that Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, requires members of the Board of Directors to be residents and taxpayers for both a Residential or Business NID; however, no residents may exist in a Business NID; therefore, the requirement for a Business NID would be to appoint taxpayers of the defined area to the Board of Directors. Book 51 Page 22508 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22509 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Servian stated that the indication was the Business or Residential NID Board of Directors would be required to hold a public hearing for approval of the annual budget and millage rate prior to submission to the Commission for final approval; that the Business or Residential NID may impact bordering properties and neighborhoods; and asked the influence of bordering property owners and neighborhood residents in approving the annual budget or millage rate? Attorney Connolly stated that the Board of Directors will ultimately be responsible for approving the annual budget and millage rate; that any public input pertaining to the proposed annual budget and millage rate could be allowed from any interested person during the public hearing; that the public hearing must be properly noticed, open to the public, and recorded in official minutes; that the Board of Directors will be responsible for creating the by-laws governing public input and the general procedures for facilitating the required public hearings. Commissioner Servian asked if the Commission can reserve the power to veto specific items in the proposed annual budget of a Business or Residential NID? Attorney Connolly stated that the Florida Statutes do not specify the enabling local jurisdiction's specific powers to approve or disprove of items in a Business or Residential NID budget; that a power of line-item veto is not indicated; however, the Commission could choose to reject the entire budget if a particular item is not. desired. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the properties on St. Armands Circle are owned by either individuals, trusts, partnerships, or corporations; and asked if a trust, partnership, or corporation will be required to declare an official representative for the property? Attorney Connolly stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the concern is the voting procedure for trusts, partnerships, and corporations; that disagreements frequently arise among trustees, partners, or corporate board members; that a trustee, partner, or corporate board member could be serving as a member of the Board of Directors; that the official representative for the property should be assigned the voting rights for the property to ensure a conflict does not occur; and asked if each parcel of property will only be allowed one vote for a referendum or to approve a non ad valorem tax assessment? Attorney Connolly stated yes; that the concern is a particular parcel could be owned by a trust, a partnership, or corporation; that the vote submitted to the City will be determined solely by the trust, partnership, or corporation; that the City will not be responsible for any disagreements among trustees, partners, or corporate members; that the City can only accept the submitted vote. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the composition of the Board of Directors of a Business or Residential NID could be affected if a significant disagreement occurs among trustees, partners, or corporate members? Attorney Connolly stated yes; that the Commission will be responsible for appointing a specific individual as a member of the Board of Directors; that the individual may be a trustee, partner, or corporate member for a particular parcel; that the Commission is allowed to remove members of the Board of Directors due to a malfeasance or misfeasance; that a trustee, partner, or corporate member of a parcel would no longer be considered a taxpayer of the Business NID if removed as an owner or official representative and could be removed from the Board of Directors if desired by the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the City should ensure each parcel has an official representative prior to conducting the referendum; that corporations are not required to disclose all owners or board members to the public; that a corporate owner or board member could be appointed to the Board of Directors but subsequently sell the interest in the business entity or be removed as a board member; that the City should ensure an owner with a minority property share is appointed to the Board of Directors; that all owners, board members, trustees, representatives, or partners for a parcel should be disclosed to the City. Commissioner Palmer asked if the process for selecting the members of the Board of Directors for a Business NID should be established only in the specific enacting ordinance? Attorney Connolly stated yes; that the Commission will ultimately choose the procedures for appointing members to a Board of Directors. Book 51 Page 22510 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22511 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Commission can determine the length of the terms for members of the Board of Directors? Attorney Connolly stated no; that the terms of the members of the Board of Directors are staggered and fixed at three years. Commissioner Martin stated that the occurrence of a disagreement among the partners, owners, or trustees of a parcel is a concern; that the City could require the designation of an official representative with sole voting rights for each parcel. Attorney Connolly concurred. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Edward Murphy, 510 North Washington Drive (34236), representing the St. Armands Residents Association, stated that he learned of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 only immediately prior to the current meeting; that many residents of St. Armands Key were not informed of the Commission's consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342; that the Agenda indicates proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is only to create Special Residential Neighborhood Districts" and not to create a Business NID. City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is an general enabling ordinance to authorize the creation of Business and Residential NIDS in the City but does not concern the approval of a specific Residential or Business NID. Mr. Murphy stated that the Agenda specifically indicates proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 only concerns authorizing the creation of Special Residential Neighborhood Districts; and asked if the affected residents will be allowed to appeal the creation of a Residential or Business NID? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Mr. Murphy stated that a concern is the impact of a Business NID on adjacent residential neighborhoods; that a Business NID could choose to construct improvements which facilitate certain disturbances or nuisances; that the surrounding residential property values could be decreased if a significant nuisance results; that the St. Armands Residents Association was only informed of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 immediately prior to the current meeting. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City's laws and' regulations will apply in a Business or Residential NID and will not be changed if a Business or Residential NID is approved and created; that citizens can still voice any concern for any disturbances occurring in a Business or Residential NID; that the Commission will have final authority over any Business or Residential NID. Ned Parsekian, 460 North Washington Drive (34236), resident of St. Armands Key, stated that he was only notified of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 immediately prior to the current meeting and lives adjacent to St. Armands Circle; that a formal notice of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 was not provided to the St. Armands Residents Association; that the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID will negatively affect the residential properties on St. Armands Key; that the Board of Directors of the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID will be controlled by individuals who are not residents of St. Armands Key; that a general mailing was not conducted to inform St. Armands Key residents of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342; that as a result, the majority of St. Armands Key residents are unaware of the current public hearing to consider proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342, which represents a major shift in authority from the Commission to the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID Board of Directors; that the St. Armands Circle Business NID will control the capital improvements to St. Armands Circle and the general aesthetic perception of St. Armands Key; that the property values on St. Armands Key could be negatively affected; that St. Armands Key residents were not provided ample opportunity to voice opposition to or support of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342. Mr. Parsekian continued that the City's maximum millage rate for St. Armands Circle will be reduced by up to 2 mills; that the national economy is currently in a recession; that the City may be required to increase the millage rate to ensure St. Armands Circle is properly maintained and improved as required; that the Agenda backup material for proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 does not include an objective analysis of the success or failure of other Business or Residential NIDS in Florida or any other state; that CLAS representatives indicated Business and Residential NIDS are utilized successfully in New York City; however, Sarasota is not comparable to New York City; that an Book 51 Page 22512 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22513 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. objective analysis of the success or failure of Business or Residential NIDS in New York City was not conducted by the City; that the Commission should possess the final authority to continue or discontinue a Business or Residential NID; that St. Armands Circle is an important commercial district which is recognized nationally; that the Commission's authority over St. Armands Circle should not be diluted; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) was not provided an opportunity to examine and provide a recommendation concerning proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 and the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID; that only an affirmative vote of the property owners of more than 50 percent of assessed value of the defined area is required to approve a Business NID; that the requirement punishes property owners who have owned property for a long time and allows a few more recent and wealthier business owners to control the defined area. Mr. Parsekian further stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 does not include a definite procedure for terminating a Business or Residential NID; that the requirements for membership on a Business or Residential NID Board of Directors are also not specified; that the current public hearing should be continued to a future meeting to allow affected residents additional time to research and voice opposition or support to the creation of Business or Residential NIDS in the City; that all City residents and property owners should be informed of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342. Martin Rappaport, 1241 Tree Bay Lane (34232), Executive Director, and Sam Norton, 4648 Stoneridge Trail (34232), Attorney, law firm of Norton, Gurley, Hammersley and Lopez, Professional Association, representing CLAS. Attorney Norton stated that CLAS is an association of owners of property in the Commercial, Tourist (CT) Zone District of St. Armands Circle; that the CLAS is seeking a Business NID for St. Armands Circle; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is only a general enabling ordinance allowing the creation of any Business or Residential NID in the City; that Business and Residential NIDS will allow business and commercial districts and residential neighborhoods to construct important improvements voluntarily; that the additional non ad valorem and ad valorem tax assessments would only be levied upon the property owners in the defined area of the Business or Residential NID; that certain maintenance and improvements projects require continued funding which the City often cannot provide as desired by property owners and residents; that the Commission's concerns for the powers allotted to a Business or Residential NID are understandable; that the enabling ordinance for * a specific Business or Residential NID can significantly restrict the powers allotted to a Business or Residential NID if desired by the Commission; that the intent is not to remove any powers from the Commission, which will have final authority over any Business or Residential NID, will appoint members to the Board of Directors, and will approve or disprove of the annual budget and millage rate. Attorney Norton continued that the Commission will also have final authority regarding the funds allotted to any Business or Residential NID and can reduce the millage rate according to the City's financial needs for a particular fiscal year; that a few property owners will not control the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID; that currently, the greatest amount of St. Armands Circle property owned by a single individual is only 5.4 percent of the total assessed value; that 64 different individuals or partnerships own property on St. Armands Circle; that in the worst case scenario, 20 individuals would still be required to form a majority to approve the creation of the proposed Business NID by referendum; that the Commission will still have final authority over any expenditure; that the intent is to create the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID to construct enhancements; that CLAS is willing to assist the City's acquisition of affidavits of ownership for each property on St. Armands Circle and the preparation and execution of the referendum. Mr. Rappaport read a prepared statement indicating that CLAS recently presented the City with a petition to conduct a referendum to create the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID which was signed by 20 percent of St. Armands Circle property owners; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is a general enabling ordinance to allow the creation of Business and Residential NIDS in the City but does not concern the creation of the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID; that Business and Residential NIDS are organizational and financial mechanisms which can be utilized by property owners and residents to construct significant improvements and enhancements in a defined area; that the level of ad valorem and non ad valorem tax assessments will be determined by the property owners and residents of the district through the Board of Directors; that the tax assessments are self assessed; that the funds will be Book 51 Page 22514 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22515 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. collected by the City but will be utilized for improvements solely in the Business or Residential NID; that the collected funds can also be utilized to actively market and advertise a Business NID; that the ad valorem and non ad valorem tax assessments are in addition to the City's tax assessments. Mr. Rappaport continued that the revenues generated from the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID could be utilized to attract tourists through additional marketing efforts, to improve store façades and displays, and to upgrade the general appearance and ambiance of St. Armands Circle and the local business community; that the same benefits could be enjoyed by the City's established neighborhoods through the creation of Residential NIDs; that each Residential NID could be tailored to suit the needs and existing character of a particular neighborhood; that 48 successful business improvement districts are currently operating in New York City; that the majority of the improvements to. Times Square in New York City were accomplished as a result of the tax assessments generated from business improvement districts; that Business and Residential NIDS are a means to construct additional improvements to business and commercial districts and established neighborhoods; that Business and Residential NIDS are only approved for ten- year periods and will cease to exist if an additional referendum is not approved; that Business and Residential NIDS are very successful tools for improving local business and commercial districts and established neighborhoods. Mr. Rappaport further stated that CLAS has already obtained the required signatures from property owners of 20 percent of the assess value of the properties of St. Armands Circle; that the City will be responsible for preparing and conducting the referendum; that a requested Business or Residential NID will only be approved if the property owners of more than 50 percent of the assessed value of the properties cast an affirmative vote; that the Commission will be responsible for approving the powers allotted to a Business or Residential NID and will appoint the members of the Board of Directors; that the members of the Board of Directors will not be paid for service and cannot be employed by the Business or Residential NID; that the Board of Directors is allowed to employ Staff to manage the Business or Residential NID and will hold public hearings to establish and : approve an annual budget and millagé rate; that the Commission will be responsible for holding a public hearing to grant final approval of the budget and millage rate for each Business and Residential NID; that the creation of a Business or Residential NID will only help the City attract new residents and' tourists and improve the aesthetic perception of the local community. Marlow Cook, 444 North Washington Drive (34236), resident of St. Armands Key, stated that the current public hearing concerns proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342; that all City ordinances must be properly noticed; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 affects all citizens; that a Business or Residential NID could be established in any area of the City if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is adopted; that all citizens were not properly notified of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342; that the Agenda only indicates proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is to authorize the creation of Special Residential Neighborhood Districts and does not mention Business NIDs; however, proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is to allow both Residential and Business NIDs; that many citizens may be interested in creating a Business NID and would desire to provide input concerning general regulations on the creation of Business NIDS in the City but are not aware of the consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 at the current meeting; that an objection is not held with intent to allow the creation of Residential and Business NIDS but with the notice provided of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342. Mr. Cook continued that St. Armands Key residents have devoted significant efforts and funds to improving St. Armands Circle and the surrounding area; that St. Armands Circle recently received City, State, and National historic designation; that the area of the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID must be explicitly defined to ensure the historic character and historically designated areas are not impacted or altered; that an example might be the construction of restroom facilities in or other improvements to St. Armands Circle Park, which is historically designated; that St. Armands Key residents have voiced significant opposition to the construction of any facilities or structures in St. Armands Circle Park; that the City's parks must be maintained as open space; that the greenspace of St. Armands Circle was also historically designated; that the area of the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID must be limited and not affect any historically designated area of St. Armands Circle; that another concern is the proposal to install an amplification system to broadcast music around St. Armands Circle; that the proposed amplification system could pose a nuisance to surrounding residential properties in the future; that the City must be sure the Book 51 Page 22516 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22517 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. creation of a Business or Residential NID does not impact or conflict with any existing regulations; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 should be continued to a future meeting and properly noticed to all citizens. Mark Kauffman, 455 Longboat Club Road, Longboat Key (34228), Board Member, CLAS, stated that St. Armands Circle is one of the primary attractions of Sarasota; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 should be adopted to facilitate the creation of the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID, which would ensure St. Armands Circle is well maintained for future generations; that the intent is not to undermine the Commission's authority; that the definite majority of St. Armands Circle property owners and tenants support the creation of the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID; that the City's taxing authority will not be usurped; that CLAS held several meetings with the St. Armands Circle Association and the St. Armands Merchants Association to identify the improvements necessary for St. Armands Circle; that the most desired improvement is the construction of median neckouts for the remaining three intersection on St. Armands Circle; that another desired improvement is the installation of brick pavers in the existing crosswalks; that no improvements will be constructed which are not supported by the St. Armands Residents Association or designated for public areas; that St. Armands Circle Park will not be altered; that the existing greenspace will not be reduced; that all improvements will ultimately be approved by the Commission; that every corporation or partnership on St. Armands Circle has a general partner or managing partner which would be responsible for voting on the referendum. Maureen Hoyt, 1408 Cedar Bay Lane (34231), representing Optional Art Fine Jewelry on St. Armands Circle, stated that the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID is supported but was opposed until recently; that the initial reaction to increasing taxes was negative; that leasing property on St. Armands Circle is very expensive; that business improvement districts in other jurisdictions in the Unites States similar to the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID have been very successful; that the perception of the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID changed due to the success of business improvement districts in other jurisdictions; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 will allow neighborhood residents, property owners, and merchants to self impose additional tax assessments to construct important improvements tailored to the particular community or neighborhood; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 should be adopted; that the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID should also be supported and will significantly improve the aesthetics and ambiance of St. Armands Circle. Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive (34237), stated that the Agenda does not properly indicate the subject matter of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342, which could further specify the general restrictions desired by the Commission; that in particular, proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 should be revised to withhold the powers of eminent domain from any Business or Residential NID; that an affirmative vote should be required of the property owners of two-thirds of the assessed value of any area to approve a Business or Residential NID instead of only a simple majority; that the individuals allowed to vote to approve the referendum is confusing and should be more clearly specified; that Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, is confusing; that a concern is only registered voters will be allowed to participate in a referendum to financially encumber all property owners of a particular area; that another concern is only a small group of property owners may be able to seek approval of a Business or Residential NID and to financially encumber many residents who cannot afford the additional tax assessments; that tenants could financially encumber property owners with additional tax assessments as electors approving a referendum to create a Residential NID; that the requirement to create a Residential or Business NID should be the affirmative vote for a referendum of property owners of two-thirds of the assessed value of a particular area. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Attorney Taylor stated that notice of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 was properly provided to citizens; that the City is not required to mail notice of each public hearing to affected residents or property owners for ordinances which do not concern land uses or rezonings; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 does not concern land uses or rezonings but only concerns a general enabling ordinance required by the State; that Section 163.511, Florida Statutes, requires the adoption of a general enabling ordinance to allow the creation of Special Neighborhood Improvement Districts" in the affected local jurisdiction; that the Commission will be required to adopt separate ordinances for each requested Business or Residential NID; that the notice and title of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 are appropriate; that Book 51 Page 22518 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22519 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. specifying any general limitations on the powers of Business or Residential NIDs in proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is not appropriate; that an ordinance to create a Business or Residential NID will only be developed after the required referendum is approved by the affected residents and property owners; that the powers and limitations of powers should only be specified in the ordinance to create the specific Business or Residential NID. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the organizations to which and individuals to whom notice of the current public hearing and meeting were mailed? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that notices of the current public hearing were mailed to the CLAS and the St. Armands Merchants Association. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if notice of the current meeting was mailed to every resident and property owner of St. Armands Key and St. Armands Circle? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated no. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if a neighborhood meeting concerning proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 was held? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated no. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that a neighborhood meeting is not required for proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342, which does not concern a rezoning or land use; that the Commission previously requested CLAS contact other affected organizations of St. Armands Key. Martin Rappaport, 1241 Tree Bay Lane (34232), Executive Director, and Sam Norton, 4648 Stoneridge Trail (34232), Attorney, law firm of Norton, Gurley, Hammersley and Lopez, Professional Association, representing CLAS, came before the Commission. Attorney Norton stated that meetings were held with the St. Armands Circle Association and the St. Armands Merchants Association to discuss the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID; that the representatives of the St. Armands Circle Association and St. Armands Merchants Association indicated support for the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the number of representatives of the St. Armands Circle Association and St. Armands Merchants Association attending the meetings? Attorney Norton stated that approximately 30 to 40 people attended the meetings. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the number of St. Armands Circle property owners who belong to CLAS? Mr. Rappaport stated that 64 different owners own property on St. Armands Circle; that approximately 60 percent of owners are members of CLAS. City Attorney Taylor stated that Business and Residential NIDS are approved based upon the assessed value of property in a particular area; that an identification roll of the owners, trustees, or partners for each parcel will be developed for voting purposes. Commissioner Martin asked if any public properties or areas would be included in a Business or Residential NID? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Mayor Mason asked the residents or property owners who will be assessed additional taxes if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is adopted? Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 will not increase the tax assessment for any resident or property owner in the City; that only the residents and property owners would be assessed an additional tax if a specific Business or Residential NID is created; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is only a general enabling ordinance to authorize the creation of Business or Residential NIDS for any area of the City. Attorney Connolly referred to a map of St. Armands Circle and stated that the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID will contain only the properties designated in the Commercial, Tourist (CT) Zone District of St. Armands Circle if created; that St. Armands Circle Park, any greenspace or public right-of-way, property designated in the Governmental Use (G) Zone District, and any residential properties are not included in the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID. Book 51 Page 22520 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22521 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Mayor Mason stated that the Agenda only indicates proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is to authorize the creation of Special Residential Neighborhood Districts" in the City; that citizens interpreted the Agenda as approving only Residential NIDS. Commissioner Palmer concurred and stated that the Agenda does not indicate proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 includes Business NIDs; that the Agenda is displayed on the City's website; that copies of the Agenda are mailed to many citizens and property owners, who interpreted proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 as approving only Residential NIDs. City Attorney Taylor stated that proper legal notice of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 was provided to the public; that the requirement is to advertise the title of an ordinance in a local newspaper; that the title of Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 indicates the purpose as to authorize the creation of Business and Residential NIDs in the City; that providing residents and property owners with copies of the Agenda of a meeting is not a legal noticing requirement but rather a courtesy; that the City is only required to provide a mailing to residents and property owners for ordinances concerning land use issues; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 does not concern a land use issue; that the Commission could continue the current public hearing to a future meeting and readvertise proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 if desired. Commissioner Servian stated that readvertising proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 is not required; however, many citizens may have misinterpreted the purpose of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342; therefore, proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 should be readvertised and consideration continued to a future meeting; that ample time should be allowed for the public to fully understand the impact of the creation of Business and Residential NIDS in the City; that Business and Residential NIDS are a new concept in Florida; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 should be readvertised to avoid a legal challenge in the future; that the current public hearing should be postponed to a future meeting. City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 concerns the entire City and not just St. Armands Circle; that all residents and property owners will be notified if the intent is to provide a Citywide mailing. Commissioner Servian stated that a Citywide mailing is not required; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 should be advertised as authorizing the creation of Special Business and Residential NIDS. City Attorney Taylor stated that all neighborhood and business associations and organizations could be notified of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 without conducting a Citywide mailing. Commissioner Palmer stated that a concern is the ability of individuals or property owners not registered to vote to participate in the referendum; and asked if property owners will be entitled to vote in the referendum only if a registered voter of the City? Attorney Connolly stated that the ability of individuals or property owners to vote in the required referendum depends on the type of Special NID; that the registered electors of the defined area participate in the required referendum to create a Residential NID; that an elector is a resident but not necessarily a property owner of the defined area; that only property owners are allowed to vote in the required referendum to create a Business NID. Commissioner Palmer stated that a property owner could be a resident of another State and not a registered City voter; and asked if such a property owner would be allowed to vote in the required referendum? Attorney Connolly stated that only registered voters residing in the defined area are allowed to vote in a referendum to create a Residential NID; that a property owner not registered to vote or not residing in the City would still be allowed to vote in a referendum to create a Business NID. Commissioner Palmer stated that a property owner could also not live in the defined area for a Residential NID and not be allowed to vote in the required referendum. Attorney Connolly stated that is not correct; that the City allows property owners to vote in City elections even if not residing in the City; that property owners could register to vote in a referendum to create a Residential NID and claim residence at the property in question; that the City must allow 75 days for residents and property owners to register to vote prior to a referendum to approve a Business or Residential NID. Book 51 Page 22522 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22523 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that allowing tenants to financially encumber property owners with additional tax assessments for a ten-year period is a concern; that the tenant could be moving in six months while the property owner must pay additional tax assessments for ten years; and asked if the Commission could restrict the eligible voters to only property owners to approve a referendum creating a Residential NID? Attorney Connolly stated no. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the procedures to create a Residential NID are a significant concern; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 was properly noticed; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 indicates the purpose to authorize the creation of Business and Residential NIDs; that the Agenda does not accurately describe proposed Ordinance No.01-4342 but is not a part of the City's legal noticing requirements for ordinances. Attorney Connolly stated that the City is not allowed to establish a Residential or Business NID; that the property owners of 20 percent of the assessed value of the property of a defined area must seek to establish a Business NID; that 40 percent of the electors of a defined area must seek to establish a Residential NID; that the City will be required to prepare and conduct a referendum to create a Residential or Business NID if the proper petition is submitted; that the City must create the requested Residential or Business NID if the required number of property owners or electors approve the referendum. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a neighborhood consisting mostly of tenants could approve a referendum to create a Residential NID and financially encumber the property owners with an additional tax assessment. Attorney Connolly stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the cost of the additional tax assessment will be passed to the tenants in the form of increased rents. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that the additional tax assessments will be utilized for improvements to the owners' properties; that property values will probably increase due to the additional improvements to the neighborhood; that a concern is the inaccurate description of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 on the Agenda; that many residents and property owners may not understand the full subject matter of the current public hearing; that a public hearing is to provide resolution to any outstanding questions or concerns for a particular issue; that the January 7, 2002, Commission Workshop addressed many of the public's concerns and questions; however, not all questions and concerns may have been resolved; that the current public hearing should be continued to a future meeting to provide the public an additional opportunity to voice any concerns or raise any questions to the Commission; that the efforts of the CLAS, the St. Armands Circle Association, the St. Armands Merchants Association, and the St. Armands Residents Association to improve St. Armands Key and St. Armands Circle are appreciated and impressive; that in particular, the efforts of CLAS to seek a creative means to improve St. Armands Circle are appreciated. Commissioner Martin continued that the revenues generated by the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID will only improve the aesthetic perception and national recognition of St. Armands Circle; that the City must also ensure adjoining commercial and residential uses remain compatible; that few residential homes directly abut St. Armands Circle; that the City's regulations will still apply to St. Armands Circle if the proposed St. Armands Circle Business NID is created; that residents and property owners are encouraged to seek creative means to generate additional funds to construct important neighborhood improvements; that the Commission will have the final authority over any Business or Residential NID; that the only remaining concern is the limited amount of public input received during the current public hearing; that many citizens may not understand the full subject matter of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342; that the current public hearing should be continued to a future meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to reopen and continue the public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 to allow the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to advertise by newspaper and mailing the continuation of the public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 to the February 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 will be appropriately advertised in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that notice of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 will Book 51 Page 22524 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22525 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. be provided to local neighborhood and business organizations and associations. Commissioner Martin asked if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 will be advertised to authorize the creation of Special Business and Residential NIDs? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that allowing the creation of Business and Residential NIDS is an important matter; that the City could also authorize the creation of other types of improvement districts to accomplish similar goals; that the City must be cautious and must ensure the public clearly understands the nature and potential powers of Business and Residential NIDs; that in particular, the public must understand proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 will allow the creation of Business and Residential NIDS for any area of the City and not just St. Armands Circle. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to reopen and continue the public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 to allow the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to advertise by newspaper and mailing the continuation of the public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 01-4342 to the February 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m. 11. CITIZENS I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (2912) through (3302) CD 9:04 through 9:11 The following people came before the Commission: Stan Zimmerman, 2469 Novus Street (34237), stated that as a City resident and registered voter, he would like to address the upcoming "Strong-Mayor" referendum; that on March 12, 2002, City residents will have the opportunity to change the City's form of government; that the referendum is a massive rewrite of the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) and not just a few new words; that the "Strong-Mayor" referendum could change the entire character of the City and reduce the Commission to impotent bystanders unlike the current Commission which evaluates changes to the City's physical landscape such as the height of megahouses, the location of new parks, and permitted density. Mr. Zimmerman continued that the Commission has not undertaken an evaluation of the looming change to the political landscape; that the political landscape will be turned upside down if the referendum passes; that power as a Commissioner will be truncated and reduced to almost nothing; that the professional office of City Manager will be replaced by amateur-hour cronyism as the position would take direction from the "Strong Mayor"; that the "Strong-Mayor" referendum would massively redistribute power at City Hall; that the "Strong Mayor" would have control of the City budget, the Commission agenda, appointment, hiring, and firing of City employees, award of City contracts, and absolute control over the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) ; that the "Strong Mayor" would have an unprecedented concentration of power, greater than any other elected Mayor in the State if the City Charter change is approved; that the concentration of power would come at the Commission's expense; that the burden would fall on every citizen and taxpayer. Mr. Zimmerman further stated that the Commission is asked to take a stand against the Strong-Mayor" referendum; that the proposed change to the political landscape should be defeated through a Commission resolution; that the "Strong-Mayor" concept is threatening to strangle the democratic process in the City; that the Commission is asked to actively lead constituents and supporters among the neighborhoods to reject the Strong-Mayor" referendum; that the citizens of the community look to the Commission for leadership; that the Commission is asked not to fail or abandon the citizens of the community to the clutches of a back-room gang intent upon an unholy concentration of power at the Commission's and community's expense; that the leadership of Commission to defeat the "Strong-Mayor" referendum is sought. Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive (34237), stated that the City is treating employees unequally; that a * civil servant and general employee were honored at the current meeting as the Employee of the Month and the Employee of the Year; that the two employees would be treated differently if an objection is made to Staff's decision concerning the rights of employment; that employees could be suspended or terminated but can appeal the decision; that a Civil Service/General Employees Personnel Board (Board) was established which the current Director of Human Resources would like to disband; that the Board mediates the differences between management and employees; that if management Book 51 Page 22526 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22527 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. misunderstood the facts, the civil service employee would return to work; however, the general employee would not return to work; that the general employee would continue to endure the suspension or other employment action despite the overwhelming vote by the Board to reinstate or vacate the suspension or other employment action; that the general employee could then mediate in circuit court; that the City could spend several hundred thousand dollars fighting the decision of the Board; that the civil service employee would not need to take action in circuit court as the decision of the Board would be final and the employee would be reinstated; that the decision of the Board concerning the general employee would be sent to the City Manager who will make the final determination for the general employee; and asked the reason for the discrimination against the general employee? 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: DESIRED LIGHTING POLE AND FIXTURE FOR THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT APPROVED PALMER RANCH STYLE LIGHTING POLE, - ARCHETYPE OUTDOOR CUTOFF LIGHTING FIXTURE, AND REQUESTED STAFF TO SEEK APPROVAL FROM FDOT TO ALLOW 70 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMPS (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) #2 (3285) through #3 (1815) CD 9:11 through 10:10 Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, David Whaley, Project Director, and Patrick Malone, Construction Manager, PCL Civil Contractors, Inc. (PCL), and Ellen Sears, Thompson + Sears Lighting, LLC, (Sears Lighting) came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that at the October 15, 2001, Workshop, the Commission requested PCL to review the existing street lights in the Palmer Ranch area and return with colored renderings of the Palmer Ranch street lights and other alternatives for consideration for the John Ringling Causeway Bridge (replacement bridge); that the two lighting pole configurations which may be considered are: 1) typical Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conventional lighting poles and 2) Palmer Ranch type lighting poles; that the four lighting fixture configurations which may be. considered are: 1. Typical FDOT cobra head fixtures 2. Palmer Ranch type fixtures 3. Curvilinear cutoff series fixtures by Kim Lighting 4. Archetype outdoor cutoff fixtures by Kim Lighting Mr. Daughters further stated that the two lamp choices which may be considered are: low pressure sodium (LPS) and high pressure sodium (HPS) ; that the Commission previously indicated a desire for the HPS lamp which is also PCL's recommendation. Commissioner Martin stated that addressing the lighting impact to sea turtles is important; that the presentation regarding sea turtles should be provided prior to discussing the lighting. Mr. Whaley stated that PCL worked with Staff regarding lighting pole and fixture types as well as LPS and HPS lamps; that the lighting fixture style and location would change depending on the use of LPS or HPS lamps; that the LPS lighting fixture would be marginally larger; that the lighting fixture decision is not independent of the type of lamp utilized. Mr. Whaley displayed computer-generated photographs of lighting poles and fixtures on the Commission monitors and stated that the photographs indicate the PCL rendition of the Palmer Ranch style lighting pole with a rectangular fixture; that the Palmer Ranch style lighting pole is recommended; that the first two lighting fixture options are the traditional FDOT-style cobra-head lighting fixture and the Palmer Ranch style, box-type fixtures; that a high degree of horizontal light with the cobra-head lighting fixture is a concern; that the cobra-head lighting fixture is a poor choice if the concern is for the sea turtles; that the third and fourth options are the curvilinear cutoff series Curvilinear) fixtures and the archetype outdoor cutoff series (Archetype) fixtures; that the Archetype lighting fixture is recommended; that the Palmer Ranch style lighting pole and the Archetype lighting fixture would be more attractive than the Curvilinear lighting fixture; that the Curvilinear lighting fixture would not have an aesthetically pleasing appearance in the opinion of the lighting consultant; that the Archetype lighting fixture shines light down instead of up or out which is the first step in attempting to address the sea turtle concerns. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the rendering of the Archetype lighting fixture in the Agenda backup material indicates the light flows downward and outward toward the edge of the bridge. Mr. Whaley stated that is correct. Book 51 Page 22528 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22529 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the Archetype lighting fixture would provide lighting from the roadway to the walkway? Mr. Whaley stated yes. Ms. Sears stated that the directive was to design to 1.0 average maintained footcandle (AMF) (10 lux) which is the slightly lower than the FDOT standard of 1.5 AMF (15 lux); that the FDOT has allowed a 1.0 AMF (10 lux) for the replacement bridge; that the lighting objective is to maintain even lighting, keep the lighting as low as possible, and create no dark areas on the replacement bridge; that lighting application should be uniform rather than at a high light level; that lighting application which is uniform rather than at a high light level is preferable for exterior applications; that a uniform lighting application which is well controlled will promote comfort; that travelling through light and dark spaces is uncomfortable; that the lighting will be directed toward the pavement rather than spilling over the replacement bridge; that in addition to the 1.0 AMF (10 lux), the lighting was designed to a 4-to-1 average-to-minimum uniformity ratio, indicating the replacement bridge will never be more than 4 times brighter than the darkest area of the walkway; that uniformity of lighting assures security and safety. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the placement of the lighting poles in the center of the replacement bridge is pleasing; and asked if the lighting poles would be placed 100 feet apart? Ms. Sears stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that control of the lighted area is maintained by the 100-foot placement of the lighting poles; and asked if the rectangular Archetype fixture is recommended? Ms. Sears stated yes; that any of the lighting fixtures presented would work; that the same optics and light level are present and only the housing differs aesthetically. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if all the lighting fixtures presented have the same beam spread and asked if the Archetype lighting fixture on the Palmer Ranch style lighting pole is recommended? Ms. Sears stated yes; that the AMF level can be reached with any fixture; however, the rectangular appearance of the Archetype lighting fixture is more aesthetically pleasing on the curved arm of the lighting pole. Mr. Whaley stated that the spacing of the lighting poles is narrow so light spread is maintained; that the Palmer Ranch style lighting pole is more aesthetically pleasing the FDOT conventional lighting pole. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the lighting poles are reinforced to enable mast and flag installation? Mr. Whaley stated no; that the large mast arms would create a larger size lighting pole which would not fit in the proposed site on the replacement bridge. Vice Mayor Quillin stated asked if the reinforced lighting poles could be obtained? Mr. Whaley stated that the reinforced lighting poles do not fit in the barrier post design of the replacement bridge. Commissioner Servian asked if brackets for banners could be attached to the lighting poles? Mr. Malone stated that the banners would become sails which would bend the lighting poles in the event of high winds. Mr. Whaley stated that the reinforced poles do not fit with the design of the rail in the center of the replacement bridge; that the first two to three lighting poles on either end of the bridge may be designed to support banners. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the placement of the lighting poles in the center of the bridge is pleasing. Mr. Whaley stated that the placement of the lighting poles in the center of the bridge is the first step in meeting some of the lighting concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Servian stated that the Curvilinear lighting fixture design is pleasing; that two buildings on the east side of the replacement bridge utilize a lighting fixture similar to the Curvilinear lighting fixture design; that the round design looks beach-oriented. Commissioner Martin referred to a letter dated October 30, 2001, to Mr. Whaley from Ms. Sears included in the Agenda backup material regarding the replacement bridge lighting and stated that 1.5 AMF (15 lux) is recommended by the FDOT; however, in this case Book 51 Page 22530 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22531 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. FDOT is recommending 1 AMF (10 lux); ; that the letter also indicates the level could be lowered to .6 AMF (6 lux) due to concerns for the sea turtles and still provide enough light. Ms. Sears stated that in lieu of a directive from a municipality, the Illuminating Engineering Society's (IES) textbook recommendations are considered; that the IES recommendation is .4 AMF (4 lux) ; that a decrease from 150 watts to 70 watts of illumination would bring the lighting to .6 AMF (6 lux) i that the quality of lighting is more important than the quantity of lighting; that.6 AMF (6 lux) creates enough illumination. Commissioner Palmer asked if the white lamps can be utilized? Ms. Sears stated that HPS is a fairly golden color which is the color of standard roadway lighting; that HPS. is not as white as other lighting sources such as metal halide lamps. Mr. Whaley stated that the HPS lamps are not as orange as LPS lamps. Ms. Sears concurred. Mr. Whaley stated that the lamp recommended is an HPS lamp with a light level which is reduced from FDOT requirements; that FDOT approval would be required to reduce the level to .6 AMF (6 lux). Commissioner Palmer asked if the type of lamp utilized will be different during sea turtle season or would the AMF (lux) level be at a constant lower level than FDOT requirement? Mr. Whaley stated that the lamp AMF (lux) level will be constant at .6 AMF (6 lux). Ms. Sears stated that the intent is to have a consistent light level with the chosen lighting fixture. Commissioner Servian asked if .6 AMF (6 lux) would be bright enough in the pedestrian walkway area of the replacement bridge. Ms. Sears stated that the pedestrian walkway would be well-lit. Kenya Leonard, Environmental Specialist II, Sarasota County Environmental Services and Jerris Foote, Manager, Sea Turtle Program, Mote Marine Laboratory, came before the Commission. Ms. Leonard referred to computer-generated slides of sea turtle concerns and recommendations throughout the presentation and stated that the County hosts the highest density of nesting sea turtles on the gulf coast of the United States; that the beaches are an important nesting habitat for the loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles; that all species of sea turtles are threatened or endangered and are provided protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as Section 370.12, the Marine Turtle Protection Act, Florida Administrative Code; that progress has been made in the preservation of sea turtles; however, artificial light remains the largest threat to sea turtles in Florida; that artificial light severely degrades sea turtle nesting habitats, interferes with the sea-finding ability of hatchlings, and may deter females from nesting. Ms. Leonard referred to a chart prepared by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Bureau for Protected Species which provides a brief overview of the disorientation activity in the State during the 2001 nest hatch season and stated that skyglow is second only to impacts from coastal condominiums in harm to the sea turtles; that skyglow is defined by the Florida Marine Research Institute as follows: Skyglow - A glow of light scattered by mist and clouds over densely lighted areas. Ms. Leonard stated that skyglow could have extensive environmental impacts causing an increase in abandoned nesting attempts; that skyglow may cause deadly adult and hatchling disorientation; that skyglow not only impacts sea turtles but may interfere with bird migration, an instinctual system which relies on visual cues such as light and dark horizons; that humans complain of light trespass or photo pollution from skyglow. Ms. Leonard continued that the efforts of PCL and Sears Lighting to incorporate measures in the lighting of the bridge to ultimately reduce the potential impact on sea turtles is appreciated; that the Commission's decision regarding center- mounted lighting poles is pleasing; that the designation of a type-three distribution cut-off luminaire is also pleasing; that the continuing concerns regarding the local impact to the sea turtle nesting habitat by the proposed replacement bridge lighting are as follows: Book 51 Page 22532 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22533 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. 1. While HPS lamps are commonly utilized on Florida roadways, the HPS lamps are considered unsuitable near sea turtle nesting beaches. 2. Although the bridge is approximately 1.8 miles east of the nearest nesting beach, the replacement bridge is at a significant elevation to cause concern. 3. Any light source at 150 watts would be considered potentially disruptive to the sea turtles. 4. The potential effects of Eixtures placed every 100 feet on 30-foot lighting poles at the replacement bridge elevation is a concern. Ms. Leonard stated that alternative lighting applications which are less disruptive to the natural environment are preferred; that an HPS and LPS lamp combination may be less disruptive to the sea turtles; that the HPS and LPS lamp combination could be achieved in a variety of ways; that LPS lamps function as an efficient light source with little or no impact to the surrounding area; that LPS is monochromatic composed on one wavelength of color which is yellow; that the spectral properties of LPS vapor lighting are least disruptive to sea turtles among commonly-used, commercially-available light sources; that HPS and mercury vapor have multiple spectrums of light present; that wave lengths of blue and red, both present in HPS lamps and mercury vapor, are extremely disruptive to sea turtles; that the wave lengths of light predominantly cause the intense attraction of hatchlings to piers, bridges, and parking lots; that LPS lamps are considered suitable for streetlights, parking lot lighting, and security lighting; that LPS lamps are used extensively in San Diego, San Jose, and Long Beach, California, and arê commonly used on freeways in Europe; that some advantages to LPS lamps are as follows: 1. LPS lamps are the most energy efficient lighting available. 2. LPS lamps produce a bright yellow light which is highly visible to the human eye, yet considered minimally disruptive to wildlife and astronomers. 3. LPS lamps produce less glare than HPS lamps. Ms. Leonard stated that some disadvantages to LPS lamps are as follows: 1. LPS lamps are monochromatic and not recommended for use in applications which require good color rendition. 2. LPS lamps and ballasts are initially expensive with fewer distributors and design options. Ms. Leonard continued that numerous sources of funding and assistance are available for a progressive conservation lighting project; that another option is the HPS lamp imbedded roadway combination as used on an ecologically sensitive area along the east coast of Florida; that streetlights along a section of State Road A1A of Ocean Boulevard, Boca Raton have been a major source of mortality to hatchling sea turtles which were attracted by glow from the coastal roadway; that the project which consists of imbedded LPS lamps utilized from November through April has essentially limited adult and hatchling disorientation to the roadway; that the community has expressed interest in expanding the project on the roadway and completely eliminating the HPS lamps as the project was sO well received; that although the final report of the FDOT imbedded LPS lamps roadway project has not been released, the preliminary findings are encouraging. Ms. Leonard further stated that another lighting option is to modify the existing proposed lighting; that the 70 watt system proposed by Sears lighting exceeds lighting standards established by the IES; that a combination of low wattage lamps and lower lighting poles would assist in concentrating the light onto the roadway and minimize the skyglow effect; that low wattage lamps and lower lighting poles may allow for an increased number of lighting poles; that the goal is to preserve the light function as intended and reduce the light contributing to skyglow and other environmental impacts; that appreciation is extended to Staff and the Commission for the consideration of the concern for sea turtles. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification on the imbedded LPS lamps used on the State Road. A1A of Ocean Boulevard, Boca Raton roadway. Ms. Foote stated that many instances of disorientation occurred in on the Ocean Boulevard, Boca Raton roadway; that the imbedded LPS lamps are a trial project by FDOT which has worked well. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the disorientation statistics for the County can be provided? Book 51 Page 22534 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22535 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Ms. Foote stated that the disorientation events in the year 2001 were not as high as in previous years; that a lower number of nests were recorded in the year 2001; that initially, 1,400 nests were noted in the area monitored by Mote Marine Laboratory; that 1,700 nests were discovered on Manasota Key; that approximately 65 to 75 percent of the Manasota nests and 50 percent of the County's nests were lost to storms; that fewer disorientations were noted; that no disorientations due to skyglow were documented in 2001; that the disorientation events are decreasing due to the County's lighting ordinance; that compliance is increasing; that skyglow is increasing with roadway lighting. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the County has some of the best lighting restrictions in the State; that the nearest nesting beach is 1.8 miles from the replacement bridge; that skyglow already exists; that data concerning documented disorientation events in the turtle nesting areas is required. Ms. Foote stated that data concerning documented disorientation events due to skyglow is being compiled. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the difference between the beach lighting and the skyglow and the manner in which the sea turtles are affected? Ms. Leonard stated that level of skyglow varies with the weather conditions; that the County's sea turtle protection ordinance is fairly new; that a number of years will be required to collect data concerning the effects of the ordinance; that continued development is causing more inland lighting affecting all areas. Ms. Foote stated that attempts are being made to measure the current existing skyglow; that the skyglow can again be measured for comparison after the replacement bridge is completed. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if placement of the lighting poles in the center of the replacement bridge is helpful to the sea turtle concerns? Ms. Foote stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if other bridges in Florida experience similar lighting concerns? Ms. Leonard stated that other bridges in Florida with similar lighting concerns are unknown. Commissioner Martin asked if the white metal halide lamps planned for the piers will be disruptive to the sea turtles? Ms. Foote stated that the white metal halide lamps are the most disruptive lighting to sea turtles; and asked the elevation of the piers? Commissioner Servian stated that the elevation of the piers is unknown. Ms. Leonard asked if the pier lighting fixtures would be below the bridge? Mr. Daughters stated that the pier lighting fixtures are downlighting. Commissioner Martin stated that the pier lighting fixtures will incorporate field adjustable internal louvers to block spill light which may be hazardous to marine life; and asked if the downlighting is less of a concern than the white metal halide lamp? Ms. Leonard stated that the concerns of the white metal halide lamp were discussed with PCL which recommended the louver lighting fixture. Ms. Leonard quoted from the Coastal Roadway Lighting Manual prepared by the Ecological Associates, Inc., as follows: The Federal Highway Administration has recently funded a study to establish sea turtle lighting zones along FDOT coastal roadways in Florida. In these zones, alternative lighting standards would be developed to reduce the potential for lighting impacts. . On a case by case basis, the FDOT may modify permits to allow flexibility in dealing with roadway lighting and protect its species conflicts. Ms. Leonard stated that correspondence with FDOT and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services indicate the replacement bridge would qualify for the deviation in standards. Commissioner Martin stated that the pier lighting is a metal halide lamp; that the most sensible solution to the sea turtle concern is to use LPS lamps during sea turtle season and HPS lamps Book 51 Page 22536 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22537 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. the remaining time; and asked if the Archetype lighting fixture support the HPS and LPS lamps. Ms. Sears stated that one fixture could not support the utilization of HPS and LPS lamps; that the reason HPS lamps were chosen is due to the color rendering properties; that keeping the light levels low will assist in the prevention of skyglow; that LPS lamps pose a human safety issue; that LPS lamps are not a comfortable source of light for humans; that the perception is distorted due to the monochromatic light properties which cause an inability to understand the surroundings in the case of an accident; that colors cannot be identified as blues and greens shift to a brown color; that yellows and reds shift to an orange color; that: the phenomenon results in an inability to identify colors of automobiles or clothing which may be important during accidents; that emergency personnel would have a difficult time identifying and assessing injuries as perceptions of individuals would be distorted; that the difference between blood and motor oil would be difficult to identify under lighting from LPS lamps; that another important issue is the visual confusion created for the driver as the color of the LPS lamp is close to the color of the amber caution lights at intersections. Commissioner Martin stated that the lower wattage HPS lamps would probably be the most reasonable lighting option; and asked if imbedded lighting is a feasible alternative? Ms. Sears stated that imbedded lighting was unheard of until the current meeting; that reflectors imbedded in road surfaces which are illuminated by headlights are utilized in less populated areas and not usually used for areas in which travel is from one lighted area to another. Commissioner Martin stated that the Archetype lighting fixture is available with a two-level ballast to change the lamp wattage during turtle nesting season. Ms. Sears stated that a two-level ballast may be acquired; however, the lighting fixture supplier has indicated that the fixture is not available in every wattage. Commissioner Martin asked if the amount of pier lighting fixtures utilizing the white metal halide lamps can be clarified? Ms. Sears stated that a row of three fixtures will be placed on either side of the pier; that the higher piers will utilize sets of 400 watt lamps; that the lower piers will utilize sets of 175 watt lamps; that different beam spreads are present in each fixture to distribute light to fade evenly from top to bottom on the pier; that the lighting fixtures are placed closer to the center so the light will fade off toward the end of the pier, blocking the light from passing beyond the pier. Commissioner Martin stated that the cost of the pier lighting fixtures is a concern; and asked for clarification of the amount of pier lighting fixtures. Mr. Malone stated that the replacement bridge has 10 piers with 60 lighting fixtures. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if FDOT grant money for sea life conservation is available to assist with the replacement bridge lighting concerns. Ms. Leonard stated that funding may be available through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) sea turtle grants; that $250,000 in funding is available; that the FFWCC indicated interest in progressive lighting projects such as the replacement bridge. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the FFWCC sea turtle grants can be explored? Mr. Whaley stated that PCL can investigate if the replacement bridge would qualify for the FFWCC sea turtle grants. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the sea turtle grants may provide additional funding to test new lighting sources to assist in mitigating the sea turtle concerns; and asked if downlighting was the original plan for the pier lighting? Ms. Sears stated that downlighting for the piers has always been in the original plan, including the charrette for the replacement bridge; that uplighting the piers would spill light in undesirable places due to the 300-foot span and the height of the piers. Mr. Whaley stated that bridges with aesthetic lighting have the piers lit from the bottom, called downlighting; that downlighting the piers provides a natural lighting; that 5 AMF (50 lux) lamps would be utilized. Book 51 Page 22538 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22539 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Ms. Sears stated that the 5 AMF (50 lux) lamps are at the low end of the illumination recommended by IES for a structure such as the bridge. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the color of the lamps can be changed? Ms. Sears stated that the Archetype lighting fixtures accept color filters and are fairly easy to re-lamp. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to approve the Palmer Ranch style lighting pole, the Archetype Outdoor Cutoff lighting fixture, and to request Staff to seek approval from FDOT to allow 70 watt high pressure sodium lamps for the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge. Commissioner Martin stated that the use of metal halide lighting for the piers is supported due to the field-adjustable internal louvers to block spill light and as downlighting will be utilized. Mayor Mason called - for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA COUNTY, - FOR PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR THE SCAT TRANSFER FACILITY EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2002, TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING AN ALTERNATE SITE = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) #3 (1824) through (3590) CD 10:11 through 10:47 City Manager McNees stated that the City Commission and the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners have agreed in principle on the use of a piece of City property on the east side of Lemon Avenue adjacent to City Hall as the site of the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Intermodal Transfer Facility (transfer facility) ; that the City's original proposal of a lease has been supplanted by a purchase and sale agreement as discussed at the April 16, 2001, Commission meeting; that the Commission's support for the Lemon Avenue site was predicated on the assumption of no viable site alternative which preserved the available Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) grant funding; that discussions with the County Administrator to accomplish the City's original intent to locate the transfer facility at a location other than the Lemon Avenue site while preserving FDOT funding have continued; that the City and County Administrations believe an equally functional site which does not compromise downtown parking, the integrity of the City Hall property, or the development/redevelopment potential of the Lemon Avenue/Five Points area is available at the Ringling Boulevard and School Street intersection. City Manager McNees continued that the predominant requirement is to proceed with the construction of the transfer facility; that Commission approval of the proposed agreement for the sale of the Lemon Avenue property with an effective date of April 1, 2002, is requested; that the 60-day period would allow for further presentation regarding the Ringling Boulevard and School Street site (Ringling site) alternative to the Commission; that the proposed agreement for sale would take effect and the transfer station would be constructed at the Lemon Avenue site if approval of the alternative site by the two governing bodies is lacking; that the Commission has consistently been against the proposed transfer facility abutting City Hall; that the logistics and location of the proposed transfer facility has changed since the initial discussions; that FDOT concern regarding an alternative site is no longer present; that the FDOT is considering providing the grant funding for the alternative site; that the historic landmark of City Hall may be preserved by choosing the alternative site for the transier facility; that a degradation of services must not occur by choosing the alternate site; that the Ringling site for the proposed transfer facility was previously introduced to and rejected by the Commission; that the configuration of the proposed transier facility at the Ringling site is different than previously presented to the Commission; that Staff anticipates a development opportunity for the parcel immediately west of City Hall near Five Points which is one of the last remaining prime undeveloped pieces of real estate in the downtown area; that the development opportunities for the parcel would change significantly if the transfer facility is built on the Lemon Avenue site; that the best and highest use for downtown property requires consideration. City Manager McNees further stated that postponing the decision regarding the location of the transfer facility is unacceptable to all involved parties; that the Lemon Avenue site will be Book 51 Page 22540 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22541 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. purchased for use as the transier facility if the Commission cannot agree on an alternate site. Commissioner Palmer asked if the term degradation of services could be Clarified? City Manager McNees stated that the term degradation of services means the transfer facility must work just as well at the Ringling site as the Lemon Avenue site; that the community must be allowed to enter and exit the bus at the stops currently established; that the transfer facility is the stop on the bus line from which individuals can transfer to a different bus routes; that individuals will be able reach the downtown area before arriving at the Ringling site transfer facility. Commissioner Palmer stated that inability to travel to the downtown area without transferring buses at the transfer facility is a major concern in the Ringling site. The following people came before the Commission: Clarence Brien, 419 West Cornelius Circle (34232), 23-year resident of the City, stated that his residence is on a bus route; that the residence was purchased at the time University Parkway was a dirt road and Proctor Road west of Beneva Road did not exist; that a transfer facility is now at a location upon which 75 percent of the voters agreed in the year 2001; that the present location was recommended in the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the Commission's consideration of moving the transfer facility to the. Ringling site is disappointing; that the bus system extends from Englewood to Bradenton and from the gulf waters to west of Interstate-75; that the City provides a trolley system for visitors and residents; that individuals would be forced to change buses in front of the jail, police station, and the County garage next to the dirt lot near the vacated Sarasota Mobile Home Park (SMHP); that another street would be vacated if the Ringling site is chosen; that access from the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) station in an emergency would be difficult; and asked if a democratic vote concerning the location of the transfer facility should be ignored? Philip Dasher, Chairman, Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that the Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee (Committee) has studied the location of the transfer facility; that successful transfer facilities in various cities throughout the country have been studied; that various proposed transfer facility sites throughout the City have been studied; that the Lemon Avenue site is the most preferred, most accessible, and most pedestrian-friendly site; that the Commission has had three consultants look at various transfer facility sites; that the three consultants concluded the Lemon Avenue site was preferable; that the transfer facility could be placed in Myakka and still be viable; however, the Myakka site would not be user- friendly; that questions for consideration are: Where will patrons wait? - What shelter will be provide to patrons waiting in the heat and the rain? - Where are patrons picked up? Mr. Dasher continued that the proposed Lemon Avenue transfer facility site would shelter and allow bus transfers for patrons; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 recommended pedestrian-trienaly, bicycle-friendly facilities which is not provided; that connectivity and a friendly experience were issues raised in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 which are not currently provided; that the City essentially has two downtown areas which are widely separated; that the previous Commission approved the Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) which resulted in the forgiveness of some traffic concurrency requirements and the deferral of road improvements required of development in exchange for mitigation; that mitigation has not occurred; that outstanding bicycle and pedestrian issues and traffic and transportation issues are not being addressed; that FDOT will not approve a transfer facility which includes a garage; that a multi-use facility is not precluded; that the City would like to attract visitors; that a survey by SCAT revealed 35 percent of ridership throughout the County has either an origination or destination in the downtown area; that the Committee supports the Lemon Avenue transfer facility on the Lemon Avenue site. Natalie McColloch, 378 Golden Gate Point (34236), stated that she is a staunch supporter of the Selby Public Library (Library); that locating the Library downtown has been a successi that the location of the transfer facility at Lemon Avenue has contributed to the success of the Library; that the transfer facility on Lemon Avenue has allowed patrons to visit Book 51 Page 22542 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22543 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. the Library with children and books in hand and return home in the same manner; that the lack of resolution in choosing the site of the transfer facility is discouraging; that parking at the Library is difficult; that the Library is grateful to individuals who use alternate means of transportation; that the Library wishes more patrons would and could use alternate means of transportation. Commissioner Martin asked if County Staff present in the audience could provide further insight into the placement of the transier facility? Jay Goodwill, General Manager of Transit Services, Sarasota County Public Works, came before the Commission and stated that the transfer facility focuses on the point the bus routes come together; that impacts to individual routes will occur; that for example, the Fruitville Road route will travel on the periphery of the downtown area and stop at the proposed Ringling Site to transfer to downtown routes; that the Ringling School of Art and Design route would be rerouted through the downtown area to provide extra bus stops; that an individual could choose the route best matching the destination when traveling to the downtown area from the County; that multiple bus route options will be available; that the bus routes will be different from the current routes; however, the service levels will be similar to the current service levels; that a shuttle could possibly assist with the saturation of patrons desiring to travel to the downtown area. Commissioner Martin stated that creating bus routes is difficult; and asked if 60 days is enough time to make an informed decision? Mr. Goodwill stated yes; that considerable time has already been spent assessing the Ringling site. Commissioner Martin asked if a plan is already in progress? Mr. Goodwill stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the bus stop in front of the Library will remain? Mr. Goodwill stated that the Library is a logical placement for a bus stop; that the County will work with Staff to create bus stops in the downtown area. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if a bus stop will remain at the Library if the transfer facility is relocated to the Ringling site? Mr. Goodwill stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the number of stops located in the Five Points area? Mr. Goodwill stated that the area from the waterfront to 10th Street and from the US 41 to US 301 will contain approximately 200 to 300 bus stops. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if any current bus stops will be removed? Mr. Goodwill stated no; that some bus stops may be shifted to other locations on the route; that the number of bus stops will remain the same. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that buses from all directions would meet at the transfer facility and individuals can transfer to reach different destinations. Mr. Goodwill stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an adjustment rather than a loss of service will occur if the transfer facility is located on the Ringling site? Mr. Goodwill stated that is correct. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Quillin, it was moved to approve the purchase and sale agreement with Sarasota County for property for use by the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Intermodal Transfer Facility effective April 1, 2002, which will allow 60 days for further discussion regarding an alternative site. City Manager McNees stated that in the event the City and County come to an agreement on an alternative location, the original contract for the purchase of the Lemon Avenue site will be rescinded. Commissioner Martin stated that utilizing the Lemon Avenue site for the transfer facility is supported; that the Lemon Avenue site is not ruinous to development or redevelopment in the downtown area; that the transfer facility of a transit system is usually located in a downtown area; that mass transportation will be the future of Sarasota; that the Ringling site has been Book 51 Page 22544 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22545 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. proposed but rejected by patrons in the past; that the individuals making decisions which affect the community are not always the patrons of City services; that an alternate site will be supported if proof is provided a different transfer facility site will serve the needs of the downtown patrons effectively. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 never indicated the Lemon Avenue site for the transfer facility; that a site at Orange Avenue and Fruitville Road was originally approved for the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the transier facility must meet the bus routing requirements of the patrons; . that the original transfer facility for the City was on Ringling Boulevard; that all the community services cannot be placed in the downtown area; that urban renewal, pedestrian requirements, etc., must also be met in the downtown area; that alternative transportation is being reviewed by various committees to transport the growing population in the area; that long-term transportation planning is required; that a location for the transfer facility must be provided; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Palmer stated that the transfer facility site has been discussed for some time; and asked if time required to explore an alternate transfer facility site will be limited to 60 days. City Manager McNees stated yes; that Staff will complete the investigation of an alternate site for the transfer facility within 60 days; however, the actions of the Commission cannot be predicted. Commissioner Palmer stated that the location of the transfer facility at the Lemon Avenue site is a concern; that previous Commissions have not supported the Lemon Avenue site; that the transportation requirements for the community to reach the downtown area must be supported; that an alternate site for the transfer facility is worth considering; that significant redevelopment and access to downtown through a good transit system is important. Commissioner Servian stated that the selection of a transier facility site should be finalized; that the community is requesting resolution of the transfer facility site; that utilizing 60 days to arrive at the best decision regarding the placement of the transfer facility is acceptable; that the Lemon Avenue site is not pleasing or supported; that the encroachment of the transfer facility onto an historic landmark is not pleasing; that the motion is supported. Mayor Mason stated that the motion as it relates to the Lemon Avenue site for the transier facility is supported; that the Ringling site is not supported; that the Ringling site will not be supported at the end of the 60 days required to find an alternate site. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to approve the purchase and sale agreement with Sarasota County for property for use by the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Intermodal Transfer Facility effective April 1, 2002, to allow 60 days for further discussion regarding an alternative site. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: MONTHLY REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES AT THE URBACULTURE SITE RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) #4 (0000) through (0890) CD 10:47 through 11:14 City Manager McNees stated that the monthly report of the activities at the urbaculture site located at 2046 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way is on the Agenda under Unfinished Business at his request; that the monthly report was reviewed; that considerable activity at the site was not included in the monthly report; that a meeting was held with the Executive Director, Florida House Institute (FHI), to discuss possible FHI and City activities to clean up the litter, trash, homeless camps, construction material, etc., currently on the site as the property belongs to the City; that the FHI Executive Director indicated the need to discuss the resources necessary with the FHI Board of Directors; that the urbaculture site is i1l kept; that cleaning up the site was not mentioned in the monthly report; therefore, a verbal report was felt necessary. Raymond Kaiser, FHI Executive Director, came before the Commission and stated that the issues identified in the meeting with the City were: What to do about the homeless? What to do about the dumping? Book 51 Page 22546 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22547 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. What to do about the liter or cleanup? Mr. Kaiser stated that the understanding was the point of contact with the City is the Deputy City Manager; that three meetings were held with the Deputy City Manager and Staff, including a meeting on December 27, 2001; that a telephone conversation was also held with the Deputy City Manager; that two monthly reports are provided to the City: 1) the regular monthly report which is prepared primarily for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Monthly Report) and 2) the report to the City Commission which provides greater detail (Commission Report); that the issues outlined in the meeting with the City Manager have been addressed with Staff; that each issue can be addressed if desired. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that general discussions have occurred; however, no detail has been presented; that FHI has been told the City has an expectation the site will be managed by FHI. Mr. Kaiser stated that FHI agreed to reinstall the chains at the entrances to the site from East Avenue to alleviate the dumping problem; that the chains had been taken down to allow for the EPA testing of. the site; that the urbaculture site is a brownfield; that State law prohibits a general cleanup of a brownfield site during a brownfield process, which was communicated to Staff during the December 27, 2001, meeting; that FHI determined not to address the issue of the homeless in the EPA Monthly Report; that FHI will survey the site twice a month and call the police if homeless are identified on the site; that the issues were not addressed in the EPA Monthly Report; however, the issues will be addressed in the Commission Report, which has not yet been issued for the month of December 2001; that the points raised by the City were identified in the November 2001 Commission Report. City Manager McNees stated that the Commission previously requested monthly reports from agencies receiving City funds to provide a tool for accountability rather than a token report; that the Commission has been clear in requesting a higher degree of accountability than at present; that the FHI Executive Director indicated a concern FHI has the resources to fulfill the contractual obligation to the City, which was a concern; that the Commission should be made aware of the concern sO a dialog between FHI and the City regarding future direction; that the monthly reports should provide the Commission an understanding of the relationship with the agencies as a contract holder with the City; that the EPA Monthly Report did not indicate the same concerns expressed verbally. Mr. Kaiser stated that apologies are offered for any confusion; that two distinct monthly reports are prepared; that the EPA Monthly Report follows a specific format; that the Commission Report was initiated to provide greater detail and a fuller set of activities; that the EPA Monthly Report is inadequate to provide the necessary information to the Commission. City Manager McNees stated that information concerning a Commission Report was not previously known. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the meeting with the City Manager was attended; that FHI was requested to report to the City Manager within 10 days as to FHI's intent regarding the urbaculture site. Mr. Kaiser stated that is correct; that at the meeting, the appropriate point of contact was requested, which was indicated as the Deputy City Manager. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the 10-day reporting was specific to the City Manager. City Manager McNees stated that the important issue is the status as of today, which may not be possible to provide at this meeting. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the report of the results of the EPA testing was scheduled for issuance in late December 2001 or early January 2002; and asked if the EPA testing report has been issued? Mr. Kaiser stated that a draft copy. was received on December 31, 2001, and was provided to the Deputy City Manager; that two shallow wells must be installed, one on the north and one south portion of the site; that Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), delivered the test results for the entire 15 acres except for the shallow wells. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the need for the EPA testing results was discussed at the December 27, 2001, meeting; that Staff recommended not declaring the urbaculture site a Book 51 Page 22548 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22549 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. brownfield; that the EPA testing results were required to determine the materials on the site and to decide if to declare the site a brownfield; that another 30 days has passed; that the urbaculture site is i1l kept. Mr. Kaiser stated that the urbaculture site is an old dump. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the urbaculture site is overgrown, which is contrary to the Commission's intent concerning use of the site, and is a blight to the neighborhood; that the Commission is not being kept informed; that providing current information to the community is critical; that additional testing is constantly being required; that the City should proceed quickly or discontinue the project. Mr. Kaiser stated that the Commission Report, which is distributed to all Commissioners, provides additional information; that the November 2001 Commission Report was issued; however, the December 2001 Commission Report has not yet been issued. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the December 2001 Commission Report should have been issued by this time. Mr. Kaiser stated that the concern is understood; that FHI is of the opinion the urbaculture site should have been declared a brownfield some time ago. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the City requires the EPA testing report, which was due in late December 2001 or early January 2002, to decide if to reverse the recommendation not to declare the site a brownfield. Mr. Kaiser stated that an appearance was previously made before the Commission at the November 5, 2001, Regular meeting, at which time the issue of a brownfield designation was raised; that a subsequent written response suggested the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) make a presentation concerning brownfield designation to the City; that FDEP made a presentation to Staff and was unequivocal the City should have designated the urbaculture site a brownfield some time ago, which would have been helpful in moving the project forward; that Staff raised concerns regarding the potential liability of declaring the urbaculture site a brownfield; that the FDEP presented the advantages of declaring the urbaculture site a brownfield; that FDEP indicated no liabilities could be discerned; that follow-up actions were taken concerning issues presented at a previous Commission meeting. Mr. Schneider stated that Staff met with FHI on January 11, 2001; that a draft of the EPA testing results were presented; that the date of receipt of a final report was requested; that the final report is comprised of: 1) the EPA testing results and 2) the Economic Development Plan (EDP); that the EDP is not yet complete; that a draft of half of the final report has been received; that the additional testing of two shallow wells is a separate issue and should be completed after the final report; that a meeting was also held with FDEP, which indicated the urbaculture site should be considered as part of the State's brownfield program; that City Staff attempted to determine the implications of being in the brownfield program, i.e., the City's responsibilities, liabilities, costs, etc.; that an effort was also made to determine other jurisdictions participating in the program; that not much information was available to provide a level of confidence to allow a recommendation to the Commission; that additional information regarding educational programs, other participating jurisdictions, etc., is being sought; that the only information available is from a website; that EPA and FDEP regulations are available; that the resources of the experiences other cities or counties are not available. City Manager McNees stated that Staff will be developing recommendations based upon the information available. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is the innovator regarding brownfields, could be visited. Mayor Mason stated that the urbaculture project is a concern as the property is City owned; that other owners of property in the City are required by code enforcement to maintain certain levels of maintenance; that the City should set an example in the maintenance of its property; that the constituency residing immediately adjacent to the urbaculture site are aware an illegal dump existed on the site for many years; that everyone wants to know the materials which exist on - the site and the action which can be taken to remedy the problem; that people understand walking on the site could be dangerous; that questions are being raised as to a date by which information will be available; that the FHI Executive Director has been meeting with residents of the surrounding area; however, Book 51 Page 22550 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22551 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. residents may not be as forthcoming with the FHI Executive Director; that a second concern is soon after her election, questions were personally raised with City Staff about designating the site as a brownfield; that much has been heard about the brownfield program; that other cities and counties throughout the country have brownfield designations; that other jurisdictions could be contacted; that the brownfield program is a Federal program; that Federal legislators could be contacted. Mr. Kaiser stated that many cities have not addressed brownfields; that the process for many cities which have brownfield designations has been slow and ugly; that the process is very cumbersome with many conflicting regulations; that more talk regarding brownfield redevelopment exists than brownfield redevelopment; that a billion dollars has been approved in Federal funding for five years for brownfield redevelopment and for streamlining the process; that the lack of understanding regarding the potential liability is understood; that brownfield success stories are not common; that Staff would like the confidence knowing the City can make a commitment to redevelop the urbaculture site at a level which is affordable and meets the needs of the community; that Staff's concerns are understood; that the urbaculture site is an old dump; that high levels of lead and arsenic are present; that a risk-based assessment could be conducted by engineers; however, many different activities could be conducted if two feet of fill are installed on the urbaculture site; that a risk-based assessment could determine low-cost development for some exciting activities such as a marketplace; that area residents would like a marketplace at the front of the property; that a learning center could be developed; that a professor from the Ringling School of Art and Design inquired about use of a portion of the site and would be willing to undertake fund-raising activities; that a cooperative spirit by the City, FHI, and other interested persons who would like to invest in the Newtown community could result in a worthwhile project. Commissioner Palmer stated that activity concerning the urbaculture site should be reterred to the Administration to develop an action plan. Commissioner Servian asked if a legal opinion could be presented. Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that no legal opinion has been rendered as to if a cleanup of the urbaculture site is a violation of State law; that any legal citations could be reviewed if desired. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the site should be mowed as the high vegetation is a hazard; that the status of the urbaculture site should be referred to the Administration. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to refer the status of the urbaculture site to the Administration for a report back. Commissioner Martin stated that three issues were identified: dumping, the homeless, and mowing; that the installation of chains at the entrances will alleviate the dumping; that periodic checks will be conducted to eliminate use of the site by the homeless; that the site must be mowed; that clarification of the identification of the site as a brownfield is required; that the City should be made aware if no cleanup of the site is permitted. Mr. Kaiser stated that an effort has historically been made to keep the front of the urbaculture presentable; that the City, the County, and a private contractor have damaged equipment while attempting to mow the entire site; that the terrain is very rough. Commissioner Martin stated that having an answer from the City Attorney's Office to the question of if the site can be mowed would be helpful. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office will work with the Administration; that the involvement of the City Attorney's Office is minimal; that the City Attorney's Office has no assignment to work on issues of the urbaculture site or brownfields; that the only involvement of the City Attorney's Office is due to the lease with FHI; that the City Attorney's Office is willing to undertake but has not yet received an assignment to work on issues relating to the urbaculture site or brownfields. Mayor Mason stated that the urbaculture project was previously handled by the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services who has since resigned. Book 51 Page 22552 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22553 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that referring the issue to the Administration not only involves the City Manager but also includes the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk; that the three Charter Officials should take action as necessary. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the City Attorney indicated the only involvement has been with the lease; that a determination could be made as to if the lessor can be requested to mow the property; that the urbaculture site should be maintained; that problems could result to the nearby commercial property or school if the dead vegetation becomes dry, causing a fire hazard; that the health, safety, and welfare of the community is at stake; that the urbaculture site was mowed in years past. Mr. Kaiser stated that the property was mowed prior to the belief the site may be a brownfield; that the problem is surface contamination; that dust resulting from mowing could cause problems. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the urbaculture site has a foot of mulch on top of the soil. Mayor Mason stated that the issue of the urbaculture site has been referred to the Administration. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT FOR CITY GRANT FUNDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA COURT WATCH, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,711 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 - APPROVED AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RÉ: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 02R-1460, APPROPRIATING $31,294.79 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE SARASOTA COURT WATCH, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 2001, ETC. - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-4) #4 (0890) through (1012) CD 11:14 through 11:18 City Manager McNees stated that on December 17, 2001, the Commission directed Sarasota Court Watch, Inc. (Court Watch), be provided funding for fiscal year (FY) 2001/02 to continue basic operations; that approximately $32,000 would be required for the remainder of FY 2001/02; that Court Watch later submitted a request for $31,294.79 as the exact figure required to fund the program at the current level; that the First Amended Agreement for City Grant Funding (Amended Agreement) incorporates the previously awarded neighborhood grant agreement of $13,416.21 into the Amended Agreement bringing the total funding for Court Watch for FY 2001/02 to $44,711. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution No. 02R-1460 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve the First Amended Agreement for City Grant Funding of $31,294.79 for FY 2001/02 and to adopt proposed Resolution No. 02R-1460. Mayor Mason requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Court Watch should seek funding from sources other than the City in the future; that FY 2001/02 should be the last year the City will provide funding from the General Fund; that funding should be provided from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, which is the appropriate funding source. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: SARASOTA TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (TMO) QUARTERLY REPORT - RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VI-5) #4 (1012) through (1200) CD 11:18 through 11:37 Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that a January 22, 2002, Commission Workshop was held to provide an overview of the Sarasota Transportation Management Organization (TMO); that Staff's recommendation at this time is to receive the Sarasota Transportation Management Organization Quarterly Report. Philip Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), Chairman, Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee (Committee), came before the Commission and stated that the Commission previously made the Committee a member of the TMO; that the Committee was not advised of the January 22, 2002, Commission Workshop; that a Book 51 Page 22554 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22555 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. meeting was held with the TMO Executive Director in December 2001; that the Committee is not an advocacy group but rather an advisory group and is concerned with the technical aspects of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and the TMO; that the TMO Executive Director was of the opinion the mission of the TMO is to promote transportation in the Downtown, which was a concern of the Committee; that the TMO should be involved with mitigation issues and should advocate representatives of the Downtown area, developers, and other concerned citizens accept mitigation such as vanpooling for new developments, bicycle parking, shuttle service, and satellite parking lots; that the results of the TMO would be ineffective unless the Commission is committed to the TCEA; that the Commission must be committed to the mitigation aspects of the TCEA to assure the TMO's successi that the Commission is financing the TMO; therefore, the TMO may be reluctant to criticize the Commission; however, such reluctance should not and hopefully does not : exist; that the Commission, the TMO, and all interested parties should have the same objectives; that the Committee is prepared to help and has never criticized without making suggestions; that correspondence concerning the City's commitment and mitigation efforts has been previously send to the Commission; that the Committee has significant talent among the members and would like to be included. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to receive the Status Report of the Sarasota Transportation Management Organization for the October to December 2001 quarter. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A MODIFICATION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND HARVEY AND CAROL L. VENGROFF, FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME THROUGH SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AND OBTAIN THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE PROJECT AT 650 CENTRAL AVENUE - DIRECTED CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (AGENDA ITEM VI-6) #4 (1200) through (1720) CD 11:22 through 11:35 Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and referred to the Agenda Request in the Agenda backup material indicating that on December 17, 2001, the Commission denied a request by the Applicant, Vengroff, Williams, & Associates, Inc., which would have allowed major changes to the originally approved project at 650 Central Avenue; that the Commission also authorized Staff to prepare an appropriation to exercise the reverter Clause in the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) for the City to sell the property to the Applicant; that the Applicant reconsidered his original request, resolved all outstanding construction issues, reinstated the original building permit and intends to construct the project as originally approved with only minor modifications. Mr. Litchet referred to a letter dated January 11, 2002, to the City from David King, J.D., Special Projects Manager, Vengroff, Williams & Associates, Inc., included in the Agenda backup material including the construction schedule and indicating the project can be completed on or before July 20, 2002, as required by the Agreement; and stated that the Applicant requests approval of a new amendment to the Agreement for an extension of time through September 20, 2002, to complete construction and obtain the Certificate of Occupancy (CO); that the extension will be exercised only in the event - of unexpected or uncontrollable emergencies; that the Commission has the discretion as to whether to grant the extension or not; that the Applicant would also like to discuss the lien priorities of the reverter clause in the Agreement; that the project as originally presented and approved will be constructed; that the Administration recommends the development of a second amendment to the Agreement to provide 1) an extension of time through September 20, 2002, to complete construction and obtain the CO in the event of an unexpected or uncontrolled emergency and 2) language in the Agreement to allow the financing on the project to proceed. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to extend the meeting beyond the 11:30 p.m. deadline to complete the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Mason stated that the dramatic changes in the project presented at the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting were a disappointment which was the reason for not supporting the Applicant's request at that time; that the current request Book 51 Page 22556 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22557 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. is pleasing; that the Commission was excited about the project as originally approved. Mr. Litchet stated that Staff is also pleased; that good communication with the project architect helped work through the construction details. Commissioner Palmer stated that the project as presented addresses any previous personal concerns; that the additional 60 days is only for unusual circumstances. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a problem exists with the request. Harvey Vengroff, Principal, and David King, J.D., Special Projects Manager, Vengroff, Williams, & Associates, Inc., came before the Commission. Mr. King stated that the request was submitted based upon consultation with the City Attorney's Office; that considerable funds are being invested in the project; that the time extension was included in the request just to assure all contingencies could be met; that exercising the time extension is not anticipated; that the schedule presented in the January 11, 2002, letter will be met. Commissioner Servian asked the impediment of the reverter clause to the financing? Mr. Vengroff stated that a bank has agreed to provide the financing but wishes to assure a first lien on the property or at least the ability to complete the project in the event of a default; that the bank wishes to protect its investment; that a default of over a million dollars would have a major effect on the bank. Mr. King stated that a developer requires financing for major projects; that the ability to negotiate the terms required by the bank to obtain financing is requested. Commissioner, Servian asked if the bank is requesting the City subordinate the reverter Clause? Mr. Vengroff stated that the bank is requesting the ability to complete the project within a reasonable period of time in the event of a default, which is reasonable; that everyone is interested in the success of the project. Mr. King stated that the project will be completed on time. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a 60-day extension is therefore not necessary. Mr. Vengroff stated that the request for a 60-day extension was submitted based on the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the property is key to the development of the City; that a master plan was previously developed for the area; that the Commission was not kept advised of proposed changes until late in the process; that a willingness exists to exercise the reverter clause and disseminate a Request for Proposal to develop the property as desired by the Commission if necessary; that no willingness exists to allow an additional 60-day extension; that the Agreement includes a provision to have the project completed by a certain date; that the City has similar agreements with other developers; that no precedent to allow time extensions should be established; that the City should not be placed in the position of having a developer indicate exceptions were granted for one piece of property and therefore should be granted for another; that the property was recently viewed; that all the steel work has been removed. Mr. King stated that removal of the steel work was required to meet the City's requirements. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if a building permit has been issued? Mr. Vengroff stated yes; that construction has begun. Mr. King stated that the project was delayed for two reasons : 1. An environmental problem on the property was discovered and removal of a gas tank was required to comply with environmental laws. 2. A rezoning was required to meet the Commission's original intent for development of the property. Mr. King continued that the reasons for the delay were beyond the Applicant's control; that time was required to resolve the Book 51 Page 22558 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22559 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. two problems encountered; that nevertheless, the project will be completed on time. Commissioner Palmer asked the reason the City Attorney's Office is of the opinion the time extension is necessary. Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that after the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, a meeting with the Applicant and Staff was attended; that the Applicant indicated a willingness and ability to construct the project as originally approved by . the Commission with the originally approved building permit; that the Applicant also indicated an ability to complete the project by July 20, 2002, which is the completion date required in the Agreement; that everyone acknowledges completion by July 20, 2002, will be difficult; that the desire was not to have the project 95 percent complete on July 20, 2002, but for the City Attorney's Office to have directions to exercise the reverter clause and buy the property back for $180,000 on the same date; therefore, the suggestion was to present to the Commission the work completed to date and the construction schedule and to request the 60-day extension in the event necessary; that the 60-day extension was his suggestion. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the 60-day extension is not supported. City Manager McNees stated that the City Attorney's Office is applauded for thinking ahead; that approving a 60- or 90-day extension is not necessarily negative if the project is completed as desired by the City; that with the City Attorney's approval, the Commission could designate either the City Manager or the City Attorney to adjudicate the question of the development of an unforeseen circumstance; that another issue is the ability to obtain financing; that the bank requests a subordination of the reverter clause to the bank's interest; that the Administration cannot make such a recommendation; that a compromise is the City would agree to subordinate the reverter clause at the time of issuance of the CO, which is fair; that the City will agree to subordinate once the City knows the project is çomplete, a CO is issued, and the City's objectives have been achieved; that subordinating at the time of issuance of the CO protects the City's interests. Mr. King stated that subordinating at the time of issuance of the CO is acceptable. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the establishment of a precedent of a 60-day extension is not supported. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Administration's recommendation is modified to include identification of the Administration as the adjudicator of the development of an unforeseen circumstance? City Manager McNees stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to request the City Attorney to prepare a second amendment to the Purchase and Sales Agreement providing for an extension of time through September 20, 2002, to complete construction and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy only in the event of an unexpected or uncontrollable emergency as determined by the City Manager and for additional language as necessary to allow financing of the project while protecting the City's interest. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the motion will not be supported due to the precedent being established; that the City should adhere to the terms included in any City contract or no further contracts should be developed; that the granting of a time extension was not the Commission's original intent; that the project should be completed in the original time provided; that the contract could be extended in the future if the project is almost complete on July 20, 2002; that good faith must be seen to support an extension; that good faith has not yet been demonstrated on the project; that the establishment of a precedent will not be supported. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Servian, no; Mason, yes. Book 51 Page 22560 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22561 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 02R-1466, APPROPRIATING $180,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO REPURCHASE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 650 CENTRAL AVENUE FROM THE VENGROFFS PER PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE, ETC. ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-7) #4 (1720) through (1740) CD 11:35 through 11:40 Mayor Mason stated that proposed Resolution No. 02R-1466 would appropriate $180,000 from the unencumbered fund balance of the General Fund for the purpose of funding the repurchase of the property located at 650 Central Avenue from Carol and Harvey Vengroff for non-compliance. City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Resolution No. 02R-1466 is no longer necessary due to the action taken under Agenda Item VI-6. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4358, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED.) REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SINGLE- - FAMILY DWELLINGS; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; AMENDING ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION; DIVISION 2, DEFINITIONS SECTION II- 201, DEFINITIONS, TO CLARIFY THAT THE EXISTING DEFINITION OF "HEIGHT" APPLIES TO "BUILDINGS OTHER THAN SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLINGS", REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-ZTA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-8) #4 (1740) through (2505) CD 11:40 through 11:55 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 on second reading. Commissioner Palmer asked if changes are required to proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358? Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that a response depends on if the Commissioner's intent is to require a mechanical equipment screening wall only for air conditioning units in the side yard. Commissioner Servian stated that the intent is to require a mechanical equipment screening wall only for air conditioning units in the side yard. Attorney Schenk stated that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 will be revised to indicate screening is required only for air conditioning units in the side yard. Commissioner Palmer referred to a memorandum dated January 18, 2001, from Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, regarding the mechanical equipment screening wall and stated that the issue of affordability of the mechanical equipment screening wall was a concern; that Staff researched the costs; that concerns regarding the cost of the mechanical equipment screening wall may arise as proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 goes into effect; that changes to proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 should not be made at the current meeting; that Staff may address concerns regarding proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 as concerns arise; that the development of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 has been a long, arduous process; that the following Single-Family Dwelling Height Task Force (Task Force) members are commended for the time and effort spent in developing proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358: Commissioner Servian and Carl Abbott, Co-Chairs, and Rick Carlisle, David Levin, Jim Cooney, and Charles Githler, Members, and Jane Carrigan, Alternate Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the information contained in the memorandum from Staff should have been provided to the Commission prior to the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 at the January 7, 2002, Regular meeting; that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 was not supported at the public hearing and will not be supported on second reading; that the impact to District 1 and District 3 is significant; that the City will not hear complaints from the poor and young families wishing to move into the City; that the cost to renovate a house will deter families from moving into the City; that the young families who move into the City provide balance; that the removal of the exemption to proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 for houses under 2,000 square feet was disappointing; that young Book 51 Page 22562 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22563 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. families usually purchase starter homes under 2,000 square feet; that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 may have been manageable if the exemption was provided; that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 is not supported. Mayor Mason stated that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 is not supported; however, the efforts of Staff in developing proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 are appreciated. Commissioner Servian stated that 2,000-square-toot homes are not only located in District 1 and 3 but all over the City; that the drainage, mechanical equipment screening, or landscaping concerns are only triggered by substantial improvement to the property; that half the value of the home must be destroyed or 500 square feet added to the property before proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 is activated; that an' improvement of the mentioned magnitude would cost a minimum of $30,000 to $50,000; that to add $500 to $1,600 additional cost for quality of life is 1 to 3 percent well spent. Commissioner Martin stated that a former Mayor, Commissioner, and personal political mentor indicated one district should not be treated different from another district; that the concept was not accepted at first; that better neighborhoods get better and poor neighborhoods get poorer if districts are treated differently; that quality of life issues should not be solved in only the neighborhoods which can afford a better quality-of-life and exempt others who cannot; that addressing the atfordability of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 may be to mitigate or subsidize the cost; that assistance to mitigate the costs which will be associated with proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 exist; that neighborhoods would be segregated if one neighborhood were exempt from proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 and another were not. Commissioner Martin continued that the January 18, 2002, memorandum was appreciated; that the mechanical screening wall could be built for approximately $150; that sound deadening materials are not defined; that a piece of 1.5-inch lumber is sound deadening material; that the manner a lower income homeowner could meet the requirements of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 was explored; that pressure treated lumber, 2 by 8 feet and 1.5 inch thick, and 4-by-4 foot posts were priced; that the requirement of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4358 is to have the mechanical equipment screening wall extend 18 inches beyond the mechanical equipment; that an air conditioning condenser was measured which was 22 by 26 by 26 inches; that all the materials, including a post digger, were purchased at a home improvement store for a cost under $100; that a handyman may cost $18 or $28 an hour; that the mechanical screening wall can be built for $200 or less; that the wall will mitigate the sound of the air conditioner between the two properties. Commissioner Martin further stated that the low-income individual in the neighborhood may not be able to afford central air conditioning but may have a wall unit, will turn the unit off at night, open the windows, and save $50 a month; that the low-income individual would not be able to open the windows if an air conditioning unit is reverberating in the house next door but will benefit from the mechanical equipment screening wall if approved. Mayor Mason requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): : Martin, yes; Mason, no; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Servian, yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the efforts of Mark Hess, Chief Planner, Planning Department, Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, and Staff of the Department of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement are appreciated. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: : SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4355, REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 01-ZTA-03, AMENDING THE METHOD FOR THE CALCULATION OF HEIGHT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THEIR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND AMENDING REGULATIONS REGARDING THE REPAIR OR RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY USES AND NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-03, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) = DENIED (AGENDA ITEM VI-9) #4 (2505) through (2663) CD 11:55 through 11:58 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 by title only. City Attorney Taylor stated that as proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 was previously passed on first reading, the Commission should take action as desired at second reading. Book 51 Page 22564 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. Book 51 Page 22565 01/22/02 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to deny adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 on second reading. Commissioner Palmer referred to Section V-105 (D), proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 as follows: D. Any part of a noncontorming accessory use or accessory structure which is destroyed or damaged (either gradually or suddenly) by fire or other causes beyond control of the owner to 75 percent or more of its market value as determined by a state certified property appraiser may be repaired or restored only if the accessory use or accessory structure conforms to the standards of these regulations for the zoning district in which it is located. Commissioner Palmer stated that the regulation is pleasing; that the opportunity to consider the regulation will be presented during consideration of Phase II of - the land development regulations; that inclusion of the regulation in Ordinance No. 02-4358, which was just adopted under Agenda Item VI-8, would have been pleasing. Mayor Mason requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Servian, yes; Martin; yes. 21. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (2663) CD 11:58 There were no Commission Board or Committee reports. 22. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (2663) CD 11:58 There were no Commissioner remarks. 23. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2663) CD 11:58 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Regular meeting of January 22, 2001, at 11:58 p.m. Cosle 1M / aAS CAROLYN J. MASON, MAYOR ATTEST: BALE Rebinson BILLY ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 51 Page 22566 01/22/02 6:00 P.M.