MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2002, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Mary J. Quillin, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason PRESIDING: Vice Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that Mayor Mason had a meeting of the Florida Historical Commission in Tallahassee and therefore could not be present. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED CD 6:01 through 6:02 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove Special Presentation Re: Oath of Office for Peter J. Abbott, Chief of Police administered by Billy E. Robinson due to a death in the family. B. Remove Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III.A.10, Approval Re: Second Amendment to Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau to extend the Lease with the City for an additional one-year period with an option to renew for the last 4 years of the term originally contemplated in the 1993 Lease Agreement, per the request of General Services Director Carolan. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the Commission had any objections to the Changes to the Orders of the Day? Vice Mayor Palmer stated BOOK 53 Page 24272 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24273 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. that hearing no objections, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. 2. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL AND REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2002 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1, -2) CD 6:02 through 6:03 Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Vice Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the Special and Regular Commission meetings of November 4, 2002, are approved by unanimous consent. 3. BOARD ACTIONS RE: : REPORT RE: CELEBRATE SARASOTA COMMITTEE APPROVED TO ALLOCATE $25,000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLAQUES, BUMPER STICKERS, PENS, PENCILS, NOTE PADS, CALENDARS, ETC. AND APPROVED THE EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $1,800 FOR 5,000 POSTERS; RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-1) CD 6:03 through 6:19 William Thorning Little, Chair of the Celebrate Sarasota Committee, came before the Commission and reported on the following items from its November 13, 2002, meeting: A. Operating Budget Mr. Little stated that Commission approval of an operating budget of $25,000 for the Celebrate Sarasota Committee for the following items is requested: Historic commemorative plaques; Bumper stickers; - Pens, pencils, note pads, etc.; Calendars with graphics nighlighting features of the City by Mary Ann Cotton; and Chair Little continued that the budget will be under the supervision of City Auditor and Clerk Robinson subject to the following conditions: Allocation of funds will be at the discretion of the City Auditor and Clerk; - An accounting of funding will be regularly presented by the City Auditor and Clerk to the Celebrate Sarasota Committee and the Commission; Any one-time expenditure will be limited to $5,000; and The amount of funding for the operating budget is $25,000. Chair Little stated that any expenditure exceeding $5,000 would be presented to the Celebrate Sarasota Committee and subsequently to the Commission for approval. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commission Servian, it was moved to approve the request of the Celebrate Sarasota Committee to allocate $25,000 for the purchase of plaques, bumper stickers, pens, pencils, note pads, calendars, etc., subject to the following conditions: allocation at the discretion of the City Auditor and Clerk; - regular accounting of funds; and one-time expenditure limitation of $5,000. Commissioner Martin asked the process for requesting approval for an expenditure of over $5,000. Chair Little stated that any requested expenditure exceeding $5,000 must be presented to the City Auditor and Clerk, the Celebrate Sarasota Committee, and finally the Commission for approval. Vice Mayor Palmer called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. B. Monthly Meeting Schedule Chair Little stated that the Celebrate Sarasota Committee has established a regular monthly meeting schedule of 5 p.m. on the second Wednesday of the month in Room 303A, City Hall Annex; that everyone serving on a committee associated with the City's 100th Anniversary Celebration is encouraged to attend; that notices will be distributed. C. Grant Applications BOOK 53 Page 24274 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24275 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Chair Little distributed a sample application for neighborhoods and other interested organizations to apply for grants from the City for activities associated with the City's 100th Anniversary Celebration; and stated that the deadline for filing grant applications is January 15, 2003; that the Celebrate Sarasota Committee will review and rank grant applications and present recommendations to the Commission for approval; that the ranking criteria will be presented at the December 2, 2002, Regular Commission meeting for review and suggestions. Commissioner Martin asked if a maximum grant award has been established? Chair Little stated no; that ranking criteria has been discussed and will be refined and presented to the Commission; that the desire is not to limit the possibilities too stringently; that the type of events which will be considered are events specifically for the 100th Anniversary Celebration. Commissioner Quillin stated that the original committee considered a $500 grant maximum with consideration of grants in excess of $500 and up to $5,000 if the sponsoring organization provided matching funds. Commissioner Quillin referred to the grant application indicating cost of salaries, benefits, travel expenses, and overhead; and stated that the original intent was not to fund the indicated expensesi that the grants would be used to offset the costs associated with Public Works or Police services for larger events; that providing funding for salaries, benefits, travel expenses, and overhead is not supported; that the grant application should be refined; that grants above $500 and up to $5,000 should be available only if matching funds are provided; that the consideration of the Celebrate Sarasota Committee to provide for matching grants would be appreciated. Chair Little stated that the grant application was drafted from an existing grant application to expedite the Commission's consideration; that any costs which are not applicable can be sO indicated on the grant application. Commissioner Quillin stated that grant applicants would not consider requesting funding for such costs if not indicated on the grant application. Chair Little stated that the desire is to expedite the process and not have considerable refinement of the grant application. Commissioner Quillin stated that the space for cost of salaries, benefits, travel expenses, and overhead can be eliminated from the grant application and a space provided for Total Estimated Cost of Project; that any grant over $500 and up to $5,000 should be approved only as a matching grant. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if overall ranking criteria or guiding principles for the grants have been established? Chair Little stated that the discussion has focused on assuring the activity is: 1) not an already scheduled annual event but rather specifically for the 100th Anniversary Celebration, 2) open to the public rather than a paid activity, and 3) open to all age groups rather than specific age groups; that some flexibility is necessary; that any suggestions are welcomed; that additional criteria will be discussed and presented to the Commission at the December 16, 2002, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the criteria will be presented to the Commission prior to the award of grant funds. Chair Little stated that is correct. Commissioner Martin stated that the $25,000 budget managed by the City Auditor and Clerk is for expenditures for internal use for projects related to the 100th Anniversary Celebration. Chair Little stated that is correct. Commissioner Martin stated that the grant application process will cover all other projects; that anyone with an idea for the 100th Anniversary Celebration must submit a grant application to receive City funding. Chair Little stated that is correct; that for example, a multi- cultural event is being scheduled for October 10 and 11, 2003, is well organized, and should be an excellent event; that the anticipated budget for the event is over $30,000; that the question of establishing a maximum will be based on the number of grant applications received; that the City Auditor and Clerk BOOK 53 Page 24276 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24277 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. will be preparing an accounting of all expenditures to date, including expenditures for the coins, the small etched glass candy dishes, the posters, etc., sO the balance remaining for grant funding can be determined. Commissioner Martin stated that some neighborhood groups may be interested in a small grant; that everyone should be informed of the availability of the grant; and asked the manner in which the availability of grants will be publicized? Chair Little stated that the Chair of the Public Relations Committee will be in contact with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and other media; that everyone serving as Chair or Co-Chair of the various committees will receive notice of meetings electronically; that the Chair of the City Coalition of Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) serves on the Celebrate Sarasota Committee and will be in contact with the neighborhood associations. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a press release will be disseminated. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Department of Neighborhoods should send a notice to all neighborhoods as not all neighborhoods belong to the CCNA. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the press release will be sent to all neighborhood associations. D. Banners and Posters Chair Little displayed a sample banner for the 100th Anniversary Celebration and stated that the banners will be printed on two sides; that the banner was presented to the Celebrate Sarasota Committee with a request to approve funding of no more than $1,800 including taxes to produce 5,000 posters in the same design as the banner; that Spotlight Graphics agreed to match the cost of printing the posters; that unfortunately, a quorum was no longer present at the Celebrate Sarasota Committee at the time the request to print the posters was presented; however, the remaining members present voted unanimously to approve the expenditure. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City is paying the cost; therefore, the expenditure should be tax exempt; and asked if the address of the website of www.celebratesatesarasota.com for the 100th Anniversary Celebration could be included on the poster? Chair Little stated yes, if desired. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to approve the expenditure of up to $1,800 for 5,000 posters. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes Palmer, yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that Chair Little and his daughter did an excellent job on the design of the banner and poster. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the design is attractive; and asked if the criteria for the grants will be brought back to the December 16, 2002, Regular Commission meeting. Chair Little stated yes; that a number of grant applications have already been distributed; that modification of the grant application will cause some confusion but will not be a significant issue. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the concerns regarding funding of salaries, etc., are legitimate and should be considered; that the Commission will not consider grant funding for salaries, benefits, travel expenses, or overhead. Commissioner Quillin stated that two types of grants should be available: small grants for neighborhoods and larger grants which require matching funds. Chair Little asked the level at which a grant should be supported by matching Eunds? Commissioner Quillin stated that earlier discussions were to require matching funds for any grant over $500 and up to $5,000. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Celebrate Sarasota Committee should provide a recommendation. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to receive the report of the Celebrate BOOK 53 Page 24278 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24279 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Sarasota Committee for the November 13, 2002, meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, AND 12 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 9 = REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION, PLACED UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS AGENDA ITEM VIII-2; ITEM NO. 10 - REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA UNDER CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM III-B) CD 6:19 through 6:20 Commissioner Martin requested that Item No. 9 be removed for discussion. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 9, will be considered under New Business as Agenda Item No. VIII-2. 1. Approval Re: Set for public hearing Conditional Use Application No. 02-CU-12 and Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-36; requests to allow a hotel/motel use in the RMF-4 Zone District in accordance with the Zoning Code (1998 Ed.) on property located at 3470 Fruitville Road. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to enter into lease agreements with D & M Enterprises of Sarasota, Inc., Glenn A. Peachy and Strickland Ranch for Verna Wellfield Parcels. 3. Approval Re: Amendment to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program) Grant Agreement. 4. Approval Re: Sarasota Transportation Management organizations (TMO) quarterly status report. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Group Sales Contract between the City of Sarasota and Hyatt Sarasota, Inc., and authorize the Administration to complete a credit application to establish a Master Account for the Florida Neighborhood Conference 2003. 6. Approval Re: Refer to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board the designation of members to have one member from Marie Selby Botanical Gardens staff, one member from Mote Marine Laboratories staff and one member with expertise in parks, recreation or landscape architecture. 7. Approval Re: Trolley Schedule and Operations Service Interlocal Agreement between Sarasota County and the City and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute same. 8. Approval Re: Construction of Municipal Sidewalks Project Bid #02-14M for the City of Sarasota. Award a formal contract to Shirley Land Development, Inc., for completion of the work specified in the amount of $123,331 and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute same. 11. Approval Re: City Grant Funding: Monthly activities report from the Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team. 12. Approval Re: City Grant Funding: Monthly activities report from Sarasota Court Watch, Inc. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1555) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 02-4404) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 02-4412) ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4418) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4421) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) CD 6:20 through 6:23 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1555, amending the City's formal Rules of Procedure for City Commission meetings, adopted by Resolution No. 96R-936 and amended by Resolution Nos. 97R-959, 97R-1010, 99R-1191, 02R-1471 and 02R-1496, by the rescheduling the commencement time of the regularly scheduled City Commission meetings and rescheduling the Agenda order of business between BOOK 53 Page 24280 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24281 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. afternoon and evening sessions, as indicated in Exhibit A; etc. (Title Only). 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404, amending Ordinance No. 01-4292 to reflect the approval and substitution of Site Plan 02-SP-38 for a portion of previously approved Site Plan 01-SP-01; said Site Plan pertaining to the construction of an 88-unit residential condominium to be known as the Beach Residences; said condominium to be constructed together with an adjacent private recreational club as a single unified development project on property zoned Waterfront Resort (WFR) and having a street address of 1234, 1314, and 1330 Benjamin Franklin Drive; etc. (Title Only) (Application Nos. 02-SP-38 and 02-ROA-06, Applicant SLAB Lido, L.L.C., and SLAB, L.L.C., Oklahoma Limited Liability Companies). . 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 02-4412, to rezone real property located on the south side of Fruitville Road approximately 370 feet east of Lockwood Ridge Road and having a street address of 3260 Fruitville Road, from the Multiple Family Residential-2 (RMF-2) to the Office, Professional and Business (OBP) Zone District, as more particularly set forth herein; etc. (Title Only) Application No 02-RE-11, Marla Hough, P.E., as agent representing chneider/Pomykala Properties, as Applicant). 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4418, to amend Ordinance No. 92-3612 which conditionally rezoned property located at 2200 Bee Ridge Road to the Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District, a/k/a Coast Cadillac Automobile Dealership; said amendment consists of the substitution of proposed Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-41 for previously approved Site Plan 92-I to enable the expansion of the Coast Cadillac Automobile Dealership, as detailed in Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-41; approving the substituted Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-41; etc. (Title Only) (Application Nos. 02-ROA-07 and 02-SP-41, Applicant William Thorning Little, Architect, as agent representing Geyer-Dickinson General Partnership, as owner) 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4421, amending the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) Chapter 2, Administration, Article V, Boards, Commissions and Committees, Division 3, the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall Board, to add five members to said board; specifying that seven members shall be residents of the City of Sarasota; three members shall be residents of Sarasota County, but not the City of Sarasota; one member shall reside in Manatee County; one member shall represent the STAR Program; and one member may be a life member; etc. (Title Only). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03-1555 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 02-4404, 02-4412, 03-4418, and 03-4421 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 5, inclusive. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. Vice Mayor Palmer 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. BOOK 53 Page 24282 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24283 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. 6. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4408, PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF 222 PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE LAUREL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY 3 (RMF-3), RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY REVITALIZATION (RMF-R) AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS (OPB) ZONE DISTRICTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE MULTIPLE-9 (RSM-9) ZONE DISTRICT WHICH PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF NINE (9) DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ; SAID PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY MORRILL STREET ON THE NORTH; BY ALDERMAN STREET AND BROTHER GEENAN WAY ON THE SOUTH; BY RAWLS AVENUE ON THE WEST; AND BY JULIA PLACE AND LAFAYETTE COURT ON THE EAST; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1(a)) AND 7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4409, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO THE LAUREL PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT; TO REPEAL THE LAUREL PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY TO REMOVE THE LAUREL PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT ALL PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO THE LAUREL PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS SHALL NO LONGER BE SUBJECT TO SUCH REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ORDINANCE 98-4078; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 02-RE-14 AND 02-ZTA-05, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1 (b)) CD 6:24 through 7:22 Vice Mayor Palmer stated that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4408 is to approve the City-initiated rezoning of 222 parcels of property in the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that the companion proposed Ordinance No. 02-4409 incorporates Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 02-ZTA-05 to approve an amendment to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) to delete all references to the Laurel Park Overlay District. Vice Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, referred to the Laurel Park Neighborhood Present Zone District Map displayed on the Chamber monitors, and stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-14 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4408 is a City-initiated rezoning of 222 parcels to implement the Mixed-Use Residential Future Land Use Classification for the Laurel Park Neighborhood by applying the newly created Residential Single Multiple-9 (RSM-9) Zone District to all properties located in the Laurel Park Overlay District with the exception of one City-owned parcel designated in Governmental Use (G) Zone District which is utilized as a neighborhood pocket park; that the proposed area for rezoning is bounded to the south by Morrill Street, to the east by Rawls Avenue, to the north by Alderman Street Way, and to the west by Lafayette Way and Julia Place; that companion Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 02- ZTA-05 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance 02-4409 is to amend the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) to delete all references to the Laurel Park Overlay District, repeal the Laurel Park Overlay District standards, and amend the Official Zone District of the City to remove the Laurel Park Overlay District; that at its October 21, 2002, Regular meeting, the Commission passed proposed Ordinance Nos. 02-4408 and 02-4409 on first reading; that the Administration recommends the adoption of proposed Ordinance Nos. 02-4408 and 02- 4409 on second reading. The following people came before the Commission: Bonnie Wagner, 1714 Devonshire Lane (34236), stated she has been a resident of Sarasota for approximately 50 years and has owned property in the Burns Sub-division of the Downtown area since 1957; that deleting her property from the proposed rezoning was requested at the October 21, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that a properly filed US Land Patent exists on her property; that personal funds have been expanded to rezone the property in the past; that the Residential Multiple Family Revitalization (RMF-R) Zone District was supported in 1986; however, the developer of the Brandy Lee Apartments was the downfall to the neighborhood, and was not policed properly; that background checks were not obtained on the tenants; that illegal drug use occurred on the property; that all neighborhoods cycle similar to life and season cycles; that neighborhoods should be provided an opportunity to grow; that building quality developments in the past would have been foolish prior to eliminating the drugs from the neighborhood; that she is one of the longest residents in the area. Ms. Wagner continued that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) does not represent the majority of the residents in the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that 23 properties BOOK 53 Page 24284 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24285 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. will be adversely affected by the rezoning; that rebuilding to the existing use if a fire or hurricane occurred would not be allowed; that owners will lose personal investments of millions of dollars; that personally-owned property will be affected; that someone should compensate her for the difference between 26 units currently allowed and the 9 units allowed after rezoning; that she should also be compensated for funds previously invested and compounded interest from the time the property is rezoned until sold; that investments will be recovered; that decreasing from 26 units to 9 units will not be tolerated; that she will not put up with being called a misfit by a member of the LPNA; that being left alone is desired; that several members of her family have recently deceased; that the right to privacy to mourn is desired; that the request is to delete her property from the proposed rezoning; that consideration should be provided to residents with long-term investments in the area; that bringing more people to the Downtown area, not less is desired; that the rezoning will bring less people to Downtown; that the community appreciates the efforts of the City Auditor and Clerk; that Paul Thorpe, the former Executive Director, Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc., worked hard to develop the Downtown area; that the rezoning will not be tolerated. Diana Hamilton, 229 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that she is speaking on behalf of the LPNA Board of Directors; that the LPNA supports the RSM-9 Zone District with certain caveats; that the neighborhood is a mix of zoning codes which require changing to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the RSM-9 Zone District also preserves the architectural design guidelines included in the Laurel Park Overlay District and emphasizes the importance of preserving the residential and historic character of the neighborhood; however, the residential only" aspect of the RSM-9 Zone District restricts the use for a number of properties in the Laurel Park Neighborhood while similar properties in other walk-to-town neighborhoods are being allowed additional uses; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood was left out of the development of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) and is designated as a blank spot on map; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood is faced with drastic urban incompatibility on Morrill Street and Julia Place; that parcels in single-family residential zone districts facing parcels in commercial zone districts are the unintended consequences of the rezoning; that the rezoning violates the "like faces like" concept of New Urbanism; that suggesting to rezone the parcels across from the proposed area to the RMS-9 Zone District is not the intent; however, rezoning the parcels to some reasonable variation is suggested; that some type of commercial/residential/transitional zoning in several areas of the Laurel Park Neighborhood is necessary. Ms. Hamilton continued that in 2000, several members of the Laurel Park Neighborhood requested inclusion in the study to develop the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the request was not kindly received; that inclusion would have cost the City an additional $44,000; that the lack of interest in exclusion from the development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 by the Laurel Park Neighborhood was a mistaken impression; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood views zoning and land use issues as being in a period of evolution; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood is committed to continue working with the Cityi that support for the RSM-9 Zone District should not be misconstrued as ending discussions regarding zoning and land uses; that City Staff has advised the earliest time a comprehensive plan amendment could be filed for the Laurel Park Neighborhood is April 2003; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would be required to apply the Downtown Code being developed to the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that the possibility of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is being considered by the LPNA. Ms. Hamilton further stated that in 2000, the Commission directed City Staff to create a traditional neighborhood development area for the Laurel Park Neighborhood based on the concepts of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the direction was given after the Commission received public input from the Laurel Park Neighborhood and a unanimous recommendation by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the Laurel Park Neighborhood is still waiting for the creation of the traditional neighborhood development area. Jeff Russell, Attorney, law firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford and Gordon, Chartered, 240 South Pineapple Avenue, (34236), representing Coastal Recovery, Jerry Thompson, PhD, Chief Operating Officer, Coastal Recovery Systems, 3830 Bee Ridge Road (34233), representing Coastal Recovery, and Katherine Cobb, MSA, BCBA, AICP, Principal, The Cobb Company Valuation and Consulting Services, 3938 Glen Oaks Manor Drive (34232). BOOK 53 Page 24286 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24287 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Attorney Russell distributed the resume of Katherine Cobb, MSA, BCBA, AICP, Principal, The Cobb Company Valuation and Consulting Services, and stated that at its October 21, 2002, Regular meeting, the Commission provided Coastal Recovery the opportunity to present valid economic reasons for exemption from the rezoning of the Laurel Park area at second reading; that Coastal Recovery retained The Cobb Company to evaluate the effect of the potential rezoning; that the current location of the Coastal Recovery facility located at 1840 Morrill Street is the best location to provide community services; that Coastal Recovery would not have the ability to provide such community services if the location became non-conforming or a catastrophe occurred to require rebuilding in accordance with the new zoning and density regulations. Ms. Cobb referred to computer-generated slides of the Coastal Recovery Apartments and stated that she is an economist, planner, appraiser, and realtor; that the Coastal Recovery property is densely developed and situated on the boundary of a transitional location of the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that Coastal Recovery is a non-profit organization which provides behavioral health care services to the community; that the location benefit to the clientele residing at the Coastal Recovery property was evaluated; that the Downtown location provides the clientele with access to bus routes and the ability to bicycle or walk to employment, health care, and other social services; that she is the Treasurer of Suncoast Workforce Development Board; that the current location provides support for affordable and subsidized Downtown housing for the group home clientele of Coastal Recovery; that approximately 40 residents are accommodated in affordable housing with rents from $288 to $600 including mental heath services which is a benefit to the City; that the issue is the impact to Coastal Recovery's client service program if the existing building could no longer be utilized; that five Downtown location alternative options were evaluated; that four of the five options are as follows: Option 1: Purchase Downtown land and build 22 units. Ms. Cobb stated that Downtown land is limited and unreasonably priced; that the cost of Downtown land similar in size and zoning to the existing structure of the Coastal Recovery property is approximately $1,8 827,200. Option 2: Purchase 22 Downtown cottages or duplexes. Ms. Cobb stated that locating 22 adjacent cottages or duplexes may be difficult; that the cost to purchase such homes is approximately $1,540,000. Option 3: Convert an old Downtown motel/hotel. Ms. Cobb stated that purchasing an old Downtown motel/hotel is expensive; that the motel/hotel will require renovation; that most Downtown motel/hotels are located near US 41 and have commercial redevelopment potential. Option 4: Purchase another apartment building. Ms. Cobb stated that few apartment buildings in the Downtown area are available; that an apartment building would require costly improvements and renovations to bring the building to the level of service and facility quality currently provided by Coastal Recovery. Ms. Cobb continued that the cost to purchase a replacement for the Coastal Recovery property in the Downtown area is as follows: Cost to purchase replacement: $1,540,000 to 2,039,000 1840 Morrill Street market value: $1,350,000 Ms. Cobb stated that the additional cost is approximately $190,000 to $477,000 to purchase the land if available; that an additional potential loss is Coastal Recovery could not provide services per the City Agreement; that the current location of the Coastal Recovery facility is vital; that services provide part of the affordable housing element of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the cost to relocate could be substantial; that Coastal Recovery desires to stay at the current location. Attorney Russell stated that the potential of a future developer constructing something large-scale to reap significant benefits if the Coastal Recovery property is exempt from the rezoning was suggested at the October 21, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that Coastal Recovery is willing to stipulate the property. would be designated in the new RSM-9 Zone District if sold; that Coastal Recovery is acting in good faith and is willing to enter BOOK 53 Page 24288 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24289 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. into an agreement with the City to predicate the continued use of the property until sold after which the property would revert to the RSM-9 Zone District; that the Coastal Recovery property is on the periphery of the Laurel Park area; that excluding the Coastal Recovery property from the rezoning will not damage the Downtown concept the City is attempting to achieve. Commissioner Quillin asked the number of units at the Coastal Recovery property? Attorney Russell stated 22 units. Commissioner Quillin asked the number of units allowed if the existing structure was destroyed? Attorney Russell stated that six single-family homes can be constructed. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that 75 percent destruction must occur. Commissioner Quillin stated that six units can be rebuilt if 75 percent of the existing building is destroyed. Attorney Russell stated that is correct; that six single-family homes of approximately 800 to 900 square feet with a mother-in-law structure at the rear of the property can be constructed; that the cost to construct six new single-family homes and mother-in-law structures will exceed the cost of the existing structure; that the group home of Coastal Recovery is a centralized facility. Commissioner Quillin asked the amount of insurance coverage for Coastal Recovery property? Attorney Russell stated that an amount is unknown. Commissioner Quillin stated that the amount of insurance coverage would indicate the difference between land and structure value. Ms. Cobb stated that a prior appraisal did not segregate the land and structure. Attorney Russell stated that Coastal Recovery is not contending the property is not worth the same or more under the RSF-9 Zone District; that the issue is location. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak and requested Staff come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Parsons stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-14 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4408 to rezone to the RSM-9 Zone District is implementing the Mixed-Use Residential Future Land Use Classification which was adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the maximum residential density is 9 units per acre. Commissioner Servian asked the number and size of the units which could be reconstructed on the Coastal Recovery property? Mr. Parsons stated that a number of configurations could occur; that a 22-unit apartment complex currently exists in the RMF-R Zone District which allows for a maximum of 35 dwelling units per acre; that rezoning to the RSM-9 Zone District for the .71 acre parcel allows for six single-family residences; that square footage is not limited to 800 square feet; that accessory dwelling units as a permitted use are also allowed; that each of the six single-family homes could include an accessory dwelling which is limited to 600 square feet; that the difference is 22 existing units and six single-family homes with six accessory dwellings if rebuilt in the future. Commissioner Servian asked if each unit could have three bedrooms? Mr. Parsons stated yes. Commissioner Quillin asked if Staff evaluated and determined the financial impact to the affected properties such as Coastal Recovery? Mr. Parsons stated that a financial impact was not determined; however, an analysis of the number of units exceeding the density under the RMF-3 and RMF-R Zone Districts was completed; that 214 of 222 parcels in the area are designated in the RMF-3 Zone District; that 78 of the 214 parcels exceed the density of 13 dwelling units per acre; that six parcels are designated in the RMF-R Zone District; that two of the six parcels have density which will exceed the RSM-9 Zone District; that single-family homes are constructed on the remaining four of the six parcels including the property of Ms. Wagner; that an additional 41 parcels exceed the density limitation under the RSM-9 Zone District; that a total of 121 parcels would exceed the RSM-9 Zone District density limitation if no parcels are exempt. BOOK 53 Page 24290 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24291 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin asked the number of parcels in the area proposed for rezoning? Mr. Parsons stated 222 parcels. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the grandrathering provision allows any structure which is destroyed by less than 75 percent of market value can be reconstructed. Mr. Parsons stated that the percentage was increased to 75 percent of market value with the adoption of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the prior amount was 50 percent of the assessed value. Commissioner Servian asked if 75 percent of the building must be destroyed? Mr. Parsons stated that more than 75 percent of the market value must be destroyed to trigger the requirements of the new RSM-9 Zone District. Commissioner Martin stated that many units in the area are non- conforming in a variety of ways for a number of reasons; that the area is also referenced as the "illegal neighborhood" due to the large number of non-conformities; and asked the manner in which the present non-conformities will be resolved? Mr. Parsons stated that the number of non-contorming setbacks in the RMS-9 Zone District has been reduced; that structures close to property boundaries may no longer be non-conforming; that density will continue as an issue. Commissioner Martin stated that some non-contormities will be cured; however, the number of density non-conformities will be increased. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct. Commissioner Quillin stated that two properties with existing single-family residences are rezoned for higher density. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct; that six properties exist in the RMF-R Zone District; that 2 of the 6 properties will exceed the 9 units per acre density of the RSM-9 Zone District; that the two properties which exceed the density standard are Coastal Recovery and a 12-unit condominium at 1670 Laurel Street; that the remaining four of the six properties are single-family dwelling residences. Commissioner Quillin stated that several property owners applied and paid for RMF-R rezoning in the past; that a reason the owners did not develop the property is unknown. Mr. Parsons stated that the rezoning to the RMF-R Zone District occurred in the early 1980s; that the rezoning could have been City- or privately-initiated; that rezoning to RMF-R Zone District was not allowed after 1989. Commissioner Quillin asked if the rezoning to the RMF-R Zone District which occurred in the early 1980s was City-initiated? Mr. Parsons stated that an answer is unknown. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that she has no recollection of a City- initiated rezoning to the RMF-R Zone District in the early 1980s. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that property owners paid a flat fee for rezoning in the 1980s. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the RFM-R Zone District designation for the Coastal Recovery property could be retained with the caveat of reverting to the RSF-9 Zone District if the building is sold? Mr. Parsons stated that the same suggestion was proposed to the PBLP; that the PBLP indicated a tracking concern. City Attorney Taylor stated that a mechanism to utilize and keep track of the property is unknown; that other site-specific zone districts with special conditions are unknown; that the property of Coastal Recovery was the subject of litigation concerning the group home issue; that the property is the subject of a settlement agreement between Coastal Recovery and the City; that the settlement agreement can be amended if the two parties agree. Commissioner Servian asked if a contract can be recorded with a deed? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; however, endorsing such an option without discussing the issue with the Administration is not desired; that setting a precedent is a concerni that the City may have good reasons to treat the Coastal Recovery property differently than the other properties; however, the result could be entering a new area the City is ill equipped to handle. Commissioner Quillin stated that Coastal Recovery enjoys the property through a contract with the Cityi that the property BOOK 53 Page 24292 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24293 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Owners have proffered to revert the property to the RSF-9 Zone District if the property is sold; that the proffer can occur through the deed and can be noted on the Future Land Use Map. Mr. Parsons stated that the property is currently designated as in the Mixed-Residential Land Use Classification on the Future Land Use Map; however, someone would not have to look to the Euture Land Use Map to develop if the RMF-R Zone District were retained. Commissioner Quillin stated that a stipulation of non-conforming could occur through the existing contract with the Cityi that Coastal Recovery serves a sector of the population which sorely needs low- to moderate-income housing. Mr. Parsons distributed a copy of the Settlement Agreement between Coastal Recovery and the City and stated that the Settlement Agreement addresses the number of persons allowed in the facility. Commissioner Servian asked if the Settlement Agreement can include an addendum to include a stipulation? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City's interest must be protected; that the property of Coastal Recovery could be exempted at this time with a stipulation to develop a mechanism to implement a process within a specific period of time; that the property could be treated as a separate rezoning if a solution is not developed within a specific period of time. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the entire rezoning process must be started again or if the property can be exempted at this time for further consideration of the proposed rezoning in the future? City Attorney Taylor stated that the property can be exempted at this time; that the PBLP recommended the rezoning; therefore, going through the rezoning process again is not necessary. Commissioner Martin stated that singling out selected properties which serve more of a public purpose is not desired; that the public purpose served by Coastal Recovery is supported; however, the principle of grandfathering selected properties and not others is a difficult issue. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the public purpose served is the difference between the Coastal Recovery property and other properties; that a contractual obligation and a commitment exists between the City and Coastal Recoveryi that the circumstances are not the same; that the issue is if the Commission desires to exempt Coastal Recovery at this time. Commissioner Servian asked if the property at 1670 Laurel Street would be rezoned to the RSM-9 Zone District or treated differently if the building were destroyed? Mr. Parsons stated that the proposal is to rezone all the properties to the RSM-9 Zone District. Commissioner Servian asked if all the properties will be treated the same regardless of the existing contract between the City and Coastal Recovery? Mr. Parsons stated yes. Commissioner Servian stated that the Commission would be treating one property differently if the Coastal Recovery property were exempted; that other properties would be required to rebuild under the requirements of the RSM-9 Zone District if destroyed. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the possibility of a cement block structure such as the Coastal Recovery structure being 75 percent destroyed is unlikely; however, a balance regarding the issues presented is necessary. Commissioner Quillin stated that treating certain issues differently at certain times is appropriate especially if the issue concerns the public interest; that Coastal Recovery serves the public interest by providing low- to moderate-income housing and assisting individuals with mental illnesses; that the circumstances of the property are different; that the issue is a concern; that affordable housing for low- to moderate-income individuals in the community is limited; that preserving Coastal Recovery's ability to provide such a public service is desired; that 75 percent destruction of a cement block structure is unlikely; that losing a facility which is successfully serving the public is not desired. Commissioner Servian asked if the structure located at 1670 Laurel Street is an apartment complex? Mr. Parsons stated that the structure is a 12-unit apartment complex. Commissioner Servian asked the rent for the units? BOOK 53 Page 24294 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24295 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Parsons stated that an amount is unknown; that several other multiple-family structures in the Laurel Park area are in the RMF-3 Zone District and not in the RMF-R Zone District; Commissioner Servian stated that a valid argument could be the 12-unit apartment complex located at 1670 Laurel Street is also providing a public service of affordable housing. Mr. Parsons stated that such an argument could apply to a number of multiple-family structures throughout the Laurel Park area; that the amount of rent for the units is unknown. There was no one else signed up to speak and Vice Mayor Palmer Closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4408 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4408 on second reading with the exclusion of Coastal Recovery property. Motion died for lack of second. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 02-4408 on second reading. Commissioner Quillin stated that surveys of affordable housing have been personally conducted in neighborhoods; that Laurel Park is one of the most expensive areas in the City in which to live; that the neighborhoods which are close to services provided to the public are becoming to expensive for the low- to moderate-income person; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood did not originally desire Coastal Recovery to relocate to the neighborhood; that Coastal Recovery has become a good neighbor; that the property is beautifully kept; that the calls for service to the property are few if anyi that the lack of willingness to recognize the Coastal Recovery property as an exception to rezoning is aisappointing; that the services provided by Coastal Recovery benefit the City; that the loss of 75 percent of Coastal Recovery's cement block structure is unlikely; however, lack of support to exempt the Coastal Recovery property is sending a message to the community of the City's unwillingness to service the most needy in the community; that the message is saddening; that the hope is to develop an amendment to the existing agreement or file something through a deed. Commissioner Servian stated that singling out the Coastal Recovery property or sending a message the services provided are not worthwhile is not the intent of the motion; that the concern is exempting one property while other properties could also be excluded; that exempting the Coastal Recovery property is not fair to the rest of the community; that Coastal Recovery will be conducting business for many years at its existing location; that the hope is a catastrophic lost will not occur; that the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Martin stated that the RMF-R Zone District was created to bring individuals to the Downtown area; that allowing additional density is a mechanism to create additional affordable rents in the Downtown area; however, grandfathering for one and not for all is unfair; that trespassing on such a principle is not desired; that creating additional density which is linked to affordable housing in the City should be evaluated. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the circumstances would be different if the requirement of the old standard of 50 percent destruction of the appraised value of the property applied; however, a major catastrophic event would have to occur to meet the new standard of 75 percent destruction of the market value of the property; that the creation of the RMF-R Zone District was to increase the intensity and density in the Downtown area which could create additional affordable housing; that the RMF-R Zone District was unsuccessful; that property values and the pride which has occurred in the Laurel Park area is a pride for the City; that the issue is not the services provided by Coastal Recovery; that Coastal Recovery will continue to be successful; that 75 percent destruction of the market value of the property is highly unlikely; that the concerns of Coastal Recovery are understandable; however, the alternative provided by the City Attorney is tricky and could create problems elsewhere. Vice Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 02-4408 on second reading and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian; yes; Martin, yes. BOOK 53 Page 24296 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24297 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4409 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 02-4409. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City has worked with the neighborhoods over the years; that part of the Laurel Park area is in District 3; that the residents of the neighborhood are divided concerning the rezoning; that the Laurel Park residents did not desire to become a part of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District in 1986; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will eventually be City wide; that the Commission is requested to convey the message of the City wide intent. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that the requirements of quasi-judicial public hearings were defined by the judicial process; that during quasi-judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that Affected Persons are individuals especially interested in the proceedings due to proximity to or other special interest in the subject property; that two individuals, David Picone and Kafi Benz, have filed for certification as Affected Persons for the first quasi-judicial public hearing; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; that Applicants, the City, and Affected Persons will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and for crosg-examination. 8. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY (FSU), AS LESSEE FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND / ETC. (APPLICATION NO. 02-DA-02, APPLICANT DONALD LAWSON, AS AGENT REPRESENTING FSU) = APPROVED WITH CHANGES TO INCLUDE THE REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND TO ADD THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK AS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN SECTION 2 (K) AND SECTION 16(B) OF THE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (IV-B-1) CD 7:28 through 9:06 City Attorney Taylor referred to the Agenda Request form included in the Agenda backup material indicating the proposed Campus Development Agreement Application No. 02-DA-02 is between the City and Florida State University (FSU), as lessee for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; and stated that the Applicant is Donald Lawson, as agent representing FSU; that the recommendation is to allow ten minutes for the Applicant's presentation with five minutes for rebuttal and seven minutes for the City's presentation with five minutes for rebuttal; that individuals certified by the Commission as Affected Persons will have five minutes to speak and five minutes for rebuttal; that interested persons will have five minutes to speak; that Commission approval of the time limits is requested. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved. City Attorney Taylor stated that applications for Affected Person status from David Picone and Kafi Benz have been reviewed; that Mr. Picone qualifies as an owner/resident within 500 feet of the subject property and may be accepted as a party to the proceedings as an Affected Person; that Ms. Benz qualifies as a designated representative of the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association whose members consist of owners, residents or occupants of real property within 500 feet of the subject property and may be accepted as a party to the proceedings as an Affected Person; that certification of the Affected Persons is requested. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, David Picone and Kafi Benz are certified as Affected Persons and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Commissioners Quillin and Servian stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. BOOK 53 Page 24298 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24299 11/18/02 6:00 P.M.. Commissioner Martin stated that an electronic mail dated November 14, 2002, was received from Nan Plessas, Architect, concerning comments regarding the Proposed Master Site Plan. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the electronic mail from Ms. Plessas was also received. Vice Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Donald Lawson, representing Florida State University (FSU), came before the Commission and stated that Dr. John Wetenhall, Director of the The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art (Ringling Museum) and Dr. Arland Christ-Janer are present in the audience and are available for specific questions if desired. Mr. Lawson continued that FSU acquired responsibility for the on-going operation of the Ringling Museum and Florida State University Ringling Center for the Cultural Arts (FSU/Ringling Campus) from the State; that FSU went through a rigorous process and exhaustive analysis to create a program which would meet the future needs of the FSU/Ringling Campus for the next seven to ten years; that a proposed Campus Master Plan was developed including an analysis of the space and educational components of the program from a management and on-going operational perspective; that the proposed Campus Master Plan was reviewed by every State agency with jurisdiction over master plans for universities and other State-owned properties; that an internationally known architectural firm prepared a preliminary proposed Campus Master Plan based upon a program which had been established and approved at the State level; that HOK Planning Group (HOK) was selected as the architect for the proposed Campus Master Plan; that HOK participated in revising and refining the overall proposed Campus Master Plan of the Ringling Museum. Mr. Lawson referred to maps of the proposed Campus Master Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation and also included in the Agenda backup material as Appendix E, Part II, proposed Campus Master Plan and stated that an exhaustive traffic study has been undertaken and a thorough analysis of transportation systems has concluded; that the proposed development meets transportation concurrency requirements; that minor stipulations were identified and agreed upon such as a recommendation for extending an eastbound left- turn lane at the intersection of US 41 and University Parkway to provide 325 feet of storage with 50 feet of taper within Ringling Esplanade Drive; that the project site is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of US 41 and University Parkwayi that the proposal is to expand the 228,000 square foot Ringling Museum, located to the west of the intersection of US 41 and University Parkway, to a 386,270 square foot museum; that access to the site is currently provided through six driveways; that three driveways are located around the main parking lot area, which is in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of US 41 and University Parkwayi that two one-way driveways are located along Bay Shore Road north of Ringling Plaza, which currently provides access to on- site parking for the Circus Museum and the Ca'd'Zan; that one driveway is located along Bay Shore Road south of Ringling Plaza for employee parking; that the proposed Campus Master Plan includes an expansion of approximately 164,000 square feet to the existing FSU/Ringling Campus facilities consisting of the following improvements: Expansion of the existing Circus Museum to include the Tibbals Learning Center of approximately 30,600 square feet; Addition of approximately 66,740 square feet for the Art Collections Facility - Renovation to the existing West Wing approximately 31,738 square feet Addition to the North Wing of approximately 60,930 square feet. Mr. Lawson continued that in conjunction with the proposed expansion, the two driveways on Bay Shore Road north of Ringing Plaza will be removed to create a pedestrian campus; that on- site parking will be relocated to the main parking area; that the proposed Campus Master Plan includes construction of a Reception Pavilion building; that the historic Asolo Theater will be reconstructed and relocated to the proposed Reception Pavilion building; that the proposed North Gallery is consistent with the original plan of architecture and goal of the Ringling Museum; that a proposed building for the collections also known as the Center for Baroque Studies is located on property leased from University of South Florida (USF); that vehicular transportation and internal circulation systems were examined in BOOK 53 Page 24300 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24301 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. the proposed Campus Master Plan; that a series of future pedestrian passage ways are included which can be used for pedestrian traffic or by a shuttle or tram service; that the existing main entrance is east of the Ringling Museum; that the proposal is to relocate the entrance to the historic gates leading into Ca'd'Zan; that entry into the grounds is controlled and secured through the historical Ca'd'Zan entry gate and the proposed Reception Pavilion; that pedestrians exiting the grounds will be directed back through the Reception Pavilion and entry gate; that safe and secure pedestrian circulation is a major consideration and criteria in the placement and orientation of each building; that HOK was of the opinion relocating the entrance to the historic gates would maintain and preserve the integrity of the existing buildings and ensure new projects do not interfere with the historic character of the existing buildings. Mr. Lawson further stated that the proposed Campus Master Plan includes a proposal for expanding the existing parking to over 200 parking spaces which will occur in conjunction with the construction of the Center for Baroque Studies; that the Center for Baroque Studies will be a three-story building; that the ground floor of the building will have parking; that the existing parking will be expanded in the area of the Asolo Theater on the east side of Bay Shore Road; that alternative modes of transportation for traveling to and from the FSU/Ringling Campus were examined which include possible shuttle services to local hotels; that the proposed Campus Master Plan includes an area committed on the west side in the Sarasota Bay for the potential water taxi service; that opportunities for alternative modes of transportation are exciting; that a point of entry from the west in Sarasota Bay is a security issue and is a concern; however, participation in the water taxi service is desired and a commitment has been made. Mr. Lawson stated further that a thorough review of the proposed Campus Master Plan was conducted by the Development Review Committee (DRC); that a Certificate of Concurrency has been received; however, further reviews and requirements relating to the construction of buildings on existing grounds are required by the State and FSU; that State guidelines relating to preservation of trees, and methods of vehicular and pedestrian transportation and circulation must be followed; that every action must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources and Historical Preservation; that archaeological consultants have been retained; that the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) is now involved as the development of the FSU/Ringling Campus is moving forward; that SWFWMD has approved the proposed Campus Master Plan pending some minor conditions; that many governing authorities will be involved as the proposed Campus Master Plan moves forward. Mr. Lawson further stated that Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) meetings were held on September 4, 2002, and October 2, 2002; that the focus was if the proposed Campus Master Plan was the official master plan; that a concern was if different master plans in existence could propose expansion other than currently proposed in the proposed Campus Master Plan; that a commitment was made indicating no other master plans exist; that a decision was made to have a neighborhood meeting; that a neighborhood meeting was held in October 2002; that numerous representatives from FSU attended the meeting; that the meeting was well attended by neighbors; that the neighbors were served hotdogs, cookies, and drinks; that comments received at the neighborhood meeting and the PBLP meeting were identical; that comments included sidewalk improvements to Bay Shore Road; that sidewalk improvements to Bay Shore Road had previously been identified; that access into the FUS/Ringling Campus is a concern; that visitors currently park to the west of Bay Shore Road inside the grounds; that parking in the area will no longer be allowed due to a significant security issue and possible damage to the historical grounds; that good ideas were brought forth at the meeting; that other ideas for the designated bus parking were presented * by neighbors; that HOK is reviewing the ideas; that preservation of trees and existing grounds is a shared concerni that specific guidelines and policies are required by many agencies; that EDAW, Inc. (EDAW), an international landscape consulting firm, has been retained; that EDAW will research all available historical data relative to the grounds, landscaping, and plant materials; that EDAW will participate at the highest level of implementation and preservation of the grounds; that the most recent challenge is determining the actual boundaries of the property which should be attached to the museum and university grounds east of Bay Shore Road; that property boundaries west of Bay Shore Road were easily defined; that a title search dating back to the late 1930s was performed to determine the boundaries of the property for which FSU is responsible; that the City Attorney's Office is proposing a stipulation for the provision of the exact legal description; that one neighbor on the north BOOK 53 Page 24302 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24303 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. side of the FSU/Ringling Campus requested a damaged wall and fence be repaired; that all issues having a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood will be addressed. Commissioner Martin asked if a response has been received from the Architect concerning the bus parking lot? Mr. Lawson stated that a decision concerning the location for the designated bus parking has not been made; that every issue will be addressed. Commissioner Martin stated that 200 parking spaces will be added and asked the location of the additional spaces? Mr. Lawson stated that approximately 125 parking spaces will be located at the Proposed Center for Baroque Studies; that the balance of the spaces will be included in the expansion of the existing parking areas. Commissioner Martin stated that the parking lot at the Asolo Theater site is being extended to the south; that a line of stately old oak trees exists which should be preserved. Mr. Lawson stated that the proposed Campus Master Site Plan delineates the existing parking and has a scale of one inch equal to 100 feet; that the edge of Ringling Esplanade Drive coming into the edge of the pavement according to scale is approximately 65 feet; that EDAW will be addressing all possible alternatives to preserve the trees. Commissioner Martin asked if all the trees are within the 65 feet? Mr. Lawson stated that an answer is not known at the present time; that an actual tree survey is being conducted to physically locate every tree. Commissioner Martin asked if the existing parking on the grounds is being eliminated? Mr. Lawson stated yes. Commissioner Servian stated that the possibility of new retention ponds becoming breeding areas for mosquitoes is a concern raised by the neighbor behind the north wall of the grounds and asked if a fountain could be placed in the retention ponds to keep the water from becoming stagnant. Mr. Lawson stated that the preference was to not have additional retention ponds; however, SWFWMD mandates ponds be created; that the ponds are considered amenities on the propertyi that the proposed Reception Pavilion will extend over the proposed adjacent pond and will provide a place to have lunch; that underdrains are being placed around the ponds; that the retention areas will be more like ponds; that a pedestrian pathway is being created over one of the ponds; that the design and function of the ponds are considered amenities. Commissioner Servian stated that other retention ponds which have been built with the same purpose in mind have become stagnant if a fountain or something to keep the water flowing is not installed. Mr. Lawson stated that final configuration of the ponds, including aeration and plantings, will be EDAW's responsibility. Commissioner Servian stated that noise created by the air conditioners of the new building is another concern of the neighbors to the north. Mr. Lawson stated that the proposed expansion of the Circus Museum is not as close to the property line as the existing Circus Museum; that the mechanical equipment is being constructed within a walled area which should dampen the effect of the noise; that a commitment was made to research other acoustical measures if the noise becomes a problem; that campus- wide energy management systems are being investigated which would eliminate the issue. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if State approval for the proposed Campus Master Plan was received? Mr. Lawson stated that the proposed Campus Master Plan is the document sent to the State; that the State was informed the proposed Campus Master Plan is consistent with the program requirements; that if an approval process exists, then the proposed Campus Master Plan is approved as a master plan. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the PBLP indicated a clear approval of the proposed Campus Master Plan by the State is required prior to approving the Proposed Campus Master Plan. BOOK 53 Page 24304 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24305 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lawson stated that documentation was forwarded to the PBLP; that the criteria has been met. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the disposition of funds was to take place in the last part of the month; and asked if the trustees of FSU have approved the disposition of funds for the plan? Mr. Lawson stated that the understanding is $20 million has been allocated for the commencement of the design and construction of the project; that the trustees will conduct a fundraising campaign; that FSU will release the balance of the funds once the fundraising threshold has been reached. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if allocation of the $20 million is in writing? Mr. Lawson stated that the issue is a matter of public record. Commissioner Quillin asked if access to the property will still be permitted sO strolls can still be taken through the grounds? Mr. Lawson stated that people can still stroll through the property; that minimal annual dues will allow access into the grounds. Commissioner Quillin stated that entrance to the entire property is currently available through the front gate. Mr. Lawson stated that security is a concern for FSU and the Ringling Museum; that open access will no longer be available; that controls will be in place; that people will enter through the Reception Pavilion to access other portions of the FSU/Ringling Campus. Commissioner Quillin stated that the public's ability to use the property which was gifted to them by John Ringling will no longer be available. Mr. Lawson stated that limitations are not being imposed; that the resources are being better protected; that complete access has caused damage to the grounds; that the goal is to place the grounds back in a pristine condition which is suitable for an institution of such caliber; that requiring people to enter through an entry gate is a good compromise. Commissioner Quillin asked if the restaurant will be moving to the new Reception Pavilion building? Mr. Lawson stated that the proposed Campus Master Site Plan indicates the existing Banyon Tree Restaurant will remain; that developing another food service operation in the Reception Pavilion is desired. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Karin Murphy, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed Campus Development Agreement is a statutory requirement for State universities to meet concurrency requirements in the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) as to sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation; that the statutory requirements for State universities have changed over and above the City's abilities and limitations for review; that FSU has done an excellent job in working with Staff to consider input over the last year prior to selection of an architect; that FSU's commitment is evident in the selection of the professionals hired to perform the planning and architecture for the facilities; that some concerns were expressed regarding historic view corridors and additions to the Ringling Museum in the beginning of the process; that the addition to the Ringling Museum is consistent with the design of the main Museum which is pleasing; that Staff was included throughout the process; that a significant amount of restrictions exist on the property; that one concern was vehicular access throughout the grounds; that FSU has created an historical theme beginning at the Reception Pavilion; that a wide range of activities will be available in addition to the New College/USF programsi that visitors to the area and children coming to the Reception Pavilion will be provided with a feel of the accomplishments of John Ringling; that Staff reviewed the proposed Campus Master Plan for concurrency specifically; that FSU performed all remaining studies and requirements; that the efforts of FSU are appreciated. Ms. Murphy referred to the Exhibit A of the proposed Campus Development Agreement included in the Agenda backup material and BOOK 53 Page 24306 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24307 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. stated that the development described is vested from the City's concurrency requirements through December 31, 2007, based upon a supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates; that the City Attorney's Office has prepared a detailed outline of improvements required of the FSU Ringling Center, which is also included in the Agenda backup material; that the proposed Campus Master Plan has been under review by City Staff for over a year; that only certain items are subject to the City's review; that State universities are not required to obtain building permits from local jurisdictions; that the City is primarily reviewing the concurrency of the proposed Campus Master Plan with the Future Land Use requirements; that a review of the conservation component was not necessary by City Staff since tree protection issues are reviewed by the State; that the FSU/Ringling Campus grounds are historically significant; therefore, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) monitors trees and other environmental concernsi that FSU has been very sensitive to meeting the existing requirements for setbacks from the neighbors for the new buildings and the impacts which may occur to the surrounding neighbors as well as the view corridors and the visibility triangles. Ms. Murphy continued that at its September 4, 2002, meeting, the PBLP held a public hearing and found proposed Campus Development Agreement Application No. 02-DA-02 consistent with the concurrency components of the City's Comprehensive Plan and recommended Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. FSU shall submit written confirmation of formal State approval of the official Campus Master Plan to be attached to the development agreement; 2. FSU shall seek an amendment to the development agreement for any expansion of the geographic area encompassed by the adopted Campus Master Plan beyond boundaries depicted in the development agreement; 3. FSU shall hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing before the Commission; 4. FSU shall schedule and hold a neighborhood meeting prior to any future amendments to the adopted Campus Master Plan to inform neighboring residents of the proposed changes; and 5. FSU shall repair and restore the existing wall located on the northern boundary of the museum grounds. Ms. Murphy further stated that the proposed Campus Master Plan will be updated within the next yeari that New College/USF will be required to become a part of the ESU proposed Campus Master Plan or to develop a New College/USF master plan; that some of the USF Campus activities will take place in Manatee County; that communications have been held with Manatee County regarding the activities; that an effort is being made to coordinate all of the activities to ensure the concurrency requirements are not double counted; that the hope is the proposed Campus Master Plan can be updated at the same time as the New College/USF master plans; that a combined update every eight years would be the easiest process for the neighbors. Ms. Murphy stated further that a legal description of the property was required to obtain approval for the proposed Campus Master Plan and distributed and referred to the following additional stipulation which should be included in the proposed Campus Development Agreement regarding the legal description: FSU shall submit a revised legal description for Exhibit C-3 to reflect the property located east of Bay Shore Road as depicted by shading on Exhibit B of the Campus Development Agreement prior to execution on behalf of the City of Sarasota of the Campus Development Agreement. Ms. Murphy further stated that the deeds for the properties date back to the 1920s; that problems were incurred since the deed records indicate the property is owned by the State; however, some of the property was owned by New College and USF; that the land planning and engineering firm of WilsonMiller was contracted to perform a survey of the property; that Staff has been in contact with the surveyor to ensure the legal description is accurate and mirrors the legal description in the proposed Campus Master Plan; that the legal description is being refined and will be included as an exhibit in the final Campus Development Agreement; that the Future Land Use Map also reflects the legal description of the property; that all statutory and City requirements have been fulfilled. BOOK 53 Page 24308 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24309 11/18/02. 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that sidewalks have been requested in the area for a long time; that sidewalks are now included in the plans for a multi-use recreational trail (MURT); that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has released the funds for the sidewalks and requested clarification of funding for the sidewalks included in the proposed Campus Master Plan. Ms. Murphy stated that sidewalks will be installed as part of the proposed Campus Master Plan; that the proposed Campus Development Agreement specifies FSU's responsibility regarding sidewalks; that a specific dollar amount has been allocated for sidewalks in the proposed Campus Development Agreement; that funding for the MURT can be utilized as a supplement; that work is being conducted with other universities in the area to provide connectivity between the campuses. Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and referred to the following language contained in Section 11(f), of the proposed Campus Development Agreement which concerns the construction of sidewalks: FSU further agrees to construct the following: (i) a curb and gutter on Bay Shore Road adjacent to the property encompassed by this Campus Development Agreement; (ii) construction of an 8 foot wide sidewalk on Bay Shore Road adjacent to the property encompassed by this Campus Development Agreement; (iii) construction of a bicycle lane on Bay Shore Road adjacent to the property encompassed by this Campus Development Agreement; and (iv) construction of pedestrian crosswalks on Bay Shore Road with brick paver or any other paver texture approved by the City Engineer. Attorney Schenk referred to Composite Exhibit A-1, in the proposed Campus Development Agreement which is a letter dated October 15, 2002, from John Carnaghi, Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration, FSU, and stated that the letter indicates approval of the proposed Campus Master Plan by various State agencies; that Mark Berttolami, Director of Facilities Planning, FSU, was contacted to confirm the proposed Campus Master Plan before the Commission at the present time is the officially approved plan by the President of FSU; that the President of FSU is authorized to approve the proposed Campus Master Plan. Commissioner Martin stated that FDEP has control over tree protection issues on the property and asked the extent of FDEP's planned protection for the trees located on the north side of the proposed new parking area? Ms. Murphy stated that FDEP has additional review criteria which must be met due to the historic nature of the grounds; that Staff has encouraged structure parking which would not affect the trees; that funding is an issue; that structure parking may become a viable alternative due to expansion. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that EDAW will be addressing the tree issues; that a final decision regarding the trees will not come before the Commission which is a concern. Ms. Murphy stated that historically, students and neighbors monitor issues regarding tree removal; that an issue was raised in the past regarding the removal of Banyon trees; that an outcry from the neighbors and students took place; that commitments have been made towards the integrity, aesthetics, and environment for tree protection; that the hope is the commitment to protect the trees will be fulfilled. Commissioner Quillin referred to Section 2(k) of the proposed Campus Development Agreement as follows: a copy of which is on file at the Planning and Development Department Commissioner Quillin stated that the public visits the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk prior to going to the Planning and Development Department; that the language should read: a copy of which is on file at the Planning and Development Department and the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk Commissioner Quillin referred to Section 16( (b) of the proposed Campus Development Agreement as follows: FSU agrees to provide written notification to the City Manager of the day, time and location of any such neighborhood meeting Commissioner Quillin stated that the language should read: BOOK 53 Page 24310 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24311 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. FSU agrees to provide written notification to the City Manager and the City Auditor and Clerk of the day, time and location of any such neighborhood meeting Attorney Schenk stated that the language will be added. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification of the City's involvement in development review? Ms. Murphy stated that State legislation has been passed which limits the City's ability to review the development and redevelopment plans of State universities; that universities have timelines for building permits and long-term goals which must be met; that the desire is to not be held up by bureaucratic constraints; that FSU is working with the City prior to construction to identify items which impact the university as well as the City. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the transportation concurrency is effective until 2007 and asked if the applicants have become involved in the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) particularly with regard to the water taxi and discussion of additional modes of transportation such as shuttles? Ms. Murphy stated that participation in the TMO is a requirement from the transportation concurrency study; that participation in the TMO is not a condition. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that Affected Persons come forward; and the following Affected Persons came before the Commission: Kafi Benz, P.O. Box 2900 (34230), Director, Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association (IBSSA), stated that she has participated in the proposed Campus Master Plan process over the last two years; that IBSSA has been watching the process carefully; that she and Charles Hegener registered as Affected Persons at the October 2, 2002, PBLP meeting to address some issues; that FSU conceded to six points which were raised concerning the proposed Campus Master Plan; that FSU has fulfilled every aspect of the requests up to the present time; that IBSSA recommends the adoption of the proposed Campus Master Plan and believes ESU and the Cultural Center will be good neighbors in the neighborhood as well as in the community; that IBSSA will continue to fully participate in the process; that the roadways, the vista from US 41, retention of all of the trees, consideration of the historical aspects, and the ability to traverse Bay Shore Road from one area of Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores to another to avoid blockage to the neighborhood are items of importancei, that a roundabout may be considered. David Picone, 512 58th Street (34243), stated that he resides in the Residential Single Family 1 (RSF-1) Zone District neighborhood which borders the Government (G) Zone District; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) has been researched; that the proposed Campus Master Plan does not comply with two portions of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) and referred to the following Section VI-2003, Development Standards, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) In addition to the standards set forth in Article VII, all development within the G District shall be carried out in accordance with the development standards of the most restrictive zone district adjacent to the G zoned zoning lot. (If other G zoned zoning lots surround the particular G zoned zoning lot, the development standards of the closest zone district, other than the G Zone District, shall be used.) A. The development standards shall apply to all development, uses, and property owners including the City. B. Waivers to the development standards may be granted in accordance with Section IV-1701. Mr. Picone continued that the most restrictive zoning in his neighborhood is the RSF-1 Zone District; that the RSF-1 Zone District limits the building heights at 35 feet; that FSU is not adhering to the 35-foot building height; that buildings proposed are at 45, 47, and 65 feet; that the proposed building heights do not include mechanical equipment which may be placed on top of the roofs; that no waivers are included in the proposed Campus Development Agreement Application 02-DA-02; that waivers are not easily obtained; that Section IV-1701, Purpose and Applicability, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), indicates: The City Commission is hereby authorized to grant such waivers from the literal terms of these regulations where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships BOOK 53 Page 24312 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24313 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Picone referred to Section VI-204, Institutional Use Development Standards, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) as follows: : the applicant shall submit a mechanical equipment plan to the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement showing all air conditioning equipment, pool pumps and similar electrical-mechanical equipment Mr. Picone continued that mechanical equipment must be screened; that discussions were held with the architect who did not have a mechanical equipment plan but indicated the first 36,000 square foot building would likely have two 60-ton air conditioning units; that one 60-ton air conditioning unit is approximately 20 times the size of a regular home air conditioning unit; that a mechanical equipment plan should be included in the proposed Campus Master Plan; that the architect will otherwise have carte blanche and the homeowners may not be able to have the noise reduced to an acceptable level; that personal property values will be affected if the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) is not followed which could create a cause of action for property owners who believe property owned has been inordinately burdened by zoning or other government regulations; that the legality of the proposed Campus Master Plan is questioned if the plan does not follow the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.). Vice Mayor Palmer requested that interested persons come forward; and the following interested persons came before the Commission: Robert Reichert, 572 58th Street (34243), retired Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI), stated that he has lectured in three countries regarding real estate values and has been in property management which is a very important aspect of the current issue; that the neighbors are very upset; that the same issues were addressed during construction of USF and the Asolo Theater; that the construction shack for the Asolo Theater was visited at the time; that no plans were visible or available; that no City permits were required; that the air conditioning unit was placed toward the homes in the neighborhood; that two architects and a retired general reside on the street; that the noise from the Asolo Theater air conditioning units threw them out of bed; that the air conditioning unit is fantastically loud. Mr. Reichert continued that very nice people who live along the street are affected by the noise from the air conditioning units; that continued living on 58th Street is desired; that Florida is wonderful; that the City is the best; that he has resided on 58th Street for 20 years; that he retired 12 years ago; that one year ago, USE hired him as a facilitator; that a significant amount of information was discovered concerning the interactions between State universities; that the neighborhood is an island surrounded by 200 acres of property the universities can develop in any manner desired; that the universities' game is understood; that two lawsuits have been brought forth; that no additional lawsuits are desired; that he is fond of USE and also fond of FSU's football team; however, the tree plan is questioned; that the Commission requested a tree plan two or three times; that Banyon Trees were cut down; that Henry Ford and several friends gave the first Banyon Tree to John Ringling years ago; that the Norfolk Pines were removed; that tears are shed when discussions of removing trees are heard; that the proposed Reception Pavilion does not have to back up to the neighborhood; that the site can be moved 300 feet closer to the Ringling Museum at the new entrance. Mr. Reichert continued that the noise from the Asolo Theater can be heard from his lanai; that the decibel level of the noise has been tested; that the decibel level is 50 percent over the legal limit; that the neighbors were told nothing could be done; that the City, County, and State could do nothing about the noise; that the view from his lanai will be a 45-foot building with an air conditioning unit in addition to the Asolo Theater noise; that the situation is not right; that the legality of the noise is questioned; that the neighborhood is not being preserved; that the trees are not being preserved; that the proposed Campus Master Plan is undesirable, unreasonable, and ungodly. Edward Garst, 480 58th Street (34243), stated that the neighborhood consists of 9 houses on 10 lots; that the backyards of the neighborhood are on the north wall of the Ringling Museum; that the front yards face New College/USF; that the neighbors are close and know each other very well; that the neighbors do not agree on some subjects; that some neighbors become more excited than others; however, everyone agrees the neighborhood is wonderful; that a fondness is held for the entire FSU/Ringling Campus area; that the neighbors do not want the area ruined; that the noise is a concern; that John Ringling and his brother Charles bought 65 acres in 1911; that a wall was built between the properties on the property line; that the deeds refer to the property line as the center wall; that Charles passed away in 1926; that John passed away in 1936; that BOOK 53 Page 24314 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24315 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. the State accepted the title to the Ringling Museum property in 1937; that the City was the alternate owner of the Ringling Museum property; that the hope was the City would be the owner; that the title was cleared in 1948 and the first addition was made to the Circus Museum; that in 1951, Charles' widow gave 210 feet to her daughter; that the property ran from Bay Shore Road to Sarasota Bay; that the property was subdivided into lots in 1953; that the lots were 100 feet wide and 200 feet deep; that two houses were built on lots in 1954; that the Asolo Theater was constructed on the property in 1960; that New College was constructed on the property in 1961; that the neighborhood was already established at the time the Asolo Theater and New College were constructed. Mr. Garst continued that the neighbors are fond of the institutions; that the feeling is reciprocal; that properties have been donated to New College/USF and neighbors volunteer time. Nan Plessas, 448 58th Street (34243), stated that the issue relating to the parking of buses along Bay Shore Road was previously raised; that the entrance will be blocked by buses; that patrons who arrive at the Ringling Museum by car will not be able to view the entrance to the Ringling Museum if the view is blocked by a line of buses idling to keep the patrons cool upon coming back to the bus; that diesel fumes will be spewed; that the concept indicated in the proposed Campus Master Plan is not objectionable; however, some details should be addressed; that the buses can be moved elsewhere; that a view of a main entrance provides a connection; that the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) is unaware of the new drop-off station indicated in the proposed Campus Master Plan and is in favor of leaving the drop-off station in the current area; that FSU should be in contact with the County before a establishing a SCAT drop-off station; that parking will always be an issue; that the Commission is encouraged to consider a parking garage in the area; that the issue of a parking garage should be addressed at the present time rather than some time in the future; that planning periods should be 20 to 50 years in the future rather than two years. Charles Griggs, 448 58th Street (34243), Architect, stated that his property backs up to the Circus Museum property; that the FSU neighborhood meeting was attended; that suggestions were presented for additional parking and the bus drop-off situation; that a solution was not provided; that he is a self-appointed spokesperson for 50 very important trees which are 100 years old; that the tree line which was planted in the proposed parking area was planted as a module which acknowledges the growth of the tree canopyi that parking is a module which is dedicated to the length of automobiles and double loaded lanes; that parking and trees are not compatible modules; that a survey of the trees is presently underway; that he has been a practicing architect for 47 years and has been involved in 12 million square feet of projects; that the procedure for constructing master planning sites which are filled with many old trees is to spot the trees and to attempt to construct around them; that the proposed Campus Master Plan, like the John Ringling Causeway bridge, is a fait accompli; that the hope is the tree line along the proposed parking area will be saved; that the land is owned by the State; that City permits are not required; that the State's criteria is separate from the City's criteria; that the Commission probably cannot influence or provide any input to the State regarding the concept of the proposed Campus Master Plan; that the Commission should focus on saving the trees at the main entrance if an opportunity exists to provide input to the State. Mr. Griggs continued that he and his wife climb the fence and walk the Ringling Museum grounds every morning; that a small sailboat is anchored 50 to 100 feet from the water's edge; that the rudder and possibly the keel of the sailboat will be lost if the sailboat is dragged out of the cove due to shallow water; that the area should be examined at low-tide; that a continuing problem requiring dredging will exist; that an annual maintenance burden will be created to maintain water taxis up to any dock at the Ringling Museum; that Federal waters are required to have a minimum depth. Jane Shea, 614 Beverly Drive (34234), President, Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association (IBSSA), stated that she resides within 500 feet of the Ringling Museum; that the proposed Campus Master Plan is supported; that the Ringling Museum is the jewel of the neighborhood; that support of the institution will be continually provided; that the neighbors on 58th Street are supported; that the hope is the City can work with FSU to ensure neighbors do not suffer from the mechanical noises and other intrusions; that the FSU neighborhood meeting was attended; that issues were raised at the meeting and are BOOK 53 Page 24316 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24317 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. being reiterated at the present time; that removing the trees in the parking lot area will create a lopsided effect; that the vista is very important; that the City's working with USF, New College/USF and the Ringling Museum on master plans is encouraging; that IBSSA believes a huge gap exists at the north end of Sarasota; that four expansionist institutions exist in the neighborhood; that the institutions should be discussing and implementing master plans together; that the number of people the institutions are going to bring to the area without consideration of a method or plan is a concerni that the Ringling Museum was asked to provide an estimate of expected people due to the expansion over the next five to ten years; that no response was received; that parking is already at maximum during season; that the neighborhood will suffer; that the extended parking does not sufficiently address the issue long term; that parking issues should be addressed at the present time; that too many people in the area will spill into the neighborhood; that the neighborhood would then become unsupportive of the proposed Campus Master Plan; that a significant portion of the neighborhood considers the Ringling Museum as a local park; that the neighborhood does not have a park; that strolls on the grounds are taken and the Sarasota Bay is enjoyed; that access to the grounds without purchasing a ticket is requested. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Lawson came before the Commission and stated that responses are being provided to issues raised concerning the proposed Campus Master Plan; that sidewalks and bicycle paths on the west side of Bay Shore Road through the balance of the property are already in the engineering process; that the assumption is funding is FSU's responsibility; that tree preservation is the most sensitive issue; that preservation of character and history is a high priority; that the buildings are not economically or efficiently shaped; that the shape of the buildings is solely dictated by the priorities of retaining existing trees and the existing character of the grounds; that FSU has never gone against the philosophy of maintaining and building back the integrity of the existing FSU/Ringling Campus; that experts renowned across the world are participating in the architecture and landscaping components; that the desire to be being responsible citizens and developers of the community and the State's property. Mr. Lawson continued that participation in the TMO is welcome and is part of being a good neighbor and citizen in the community; that the requirements of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) are being met; that FSU is committed to being a responsible neighbor; that neighbors have requested attention to the noise level not only on the northern boundary but all across the FSU/Ringling Campus; that issues occurring in the past will not be repeated; that FSU is responsible for the FSU/Ringling Campus and the neighbors will see a heightened sense of awareness and the ability to address issues. Mr. Lawson further stated that a point was made to move a building 300 feet; that the building is being constructed over an historical driveway; that placement of the proposed buildings is restricted due to limitations imposed by the Department of Historical Resources and the John Ringing Estate; that few opportunities exist for placement of buildings on the FSU/Ringling Campus; that the proposed Campus Master Plan is the culmination of months of work to accomplish a commitment and responsibility to all the entities; that comments concerning the bus parking issue are well received; that HOK will examine the issue prior to further development of the design to ascertain if a better area exists for the bus parking; that the issue will be revisited; however, the outcome cannot be certain; that the State has not been open to consideration of appropriating funding for a parking garage; that FSU will entertain the thought of accepting funds for a parking garage if the City wishes to appropriate funding; that the improvements to the grounds will be a benefit to the community. Commissioner Servian stated that preservation of the trees on the parking lot was not addressed. Mr. Lawson stated that FSU is currently under contract to perform all the improvements east of Bay Shore Road; that EDAW is contractually obligated to address issues east of Bay Shore Road; that EDAW will be evaluating the position and configuration of parking and the location of trees; that significant funds are being expended to shape buildings around trees; that FSU will not arbitrarily cut trees down to create one or two additional parking spaces; that the issue of parking is recognized; that a commitment is made for FSU, EDAW, the BOOK 53 Page 24318 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24319 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. architect, and the engineers to carefully review all the existing trees east and west of Bay Shore Road. Commissioner Servian asked the proposed plan for public access to the grounds? Mr. Lawson stated that security has not historically been an issue with the Ringling Museum; that security is an issue with FSU; that providing an answer is difficult at the present time. Commissioner Servian asked if a ticket will be required to enter the reception area to walk through the grounds? Mr. Lawson stated that an answer is not known. Commissioner Quillin stated that the property was originally gifted to the City; that John Ringling's will stipulated the property would go to the State if the City declined the property; that the grounds are known very well; that John Ringling's will includes a requirement for a free admission day; that possible discontinuance of the free admission day is a concern and asked if the Baroque art collection will be housed in the proposed Center for Baroque Studies? Mr. Lawson stated that storage of artwork is an issue faced by the Ringling Museum; that preservation, conservation, and maintenance of artwork are issues; that the Center for Baroque Studies will be utilized to conserve, preserve, and restore all of the artwork; that the building will be constructed and designed sO the large pieces of art at the Ringling Museum can be appropriately maintained; that the building is exciting; that a library of art will be kept in the building. Commissioner Quillin stated that removing any of John Ringling's collection from the property would be a violation of his will. Commissioner Quillin continued that removing the artwork from the basement is exciting; that not allowing the public access to the property is a concern; that John Ringling's intent was for people to access and enjoy the property. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that Affected Persons come forward for rebuttal. Ms. Benz stated that Mr. Lawson is an easy person with whom to negotiate and has been very careful to fulfill every promise made in discussion which took place at the PBLP meeting and afterward; that the confidence is Mr. Lawson will work with the neighbors to address the issues of importance. Mr. Picone asked if the City has the ability to enforce the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) on the property? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Commissioner Quillin stated that the property is owned by the State which is a superior government. Mr. Picone stated that the State is a superior government but also has social responsibility; that all governments have social responsibillty, that the State is not meeting social responsibilities by allowing height in excess of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the noise is basically uncontrolled and non-quantifiable; that the available recourse is not known if the noise is excessive; that the City is not required to review the Mechanical Equipment Plan; that the appeal is to the State's social responsibility; that nothing else can be said or done at the present time. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that Staff come forward for rebuttal. Ms. Murphy stated that clarification is provided for a statement regarding SCAT's being unaware of the bus parking issue; that SCAT has representation on the Development Review Committee (DRC); that SCAT has been reviewing the proposed Campus Master Plan for one year; that SCAT has a voice in relocating bus parking areas if the current configuration in the proposed Campus Master Plan requires change; that the choices for bus parking indicated in the proposed Campus Master Plan are Closer to the new relocated entrance way as well as to the library; that tour bus parking was not reviewed by SCAT; that the hope is tour bus parking will be taken into consideration. Ms. Murphy continued that the proposed Campus Master Plan shows a potential stop for the water taxi; that a point was raised concerning the area for the water taxi stop; that all environmental impacts will be researched and addressed; that a water taxi stop is a major attractor; that a water taxi stop is shown on the proposed Campus Master Plan to assure the potential for a stop in the future. BOOK 53 Page 24320 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24321 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Ms. Murphy further stated that the Applicant has met the setback requirements; that specific building and construction plans are not reviewed in the instance of State-owned property; that the use of 10-foot setbacks is a relief considering permits are not required; that a number of restrictions exist in John Ringling's will; that the restrictions provided in the will have assisted in driving the building designs; that the hope is every tree will be saved; that the architects face some challenges; that the Reception Pavilion is designed to fit into the trees and not be intrusive; that the restrictions in the will also dictate the locations of buildings; that the Center for Baroque Studies is included as a sub-lease; that the sub-lease is included in the Agenda backup material; that leeway may exist to incorporate the building as additional property. Vice Mayor Palmer requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the Campus Development Agreement and authorize the execution of the Agreement by the Mayor and attestation by the City Auditor and Clerk with the addition of the revised legal description as well as the agreement to participate in the Transportation Management Organization. Commissioner Martin stated that all concerns have been raised; that the powerlessness of the City regarding issues raised is recognized; that assurance is felt the issues raised will be fairly addressed; that the project is exciting; that the issues relating to compatibility and traffic are significant; that the feeling is the issues will be addressed; that the proposed Campus Master Plan is supported. Commissioner Servian stated that the project is exciting; that the desire is for more control over the project; that moral suasion is powerful; that concerns and issues by abutting neighbors and affected persons should be raised with Mr. Lawson; that confidence is held Mr. Lawson will address all concerns. Commissioner Quillin stated that the motion should include the two changes requested to include copies of documents should also be on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk in addition to the Planning Department in Section 2 (k) and Section 16(b) of the Campus Development Agreement. Commissioner Martin as the maker of the motion with the approval of Commissioner Servian as the seconder amended the motion to include copies of documents should also be on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk in addition to the Planning Department in Section 2( (k) and Section 16 (b) of the Campus Development Agreement. Commissioner Quillin stated that childhood years were spent on the property; that all the trees on the property are known; that art was learned at the Ringling Museum; that the Asolo Theater should be brought back to the original character; that relocating and using the Asolo Theater is exciting; that a request is for the universities to collaborate and rename the Performing Arts Building; that the name is confusing; that the Asolo Performing Theater group performs in the building; that the Performing Arts Building should not be referenced as the Asolo Theater; that the property is a gem in the community and in the State. Vice Mayor Palmer agreed. Vice Mayor Palmer restated the motion to approve the Campus Development Agreement and authorize the execution of the Agreement by the Mayor and attestation by the City Auditor and Clerk with the addition of the revised legal description as well as the agreement to participate in the Transportation Management Organization and to add the City Auditor and Clerk as additional language in Section 2 (k) and Section 16 (b) of the Campus Development Agreement. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes. 9. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4406, PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING FOR A . 73 ACRE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY-3 (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (C-CBD) ZONE DISTRICT; ; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND BEING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COCOANUT AVENUE AND BOULEVARD OF THE ARTS; APPROVING SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 02-SP-13 BOOK 53 Page 24322 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24323 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. WHICH HAS BEEN PROFFERED AS A CONDITION OF THIS REZONING TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF TEN DWELLING UNITS AND 10,743 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; ; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 02-RE-04 AND 02-SP-13, APPLICANT CHARLES VAN ZANT, VAN ZANT ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, AS AGENT REPRESENTING BAY MOUNTAIN, LLC) PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH A CHANGE FROM THE WORD "ESTABLISHED " TO THE WORD "REQUESTED I IN SECTION 5(7) OF THE ORDINANCE (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-2) CD 9:06 through 9:24 City Attorney Taylor stated that Rezoning Application No. 02-RE-04 and Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-13 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406 is to rezone a + .73 acre parcel located on the south side of Boulevard of the Arts, west of Cocoanut Avenue to the Commercial Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District; that the Applicant is Charles Van Zant, Architect, Van Zant Associates, Architects, Engineers, Planners, as agent representing Bay Mountain, L.L.C.; that the recommendation is to allow seven minutes for the Applicant's and the City's presentation with five minutes for rebuttal; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Vice Mayor Palmer and Commissioners Martin, Quillin, and Servian stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Vice Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Charles Van Zant, Architect, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides throughout the presentation, and stated that the proposed project for the Rosemary District is consistent with the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that a visit was made to the Netherlands to study European villages and small city-scapes; that the design provides in-fill architecture in the form of 10 retail shops on the ground floor, artisan studios on the second floor, and townhouses on the remaining top three floors; that an adjoining 4-story building will include premier apartments on Cocoanut Avenue with retail shops on the ground floor and townhouses on the three floors above; that the Applicant has provided a stepped and cantilevered canopy over the public sidewalk to lower the scale of the building; that the variations in the façade, walls, steps, and tops of the buildings provide unity and variation to the design; that nine distinctly different rooftops will be constructed; that the goal is to bring a Dutch provincial architectural style to Sarasota; that the request is for Commission approval of Rezone Application No. 02-RE-04 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-13 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that the first request is for a rezoning; that the second request is to construct a 5-story building on the southwest corner of Cocoanut Avenue; that the first two floors of the building fronting Cocoanut Avenue will contain art studios, with two 3-story residences above; that the ground floor fronting Boulevard of the Arts will be devoted to retail space, with 3-story residential units above; that a site plan has been proffered to limit building height; that the height of the portion of the building fronting Cocoanut Avenue will be approximately 93 feet at the peak of the roof; that the rest of the building will be approximately 77 feet at the peak of the roof. Mr. Hoglund continued that on-site parking for 42 vehicles will be provided south of the building with access from the alley located between Fifth Street and Boulevard of the Arts; that two spaces will be designated for handicapped parking; that all the trees on the site will be removed; that the site is designated in the Central City Future Land Use Classification; that the requested C-CBD Zone District is one of ten possible implementing zone districts for the Central City Future Land Use Classification; that the existing Residential Multiple Family 3 (RMF-3) Zone District allows 13 dwellings per acre which is equal to nine units on the site; that the proposed C-CBD Zone District allows up to 50 dwellings per acre; however, the proffered site plan limits the number of dwellings to ten; that three lots west of the project and all the lots fronting the northern half of the block along Fifth Street are also in the RMF-3 Zone District and are single-family dwellings; that the opposing block on the north side of Boulevard of Arts is in the C-CBD Zone District and is occupied by the first of two 13-story residential towers known as BOOK 53 Page 24324 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24325 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. the Renaissance of Sarasota; that the opposing block on the east side of Cocoanut Avenue is in the Governmental Use (G) Zone District and is occupied by the McCown Towers public housing complex. Mr. Hoglund further stated that at its October 1, 2002, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and found Rezone Application No. 02-RE-04 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-13 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and voted 4 to 1 to recommend Commission approval of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406 subject to the conditions; that the conditions in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406 are as follows: 1. The Applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan and/or Transportation Systems Management Plan for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. In the event any non-residential space is utilized by a television station as permitted by the C-CBD Zone District regulations, there shall be no television antennae associated with such use installed on the property; 3. The Applicant shall install a sign along the alley at the south side of the property directing drivers to turn off engines during delivers and deliveries are prohibited between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; 4. The wall depicted on the site plan along a portion of the western boundary of the property shall be replaced with a landscaped buffer; and 5. The permitted uses in the C-CBD Zone District shall be limited to the following: boat sales, book store, carpet or flooring store, residential home, duplicate/copy shop, data/computer store, dwelling, employment office, financial institution, florist, furniture sales, electronics radio/TV/Camera), interior design shop, jewelry, locksmith, music store, newspaper office, magazine/tobacco store, office/proressional building, office/sales, pawn shop, photo studio/retall/printing, TV station, school, shoe repair/retail, sporting goods store, tailor, thrift shop, travel agency, variety retail store, sundry, candy, video, and wholesale facility (without manufacturing on site). 6. The real property shall not be developed or utilized for any other land uses than those land uses specifically described. 7. Additional parking spaces may be required depending on the established use in addition to the 42 on-site parking spaces depicted in the site plan. Mr. Hoglund stated further that an October 15, 2002 memorandum from the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement indicated concern with proposed conditions 3 and 4; that at its November 6, 2002, meeting, the PBLP clarified its intent regarding conditions No. 3 and 4 of proposed Ordinance No. 02- 4406 as follows: - Signage to discourage evening or nighttime deliveries with a request the delivery vehicles' engines be turned off while deliveries are underway; and - Modification of the landscape plan along the west boundary to delete the proposed wall and install a landscaped buffer in compliance with landscape provision of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.). Mr. Hoglund stated that the City Attorney's Office redrafted the Ordinance to address Staff's concerns; that the following item in Section 5, Ordinance No. 02-4406 contains a scrivener's error which will be corrected by second reading: 3. The Applicant shall install a sign along the alley at the south side of the property directing drivers to turn off engines during delivers and deliveries are prohibited between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Hoglund continued that the time "7 a.m. to 7 p.m." should read "7 p.m. to 7 a.m." I Commissioner Quillin asked if the building will be 35 feet in height? BOOK 53 Page 24326 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24327 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hoglund stated no; that the existing RMF-3 Zone District allows 35 feet; that the building has two different sections; that one section is a 67 foot-high four-story element along Boulevard of the Arts; that the section on Cocoanut Avenue is a five-story element and is approximately 79 feet high. Commissioner Quillin asked if the proposed building is compatible with the existing buildings in the neighborhood? Mr. Hoglund stated that the Staff report does not mention the new Downtown Code since the Preliminary Staff Draft of the Downtown Code has not been adopted; that the Downtown Code once adopted limits buildings to four stories. Commissioner Quillin stated that the proposed building has five stories facing Cocoanut Avenue; that other rezonings in the C-CBD Zone District have been approved; that the C-CBD Zone District is not favored; that the layout of the building is pleasing; that the height of the building may create a tunneling effect coming up Sixth Street which is a concern. Mr. Hoglund stated that a sense of enclosure is a conscious component of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Quillin stated that properties on the other side of the alley located between Fifth Street and Boulevard of the Arts consist of one-story single family or multi-family houses. Mr. Hoglund stated that a clear disparity will exist between the project and the rest of the neighborhood until the rest of the neighborhood becomes redeveloped at some point in the future. Commissioner Servian asked the concern relating to compatibility? Mr. Hoglund stated that criteria for compatibility arguments are contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the character of the City is addressed; that the compatibility of a Netherlands style building in the City is questioned; that the authenticity of a building from any period constructed in the City is questioned; that the lower portion of the building is bland in comparison with the upper portion of the building which is very detailed; that a lively street level is desired; that many urban designers will take a position to understate a building rather than to compete with neighboring buildings. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Downtown Code, once adopted, will take precedence over any rights which were vested under the C-CBD Zone District such as the currently allowed 180-foot buildings; that the applicant is not vested by rezoning to the C-CBD Zone District if the Commission approves the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Hoglund stated that the project was submitted well before the Preliminary Staff Draft of the Downtown Code was developed; that the project has been processed based on existing regulations; that the development of the building will be subject to the new Downtown Code if not constructed prior to adoption of the new Downtown Code; that the outcome of the building would be different in a number of areas under the new Downtown Code as contrasted with being constructed under the requirements of the C-CBD Zone District. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Downtown Code once adopted will take precedence over any rights which were vested under the C-CBD Zone District; that the intention of the Commission should be clearly understood, and referred to Section 5 (7), in Ordinance No. 02-4406, as follows: In the event that certain uses are established on the property (such as medical offices) which would require additional on site parking spaces over and above the 42 spaces shown on site plan 02-SP-13, then such uses shall be required to (1) provide all spaces required by the Zoning Code on site Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the word "established" should be changed to the word "requested" and continued that a request to change the uses and the parking should be required prior to establishment of uses. Mr. Hoglund stated that uses other than indicated in the ordinance should be subject to compliance with all Zoning Code provisions prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancyi that the parking is at the allowed limit; that providing additional spaces is not an option; that the option is a variance approval; that the variance would be a self-limiting situation; that medical offices as an established use on the property are not practical and are not likely. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that interested persons come forward. BOOK 53 Page 24328 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24329 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak; neither the Applicant and the City has any rebuttal; requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406 on first reading. Commissioner Servian stated that the motion should include the language change from the word "established" to the word "requested" in Section 5 (7) of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406. Commissioner Servian as the maker of the motion with the approval of Commissioner Quillin as the seconder amended the motion to include the language change in Section 5 (7) of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406. Vice Mayor Palmer restated the motion is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4406 on first reading with the language change from the word "established" to the word "requested" in Section 5 (7). Vice Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. The Commission recessed at 9:24 p.m. and reconvened at 9:31 p.m. 10. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4419, TO REZONE 13 LOTS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL AVENUE BETWEEN MYRTLE STREET ON THE NORTH AND THIRTY-S SECOND STREET ON THE SOUTH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY 1 (RMF-1) TO THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY 2 (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 13 DETACHED SINGLE- - FAMILY DWELLINGS, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; APPROVING SITE PLAN 02-SP-42 WHICH HAS BEEN PROFFERED AS A CONDITION OF THIS REZONING; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 02-RE-16 AND 02-SP-42, APPLICANT JOEL J. FREEDMAN, AICP, AS AGENT REPRESENTING H&M HOMES LLC, AS OWNER) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV- B-3) CD 9:31 through 10:04 Vice Mayor Palmer stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-16 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-42 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4419 is to rezone 13 parcels located on the east side of Central Avenue between Myrtle Street on the north and 32nd Street on the south from the Residential Multiple Family 1 (RMF-1) to the Residential Multiple Family 2 (RMF-2) Zone District; that Joel Freedman, AICP, is the agent representing H&M Homes L.L.C., (H&M) as owner. City Attorney Taylor stated that the recommendation is to allow ten minutes for the Applicants' presentation with five minutes for rebuttal and seven minutes for the City's presentation with five minutes for rebuttal; that no one filed for certification as an Affected Person; that individuals cannot be certified as Affected Persons unless the appropriate documentation was timely filed; that anyone was can speak as an interested person. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Vice Mayor Palmer referred to a November 15, 2002, letter from Alex Boudreau, P.E., President of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association, recommending denial of the proposed rezoning and received as ex-parte communication and stated that the letter is in the public record and was sent to all Commissioners. Commissioner Martin stated that correspondence dated November 18, 2002, from Beverly Azzara recommending denial was also received and was distributed to all Commissioners. Vice Mayor Palmer and Commissioners Martin, Quillin, and Servian stated that no other ex parte communications have occurred. Vice Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicants come forward. Joel Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Group, Inc., agent for H&M Richard Moskowitz, and Joan Engelbach, Principals H&M came before the Commission. BOOK 53 Page 24330 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24331 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman referred to the site plan displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the proposal involves two parcels along the east side of Central Avenue; that the two parcels are separated by the battery distributor which has been at the location for many years; that the requested rezoning from the RMF-1 to the RMF-2 Zone District will allow development of 13 previously platted parcels with single-family homes; that up to nine units per acre are allowed in the RMF-2 Zone District; that the requested rezoning is to take advantage of the single-family development standards in the RMF-2 Zone District; that the increased density allowed in the RMF-2 Zone District will not be utilized; that the lots are 50 feet wide; that the RMF-1 Zone District requires 75-foot wide lots; that the RMF-2 Zone District is consistent with designation of the parcels in the Multi-Family Residential Moderate-Density Land Use Classification of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the area is predominantly single-family with some multiple family structures; that Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-42 is proffered to guarantee the location of the homes and the resulting density; that as proffered, the project will create 5.4 units per acre, sO the density is relatively low; that 14 units would be allowed under the RMF-1 Zone District if duplexes or a small apartment complex were developed; that 21 units would be allowed in the RMF-2 Zone District; that single-family homes would probably not be proposed if the developer were required to develop under the RMF-1 Zone District and reconfigure to 75-foot wide lots; that the project will create affordable housing under the affordable housing guidelines of Sarasota County; that the proposed project is consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan; that unfortunately, a miscommunication has occurred with the members of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association, for which apologies are offered; that Mr. Moskowitz was to attend a neighborhood meeting but had surgery and forgot to attend the meeting; that Ms. Engelbach was out of the country at the time. Mr. Moskowitz stated that his experience includes 13 years in real estate, primarily in renovating existing properties and more recently in the development of new homes in Manatee County; that the developments in Manatee County have been reviewed by the Manatee Coalition; that the homes built recently have been in accordance with affordable housing guidelines; that generally, three-bedroom, two-bathroom homes with one-car garages of approximately 1,100 square feet are built. Ms. Engelbach stated that her experience includes 25 years in real estate, the last ten years of which have been in the renovation of existing homes and more recently in the construction of new homes. Mr. Freedman displayed photographs of homes in the surrounding neighborhood on the Chamber monitors and stated that the homes are generally small, single-family homes; however, the neighborhood has a mixture of development with some multiple- family structures. Mr. Freedman displayed photographs of homes developed by H&M in Manatee County and stated that the homes are the same footprint and design as is proposed; that the houses are good starter homes; that the two- or three-bedroom homes will sell for between $110,000 and $120,000; that the lots are large in depth; that the homes will be located close to the street to provide an attractive appearance and a large back yard; that constructing sidewalks along the street in front of the property has been proffered; that the development will be an excellent addition to the neighborhood and will be consistent with the single-family homes in the area; that the hope is the Commission will recognize the benefit to the community; that apologies are offered for missing the recent meeting with the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; that the City-sponsored neighborhood meeting was previously held on April 30, 2002; that notices were distributed for the April 30, 2002, neighborhood meeting; that concerns were raised at the neighborhood meeting and were subsequently addressed in the submitted site plan; that no one attended the public hearing at the October 1, 2002, meeting of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) sO the assumption was the site plan adequately addressed the concerns; that Staff advised of the subsequent missed meeting; that a letter addressing the concerns was delivered to the President of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association on November 16, 2002. Commissioner Servian asked if assistance in obtaining financing is provided to low- to moderate-income families. Mr. Moskowitz stated yes; that all the homes constructed have met the affordable housing guidelines with the exception of two homes, one constructed for himself and one constructed for a friend; that Manatee County has an excellent program for BOOK 53 Page 24332 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24333 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. affordable housing; that the homes constructed have been in accordance with the price guidelines and construction specifications of Manatee County; that families in need of affordable housing are identified with the assistance of local realtors. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that approval of the design of homes by the Commission is not required; however, the proposed design can be referenced as "snout houses, I with a piece of the home extending forward and the garage in the front and with no front porches; and asked if the proposed design is the only possibility? Mr. Moskowitz stated that cost and price are factors; that exterior modifications are planned; that the home displayed in the photograph sells in Manatee County for $103,000; that the front of the home is plain; that a similar sized structure is proposed; however, some architectural features will be added to the exterior due to the affordable housing guidelines in Sarasota County, which allows a selling price of up to $120,000; however, qualifying the purchasers for a loan for a $120,000 home may be difficult; that the effort is to maintain a selling price of approximately $100,000; that the construction of additional architectural features will depend on the purchaser rather than on speculation. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the City's Office of Housing and Community Development has been contacted? Mr. Moskowitz stated that contact has not yet been made; however, the anticipation is extensive work with the Office of Housing and Community Development will occur during development of the project; that Sarasota County offers $6,000 in closing cost assistance. Commissioner Quillin stated that the closing cost assistance is from Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funds. Commissioner Martin asked if the intent is to develop owner- occupied, affordable homes? Mr. stated yes. Commissioner Martin asked if a marketing plan has been developed to contact people who will qualify? Mr. Moskowitz stated yes; that none of the homes constructed to date is investor owned; that purchasing and leasing the homes constructed is not worthwhile; that all of the more than 20 homes constructed during the last four years are owner occupied; that none is a rental residence. Commissioner Quillin stated that the proposed design of the home is not pleasing; that the driveway is short, approximately the length of one car; that the homes will have three bedrooms; therefore, teenagers may be living in the homes sO each unit may have more than two cars. Mr. Moskowitz stated that several upgrades to the basic design are offered, one of which is to double the width of the driveway; that the final design is based on the amount the individual purchasing the home can afford. Commissioner Quillin stated that efforts are currently being made to determine means to regulate parking on the grass in some neighborhoods; that having vehicles parked on the grass detracts from the attractiveness of neighborhoods; that on-street parking may be possible. Mr. Moskowitz stated that having vehicles parked on the grass has not been an issue in any of the neighborhoods in which homes have been built previously; that the proposed development is the largest undertaken to date; that most of the people who have purchased the homes own one car, sometimes two cars in which case one car is parked in the garage and the other in the driveway. Commissioner Quillin stated that the lots are long; that the houses could be turned and the driveway extended further back sO vehicles could be parked at the rear of the property. Mr. Moskowitz stated that the lots are too narrow for such configuration. Commissioner Quillin stated that the configuration with the houses constructed lengthwise and the parking at the rear of the property was often utilized in the construction of older Florida houses on 50-foot lots. Mr. Moskowitz stated that the contiguration is referenced as a "shot-gun house." BOOK 53 Page 24334 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24335 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that is correct; that the home had a carport with an open floorplan. Mr. Freedman stated that impact on the trees must be minimized; that a balance is required; that setting the house further back on the lot will impact the trees on the lots; that the Applicants will consider the length of the driveway in the design. Ms. Engelbach stated that the property has beautiful trees. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the trees are gorgeous. Mr. Moskowitz stated that an effort is to save as many old growth trees as possible; that the hope is not to touch the back 40 feet of the property, resulting in a small nature-type preserve. Ms. Engelbach stated that the homes will be nestled among the trees and will have different architectural treatment on the façades. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-12 is to rezone 13 previously platted parcels from the RFM-1 to the RMF-2 Zone District; that the trees are an important part to the site plan; that Staff counted 135 existing trees on the property; that as presented, the site plan will result in losing less than one-third of the trees due to the placement of the driveways and the buildings; that a balancing of competing interests is required; that the rear of the property will be kept as undeveloped as possible; that the City- required neighborhood meeting was held on April 30, 2002. Mr. Hoglund continued that the lots were platted long and deep; that adequate lot area is available for the RMF-2 Zone District; that each parcel is 50 feet wide, 162 feet deep, and is 8,100 square feet; that the minimum lot area for a single-family home in the RFM-1 Lone District is 7,500 square feet with a minimum lot width of 70 feet; that the minimum lot area for a single- family home in the RFM-2 Zone District is 5,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 50 feet; that the lots are not large enough to divide in half; that the existing platting would remain in the future; that the northern cluster contains six parcels with the northernmost parcel being 100 feet south of Myrtle Street; that the southern cluster contains seven parcels with the southernmost parcel being 100 feet north of 32nd Street; that the request is to allow each of the 50-foot wide lots be developed as a separate home site; that the requirement for two parking spaces per site is met with the driveway and garage; that Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-42 is proffered to illustrate the general placement of the future homes on each parcel; that less density than allowed in the RMF-2 Zone District is proffered; that the issue being addressed is the lot width, which is the reason for the requested rezoning. Mr. Hoglund further stated that at its October 1, 2002, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and found Rezone Application No. 02-RE-16 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-42 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4419 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval subject to the following condition: The development of the rezoned property shall proceed only in conformity with the site plan filed with Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-42. Mr. Hoglund stated further that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4419 on first reading. Commissioner Martin asked if the design of the homes were discussed. Mr. Hoglund stated that no discussion is recalled; that the effort to build an inexpensive product is understood; that the balancing between providing affordable units and achieving other objectives is difficult; that building plans for small lots are available at the Cityi that having a street in the City developed with newer housing designs would be nice. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that housing designs similar in size while eliminating the "snout house" effect are available and present a better appearance to the street for better sidewalk appeal. BOOK 53 Page 24336 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24337 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hoglund stated that a traditional housing design was a shared driveway between lots with parking at the rear of the property; that alleyways were also utilized but are not an option in the proposed development; that different options are available and will be shared with the Applicants; however, economics will drive the development. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that plans are available with different designs within the economic constraints; that "snout houses" are not appealing. Commissioner Martin stated that Staff can consult with the Applicants regarding alternatives to determine if a different design is possible. Mr. Hoglund stated that a practical limitation is Planning Staff is not involved in site plan review of single-family homes; that the City could impose design requirements but does not at this time. Commissioner Martin stated that nevertheless Planning Staff is available for consultation even if not required. Mr. Hoglund stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that interested persons come forward; and the following interested persons came before the Commission: Alex Boudreau, 1123 Guilford Drive (34234), representing the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association, stated that Ms. Engelbach and Mr. Moskowitz of H&M visited his home six months ago to discuss obtaining neighborhood support for the proposed project; that H&M was informed during the meeting of his inability to provide approval for the proposed project until a Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association meeting was held which resulted in a vote; that several concerns were addressed at the time; that no further contact on the part of H&M has occurred since the meeting in his home; that H&M reference to the issue as a miscommunication is an insult to the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association and himself; that H&M has no local connections with nonprofit groups; that H&M has no knowledge of the City's Director of Housing and Community Development; that H&M has obviously not researched the issue; that a brief, three-paragraph letter was received from H&M on November 16, 2002; that the letter does not address any concerns raised in the original meeting which took place in his home; that the concerns are brushed over and do not provide information the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association requires; that H&M indicates 100 percent owner occupancy for previous projects; that the location of H&M's previous projects is requested; that the owner and contact information for the homes in the previous projects is requested; that the desire is to visit H&M's previous projects to provide a comparison with the proposed homes included in Site Plan Application 02-SP-42; that the previous projects may contain homes with abandoned vehicles in yards and accumulated trash on the properties; that information was requested six months ago and no information has been received. Mr. Boudreau continued that fewer homes should be built if the desire is to lessen the impact on trees; that platting and zoning of the property was established prior to H&M's purchase of the propertyi that H&M is a speculator hoping the Commission will provide a gift by approving the proposed project, a gift possibly at the expense of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association and the City; that H&M should work with the Planning Department to attempt to create a more pleasing design. Mr. Boudreau further stated that H&M is a limited-liabillty for- profit company formed in April 2002; that H&M are speculators without a historyi; that Ms. Engelbach is the manager of H&M according to State documents; that H&M has no Officers or Board of Directors; that the following are neighborhood concerns: H&M is a for-profit partnership, and the affordable homes will be sold to the highest bidder; that defining the homes as affordable seems a mere charade to invoke feelings of good will which H&M anticipates will translate into four additional homes. No mechanism is in place to assist low-income individuals to purchase the homes; that the high- bidding investors can and will easily purchase the homes and turn the homes into neighborhood and City absentee-landlord problems which will burden Code Enforcement and other City services; that Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association is committed to increasing the number of owner-occupied dwellings in the Cityi that the City has more than its fair share of low- income rental property; that Bayou Oaks has a positive history of working with nonprofit affordable-housing BOOK 53 Page 24338 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24339 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. groups to renovate and/or build owner-occupled affordable housing; Sidewalks were not shown on the original plans. A list of previous projects was requested sO neighbors could visit and report on property conditions and calculate owner-occupancy rates; that H&M never provided additional materials promised other than the letter recently received on November 16, 2002, and avoided contact with the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; that H&M is a seven-month young company and has no history. Mr. Boudreau stated further that H&M scheduled, and confirmed, a November 12, 2002, presentation to the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association Meeting which never occurred; that based on the fact H&M is a speculative, for-profit, limited-liability company with no obligation to low-income families, the neighborhood or the City, and the lack of correspondence and follow-up, coupled with broken promises, the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association respectfully recommends the Commission deny the request for rezoning from the RMF-1 to the RMF-2 Zone District. Commissioner Martin stated that a required neighborhood meeting was held on July 10, 2001, and asked if notification concerning the required neighborhood meeting was received? Mr. Boudreau stated the document may have been received but the document is not recalled; that many documents are received since he is the President of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; that all documents are opened and reviewed; that the meeting was not attended. Commissioner Servian asked if a notice was received concerning the PBLP meeting? Mr. Boudreau stated that the notice was likely received; however, as President of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association, he cannot represent the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association until the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association votes on the issue. Linsley Pietsch, 1078 Myrtle Street (34234), stated that she has resided in the City since 1974; that the City is loved; that one of the greatest qualities of the City is a large constituency of people who have high ideals in many facets of quality of life; that as a citizen who works and takes care of a family she does not have the freedom to attend PBLP meetings; that citizens depend on the City to represent the community and to make decisions based upon the needs of the City and the residents; that the applicant is well-intended; however, the belief is research has not been conducted; that she is the recipient of a GoodHomes house; that the people who are involved in addressing the true needs of people who need affordable housing have performed an enormous amount of work and make the impossible come true; that a significant amount creative ways are available to create homes for people; that because someone has been successful in the City of Bradenton does not necessarily mean they will be successful in the City; that the belief is the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood is the last old Florida neighborhood in the City; that a significant amount of sweet little old houses exist in the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood; that her house was built in 1948; that the architecture is personally pleasing; that the Front Porch Florida program sponsored by the Office of Urban Opportunity is exciting; that opportunities to preserve a very old section of town in the fashion originally created are available; that Bayou Oaks is a fruitful and productive neighborhood situated between two very fine high institutions of learning. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that no other interested persons have signed up to speak and requested that the Applicants come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Freedman came forward and stated that the Applicants will be happy to meet with Staff to share information and review plans; that many houses in other communities do not have garages or have carportsi; that the Applicants proffer to meet with City Staff to determine if revisions in the housing design are possible to eliminate the 'snout house" appearancei that apologies are again offered for the miscommunication with the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; that the Applicants did not provide the information requested in a timely fashion; that Mr. Boudreau is the listed neighborhood contact; that not having the interchange with the neighborhood along the process is unfortunate; however, the proposed development would not have been changed except perhaps for the design of the house; that 13 lots must be developed as single-family homes or the property BOOK 53 Page 24340 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24341 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. will be developed under the existing RMF-1 Zone District which will mean the development of duplexes or small, two-story apartment buildings; that the Applicants are interested in developing affordable, single-tamily, owner-occupied homes; that most of Mr. Moskowitz' work has been in Manatee County; that Ms. Engelbach has rehabilitated existing homes in the area; that the Applicants will be making the necessary contacts in the City; that a new developer can be successful with constructing affordable housing; that all the requirements of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) are met; that the proposed development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that all concurrency requirements are met; that all utilities are available; that the land is available; that the impact to trees will be minimized; that the development will be an asset to the neighborhood; that the hope is the Commission will approve the proposed development; that the Applicants will work with City Staff concerning the housing design. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that the City come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Hoglund came forward; referred to an April 30, 2002, memorandum from Kathlyn Vieira, Neighborhood Coordinator, to Mark Hess, Chief Planner, summarizing the City-required neighborhood meeting; and stated that 17 people attended the neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Martin asked if construction of a sidewalk is required? Mr. Hoglund stated that construction of the sidewalk is required by the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM). Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Applicants proffered to work with City Staff concerning the housing design; and asked if the proffer is acceptable. Mr. Hoglund stated yes. Vice Mayor Palmer requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4419 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4419 on first reading with the proffer by the Applicants to work with City Staff concerning housing design. Commissioner Servian stated that the decision is difficult; that the City has a need for affordable housing; that any rezonings which result in losing the ability to develop affordable housing are always a concern; that the Applicants are applauded for the willingness to come forward and develop affordable housing; that the neighborhood's concerns are shared; that any approved development should not negatively impact existing neighborhoods; that information provided as Agenda backup material meets the standard of competent and substantial evidence required to adopt the proposed ordinance; that the hope is the Applicants will continue to work with City Staff concerning housing design; that the hope is the Applicants will also work with the neighborhood to allay fears and keep communication lines open; that the previous miscommunication should be repaired immediately. Commissioner Martin stated that the proposed development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and has been reviewed by Staff and the PBLP; that the legal requirements have been met; however, other issues have been heard at the current meeting; that the Applicants' proffer to meet with City Staff to review alternative housing designs is pleasing; that the Applicants' efforts to develop affordable housing in the City are welcomed; however, the proposed housing design is a concern; that other communities have addressed the design issue and developed very attractive affordable housing; that the Applicants could set the standard for attractive affordable housing in the community; that the Applicants are welcomed due to the housing proposed; that the community yearns for attractively designed affordable housing; that the Applicants' lack of knowledge regarding the Office of Community Development was surprising; that other developers of affordable housing have comprehensive, intentional programs to qualify and school potential homeowners and assure high standards are maintained after the homes are purchased; that the Applicants' lack of an existing program was a surprise; that the Applicants are encouraged to consult with other developers of affordable housing in the community regarding programs for potential homeownersi that the Applicants are also encouraged to communicate with the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; that the Commission has selected the Bayou Oaks neighborhood for participation in the Neighborhood Action Strategy program with BOOK 53 Page 24342 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24343 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. the goal of improving the neighborhood and assuring no decline, which will be a challenge; that the City is focusing resources on the Bayou Oaks neighborhood; that the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association has welcomed affordable housing development; that the Bayou Oaks apartments is an affordable housing project at Mecca Drive and Bradenton Road which was developed with the assistance of tax credits; that the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association worked with the developers on the design of the project and embraced and welcomed the project; that the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association can be partners with the Applicants; that the Applicants are encouraged to work with the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; that the Applicants are welcomed to the community as developers of affordable housing. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Applicants' lack of knowledge concerning the Office of Housing and Community Development is surprising; that the Office of Housing and Community Development administers the City's and the County's CDBG funds and other funds for housing assistance; that the Director of Housing and Community Development is active with the program in Manatee County as the same organizations work in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties; that $120,000 is the maximum price for low- to moderate-income housing; that the hope is the Applicants will work with City Staff; that alternative housing designs are available and could result in an exceptional neighborhood which everyone would like to develop; that the Applicants are welcomed to the City and the County to provide the affordable housing which is sO necessary in the community; that the Applicants are encouraged to apply for membership in the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association. Vice Mayor Palmer concurred with the comments of the three other Commissioners. Vice Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4419 on first reading with the proffer by the Applicants to work with City Staff concerning housing design and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. 11. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VI) CD 10:15 through 10:15 There was no one signed up to speak. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: : SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4407, ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-02 AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; SAID AMENDMENT 01-PA-02 IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE AMENDED AND RESTATED COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (A/K/A DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020) CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF SARASOTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1969; THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS SET FORTH HEREIN ARE ADOPTED WITH INTENT TO RESOLVE THE PROCEEDINGS TO CHALLENGE AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-02 CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-02, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - DENIED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) CD 10:15 through 10:51 Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is to adopt modifications to the previously approved City-initiative Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is to adopt amendments to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 which are referenced as the "remedial amendments", that at its November 4, 2002, Regular meeting, the Commission adopted proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 on first reading with three changes; that the following three changes will be made to the Comprehensive Plan if proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 as revised at first reading is adopted: 1. Action Strategy 4.11, Future Land Use Chapter, will be revised regarding the maximum height allowed in the event the five buildings which are currently 10 or more stories in the Downtown General Zone are demolished and rebuilt in accordance with New Urbanism principles; 2. Action Strategy 4.13, Future Land Use Chapter, regarding drive through facilities will be revised to replace the word "will" with the word "may"; 3. Footnote 4, Future Land Use Chapter, regarding the maximum height of the two taller buildings which may be allowed within a specified area Downtown has been BOOK 53 Page 24344 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24345 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. revised to limit height to 180 feet rather than 18 stories. Attorney Fournier referred to the proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the changes are included as an attachment to the proposed Ordinance; that the hope was the Challengers would be in a position to advise the Commission of the acceptability of the three changes; however, the understanding is the Challengers are not in such a position; that a motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is not appropriate; that the challenge is part of a statutory process which is specifically designed to resolve Administrative disputes; that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is linked to the proposed Settlement Agreement presented at the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that a motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is inappropriate absent the consent to the changes by the Challengers; that the Commission is left with two alternatives: Alternative 1: Move to deny proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407. Attorney Fournier stated that the proposed Settlement Agreement is void and proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 will fail if a motion to deny is passed; that a move to deny the ordinance will be unfortunate; that a significant amount of time and effort has occurred in an attempt to settle the challenge; that the ability to reach a consensus without one last discussion with the Challengers is unknown; that the challenge should be brought to resolution soon; that the Administrative Order which stays the proceedings is in effect until December 2, 2002; that the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case must be advised of the status of settlement negotiations by December 2, 2002; that the recommendation is to request the counsel for the Challengers to come forward for discussion and for the Commission to proceed with the second alternative of: Alternative 2: Move to continue the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 to a date and time certain prior to December 2, 2002. Attorney Fournier stated that the lack of a response by December 2, 2002, will be construed as a rejection of the changes and the settlement agreement by the Challengers. Commissioner Martin requested clarification as to the significance of the December 2, 2002, deadline. Attorney Fournier stated that the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case entered an Order of Stay to enable the parties to engage in settlement discussions; that the parties must advise the Administrative Law Judge on or before December 2, 2002, as to whether or not the case will be settled; that requesting an extension to continue settlement discussion beyond the deadline will not be necessary if the Commission continues the discussions to a date certain prior to December 2, 2002. William Merrill, III, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., came before the Commission and stated that he represents the following five Challengers: 1) Association of Downtown Commercial Property Owners, Inc., 2) The Argus Foundation, Inc., 3) The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange, Inc., 4) Remark Sarasota Quay, Inc., and 5) Wynnton Sarasota II Limited Partnership; that discussions have occurred with City Staff; that several of the Challengers answer to Board of Directors; that the Challengers are obligated to present the proposed changes to the Settlement Agreement to the Boards; that he was notified of the Mayor's absence at the present meeting after the conclusion of the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that the Challengers requested the Administration to schedule the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 at a time with a full Commission present; that subsequent discussions occurred with the Administration concerning the possibility of rescheduling the public hearing to November 26, 2002; that a full Commission is desired for such an important decision; that the Association of Downtown Commercial Property Owners, Inc., have made a determination as to the changes. Commissioner Quillin asked the decision of the Association of Downtown Commercial Property Owners, Inc.? Attorney Merrill stated that he is not in a position to disclose the response of the each Challenger at this time; that once each of the Challengers and respective Boards make a decision the BOOK 53 Page 24346 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24347 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Challengers must meet and decide as a group; that the group decision will be presented to the Commission; that he is not at liberty to disclose individual decisions at this time; that The Argus Foundation, Inc., is scheduled to have a Board meeting on November 21, 2002. Commissioner Servian asked the time of the Board meeting? Attorney Merrill stated that the exact time is unknown; that three Board Members of The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange, Inc., have been delegated the responsibility to provide a response to the changes to the Settlement Agreement; that a response is expected by November 22, 2002; that he attended an all-day hearing November 18, 2002; that he is scheduled to attend hearings on November 19 and 20, 2002; that he will be out of town November 21 and 22, 2002; that discussions with City Staff led to the assumption all parties involved will be available on November 26, 2002. Attorney Fournier stated that the Commission is not obligated to choose November 26, 2002 to continue the discussions; that the November 26, 2002, date was selected as the Commission will already be convened for a scheduled workshop. Attorney Merrill stated that the Challengers are working in good faith to provide a response; that the Challengers desire continued discussions with the Commission to occur as soon as possible; that the belief is a settlement will be reached; however, providing a response from the Challengers is premature at this time. Attorney Fournier stated that an extension of the proceedings will not be required sO long as the case is resolved prior to December 2, 2002. Commissioner Servian stated that reasons the Boards of the Challengers have not meet in the past two weeks is not understood; that the Boards should have met if the issue is sO important; however, the Commission is expected to reconvene and have a Special meeting at the pleasure of the Challengers; that the turn of events is disturbing; that at its November 4, 2002, Regular meeting, the Commission requested an answer to the changes to the Settlement Agreement be provided prior to the current Commission meeting; that the reasons the Boards could not have met is unknown; that she has been personally out of the Country at the time of an important Board meeting and has had to participate by teleconference; that the reasons the Boards have not met are not understood. Attorney Merrill stated that the impression received at the conclusion of the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting was the second discussion regarding a response to the changes to the Settlemert Agreement would occur with all five Commissioners present. Commissioner Servian stated that the impression to schedule the discussion with all five Commissioners present was not communicated to the Commission. Attorney Merrill stated that he is not at fault as to whether or not the impression was communicated to the Commission. Commissioner Servian stated that the Challengers are not in a position to dictate the number of Commissioners present or a time to meet; that the Commission expected an answer at this time. Attorney Merrill stated that the position of the Commission is appreciated; however, an answer cannot be provided; that he can only convey the status of the responses to the changes; that the Challengers are not dictating the number of Commissioners present, nor the time to meet; that the Challengers simply requested all five Commissioners be present; that the request is reasonable; that the assumption was the second discussion would occur before all five Commissioners based on the discussions held with the Administration; that he was unaware the item was on the Agenda of the currant meeting until a news reporter telephoned on November 14, 2002, requesting the Challengers' position; and apologized the discussions were not conveyed to the Commission. Commissioner Servian asked if answers from The Argus Foundation, Inc., and The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange, Inc. are expected by November 21, 2002? Attorney Merrill stated that The Argus Foundation, Inc., Board is meeting on November 21, 2002; that three Board Members of The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange, Inc., have been delegated the duty to respond to the changes to the Settlement Agreement; that the assumption is the three Board Members of The Gulf Coast Builders BOOK 53 Page 24348 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24349 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Exchange, Inc., will be providing a response by November 22, 2002. Commissioner Servian asked if a Special Commission meeting could be held the morning of November 22, 2002 if The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange, Inc., is provided three full business days to meet and make a decision in addition to the past two weeks? Commissioner Quillin stated that she is not available to attend on November 22, 2002. Commissioner Martin stated that Attorney Merrill will be out of town. Commissioner Servian asked if another attorney could attend in Attorney Merrill's absence? Attorney Merrill stated that another attorney could attend; however, no other attorney is as knowledgeable of the case; that the hope is all the Challengers are in agreement once individual responses are received. Vice Mayor Palmer asked the dates available for all five Commissioners to be present? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the November 26, 2002, schedule is as follows: 2:00 - 3:30 p.m. Evaluations of Charter Officials 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. Special Attorney/Client Out-of- the-Sunshine meeting regarding the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) lawsuit City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all five Commissioners are available after the Special Attorney/Client Out-of-the- Sunshine meeting; that the November 26, 2002, date is the only date available prior to the December 2, 2002, deadline. Commissioner Martin stated that he is livid and deeply offended by the turn of events; that at the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting, Attorney Merrill indicated twice on the record a decision would be brought before the Commission at this time; that pleading ignorance to the lack of knowledge the second reading would be held at this time is unacceptable; that the tape of the November 4, 2002, meeting is available to view; that the breach to provide an answer at this time is upsetting; that at times, the Commissioners are the last to know; that planning another meeting at a time when all five Commissioners could be present should have been conveyed to the Commission; that providing a decision to the Commission was clearly presented at the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that everyone is aware of the art of deals; that at the time a deal is hot, a party is provided 24 hours or 72 hours to decide; that a time frame of 72 hours for a response was presented at the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that Attorney Merrill indicated 72 hours was not an appropriate length of time; however, Attorney Merrill indicated a response could be provided at the November 18, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that a reason the Challengers could not have met and brought a response to the Commission at this time is unknown; that the good faith of the Challengers being expressed to the Commission is offensive and unconscionable; that a response is known from all but two of Challengers; however, the responses cannot be shared at this time. Attorney Merrill stated that responses have been received from the Association of Downtown Commercial Property Owners, Inc., Remark Sarasota Quay, Inc., and, Wynnton Sarasota II Limited Partnership; that a response has not been received from the Boards of The Argus Foundation, Inc., and The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange, Inc. Commissioner Martin asked if the responses received indicate as to whether or not the changes to the Settlement Agreement will acceptable. Attorney Merrill stated that he is confident the challenge will be settled; however, he is not in a position to indicate whether or not the Challengers are willing to agree to all of the changes the Commission has proposed. Commissioner Martin asked if a counter-proposal will be presented at a later meeting? BOOK 53 Page 24350 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24351 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Attorney Merrill stated that he is not in a position to indicate if the Challengers are 100 percent in agreement or 100 percent in disagreement with the changes the Commission has proposed; that he is confident the situation can be resolved; that the Challengers have indicated all along a willingness to work in good faith and as expeditiously as possible despite the current accusations; that he will be happy to review the tape of the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; however, discussions occurred with the Administration after the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting regarding the presence of a full Commission at the second discussion; that the Challengers were lead to believe a hearing with a full Commission would occur; that he was personally unaware the discussion would proceed at this time until a news reporter telephoned on November 14, 2002. Commissioner Martin requested a portion of the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting be played. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the point is mute; that the frustration and the anger is understandable; however, a decision to move forward in an attempt to settle the challenge is necessary; that November 26, 2002, is available prior to the Order of Stay deadline of December 2, 2002; that a decision to continue the discussion to November 26, 2002 is necessary. Commissioner Quillin stated that on February 11, 2002, the City was notified by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-PA-02 was in compliance; that on March 4, 2002, the City received notification of a challenge; that the community has been held hostage by the challenge; that the point regarding a response from the Challengers was to be provided is not mute; that only three Commissioners are necessary for a sitting Commission; that the difference to the Challengers of five Commissioners or four Commissioners is unknown; that the discussion could have been postponed if additional negotiations were necessaryi however, to come before the Commission and say five Commissioners must be present for a decision is insulting to the constituents and to the citizens of the Cityi that the citizens elected the Commissioners to make difficult decisions; that the short period of time for the Boards of the Challengers to meet is understood; however, bringing a resolution of issue is very important to the community; that the lack of response from the Challengers is disappointing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 on second reading. Commissioner Quillin apologized to Attorney Merrill and stated that doing business at this time was expected; that everyone has worked hard toward attempting to achieve a settlement; that allowing the Administrative Law Judge to decide the challenge is supported; that the issues included in the challenge can be resolved if everyone works together; that the City can move forward if the challenge is dropped; that City officials are willing to work with everyone to attempt to resolve issues of concerni that certain language required additional clarification; that the requirements for development in the City must not continue in limbo; that the challenge has been pending for approximately one year; that the challenge can be heard before the Administrative Law Judge within 45 days if not dropped; that dropping the challenge is preferred. Commissioner Martin stated that supporting the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 on first reading at the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting was difficult; that the understanding was the Challengers were proceeding on good faith; that the betrayal is disappointing; that going before the Administrative Law Judge is saddening; that the belief is the City will prevail; that his support for the motion on the table is clear; however, the support is with a heavy heart. City Manager McNees stated that discussions were held between the Challengers and Staff immediately after the November 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that Staff was aware of the absence of the Mayor at current meeting; that Staff and the Challengers agreed a full Commission would be best given the magnitude of the issues; that Staff was prepared to recommend continuing the discussion; however, the Commission requested the discussion be placed on the current Agenda; that Staff is limited to only making recommendations; that acknowledging the discussions between the Challengers and Staff were held is important; that a resolution can be measured if both sides are equally unhappy; that the status of the settlement is both sides are equally unhappy; that the cost to continue the discussion to November 26, 2002, is minimal BOOK 53 Page 24352 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24353 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. compared to the magnitude of the issues; that for the negotiations to fall apart days before a potential settlement is a shame. Commissioner Servian stated that the decision is difficult; that the issues of the challenge are of great magnitude; that desiring to have a full Commission is understood; that the Boards of the Challengers should have met as the issues were of such great magnitude; that no excuse exists as to why the Boards have not met; that separating personal feelings and business feelings is difficult; that she has personally been in the position of being called to a special meeting regardless of her location or physical condition; that she complied for the business to move forward; that the people represented in the challenge should have done the same; that a public interest is involved; that the repercussions of quitting five days from the opportunity to settle the challenge are unknown; that the City could be facing an 18-month delay or the additional construction of tall buildings in the Downtown area; however, she is willing to take the chance; that providing the challengers with additional time is not supported. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that she concurs with several points raised; however, the understanding was the purpose of the item being placed on the Agenda was to set another time for all five Commissioners to be present; that apparently the other Commissioners were not under the same impression; that she is equally disappointed; that the belief was all but one issue regarding the "may/shall" language of the Settlement Agreement was resolved; that building height seems to be an issue again; that continuing to negotiate is not necessary if building height is at issue again; that ending five days away from potentially resolving the challenge is disappointing; that the challenge should be dropped; that the community is supporting the adoption of the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that people are waiting to develop according to the new standards which are not in place; that a settlement is desired; that both sides may not be in a position to settle on November 26, 2002, if massaging of certain issues is still necessary; that the motion is not supported; that moving forward to continue the opportunity to discuss the issues with the Challengers is desired; that five additional days are not a delay which is irretrievable. Attorney Merrill stated that the frustration and the anger of the Commission is understood; however, the arrival at such a level is unknown; that information from the Administration should be reliable; that the understanding was the discussion would not be scheduled; that the Board meetings would have been held and responses prepared if the understanding was a decision was necessary at this time; that the impression was the discussion would be scheduled for November 26, 2002; that the Vice Mayor is under the same impression; that a miscommunication occurred; that the Challengers have attempted to operate in good faith; that meetings of the Challengers have been held; that an additional meeting will be held with the Challengers once all the Boards have met; that the plan was to present the findings in writing to the Commission as requested and proceed with the discussion; that the Challengers relied on the understanding of proceeding with a full Commission. Commissioner Martin stated that the idea of a decision just days away exists; that the confidence in settling the challenge on November 26, 2002, is not understood; that the Commissioners have drawn the line on certain issues; that the belief is unless the Challengers support the three remaining issues on November 26, 2002, a counter-offer will be presented; that settlement is not days awayi that a settlement may be days away from the next stage, etc.; that the delay is unfair to the constituents who brought the plan together and who were part of the charrette. Commissioner Quillin stated that discussions can occur with the Administration; however, unless the Administration is aware of the intent of the Commission an understanding does not exist; that communication has not occurred with Staff regarding continuing the discussion; that viewing a portion of the November 4, 2002, public hearing tape is desired; that providing a response at this time was clear; that support to continue the discussion to November 26, 2002, is useless unless the Challengers are willing to accept the changes verbatim passed on November 4, 2002; that the community is not in support of the challenge; that the community is concerned the challenge is gutting the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the public should know the Commission is going to stand behind a plan which was adopted; that the challenge should be dropped; that the City will continue to work on some of the issues raised by the Challengers; that moving forward is desired. Vice Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion to deny proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 on second reading. Motion passed (3 to 1): Palmer, no; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. BOOK 53 Page 24354 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24355 11/18/02. 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that the intent of the motion is for the Administration to proceed with the Administrative Law hearing. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE NON-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER - APPROVED TO CREATE A TEN-PERSON AD HOC COMMITTEE THROUGH APPOINTMENT BY THE COMMISSION INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS IN THE FOLLOWING PROTECTED CLASSES: AGE, DISABILITY, I NATIONAL ORIGIN, RACE, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND VETERAN'S STATUS AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES OF HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS TO WORK WITH THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER REFERENDUM CONCERNING NON-DISCRIMINATION (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) CD 10:51 through 11:02 Vice Mayor Palmer stated that on November 5, 2002, the voters of the City approved the referendum regarding incorporation of a non- discrimination provision in the City Charter; that an ordinance is required to implement the Charter provision; that the non- discrimination provision covers nine protected classes as follows: age, disability, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veteran's status Vice Mayor Palmer stated that marital status and gender could be represented by individuals also in one of the other seven protected classes; that an Ad Hoc Committee of seven representing the protected classes should be established to work with the City Attorney's Office to use the proposed ordinance recommended by the Sarasota Equality Project as a basis for developing an implementing ordinance; that the Ad Hoc Committee should begin meeting as soon as appointed and bring an interim report back to the Commission by January or February 2003 sO the Commission can provide additional direction; that ideally, a document should be completed by March or April 2003 for consideration through the public hearing process sO any budgetary issues can be addressed by fiscal year (FY) 2003/04; that the process must be complete by March or April 2003 for inclusion in the FY 2003/04 budget for funding; that the City Auditor and Clerk indicated a willingness to Staff the Ad Hoc Committee for notice, minutes, etc.; that the idea is presented for Commission consideration. Commissioner Martin asked if applications will be sought and the Commission will make appointments? Vice Mayor Palmer stated yes. Commissioner Martin stated that alternatively, each Commissioner could appoint two members to an Ad Hoc Committee for a total of ten members, which has been done in the past; that the point is to have someone involved representing each of the protected classes; that a balance in representation on the Ad Hoc Committee is important; that a balance has been achieved in the past by each Commissioner appointing two members such as was done for the Charter Review Committee; that the Commission did well in the effort for the Charter Review Committee; that the committee considering the mega house issue, on the other hand, was self appointed and came to the Commission with recommendations; that assuring decisions are made prior to budgetary consideration in July 2003 is important; that the concept is supported; that the City conducted a forum with representatives of the US Department of Justice and the Florida Commission on Human Relations; that an individual who works with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning fair housing but was unable to attend the forum is also an important contributor; that all should be consulted; that an agreement should be sought from the three agencies as to the direction of any implementing legislation. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that decisions can be made concerning the details; that the primary interest is to obtain Commission consensus to have a group appointed to consider the non- discrimination provision soon. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) has a provision concerning the establishment of a Community Relations Board. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct; that a Community Relations Board is created in Section 18-16, City Code, as follows: A community relations board is hereby established. Commissioner Quillin stated that the group should be created under the auspices of the Community Relations Board established in the City Code; that the personal intent was to establish the Community Relations Board as the implementing board; that the Community BOOK 53 Page 24356 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24357 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Relations Board has been in the City Code but has not been active; that the desire is to establish a Community Relations Board and thus to implement an existing provision without creating new provisions. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Community Relations Board is established in the City Code; that the framework is established and will be considered in developing a recommended ordinance. Commissioner Servian stated that an implementing ordinance is required first or possibly simultaneously. Commissioner Quillin stated that a committee should work together sO an ordinance can be developed. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the interest is in establishing an Ad Hoc Committee at this time and appointing members as desired by the Commission; that the Ad Hoc Committee could later become the Community Relations Board if desired; that the interest is in moving forward with creating and appointing members to an Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner Servian referred to the Agenda request form included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the recommended motion is: to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to implement the non-discrimination Charter provision. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the item was personally placed on the Agenda; that the intent is to obtain Commission approval to establish an Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner Martin stated that the Vice Mayor placed the item and the Agenda and is in the best position to make a motion. Vice Mayor Palmer passed the gavel to Commissioner Servian. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to create a seven-person Ad Hoc Committee through appointment by the Commission including individuals in the following protected Classes: age, disability, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veteran's status to work with the City Auditor and Clerk and City Attorney to draft an ordinance consistent with the provisions of the Charter referendum concerning non-discrimination. Commissioner Quillin as the seconder with the approval of Vice Mayor Palmer as the maker amended the motion to include representation on the Ad Hoc Committee by affected organizations including housing, employment, and public accommodations for a total of ten members. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that if passed, the City Auditor and Clerk can develop an application form and advertise on Accesssarasota, Channel 19 so the appointments can proceed as quickly as possible. Commissioner Quillin stated that the intent in seconding the motion is the Ad Hoc Committee would be working toward the re- establishment of the Community Relations Board as provided in the City Code. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the ordinance recommended by Sarasota Equality Project incorporates the provisions in the City Code. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Sarasota Equality Project is seeking to achieve compliance with existing provisions in the City Code. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that is correct; that the Ad Hoc Committee will begin the process and develop a recommended ordinance; that the Ad Hoc Committee should report to the Commission in a joint meeting after a couple of months to present activities and receive direction from the Commission; that any implementing ordinance should be finalized prior to the budget process for FY 2003/04 sO the Administration can determine funding requirements. Commissioner Martin asked the timeframe for receiving applications? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that advertisements can be placed in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Bulletin, and the Tempo; that the Commissioners will also know individuals who may be interested in applying. Commissioner Quillin stated that a deadline should be established. BOOK 53 Page 24358 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24359 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that appointments could be presented at the December 16, 2002, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that appointments can tentatively be scheduled for December 16, 2002; that appointments can be extended if applications are not received for all categories; that moving quickly is desired. Commissioner Martin asked if a press release can be done to disseminate the word further? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Commissioner Servian stated that having the item on the Agenda is pleasing sO the Commission can take into consideration any required budgetary implications. Commissioner Servian called for a vote on the motion as amended to create a ten-person Ad Hoc Committee through appointment by the Commission including individuals in the following protected Classes: age, disability, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veteran's status as well as representatives of housing, employment, and public accommodations to work with the City Auditor and Clerk and City Attorney to draft an ordinance consistent with the provisions of the Charter referendum concerning on-discrimination. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: PUBLIC INPUT MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 2002 REGARDING THE LIDO BEACH SWIMMING POOL - RECEIVED REPORT; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH GEORGE PETER RYAN TO RECRUIT A TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A LONG-TERM MASTER PLAN FOR THE LIDO BEACH FACILITIES; AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PROVIDE A PRESENTATION OF THE COST OPTIONS OF THE LIDO POOL AT THE DECEMBER 2, 2002, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) CD 11:01 through 11:25 Vice Mayor Palmer referred to the Agenda Request form included in the Agenda backup material and stated that a report regarding the future of the Lido Pool will be presented. William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, Duane Mountain, Public Works Capital Projects Manager, and Glen Herbert of Bellomo Herbert and Company, Inc., came before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey stated that on September 16, 2002, the Commission directed Staff to conduct meetings with the public to solicit input regarding the future of the Lido Pool; that Bellomo Herbert and Company, Inc., conducted a meeting on October 23, 2002. Mr. Herbert stated that discussing the history of the Lido Pool is not necessary; that 30 members of the public attended the October 23, 2003, meeting which included several of the Commissioners; that the attendees are in favor of keeping the Lido Pool or some type of pool facility at the current location; that 13 individuals spoke at meeting; that 4 of the 13 speakers are in favor of renovating the historic pool; that the remaining 9 speakers expressed varying degrees of support for some type of swim facility with additional age appropriate amenities at the current location; that the attendees of the meeting were surprisingly passionate regarding the Lido Pool; that a number of options for the Commission to decide include: 1. Renovate the historic Lido Pool at cost of approximately $480,000; 2. Remove the historic Lido Pool and construct a new pool with a cost of approximately $400,000; and 3. Construct a different type of swim facility at the current location. Mr. Hallisey stated that scheduling a date to discuss the options for the Lido Pool in greater detail is recommended; that renovating or replacing a closed pool is one option for the City; however, that the public conveyed a strong message for the City to develop some type of master plan for the facility; that the City does not have a plan to develop a master plan; that Staff can work toward developing a master plan if the Commission desires; however, direction from the Commission is necessary. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission is prepared to provide Staff direction regarding the Lido Pool. Commissioner Servian stated that a two-pronged approach is desired; that the Commission and Staff has a good sense of the desires of the community specifically for the pool; that Staff BOOK 53 Page 24360 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24361 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. should refine the desires and come back to the Commission for direction; that a master plan should be developed for the entire area; that forming a group of concerned citizens similar to the groups formed for the megahouse and human rights issues is desired; that the group could be a cross-section of ages and abilities including residents of the barrier islands and the County; that several interested individuals are present in the audience. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that a discussion was held with the City Manager regarding similar issues; that comment from the Administration is desired. City Manager McNees stated that the discussion was regarding the manner in which such a committee could be constituted; that the committee should include representatives from the County Parks and Recreation Department which will have a role in the maintenance of the facility; that a suggestion is to authorize the Administration to recruit a group; that recruiting a committee worked well in the selection of the new Police Chief; that an alternative is the Commission can appoint individuals to a committee; that including the County in a committee is important; that dealing with the pool from a capital standpoint at this time and appointing a committee to work on a master plan in the future is suggested. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the dealing with the pool and the future of the rest of the property are integrated; that attempting to complete one phase and not the other is a concern; however, funding is not available to complete everything at once. City Manager McNees stated that the Lido Pool situation will be similar to the developmental phases of Payne Park; that the skate park is being install first. Commissioner Servian stated that including different age representation on a committee is important. Commissioner Quillin stated that the initiative of the City Manager to form a committee is appreciated; that the master planning for the Lido Pool area should be community driven; that long-time residents should be part of the committee; that the Lido Pool involves great history; that recommendations for individuals interested in serving the committee from George Peter Ryan are desired; that receiving tangible information in time for the fiscal year 2003/04 budget will be necessaryi that public involvement of different age groups is desired. Commissioner Martin stated that the consensus seems to be for a pool at the current location; that developing a committee to address such a question is not necessary. Commissioner Quillin stated that developing a committee is for long-term master planning. Commissioner Martin stated that funding is a concerni that forming a community group which may desire something significant will leave the Commission grappling to find funding for the project; that parameters and direction for the committee will be necessary. City Manager McNees stated that private fund-raising was discussed at the November 9, 2002, Town Hall meeting hosted by Commissioner Servian; that several individuals indicated an interest in seeking private funding; that locating alternative funding could be a charge of the committee which develops the master plan. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to receive the report regarding the public input meeting held on October 23, 2002, regarding the Lido Beach pool. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to direct the Administration to work with George Peter Ryan to recruit a task force to develop a long-term master plan for the Lido Beach facilities. Commissioner Servian stated that the intent of the motion is to include all suggested individuals for the task force; that various representative from the community should be involved; that several attendees at the Town Meeting suggested a fund- raising group to raise funds for the master planning; that the public has also expressed a willingness to financially contribute to the project; that the County, the City, and the Parks and Recreation Department, and multi-generational groups of people working together is desired. BOOK 53 Page 24362 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24363 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that creating a task force will require additional staff effort; and requested input from the City Auditor and Clerk. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the assumption is the task force will be subject to the requirements of Florida's government-in-the-sunshine laws (sunshine laws). Vice Mayor Palmer stated that task force will be making recommendations to the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that the task force will be subject to the sunshine laws. Commissioner Martin stated that the Parks and Recreation Environmental Protection Board (Parks Board) has County representation; that the task force could be established as an ad- hoc committee of the Parks Board. Mr. Mountain stated that the task force can be established independently or under the auspices of the Parks Board depending on the wishes of the Commission; that Staff support will be provided with the assistance of the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk in either case; that the task force should have a member representative of the Parks Board; that Staff support is not an issue. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that an ad-hoc committee of the Parks Board is an excellent idea; that the task force could report through the Parks Board and back to the Commission. Commissioner Servian stated that bringing an ad-hoc committee under the Parks Board makes sense; that the Parks Board is experienced in dealing with park facility issues. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that including the County and County residents in the ad-hoc committee is important; that the County is funding the maintenance fees for the Lido Pool; that the entire community should be well represented on the ad-hoc committee. Commissioner Quillin stated that ad-hoc committee should include City and County residents. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the goal is to attract more than City residents to the Lido Beach facilityi that the County is responsible for the maintenance of the facility; that the Lido Beach facility is a main attraction for people in the community as a whole, not just City residents. Vice Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion to direct the Administration to work with George Peter Ryan to recruit a task force to develop a long-term master plan for the Lido Beach facilities. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. Commissioner Quillin asked if the ad-hoc committee will provide a recommendation to repair, replace, or modify the Lido Pool? Commissioner Servian stated no; that the Lido Pool is a separate item. City Manager McNees stated that direction regarding the Lido Pool is requested. Commissioner Servian stated that the Lido Pool and forming the ad- hoc committee to develop a master plan are two separate issues. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that complete agreement as to the Lido Pool does not exist; that a community consensus is unknown; that community does desire some type of pool at the location; that the type of pool has not been resolved. Commissioner Quillin stated that repairing and opening the pool as soon as possible is supported; that keeping the historic pool is desired; that saving anything historic in the community is the intent. Mr. Hallisey stated that forming an ad-hoc committee to develop a master plan will take approximately three to four months; that strong consensus at both meetings was for a master plan; that a master plan can be presented prior to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) planning process. Vice Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding the pool itself. Mr. Hallisey stated that a decision concerning the pool can be made once a master plan has been adopted or conceived; that the BOOK 53 Page 24364 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24365 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. decision concerning the pool will be delayed for approximately three or four months until the master plan is developed. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that making a quick decision concerning the pool without good community input and support is not desired; that moving forward on the pool at this time is not supported; that a decision concerning the pool should be part of the deliberations of the ad-hoc committee. Commissioner Quillin stated that Staff has indicated to renovate and bring the pool up to Health and Safety regulations is approximately $480,000; that replacement of the existing pool with a new pool is approximately $400,000; that the difference is only $80,000 to keep the historic pool; that she has personally swum in the pool; that the Lido Pool cannot be compare to new pools; that scuppers of the Lido Pool can be held onto while kicking water. Commissioner Servian stated that removing the scuppers is necessary to comply with the regulations. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that a decision on moving forward with the pool or making the pool a part of the short-range/long-range master planning of the ad-hoc committee is requested. Commissioner Quillin stated that a report concerning the $480,000 renovation and the appearance of the $400,000 new pool is desired. Commissioner Servian stated that a presentation similar to the October 23, 2002, presentation is desired sO everyone will have the benefit of understanding each of the options. Mr. Hallisey stated that a presentation can be provided at the December 2, 2002, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Martin asked if the master plan will be ad-hoc driven rather than professionally driven? Mr. Hallisey stated that Staff recommends hiring a professional; that many issues are involved in the development of a master plan; that the appropriateness for the demographics of the area and the potential uses must be determined; that several issues regarding the impact to Lido Key and traffic must be evaluated. Commissioner Martin stated that the cost of a professional is a concerni that funding is not budgeted. Commissioner Servian stated that the intention is the ad-hoc committee will be working with the Administration and the Parks Board; that the information should be referred to a professional once received by the Parks Board. City Manager McNees stated that the term "master plan" is confusing; that the understanding is to gather community consensus of the desired amenities through the ad-hoc committee for the City's planning information; that having a pool at the location has achieved some community consensus and is much closer to an actual capital project; that some funding is available for the pool itself; that the understanding is not a suggestion of hiring a professional engineer to create a master plan which would be put aside for lack of funding. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission consensus is for Staff to provide a presentation of the cost options of the Lido Pool at the December 2, 2002, Regular Commission meeting. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to continue the meeting past 11:30 p.m. to finish the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SKATE PARK CONCEPT PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE SKATE PARK PENDING APPROVAL OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BOARD AND THE CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ADVISORY BOARD = APPROVED THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINI: STRATION TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE SKATE PARK PENDING APPROVAL OF THE PARKS, RECREATION, / AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BOARD, y AND THE CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ADVISORY BOARD (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) CD 11:25 through 11:43 William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, Duane Mountain, Public Works Capital Projects Manager, and Peter VanBuskirk of Kimley-Horn and Associates Kimley-Horn), came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain stated that Bellomo Herbert and Company, Inc., is in the process of developing the skate park master plan; that BOOK 53 Page 24366 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24367 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Glen Herbert is available in the audience for questions; that Mr. VanBuskirk previously owned the firm which designed the skate park in North Port, Florida. Mr. Mountain referred to an architectural design of the Payne Park Skate Park Conceptual Master Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the location of the skate park is north of Adams Lane, west of School Avenue, and east of US 301; that a master plan provided by EDAW, Inc., (EDAW), an international landscape consulting firm, was utilized to superimpose the Payne Park Skate Park Conceptual Master Plan as a starting point in developing the skate park master plan; that the Commission previously directed Staff to establish the location for the skate park in the northeastern section of the proposed area; that the location is aligned for future parking along School Avenue and Adams Lane; that the proposed parking depicted on the Payne Park Skate Park Conceptual Master Plan is not an indication of being part of the Payne Park Skate Park Master Plan; however, space is provided in the event parking is necessary in the future. Mr. Mountain continued that the concrete skate park is the first phase of development; that trees, exterior sidewalks, buildings, entryway enhancements, etc., will be constructed in a later phase of the Payne Park Skate Park Master Plan; that Staff desired the Payne Park Skate Park Master Plan reflect landscaping, pathway directions, and the architecture of the buildings; that temporary shade will be provided during Phase I; however, a permanent shade structure will not be constructed at this time; that providing offices at the skate park is unknown; that a location for offices and restrooms in Payne Park may be determined at a later date; that some facilities will eventually be constructed; that restrooms will be necessary; that June 2003 is the expected date to open the skate park; that maintenance of the skate park will be provided by existing Staff through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2003/03; that $53,000 has been budgeted for maintenance; that the first four to five months of operation will be a learning experience; that Staff is unaware of the potential usage or the types of maintenance issues which could arise; that the cost of maintenance could decrease; that the hours of operation will be experimental; that contributing to truancy is a concern; that a member of the Skate Park Design Review Team (Team) desired the skate park be covered; that the estimated cost to cover the skate park is $250,000. Commissioner Quillin stated that Staff can learn from the operations of the skate park in North Port; that staffing the skate park is a priority; that contacting other facilities to determine the maintenance involved for a concrete skate park is suggested. Mr. Mountain stated that over 3,200 hours have been budgeted to provide a full-time attendant and maintenance at the skate park. Commissioner Quillin stated that members of the private sector may desire the opportunity to earn income from concessions at the skate park. Mr. Mountain stated that discussions have occurred with the Human Resources Department regarding a volunteer program; that the Steigerwaldt-Jockey Fountain, also called the children's fountain and the future skate park are two facilities which are significant to the public; that Staff will learn from the first few months of operating the skate park. Mr. Hallisey stated that the features of the skate park and the process of ensuring the commitments the Commission had made to the public regarding the design were met and will be explained. Mr. VanBuskirk stated that the design process of the skate park began in 2001; that two public workshops were held for community input; that two meetings were held with the Team to present different concepts of the skate park based on public input; that the design was refined to present the Payne Park Skate Park Conceptual Master Plan to the Commission; that several adjustments had to be made to stay within the budgetary constraints; that maintaining the integrity of the skate park is important; that three areas of the skate park include: 1) Advanced Area, 2) Street Area, and 3) Beginner's Area; that the Street and Advanced Areas will be heavily utilized; that the Beginner's Area will utilized by younger children; that the Advanced Area comprises 47 percent, the Street Area comprises 36 percent, and the Beginner's Area comprises 15 percent of the total skate park surface; that the three areas have been superimposed on the EDAW plan to determine the spatial effects to the overall Payne Park Skate Park Master Plan; that access to the skate park can be obtained from School Avenue; that an exterior walkway surrounding the park is suggested; that landscaping can be utilized to buffer the skate park from the surrounding neighborhoods; that the skate park will be elevated BOOK 53 Page 24368 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24369 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. due to the shallow ground water conditions of the area; that installing a hole in the ground to have the ability to drain the hole is difficult; that pumps are not desired; that the highest points of the skate park will be approximately seven feet in the Advanced Area and the lowest points will be at grade. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if a presentation of the Payne Park Skate Park Conceptual Masker Plan has been before the Parks and Recreation Environmental Protection Board (Parks Board)? Mr. Mountain stated no; that due to the timing of the meetings, the conceptual plan will be presented to the Parks Board on November 21, 2002. Commissioner Martin referred to the cross section of the Payne Park Skate Park Conceptual Master Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors and asked for clarification regarding the drainage of the zero-grade section? Mr. VanBuskirk stated that floor drains will be installed at the bottom of the bowl areas which are connected to a pipe system. Commissioner Martin asked if 100 percent of the available funding will be utilized for the skate park. Mr. Hallisey stated that all funding is committed to developing and maximizing the skating surface which meets all the requests from the community; that the City is constructing a first class park; however, the park will look like a skate park; that the park will not look like a grand Central Park; that extra amenities will be installed upon completion of Payne Park; that evaluating other parks to assist in determining the proper locations for restrooms is appropriate; that suggestions of an attendant and volunteers at the skate park as well as the children's fountain will be brought back to the Commission; that the skate park meets the requests of the community and the commitments which have been made by the Commission; that additional amenities will added to the skate park as Payne Park is developed. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if a cover for the skate park can be installed in the future if funding becomes available? Mr. Hallisey stated yes. Commissioner Quillin referred to the architectural rendering of the Payne Park State Park Conceptual Master Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that developing the entire area for $600,000 as depicted in the architectural rendering rather than just the skating surface was expected. Mr. VanBuskirk stated that meeting the requests of the community and keeping within the budgetary restrictions was difficult. Commissioner Quillin stated that restroom facilities and a location for an attendant must be provided; that other skate parks can attest to the need for restroom facilities and an attendant; that the closest restrooms are located at Publix in the Ringling Shopping Center and at the Sarasota County Health Department. Mr. Hallisey stated that a location for an attendant will be provided; that attendants will be at the skate park continuously from the time the skate park opens until the Commission directs otherwise; that an office will not be installed at the skate park at this time; that public restrooms are available at the tennis facility or portable facilities can be temporarily utilized; that Staff is in the process of applying for a restroom grant; however, the budget is maximized with the construction of the skating surface. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that temporary portable restroom facilities may be necessary until a grant is received. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the conceptual plan and authorize the Administration to proceed with construction of the skate park pending approval of the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board, and the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Parks Board and the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board are encouraged to recommend the installation of restroom facilities at the skate park; that $600,000 is budgeted for the skate park; that funding should be sought to construct restroom facilities; that any grant funding received can be utilized for other enhancements. 16. NEW BUSINESS: REQUEST RE: REPORT CONCERNING CODE ENFORCEMENT AND POLICING AT THE SARASOTA HOUSING AUTHORITY BOOK 53 Page 24370 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24371 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) CD 11:43 through 11:45 Commissioner Quillin stated that the public has requested the reason the City is not providing code enforcement at public housing facilities; that the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) provided funding for community policing in past; that discussions were held with the City Manager regarding code enforcement; that photographs of code violations at public housing facilities were taken during her first year in office; that code enforcement procedures were requested; that the information received was code violations are referred to the SHA; that Commission consensus to direct the Administration to provide a report regarding code enforcement and policing at the Sarasota Housing Authority is requested. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the agreement of the Commission, the Administration will provide a report. Commissioner Martin referred to the November 18,2002, interoffice memorandum to the City Manager from Mayor Mason regarding Code Enforcement and Public Housing which was previously received and stated that the memorandum addresses similar concerns. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA COUNTY FOR THE HISTORY CENTER BUILDING FORMALLY KNOWN AS THE HISTORICAL ARCHIVES, LOCATED AT 701 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL SARASOTA AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME APPROVED THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY REGARDING THE HISTORY CENTER BUILDING WITH THE CHANGE FROM ONE YEAR TO SIX MONTHS ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF TERMINATION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) CD 11:45 through 11:49 Vice Mayor Palmer stated that Commissioner Martin requested that Consent Agenda I, Item No. 9 be removed for discussion. Commissioner Martin stated that discussions have occurred with the County regarding discontinuing the services provided to the City regarding historical preservation; that the issue is unresolved; that approving the Lease Agreement is a concerni and asked if the Lease Agreement can be utilized as leverage regarding the continuation of the services provided? City Manager McNees referred to the proposed Lease Agreement included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the Lease Agreement includes a one year notification clause for termination; that the ending date of the Lease Agreement is October 12, 2003; that one-year is not available to provide such notice; that changing the one-year notification to six months will provide the City an opportunity to work with the County during the development of the budget; that adequate time would be available to notify the County if a solution to the possible discontinuing of the services provided is not reached. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that County Staff is currently utilizing the facility; that the County pays the City $10 per year for the use of the facility; however, the County installed a new roof on the building and is in the process of installing a new air conditioning system; that No. 3, Terms, of the Lease Agreement should be revised as to the amount of notice as follows: may terminate this Lease Agreement by providing written notice to the other party at least 6 months in advance of the termination date. City Manager McNees stated that the change should apply to the first year of the Lease Agreement; that a one-year notice termination notice should apply to renewals. Commissioner Servian asked if the October 12, 2003, termination date in the Lease Agreement will be changed to April 12, 2003? Vice Mayor Palmer stated no; that October 12, 2003, is the termination date; that the length of time to notice the County prior to the October 12, 2003, will be changed to six months. Commissioner Quillin stated that the building is formerly known as the Chelsea Libraryi that keeping the historical name is desired. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the Lease Agreement between the City and the County regarding the History Center Building with the change from one year to six months advance notification of termination and to authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and BOOK 53 Page 24372 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24373 11/18/02 6:00 P.M. Clerk execute the same. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 18. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 11:49 through 11:49 There were no Commission Board or Committee reports. 19. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 11:49 through 11:49 There were no remarks of Commissioners, announcements and items for next Agenda. 20. OTHER ATERS/AIKDESTAIIVA OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XII) CD 11:49 through 11:54 CITY MANAGER MCNEES: A. stated that the County has unofficially requested an extension of the notice period in the Fire Consolidation Agreement; that the extension will expire on December 2, 2002; that the current meeting is the last Regular Commission meeting prior to the December 2, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that on November 15, 2002, the County provided the City with a resolution which implied the issue should be added to the Agenda of the current meeting; that the resolution expressed City support regarding certain issues such as the creation of a Municipal Services Taxing Unit for funding of the for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as a result of recent court rulings and performing an audit of the pension administration; that the Administration decided not to add the item to the current Agenda; that the Administration does not desire to be put in the position of providing a recommendation concerning an issue without enough background information; that the County may be left in the position of issuing a notice of termination of the Fire Consolidation Agreement; that Staff will continue to work toward resolving the issues. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the issue will be on the December 2, 2002, Regular Commission meeting Agenda? City Manager McNees stated that placing the item on the Agenda will depend on the position of the County. Commissioner Quillin stated that several of the Commissioners are aware of the history surrounding the Fire Consolidation Agreement; that the Administration can keep the Commission appraised of issues regarding the County; that the hope is the message conveyed to the County is the City is willing to work together on the issues; that addressing the issues at the current meeting was not timely. 21. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) CD 11:54 There being no further business, Vice Mayor Palmer adjourned the Regular meeting of November 18, 2002, at 11:54 p.m. KOU ANN R. PALMER, VICE MAYOR ATTEST: . * BiciSE Robno-on BILLY EC ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK & BOOK 53 Page 24374 11/18/02 6:00 P.M.