BOOK 54 Page 25289 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 21, 2003, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners, Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees (afternoon session), Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider (evening session), City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney. Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: City Manager McNees (evening session) PRESIDING: Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:31 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Palmer welcomed Commissioners Atkins and Bilyeu to their first Regular Commission meeting. 1. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 14, 2003, THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 7, 2003, AND THE STATUTORY CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF APRIL 9 AND 11, 2003 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II-1, -2, -3, -4) CD 2:31 through 2:32 Mayor Palmer asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the Special City Commission meeting of March 14, 2003, the Regular City Commission meeting of April 7, 2003, and the Statutory City Commission meetings of April 9 and 11, 2003, are approved. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:32 through 2:45 The following people came before the Commission: Fredericka Pitts, 1802 Stickney Point Road (34231), stated that in 1994 she was awarded a Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certificate for the rest of her life; that the belief is the certificate has been stolen; that HUD records from 1994 through 1996 have been requested and denied; that in the early 1990s, she was ruled Federally disabled; that she was represented by legal counsel during the Federal hearing; that the Federal ruling and the HUD certificate were verified by the Social Security Administration; that she was warned of the possibility of someone stealing the HUD certificate; that a 1990 merger of HUD certificates did not eliminate her HUD certificate; that Local, State, and Federal auditors have verified the authenticity of her information; that a truthful set of certified documents has been requested from the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) ; that the previous documents received from the SHA included false records; that Sarasota County Circuit Judge Andrew Owens dismissed her case and ordered Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, to assist her in obtaining the necessary documents; that she has received false Federal and Local documents from the SHA for several years; that she is physically better than before but still struggling with numerous aliments; that the request is for the City to provide her with documents which match the Social Security records and the Federal ruling; that she has attempted to contact the members of the SHA without successi that two SHA Board Members wish to assist her but have been silenced; that Commission protection and assistance is requested. Stan Zimmerman, 2469 Novus Street (34237), wished the Commission the best of luck in the new term; and stated that the hope is the Commissioners will utilize their wisdom to guide the City to the best of their ability; that he is before the Commission to offer some suggestions regarding the relocation of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD); that a recent proposal included the possibility of selling the current SPD facility to the County sO the County's administrative offices would remain in the City; that the City is exploring the possibility of purchasing the historic Sarasota High School building for the relocation of the SPD; that a police facility requires unusual construction and design similar to a fortress; that for example, the windows of the existing SPD facility are similar to medieval weapon firing slits; that constructing a fortress within the existing facade of the historic Sarasota High School building would be equivalent to constructing a building within a building; that the construction costs would be greater than anticipated; that only the facade of the historic Sarasota High School building would be historically preserved; that the modern, soon to be vacated Sarasota Herald-Tribune facility would be a more appropriate building to which to relocate the SPD; that the BOOK 54 Page 25290 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25291 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Sarasota Herald-Tribune facility is similar to fortress type construction; that interview rooms and modern wiring currently exist in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune facility; that the Commission is urged to consider an alternate location such as the Sarasota erald-Tribune facility for the SPD rather than demolishing the interior of the historic Sarasota High School building; that the possibility of the City's leasing the Sarasota Herald-Tribune facility sO the property remains on the tax roll should be explored. Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane (34242), congratulated Mayor Palmer and Vice Mayor Martin; welcomed Commissioners Atkins and Bilyeu as well as Commissioner Servian once again to the Commission; and stated that the hope is the Commission will have a successful year for the Cityi that a Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting is scheduled for April 22, 2003, in Venice regarding the possible relocation of the County's administrative offices; that a bus is reserved for individuals wishing to attend the meeting to support the retention of the County's administrative offices in the City; that the bus will depart from the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall parking area at 2:30 p.m., April 22, 2003. R.K. Mattern, 2400 Wood Street (34237), stated that he recently searched for individuals responsible for environmental protection and resources management in the City; that he was initially referred to the County; however, the County indicated the City is responsible for its own resource protection; that the City enacted a Tree Protection Ordinance which protects wetlands and certain species; that Commission Office Staff searched the telephone book and directed him back to the County for more information; that apparently the City lacks enforcement capacity and oversight for the Tree Protection Ordinance; that the request is for the City to either relinquish responsibility for environmental resources within the City limits or expedite a body of regulatory enforcement for the Tree Protection Ordinance; that the good intentions in enacting the Tree Protection Ordinance will be meaningless without enforcement; that a significant amount of asphalt exists in the City; that Ringling Boulevard lacks greenspace; that the Commission is requested to reconsider the design for the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Transfer Facility; that the original intent was to locate the new SCAT Transfer Facility on the west side of Lemon Avenue; that the understanding is the current plan is to locate the SCAT Transfer Facility on the east side of Lemon Avenue; that several beautiful trees such as mahogany trees will be lost if the new SCAT Transfer Facility is located on the east side of Lemon Avenue; that the Commission is encouraged to reevaluate the plans and attempt to protect the line of beautiful trees along Lemon Avenue. Mayor Palmer stated that Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, is present in the audience and can be contacted regarding the Tree Protection Ordinance. 3. BOARD ACTIONS RE: : REPORT RE: CELEBRATE SARASOTA COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2003 - RECEIVED REPORT; APPROVED CELEBRATE SARASOTA GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $445 FOR THE LIDO KEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION REQUEST AND ENCOURAGED THE LIDO KEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION TO INCORPORATE THE CELEBRATE SARASOTA LOGO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIGNS (AGENDA ITEM III-1) CD 2:45 through 2:54 Thorning Little, Chair, and Paul Thorpe, Vice Chair, Celebrate Sarasota Steering Committee (Committee), came before the Commission. Mr. Thorpe presented the following items from the April 9, 2003, Committee meeting: A. Funding for the Newtown Easter Parade. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Commission requested the Committee consider a grant application for funding for the Newtown Easter Parade; that the Committee unanimously voted to allocate $1,000 of Celebrate Sarasota funds for the parade; that the parade was a success. B. Funding for the Lido Key Residents Association for neighborhood signs. Mr. Thorpe continued that the Committee considered and voted unanimously to allocate $445 of Celebrate Sarasota funds for the Lido Key Residents Association request for neighborhood signs; that the signs and landscaping have been installed. Mr. Thorpe further stated that Celebrate Sarasota funds are being depleted; that the Committee decided to retain $5,000 of the remaining $10,825.78 in Celebrate Sarasota funds to cover additional expenses which may be incurred between now and October 2003; that Jerry Swartz, representing the upcoming BOOK 54 Page 25292 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25293 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. August 23, 2003, Sarasota Centennial Fishing Tournament and Fish Fry event, made a presentation to the Committee regarding the activities for the event; that Committee Member Arnold Berns presented a report of the upcoming August 25, 2003, Sarasota Historical Society's Sock Hop which will feature Bill Haley's Comets and a former member of the Drifters; that regular admission tickets are available for $25; that Gerry McMullan, Chair, Sister Cities Association, Dunfermline, Scotland, provided the Committee with information concerning a documentary film project regarding the history of the Florida State University (FSU) Performing Arts Center Theatre, known as the "Mertz Theatre"; that the filming is expected to start in June 2003 with locations in Dunfermline and Sarasota; that the funding required will be approximately $140,000; that Mr. McMullan requested the Committee endorse the documentary film project and recommend suggestions for additional funding sources; that the Committee officially sanctioned the documentary film project and agreed to assist the Sister Cities Association in locating funding sources. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the report concerning the remaining balance of Celebrate Sarasota funds is appreciated; that several minority communities may still come forward to request funding for an event; that the new Commissioners are requested to encourage community representatives to submit an application for Celebrate Sarasota funds; that neighborhood signage may be an expenditure which should be provided by neighborhood grants rather than Celebrate Sarasota funds; and asked the reason the Committee approved the expenditure? Mr. Little stated that the guidelines established for Celebrate Sarasota funds are for events which are specific to the City's 100th Anniversary Celebration; that the signage must bear the Celebrate Sarasota logo or some type of statement regarding the Celebration; that he was not present at the April 9, 2003, Committee meeting; that the understanding is the Lido Key Residents Association neighborhood signage was installed in recognition of the City's 100th Anniversary Celebration; that the flyers and notices for the signage included the Celebrate Sarasota logo; that the Committee has been flexible in the grant funding processi that the allocation of $445 of Celebrate Sarasota funds for the Lido Key Residents Association application for neighborhood signage is before the Commission for approval. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Committee requested the applicants incorporate the Celebrate Sarasota logo in signage. Commissioner Servian stated that the Lido Key Residents Association neighborhood signs do not include the Celebrate Sarasota logo; that nothing on the signs indicates funding is from Celebrate Sarasota funds. Mayor Palmer stated that Celebrate Sarasota logo can be added to the signs. Mr. Thorpe agreed. C. City's Seal at the Federal Building Mr. Little stated that the Committee also considered and approved the placement of the City's Seal and a plaque referencing the City's 100th Anniversary Celebration in the Federal Building; that Committee considered and scheduled a discussion of funding for a time capsule in the Federal Building to the next Committee meeting sO additional information can be provided. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to receive the April 9, 2003, report of the Celebrate Sarasota Committee. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yesi Palmer, yes. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to approve Celebrate Sarasota grant funds in the amount of $445 for the Lido Key Residents Association request and to encourage the Lido Key Residents Association to incorporate Celebrate Sarasota logo in the signs. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15 = APPROVED ; ITEM NO. 1 - REMOVED AND WILL BE CONSIDERED UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS AGENDA ITEM VI-5 IN THE AFTERNOON SESSION (AGENDA ITEM IV-A) CD 2:54 through 2:55 Commissioner Servian requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Tampa Contracting BOOK 54 Page 25294 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25295 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Services, Inc., (Bid #02-38M) for the 1912 Cortez Schoolhouse Habitat Restoration Project. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute Agreement No. 02CON000204 between the City of Sarasota and the Southwest Florida Water Management District to provide $200,000 to the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program to partially fund three habitat restoration projects in Manatee County: Perico Bayou, Crosley Estates and 1912 Cortez Schoolhouse. 4. Approval Re: Authorize Administration to negotiate a contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Boyle Engineering Corporation, (R.F.P. #03-13M) for the selection of a consultant for Drainage Improvement (Eighth Street/Lime Avenue and Sixth Street/Washington Boulevard). 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Roomers, L.L.C., for water service for a developed site located at 2912 Hawthorne Street. 6. Approval Re: Proposed Housing Program Policy Guidelines for acquisition and disposition of properties with Office of Housing and Community Development mortgages. 7. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Jon F. Swift, Inc., in the amount of $253,945.26 for modifications to various City owned buildings locations to meet the requirements for accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act per the Settlement Agreement Case No. #8:00-ev-1436-T-30A. 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with both top ranked firms, Angie Brewer & Associates, L.L.C., and Summit Professional Services, Inc., (R.F.P. #03-22M) for Grant/Loan assistance on an "as needed" basis. 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Quitclaim Deed between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Bay Club, L.L.C., to extinguish certain water and sewer City easement rights in the property owned by Sarasota Bay Club, L.L.C., which are no longer required. 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a three-year contract between the City of Sarasota and Insurance and Risk Management Services, Inc., (RFP #03-23M) for an Agent of Record for property and casualty insurance in the amount of $42,500 annually. 11. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County for Fire and Emergency Medical Services. 12. Approval Re: Authorize the Neighborhood Development Department to amend the Neighborhoods USA 2003 scholarship award to provide for costs associated with alternate modes of transportation to airfare. 13. Approval Re: Authorize Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Extension to Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and MarineMax of Sarasota, L.L.C. 14. Approval Re: Sarasota Transportation Management Organization's (TMO) quarterly status report. 15. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and M&J Construction of Pinellas County, Inc., regarding the replacement of the failing Payne Terminal seawall and to execute an agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County to reimburse the City in the amount of $165,000. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 2 through 15, inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 1, will be considered under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item VI-5 which will be heard in the afternoon session. BOOK 54 Page 25296 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25297 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1606) - ADOPTED ; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1607) = ADOPTED ; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1610) = ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1612) ADOPTED ; AND ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1613) ADOPTED, ; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4459) = REMOVED AND WILL BE CONSIDERED UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS AS AGENDA ITEM VI-6 IN THE AFTERNOON SESSION (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 2:55 through 2:59 Mayor Palmer requested that Item No. 6 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1606, opposing the portion of Governor Bush's proposed fiscal year 2003-2004 budget that eliminates the State Housing Trust Fund and the Local Government Housing Trust Fund as dedicated funding sources and reduces by approximately $94.5 million the funds available for affordable housing programs; etc., (Title Only). 2. Approval Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1607, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against all real or personal property owned by the violator for the amount stated therein; etc., (Title Only). 3. Approval Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1610, authorizing the submission of the Local Housing Assistance Plan and the Housing Delivery Goals Chart for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) for the period commencing July 1, 2003, and expiring June 30, 2005; setting forth findings; authorizing the Mayor to execute the Local Housing Assistance Plan and related certifications; etc., (Title Only). 4. Approval Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1612, appropriating $11,687.50 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to fund the payment to Seminole Gulf Railway and CSX Transportation for the Water Works Building/Quiet title action with reimbursement of the General Fund from the proceeds of the sale of the Water Works property; etc. 5. Approval Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1613, appropriating $56,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Old Penny Sales Tax Fund to provide additional funding for the modifications to City owned properties to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act before September 30, 2003; etc. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 03R-1606, 03R-1607, 03R-1610 by title only and proposed Resolution Nos. 03R-1612 and 03R-1613 in their entirety. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 5, inclusive. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 6, will be considered under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item VI-6 which will be heard in the afternoon session. 6. BOARD APPOINTMENTS RE: CITY COMMISSION REPRESENTATION ON BOARDS AND COMMITTEES = SELECTED COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES (AGENDA ITEM V-1) CD 2:59 through 3:11 Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission is represented on various external boards and committees; that selection of the representation is conducted annually; that the April 15, 2003, memorandum from the City Auditor and Clerk to the Commission regarding Commissioner Representation on Boards and Committees included in the Agenda backup material specifies the available positions. Mayor Palmer stated that the consensus of the Commission is for the following representation on external boards and committees: Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization Commissioner Servian and Bilyeu Vice Mayor Martin as alternate Tourist Development Council Mayor Palmer Commissioner Servian as alternate Economic Development Board Commissioner Servian BOOK 54 Page 25298 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25299 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins as alternate Enterprise Zone Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Atkins ManaSota League of Cities Mayor Palmer Vice Mayor Martin as alternate Council of Governments Mayor Palmer Vice Mayor Martin as alternate Sarasota County Coastal Advisory Committee Vice Mayor Martin Commissioner Servian as alternate Liaison to the Pension Boards Mayor Palmer Liaison to the Sarasota Housing Authority Commissioner Atkins Commissioner Servian as alternate Juvenile Justice Council of the Department of Juvenile Justice Commissioner Bilyeu Commissioner Atkins as alternate Water Planning Alliance Board Vice Mayor Martin Commissioner Bilyeu as alternate Sarasota Bay National Estuary Policy Committee Vice Mayor Martin Commissioner Bilyeu as alternate Mayor Palmer continued that former Commissioner Quillin was the City's representative, with former Mayor Mason as the alternate, on the Sarasota Community Action Agency Board; that after discussion, additional information regarding the activities of the Sarasota Community Action Agency Board should be provided prior to selecting a representative; that the suggestion is to postpone the selection until the May 5, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Martin and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Servian agreed. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE : SEÇOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4379, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) REGARDING THE OVERNIGHT PARKING (OFF-STREET) OR STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, COMMERCIAL TRAILERS AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AT SINGLE- - FAMILY DWELLINGS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; AMENDING ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, DIVISION 2, DEFINITIONS ; SECTION II- 201, DEFINITIONS, / TO ADD THE FOLLOWING FOUR NEW DEFINITIONS: : "GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT"; "COMMERCIAL VEHICLE", "COMMERCIAL TRAILER"; : AND "WRECKER"; AMENDING ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, DIVISION 2, OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING; TO ADD A NEW "SECTION VII-214. COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND COMMERCIAL TRAILERS RESTRICTED OFF- STREET PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS"; SAID SECTION VII-214 LIMITS THE PARKING OF PROHIBITED TYPES OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND COMMERCIAL TRAILERS i SETTING FORTH REGULATIONS AS TO THE LOCATION, NUMBER, SIZE, TYPE AND VISIBILITY OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ; SETTING FORTH EXEMPTIONS FROM THE REGULATIONS IN SECTION VII-214; PROVIDING FOR SUSPENSION OF THESE REGULATIONS DURING PERIODS OF EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE CITY COMMISSION; REPEALING SECTION VII- 902, A, SUPERCEDED BY THE NEW SECTION VII-214; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED ON SECOND READING WITH CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 3:12 through 4:19 Mayor Palmer stated that second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 is to adopt amendments to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) concerning off-street, overnight parking or storage of commercial vehicles, commercial trailers, and construction equipment at single-family dwellings in residential zone districts; and requested that Staff come forward. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and Gerald Chapin, Senior Zoning Analyst, Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission. Mr. Litchet stated that he recently met with Commissioners Atkins and Bilyeu to explain the background and history concerning the overnight parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas; that both new Commissioners are familiar with the issues. Mr. Litchet referred to Attachment "C" entitled Comparison of the March 18, 2003, Draft and the April 9, 2003, Draft of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 (March 18 and April 9, 2003, drafts of the proposed Ordinance) from the April 11, 2003, memorandum to the Commission from Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, which concerns proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 as revised at the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting and which is included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the Commission may wish to review separately the changes proposed at the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting and take a vote on each section. BOOK. 54 Page 25300 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25301 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that the issue was postponed from the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting with the following motion: On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to postpone the pending motion to adopt sections of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4379 to the April 21, 2003, Regular Commission meeting for Staff to bring back the proposed Ordinance in final form prior to the vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Martin, no; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Palmer continued that Staff was directed to bring back the proposed Ordinance in final form prior to a vote on the pending motion to adopt sections of the proposed Ordinance; that the Commission can take a vote on the pending motion or proceed with Staff's presentation. Commissioner Servian stated that the pending motion from the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting was intended to implement regulations concerning the most severe infractions with an effective date of June 1, 2003; that the most significant problem is overnight parking of prohibited commercial vehicles such as dump trucks, semi-trucks, and tow trucks; that her intent in recommending changes to proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 as presented at the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting was to correct the most severe infractions, change the weight restrictions, and reduce to one the number of allowable visible commercial vehicles; that the remainder of the proposed Ordinance can become effective as of January 1, 2004, as previously proposed; that reviewing and voting on each section of the proposed Ordinance is supported if desired by the Commission. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is the public hearing is Closed; and asked for clarification regarding the pending motion. Mayor Palmer stated that the pending motion from the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting included considerable changes to the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance; that the intent was for Staff to incorporate the changes in a final proposed Ordinance; however, the April 9, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance included in the Agenda backup material appears to include changes which were not supported by the Commission; that taking action concerning the pending motion would allow the Commission to move forward. Commissioner Servian stated that reopening the public hearing is not desired; and asked if taking action concerning the pending motion will require reopening the public hearing? Mayor Palmer stated no, the public hearing is closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a motion is on the floor from the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting and distributed copies of the minutes from the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting including the pending motion. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the understanding is 23 or 24 meeting have been held regarding the issue; that requiring 27 or 30 meetings to adopt appropriate regulations is not a concern; that he personally owns a commercial vehicle and would be affected by the proposed Ordinance; that following proper parliamentary procedure regarding the pending motion is desired. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that taking action concerning the pending motion means to take a vote; that a new motion can be made if the pending motion fails. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restate the pending motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to adopt the following sections of Ordinance No. 03-4379 concerning the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) on second reading effective June 1, 2003, with the remaining sections removed for further review by Staff: Section II-201, Definitions, to include definitions for the terms "Net vehicle weight, "Vehicle, commercial," Trailer, Commercial," and "Wrecker"; - Section VII-214, Commercial Vehicles and Commercial Trailers Restricted Off-Street Parking in Residential Zone Districts, (A), Purpose; Section VII-214(B), Prohibited Commercial Vehicles, Commercial Trailers and Construction Equipment, (1) (c) with a change from the phrase "7,000 pounds net vehicle weight" to "7,200 pounds gross vehicle weight"; Section VII-214 (C), Standards Prohibited Visible Commercial Vehicles, (1) (a), Maximum Weight, with a BOOK 54 Page 25302 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25303 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. change from the phrase "7,000 pounds net vehicle weight" to "7,200 pounds gross vehicle weight"; Section VII-214(C) (1) (b), Maximum Height, (e), Parking Area, (f), Public right-of-way, and (g), Owner/operator of commercial vehicle; and Section VII-214(H), Suspension During Emergency. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion failed (3 to 2): : Bilyeu, no; Martin, no; Palmer, no; Servian, yesi Atkins, yes. Mr. Litchet distributed copies of the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance included in the Agenda backup material of the April 7, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, and stated that the major issues from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance are: 1. Weight Limit. Mr. Litchet stated that the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides for a weight limit of 7,000 pounds net vehicle weight; that the weight limit issue will be discussed later in the presentation. 2. Prohibited commercial vehicles, commercial trailers, and construction equipment. Mr. Litchet stated that Section II-201, Definitions, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides several definitions for commercial vehicles; that Sections VII-214(A), Purpose, and (B), Prohibited Commercial Vehicles, Commercial Trailers and Construction Equipment, which includes a listing of the types of prohibited commercial vehicles, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance do not appear in controversy. 3. Visible commercial vehicle. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214(C) (1), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides for one permitted visible commercial vehicle. 4. Visible commercial vehicle = signage. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214(C) (1) (c), Signage, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides for two signs of 4 square feet per sign and requires magnetic sign blanks to cover the signs while the vehicle is parked overnight in residential areas. 5. Visible commercial vehicle - tools. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 (C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides for no visible tools, ladders, or attached equipment on the commercial vehicle while parked overnight in residential areas. 6. Visible commercial vehicle maximum height, parking area, public right-of-way, and owner restriction. Mr. Litchet stated that Sections VII-214 (C) (1) (e) through (h), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provide for a visible commercial vehicle not to exceed 6.5 feet in height with a rack no higher than 18 inches above the vehicle height, specific parking areas for visible commercial vehicles, and owner/operator restrictions for commercial vehicles; that a permitted visible commercial vehicle cannot exceed 7,000 pounds net vehicle weight, 8 feet in height including the rack, and have no visible tools or signage. 7. Buffering requirements. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 (D), Standards - Permitted Buffered Commercial Vehicles, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance allows one buffered commercial vehicle with a maximum height of 8 feet including a rack with tools and signage which must be buffered by a 6.5 foot opaque fence or hedge in a side or rear yard; that the intent of the provision is to allow one visible vehicle and one buffered vehicle which meets the height, weight, and prohibited vehicle requirements. 8. Buffering requirements commercial trailers. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 (E), Standards Permitted Buffered Commercial Vehicles, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance allows a commercial trailer with limitations of 8 feet in height and 16 BOOK 54 Page 25304 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25305 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. feet in length and no rack or visible tools; that signage is not limited since the commercial trailer must be buffered by a 6.5 foot opaque fence or hedge in a side or rear yard. 9. Exemptions Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 (G), Exemptions and Modified Regulations for Particular Types of Commercial Vehicles, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides for certain exemptions such as police, fire, and governmental vehicles. Mr. Litchet continued that the Commission requested Staff research commercial vehicles utilized for pest control purposes; that State regulations require a vehicle used for pest control must be permanently marked with the name and telephone number of the licensee who must be registered with the State Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; that the term "permanently marked" means paint or decals applied to the vehicle body itself; that magnetic signs are prohibited; that the minimum size of the signage requirement is 1.5-inch lettering; that a pest control vehicle is not considered hazardous under State Law or the Florida Building Code; that pest control poison may be dangerous but is not considered hazardous material. 10. Suspension during emergencies. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 (H), Suspension during emergencies, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance is a suspension provision if the Commission adopts an emergency ordinance. 11. Effective date of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Litchet stated that the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance includes an effective date of January 1, 2004, to provide Staff an opportunity to educate the public regarding the proposed Ordinance; that the recommendation is to review each issue separately for Commission consensus. Mr. Litchet continued that the first issue concerns net vehicle weight verses gross vehicle weight; that the members of the Gulf Coast Builders' Exchange requested a maximum weight limit of 7,200 pounds gross vehicle weight; that the goal is to determine the weight of a vehicle off an assembly line without passengers or cargo; that the vehicle weight without passengers and cargo is indicated on vehicle registrations; that the National Automobile Dealers Association (N.A.D.A.) Official Used Car Guide references net vehicle weight; that the confusion is parts of the N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide do not specify the difference between gross or net weight; that the N.A.D.A. was contacted and confirms the vehicle weight referenced is the weight of a vehicle off an assembly line without passengers or cargoi that the word "net" should be deleted in Section II-201, Definitions, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance to read as follows: Vehicle weight: The actual scale weight in pounds of a commercial vehicle or a commercial trailer with complete catalog equipment. The Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement may utilize the vehicle's registration, the National Automobile Dealers Association Official Used Car Guide ("N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide") or a similar source commonly accepted in the automobile industry to determine vehicle weight. In the event of a conflict between any of these sources, the greater vehicle weight shall be utilized. Mr. Litchet continued that the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance reflects a maximum weight limit of 7,000 pounds net vehicle weight; that the members of the Gulf Coast Builders' Exchange requested a maximum weight limit of 7,200 pounds gross vehicle weight; that a maximum weight limit of 7,200 vehicle weight is acceptable; that the weight of new truck models may increase in the future. Mayor Palmer asked the recommendation of Staff regarding the maximum weight limit? Mr. Litchet stated that Staff recommends a maximum weight limit of 7,200 pounds vehicle weight. Commissioner Servian stated that the weight of new vehicles may increase each year. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that changing the maximum weight limit to 7,200 pounds vehicle weight may resolve the issue concerning gross verses net vehicle weight. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Bilyeu, Martin, Servian, and Palmer in agreement, the word "net" BOOK 54 Page 25306 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25307 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. in the sections which refer to "net vehicle weight" will be deleted to reflect only "vehicle weight" and the maximum weight limit referenced in the phrase "7,000 pounds gross vehicle weight" will be changed to "7,200 pounds vehicle weight" throughout the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Litchet referred to Section VII-214(C), Standards - Permitted Visible Commercial Vehicles, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance and stated that references to 7,000 pounds net vehicle weight will be changed to 7,200 pounds vehicle weight; that the maximum height limitation is 6.5 feet with a rack no higher than 18 inches; that signage is regulated to permit two signs, 4 square feet per sign, and require magnetic sign blanks to cover the signs. Mayor Palmer stated that the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides for a maximum height limitation of 6.5 feet with a rack no higher than 18 inches and no visible tools for a visible commercial vehicle; however, a buffered vehicle has a limitation of a maximum height of 6.5 feet with a rack no higher than 18 inches and allowed visible tools up to 8 feet. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Bilyeu, Martin, Servian, and Palmer in agreement, the maximum height for a visible commercial vehicle will be 6.5 feet with a rack no higher than 18 inches. Mayor Palmer asked the wishes of the Commission concerning the limitation to two signs of 4 square feet per sign with a requirement for magnetic sign blanks to cover the signs for a visible commercial vehicle? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that restricting signage on commercial vehicles is not supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the entire March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance is not supported. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Martin, Servian, and Palmer in agreement, visible commercial vehicle signage will be limited to two signs, 4 square feet per sign, with a requirement for magnetic sign blanks to cover the signs. Mr. Litchet quoted Section VII-214(C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance as follows: The visible commercial vehicle shall have no visible tools, ladders or attached equipment. Mr. Litchet asked if the provision should remain? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that requiring an individual to remove ladders from a commercial vehicle after a hard day of work is not supported; that ladders should be allowed to remain on the commercial vehicle. Vice Mayor Martin asked if ladders can be separated from tools and attached equipment in the provision? Commissioner Atkins stated that removing tools is just as hard as removing a ladder if an individual is tired from a hard day of work. Commissioner Servian stated that individuals are likely to secure tools to avoid theft; that the issue primarily concerns ladders. Mr. Litchet stated that pipes on a plumbing truck may also be an issue. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the entire provision could be deleted. Vice Mayor Martin stated that retaining the provision is supported. Mayor Palmer stated that the majority of Atkins, Bilyeu, and Servian agree to eliminate ladders from Section VII-214(C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders, and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance; and asked Staff's recommendation? Mr. Litchet stated that the understanding is the majority support eliminating ladders from the provision; that the language concerning visible tools and attached equipment can also be stricken if desired. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the definition of attached equipment and visible tools is vague; that allowing ladders and BOOK 54 Page 25308 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25309 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. attached equipment such as large pipes which hold smaller pipes to remain on commercial vehicles is acceptable; that some commercial vehicles have vices attached; that the issues are difficult to resolve as a number of people who own commercial vehicles are personal acquaintances; that most plumbers and electricians would remove any visible tools from a commercial vehicle which is parked overnight; that eliminating the restriction concerning visible tools is supported. City Manager McNees stated that tools include such items as racks, shovels, etc.; that equipment includes such items as pipes, air conditioning ducts, etc; that tools and equipment are not just hand tools. Mayor Palmer stated that the majority appear to support eliminating the restrictions concerning ladders and attached equipment but retaining the restriction concerning visible tools. Mr. Litchet stated that the Commission was heard to agree to eliminate the restriction concerning ladders; that the restriction concerning attached equipment can also be eliminated if desired. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Atkins, Bilyeu, and Servian in agreement, the restriction concerning ladders will be eliminated from Section VII-214 (C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders, and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Litchet stated that the restrictions concerning attached equipment and visible tools can be considered separately if desired. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance includes definitions of tools and attached equipment? Mr. Litchet stated no; that a dictionary definition can be used. City Manager McNees stated that the issue is if any visible items should be allowed on a commercial vehicle while parked overnight in a residential area; that little difference is seen between visible ladders and pipes; that the Commission could simply decide if any items can be visible on the commercial vehicle or if owners and/or operators must unload all visible items while the vehicle is parked overnight in a residential area; that distinguishing between visible pipes and ladders is subjective. Mr. Litchet stated that requiring the removal of tools and attached equipment at night could result in an issue regarding noise. Commissioner Atkins stated that owners and/or operators will likely cause noise while removing ladders, tools, or equipment. Mayor Palmer stated that the agreement of a majority is not available to eliminate Section VII-214 (C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders, and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Atkins stated that the entirety of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 should be eliminated. Mayor Palmer stated that Commission support is not available to eliminate the entirety of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379. Commissioner Atkins stated that, therefore, none of the sections of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 is supported. Commissioner Servian stated that people are not expected to and will not remove ladders, pipes, etc., from commercial vehicles after returning home late at night from work; that such a requirement is impractical; that tools will not likely be left visible overnight on commercial vehicles; that removing visible tools could be required; that a definition of the word "tools" becomes a question. Mr. Litchet stated that the basic issue is aesthetics; that t visible equipment would not look much different than visible ladders; that people will not likely leave a great deal visible on commercial vehicles at night; however, pipes may be left visible on commercial vehicles; that the Commission is encouraged to eliminate completely Section VII-214 (C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders, and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance; that the height and weight limits will remain. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Atkins, Biyeu, and Servian in agreement, Section BOOK 54 Page 25310 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25311 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. VII-214 (C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders, and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance will be eliminated. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 : (C) (1) (e), Parking area, (f), Public right-of-way, (g), Owner/operator of commercial vehicles, and (h), Not a prohibited vehicle, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance are not at issue and can remain the same. Mr. Litchet referred to Section VII-214(D), Standards Permitted - Buffered Commercial Vehicle, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance, and stated that one commercial vehicle is allowed in the side or rear yard if buffered by a 6.5 foot fence or hedge or in a completely enclosed structure; that parking the commercial vehicle in a carport does not constitute "buffering"; that the maximum height of a buffered commercial vehicle is 8 feet measured from the ground to the top of any tools or ladders; that no maximum height exists if the commercial vehicle is parked in a completely enclosed structure; that a prohibited commercial vehicle is not allowed as a buffered commercial vehicle; that signage, tools, ladders, and attached visible equipment are not restricted; that the question is if the Commission desires to change any of the buffering requirements. Mayor Palmer referred to Section VII-214 (D) (1) (g), Tools, ladders and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance, and stated that the section should be eliminated since Section VII-214(C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance was eliminated. Mr. Litchet agreed. Commissioner Servian referred to Section VII-214(D) (1) (b) (iii), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance as follows: The parking of the commercial vehicle in a carport does not constitute "buffering" and does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Commissioner Servian asked the reason a carport with two sides of a residence does not constitute buffering? Mr. Litchet stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) determined a vehicle in a carport functions as a visible vehicle since the sides and rear of the vehicle can be seen; that some carports are open on all four sides. Commissioner Servian stated that the rear of a commercial vehicle is visible if buffered in the side yard. Mr. Litchet stated that a vehicle buffered in a side or rear yard must be buffered across the rear and along the sides of the vehicle; that the majority of the vehicle will not be visible; that the Commission can allow a carport as a method of buffering a commercial vehicle if desired. Commissioner Servian stated that the difference between parking a commercial vehicle in a carport and parking a commercial vehicle on a side yard between a residence and a hedge with another vehicle pulled in behind the commercial vehicle for buffering is small. Mr. Litchet stated that a commercial vehicle in a side yard between a residence and a hedge cannot be buffered by another vehicle pulled in behind the commercial vehicle; and referred to Section VII-214(D) (1) (b), Buffering Requirement, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), of the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance as follows: (i) The buffered commercial vehicle is parked in a side or rear yard sO that the vehicle is buffered from abutting properties and the public right-of-way by a six and one- half (6.5) foot high fence or wall or eighty percent (80%) opaque six and one-half (6.5) foot high hedge; Mr. Litchet continued that the back side of the commercial vehicle cannot be visible; that the provision is strict; that realistically, residences with 6 foot setbacks may not be able to fit a vehicle down the side yard; that allowing a carport as a method of buffering is supported. Vice Mayor Martin asked if a freestanding carport not attached to the residence will be allowed? Mr. Litchet stated that carports should be defined as having one side of the residence attached. Mayor Palmer stated that a carport is personally viewed as attached to but not beyond the front plane of the residence; that BOOK 54 Page 25312 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25313 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. such a carport as a method of buffering is supported; and asked if the definition of a carport should be limited to one which does beyond the plane of the residence? Mr. Litchet stated yes; that the suggestion is a carport should be attached to but not extended beyond the plane of the residence; that one side of the residence should function as one side of the carport. Commissioner Servian stated that the carport requirement would increase the buffering effect. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Bilyeu, Martin, and Servian in agreement, a carport which is attached to but not beyond the front plane of the residence with one side of the residence functioning as one side of the carport is allowed as buffering. City Attorney Taylor stated that Section VII-214 (D) (1) (g), Tools, ladders and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance should be eliminated since Section VII-214 - (C) (1) (d), Tools, ladders and attached visible equipment, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance was also eliminated. Mr. Litchet referred to Section VII-214(E), Standards - Permitted Buffered Commercial Trailers, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance; and asked if the Commission wishes to make any changes? Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a buffered commercial trailer is allowed? Mr. Litchet stated yes. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the requirement to completely enclose a commercial trailer is not supported; that he personally spent $2,700 on a new fence to buffer his flatbed open trailer; that several small lawn service companies utilize flatbed open trailers; that the majority of equipment will not be visible if buffered behind a fence. Mayor Palmer stated that the commercial trailer and equipment cannot exceed the 6.5 foot height limitation and must be completely buffered. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the ramp portion of a flatbed open trailer may exceed the 6.5 foot height limitation. City Manager McNees stated that the understanding is buffering is not an option; and quoted Section VII-214 (E) (1) (a), Enclosure requirement, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance, as follows: The commercial trailer shall be completely enclosed. Mr. Litchet stated that specific discussion regarding the trailer issue has occurred in the past; that the possibility of storing yard debris on a flatbed open trailer was the concern; that commercial trailers are limited to 16 feet in length, 8 feet high with no attached racks and must be completely buffered. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if flatbed open trailers will be allowed? Vice Mayor Martin stated that a suggestion is to require only a trailer over 6.5 feet be enclosed. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Bilyeu, Martin, and Servian in agreement, flatbed open trailers which do not exceed 6.5 feet in height are allowed but flatbed open trailers which exceed 6.5 feet in height must be completely enclosed. Commissioner Atkins asked the height limitation for pickup trucks with sideboards? Mr. Litchet stated that a visible pickup truck with sideboards is limited to 6.5 feet in height with a rack no higher than 18 inches. Commissioner Atkins asked if the height is measured from the ground to the top of the rack? Mr. Litchet stated yesi however, a buffered pickup truck with sideboards is limited to a maximum height of 8 feet measured from the ground to the highest point of the top of any tools or ladders stored on top; that the understanding is the consensus is to change Section VII-214(E) (1) (a), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance, to the following: BOOK 54 Page 25314 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25315 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. The commercial trailer shall be completely enclosed if over 6.5 feet in height. Mayor Palmer stated that is correct. City Attorney Taylor referred to Section VII-214(E) (1) (f) (iii), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), of the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance, as follows: The parking of the commercial trailer in a carport does not constitute "buffering" and does not meet the requirements of this subsection. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language should be changed to be consistent with the other buffered vehicle requirements. Mayor Palmer stated that the hope is Staff will review and revise the language for consistency as necessary. Mr. Litchet stated that the question is if the Commission will allow a carport as a method of buffering a commercial trailer. Mayor Palmer stated that a trailer can be up to 16 feet in length. Commissioner Servian stated that a carport should not be allowed to serve as buffering for a trailer. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the approval of a majority with Martin, Servian, and Palmer in agreement, Section VII-214 (E) (1) (f) (iii), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance will be retained. Mr. Litchet stated that the understanding is Sections VII-214 (F), Maximum Number of Buffered Commercial Vehicles and Buffered Commercial Trailers, and (G) (1), Exemptions, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance will remain unchanged. Mayor Palmer stated that is correct. Mr. Litchet referred to Section VII-214 (G) (2), Modified Regulations for Particular Types of Commercial Vehicles, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance, and asked if the Commission had any changes? Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is the City must adhere to State Law regarding pest control vehicles. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the provision will allow pest control vehicles as the only commercial vehicles not being limited as to signage. Mayor Palmer stated that the signage will be limited; that State regulations require a vehicle used for pest control must be permanently marked with the name and telephone number of the licensee who is registered with the State Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Vice Mayor Martin asked the minimum size limitation on the signage for pest control vehicles? Mr. Litchet stated that the minimum size of the signage requirement is 1.5-inch lettering. Vice Mayor Martin asked the maximum size limitation on the signage? Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 (G) (2) (a), Visible commercial vehicles Signage Pest Control, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides pest control vehicles will be allowed signage without the use of magnetic signs but remain subject to the maximum signage limitation of two signs not to exceed a maximum area of 4 square feet per sign to qualify as visible commercial vehicles; that language has also been included to allow the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement the discretion to allow a larger sign of sufficient size to accommodate the licensee's name or trade name. Vice Mayor Martin asked if only the legal name of the company and contact information must be visible? Mr. Litchet stated yes; that the Commission can require other items such as bug decals or other drawings on the vehicle be covered with a magnetic sign blank. Vice Mayor Martin stated that 1.5-inch lettering is a minimum requirement of the State; and asked the reason the City cannot utilize the minimum requirement as the only allowable visible signage? BOOK 54 Page 25316 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25317 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that State Law does not require lettering larger than 1.5 inches; that the language of Section VII- 214( (G) (2) (a), Loading, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement the authority to deny lettering larger than 1.5 inches. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the intent is to limit visible signage on pest control vehicles to the minimum size required by the State; and asked if the State requires the information be in more than one location on the vehicle? Mr. Litchet stated that the information must be on both sides of the pest control vehicle. Vice Mayor Martin stated that visible pest control signage should be limited to the requirement of the State. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, Section VII- 214(G) (2) (a), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance will remain the same. Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214 (G) (2) (b), Buffered commercial vehicles Pest Control, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance is no longer necessary as a result of the Commission's prior action; that the last unresolved issue relates to the effective date of the proposed Ordinance; that Commissioner Servian expressed a desire to implement the prohibited vehicle section of the proposed Ordinance effective June 1, 2003, which would require incorporating two implementation dates in the proposed Ordinance. City Attorney Taylor stated that language can be added to provide an effective date of June 1, 2003, for the prohibited vehicles section and an effective date of January 1, 2004, for the remainder of the proposed Ordinance if desired. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the shortened effective date is a concern; that the January 1, 2004, effective date allows a longer period of time for educational purposes; that an effective date of January 1, 2004, is supported; that the understanding is Code Enforcement is currently enforcing the existing regulations concerning prohibited vehicles. Mr. Litchet stated that Code Enforcement has been actively enforcing the existing regulations concerning prohibited vehicles; that the hope is a period of time will be provided to educate the public regarding the remainder of the proposed Ordinance prior to an effective date. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, June 1, 2003, shall be the effective date for the prohibited vehicles section and January 1, 2004, shall be the effective date for the remainder of the proposed Ordinance; that all issues have been resolved; and asked for clarification of future action. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a copy of the revised proposed Ordinance with the changes will be distributed to the Commission as soon as possible. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approved proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 with the changes as discussed at second reading. Vice Mayor Martin stated that bringing closure to the issue is surprising; that the proposed Ordinance achieves a balance of real life in today's world but also respects the aesthetics of residential neighborhoods; that enforcement of the proposed Ordinance should be reviewed in one year; that an eight month educational period is fair. Commissioner Servian stated that a six month report is desired; that some of the changes are more sensitive to real life such as the elimination of the requirement to remove a ladder from a vehicle at night; that the proposed Ordinance is pleasing. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the permitted signage is two signs, 4 square feet per sign; that magnetic sign blanks must cover the signs; and asked if magnetic sign blanks must be utilized if the signage is greater than 4 square feet? Mr. Litchet stated that Section VII-214(C) (1) (c), Signage, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), from the March 18, 2003, draft of the proposed Ordinance provides for two signs which are a maximum of 4 square feet per sign; that each single display is considered one sign; that the 4 square feet of signage must be covered with a magnetic sign blank of similar color as the commercial vehicle; that a commercial vehicle owner may have to repaint the truck or redo the signage to comply; that the signage requirement does not apply to a buffered commercial vehicle. BOOK 54 Page 25318 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25319 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that he is aware of several plumbing companies with signage on the entire vehicle; that one such vehicle is near his residence; that the signage is not bothersome; that the value of his residence has not suffered as a result of the commercial vehicle nearby; that explaining the signage restriction to his neighbor is not desired; that forcing a company to repaint their vans as a result of the proposed Ordinance is not supported; that the driving force behind the proposed Ordinance is unknown but may be a loss of property value; that small business people have to make a living; that the possibility of creating overlay districts should be researched; that three commercial vehicles are in his neighborhood; that the owners of two of the three commercial vehicle will be unable to buffer their vehicles; that residents of the condominiums adjacent to his neighborhood park their commercial vehicles in the right-of-way; that the proposed Ordinance cannot be supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the proposed Ordinance is another example of over regulating poor people; that the proposed Ordinance restricts the possibilities of the people who carry the load of the City by creating an undue burden to make a living; that the proposed Ordinance is absurd; that 98 percent of the residents of District 1 celebrate if one has a working vehicle; that a working vehicle means someone has a job; that the proposed Ordinance is selective and unrealistic; that enforcement will require a significant amount of subjectivity; that situations should be handled individually; that restricting the entire City will not work; that hearing complaints regarding the size of lettering on a commercial vehicle which an employer may allow an employee to take home for a week since the employee's vehicle broke down is not desired; that the driving force behind the proposed Ordinance is unknown; that the proposed Ordinance is not supported. Mayor Palmer stated that the early enforcement of prohibited vehicles is supported; that Commissioner Servian is commended for the suggestion; that the issue has been discussed for several years; that many people from all neighborhoods of the City have been supportive of the proposed Ordinance; that changes to the proposed Ordinance have liberalized some restrictions; that some changes are not entirely supported; however, the time has arrived to move forward. Mayor Palmer called for a vote the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 on second reading with recommended changes as discussed and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes; Atkins, no; Bilyeu, no. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that representatives from Sarasota County are in the audience to make the annual presentation of Storm Drainage Planning and Capital Improvement; and asked if Agenda Item VI-4 can be heard at this time? Mayor Palmer stated that a 30-minute presentation may have to be given in 10 minutes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the representatives are aware of the limited time. City Manager McNees stated that the representatives would probably rather hurry through the presentation than return to the evening session. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, Agenda Item VI-4 regarding the annual presentation of Storm Drainage Planning and Capital Improvement will be heard at this time. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: ANNUAL PRESENTATION OF STORM DRAINAGE PLANNING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRESS WITHIN THE CITY, BY THE SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY (AGENDA ITEM VI-4) CD 4:19 through 4:35 Mayor Palmer requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Richard Winters, Engineering Projects Manager, Steve Suau, General Manager, Stormwater, Environmental, and Utilities, Sarasota County, and Jim Summers, Manager, Drainage Operations, Sarasota County, came before the Commission. Mr. Winters stated that the presentation is to provide an update regarding the capital improvements and stormwater efforts within the City in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County regarding stormwater. Mr. Suau stated that Bill Nichols, General Manager, Operations, Sarasota County, Chuck Walter, Stormwater Manager, Sarasota County, and several members of the Sarasota County Stormwater, Environmental, and Utilities Department are present in the audience; that Harold Simon is the City's representative for the BOOK 54 Page 25320 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25321 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Sarasota County's Citizens Advisory Board; that Mr. Simon was present but had to leave. Mr. Suau continued that an Interlocal Agreement exists between the City and the County regarding stormwater; that the County manages the planning, design, and maintenance of the drainage systems in the City under the Interlocal Agreement; that the County annually provides the City with a report regarding the state of the utilities. Mr. Suau referred to computer-generated slides of the Stormwater Semi-Annual Report April 2003, displayed on the Chamber monitors through the presentation; and stated that the presentation is divided into the follow two topics: 1. Planning: Accomplishments On-going work New Initiatives 2. Maintenance: Projects and Activities Under Construction and Design Completed/Future Projects Mr. Suau continued that a major project undertaken in 2002 was the Levee Project which addressed the flooding of approximately 100 structures along Philippi Creek; that the Levee Project is scheduled for completion during the week of April 21, 2003; that a $1.45 million Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) grant and an $800,000 Florida Community Trust (FCT) grant were received to fund the project; that the community is looking forward to the completion of the project. Mr. Suau further stated that the proposed Little Five Points Project near Burns Court is a project regarding which the County has received a significant amount of public input; that several individuals did not desire the scope of the project as originally proposed; that the affected people believe the flooding is not severe enough to justify the disruption to businesses which would be involved in the improved drainage infrastructure and the utility relocations; that an additional study was conducted to determine a more cost effective method to mitigate the flooding; that a final report has been submitted to the City; that the hope is the County can accomplish the Little Five Points project by the end of 2003. Mr. Suau stated further that on-going work projects include: St. Armands Circle, Whitaker Bayou Basin Master Plan, and the Arlington/Euclid Hudson Bayou projects; that St. Armands Circle has a significant flooding problem; that the County has initiated a final design for the project; that the hope is the construction will begin in April 2004; that the project will be phased over two years to minimize disruption to the business community; that the County has received a significant amount of community input regarding the preliminary design; that obtaining grants from SWFWMD for the St. Armands Circle project was unsuccessful; however, a grant under Section 319(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA/319 grant) was received from the State in addition to the City's contribution and $1.8 million from the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to fund the project; that the Whitaker Bayou Basin Master Plan project is the one of the last major watershed studies being conducted and is part of the County's Basin Master Plan; that the US Army Corps of Engineers was originally involved in the project; that the study for the project should be completed by July 2003; that a $200,000 SWFWMD grant has been received to fund the project; that approximately 100 structures in the Whitaker Bayou Basin are susceptible to flooding; that alternatives to solve the flooding problem will be evaluated; that the Whitaker Bayou Basin Master Plan will be the County's first watershed management plan; that water quality and recreational elements of the project will be evaluated; that the Arlington/Euclid Hudson Bayou project is a major capital improvement project; that construction is to begin in November 2003; that the County is in the process of securing rights-of- way and a railroad right-of-way agreement to enable replacement of some of the water pipes; that approximately 90 structures are susceptible to flooding in the area; that a $400,000 SWFWMD grant has also been secured to fund the project. Mr. Suau stated that the County and the City are developing several new initiatives to coordinate the Stormwater, Natural Systems, and Utilities Departments; that the four functions of the Departments include: 1) planning, 2) designing, 3) permitting, and 4) operating; that teams manage water in geographical areas based around the different bay systems; that the team is comprised of biologists, chemists, and stormwater and utility engineers who work together to manage water in a designated geographical area; that the five geographical areas BOOK 54 Page 25322 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25323 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. include: 1) Little Sarasota Bay, 2) Donna Roberts Bay, 3) Lemon Bay, 4) Myakka River Bay, and 5) Sarasota Bay; that the City is situated mainly in the Sarasota Bay area; that most of the capital improvement projects which address flooding will be completed during 2004; that the County will then begin a proactive watershed management approach to evaluate water quality. Mayor Palmer stated that only 3 minutes of the afternoon session remain; that some Commissioners may have questions regarding the annual report; that the afternoon session cannot be extended beyond 4:30 p.m. without super-majority support. Vice Mayor Martin stated that he is very interested in the presentation. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved extend the afternoon session until 4:45 p.m. Mayor Palmer stated that the hope is the remaining items on the Agenda can be finished during the extended time period. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mr. Suau stated that three specific County initiatives are: 1) Digital Flood Maps, 2) Bay Watersheds, and 3) Watershed Stakeholder Groups; that the County is working with SWFWMD and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to convert all of the flood maps into new FEMA digital mapsi that FEMA and SWFWMD grants have been received to fund the initiative; that a Sarasota Bay Watershed Stakeholder Group is being established; that the first meeting is scheduled in July 2003; that the City will be a significant partner in the group. Mr. Summers referred to computer-generated slides of recent maintenance activities regarding stormwater projects displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; recognized Thai Tran as the County Engineer assigned to the City present in the audience; and stated that a second vehicle has been added to the maintenance fleet for pipe cleaning; that maintenance projects recently completed include: - Bradenton Road/Whitaker Bayou; - Oval Drive; - Central Park Ditch Restoration; - 42nd Street; - 44th Street/Bradenton Road; and Seminole Drive Crushed Lid Restoration. Mr. Summers continued that maintenance projects currently under design include: Gulf Stream Avenue and McAnsh Square; = An outfall on Tuttle Avenue and Ringling Boulevard; Right-of-way replacement on School Avenue between Siesta Drive and Grove Street; and Armory pipes. Mr. Summers further stated that future maintenance projects for water quality efforts include: Cherokee Drive, Bay Road, and Harmony Lane; that an additional CWA/319 grant was received from the State to fund the future maintenance projects for water quality efforts. Commissioner Atkins asked if flooding has been resolved in the area of 14th, 15th, and 16th Streets off Central Avenue? Mr. Summers stated that a discussion has occurred with the owner of a residence on 15th Street; that some of the owner's needs have been addressed by re-cutting a ditch between the owner's property and a commercial establishment. Commissioner Atkins asked if water is draining from 14th and 16th Streets? Mr. Summers stated that the areas along 14th, 15th, and 16th Streets are maintenance issues; that the 15th through 19th Streets maintenance project conducted several years ago should have relieved the area of the flooding; however, the problem is the streets are flat and the drop off requires constant maintenance. Commissioner Atkins stated that constant maintenance should occur. Mr. Summers agreed. BOOK 54 Page 25324 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25325 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Servian stated that in 2002 the City and County jointly applied for and were denied a SWFWMD grant to fund the St. Armands Circle Stormwater project; and asked if the City and the County have reapplied for the grant? Mr. Suau stated that a CWA/319 grant was received from the State as part of the funding for the St. Armands Circle Stormwater project. Commissioner Servian asked if a funding shortfall exists for the project? Mr. Suau stated no. Vice Mayor Martin stated that an additional report should be provided in July 2003 upon completion of the Whitaker Bayou Basin Master Plan and the meeting of the Sarasota Bay Watershed Stakeholder Group. Mr. Suau stated that a report will be provided to both the City and County Commissions. Mayor Palmer stated that a suggestion is to schedule another appearance before the City Commission in four to six months if additional items should be brought forward rather than waiting another year; that the presentation is appreciated. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AWARD OF CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND TAMPA CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. (BID #03-11M) IN THE AMOUNT OF $132,393.50 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ALLEN PLAY AREA AT ISLAND PARK - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) CD 4:35 through 4:36 Mayor Palmer referred to the Agenda Request Form included in the Agenda backup material regarding a contract between the City and Tampa Contracting Services, Inc., for the Allen Play Area at Island Park; and requested that Staff come forward. William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, came before the Commission and stated that Jon F. Swift, Inc., was awarded a contract to construct the Allen Play Area for $128,588; however, a component of construction was inadvertently left out of the bid; therefore, Jon F. Swift, Inc., is unable to complete the project for the bid price; that Tampa contracting Services, Inc., submitted the second lowest responsive bid in the amount of $132,393.50; that the difference in the bid amounts is $3,800 which will be added to the cost of the project; that Staff recommends a formal contract be awarded to Tampa Contracting Services, Inc., in the amount of $132,393.50 for completion of the Allen Play Area. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to award a formal contract to Tampa Contracting Services, Inc., for completion of the work specified in the amount $132,393.50, and authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute same. Vice Mayor Martin asked the anticipated completion date for construction? Mr. Hallisey stated that the anticipated completion date is before July 4, 2003. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PROGRESS REPORT RE : LEMON AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT = RECEIVED REPORT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO RETAIN THE EXISTING FOUNTAIN FOR PUBLIC SPACE AND SEATING (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) CD 4:36 through 4:43 William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, and Dale Haas, Technical Service Manager, Public Works, came before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey stated that the permitting and construction plans/specifications for the $2.8 million Lemon Avenue Streetscape Project are nearly complete; that a bid package will be advertised for construction of the project within 30 days; that the project will provide a streetscape on Lemon Avenue from Pineapple Avenue to Fruitville Road; that part of the Lemon Avenue Mall will be expanded into Lemon Avenue; that Lemon Avenue will remain open but will become a brick street; that Lemon Avenue will be realigned at Pineapple Avenue to create the opportunity for liner buildings and a more pedestrian friendly walkway; that one remaining issue concerns the disposition of the fountain currently located at the Lemon Avenue Mall. Mr. Haas stated that several meetings have occurred with interested stakeholders such as the Downtown Association of BOOK 54 Page 25326 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25327 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), and the Downtown Commercial Property Owners Association concerning the fountain; that the stakeholders have agreed the size, scope, and location of the fountain do not add to the reconfiguration of the Lemon Avenue Mall; that the Public Art Committee has issued a call to artists for a piece of art for the mall area; however, the construction of underground water, sewer, and electric lines will be installed in a location in which a future design element can be displayed; that the design element can be a smaller fountain or a piece of artwork which may or may not include a water feature; that the recommendation is to move the project forward; that the fountain utilizes a significant amount of space which could be created as additional space for the Farmers Market. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that installing streetscaping and later having to remove the streetscaping for future projects is not desired; and asked if the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Project will conflict with the soon to be developed Whole Foods Downtown Center and the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Transfer Facility. Mr. Haas stated that every Tuesday at 9:00 a.m., V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, chairs a meeting which includes the development groups for the area to ensure continued coordination and communication occurs between the Lemon Avenue Streetscape, the Whole Foods Downtown Center, the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Transfer Facility, and the Five Points projects. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the existing water feature should be preserved in some manner; that installing the infrastructure to have some type of water feature is appreciated; that the hope is the Commission will consider a water feature which incorporates a piece of public art; that the Main Street Depot previously provided a much larger public space; that the new Mattison's City Grill consumes half of the public space and should not be the reason to remove the fountain. Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is the fountain will be reduced in size, not removed. Commissioner Servian stated that she is in agreement with Vice Mayor Martin; that she attends the Farmers Market every Saturday; that a significant number of elderly people will purchase items at the Farmers Market then sit at the fountain to rest; that the fountain area is heavily utilized; that maintaining or refurbishing the fountain is supported. Mr. Hallisey stated that the request is for the Commission to provide direction; that the fountain can be rehabilitated; that the current call to artists is not for a specific piece of artwork; that Commission action will be necessary to direct the call to artists to provide a certain type of public art. Commissioner Atkins stated that a reason to remove the fountain is unknown; and asked if the previous Commission determined the fountain is antiquated? Mr. Haas stated that the primary reason to remove the fountain is to create and improve the event space in the Lemon Avenue Mall area. Commissioner Atkins asked who would benefit from the created and improved event space? Mr. Haas stated that the community would benefit from the created and improved event space. Commissioner Atkins stated that the fountain is currently public space for the community; that the fountain functions well; that changing the fountain is not supported. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to receive the report and direct Staff to retain the existing fountain for public space and seating. Mayor Palmer stated that the recommendation by Staff to create and improve the event space in the Lemon Avenue Mall area is supported. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, no. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4469, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, SARASOTA CITY CODE TO CREATE ARTICLE II, GILLESPIE PARK SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS ; REQUIRING TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FOR A GROUP OF FIFTY OR MORE PERSONS TO USE GILLESPIE PARK; SETTING FORTH A PERMIT PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; SETTING FORTH PROHIBITIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, ; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF BOOK 54 Page 25328 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25329 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. PARTS HEREOF; AND TO DISCUSS POLICY GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES; ETC. SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE MAY 5, 2003, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VI-5) CD 4:43 through 4:44 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 1, was removed from the Consent Agenda by Commissioner Servian and is now Unfinished Business Agenda Item VI-5; that the item concerns the scheduling of a Workshop to discuss proposed Ordinance No. 03-4469. Commissioner Servian stated that scheduling a Workshop is not desired; that the hope is the issue can proceed to public hearing. Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is the item can be placed on the Agenda of the May 5, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved set proposed Ordinance No. 03-4469 for public hearing at the May 5, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4459, AMENDING SARASOTA CITY CODE SECTION 33-248, CHAPTER 33, ARTICLE VII, SCHEDULES, PERTAINING TO THE SPEED LIMIT ON CERTAIN STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RESULTING FROM THE TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED ON SECOND READING WITH THE DELETIONS OF WOOD STREET AND THE PORTION OF 15TH STREET AS INDICATED BY STAFF (AGENDA ITEM VI-6) CD 4:44 through 4:46 Mayor Palmer stated that Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. .6, was removed from the Consent Agenda and is now Unfinished Business Agenda Item VI-6; that the item concerns proposed Ordinance No. 03-4459 regarding the speed limit on certain streets adjacent to parks; and requested that Staff come forward. Alexandrea Davis-Shaw, Deputy Director of Enginering/Deputy City Engineer, came before the Commission, and stated that Staff is requesting two modifications to proposed Ordinance No. 03-4459; that the first modification is to remove Wood Street as one of the streets on which the speed limit should be adjusted to 20 miles per hour; that Wood Street does not abut Two Lakes Park; that a row of residences separates Two Lakes Park from Wood Street; that the second modification is to remove the portion of 15th Street and Mackerel and Pompano Avenues adjacent to Palm Lake Park; that the reason for the removal is Palm Lake Park is not a City or County park; that the ownership of the park is by an entity which is no longer in existence; therefore, Palm Lake Park is not a recognized City or County park. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4459 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03-4459 on second reading with the deletions of Wood Street and the portion of 15th Street as indicated by Staff. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yesi Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. City Manager McNees stated that he will not be attending the evening session; that a not-for-profit organization in Naples, Florida, with which he was formerly involved, is presenting him with an award; that V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, will attend the evening session in his place. 13. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VII) CD 4:47 There was no one signed up to speak. The Commission recessed at 4:47 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. 14. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION'S DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD RECEIVED AWARD (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) CD 6:02 through 6:06 Mayor Palmer requested that Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, Christopher Lyons, Deputy Finance Director, Michelle Valentich and William Dugan, Financial Management Analysts, Finance Department, join her and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation. BOOK 54 Page 25330 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25331 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that the City has received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for its Adopted Financial Plan for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2002, and ending September 30, 2003, which is the 13th consecutive year the City has received the award; that receiving the award is pleasing; that a benchmark measuring the performance of public finance officers is the standard set by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA); that the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from GFOA represents significant achievement in governmental budgeting; that local governmental units must publish a budget document which passes very strict and specific criteria as an operations guide, a financial plan, and a communication device; that the award represents the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting; that attaining the award represents a significant achievement by the City's Finance Department; that the Commission is proud of the City's Finance Staff, which performs an incredible job and is presently in the process of preparing the current fiscal year budget; that Mr. Lyons was presented with a Certificate of Recognition from GFOA for the budget preparation of the Adopted Financial Plan; that the efforts of the City's Finance Staff are appreciated. 15. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: "CELEBRATE SARASOTA BOOKS - FROM THE CELEBRATE SARASOTA EDUCATION COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) CD 6:06 through 6:10 Mayor Palmer requested that Linda Post, Sarasota County School Board, join her and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation. Ms. Post stated that she is the Sarasota County Public School Coordinator and chaired the Education Committee for Celebrate Sarasota; that recognizing the City's 100th year of incorporation has been an extremely rewarding task; that the Education Committee for Celebrate Sarasota would like to express appreciation to the Celebrate Sarasota Steering Committee for the inclusion of all the Sarasota County Public Schools in the project; that City students may attend County schools and County students may attend City schools; that the Education Committee for Celebrate Sarasota believes in the importance of including City and County schools in the City's 100th Anniversary celebration. Ms. Post continued that Robert Atkins, Vocational Technical Education Coordinator, suggested the idea of a living book; that Lucinda Lippert, Fine Arts Program Coordinator, coordinated with the art teachers to contribute to the book which is entitled, "Celebrate Sarasota"; that Sheila Weiss, Public Relations Coordinator, coordinated the recognition of the student artists by the Sarasota County School Board which will take place on May 6, 2003; that Kimberly Stocker, Producer, Educational Channel, will film each student with artwork depicting school renderings; that many volunteers assisted in creating the Celebrate Sarasota book; that the task has been memorable; that the history of Sarasota's public schools will be continued in the fall of 2003; that Bernadette Bennett, Social Studies Program Specialist, will coordinate with the social studies teachers to document school history; that each school will submit a student's account of history of the school, which will then be submitted to Mary Charland, Education Coordinator, Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that Ms. Charland will coordinate an insert in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune which will feature the school, the student's account of the school's history and the student's rendering of the school; that participating in the creation of the Celebrate Sarasota books from Booker High School which was established in 1923 to Herring Creek Middle School which will be established in 2003 has been enjoyable; that completing the project by including the addition of the history of Sarasota's Schools is exciting. Ms. Post further stated that presenting the Celebrate Sarasota books to the City Commission is pleasing and presented each Commissioner a copy of the Celebrate Sarasota books. Mayor Palmer stated that on behalf of the Commission and the citizens of the community, the work of the Education Committee for Celebrate Sarasota is appreciated; that as a former teacher in the Sarasota County School System, having the young people a part of the City's 100th Anniversary celebration is thrilling. Mayor Palmer requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public hearing sign-up process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: BOOK 54 Page 25332 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25333 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. 16. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4428, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA (A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN [19981) TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A 2.07 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2500 CENTRAL AVENUE FROM THE "MULTIPLE FAMILY-MODERATE DENSITY" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/ "; TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF AN 11.50 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2200/2201 JANIE POE DRIVE AND 1485 22ND STREET FROM THE "MULTIPLE FAMILY-MODERATE DENSITY" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE "MULTIPLE FAMILY- MEDIUM DENSITY" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION ; AND TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.12 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1912 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE FROM THE "MULTIPLE FAMILY-MEDIUM DENSITY" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE "EIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, ; THE CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF ALL THREE SITES ARE INTENDED TO ALLOW THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO REDEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WITH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE HOPE VI GRANT APPLICATION TO BE FILED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT ; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-PA- 13, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM X-A-1) CD 6:10 through 6:30 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-13 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4428 is an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), to change the Future Land Use Map for the following three parcels owned by the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) : Site A which is a 2.07 acre parcel located at 2500 Central Avenue south of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way (Dr. MLK Way) and is part of the Janie Poe public housing complex; Site B which is an 11.50 acre parcel located at 2200/2201 Janie Poe Drive and 1485 22nd Street; and Site C which is a 1.12 acre parcel located at 1912 North Orange Avenue and is part of the Orange Avenue housing complex. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the time limits. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated 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. Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and requested that Staff come forward. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that at its January 6, 2003, Regular meeting, the Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 03R- 1561 to transmit the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map to the Florida Department of Community (DCA) ; that in a March 21, 2003, letter to the Mayor, serving as the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, the DCA reported "no objection" to the proposed amendment. Mr. Smith referred to Sites A, B, and C on the Future Land Use Mapi and continued that the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification allows for multi-family development of up to nine residential dwelling units per acre; that the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification allows for multi-family development of up to 25 residential dwelling units per acre; that the proposal is to change the following: Site A from the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) to the Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Classification which allows for retail and office type uses as well as second-story live/work residential uses; BOOK 54 Page 25334 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25335 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Site B from the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification to allow for multiple-family development at a greater density than the existing complex; and Site C from the Multiple Family (Medium Density) to the Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Classification to allow for live/work type uses. Mr. Smith further stated that the uses can also include apartments with owner residences above; that all three parcels are currently in the Governmental Use (G) Zone District; that the proposed changes to the Future Land Use Classification of the three parcels will allow the SHA to redevelop the properties with residential and non-residential mixed-use developments consistent with the 2003 HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI grant application which will be submitted in the near future; that the SHA has hired a Planner to assist with the planning process; that the SHA plans to provide new housing for a variety of income levels, from very low and low to middle income; that new homes will be a mix of rental and privately owned units; that the SHA also plans to provide for live/work or business/residential opportunities along Dr. MLK Way and Orange Avenue; that utilizing the Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Classification will allow for stores on the first level and second story apartments. Mr. Smith stated further that Sites A and B are consistent with the City of Sarasota-Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan Through 2020 (Newtown Plan); however, Site C is inconsistent with the Newtown Plan in which the conceptual future land use map indicates Orange Avenue as for single-family uses; that Staff will revise the conceptual future land use map during the fiscal year (FY) 2003/04 amendment cycle to reflect the proposed change if approved. Mr. Smith referred to slides displayed on the monitors in the Commission Chambers indicating the proposed amendment will allow for the following as primary public benefits: Appropriate residential densities and non-residential mixed-use development in the area; A transition buffer between non-residential and single- family homes in the area; Live-work or business/residential opportunities along Dr. MLK Way; Live-work or ground level retail/offices with office or residential uses above the ground floor for the Janie Poe public housing complex; and A range of housing density necessary for the SHA to implement the proposed plan for the HOPE VI grant application. Mr. Parson stated that on balance, the application is in the public benefit; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing at its December 4, 2002, Regular meeting and voted unanimously by a 4 to 0 vote to recommend Commission approval of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-13; that Staff recommends the Commission pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4383 on first reading. William Merrill, III, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., and Rudy Vazmina, Executive Director, Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA), came before the Commission. Attorney Merrill referred to computer-generated maps indicating the three sites displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation and stated that Site A is bordered on the north by commercial development consisting of a dry cleaner on property with a Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Classification, on the east by the Seaboard System Railroad line and a church on property with a Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Classification, on the south by residential multiple family dwellings within the Janie Poe public housing complex on property with a Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification, and to the west by residential primarily single family dwellings on property with a Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification. Attorney Merrill continued that Site B is bordered on the north by residential multiple family dwellings within the Janie Poe public housing complex with a Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification, on the east by the Seaboard System Railroad line and residential multiple family dwellings with a Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification, the south by residential multiple family with a Single Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification, and to the west by residential single family dwellings with a Single Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification. BOOK 54 Page 25336 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25337 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Attorney Merrill further stated that Site C is bordered on the north by residential multiple family dwellings with a Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification, the east by residential multiple family dwellings with a Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification, the south by a park with an Open Space-Recreation-Conservation Future Land Use Classification, and the west by commercial development including a grocery store which is in the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification. Commissioner Atkins asked the current zoning of the grocery store on Orange Avenue? Attorney Merrill stated that the Orange Avenue area of the grocery store is designated in the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the grocery store is a non-conforming existing use which has been allowed to continue; that the property owner is seeking a change to the Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Classification sO the grocery store would no longer be non-contorming. Attorney Merrill continued that the SHA has a statutory duty to provide decent, safe, and sanitary living conditions for persons considered low income by improving housing stock, providing additional housing stock, and providing economic opportunity for low income persons; that the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to change the Future Land Use Map for the three parcels owned by the SHA furthers the SHA's goal by providing more housing stock for a variety of income levels and a mix of residential and light commercial uses; that the concept of new urbanism is favored by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the submission of HOPE VI grant applications and by the City in the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the goal is to make the City more community oriented. Attorney Merrill further stated that Staff has recommended approval of the proposed amendment based on a detailed analysis; that the proposed amendment will achieve and further the public benefit as indicated by Staff; that approval of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is requested. Commissioner Servian asked the specific function of the newly hired SHA Planner? Attorney Merrill stated that the new Planner is a consultant hired by the SHA through a selection process to assist with some master planning, neighborhood issues, and the rezoning process. Mayor Palmer asked if the consultant is the same firm which was hired to assist with the HOPE VI grant application in 2002? Attorney Merrill stated that the consultant hired to assist with the HOPE VI grant application in 2002 did not proceed with the work due to changes imposed by the Federal Government. Mr. Vazmina stated that Perkins Eastman Architects PC was hired to assist with the HOPE VI grant application process; that the firm has considerable expertise; that a different solicitation is presently underway for a consultant to assist with concept plans relating only to the Janie Poe public housing complex area. Mr. Smith came forward and stated that as a point of clarification, the grocery store on Orange Avenue is located in the Commercial Neighborhood Zone District and is designated in the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification; that in January 2003, the Commission directed Staff as part of the Newtown Plan to change the designation of the property on which the grocery store is located to the Neighborhood Commercial Future Land Use Classification. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4428 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4428 on first reading. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Atkins yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 17. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4455, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, LICENSES, BY PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS ; BY ADJUSTING THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE FOR ENGAGING OR MANAGING BUSINESSES PROFESSIONS OR OCCUPATIONS WITHIN THE CITY : PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED BOOK 54 Page 25338 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25339 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. INVALID; PROVIDING FOR REPEALING OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM X-A-2) CD 6:30 through 6:34 Mayor Palmer stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4455 is to revise the Occupational License Fee Schedule for engaging or managing businesses, professions, or occupations within the City; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that Section 205.0535, Reclassification and rate structure revisions, Local Occupational License Taxes, et seg., Florida Statutes, also known as the Dudley Bill, (Dudley Bill) was the first significant legislation regarding occupational licensing in 20 years; that the main provisions allow for municipalities to establish an Equity Study Committee to review occupational license fees and recommend changes based upon an established formula, with a maximum of a 10 percent overall change to total occupational license revenuesi that the law provides for raising occupational license fees up to 5 percent every two years if municipalities take advantage of the opportunity. Mr. Litchet referred to his March 18, 2003, letter to the City Manager regarding the proposed Occupational License Ordinance included in the Agenda backup material; and continued that in 1995, the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 95-3894 which adopted a new occupational license fee schedule based on recommendations of the City's Equity Study Committee; that the Ordinance included changes which had an overall revenue increase of $10,872; that the Commission was authorized by the Dudley Bill to raise the overall revenue by $43,682; that in 1997, the Commission took advantage of the first renewal cycle to increase license fees 5 percent for all license categories except for home-based occupations, merchants with inventory of $100,000 or less, and schools operating for profit; that in 1999 and 2001, the Commission again took advantage of the renewal cycle to increase license fees 5 percent for all license categories. Mr. Litchet further stated that the request is to raise all license fees 5 percent as allowed by State Law; that occupational license revenues are projected at $545,000 for fiscal year (FY) 2003/04; that a 5 percent increase would raise revenues approximately $27,250; that Staff recommends the Commission pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4455 on first reading. Commissioner Servian referred to proposed Item 47, Rental Housing Units, Section 19-11, License Schedule, Zoning Code (2002 Ed), as follows: (47) Rental Housing Units (Apartments, Rooming Houses, Tourist Homes, Tourist Cabins, Hotel and Motels) a. Having accommodations of up to 3 guest rooms $10.64 b. All over 3 rooms, per sleeping room $ 2.01 Commissioner Servian asked if the proposed revised occupational license fee of $10.64 for units having accommodations of up to three guest rooms is on a per unit basis? Mr. Litchet stated that $10.64 is the proposed occupational license fee for a triplex; that $2.01 is the additional occupational license fee for rental housing units with over three rooms on a per sleeping room basis. Commissioner Servian stated that a proposed revised occupational license fee of $19.45 is included for yard maintenance and not specifically for landscaping; and asked for clarification of occupational license fees for landscaping. Mr. Litchet stated that an answer cannot be provided at this time but will be provided aiter consulting with Building Department Staff more familiar with details concerning landscaping occupational license fees. Commissioner Servian stated that the information can be provided after the current meeting. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4455 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4455 on first reading. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried BOOK 54 Page 25340 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25341 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 18. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4463, AMENDING SECTIONS 101.6 AND 307.4 OF THE LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARD HOUSING CODE, 1997 EDITION AND ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 11-2(B) OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE; TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN STRUCTURES TO BE MAINTAINED SUBSTANTIALLY FREE OF DIRT, STAINS, RUST, MOLD OR MILDEW, i TO PROHIBIT OPEN STORAGE OF CERTAIN MATERIALS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, ; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, ; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IS DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM X-A-3) CD 6:34 through 6:37 Mayor Palmer stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4463 is to correct a scrivener's error in Ordinance No. 02-4378; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that Section 307.4, Outdoor Storage of Materials, Administrative Amendments to the Florida Building Code, adopted pursuant to Section 11-2(b), Article II, Building Codes, Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended), was inadvertently left out of Ordinance No. 02-4378 adopting the local administrative amendments to the 1997 Standard Housing Code originally adopted by Ordinance No. 98-4044 and is as follows: Section 307.04: It is unlawful for the owner or occupant of residential property to use such property for the open storage of materials not specifically designed for or commonly used outdoors. Mr. Litchet continued that Staff recommends the Commission pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4463 on first reading. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4463 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4463 on first reading. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Bilyeu, yesi, Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins yes. 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 réquired 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 propertyi that Affected Persons are individuals especially interested in the proceedings due to proximity to or other special interest in the subject property; that Applicants, the City, and Affected Persons will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and for cross-examination. 19. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4464, PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF A 1.13 ACRE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY-3 (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE WATERFRONT RESORT (WFR) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND BEING LOCATED AT 129 TAFT DRIVE ON LIDO KEY (SITE OF THE PRESENTLY EXISTING SURFVIEW BEACH RESORT) ; APPROVING SITE PLAN 03-SP-06 WHICH HAS BEEN PROFFERED AS A CONDITION OF THIS REZONING TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 03- RE-01 AND 03-SP-06, APPLICANT BRENDA L. PATTEN I ESQ. AS AGENT REPRESENTING CORE DEVELOPMENT, INC. AS THE CONTRACT VENDEE) PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM X-B-1) CD 6:30 through 8:23 Mayor Palmer stated that Rezone Application No. 03-RE-01 and Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-06 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 is to rezone 1.13 acres of property located at 129 Taft Drive. BOOK 54 Page 25342 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25343 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Applicant is Brenda Patten, Esquire, as agent representing Core Development, Inc., as contract vendee of the propertyi that the recommendation is to allow 15 minutes for the Applicant's presentation and 10 minutes for rebuttal; that the City will have 7 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that individuals certified by the Commission as Affected Persons will have 7 minutes to speak and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that one individual, James Williamson, has filed for certification as an Affected Person; that other interested persons will have 5 minutes to speak; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved. City Attorney Taylor stated that the application for Affected Person status from James Williamson has been reviewed; that Mr. Williamson 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. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, James Williamson is certified as an Affected Person and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Commissioner Servian stated that conversations have been held with the Attorney for the developer, one of the developers, and many Lido Key residents. Commissioner Atkins stated that conversations have been held with the Attorney for the developer and one of the developers. Mayor Palmer stated that conversations have been held with the Attorney for the developer, one of the developers, and some Lido Key residents; that letters have also been received from Lido Key residents; that the conversations held with the Attorneys for the developer were held prior to the actual filing of the application. Vice Mayor Martin and Commissioner Bilyeu stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Brenda Patten, Esquire, law firm of Kirk-Pinkerton, and Kevin Daves, President, Core Development, Inc., came before the Commission. Attorney Patten distributed her resume indicating expertise as a Professional Urban Planner to the Commission; and stated that comments made during the presentation regarding legal issues are in her capacity as an attorney; that comments made during the presentation regarding comprehensive planning, zoning, and site planning issues are in her capacity as a Professional Urban Planner. Attorney Patten distributed and referred to computer-generated slides of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that Millard Yoder, Project Engineer, WilsonMiller, is present in the audience and available for questions if necessaryi that Rezone Application No. 03-RE-01 is a request to rezone a 1.13 acre parcel of real property located at 129 Taft and 1121 Benjamin Franklin Drives from the Residential Multiple Family 3 (RMF-3) to the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District; that Site Plan Application No. 03-SP- 06 which has been proffered as a condition of the rezoning, depicts two, eight-story condominium structures above a single level of parking comprised of 20 residential condominium units; that the Surfview Beach Resort, a 50 unit motel built in the early 1950s is currently on the site and is greatly in need of rehabilitation; that the buildings on the site present parking, setbacks, and density issues which are non-conforming with the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that since the site is in the RMF-3 Zone District which does not allow hotels, the Surfview Beach Resort is currently a non-conforming use on the property; that the 50 unit Surfview Beach Resort will be replaced with 20 residential condominium units which completely conform to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) if the application is approved; that the development will consist of two, eight-story condominium structures, each containing ten residential condominium units; that each building will have seven floors of condominiums above a single level of parking; that an 82 foot wide common area will be between the two buildings to break up the mass of the building size and serve as a view corridor through the site; that the appearance is of two smaller condominiums rather than one large structure; that a pool and outdoor amenities will be included in the common area; that all parking with the exception of four spaces will be inside the parking structure on the first floor; that the Applicant is voluntarily providing an 8 to 10 foot wide access easement along BOOK 54 Page 25344 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25345 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. the property to construct a pathway for the City's Multi-Use Recreational Trail (MURT). Attorney Patten continued that the WFR Zone District is an implementing Zone District of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the Commission will recall a Comprehensive Plan Amendment previously proposed to remove the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification from the Surfview Beach Resort property which was recently denied; that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was not approved by the Commission; therefore, the property remains in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification and is still eligible for rezoning to the WFR Zone District. Attorney Patten referred to the Staff Report included in the Agenda Backup material indicating the project is consistent with all applicable chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); and further stated that residential development is similar in scale to nearby development; that the City Engineer determined the project's transportation impact is de minimis and vehicular and pedestrian circulation will be adequate; that the proposed project will reduce the density on the site from 50 motel units to 20 condominium units; that a possible negative aspect of rezoning to the WFR Zone District as indicated in the Staff Report as follows is the allowance of hotel and motel uses: Non-residential hotel and motel uses are allowed within the proposed WFR Zone District Attorney Patten stated further that the Applicant has made a proffer commercial or hotel/motel uses will not be developed and the property will only be developed with residential uses; that the proffer will run with the land; that no hotel/motel development will be allowed; that another Applicant could come forward in the future with a request to rezone the property for hotel/motel use if proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 is not approved; that Rezone Application No. 03-RE-01 will ensure a hotel/motel will not be constructed on the property in the future. Attorney Patten stated that the WFR Zone District allows heights of up to 110 feet; that the proposed building is only 72 feet 4 inches high; therefore, the proposed building is 37 feet 8 inches lower than the maximum height allowed in the WFR Zone District. Attorney Patten continued that Staff did a fine job in analyzing the rezoning criteria; that the Staff Report included in the Agenda backup material indicates the existing development in the vicinity includes several medium to high-density multi-family residential developments along Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the proposal is compatible with the existing land use pattern; that the proposed rezoning will not adversely impact the population density pattern since the project proposes 20 residential condominium units to replace 54 motel guest units; that the WFR Zone District may be found a logical zone designation for the property given the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the proposed residential redevelopment of the site will be consistent with the condominium development on the west side of Benjamin Franklin Drive in the RMF-4 and WFR Zone Districts; that nearby properties to the northwest and southwest are developed with similar medium and high-density residential uses; that several larger-scale developments such as the Ritz Lido Beach Club and the Radisson Hotel have also been approved in the vicinity in recent years; that the development of the property should not have a negative impact on adjacent property. Attorney Patten further stated that its March 12, 2003, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing in which a few comments were received from neighbors; that the comments can be reduced to two main concernsi that the first concern is approval of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 at this time will open up the possibility of more hotels on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive which is not true; that only two areas east of Benjamin Franklin Drive are eligible for a hotel/motel use; that rampant development east of Benjamin Franklin Drive is not a likely outcome; that the second concern raised by the neighbors is the proposed building is incompatible with the neighborhood and will block neighbors' views. Attorney Patten referred to an aerial map of the site of the proposed project and stated that the site is the last developed parcel on Benjamin Franklin Drive prior to entering South Lido Park; that South Lido Park exists to the south and to the east of the site; that no neighbors will be impacted south and east of the site; that Pelican Gardens sometimes referenced as Pelican Cove exists to the north side of the site; that Pelican Gardens is a one and two story condominium project; that any building over two stories will block the views of neighbors living in Pelican BOOK 54 Page 25346 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25347 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Gardens; that the proposed project consisting of residential development will be more compatible with Pelican Gardens than the hotel/motel use currently on the site. Attorney Patten referred to a northeast photographic view of the Surfview Beach Resort along Benjamin Franklin Drive with Lido Towers which is a seven story condominium in the background; and continued that a view from the north of Lido Key to the south is already blocked by Lido Towers; that the proposed project is also seven stories and is not considered a factor affecting view; that a close-up photograph of Lido Towers is provided from the north property line of the Surfview Beach Resort site. Attorney Patten referred to a photograph taken from the eighth floor of the Radisson Hotel looking south demonstrating the view of the Surfview Beach Resort is almost completely blocked by the Lido Towers and a photograph of the Lido Surf and Sand Condominium directly west of the site for the proposed project; and stated that the building is also seven stories over parking; that the Lido Surf and Sand Condominium has greater mass than the proposed project. Attorney Patten referred to a photograph of the Lido Beach Club to the southwest of the site which is a 12 story building over parking; and stated that the photograph was taken from the balcony of the Surfview Beach Resort looking to the southwest; that the blank space south of the Lido Beach Club site is the future site of the Ritz-Carlton Beach Club residences which will be a 90 foot structure above the first floor elevation; that the aerial photograph indicates the nearest single family development is at least two blocks away from the site for the proposed project at the corner of Boulevard of the Presidents and McKinley Drive; that photographs indicate the view of the nearest single family neighborhood which is over two blocks away; that the proposed project will have relatively little impact on the view of the neighborhood; that the proposal is consistent with the height and scale of the surrounding uses; that the Commission is requested to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 on first reading. Mayor Palmer requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that the Applicant's presentation is a thorough and accurate summary of the project. Mr. Parsons referred to an aerial map of the site of the proposed development and continued that the site has three street frontages which are Benjamin Franklin Drive to the west, Taft Drive to the south, and Boulevard of the Presidents to the east; that an adjacent use to the south and east, as the Applicant has indicated, is South Lido Park; that across Benjamin Franklin Drive to the west are medium to high density multiple family residential uses and to the north, multiple family residential uses; that both the existing RMF-3 and the proposed WFR Zone Districts are implementing zone districts of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Parsons referred to a photograph of a view of the east along Taft Drive; and further stated that the site plan eliminates on- street parking on Taft Drive and Boulevard of the Presidents; that traffic is not a problem on Benjamin Franklin Drive; however, vehicles parked on Taft Drive and Boulevard of the Presidents backing out into the right-of-way are a problem which is a reason the proposed site plan eliminates the existing perpendicular parking. Mr. Parsons referred to architectural renderings of the proposed project indicating south and north elevations with a view from Taft Drive; and stated further that two vehicular drop off areas are located in front of each condominium building; that a view of the condominiums from Benjamin Franklin Drive and Boulevard of the Presidents indicates an ingress and egress point for vehicles on both Benjamin Franklin Drive and Boulevard of the Presidents. Mr. Parsons referred to the Site Plan displayed on the Commission monitors and stated that two vehicular entrance point drop off areas are indicated along Taft Drive; that the condominiums are separated by approximately 80 feet of space; that on balance, Staff finds the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the project proposes 20 residential condominium units to replace 54 motel guest units which is a reduction in intensity. Mr. Parsons continued that at its March 12, 2003, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and found Rezone Application No. 03-RE-01 and Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-06 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No.03-4464 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the standards for review set forth in Sections IV-1106 and IV-506, BOOK 54 Page 25348 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25349 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall provide copies of the issued federal or state permits to the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement prior to the issuance of any City building permit. 2. Applicant shall submit a "Construction Staging Plan" to the City for approval. 3. Applicant shall provide documentation to the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement - of compliance with City of Sarasota Resolution No. 99R-1135 and Sarasota County Ordinance No. 97-082 which provides for the protection of marine turtles. 4. Although hotels and motels are allowed as minor conditional uses in the WFR Zone District the subject property would not be developed or used as a hotel or a motel Accordingly, the real property described in Section One. above shall not be developed for hotel or motel uses and any improvements constructed on the property shall not thereafter by utilized, maintained or operated as a hotel or motel. Mr. Parsons stated that Condition 4 requires some alternations which will be addressed by the City Attorney's Office. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the last sentence of Condition 4 in proposed Ordinance 03-4464 should be changed to read as follows: Accordingly, the real property described in Section One above shall not be developed for hotel or motel uses. Any improvements constructed on the property pursuant to approved Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-06 shall not thereafter be utilized, maintained or operated as a hotel or motel. Attorney Fournier continued that the recommendation is to include the suggested change to Condition 4 if the Commission adopts the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification regarding the proffer process. Attorney Fournier stated that the proffer process is specifically authorized by the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the proposed Ordinance once approved is recorded in the public records; that a restriction is placed against the property since the approved Ordinance is a matter of public record; that a future property owner desiring freedom from the restriction would be required to go through the same public hearing process; that one public hearing would be required before the PBLP and one before the Commission. Mr. Parsons stated that additionally, any development other than depicted in the proffered site plan would be required to go through the public hearing process. Mayor Palmer stated that making the proposed Ordinance a matter of public record does not prevent an applicant from requesting relief from the restriction some time in the future. Mr. Parsons stated that an applicant can request relief from the restriction any time in the future as long as the WFR Zone District remains an implementing Zone District of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification. Commissioner Servian asked the reason the PBLP and Staff recommended the Surfview Beach Resort site be designed in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification at the March 3, 2003, Regular Commission meeting? Mr. Parsons stated that two separate processes exist but are related; that at the time the Future Land Use Map was adopted in 1998, Staff and the PBLP recommended the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification for only one site on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive, which was the Holiday Inn site; that at the same time, Staff and the PBLP recommended the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification for the Surfview Beach Resort site; however, the owners of the Surfview Beach Resort successfully petitioned to have the site classified in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that Staff was of the opinion in 1998 the appropriate designation at the time and into the future would be the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification. BOOK 54 Page 25350 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25351 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a concern is rezoning the site to the WFR Zone District will cause a domino effect; that the same could be requested for other parcels east of Benjamin Franklin Drive; and asked for clarification regarding the process. Mr. Parsons stated that only two sites east of Benjamin Franklin Drive are designated in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification, the Holiday Inn which is further north on Benjamin Franklin Drive and the Surfview Beach Resort site plus the northern half of the same block; that only the two sites would be allowed to mal ke application for a rezoning to the WFR Zone District which is the request submitted by the Applicant; that the terminology of the WFR Zone District was a concern expressed at the PBLP public hearing; that the term "waterfront" is sometimes confusing, as an expectation the use is only applicable to waterfront property may be created; that the WFR Zone District is applicable to any property which has the Resort Residential Future Land Use, Classification if approved by the Commission; that someone could theoretically seek the WFR Zone District if the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification existed in another area of the City. Commissioner Servian referred to the Summary of Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis section of the Staff Report indicating a neighborhood meeting was held on October 29, 2002; and requested further detail of the issues raised at the meeting. Mr. Parsons stated that the meeting was not personally attended; that a summary of the neighborhood meeting is indicated in the November 9, 2002, memorandum from Rhonda Maley-Murphy, Administrative Assistant, Neighborhood Department, to Mark Hess, Chief Planner, which is included in the Agenda backup material; that the understanding is the meeting was well attended; that some of the main concerns were height and impact to view. Commissioner Servian stated that a significant number of signatures are included on a Petition in Opposition to the Surfview Beach Resort which is included in the Agenda backup material; that the property immediately to the north of the site which is Pelican Gardens consists of one or two two-story buildings and single story bungalows; and asked the manner in which the proposed project is considered consistent with housing in the area? Mr. Parsons stated that a consistency analysis is based on the intent of the Future Land Use Classification in allowing maximum development; that the WFR Zone District allows heights up to 110 feet which does not mean 110 feet must be granted; that the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification contemplates more intensive uses including hotels/motels than the Applicant is proposing; however, a difference in scale with nearby development will exist; that another implementing Zone District of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification is the RMF-4 Zone District which allows building heights of 70 feet; that the height of the proposed structures measured in accordance with the standards of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) is 72 feet 4 inches; however, the height of the proposed structures from grade to roof is approximately 103 feet; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) measures building height from the first habitable floor or 25 feet whichever is less to the roof line, as defined in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) and not including certain appendages or non-habitable space. Mayor Palmer stated that Attorney Patten came before the Commission representing the owners of the Toscany Motel and the Surfview Beach Resort on Lido Key at the October 27, 1998, Special Commission Meeting; and quoted the following from the minutes of the October 27, 1998, Special Commission meeting: [Attorney] Patten stated that the property is currently in the RMF-3 Zone District; that the owner would be allowed to apply for a rezoning as a motel use; that the Commission could either rezone the property to the WFR or RMF-4 Zone District or deny the rezoning sO the property would remain in the RMF-3 Zone District; that either option would be legally supportable and be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; : that the Toscany Motel and Surfview Beach Resort combined currently have only 54 motel units; that the requested designation and a rezoning to either the WFR or RMF-4 Zone District would reduce the density to 41 units; that the benefit to the owners is to tear down the old motels and rebuild one modern, consolidated motel on the two parcels. Mayor Palmer stated that the residents on Lido Key have not been particularly enthusiastic concerning motels on Lido Key due to traffic and other issues; and quoted the minutes from the October 27, 1998, Special City Commission meeting as follows: Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the resolution was to add the RMF-3 Zone District to the Resort Residential Land Use BOOK 54 Page 25352 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25353 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Classification. * * * Mayor Dupree stated that some questions arose; however, no problem is created if additional height is not provided. * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission may review height as a factor of compatibility if a request to rezone the property is presented; that a proffer could be extended to reduce the height to an acceptable level; that otherwise, the existing zoning could remain. Mayor Palmer requested that Staff respond to the comments made at the October 27, 1998, Special Commission meeting. Mr. Parsons stated that an oral history which was handed down can be provided; that Staff did not recommend the Resort Residential Land Use Classification for the site but rather recommended the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the RMF-3 Zone District was added as an implementing Zone District of the Resort Residential Land Use Classification; that the existing RMF-3 Zone District as well as the proposed WFR Zone District are implementing Zone Districts of the Resort Residential Land Use Classification. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification allows a height of 70 feet? Mr. Parsons stated that the proposal was to change the Future Land Use Classification to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification in which the RMF-5 Zone District with a maximum building height of 90 feet is allowed. Mayor Palmer stated that implementing Zone Districts of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification include the RMF-3, RMF-4, RMF-5 Zone Districts; however, a height of 90 feet is not necessarily allowed. Mr. Parsons stated that a maximum height of 90 feet can be constructed. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification regarding the differences in setbacks between the RMF-3 and WFR Zone Districts. Mr. Parsons stated that the setback is one of the reasons the Applicant is seeking a change to the WFR Zone District; that the Zone Districts pertaining to multiple family uses have additional setback provisions above 35 feet which applies to all frontages; that a building must be set back an additional 12 feet on all sides in addition to the required setback of 35 feet; that the WFR Zone District only requires an additional setback above 35 feet on the side yard; that the site of the proposed project has three front yards; that each street frontage is considered a front yard; that only one side yard exists which is on the north side of the property; that the additional setback above 35 feet would apply to the side yard on the north side of the property; that in an RMF-3, RMF-4, or RMF-5 Zone District, an additional 12 foot setback would also apply on Benjamin Franklin Drive, Taft Drive, and Boulevard of the Presidents as opposed to just the north side of the building; that the additional setback required under the RMF-3, RMF-4, or RMF-5 Zone District would prohibit building a substantial sized building above 35 feet; that the building would be substantially compressed by the required additional setback; that Staff recommends the Commission pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 on first reading. Mayor Palmer requested that the Affected Person come forward; and the following Affected Person came before the Commission: James Williamson, 170 Roosevelt Drive, No. 22, (34236), stated that he lives in Pelican Gardens; that the building heights for the WFR and RMF-3 Zone Districts indicated in the Staff Report are confusing; that building height is a key factor for people living in the area of the proposed project; that the understanding is a building height of 103 feet from ground is allowed in the WFR Zone District; that the Applicant indicated Lido Towers which is to the north of Pelican Gardens is seven stories over parking; that Lido Towers is 80 feet above the ground versus the allowable 103 foot building height of the proposed project; that the proposed project comprises an entire block; that one-third of the Lido Towers site is the building and two-thirds is parking; that open space which is parking rather than an 80 foot building is the view from Pelican Gardens; that the Applicant indicated the nearest single family development is two blocks from the proposed project which is not the case; that 23 units exist in Pelican Gardens; that many of BOOK 54 Page 25354 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25355 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. the units are considered single family homes since people live in the units throughout the year; that two single family homes exist on the west side of the proposed project. Mr. Williamson continued that the neighbors residing in Pelican Gardens will be affected by the proposed project; that the proposed project is not compatible with the neighborhood; and referred to photographs displayed on the Chamber monitors of Pelican Gardens and the proposed project superimposed on the Surfview Beach Resort site. Mr. Williamson further stated that the proposed project will impact the property to the north which is Pelican Gardens; that the photographs of Pelican Gardens with depictions of the proposed project at completion indicate the non-compatibillty with the rest of neighborhood; that Pelican Gardens has never truly had a view but has had open space which is pleasing; that a comment heard earlier with which disagreement is expressed is the WFR Zone District is only being requested since designing a marketable condominium under the RMF-3 or RMF-4 Zone District is impossible; that the preference is for a 14 or 20 unit building rather than a building 103 feet above ground; that a 103 foot building is not consistent with the center portion of Lido Key. Mayor Palmer requested that other interested persons come forward; and the following interested persons came before the Commission: Cheri Williamson, 170 Roosevelt Drive (34236), stated that she lives in the most directly affected condominium which is Pelican Gardens; that Pelican Gardens consists of 17 single story units and one two-story building with 6 units; that the two-story building is approximately 18 to 20 feet in height; that the neighbors at the Surfview Beach Resort are requesting to build a 103 foot structure which is less than a stone's throw from Pelican Gardens; that the rooftop will be 103 feet high; that people living in Pelican Gardens will be living in the shadows of the monstrous building; that logic is attempted by indicating a gap will exist between the two condominium towers; that the plans for the proposed project have been seen; that the gap is over two stories in height; that indicating the two 103 foot condominium towers is less obtrusive to Pelican Gardens than a solid 35 foot structure as allowed by the RMF-3 Zone District is illogical; that the idea two condominium towers each standing 103 feet tall in any manner fits in with the composition of the neighborhood is considered a joke; that the neighborhood is comprised of RMF-3 Zone District type properties, not WFR Zone District type properties; that the waterfront resort type properties on Lido Key are actually on the water and are not set back in the vicinity of the charming one to three story condominiums and homes; that the proposed building is seven stories with two-thirds of the block made up of parking; that underground parking is not proposed as part of the project. Ms. Williamson continued that she is not against growth, development, or the ability of the owners of the Surfview Beach Resort to develop the property into luxury condominiums; that she is against rezoning the property in such a manner as to dwarf her single story villa; that she is also against changing the present atmosphere of the quaint little neighborhood into one of skyscraping condominiums; that skyscraping condominiums are better suited to the Downtown area or the beach. Richard Bosch, 170 Roosevelt Drive (34236), stated that he has been a resident of Pelican Gardens for the past 12 years; that the Toscany Motel and the Surfview Beach Resort were both red light districts at the time he moved to Pelican Gardens; that any plans to further develop the site are supported since Pelican Gardens is not considered by many as a desirable area in which to live; that Pelican Gardens will never improve if the proposed Ordinance is not adopted; that Pelican Gardens, the Toscany Motel, and the Surfview Beach Resort are 52 years old; that improvements such as new carpeting, paint, and new bedding can be made; however, the structure of the buildings will continue to deteriorate; that the area will be reduced in value if not developed; that the proposed project will increase Pelican Garden's property values; that only one building to the west is being affected; that the proposed project does not negatively impact the neighborhood. Mr. Bosch continued that approximately 48 transient people are presently coming and going from the Surfview Beach Resort each evening; that the longest stay is between three and four nights; that the preference is an owner occupied condominium in the neighborhood which will raise the value of Pelican Gardens; that the Commission is requested to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03- 4428. Veronica Lundgren-Beg, 535 McKinley Drive (34236), stated that she and her husband purchased a home on Lido Key two blocks from the Surfview Beach Resort approximately two years ago; that the desire is to raise her three children in a nice place; that the BOOK 54 Page 25356 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25357 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. existing Surfview Beach Resort was built in the 1950s; that the understanding is the owners cannot do much to improve the building and the site as the property was grandfathered as a non-conforming use; that the site is deteriorating due to age and lack of investment; that the proposed project is strongly supported; that the proposed project will be a vast improvement over the existing structure and will attract the desired quality of residents which will be a significant improvement over the clientele the Surfview Beach Resort is currently attracting; that some people are always inconvenienced by a new project; that the proposed project is good for Lido Key over the long term; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4428 is strongly supported; that the Commission is requested to approve the project as proposed. George Peter Ryan, 241 Garfield Drive (34236), President, Lido Key Residents Association, stated that the Commissioners have already addressed points considered of great importance; that the concern at the PBLP meeting was not the issue of motels but rather the issue regarding height of the building; that height remains the issue; that no viable alternatives have been indicated for developing the property; that viable alternatives will be found if an applicant is questioned concerning viable alternatives; that the amount of gross sales generated by viable alternatives may be less; however, the alternatives are viable; that he has been told any other zoning would create a financial hardship for the property owner; that the Commission should request specifics regarding possible financial hardship; that a letter was received from the property owner indicating the Toscany Motel will be closed one way or the other. Mr. Ryan continued that the Commission is not under any obligation to approve the rezoning to the WFR Zone District; that some points have been made by Commissioners which have been misleading relative to other Zone Districts; that at the March 3, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, the Commission denied Resolution No. 02R-1510 by a slim margin of 3 to 2; that the reason for the vote is not known; that the reason for the vote should be made known; that the Commission is requested to deny proposed Ordinance No. 03-4428. Stephen Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2003 Main Street, Sarasota (34237), Marjorie Beg, President, MEB Capital Investments, Inc., and Roger Hettema, Professional Licensed Real Estate Appraiser, Hettema, Saba, and Walch, L.L.C. Attorney Rees stated that he is a land use attorney and has practiced law in Sarasota since 1972; that he has been through the drafting and adoption process of the WFR Zone District and participated extensively in the 1998 adoption process of the City's Comprehensive Plan during which the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification was established; that State law recognizes a property owner has a right to a reasonable investment-backed expectation; that the present RMF-3 Zone District frustrates the reasonable investment-backed expectations of MEB Capital Investments, Inc.; that conversely, approval of the rezoning request promotes and causes achievement of the reasonable investment-backed expectations; that State law provides the burden shifts from the applicant and local government has the burden.to demonstrate the existing zoning was enacted in furtherance of some legitimate public purpose and the public interest is legitimately served by the continuation of the existing zoning if the applicant has demonstrated consistency with a comprehensive plan. Attorney Rees continued that the Applicant is of the opinion the status quo is no longer reasonable; that Mr. Hettema was engaged to provide the Commission with professional expert witness testimony rather than unsubstantiated opinion from prior witnesses as to the reason the RMF-3 Zone District is confiscatory, arbitrary, and unreasonable as well as the reason the request for the WFR Zone District should be adopted. Mr. Hettema stated that a highest and best use study was performed on the property which is an exercise an appraiser would undertake to value a piece of property; that the existing zoning causes a number of problems mainly with the existing structure; that the structure is a non-conforming use virtually at the end of its amortization period; that additionally, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations would severely restrict any attempt to keep the building refurbished and updated; that any type of redevelopment under the RMF-3 Zone District would not produce the type of structure compatible with current market trends. Mr. Hettema distributed the Highest and Best Use Analysis Report concerning the property; referred to a Summary of Market Alternatives chart included in the handout; and stated that 15 properties are indicated which have been built or are in the process of being approved or built; that the chart indicates BOOK 54 Page 25358 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25359 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. current desired market trends by providing a description of the building type, view amenities, total units, and typical unit size; that in each case, a two or three story building was razed to provide the desired product; that the compatibility issue is understood; however, compatibility must consider current market trends rather than existing development; that the market changes and is not always compatible with development which has become obsolete; that desired amenities are view and being located on floors above the ground level; that market demands cannot be met under the development standards of the current RMF-3 Zone District. Attorney Rees asked if the opinion of Mr. Hettema is the highest and best use is for a multiple family condominium in a WFR Zone District? Mr. Hettema stated yes; that testimony was received which indicated setbacks in the RMF-4 Zone District would not allow a building consistent with others being built in the City; that rezoning to the WFR Zone District and the proffered site plan would be the highest and best use of the property. Attorney Rees submitted the following documents for the public record: April 21, 2003, letter from Robert Hettema, MAI, SRA, to Stephen Rees Highest and Best Use Analysis Report Attorney Rees referred to the Staff Report included in the Agenda backup material and continued that Staff in professional discussion of the restraints in the existing RMF-3 Zone District refers to Ordinance No. 96-3928; that a copy of the Ordinance is not included with the Staff Report; and entered for the public record a copy of Ordinance No. 96-3928 including Exhibit A, Ordinance No. 96-3928, which includes references to the subject property as Site 29. Attorney Rees continued that the Commission will recall Ordinance No. 96-3928 recognized the expiration of the amortization period for non-conforming structures and uses and provided certain express conditions by which those non- conforming uses or structures could continue in perpetuity; that the provisions of the Ordinance restrict the ability of the property owner to make renovations and repairs, changes of hours of operation and number of employees, etc.; that the Ordinance makes the ability to continue a viable business operation of the present use nearly impossible. Attorney Rees further stated that the Commission is reminded the property owner sought and obtained the Resort Residential Land Use Classification in 1998; that the property owner has relied upon the Resort Residential Land Use Classification; that the property owner has a constitutionally protected right to seek the highest and best use for the property by complying with the rules and procedures seeking the implementing WFR Zone District; that the Commission is reminded the Resort Residential Land Use Classification was expressly adopted as a catalyst for rehabilitation on Lido Key; that memories are recalled of participation in the hearings leading up to both the adoption of the Resort Residential Land Use Classification and the WFR Zone District; that discussions across the table concerning the importance of replacing the aged, dilapidated structures and non-conforming uses with modern, currently code compliant structures are recalled. Attorney Rees stated further that the Commission is reminded the Resort Residential Land Use Classification and the implementing WFR Zone District recognize two primary permitted principle uses and structures which are multiple family and hotel/motel; that the two uses are legislatively recognized as being compatible; that the property owner by consenting to the application which was filed is. agreeing with the proffer and the stipulation in the proposed Ordinance to the limitation in the future of any continuation of hotel/motel use; that the Commission has heard the testimony of the witnesses and Staff; that the Commission has previously discussed concerns with the perpetuation of hotel/motel use on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the request is to do the right thing for the property owner; that the Commission is requested to recognize the property owner's dependency on the Commission's vote and the need for a reasonable return on investment by approving proposed Ordinance No. 03-4428; that the desire is to remove the present archaic use and the dilapidated, non-economically viable structure and place new housing on the site providing good, decent, clean housing for existing and new residents. Ms. Beg stated that as the owner of the Surfview Beach Resort, the proposed project is supported; that views regarding the proposed project have previously been expressed; that the BOOK 54 Page 25360 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25361 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. proposed project is a viable solution to allow replacement of an aging structure and will be an excellent asset to Lido Key. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Attorney Patten came forward and stated that many important issues were raised; that specific questions have been raised by the Commission; that the hope is all issues and questions can be addressed within the time allotted; that the Affected Person is requested to come forward for cross-examination. Attorney Patten asked the date Pelican Gardens was constructed? Mr. Williamson came forward and stated that the date of construction is not known. Attorney Patten stated that the first question raised was the appropriateness of a WFR Zone District to the property; that Staff adequately provided an answer to the question; that the WFR Zone District does not require property be on the waterfront; that a concern was raised regarding the Petition in Opposition to the Surfview Beach Resort included in the Agenda Backup material which was signed by many residents on Lido Key; that the Petition in Opposition to the Surfview Beach Resort simply indicates the following: We the residents of Lido Key petition the City to deny the request to rezone properties Attorney Patten stated that the language in the petition is simply an expression of personal preference; that the law is clear regarding popularity contests and petitions which do not indicate any substantial, competent evidence; that petitions are not allowed as the basis for making a decision on a rezoning petition; that the petition does not include substantial, competent evidence to support a decision of the Commission to deny the rezoning Application. Attorney Patten distributed copies of the following court cases: City of Apopka, Florida, verses Orange County, Florida, Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida (299 So.2nd 657) Timothy Messett verses Cynthia Cohen, Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida (741 So.2d 619) Attorney Patten stated that the case of City Apopka, Florida, versus Orange County, Florida, clearly establishes the principle of substantial, competent evidence for basing decisions on rezoning petitions; that the case of Messett versus Cohen indicates a landowner has no legally recognized interest in an unobstructed view and therefore lacks standing to challenge the County's decision to permit construction; that unobstructed view is not a legal basis for making a zoning decision and is not a property right; that State law indicates property which may obstruct a view must be purchased to protect the view; that obstruction of view has no legal standing to allow denial of a development application. Attorney Patten continued that in response to the question raised concerning the public hearing at the October 27, 1998, Special Commission Meeting, the owners of the Toscany Motel and the Surfview Beach Resort were living with a building which had been constructed in the early 1950s and was deteriorating, in great need of repair, and was a non-conforming use; that the City passed Ordinance No. 99-4095 which restricted certain changes to the building and property; that the owners were stuck with a deteriorating building while the desire was to make improvements; that hotel/motel use would no longer be allowed on the site if the existing structures were destroyed; that the owners came before the Commission requesting the Resort Residential Land Use Classification to allow the possibility of rebuilding; that the owners originally planned to build a boutique hotel/motel on the propertyi that word was received from Planning Staff the Commission and Staff did not desire hotel/motel use to cross Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the owners were then in a dilemma; that the owners rethought the project and came up with a multiple family development with 20 residential units, which is consistent with the Resort Residential Land Use Classification and with the surrounding uses; that the Commissioners have an obligation to review proposals and to consider substantial, competent evidence in making determinations. BOOK 54 Page 25362 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25363 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Attorney Patten continued that an attempt was made at the March 3, 2003, Regular Commission meeting to change the property from the Resort Residential Land Use Classification to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification which was denied; that the Commission should be considering the criteria under the Resort Residential Land Use Classification; that the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification would have allowed a rezoning to the RMF-5 Zone District which allows heights of 90 feet if the Commission had adopted proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 at the March 3, 2003, Regular Commission meeting; that the Applicant is seeking a height lower than allowed in the WFR Zone District and in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that property north of the site on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive is designated in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification which means all the properties are eligible for a rezoning to the RMF-5 Zone District allowing a maximum height of 90 feet and 25 units per acre. Attorney Patten further stated that Pelican Gardens is a multi- family development and not single family; that Pelican Gardens is an older development; that Pelican Gardens and the Surfview Beach Resort are both in the RMF-3 Zone District; that many changes have occurred on Lido Key since the 1950s and 1960s; that Pelican Gardens and the Surfview Beach Resort are two smaller developments on the end of Lido Key; that the Pelican Gardens property is surrounded by development which is consistent with the City's codes and regulations; that the Commission is obligated to follow the City's codes and regulations in considering rezoning applications; that Pelican Gardens is not the standard by which the Commission is required to measure other proposed development in the area. Attorney Patten stated further that the individuals objecting to the project are also burdened with presenting substantial, competent evidence to support positions; that individuals representing Pelican Gardens raised issues regarding compatibility; that Pelican Gardens is not the standard for measuring future development; that some complaints concerning height were raised by individuals in adjoining high rise buildings. Attorney Patten stated that Staff has found the proposed project consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a question was raised as to the necessity of developing the project under the WFR Zone District rather than an RMF-3 or RMF-4 Zone District; that the reason is the proposed project has three front yards; that each front yard will have a super setback above 35 feet; that constructing the project in the RMF-3 or RMF-4 Zone District will narrow the building considerably making the building virtually unmarketable; that marketability is a major factor; that the open area between the building increases the compatibility by making the building appear as two smaller buildings. Commissioner Servian stated that information was provided indicating view is not a legal basis for determining rezoning; and asked if highest and best use is considered a legal basis? Attorney Patten stated that highest and best use is not a criteria the Commission is obligated to follow in making a determination to rezone a site; that the Commission is obligated to consider criteria such as compatibility and issues indicated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that highest and best use is a way of indicating a marketable product cannot be built in the RMF-3 and RMF-4 Zone Districts which is a legitimate issue. Mayor Palmer requested that the Affected Person come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Williamson came forward and stated that Pelican Gardens is not a single family development in a legal sense which is recognized; that the belief is two condominiums to the west of Pelican Gardens are single family; that statements have been made indicating the site can be designated in the RMF-4 and RMF-5 Zone Districts; that the Staff Report indicates additional setbacks over 35 feet will require one additional foot of building setback for every two feet of building height over FEMA or 12 feet, whichever is greater; that the Surfview Beach Resort could not support a 90 foot building since the building would be 8 to 12 feet wide which is not viable and does not make logical sense; that the belief is the Surfview Beach Resort will not support a 72 foot or a 103 foot building from grade. Mr. Williamson stated that comments were raised regarding reasonable investment-backed expectation; that the inference was a reasonable investment-backed expectation is tied to the highest and best use of the property; that the Staff Report indicates a reasonable economic expectation is an owner's right to utilize property based on a reasonable expectation of return on investment; that his concept of the neighborhood is the five BOOK 54 Page 25364 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25365 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. blocks in the center of Lido Key from Taft and Roosevelt Drives to Cleveland and Garfield Drives; that the market value of each property was determined by obtaining information from the County's Geographic Information System (GIS); that the current market value of the neighborhood was determined by taking the 2001 GIS market value and applying an annual multiplier of 1.4; that the current market value of the property on the blocks bordered by Boulevard of the Presidents and Benjamin Franklin Drive is as follows: between Taft and Roosevelt Drives $8.2 million between Roosevelt and McKinley Drives - $11 million between McKinley and Harrison Drives - $6.8 million between Harrison and Cleveland Drives - $11 million between Cleveland and Garfield Drives = $10 million Mr. Williamson continued that the average block value is $9.5 million; that the construction value of the proposed project is $13.5 million; that the land value according to the GIS is $1.2 million; that the total value is $14.7 million which represents a 393 percent increase from current value which is considered a reasonable economic expectation; that the minimum value of the proposed 20 units will likely be $1.5 million per unit which is a total of $30 million or an 800 percent increase from current value. Mr. Williamson further stated that alternatively, 14 units at $750,000 per unit is $10.5 million which is a 280 percent increase or 20 units which would be a 400 percent increase; that one of these alternatives is preferred. Mayor Palmer asked Mr. Williamson if he has a financial background or professional qualifications? Mr. Williamson stated no; that the information was obtained from the GIS. Mayor Palmer requested that the City come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Parsons came forward and stated that no rebuttal will be provided; however, he is available for questions. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification of the term, "compatibility" as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Parsons stated that a definition of the term "compatibility" may not be in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that features are included which constitute compatibility; that one feature of compatibility is identifying the Future Land Use Classification of a parcel to determine the intended land use for an area which is not necessarily the present use; that in the case of the proposed project, the Commission is looking at a strong juxtaposition of one and two story units next to a proposed building which is much taller; that the decision is difficult. Commissioner Bilyeu asked the Land Use Classification of the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive from Roosevelt Drive to Boulevard of the Presidents? Mr. Parsons stated that the area on the east side along Benjamin Franklin Drive is in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classification; that some of the blocks are split half way east and west between the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classification and the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Land Use Classifications. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the understanding is buildings in the area could potentially be built which are higher than the proposed project. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct; that theoretically a building could be built up to the maximum allowed under the RMF-5 Zone District which is the most intense Zone District under the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classification; that heights are allowed up to 90 feet; that 90 feet is measured from the first habitable floor and does not include roof top amenities; that the proposed project consists of a 72 foot 4 inch building; that the building is 103 feet from grade; that a 90 foot building could theoretically be taller than 103 feet. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the understanding is the proposed project is below the height allowed in the WFR Zone District. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct; that the maximum allowed height in the WFR Zone District is 110 feet. Mayor Palmer requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 by title only. BOOK 54 Page 25366 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25367 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 on first reading including the change in language in the last sentence of Condition 4 to read as follows: Accordingly, the real property described in Section One above shall not be developed for hotel or motel uses. Any improvements constructed on the property pursuant to approved Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-06 shall not thereafter be utilized, maintained or operated as a hotel or motel. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the decision has been difficult; that good testimony and brilliant points have been heard and are appreciated; that the proposed project will have fewer units, less traffic, less height, less transients, a more residential rather than hotel/motel use, and is being constructed by a quality developer; that Ordinances have placed constraints on the property; that the super setback is another constraint; that changes have been allowed in other projects to avoid the constraint. Vice Mayor Martin continued that compatibility is an issue which is not well defined; that a point was raised indicating the compatibility of the proposed project should not be with buildings constructed in the past or with the history of the area but rather should be considered by examining current market demand; that the decision is difficult; that the Commission must choose one side or the other; that the issue is important to the residents on Lido Key; that closure is important; that the proposed project will provide a satisfactory solution and is supported. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the issue regarding height is important; that citizens indicated concerns regarding height; that building heights can frighten people; that the Applicant has done a good job of keeping within the boundaries imposed; that the proposed project will remove an eye sore from Lido Key which is the reason for supporting Ordinance No. 03-4464. Commissioner Atkins stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 is supported; that the points raised by the Applicant and Staff provided sufficient evidence to support the project. Commissioner Servian stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 is not supported; that Lido Key is personally well known, particularly the central and eastern portion; that the eastern portion of Lido Key is predominantly single family homes; that more intense development exists in the central portion of Lido Keyi however, the development is on the eastern rather than the western side of Benjamin Franklin Drive on Lido Key which is the reason for not supporting proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464; that the proposed building will be imposing in the central portion of Lido Keyi that the building will be beautiful and will be an improvement; however, the Commission's obligation is not to provide a zoning which will provide the highest and best use; that an alternative for a good return on the property is likely available. Mayor Palmer stated that the points made by Commissioner Servian are supported; that the change in land use has not been supported since she held a position on the PBLP; that the change to the WFR Zone District was not supported in 1998; that the proposed project is of high qualityi that compatibility was represented to the Commission as relating to reasonable return on investment; that the City's Comprehensive Plan does not address compatibility as relating to reasonable return on investment; that compatibility is addressed as relating to neighborhoods and consistency with existing uses and with other areas; that the RMF-3 Zone District predominates in the area of the proposed project; that the RMF-5 Zone District is not automatically allowed in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the RMF-3 Zone District was specifically added to the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification. Mayor Palmer continued that the reduction of hotels and motels in beach areas and in the Downtown is a concerni that funding for beach renourishment comes from the tourist development tax which comes from hotel and motel uses as well as rentals under 6 months; that one of the reasons the WFR Zone District was considered was the RMF Zone Districts did not allow hotel/motel use; that losing a major hotel/motel facility on Lido Key is a concern; that the Surfview Beach Resort presently provides affordable accommodations for tourists desiring to visit Lido Beach. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4464 on first reading including changes in language in the last sentence of Condition 4 to read as follows: BOOK 54 Page 25368 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25369 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Accordingly, the real property described in Section One above shall not be developed for hotel or motel uses. Any improvements constructed on the property pursuant to approved Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-06 shall not thereafter be utilized, maintained or operated as a hotel or motel. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Martin, yes; Palmer, no; Servian, no; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. 20. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 8:35 through 8:45 The following people came before the Commission: Chip Miller, 2592 Jefferson Circle (34239), stated that he is a City resident and property owner; that he was born and raised in the City; that he is speaking on behalf of the City employees present at the back of the Chambers who are members of the Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 173 Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters Local 173); that the City is a beautiful place in which to live; that the City was designed by educated architects, built by knowledgeable builders, and is run by dedicated employees; that the Commission can be assured the architects and builders were well paid for efforts extended; that the City must take measures to ensure City employees are likewise compensated; that everyone living in the City realizes property owners pay taxes to ensure the City is run properly; that part of the revenue the City receives from taxes should result in quality pay for the people making the City a beautiful place in which to live; that City employees deserve a salary increase which is commensurate with the outstanding job performed in making his hometown beautiful. Mary Anne Hecht, 2706 Cheryle Lane (34237), stated that she is a lifetime resident, a City property owner, and a City employee; that many City employees who are members of Teamsters Local 173 are present in the Chambers to make the Commission aware a well deserved and long awaited salary increase is needed; that a salary increase was not received in 2002; that some employees received an increase in the cost of medical insurance which depletes incomes by over $50 each week; that the salary increase which was denied is sorely missed and desperately needed; that the City recenty cofunded the Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence (SCOPE) report which has a finger on the pulse of the community; that the SCOPE report indicates the average income in Sarasota is well below both the State and National averagesi; that the SCOPE report indicates City employees are not only paid below the mean wage in Sarasota but well below the State and National averages; that the discussion concerns the wages currently being received as opposed to the last figures in the SCOPE report which are from 2000; that the cost of living in Sarasota is well above the State and National averages as was heard in previous discussions concerning other City topics at the current meeting; that City employees are bearing the brunt of the operating costs of the City; that some City employees work two and three jobs simply to have the ability to provide for families; that withholding salary increases and increasing medical insurance costs makes matters more difficult; that Sarasota has been named, "the best small City in which to live,' which is only true if a person can afford to. live in Sarasota and many City workers cannot; that City workers all assist in making Sarasota a beautiful place and cannot afford to enjoy the fruits from the labor performed. Ms. Hecht continued that several employees desired but were not able to come before the Commission regarding the issue as second or third jobs interfered; that City employees earn on average of $26,100 per year according to information presented by the City during the month of April 2003; that adjusting for inflation, the local average is $31,470 of which the City pays 83 percent; that the City pays 77 percent of the State average of $33,000; that the National average is $39,000 of which the City pays 67 percent; that according to the Sarasota County internet web site, anything under 80 percent is considered as low-income; that the wage increase necessary to bring City employees up to the National average would be 49 percent and to the State average would be 29 percent; that the wage increase necessary simply to bring City employees up to the local average would be 20.3 percent; that the City is offering City employees an unconscionable 3 percent increase which is less than the 4 percent plus 1 percent already given to members of the Southwest Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (PBA); that 3 percent does not begin to compensate City employees for the rise in the cost of living over the past 12 months let alone the increase in the cost of medical benefits; that the City is in a time in which bountiful financial growth is being enjoyed; that the dedicated employees assisting in maintaining a well above BOOK 54 Page 25370 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25371 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. average quality of life in Sarasota need provisions which will bring wages in line with the local community. Pedro Perez, 3050 Courtland Street (34237), was no longer present in the Chambers. Robert McKahan, 22 Horton (34232), stated that he has lived in Sarasota for 52 years and has been a property owner in the City for 35 years; that he has been employed with the City for 15 years; that he and fellow employees who are members of Teamsters Local 173 have come before the Commission to make Commissioners aware of some issues; that the City saw fit to provide a salary increase of 4 percent plus 1 percent for longevity to some employees, while offering other employees a salary increase of 3 percent which seems discriminatory; that 3 percent is inadequate; that all City employees should be treated fairly and equally. Warren Lucietz, 2928 Java Plum Avenue (34232), stated that he works in the Public Works Department; that he has worked for the City for 24 years; that according to the Sarasota Herald- Tribune, Sarasota is enjoying an unprecedented increase in quality of life due in part to the recent increases in home values; that with increased land values comes an increase in the taxable amount to homes which is usually offset by annual salary increases; that City employees have not received any cost of living increase since October 2002; that the Commission is requested to give attention to the matter; that the time afforded to speak is appreciated. Daryel Hill, 2383 10th Street (34236), stated that he has been a City employee for 17 years and has plans to retire in 4 yearsi that the hope is to have enough money at the time; that he will be forced to continue working for the City an additional 10 years if sufficient salary increases are not received enabling him to retire; that the hope is the new Commissioners will listen to the City employees who are members of Teamsters Local 173; that the Commission is requested to meet the requests of the City employees at least half way. Mr. Hill continued that he and fellow employees would enjoy attending the Commission meetings during the evening to learn more about things going on in the City but cannot due to second jobs; that he has lived in the City all his 46 years; that he is a homeowner; that owning a home and paying child support and medical insurance is difficult with the salary earned; that he enjoys and loves his job with the Cityi that the Commission is requested to listen rather than to ignore the concerns raised by City employees. Russell Franz, 5353 Harold Avenue (34235), was no longer present in the Chambers. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Agenda Item XIII-1 be deferred to the last item under New Business in the interest of time. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objection, the Commission will move on to the next Agenda item. 21. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE : EXPANSION OF LONG TERM FACILITY OF FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY = DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING BACK A COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE NO LATER THAN MAY 19, 2003 (AGENDA ITEM XIII-2) CD 8:45 through 8:54 Deputy City Manager Schneider referred to an April 2, 2003, letter from Joseph Mckenna, Executive Director of Florida West Coast Symphony (Symphony), to City Manager McNees included in the Agenda backup material, outlining the basic requirements regarding site needs for the long term facility expansion of the Symphony; and stated that the Symphony's current leasehold with the City involves a parcel of land approximately 2.8 acres in the existing Civic Center location; that the current leasehold will not satisiy expansion requirements; that the Symphony is a willing participant in the Civic Center Master Plan; however, outcomes extended into the future may bear potentially significant risks to the immediate and long-term operational goals of the Symphony; that the City Manager recognizes the Symphony is under a time constraint due to the expressed interest of potential donors; therefore, the Administration recommends the Commission direct Staff to discuss, research, and clarify the requirements of the Symphony and bring back a comprehensive package for Commission consideration at the May 19, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. Dan Bailey, 200 South Orange Avenue (34239), Doug Shanley, Chief Financial Officer, and Joseph McKenna, Executive Director, Florida West Coast Symphony, 709 North Tamiami Trail (34236), came before the Commission. BOOK 54 Page 25372 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25373 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. McKenna stated that a productive and cooperative relationship exists with the City Manager regarding the expansion of the Symphony; that Attorney Bailey has assisted the Symphony regarding the ongoing expansion plans. Mr. McKenna continued that the Symphony has enjoyed a robust growth period under the artistic direction of Leif Bjaland, Artistic Director and Conductor of the Symphony, over the past 5 to 6 yearsi that over 100 performances are given each year; that a vigorous adult education program has continued over the past two years; that a program entitled, "Yes, You Can," is an outreach program which assists underprivileged children; that children's outreach program events will be held the week of April 21, 2003, at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH); that the 40th Sarasota Music Festival which is considered an historic cornerstone of the cultural community will be held in 2004; that parallel to the growth of the Symphony, the community and the Symphony are on the verge of an historic project with the potential of a Sarasota Civic Center and Cultural District; that the Symphony must move forward with expansion plans consistent with the desires of the entire community; that the time extended to the Symphony for additional study is appreciated and has proved valuable for the Symphony and the community; that the most important consideration in the current process is to ensure the site can accommodate the long-term needs of the Symphony and enable future Symphony Boards to implement other aspects of the vision and expansion in a manner which permits the Symphony to maintain the goal of a one campus facility for education, performance, and administration. Mr. McKenna further stated that individuals managing organizations often find foreseeing the future difficult; that the Symphony will celebrate its 55th season in 2004 and has experienced historic growth, a very high artistic level, and the opportunity to participate in the potential new Civic Center Cultural District; that the Symphony provided site requirements in the April 2, 2003, letter to the City Manager; that the Symphony's hope is the Commission will consider the Symphony's needs and offer an opinion as to if the requirements of the Symphony can be guaranteed in the Civic Center Master Plan; that the Symphony is operating within a time constraint; that donors have currently contributed to the Symphony for the expansion project as well as the work necessary to position the Symphony for the long term; that fast growth brings a wonderful sense of success but also introduces new challenges and burdens which are being faced at the present time; that the Symphony continues to enjoy an excellent relationship with the City and the VWPAH; that the fundamental challenges of the Symphony are not just the VWPAH programs but are also the many programs offered in the facility currently being used. Mr. McKenna further stated that developing the Symphony's basic requirements for long-term facility expansion needs was a very detailed process and took months to complete; that the City Manager was kept apprised of the status of the work during the process; that the long term needs of the Symphony have been identified; that timing is important; that the due diligence performed has been critical to positioning the Symphony for the long term; that the understanding is the recommendation is to refer the issue back to the Administration for consideration; that he will be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the Administration's recommendation to bring back a comprehensive package for Commission consideration at the May 19, 2003, Regular Commission meeting is satisfactory? Mr. McKenna stated that the desire is to work cooperatively with the City; that the May 19, 2003, date is acceptable. Mayor Palmer stated that Mr. McKenna is aware of concerns raised by individual Commissioners regarding the Symphony's requirements; that the hope is the concerns will be resolved through continuing conversation with the City Manager; that a report will be brought back at the May 19, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Servian stated that the Commission is boarding a bus on April 22, 2003, to attend a County Commission meeting to encourage the County to keep the County's administrative offices in the City and to continue to contribute to the vitality of the Downtown; that the situation with the Symphony is similar; that the desire is for the Symphony to remain in the City to continue to contribute to the vitality of the Downtown; that the Symphony has a significant effect on the vitality of the City; that the Administration will undoubtedly make an effort to bring back a comprehensive package for Commission consideration at the May 19, 2003, Regular Commission meeting sO definitive information and direction can be provided. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to direct Staff to discuss, research, and BOOK 54 Page 25374 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25375 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. clarify the requirements of the Florida West Coast Symphony and bring back a comprehensive package to the Commission for consideration no later than May 19, 2003. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, no; Servian, no; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE : AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND COURTHOUSE CENTRE OF SARASOTA, LTD. TO ALLOW THREE STRUCTURAL ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURTHOUSE CENTRE PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON BOULEVARD BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND RINGLING BOULEVARD - APPROVED WITH THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING AND AUTHORIZED EXECUTION BY THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK; REFERRED THE ISSUE REGARDING NOISE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM XIII-3) CD 8:54 through 9:27 Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, and Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Attorney Fournier stated that the proposed Encroachment Agreement between the City and the Courthouse Centre of Sarasota, Ltd. (Encroachment Agreement), is to allow three structural encroachments into the public rights-of-way in connection with the Courthouse Centre Project located on the west side of Washington Boulevard between Main Street and Ringling Boulevard; that on March 12, 2003, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) unanimously approved Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-03 for the proposed Courthouse Centre Project subject to Commission approval of an Encroachment Agreement to permit structural encroachments; that the issue before the Commission at this time only concerns the three encroachments into the public rights-of-way as indicated on the site plan. Attorney Fournier continued that Ordinance No. 02-4347 adopted by the Commission in April 2002 to regulate privately owned encroachments in the public rights-of-way requires structural encroachments must be approved by the Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit; that encroachments such as landscaping, fences, signs, flagpoles, and parking spaces which are typically owned by the owner of the real property adjacent to the City's right-of-way are considered minor encroachments; that in some instances, the encroachments can be more severe and may be in the form of a building; that Ordinance No. 02-4347 draws a distinction between major encroachments and minor encroachments; that major encroachments are buildings or structures and include footers and arcades; that prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 02-4347, a provision in the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), prohibited any new structures within the public rights-of-way and only allowed landscaping and utilities which were addressed administratively, that encroachments can be acceptable, can enhance opportunities for retail at the street level, and in some cases can be desirable if facilitating the policies of the Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) which calls for a more pedestrian friendly environment in the Downtown. Attorney Fournier further stated that Ordinance No. 02-4347 first prohibits all encroachments and requires every portion of the public right-of-way in the City be open and unobstructed from below the ground to the sky and then creates exceptions; that some exceptions include traffic control devices, direction signs for traffic, and encroachments allowed by private utility franchise agreements or by Statute; that public art is an exception; that encroachments allowed by the Florida Building Code and mailboxes are considered exceptions; that Ordinance No: 02-4347 indicates minor encroachments are addressed administratively, that an agreement is approved between the City and the property owner and executed by the City Manager or the City Engineer; that major encroachments are addressed by the Commission; that an agreement with the City and the property owner is signed by the Mayor after approval by the Commission; that the Encroachment Agreement before the Commission is the first since the approval of Ordinance No. 02-4347 other than an encroachment regarding the Ace Theater project on Fifth Street which was an encroachment of only a few inches into the alley of the rear of the building; that the building has existed since 1925; that the encroachment was addressed under the Consent Agenda. Attorney Fournier referred to Section VII-1201 (B), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), as adopted in Ordinance No. 02-4347 as follows: BOOK 54 Page 25376 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25377 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. 2. Encroachment Agreements: Required Provisions Every Encroachment Agreement shall contain provisions to the effect that: a. The owner of the encroachment shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the encroachment. b. The owner of the encroachment shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, losses or damages on account of or in any way arising from the existence of the encroachment. C. The ability to access public utilities, whether above or below ground, shall be ensured. d. The owner of the encroachment shall be required to coordinate and to pay the cost of any utility relocations made necessary by the encroachment. Attorney Fournier stated that the Engineering Department prefers a provision be included in the Encroachment Agreement indicating the encroachment can be removed upon 30 days notice from the City; that 30 days notice for removing minor encroachments such as fencing or landscaping may be practical but is not for a major encroachment such as a permanent structure; that the provision is not included in the Encroachment Agreement; that the Encroachment Agreement will include a provision the encroachment is allowed to remain until the structure is destroyed either voluntarily or involuntarily such as in the case of fire or some other calamity or disaster; that the right to rebuild will not exist. Attorney Fournier continued that encroachments are addressed by an Encroachment Agreement rather than through the permitting process; that prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 02-4347, encroachment agreements were referenced as encroachment permits; that in actuality, an agreement was signed by the property owner and the City; that a change in procedure has not taken place. Attorney Fournier further stated that a suggestion is the Commission could consider the following as a standard for approval of the Encroachment Agreement: 1) if the presence of the encroachment will interfere in an adverse way or be a detriment with the public's use of the right-of-way and 2) if the structure of a project which contains encroachments will contribute toward achieving the type of urban environment desired by the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Mayor Palmer stated that the Encroachment Agreement includes a provision the encroachment is allowed to remain until the structure is destroyed either voluntarily or involuntarily; that a building can presently be reconstructed if destroyed up to 75 percent by disaster; and asked for clarification of reconstructing a building if a natural disaster were to occur which affects the encroachment. Attorney Fournier stated that the 75 percent reconstruction rule applies to non-conforming uses which are entirely on private property; that the encroachment being discussed is not on private propertyi that the preference and intent of the Encroachment Agreement is to have the property owner come back before the Commission prior to reconstructing the building since the property owner would not likely construct an identical building; that the City should have the opportunity to review the project again and make new determinations relating to encroachments. Mayor Palmer stated that the concern is if a natural disaster were to occur; that the owner should have the prerogative to rebuild; that the City could deny a new encroachment permit; that the situation is appropriate if the building is voluntarily demolished; that the concern is the property owner is not protected if the building is destroyed by natural disaster. Attorney Fournier stated that the concern can be addressed; that latitude is available in the Encroachment Agreement to include additional language to protect the owner. Mr. Hoglund stated that the encroachments permitted by the Encroachment Agreement, if approved, are: 1) an architectural projection and canopy encroaching into the Main Street right-of- way above grade, 2) a pedestrian walkway and construction of the structure over the mid block alley between Main Street and Ringling Boulevard, and 3) building footers below ground in the Ringling Boulevard, Main Street and mid block alley rights-of- way. Mr. Hoglund continued that the project is taking place between the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the implementation of the City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code); that some features are seen in the Encroachment Agreement BOOK 54 Page 25378 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25379 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. which are consistent with the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the importance of the value of mixed-use projects such as the Courthouse Centre Project is emphasized; that the Courthouse Centre Project includes 19 housing units on the upper level, commercial space, a restaurant, and a bank; that the Courthouse Centre Project was reviewed under the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District regulations and is well below the maximum density allowed. Mr. Hoglund referred to architectural drawings of the Courthouse Centre right-of-way encroachment displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that Exhibit A to the Encroachment Agreement indicates the Washington Boulevard and Main Street encroachment; that the northern facade of the Courthouse Centre Project building includes two elements which extend into the Main Street right-of-way and provide a sense of three dimensions on the surface of the building; that the first element is a metal canopy above the main entrance to the lobby of the building, approximately 43 feet west of South Washington Boulevard; that the underside of the canopy is approximately 16 feet above grade; that the second element extending into the right-of-way is an architectural projecting feature between the upper surface of the metal canopy and a point approximately 16 feet below the parapet; that the project is approximately 37 feet wide and extends approximately 3 feet into the Main Street right-of-way; that other options for construction exist but are expensive and not realistic for the type of development desired in the Downtown. Mr. Hoglund referred to Exhibit C of the Encroachment Agreement, Building Footers; and stated that the architectural drawing indicates the location of the footers; that the underground encroachment depth of the building footers will be approximately two feet below the slab; that the furthest the footers extend into the right-of-way is approximately three feet; that the footers are located intermittently rather than around the entire base of the building; that the structural engineer is available in the Chambers for questions if desired. Mr. Hoglund referred to Exhibit B of the Encroachment Agreement indicating the building over the mid-block alley and the second level pedestrian crossing; and stated that the first encroachment span over the alley is a 10 foot wide pedestrian crossing between the parking area and the elevator lobby on the second level of the structure; that the bottom of the pedestrian crossing is approximately 15 feet 4 inches above grade and located approximately 14 feet west of South Washington Boulevard; that the entire building spans the public alley from the third level upward for approximately 176 feet west of South Washington Boulevard; that the building is designed to provide four levels of parking which span the alley; that certain dimensions are necessary to provide adequate parking; that the dimensions of the upper levels spanning the alley are fundamental to the design of the building; that the Encroachment Agreement includes a stipulation requiring a minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet above grade be maintained for the entire length of the alley sO any large truck or emergency vehicle can use the alley; that the alley will also be improved in the future; that the serviceability of the alley will continue as currently exists. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the encroachments will affect the visibility triangle of the traffic? Mr. Hoglund stated that the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the situation; that the building is actually indented and will not affect the visibility triangle. Joel Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Group, Inc., and Todd Sweet, Architect, SMRT Architects, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman referred to an architectural drawing of the building displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the building is exquisite for the site; that the Developer informed the architect team a boring box shaped building maximizing the site was not desired; that a mural is displayed on the Crisp Building on Main Street which is an historic structure; that a plaza will exist between the Crisp Building and the proposed building which will become a wonderful focal point for Main Street. Mr. Sweet referred to the architectural drawing of the building and stated that the building is a modern design; that an attempt was made in designing the building to respect other buildings along Main Street which is the reason for the plaza between the existing Crisp Building and the proposed building; that the plaza will be approximately 50 feet wide by 80 feet; that a buffer between buildings and also a gathering place on Main Street have been provided; that the building is aesthetically pleasing for the area; that the encroachment on Main Street is part of the floor slab which extends beyond four feet and provides shelter for pedestrians walking along Main Street; that BOOK 54 Page 25380 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25381 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. the encroachment on Main Street is no different than an awning; that the encroachment is a permanent structure; that the alley will become part of the pedestrian circulation of the entire area and will be aesthetically pleasing. Mayor Palmer asked the width of the sidewalk in front of the encroachment on Main Street? Mr. Freedman stated the width of the sidewalk is approximately 17 feet which complies with the guidelines of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Atkins stated that the building is not designed to fit into the existing property lines and asked the reason for constructing a building with a design which is not correct for the site? Mr. Freedman stated that the adopted Downtown Master Plan 2020 encourages the creation of arcades over the sidewalk; that the theory of Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, is to extend buildings to the edge of the pavement sO space is created above the sidewalks, which is the incentive for developers to push buildings to the sidewalk edge and which creates canopies to protect pedestrian walkways along the sidewalk. Mr. Sweet stated that the design of the building is correct for the site and is in accordance with the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the goal is to encourage pedestrian friendly streets; that buildings should provide shelter for people; that no financial gain is being received from the encroachment; that the encroachment will likely cost more to build and will not provide additional economic benefit to the owner of the project; that the indication buildings should be within property lines does not apply to a main street corridor or in areas in which pedestrian traffic is high. Mr. Hoglund stated that a slightly different reason exists for each encroachment; that the canopy structure encroachment on Main Street is considered an amenity to the building; that the footers are a feature of the building structure which is common if buildings are placed on the property line as advocated by the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the project has 70 spaces of public parking; that the space above alleys becomes an important resource if the goal is to have camouflaged parking at buildings; that the alley is a resource which should be used as long as the intended purpose of the alley is met. Attorney Fournier stated that the City Engineer requested the number of footers and the exact location be specified sO the City would be aware of the exact infringement into the public rights-of-way; that the intent was not to write an agreement in such a manner a building could be destroyed and the property owner would assume another building with existing or new encroachments could be constructed since an encroachment agreement was previously in place. Mayor Palmer stated that the owner of the building should be required to come back before the Commission with a new Encroachment Agreement if the footprint of the building changes; that reconstruction of the same building should not require a new Encroachment Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that language can be added to the Encroachment Agreement indicating if the footprint of the building changes the owner of the building would be required to come back before the Commission with a new Encroachment Agreement if the Commission desires; that the particular encroachments allowed in the Encroachment Agreement would be permitted if the building was destroyed in an involuntary manner such as by natural disaster. Commissioner Servian stated that coming back before the Commission with a new encroachment agreement would not be necessary as long as the building is reconstructed in the same footprint with the same encroachments as the original building. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, additional language should be included in the Encroachment Agreement indicating a new Encroachment Agreement is not necessary as long as the building is reconstructed in the same footprint with the same encroachments as the original building. Mayor Palmer referred to an April 21, 2003, letter from Michael Furen, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., regarding the Courthouse Centre Project which raises a concern about locating residential units near a client's restaurant, bar, and nightclub operation; and asked for clarification of the concerns raised regarding noise. Attorney Fournier stated that the owners of the Margarita Maggie's nightclub presently occupying the Charles Ringling BOOK 54 Page 25382 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25383 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Building have concern regarding the Courthouse Centre Project; that the concern relates to the 19 residential condominium units proposed for the upper levels of the Courthouse Centre building and the impact the injection of the residential uses in the area will have upon adjacent restaurant, bar, and nightclub operations under the City's noise regulations of Chapter 20, Sound Regulations, City Code (1986 as amended); that as a matter of operational necessity, Margarita Maggie's must remove daily garbage, trash, and waste consisting of beer bottles, beer cans, and liquor bottles in dumpsters or garbage receptacles adjacent to the facility after 2:00 a.m. Attorney Fournier quoted Section 20-4(a) (2) (f), Loading and unloading, City Code, as follows: Loading and unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, equipment, building materials, garbage cans or similar objects in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. on weekends and holidays in or within 50 yards of any residential real property line or noise sensitive area Attorney Fournier further stated that Section 20-4(a) (2) (f), City Code, does not prohibit trash being placed in the dumpster but rather indicates trash cannot be placed in the dumpster in a manner as to offend a reasonable person of normal sensibilities; that Section 20-4 (a) (2) (f), City Code, probably does not require amending if construed and enforced properly; however, the apprehension is understood; that the owners of the Margarita Maggie's nightclub are attempting to avoid the possibility of future complaints. Mayor Palmer stated that the issue could be applicable in other areas of the Downtown as the area is developed; that consensus for the City Attorney's Office to review the issue and come back with a recommendation is requested. Commissioner Servian and Vice Mayor Martin agreed. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the concern raised regarding noise is referred to the City Attorney's Office to bring back a recommendation. Mr. Hoglund stated that a considerable amount of glass is included in the Margarita Maggie's trash and causes noise. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve the proposed Encroachment Agreement with the addition of language regarding the ability to reconstruct in the same footprint with the same encroachments and to authorize execution by the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk. Commissioner Servian stated that the building is incredibly creative; that the building is beautiful and provides a wonderful way to get arcades on the sidewalk; that the creative use of the air rights over the alley is marvelous. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the building is sweet. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the architects have performed an exemplary job; that the building will be a wonderful addition to the Downtown. Mayor Palmer stated that the building is an example which should be followed in the Downtown; that the efforts of everyone involved are appreciated. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yesi Atkins yesi Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 23. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE : AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RITZ-CARLTON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE SCHEDULING OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT - AUTHORIZED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RITZ -CARLTON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE INCLUSION OF LANGUAGE RELATED TO CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND TO AUTHORIZE SCHEDULING OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (AGENDA ITEM XIII-4) CD 9:27 through 9:34 Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission is requested to BOOK 54 Page 25384 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25385 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. authorize the City Attorney's Office to proceed with the preparation of the proposed amendment to the existing Ritz- Carlton Development Agreement (Development Agreement); that the Development Agreement is between the City and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and was executed in February 1999; that the amendment has not yet been drafted; that the authority to draft the amendment is being requested at this time; that the amendment will require two public hearings. Attorney Fournier continued that the rezoning was approved in the fall of 1998 conditional upon the execution of the Development Agreement; that in February 2000, one year after the execution of the Development Agreement which required the construction of the improvements to the transportation infrastructure in the area, the Commission sitting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) contracted for the preparation of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) which was adopted in 2001; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 made several specific recommendations regarding improvements to the transportation system in the Downtown including the installation of roundabouts at the intersections of US 41 and Fruitville Road and US 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue, which were two of the intersections requiring improvement under the terms of the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier further stated that in the spring of 2002, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Kimley-Horn and Associates made arrangements for preparation of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study; that the study is to identify measures which the FDOT, the City, and private developers can undertake to alter and enhance the Downtown area's transportation network as necessary to support the implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the anticipation is the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study will consider the recommendations in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and provide information as to which improvements are more easily implemented or more problematic to implement and the reasoning behind the recommendations; that the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study will also provide data and analysis for the City to utilize if a determination is made to modify regulations applicable within the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA); that the Ritz-Carlton Hotel is in the TCEA but did not receive the benefit of any relaxed concurrency standards of the TCEA; that the results of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study are expected during the summer of 2003; that debate will ensue regarding which recommendations will be adopted; that the Commission will ultimately act to implement policy; that the recommendations of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study and improvements required under the Development Agreement could conflict which is the reason for the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated further that an example is additional turn lanes should not be added if ultimately roundabouts will be constructed at the intersections of US 41 and Fruitville Road and US 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue; that the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement is to delay the time for construction for the improvements under the Development Agreement; that improvements required by the Development Agreement to be under actual construction by September 2003 could be delayed consistent with State law until November 2004 since the Ritz- Carlton Hotel actually received a certificate of occupancy in November 2001 and not September 2000 as projected in the Development Agreement. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to extend the meeting to complete the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yesi Atkins yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. Attorney Fournier stated that the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement will not change the obligations of either party under the Development Agreement; that only the dates are being changed; that the City is not releasing the Developer from any obligations under the Development Agreement; that at the time the recommendations of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study are available and the Commission has acted to adopt the recommendations, the City will meet with the Developer to determine if the improvements required under the terms of the Development Agreement are still desired by the City; that alternatively, the City might consider cash contributions from the Developer; that the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement indicates a report would be brought back to the Commission in March or April 2004. Mayor Palmer referred to the April 10, 2003, memorandum from Attorney Fournier to the Commission included in the Agenda Backup material regarding the Proposed Amendment to the Ritz- Carlton Development Agreement; and stated that Item Nos. 3 and 4, Section III, Summary of Proposed Amendments to Ritz-Carlton Development Agreement references only changes due to the results of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study; that reference should BOOK 54 Page 25386 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25387 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. instead be made to changes due to implementation decisions of the Commission. Attorney Fournier stated that the additional language will be included. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to authorize the City Attorney's Office to proceed with preparation of the proposed amendment to the Ritz-Carlton Development Agreement with the inclusion of language related to changes in transportation improvements required by implementation decisions of the Commission and to authorize scheduling of two public hearings to consider the proposed amendment. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Atkins yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 24. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND OVERSIGHT = REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND OVERSIGHT (AGENDA ITEM XIII-1) CD 9:34 through 9:44 Vice Mayor Martin stated that consensus is requested to direct the Administration to assess and address environmental policy and oversight in a timely and more complete manner; that environmental policy and oversight as well as several concerns have been raised with the City Manager; that the City Manager was understanding but requested the Commission's consensus regarding the issue. Vice Mayor Martin continued that at the Commission's last goal setting workshop, an environmental summit to suggest issues, concerns, and policies was suggested; that the environmental summit never occurred; that the Commission addresses some environmental issues; that the concern is the issues which are addressed are not well coordinated; that the Planning Department recently recommended removing some environmental standards from the City's regulations; that Staff indicated removal of the standards is due to the lack of Staff expertise; that Planning Staff also indicated a consultant should be hired to create appropriate standards which would be enforceable; that hiring additional knowledgeable Staff would be necessary to enforce regulations once created. Vice Mayor Martin further stated that purportedly, an Integrated Pest Management policy exists to use the least toxic method of maintaining the City's parklands; that postings indicating the lawn was just treated with pesticides were seen while visiting Island Park; that the lawn is treated with pesticides and fungicides on a regular basis under contract; that Island Park is mainly used by children; that alternatives to using pesticides and fungicides exist; that he is a judge for the County Conservation awards; that an award was just presented to a local company by the name of Florcam which makes time released fertilizers and biological controls other than pesticides and fungicides; that the City does not have solidified policies; that many issues relating to environmental policy slip by the Commission. Vice Mayor Martin stated further that that he is on the Policy Committee for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program; that extraordinary progress has been made over the last ten years, primarily due to not dumping directly into Whitaker Bayou; that further improvements to the Sarasota Bay are becoming difficult due to non-point pollution; that non-point pollution is simply chemical fertilizer and pesticide runoff; that the Commission must address the environmental issues; that many years ago, the County voters approved recycling of trash; however, the City balked and did not implement recycling of trash until several years later; that the City has been behind the times concerning environmental issues throughout his tenure with the City; that the City must come up to date; that the City has a Tree Protection Ordinance which has been languishing for ten years; that the City has brownfields such as the urbaculture site; that the necessity for a Barrier Island Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), has been questioned; that the City is not addressing environmental sensitivity; that City voters along with County voters approved the environmentally sensitive land tax; that City taxpayers paid over $4 million into the plan for environmentally sensitive lands; that an inventory to identify environmentally sensitive lands in the City has never taken place; that the City has a recycling program; however, the recycling program is not monitored; that the latest information heard was compliance was under 30 percent; that the information is no longer reported. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a suggestion has been made for the City to address recycling technology for all future development; that Staff is not available and does not have the knowledge to assist with the suggestion; that the County is undertaking green BOOK 54 Page 25388 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25389 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. building initiatives and purchasing hybrid vehicles; that the issue concerns not only the environment; that economic savings can be realized as well; that the Florida Power and Light audit could have been conducted ten years ago; that the City could have already received the benefit of the payback; that a point person should be on Staff to address the issues raised; that the County has created an Office of Sustainability and holds meetings concerning the environment; that the City does not have a Staff person attending the meetings; that the County is examining the possibility of less toxic janitorial supplies; that the City is concerned about clean buildings; that identifying a Staff person as a liaison to the efforts being extended is necessary; that a working group has been established to consider the principles of Integrated Pest Management and is being coordinated through the County Cooperative Extension Office; that the Florida Yards and the County Cooperative Extension Service hold meetings; that the County Cooperative Extension Service is bringing down research from the University of Florida; that a significant amount of opportunity to become involved is available. Vice Mayor Martin continued that a County Conservation award was presented to the Venice Golf Course; that the Venice Golf Course has linked with the Audubon Society's standards; that the Golf Course is extraordinarily well managed; that the City has come a long way with the Bobby Jones Golf Course; however, a significant amount of additional improvement is necessary. Vice Mayor Martin further stated that consensus is requested to refer the issue to the Administration to bring back a recommendation to consider a task force, consultant, or Staff person; that the time is appropriate since the budget is being prepared. Mayor Palmer stated that the timing is also appropriate since the development of the Strategic Plan is underway. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the issue of an environmental policy and oversight is referred to the Administration for both budgetary and Strategic Plan consideration. Commissioner Servian stated that she recalls the issue raised during a goal setting workshop prior to her election; that an environmental summit was suggested which never occurred; that the concerns raised by Vice Mayor Martin are supported; that the efforts of the County are supported; that the City must make an effort to address environmental issues. 25. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM XIV) CD 9:43 through 9:46 COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that the Economic Summit held on April 16, 2003, was attended by over 200 people; that discussions occurred regarding opportunities of building businesses and industries in the City by purchasing products from one another rather than purchasing products from outside the City; that further discussions included technology and healthcare; that the Economic Summit received significant media attention; that a final report is anticipated. MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) made a recommendation to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for a $200,000 emergency allocation to increase advertising for the summer season of 2003; that several communities around the State are also increasing tourist allocation funds; that tourism, which is a vital part of the City's economy, has been decreasing consistently; that the City should stay competitive with other communities. B. referred to a Legislative Alert regarding the proposed elimination of the dedication of documentary stamp revenues to the Sadowski Affordable Housing Trust Funds which will be distributed by the City Auditor and Clerk; and stated that immediate action is requested to telephone the Capitol office of the House Conferees to voice opposition to the proposed legislation. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Resolution No. 03R-1606 opposing a portion of Governor Bush's proposed fiscal year (FY) 2003/04 budget was approved on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Palmer stated that the telephone calls are vitally important. BOOK 54 Page 25390 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25391 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Resolution No. 03R-1606 can be utilized as a piece of information to make the telephone calls. 26. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = ADMINISTRATION WILL: : 1) PROVIDE A REPORT CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AT THE EASTER PARADE AND 2) CONSIDER ELIMINATING THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY 2004 (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 9:46 through 10:04 COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that the Easter Parade was well attended; that some apprehension existed regarding the designated route; that the number of parade participants was less than in past parades; that the hope is more people will participate in the future; that keeping the parade within Newtown proper has signifiçant support; that people will have to define their ability and willingness to work to ensure the parade occurs at the location desired by the community; that a report regarding the amount of overtime the Sarasota County Sheriff Deputies and the Sarasota Police Officers received, the reason for the significant amount of law entorcement at the parade, and who paid for the law enforcement at the parade is desired; that he has never witnessed sO much law enforcement at a parade before; that the recollection is a few weeks ago he heard complaints regarding a lack of funding to pay for law enforcement at the parade; that the amount of law enforcement at the parade seemed to indicate every police officer was present; that even the law enforcement mounties patrolled Orange Avenue Park; that a reason for the law enforcement mounties is unknown; that several complaints indicating the parade was over controlled and over policed were received; that the process to determine the amount of law enforcement necessary at such an event should be evaluated. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that a committee met regularly for approximately six months prior to the parade; that the committee included representatives from the Sarasota County Sheriff's Department, the Sarasota Police Department, and the organizers of the event; that who determined the final number of law entorcement officers necessary for the event is unknown; however, the information and the cost of the services can be provided. Commissioner Atkins stated that the amount of law enforcement was intrusive; that control over the event began the day before the event; that the locations at which someone could or could not set up for the parade became an issue; that some law enforcement officers had credence and some were slightly oppressive; that the people responsible for implementing the event should have been more sensitive. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that a report will be provided. VICE MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that a previous suggestion was to hold the Commissioner meeting afternoon session from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.; however, the time was not possible for a former Commissioner; that the Commission should consider changing the afternoon session to 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. to allow a longer break time before the Commission meeting evening session. Mayor Palmer asked the wishes of the Commission concerning changing the time for the Commission meeting afternoon session to 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.? Commissioner Atkins stated that redefining his schedule at his daytime employment would be necessary. Mayor Palmer stated that Commissioner Atkins could determine if the time change would be acceptable and advise the Commission at a later date. B. stated that previous discussions have occurred regarding meeting only once during one of the summer months; that the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) does not meet during the month of August; that eliminating the second meeting in July 2003 is preferable to eliminating the second meeting in August 2003; that the intent of the suggestion is to accommodate people with children or spouses who work in schools; that a family vacation could be better planned during the month of July; that eliminating the second meeting in August would not accommodate such a purpose. BOOK 54 Page 25392 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25393 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is the Administration was planning to cancel the second meeting in August 2003; and asked if Staff and boards such as the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) are currently aware of the elimination of the second meeting in August 2003. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated yes; that eliminating the second meeting in July 2003 is not feasible with the current pending projects and schedules of the different boards. Mayor Palmer asked if the Administration will consider eliminating the second meeting for July 2004? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated yes. Mayor Palmer stated that a week of budget hearings are usually scheduled in July; that eliminating the second meeting in July 2004 would be nice. C. stated that Advisory Board vacancies were recently advertised in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that the Commission has proactively recruited good candidates for some of the positions in the past; that the new Commissioners are encouraged to continue the proactive approach. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that during the February 18, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, Martin Rappaport, Chair, St. Armands Special Neighborhood Improvement District, indicated the Ritz-Carlton Hotel provides transportation for guests to the International Shopping Plaza in Tampa, Florida; that the statement is incorrect; that the record should be corrected. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a letter was subsequently received from Mr. Rappaport indicating the statement was incorrect; that the information should be corrected for the record; therefore, for the record, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel does not charter a bus to transport guests to the International Shopping Plaza in Tampa, Florida, to shop and, in fact, offers free bus service for guests to and from St. Armands Circle and Lido Key. COMMISSIONER BILYEU: A. stated that the April 21, 2003, Regular Commission meeting evening session was very interesting; that noise in the Downtown area is a concern; that a noise contour guide which indicated airplane travel zones was provided to prospective buyers during the time he sold real estate; that a real estate agent was required to disclose whether or not a residence fell within the boundaries of the contour zones; that the State and the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport have purchased a significant number of properties within the contour zones; that the continuance of the noise contour guide is unknown; however, real estate agents should inform prospective buyers of condominiums in the Downtown area of potential noise in the area; that the Downtown area is an urban setting in which noise is inevitable; that the issue should be bought to the attention of the Board of Realtors. B. stated that the public meeting regarding the Payne Park Master Plan scheduled for 6:00 p.m. April 24, 2003, conflicts with the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association meeting scheduled at 7:00 p.m. the same evening; that the City requires neighborhood meetings be held for rezonings, land use changes, etc.; that letters informing the public of such changes are sent to residences within 500 feet of the proposed project; that letters informing the public regarding the Payne Park Master Plan are not being sent to neighboring residences since the City is initiating the project; that other instances have occurred, such as constructing sidewalks on Siesta Key, about which the public was not notified by mail; that the City and County have the ability to develop projects without proper notification to the public; that Wood Street near Two Lakes Park recently experienced a similar situation; that the City should notify the public within 500 feet of a City-initiated project since the City requires developers to do the same; that the newspaper is not a good venue in District 3 for advertising proposed projects; that direct mail is more effective; that the intent of the suggestion is not to create more work for Staff; that he was recentiy involved in a situation regarding City and County projects in which lack of communication was a concern. BOOK 54 Page 25394 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25395 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that a meeting was recently attended with representatives from the Sarasota County school system and the community to discuss options to save the historic Sarasota High School building; that several options are pending; that an active group in the community exists; that a process is being developed for large scale community involvement and input prior to making any final decision; that the hope is people in the community will come forward to contribute to a solution. B. stated that the second public hearing regarding the possible relocation of the County's administrative offices to the Arthur Andersen building near Interstate 75 is scheduled for the April 22, 2003, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting at the Robert L. Anderson Center in Venice, Florida; that a bus is reserved for individuals wishing to attend the meeting to support the retention of the County's administrative offices in the City; that the bus will depart from the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall parking area at 2:30 p.m.; that the hope is a significant number of people will attend; that a second meeting was recently held with the City Manager, the County Administrator, and BCC Chair Shannon Staub to discuss possibilities regarding the issue; that she is not at liberty to disclose details of the meetings; however, the meetings have been productive and constructive. C. stated that the hope is John Wilkes, Executive Director of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, will be involved in the discussions concerning the future of the Florida West Coast Symphony. D. stated that the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge will be opening in July or August 2003; that bringing forward a proposal for a grand opening celebration should not be delayed; that the hope is Patrick Malone, Project Manager, PCL Civil Constructors, will bring forward information regarding various activities involved in the grand opening; that the request is to place the issue on the Agenda of the May 5, 2003, Regular Commission meeting for discussion. E. stated that the following people are commended for their efforts in developing proposed Ordinance No. 02-4379 regarding the overnight parking of commercial vehicles: Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement; Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office; the PBLP; the Gulf Coast Builders' Exchange; the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) ; the Administration, and the citizens of the community. 27. OTHER ATIS/ABMNISPATVA OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XVI) CD 10:04 through 10:09 DEPUTY CITY MANAGER SCHNEIDER: A. stated that Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, will be in Tallahassee, Florida, on April 23, 2002, to testify at the hearing regarding the elimination of the dedication of the documentary stamp revenues to the Sadowski Affordable Housing Trust Funds. B. distributed information regarding a Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Workshop regarding affordable housing scheduled at 1:30 p.m., on April 22, 2003, prior to the second public hearing which concerns relocating the County's administrative offices; that the BCC requested the Workshop be scheduled prior to the Joint City/County Workshop; that the City Commissioners are welcomed to attend the BCC Workshop if desired. Mayor Palmer stated that the BCC Workshop is very important; that the Enterprise Zone and the County's possible waiver of impact fees in the Enterprise Zone will be discussed; that the BCC Workshop is open to the public. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is County Staff is evaluating ways to forward affordable housing initiatives; that City Staff should be making a similar effort by evaluating zoning, coding, and other issues related to affordable housing; that the City Commission should be prepared for the July 23, 2003, Joint City/County Workshop; that the hope is the City/County Workshop will result in answers and provide direction; that he and County BOOK 54 Page 25396 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25397 04/21/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Paul Mercier recently presented opening comments during the Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence (SCOPE) program's affordable housing implementation workshop; that the time to seize opportunities for affordable housing is the present. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the understanding is the BCC Workshop regarding affordable housing will be broad; that Staff will ensure a positive environment for affordable housing is created in the City. Mayor Palmer stated that the Joint City Planning Board/Local Planning Agency/County Planning Commission meeting was recently attended; that the understanding is another meeting will be scheduled in the near future to discuss certain issues such as affordable housing. C. stated that a ribbon cutting ceremony is scheduled at 10:00 a.m., April 25, 2003, for the Ken Thompson Park boat ramps. 28. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVII) CD 10:09 There being no further business, Mayor Palmer adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of April 21, 2003, at 10:09 p.m. LOU ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR ATTEST: % 1 3wllip - Ralen 4d2 BILLY ECReBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK