Book 35 Page 9491 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins and Mollie Cardamone, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner David Merrill PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES = APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0039) through (0052) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of June 21, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. BOARD ACTIONS - REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1993 -= AFFIRMED PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION NO. 93-SE-02; SET PETITION NO. 93-SV-02 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NOS. 93-3683, 93-3704, 93-3703, AND 93-3705 FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS; DIRECTED THE LEGAL STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND REQUIREMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS AND SET IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING; SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NOS. 93-3701 AND 93-3686 FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS; DIRECTED THE LEGAL STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT FOR OPEN-AIR DINING IN CSC-N, CSC-C, CSC-R, CN, CG, CT, CRT, COP AND CBN ZONE DISTRICTS AND RETURN PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW: ACCEPTED REPORT OF PLANNING BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1993; (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0053) through (0866) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, and Berta Lefkovich, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency, came before the Commission. Ms. Lefkovich presented the following items from the Planning Board's Regular Meeting of June 2, 1993: A. Petitions 93-SE-02, 93-SV-02, and PS&D Plan 93-B = A Special Exception to permit a church use in an RSF-3 zone district; and a Street Vacation of approximately 420 feet of Serena Street beginning at Bailey Lane and continuing west toward Beethoven Avenue; and Preliminary Site and Development, Plan 93-B (First Church of the Nazarene) Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found Petition 93-SE-02 and Preliminary Site and Development Plan 93-B consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and Ordinance No. 90-3422 (Tree Protection Ordinance) to include the reconfiguration of the retention area to save three oak trees near the north boundary and a good faith effort to save trees in the proposed grass parking area; that the Planning Board recommends approval of Petitions 93-SE-02 and 93-SV-02, and Preliminary Site and Development Plan 93-B with the stipulation that the petitioner grant the necessary utility easements; and that Staff consider, at the next Comprehensive Plan update, expanding the IMA (Impact Management Area) for OP (Office Park) use to include the property at the northeast corner of Lockwood Ridge and Fruitville Roads. Commissioner Atkins asked why the Planning Board recommended expanding the IMA in this area? Mr. Taylor stated that the land west of the subject site on the north side of Fruitville Road is partially within an IMA and part is not; that it was felt that it would be logical in the next update of the evaluation and appraisal process of the Comprehensive Plan, which will be undertaken in the next one to three years, to include that entire area, which is now vacant, in an IMA so that it might be considered for unified development as a nonresidential parcel. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to affirm the actions of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency for Petition 93-SE-02. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petition 93-SV-02 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this particular street vacation looks innocuous on face value; however, she is increasingly uneasy about the constant vacation of streets because it could come back to haunt the Commission in the future; that the Commission had asked at an earlier meeting whether the City could move toward a long-term lease where the taxpayers didn't ultimately give up Book 35 Page 9492 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9493 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. rights to streets and asked whether a lease would be possible in this instance? City Attorney Taylor stated that it was not possible in this instance because the City does not own the underlying fee; that the fee is owned by the abutting property owner and the City has an easement for road purposes. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the City could lease its easement for a specified number of years? Attorney Taylor stated that he did not think the City could do that because it would be inconsistent with what the property owner gave the City to begin with. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. B. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3683 = Code Amendment - Cluster Housing Subdivision Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found the amended (four amendments) Code amendment for Cluster Housing Subdivisions consistent with the Sarasota City Plan; that the amendments are as follows: 1. Section 8-6(2) to read: "the site and development plan shall designate public rights-of-way or private access ways of adequate width to afford a means of ingress and egress and provide for sufficient utility and emergency service to and from all lots in the cluster housing subdivision." 2. Section 8-6(3), third sentence to read: "For purposes of this paragraph, the term net acreage' shall mean the gross land acreage of the cluster housing subdivision, in square feet, less the total area of all public right-of-way or private access way areas and associated roadside utility easements required by paragraph (1) of this section. 3. Section 8-6(4), second sentence to change "gross acreage" to "net acreage. 4. Minimum lot requirements: second paragraph page 4, by deleting "The exterior side all on the side of a cluster home which is constructed with a zero setback shall not contain windows." Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommends adoption of the proposed amended Code amendment with the four amendments; that she voted No because she does not view the proposed Code amendment as cluster housing because it appears to her as single family residential. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3683 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3704 Code Amendment Landscaping Parking Lots (Expansion of existing buildings) Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found proposed Ordinance No. 93-3704 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends adoption; that Vice Chairman Annis voted No because he was uncomfortable with the hedgerow requirement, the possible conflict with CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principles, and the limited value for the expenditure. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3704 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. D. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3703 = Code Amendment = Repairs and maintenance of nonconforming uses which are not amortized Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3703 with the stipulation that the word "not" be deleted from the text in Section 1 and Section 9-10 of the amendment; and that the Planning Board finds proposed Ordinance No. 93-3703 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3703 for public hearing at the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. E. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3705 Code Amendment - Redefining OPB and OPB-1 zone districts as commercial rather than residential zone districts Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found proposed Ordinance No. 93-3705 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends adoption. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3705 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9494 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9495 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. F. Proposed Code Amendment Regarding notification of property owners and requirement for neighborhood workshops Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found the amended proposed amendment consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends adoption. Mr. Taylor stated that this proposed amendment does not have a number assigned to it because it has not been drafted in ordinance form yet; that the language that Staff has proposed could be used by the Office of the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to direct the Office of the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Board and set for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. G. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3701 Code Amendment Definitions of game room and floor area ratio Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found amended proposed Ordinance No. 93-3701 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends adoption with the following modifications: delete the word "gross" in the first sentence; the second sentence should read: "In order to calculate the floor area ratio, the sum of the total floor area of all floors is divided by the gross area of the lot for parcel upon which the building is located. > i delete the word "gross" after 12,000 square feet in the third sentence. Mr. Taylor stated that when the Commercial Business Newtown (CBN) zone district was prepared, the Planning Department opted to include these terms in the definitions section of the Zoning Code. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3701 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. H. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3686 Code Amendment Concurrency Evaluation, Change in Use Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found proposed Ordinance No. 93-3686 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends adoption. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission recently passed a similar ordinance for vacant buildings and this proposed ordinance would make it (concurrency evaluation) equitable and apply to all buildings. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3686 for public hearing. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like the Commission to have a general discussion on concurrency and what role it has played in the City's attempt to manage its growth at this public hearing. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. I. Proposed Code Amendment - Open-Air Dining in CSC-N, CSC-C, CSC-R, CN, CG, CT, CRT, AND COP Zone Districts Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommends that the City Commission authorize legal staff to draft an ordinance relative to this subject and direct that the ordinance be returned to the Planning Board for review. Commissioner Atkins stated that he would like CBN (Commercial Business Newtown) included in this ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Board had also asked that CBN be included for consideration. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to direct the legal staff to draft an ordinance and returned to the Planning Board for review. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the report of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meeting of June 2, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. BOARD ACTIONS = REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1993 = SET PETITIONS 93-HD-14, 93-HD-15, AND 93-HD-16 FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS; ACCEPTED REPORT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1993 (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0868) through (1300) Book 35 Page 9496 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9497 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, and William Merrill, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, and Pat Ball, Board Member, came before the Commission. Mr. Merrill presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's Regular Meeting of June 8, 1993: A. Petition 93-HD-14 - 1365 Fruitville Road B. Petition 93-HD-16 1296 First Street C. Petition 93-HD-15 3035 Bay Shore Road Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends Petitions 93-HD-14, 93-HD-16, and 93-HD-15 be approved for historic designation. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petitions 93-HD-14, 93-HD-16, and 93-HD-15 for public hearings. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. D. Demolition Report - - 1735 Fruitville Road Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends the Commission review the property at 1735 Fruitville Road because the Board has difficulty understanding why removal of a good contributing structure like this should be targeted for demolition; that the Board would like the Commission to review code enforcement regulations to prevent demolition of such housing. Mr. Ball stated that many nice little houses are being presented for City initiated demolition too frequently; that the City is losing good affordable housing stock; that recently the Storefront Workshop was held in Sarasota which was attended by people from Tallahassee; that some of the Tallahasseeans noticed that Sarasota has quite a few vacant lots where houses have been demolished and got the impression that Sarasota has open season on all its historic houses as far as demolition goes, particularly when the demolitions are City initiated. Mayor Pillot stated that he takes offense at people from Tallahassee, who probably have enough code enforcement to worry about, concerning themselves with Sarasota's code enforcement; that he feels the City of Sarasota has attempted to clean the City upi that he would like his feelings passed on to those individuals from Tallahassee if possible. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels the City is in a perpetual dilemma on properties because if the owners do not feel there are economic reasons why repair of the structures makes sense to bring them up to Code, the city does not have a choice other than demolition, unless the City wants to fund the difference; that if the owner is impoverished, the City can try to have a CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) loan granted to have repairs made. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she is not sure what the City can do in the case of an absentee landlord unless the Commission wants to make the legal investment to litigate trying to force renovation and: preservation of structures and she is not reassured that the City would win such litigation. Commissioner Atkins stated that he understands the dilemma for affordable housing and knows how badly it is needed, but when repairs are not made and code enforcement is not respected, the city has no other choice but to expect demolition. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission is interested in helping neighborhoods, but does not know what the City can do when someone will not abide by code enforcement. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Staff would discuss this issue to review demolition permit procedures. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the report of the Historic Preservation Board's meeting of June 8, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time the petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes; that he will time speakers and advise them when they have 1 minute remaining. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3714 AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PLACEMENT OF NEWSRACKS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY DELETING A REQUIREMENT THAT NEWSRACKS HAVE A UNIFORM DARK BROWN COLOR AND BY ENLARGING THE MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS OF A IEWSRACK; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITYI REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1330) through (2002) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed ordinance eliminates the color requirement in the current Code pertaining to newsracks, based on. . a court decision in the Southern Federal District Court; that the ordinance changes the height of newsracks Book 35 Page 9498 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9499 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. from 4 feet to 50 inches; that these changes correspond to the actions the Commission asked the Administration to provide; and that adoption of the proposed ordinance is recommended by the Administration. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. Janet Humphrys, 2850 Southeast Fin. Ct.. representing The Bradenton Herald, came before the Commission and stated that she signed up to preserve her right to speak in the event that there was a need for comment from the newspapers; that The Bradenton Herald would support the two amendments to the ordinance. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether The Bradenton - Herald asks anyone's permission when it is decided that the newspaper would like to place a newsrack on a piece of public land in the City of Sarasota? Ms. Humphrys stated that she cannot say what The Bradenton Herald's practice has been; however, typically, under the First Amendment (to the United States Constitution), streets, sidewalks, and public. parks are public forums in which speech of all kinds, including the placement of newsracks, is absolutely protected; that historically, newspapers did not request permission to place newsracks in public forums because no one thought about having to request permission; that as there has become more urban congestion, such permission has started to become an issue. J. W. Meshad, 1417 Kimlira Lane, came before the Commission and stated that he took a personal interest in the newsrack issue and corresponded with the City Attorney about what he calls the arrogance of the newspaper industry; that, in his opinion, the freedom of speech shroud the newspapers wrap themselves in is stale; that he feels the easy way is (for the City) to treat the newspapers like any for-profit institution; that the telephone company doesn't put telephone booths in the public right-of-way without asking permission; that newspapers ask no one (for permission), the newsracks just appeari that he thinks it is absurd; that he feels it is an absolute abomination to drive around the community and see 15 or 20 newsracks chained to Stop signs in right-of-ways by companies that make money. Mr. Meshad continued that he would like the Commission to include wording requiring newspapers to get permission to place newsracks on public right-or-ways; that he thinks it is time Sarasota took a stand and stated that newsracks do not belong in rights-of-way because they are dangerous, and it is difficult to maintain the right-of-ways with newsracks in the wayi that he believes the City has the right to regulate placement of newsracks. Commissioner Cardamone stated that overnight a Tampa Tribune newsrack appeared at the corner of Osprey Avenue and Prosper : Street and the worry of the resident of the neighborhood is th tomorrow there could be 15 there. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees with Mr. Meshad 100%; that her problem is that these (First Amendment) rights have, for the most part, been litigated and upheld; that she feels it seems reasonable that the 1 Commission limit the amount of resources committed to what appears to be an issue that doesn't seem totally winnable. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she had attempted to bring a regulation to the table to regulate the placement of newsracks on right-of-ways in residential neighborhoods; however, the City Attorney stated that this issue had been specifically litigated and that the City was not going to have much luck in winning the battle to regulate the placement (of newsracks) and the Commission would be limited in what could be regulated with regard to newsracks. city Attorney Taylor stated that the City started nine years ago (to attempt to regulate newsracks); that there is no question that this form of media expression is protected; that the precedents are legion; that tonight the City is here over a case that was decided one year ago in the Southern District of Florida which ruled unconstitutional a municipality's color regulation of newsracks. Mayor Pillot stated that he, too, agrees with Mr. Meshad's comments; that court rulings must be followed; however, he feels that the protection of the First Amendment does and should apply to what newspapers print and not how it is distributed; that the proliferation and ugliness of newsracks bothers him. Mr. Meshad stated that an analogy would be that it is improper and unconstitutional for the City to tell him what color his house can be, but the City can tell him how many houses can be put on an acre, how far the houses have to be set back, and whether houses can be put on a particular property or not; that he questions whether the "gravel man" of this whole thing has ever been examined; that he thinks the City has the right to say "You don't put newsracks there. 9 Mr. Meshad continued that he would offer his law firm to do the research free if the City wanted to find out if the newspapers can be prohibited entirely from the public right-of-way; that he feels if it is determined that it could be done, the City should regulate the placement of newsracks. Mayor Pillot stated that he is prepared to vote for the strongest ordinance (regulating newsracks) that can get past the relevant courts of competent jurisdiction. Johnny Nugent, no address given, came before the Commission and stated that a friend gave him an idea that the City might want to rent the newspapers space for their newsracks and Mr. Meshad might want to research this' possibility. There was no one else who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot Closed the public hearing. Book 35 Page 9500 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9501 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3714 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3714 on first reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is glad that all the newsracks will not be brown. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3719, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO ADOPT A MASTER PLAN FOR KEN THOMPSON PARK, AS SET FORTH HEREIN; RESTRICTING THE BOUNDARIES OF LEASEHOLDS WITHIN KEN THOMPSON PARK TO THE BOUNDARIES DEPICTED ON THE KEN THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2003) through (2091) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends proposed Ordinance No. 93-3719 adopting a master plan for Ken Thompson Park which can only be amended through the public hearing process. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3719 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3719 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3722, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, AS PETITIONED BY GARY HUDSON, FOR THE EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF SARASOTA, SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING APPROXIMATELY 125 FEET EAST OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S. TUTTLE AVENUE BETWEEN ARLINGTON STREET AND HILLVIEW STREET: SAID PARCEL ALSO KNOWN AS 1899 S. TUTTLE AVENUE; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCLUDE SAID REAL PROPERTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2092) through (2174) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this item regards the annexation of property. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this a voluntary annexation and the Administration's recommendation is to pass the proposed ordinance on first reading. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3722 by title only. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he recommends approval. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3722 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 = ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A-1, -2, -3, -4, AND -5) #1 (2175) through (2205) 1. Approval Re: Appointment of the City Manager or his designee to be the City's representative on the Myakka River Management Coordinating Council 2. Approval Re: Authorization to draft an Ordinance for Public Hearing repealing Chapter 26, Article IV of the Code of the City of Sarasota, Registration of Certain Employees 3. Approval Re: Authorize City Attorney to prepare and Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a second amendment to Gary B. Hoyt's agreement for Phase II (construction) design services at Exhibition Hall 4. Approval Re: St. Armands Municipal Parking Lot concept plan and authorize Administration to negotiate an amendment to the contract with Smally Wellford & Nalven to proceed with construction Book 35 Page 9502 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9503 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. 5. Approval Re: Application from Clinton Jones (1994 & 1948 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way) in connection with the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way Storefront Improvement Program On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 Items 1 through 5. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 = ITEMS 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 6 = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 - ADOPTED AS AMENDED (AGENDA ITEM III-B-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, AND -6) #1 (2206) through (2673) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Item 3 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 93R-660 and 93R-661 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 93-3711, 93-3712, and 93-3713 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-660, 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 the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-661, providing for the tentative award of a contract to Newberg Irrigation, Inc. for the construction of a Reclaimed Water Irrigation System on city owned property pursuant to the EPA Waste-water Construction Grants Program, subject to regulatory approval; providing for subsequent execution of the contract documents by the Mayor; etc. (Title Only): 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3711, providing for the designation of the structures located at 2445 Alameda Avenue, historically known as The McCall House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 93-HD-11, Mikki Hartig) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3712, providing for the designation of the structures located at 5030 Bay Shore Road, historically known as The Thoms Home, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 93-HD-12, Lorrie Muldowney & J. Whitcomb Rylee) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3713, providing for the designation of the structure located at 5050 Bay Shore Road, historically known as the Frank & Matilde Binz Residence, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasotaj etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 93-HD-13, Lorrie Muldowney & J. Whitcomb Rylee) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Items 1 through 6. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3667, amending the Zoning Code pertaining to the expiration of development permits; amending the duration of development plans and site and development plans when not accompânied by a rezoning petition; revising the duration of site and development plans or development plans accompanied by a conditional rezoning as set forth herein; setting forth findings as to intent and purpose; etc. (Title Only) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she wanted to discuss this item because the proposed ordinance was passed on first reading with a stipulation; that she had received a telephone call from a Staff member asking for clarification. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that a few people had spoken to the Commission (at first reading) in regard to petitions that had been passed for both rezoning and site and development plans prior to this new ordinance who said they would be shortchanged by this ordinance because they wouldn't have the same length of time or the same ability to petition for extensions as others. Vice Mayor Patterson stated further that the Commission felt it was justified and desirable to make a level playing field sO that everyone would have the total four-year extension with the same rights to come back and petition the Commission for a two-year extension as called for with this new ordinance; that the way this ordinance is written, it gives petitions previously approved four years and that is all. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she had requested Sarah Schenk, Assistant City Attorney, to prepare and distribute to the Commission a potential amendment so the Commission could clarify its intent when this ordinance passed on first reading with stipulations. Book 35 Page 9504 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9505 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. The proposed revised language to substitute for the third sentence in Section 6 (lines 10-17) is as follows: "In the case of a conditional rezoning accompanied by a preliminary site and development plan or development plan, the conditional rezoning shall be subject to the time limitations set forth in this ordinance." City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3667 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he recommends approval of this ordinance. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 93-3667 with the amendment provided by Attorney Schenk (listed above) in her memo dated July 2, 1993 (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk). Mayor Pillot requested the City Auditor and Clerk to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS (AGENDA ITEM V) #1 (2674) through (2675) There were no presentations. 10. CITIZENS' INPUT = ADMINISTRATION TO CONTACT O'LEARY'S ABOUT MAINTAINING RESTROOMS AT ISLAND PARK (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (2676) through (2875) Berta Lefkovich, 4805 Rilma Avenue, came before the Commission and stated that on the Fourth of July she had volunteered to work in one of the Coke booths for the Downtown Association at Island Park; that she had to use O'Leary's (Sarasota Sailing School) facilities and the port-a-potties looked good compared to what she found in the Ladies Room at O'Leary's; that the port-a-potties at least had toilet paper; that the Ladies Room was disgusting; that since O'Leary's leases the space from the city, it seems that it is the City's responsibility to make sure that the facilities are clean; that the restrooms (at O'Leary's) were closed later in the day because they were inoperable; that Island Park is used by tourists as well as residents and tourists would not get a favorable impression of Island Park regardless of the renovations that were done to the Bayfront. Ms. Lefkovich stated that it was impossible to continue to sell food and beverages when it became dark due to the lack of electricity on Island Park; that she feels the Downtown Association and other private food vendors lost quite a bit of money because evening was the busiest time. Ms. Lefkovich stated that she would like Code Enforcement to do something about the restrooms and require that the facilities be kept clean on an hourly basis the same as stores and restaurants are required to do; that the water fountain (at O'Leary's) is the only water fountain on Island Park and the Bayfront and it was gross. City Manager Sollenberger stated that part of the lease the City has with O'Leary's is that restrooms will be provided for the public and that the restrooms be maintained properly and he will communicate this failure to O'Leary's; that he believes the city acknowledges there is a need for lighting on Island Park; however, it is also acknowledged that the City has a need for some dollars and that is the counter balance on that issue. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -= APPROVAL RE: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FIRST SUNSET DEVELOPMENT INC. AND THE JOHN RINGLING CENTRE FOUNDATION, INC. PERTAINING TO THE CONTINGENCY OF DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES KNOWN AS THE "KARL BICKEL HOUSE" AND THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS' " - APPROVED THE (THREE-PARTY) AGREEMENT AS WRITTEN WITH THE SECOND DATE TO BE DECEMBER 31, 1994 (DEADLINE FOR $3 MILLION) (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (2877) through #2 (2242) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the three-party Agreement between the City, First Sunset Development, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as First Sunset) and the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Foundation) has been negotiated; that he has reviewed the Agreement with the City Attorney and he believes it achieves the objectives of the City and protects the City's interest; that it sets forth deadlines for the fund-raising; that the Foundation has requested and First Sunset and the City have agreed that the first deadline for obtaining the first $1 million be moved from December 1993 to June 30, 1994, in view of the fact that the process for the establishment of the zoning classification has taken a long time. Mr. Sollenberger continued that he feels that the second deadline of December 1994, by which $3 million is to be raised should be observed because he believes this date is one of the firm understandings the City Commission had when it approved the request for the zoning classification. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Agreement protects the City with either a letter of credit or an escrow available to assure that funds will be available to demolish the building in the event that the restoration efforts are not successful; that he recommends approval of the Agreement presented tonight by the City Attorney. Book 35 Page 9506 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9507 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked how much longer the negotiations had taken than contemplated? Mr. Sollenberger stated that originally it was believed that the (three-party), Agreement could be completed in 30 days and it has taken an additional 30 days. City Attorney Taylor stated that the (three-party) Agreement in front of the Commission is a takeoff on dates and milestones that are contained in the documents between First Sunset and the Foundation with certain exceptions; that the Foundation requested that a deadline be extended to June 30, 1994; that the Foundation also requested an additional deadline extension (June 30, 1995) which the city Manager has not endorsed; that the City needs to expressly state a specific date (by when the $3 million must be raised) . Attorney Taylor continued that two additional issues have come up; that when the escrow or security device is required from the Foundation, the Agreement has been written so that security would stay in place to fund the demolition up to the point that the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is granted for the renovation of the exterior and the first and second floors of the John Ringling Towers; that since the escrowed funds are essential funds for construction, the Foundation has asked that the City modify this position; that the Foundation feels the City ought to feel secure at the point in time that a building permit has been issued and the funds are certified to be in hand to do the construction work. Attorney Taylor continued that the Agreement (before the Commission tonight) does not represent the Foundation's position. Don Smally, President of the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc., Ms. Deborah Dart, Vice President, and Board Members M. R. (Rod) Macon and William Merrill came before the Commission. Mr. Merrill stated that the Foundation has concerns regarding the termination issue of the Foundation's guarantee of $300,000 for demolition; that the City Manager feels the security guarantee should be held until the last CO is issued on the first and second floors and the exterior; that the Foundation is concerned about tying up 10% of the money; that the Foundation wants to propose a possible solution that the guarantee could terminate after the following three events occur: 1) issuance of: a building permit 2) the Foundation entering into a binding contract for completion of all renovations to the first and second floors and the exterior, and 3) the Foundation having the money in hand, $3,000,000 or whatever the contract amount is, to complete the construction. Mr. Merrill stated that under this scenario, the money is there, the contract is let, and the Foundation is bound by the contract; that he feels the City would be in a very secure position; that he understands the City Manager's position in taking the most cautious and safest route of all; however, the Foundation would be in a position of having their money ($300,000) tied up and desperately need to have that money because it is going to be a difficult task to raise the money in, the first place. Mr. Merrill stated that, if the Commission agrees, a change would have to be made to paragraph 6 on page 11 to replace the last sentence as far as the conditions for termination of the letter of credit; that another section of this Agreement requires the Foundation to finish construction in 18 months of the letting of the contracti; therefore, it cannot drag on for several years. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Agreement does not specify $300,000 but that a letter of credit or bond be issued to cover whatever the various complex means are for establishing the price of demolition. Mr. Merrill stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the amount might be more than $300,000. Mr. Sollenberger stated that his approach is ultra conservative; that if the city lets go of the (security guarantee) leverage and the Foundation is unable to raise the monies, the city would have to place a lien on the building and up front the funds to demolish the building; however; that is not the wish of the Commission so he recommends the safest position that preserves the City's interests that the City is not going to be stuck with having to pay the cost of demolishing the structure. Mayor Pillot stated that a person or agency can enter into a binding contract and then determine not to follow through with the project; that presumably there would be certain penalties in a contract; that if his presumption is correct, the three conditions outlined by Mr. Merrill do not guarantee that the job will be done; that he suggests some kind of language be included as a fourth criterion that a certain percentage of the work has actually been completed; therefore, when the work has progressed to the point of up to 90%, then the Foundation would be released (from the Agreement) and the $300,000 would be available (for the Foundation) ); that he feels this fourth criterion would give the City a great deal of comfort if the work had progressed to this extent. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would be comfortable with the fourth criterion suggested by Mayor Pillot if the City Manager has the discretion to make a decision if the City has a discomfort level with the Foundation proving that it has progressed to where the Foundation says it has; that if the City Manager did not want to make such a decision, he could ask the Commission to make the decision. Book 35 Page 9508 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9509 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he would be willing to go along with the compromise solution that has been outlined by Mayor Pillot. Commissioner Atkins stated that he thinks the Commission has been tolerant with the Foundation and for the John Ringling Towers; that he barely wants to agree to (the extension of) June 30, 1994; that he does not want to see the language changed as it relates to the security of the demolition of this building. Mayor Pillot stated that he is not opposed to the renovation of the John Ringling Towers though he has been incorrectly thought to be (opposed); that he does not support an increase in density or public money being spent (for renovations); that he feels the proposed ordinance increases density and he will vote against the ordinance. Mr. Smally stated that the Foundation is a group of citizens trying to save the John Ringling Towers for the community; that they are asking the Commission to make it as easy as possible on the Foundation to accomplish its goal; that the Foundation reluctantly agreed to guarantee demolition after the Foundation takes title (to the John Ringling Towers); that regarding extending the dates by which the funds must be raised has become a serious problem; that the Foundation lost the (1993) "season" in Sarasota for fund-raising because people were asking what the City Commission was going to decide to do on this issue; that if the extensions are not granted, the next two "seasons" will be lost also. Mr. Smally continued that the Foundation has an application in to the State for $500,000 that will be reviewed this coming fall and then will go before the Legislature next spring. Mayor Pillot stated that it is his opinion that if people really want to financially support this project, they could have agreed to pledge "X" dollars when the Commission adopts the ordinance on second reading. Mr. Smally stated that fund-raising has to have a very positive approach and there can't be questions when major gifts are involved. Mr. Merrill stated that the Foundation will know the success of this project within a year or by the first fund-raising date and needs to have the ordinance adopted; therefore, the Foundation will drop its request to extend the date of the second deadline. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the Foundation could not borrow against the $300,000 to be held in escrow when the last few months of construction are being completed? Mr. Merrill stated that the problem is that the money will be encumbered by the City for demolition and a bank would not want to take second position behind the City. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has committed to the citizens of the community that there will be no risk to the City (regarding demolition costs). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels the Commission should give serious consideration to giving the Foundation a reasonable amount of time to accomplish its fund-raising. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Foundation met with her at the end of March and gave (fund-raising deadline) dates to her that the Foundation wanted at that time; that she had agreed to the dates presented and she feels that a deal is a deal. Mr. Smally stated that perhaps the Foundation had been overly optimistic and when things started to move forward, it was determined that some extra time was needed. Ms. Dart stated that when the Foundation met with Commissioner Cardamone, the Foundation did not have a letter of credit or three-party Agreement in front of them and had no idea that the Foundation would not only have to meet the demands and the dates that the owner of the property put forth, but would also have to meet the City's (requirements) as well. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels the final deadline of December 1994 is the date of most concern to some Commissioners; that the problem is that this is a three-party Agreement and the Agreement is what is binding First Sunset in exchange for the ordinance the Commission is passing. George A. Dietz, 1550 Ringling Boulevard, attorney representing First Sunset Development, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that he might have some minor disagreement with the City Manager's comment about the time that it has taken to negotiate various and sundry documents leading to the point we're at this evening; that a world of time has been spent on negotiating the three-party Agreement; that he does not feel anyone drug their feet on negotiations; that at this time, First Sunset is in full accord with the ordinance as proposed by the City, in full accord with an amendment to the short-term lease they have had with the Foundation for quite some time, in full accord with an amendment to the basic Agreement with the Foundation, and in full accord with the three-party Agreement; that he is ready to address any questions the Commission might have. Mayor Pillot asked whether he could assume that the City's demand for some assurance of demolition funds is not a major issue with First Sunset? Attorney Dietz stated that was correct. Mayor Pillot asked what First Sunset's position is with respect to time extensions if those dates were shortened? Attorney Dietz stated that he could only express his personal opinion and not First Book 35 Page 9510 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9511 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Sunset's opinion; that his opinion is that First Sunset feels the request for an extension from December 30, 1993 to June 30, 1994 is a good one because it would put the Foundation in a position of the best solicitation months of the year; that he can't say what First Sunset's position might be to shortening the time of the second extension (requested by the Foundation). Mr. Merrill stated that, in summary, the Foundation originally went to First Sunset and told them that the extensions were necessary because the Foundation feels two full seasons are needed to raise the necessary funds; that the Foundation would like a reasonable opportunity to raise the funds. Ms. Dart stated that the City and the Foundation have invested a great deal of time and effort for the John Ringling Towers and she would hate to see the investment thrown away for a six-month period of time which she feels is very conservative to make this project work. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he feels the Foundation has presented some cogent reasons for extending the final deadline date from December 1994 to June 1995 and it is a decision the Commission needs to make by weighing the value of the arguments presented; that he feels the Administration could bend on the security issue along the lines outlined by Mayor Pillot at the point that 90% construction has been completed; however, the hesitation he has is because it would not be as clean as waiting until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Vice Mayor Patterson moved to approve the three-party Agreement as written with two date changes as follows: that the first $1 million date being June 30, 1994 and the second date June 30, 1995. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the (three-party) Agreement as written with the second date to be December 31, 1994 (deadline for $3 million). Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: EXTENSION OF PERMITS FOR THE RINGLING COMMONS PROJECT AND SALES CENTER = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (2243) through (2918) city Attorney Taylor distributed a memorandum dated July 6, 1993 to the Commissioners (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the city Auditor and Clerk) because it was brought to his attention that there was virtually nothing included in support of this item when the agenda packages were distributed; that this afternoon he compiled a list of the different variances and permit approvals that have been given to the Ringling Commons project under the site and development plan referred to as 87-C. Attorney Taylor continued that most of items listed are variances that were given specific to the proposed use that had community housing for the elderly in it; that the three-party Agreement calls for a reconfigured project which requires that the Commission is to have a modified site plan before it within six months as well as a rezoning to get all of the site into the RMF-5 category, thereby increasing the size of the development as a unified development by the John Ringling Centre Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc. at some additional 3 acres over what had originally been part of the old site plan approvals. Attorney Taylor continued that there had not been much discussion about exactly what the permits are; that the permits are the building permit and the site and development plan approval and the things related to it that pertain to the old project under a category of use that doesn't exist in the Code anymore. George Dietz, 1550 Ringling Boulevard, attorney representing First Sunset Development, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that First Sunset is asking to continue the same (permit) extensions as had been extended before. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends granting (permit) extensions through June 30, 1994. Commissioner Cardamone stated that having just received Attorney Taylor's memorandum a few minutes ago, she would like more explanation as to what is needed from the Commission. Attorney Taylor stated that since February 1992 the City Commissions has been extending the building permit that pertains to the filed and approved site and development plan that calls for the community housing for the elderly units on this site as well as retroactively approving a long-standing temporary permit for a sales center; that the permits are going to expire in September and First Sunset is requesting renewal of the permits to have the permits coincide with the first (fund-raising) milestone under the three-party Agreement, which is June 30, 1994. Attorney Taylor continued that the action requested would be to approve the issued building permit and related approval pertaining to the Ringling Commons project until June 30, 1994. Attorney Dietz stated that First Sunset Development, Inc. has consistently been willing to discuss the efforts to preserve the John Ringling Towers and the Bickel House with the understanding that the Commission would preserve and protect the property rights that had accrued to First Sunset at the time the title had to be retaken to this propertyi that the Agreement with the John Ringling Centre Foundation is contingent upon the extension of the time of said approvals. Book 35 Page 9512 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9513 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that one of the events which requires demolition is the failure to approve these outstanding permits. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the recommendation (granting the permit extensions through June 30, 1994) of the Administration. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that with regard to the action the Commission took previously (Agenda Item VII-1), he should have been more alert to move an amendment to the motion because he is persuaded of the validity of Mr. Smally's (President of the John Ringling Centre Foundation) comments with reference to Sarasota's "season"; : that he does not have the right to move reconsideration because he voted on the losing side; however, Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioner would like to move to reconsider extending the December 1994 date to the first Friday following Easter of 1995; that he chooses that date only because it is generally considered to be the end of the "season" thereby granting the Foundation the second "season" needed for fund-raising? On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins), it was moved to reconsider the previous motion passing the three-party Agreement between the City of Sarasota, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her intent in making this motion is in order to extend the second fund-raising) deadline as Mayor Pillot suggested. Commissioner Atkins called for the vote on the motion. Motion failed (2 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Atkins passed the gavel back to Mayor Pillot. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3694, AMENDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS INCLUDING A HISTORIC HOTEL, AS SET FORTH HEREIN; SPECIFYING REGULATIONS AS TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE SAME PARCEL AS THE HISTORIC HOTEL AS AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC HOTEL; PROVIDING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF SAID INCENTIVE SHALL NOT CAUSE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE DENSITY WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED IF THE ENTIRE PARCEL WERE VACANT LAND; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (3111) through (3386) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3694 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 93-3694 on second reading. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Attorney George Dietz to come to the Commission table with the permission of the Mayor because she had a question regarding the memo that had passed back and forth between Attorney Dietz and City Attorney Taylor in order to clarify what permissions this proposed ordinance approves. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that everything in the ordinance is fairly clear except for paragraph 2A which defines the permissible number of units being determined as though the entire parcel were vacant; that what we have now is 282 total units with kitchens and 470 total units on 9.4 acres; that she feels in order to be perfectly clear, the words "without kitchens" should be stated with regard to the 470 total units. Attorney Dietz stated that he agreed. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that the remaining acreage is undefined and should probably state what 1.87 acres, if rezoned, could support. Attorney Dietz stated that it would be either 25 condominium units or 50 ACLF (Adult Congregate Living Facility) units. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the 50 ACLF units should be "without kitchens. Attorney Dietz agreed. Mayor Pillot stated that his reason for voting No is solely because of the language that says "The . . . permissible number of . units . shall be determined as though the entire parcel were vacant land . because the land is not vacant. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): : Atkins, yesi Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - REPORT RE: FUNDING SOURCES FOR VAN WEZEL ARCHITECTURAL, / ENGINEERING STUDY = VERBAL REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (3389) through #3 (0120) Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson and left the Commission Chambers at 8:55 p.m. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission had requested a report to be made at this meeting concerning potential funding sources pertaining to the architectural/engineering study for the Book 35 Page 9514 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9515 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall; that he had contacted Sarasota County and has not had a response; that he had also contacted the Van Wezel Foundation and the Foundation has indicated it would be willing to participate in the funding of the study; however, (the Foundation) has questions about the scope of the study, which the Administration is currently examining; that he does not feel there is a tremendous amount of urgency for this study; that the Commission will have the Van Wezel's budget presented in a few weeks and there is a good fund balance (in the Van Wezel budget) and there would be adèquate funding if the City wished to use some of the Van Wezel funding resources toward a study. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Commission could deal with the fund balance through a separate appropriation at the time the Commission has determined the amount of study it wishes to be undertaken as well as having more of a commitment from the (Van Wezel) Foundation and possibly from the County. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is puzzled that an engineering study is being suggested; that if enlargement of the Hall or the seating capacity of the Hall is what is requested, maybe an architect is what is needed; that she understands that the original architect who designed the Van Wezel could be asked for a preliminary opinion of what is accomplishable within the shell (of the Hall) for far less than the $55-75,000 that has been presented to conduct an engineering study. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration was pursuing some information with an architect who is providing some pro bono (publico) service which will help the City shape up exactly what should be looked at; that if the issue of the enlargement of the stagehouse for the Van Wezel is looked at in order to accommodate a production like Cats, the seating capacity needs to be reviewed in order to justify the expenditure on the stagehouse as well as the performance fees for such a production. Mayor Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:58 p.m. and Vice Mayor Patterson passed the gavel back to him. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would want the Commission to decide whether it desires enlarging the Van Wezel Hall before a major engineering study is conducted. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 8:59 p.m. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT TREE SELECTION AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO POSTPONE THE BIDDING OF THE PROJECT UNTIL SPRING 1994 = AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO (1) SEEK A CHANGE IN POSITION FROM FDOT ON PERMITTING OAK TREES IN NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL MEDIANS AND (2) TO POSTPONE THE BIDDING OF THE PROJECT UNTIL SPRING 1994 (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #3 (0123) through (1117) Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, and Joe Cooley, landscape architece/emiromental planner, came before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to: 1) authorize the Administration to seek a change in position from FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation, on permitting oak trees and 2) authorize the Administration to postpone the bidding of the project until spring 1994. Mr. Sollenberger stated further that originally Mr. Cooley had recommended oak trees until problems were encountered with FDOT; that at that time there was discussion about planting East Palatka Hollies instead of oak trees; however, the Administration wants to recommend that the City should make a strong effort with FDOT to plant oak trees. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:01 p.m. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration was recommending postponing this project until spring 1994 in order to avoid construction during the "season"; that there was strong reason to believe that the City may look at a substantial reduction in costs because the FDOT may not require removal of the existing curbs and this will be verified by the Administration. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what the Administration meant by approve the tree selection recommended by Joe Cooley"? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he would like the Commission to approve the original concept of oak trees and authorize and approve the Administration pursuing a change in policy from the FDOT to allow oaks (in the medians). Ms. Hay stated that the existing curbing is believed to be "E" type curb and was originally considered a mountable curb and anything planted must be 16 feet behind a mountable curb; that plants can be placed 4 feet behind a nonmountable curb; however, recently the FDOT is giving consideration to considering an E" curb to be in the same category as the "F" curb, which means the City would be able to plant 4 feet behind it instead of 16 feet and not have to replace the existing curb. Ms. Hay continued that this possibility has been verbal from the FDOT; that the FDOT expects to receive direction in writing which would be forwarded to Sarasota; and that the Engineering Department is verifying that the FDOT does consider the existing curb an "E" type of curb. Mr. Cooley stated that Gateway 2000 had presented to the Commission a (landscaping) concept to tie the new North Trail zone district together visually by using oak trees in the medians (on U.S. 41) along with flowering trees to accentuate the neighborhoods. Mr. Book 35 Page 9516 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9517 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Cooley continued that the plan called for 135 Live Oaks, 36 Orchid trees, and 18 tree-form Oleanders; that he had spoken to Gil Leacock, Director of Public Works, and Orchid trees were chosen from a maintenance and'safety aspect on Mr. Leacock's and his (Mr. Cooley's) recommendations; that the Orchid trees were also selected for the time of year they will be flowering, cold hardiness, height of canopies, brittleness, and visual character. Mr. Cooley stated that there is very strong emphasis these days to getting back to "livable" cities using streetscapes; that the federal government is getting involved in programs of replanting right-of-ways; that he feels the impact on the entrance to the City in 10 to 20 years from now by using canopy trees is worth the effort and fight; that the canopy will create a gateway, increase livability, and create shade. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the distance on center (planned) for the oaks? Mr. Cooley stated that he believes that the plan calls for 30 foot centers. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels that would be fine; that she asked because, from her perception, the oaks on the Bayfront are too close. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like to see this (median beautification) done as soon as possible if curbs don't have to be rebuilt; that she feels the Gateway 2000 people deserve to see something happen sooner than a year from next spring. Mr. Cooley stated that he feels the City should do this project right and the bidding process has to be done. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City is trying to get away from grass in medians because it is so expensive to maintain and (traffic) lanes have to be closed for safety purposes when people are mowing grass in medians. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a member of the Basin Board recently told her that the Board had reconsidered and is funding the City's reuse (water) line for the Bayfront. Mr. Sollenberger stated that was correct. Mr. Leacock stated that the North Trail medians are not in the reuse (water) system yet; that the Basin Board had denied the City's request for funding for this year; that funding would have constructed a portion of the reuse system to handle Island Park, the Civic Center, and Centennial Park; that the City was going to construct the reuse line with its own funds. Mr. Leacock continued that the project was then reintroduced (to the Basin Board) and was passed on the first vote and there will be a second vote in August; that if the second vote passes, the City will modify its reuse program to put funds into the construction project the next year or the year after depending on the City's ability to match the grants. Johnny Nugent, representing Normandy Inn, came before the Commission and asked whether the City is going to go back to Palatka Hollies without input from the public if the FDOT shoots down" this plan (to use oaks); that he is a member of Gateway 2000 and he likes the plan to use oaks and oaks are what Gateway 2000 sponsored. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he is concerned about using flowering trees because flowering trees can be killed during cold weather. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Mayor Pillot restated the Administration's recommendation to pursue the selection recommendation by Mr. Cooley and submit (the tree selection) to the FDOT, and to postpone the bidding until spring 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 16. NEW BUSINESS (AGENDA ITEM VIII) #3 (1118) through (1119) There was no New Business. 17. BOARD APPOINTMENTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) #3 (1119) through (1120) There were no Board Appointments. 18. REMARKS OF COMMIBSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO CONTACT THE FDOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER FDOT WILL APPROVE A SIMPLE PLAN FOR REROUTING U.S. 41 AWAY FROM THE BAYFRONT IN THE CITY AND MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION AT THE NEXT MEETING; DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ISSUE OF A TASK FORCE TO PURSUE THE BEST USE OF THE CITY'S POLICE RESOURCES; DIRECTED THE OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO HAVE AUDIT PRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COMMISSION AFTER DISTRIBUTING A COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPORT TO THE COMMISSION: RESCHEDULED THE BUDGET WORKSHOPS FOR JULY 20 THROUGH 22 FROM 3:00 TO 6:00 P.M. AND ON JULY 23 FROM 2:00 TO 4:00 P.M. WITH THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 23 TO BEGIN AT 4:00 P.M (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (1121) through (2569) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) decided at its last meeting to table the issue of moving U.S. 41 away from the Bayfront; that the MPO asked that the Book 35 Page 9518 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9519 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Commission clarify the request; that half of the MPO represents Manatee County and they are reluctant to vote for any change of designations that goes into Manatee County; that she would like the Commission to help her request City Staff and City Engineering to contact the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) to see whether there is a possibility of (FDOT) approving a simpler plan (for rerouting U.S.41) and then request the Administration to make a presentation to the Commission at the next meeting as to why taking U.S. 41 off the Bayfront is an issue so Commissioner Merrill and she can present to the MPO what the Commission wants. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct the Administration to do as Vice Mayor Patterson suggested. B. stated that she wanted to inquire about the task force of citizens that was supposed to be formed to look at utilization of City resources in the Police force; that she thought that some sort of recommendation would be presented to the Commission during the budgetary process; that the head of the Public Safety Department had asked whether the task force could be put off beçause, due to budgetary constraints, there may be some reorganization of the Police utilization. Mayor Pillot stated that he is not strongly concerned about a study; that he feels the Public Safety Director was wrong to ask a Commissioner directly because such a request should come through the City Manager and he finds fault with this because the City's Charter states that the City Commission shall conduct its business through the City Manager. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she disagrees and the Commission covered this at its goal-setting session. Mayor Pillot asked the City Manager to inform the Public Safety Director that he resents information of that importance being dealt through one Commissioner without the other Commissioners knowing what is going on. Vice Mayor Patterson asked when the Commission would like this task force to report or does the Commission want the task force to take place at all? Mayor Pillot stated that he does not care if the task force takes place at all. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supported the idea of a task force because she feels the Commission needs to find out why the City of Sarasota spends more money than any other city in the State of Florida, comparable to its size, on Police and Fire service that many citizens feel is not giving them what they are looking for in the way of protection; that she would have liked to have seen this under way and completed by this time. Mayor Pillot stated that he has never had a citizen make comments to him about the quality of the Police Department; that through his two campaigns he stressed public safety and receive quite an lot of support for that position. Mayor Pillot continued, that if there is such a task force, he feels the task force should be independent, unbiased professionals. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there was no intention of having this task force examine the quality of performance of . the Police Department; that the Police resources have been directed by the will and policy of this Commission; that it is the mandate of the Commission that she would like the task force to examine to target the (Police) resources; that it (the examination) would be a mutual education process with the public setting their priorities to which the Commission can listen; that the Police force can explain what resources there are and how they can be used to target the wishes of the public. Mayor Pillot stated that the survey that was done through the League of Cities of the cities comparable in size to Sarasota which showed the dollars spent per capita on police also showed that the salary of the City Commission in Sarasota is approximately 60% higher than the average salaries of the city commissions from those same cities; therefore, if the Commission thinks Sarasota is spending too much for police based on those data, then the Commission is spending too much on the Commission and should cut back the salaries of the Commissioners by 40%. Commissioner Atkins stated that perhaps this should be referred to the Administration so the Commission has some type of structure as it relates to formulating this task force. It was the consensus of the Commission to refer the issue of a task force to the City Manager to present a recommendation to the Commission as to how to pursue the best use of the City's police resources. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that he wiould like to ask the Commission to consider moving the budget hearings ahead one hour beçause he has a conflict later in the afternoon on Wednesdays and Fridays. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule the budget workshops for July 20 through 22 from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. and on Book 35 Page 9520 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9521 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. July 23 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. with the Special City Commission meeting of July 23 to begin at 4:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that the last couple of weeks she has attended two conferences in Sarasota, one was the Redevelopment Association Florida Main Street Conference; that she wanted to report that Orlando has done, a major amount of work in trying to solve a homeless problem; that she would like to recommend that the City Commission, along with the Downtown Association, look into what Orlando is calling a Coalition Campus, which is three acres of ground with a pavilion, a multi-purpose shelter, some transitional apartments, and a Cool School playground for children of homeless families; that the concept was interesting and intriguing and something the Commission might want to consider looking at by pulling some of the best features of the program out for evaluation. Mayor Pillot stated that he would like to have the information about what the potential is. Commissioner Cardamone stated that another program she had heard about at the conference was in Ybor City called the Urban Homesteading Program and Urban Pioneers; that it is the redevelopment of a downtown neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the other conference she attended was a one-day national conference in Sarasota on the subject of sustainability; that it was a lot of good information and provided a good opportunity to speak to people from around the country; that she learned the importance of learning to ask the right questions to get to the crux of things. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she would appreciate feedback from Commissioners when attending conferences also. B. stated that she had received and read a copy of the audit regarding the Risk Management Department; that she was surprised that the audit was presented only in written form; that she feels audits should be formally presented to the Commission, with the appropriate department allowed to reply at the next meeting or at the same time the audit is presented; that she feels that if an auditor works for the City, the Commission should look at the audits very carefully. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she supported Commissioner Cardamone's suggestion; that she thinks that would be appropriate. Commissioner Atkins stated that he agreed also. Mayor Pillot stated that he agreed as long as the Commission has the written report ahead of time. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to have audit presentations made to the Commission after distributing a copy of the written report to Commissioners. MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that he has asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to look into what the Commission needs to do, if the Commission should vote to do it, to amend the City's election process along the lines of what North Port has recently done so that any City Commissioner is elected by a majority; that he wanted to inform the Commission of this request and that he directed Mr. Robinson to be sure that any information provided to him should go at the same time to the other Commissioners. Mayor Pillot continued that shortly after the last election, the Herald-Tribune published an editorial, the essence of which was some tasks recommended for the City Commission and one of the suggested tasks was election by majority; that he intends to have this issue placed on a meeting agenda for action after Mr. Robinson distributes the information. City Attorney Taylor stated that a change in election procedure would require a Charter amendment. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has been making comments about having the At-Large seats run for a specific seat, such seat A or B. Commissioner Atkins stated that he wanted to remind the Commission that the Commission was designed by a federal judge so that it would be more possible that people outside of the majority group in this community could be elected and was a compromise from single-member districts; that he feels what is being suggested will impact the judge's decision; that he is going to resist these suggested changes with all vigor and will encourage the people who filed the law suit to do the same. Mayor Pillot stated that he understands that nothing could be changed without approval of a court of competent jurisdiction on this matter. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what the cost of an election is? Mr. Robinson stated that an election costs between $20-25,000. Mayor Pillot stated that the whole idea may turn out to be nonworkable; but he had been motivated by what he believed to be a good editorial; that if he has to say to the writers of the editorial and the public who read those writers, "Hey, we can't do it" at least he could tell them why it (the election process) can't be done and today he can't. Commissioner Cardamone stated that is exactly how she felt also. Book 35 Page 9522 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9523 07/06/93 6:00 P.M. 19. OTHER MATTERS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #3 (2570) through (2591) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that he wanted to inform the Commission that TV reception was lost again tonight and Storer Cable TV was here almost the entire time and finally got reception back; that Storer thinks they have discovered something in the line that could have been causing the trouble. 20. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII #3 (2596) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of July 6, 1993 was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. % L GENE M. PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: 0 7 illey E Rubenson BILLY ECROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK