MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT : Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Commissioners Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: David Sollenberger, City Manager, and Richard Taylor, City Attorney PRESIDING: Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Cardamone recognized David Mills, County Commissioner, who was present in the audience. Vice Mayor Pillot arrived at 6:05 p.m. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, JANUARY 1997, CAROLE A. FAVREAU, ASSISTANT GOLF COURSE MANAGER, BOBBY JONES GOLF COMPLEX #1 (0052) through (0160) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, requested that Ray Grady, Manager, and Carole Favreau, Assistant Golf Course Manager, Bobby Jones Golf Complex, come before the Commission. Mr. Grady stated that Ms. Favreau, who began employment with the City 6.5 years ago as a part-time Clerk Cashier and has been a permanent full-time employee for 5 years, is currently the Assistant Golf Course Manager at Bobby Jones Golf Complex; that Ms. Favreau is a superb public relations leader and a tireless and caring supervisor who effectively balances her friendships on the job with strong leadership and professionalism; that Ms. Favreau's outgoing personality and desire to do the best job possible have made many new friends and patrons for the Complex; that Ms. Favreau's dedication, excellent customer service, and promotion of the City of Sarasota's goals exemplifies an employee who serves with "Excellence and Pride. Mayor Cardamone presented Ms. Favreau with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the January 1997 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. BOOK 41 Page 14150 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14151 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Ms. Favreau stated that the Bobby Jones Golf Complex is definitely a service-oriented department; that the City's recognition of her hard work to make operations at the Complex a success is appreciated; that all the employees at the Complex are hardworking; and thanked Mr. Grady and Mr. Schneider for their support. 2. PRESENTATION RE: ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNCIL #1 (0160) through (0229) Mayor Cardamone stated that earlier in the school year the Student Council was re-established at Alta Vista Elementary School; that she was invited to perform an induction ceremony for the following Student Council officers and representatives: Officers: Brittany Jewell, President Kyann Brissette, Secretary Nicole Lyons, Treasurer Deva Amos Jason Jones Jennica Aranda Linda Kessell Joshua Cash Matt Lamotte Leanna Cheng Patience Miller Alexandria Davis Horace Scott Stacey Davis Katelyn Worthington Danny Jarrett Brett Wiechmann Mayor Cardamone requested that the Student Council members present in the audience and Jack Berg, Tiffany Davis, and Lisa Lampel, teachers who sponsor the Student Council, come forward. Mayor Cardamone recognized and presented the Student Council officers with a gavel engraved as follows: To the Student Council, Alta Vista Elementary School, from Mayor Cardamone and the City Commission, January 8, 1997 3. PRESENTATION RE: TOPICS OF INTEREST AND CURRENT EVENTS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA #1 (0230) through (0234) Mayor Cardamone stated that based on the length of the agenda for tonight's meeting, Vice Mayor Pillot has requested that this item be delayed until a future meeting. The City Commission recessed at 6:08 p.m. into the special session of the Community Redevelopment Agency and reconvened as the City Commission at 8:02 p.m. 4. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1997 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of February 3, 1997, are approved by unanimous consent. 5. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: ADVANCE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1997 - APPROVED OPTION 2 TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #2 (0000) through (0489) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and presented the following item from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of February 5, 1997: A. Time Table for Completing the Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) was presented the following four options for completing the update of the Comprehensive Plan, a/k/a Sarasota City Plan: Option I May 1998 Provides two series of workshops: one for transmittal and one for adoption. Option II January 1998 Provides one series of workshops with draft submitted to State for comment while workshops are conducted Option III November 1997 Defers optional Neighborhood and Economic Elements Option IV September 1997 Defers optional elements and the replacement of IMAs with alternative strategies Mr. Taylor stated that Options I and II reflect all the directives of the City Commission but differ in adoption dates due to the number of public workshops which will be held; that Option III eliminates and postpones the optional Neighborhood and Economic Development elements to a time uncertain in order to achieve an earlier adoption date; that Option IV eliminates and postpones the two optional elements and the option of replacing the Impact Management Areas (IMAs) with "land use Classifications," BOOK 41 Page 14152 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14153 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. "neighborhood wellness strategy,' I and "functional computability strategy" to a time uncertain in order to achieve an earlier adoption date. Mr. Taylor continued that the four options assume the following: 1. The city Commission is required to conduct transmittal stage public hearing(s) and adoption stage public hearing(s). However, the proposed schedules anticipate that the PBLP will conduct the public workshops and make a recommendation on transmittal and adoption to the city Commission. 2. The dates reflected within all options are approximate due to unknown status of City Commission schedules. 3. The Staff workload and priorities will not be significantly altered. 4. The geographic Information System (GIS) currently being developed by the City will be able to supply the maps required for the update in accordance with the established schedule. Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP recommends Option II and has committed to an intense schedule of workshops between September and December 1997; that the updated Plan recommended by the PBLP will be brought to the city Commission for adoption in January 1998; that the Commission should remain involved during the process, either by attending the PBLP workshops or holding joint meetings; however, Option II requires PBLP workshops, not Commission workshops; that the intent of the workshops is for public review and potential modification by the PBLP prior to formal adoption of the Plan by the Commission. Mr. Taylor referred to following highlights of Option II: 1. Incorporation of all Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based recommendations 2. Incorporation of all directives from the City Commission concerning optional elements and strategies 3. Compliance with appropriate State mandates 4. April 15 July 15, 1997 Planning Staff to conduct a series of workshops to obtain neighborhood comment on the Neighborhood Element prior to release of the entire Staff draft document 5. August 15, 1997 Release of entire Staff draft document 6. September 1, 1997 City Commission conduct transmittal stage public hearing on Staff draft. Staff draft document submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for comment 7. September 15, 1997 Conduct a series of PBLP-sponsored public workshops on Staff draft document 8. January 15 - 30, 1998 City Commission conducts adoption stage public hearing (s) . Adopted plan submitted to DCA for compliance review. Mayor Cardamone asked if individual neighborhood workshops will be held? Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff will conduct a series of workshops on subject matter, e.g., the Land Use, Neighborhood, and Transportation elements, rather than conducting individual neighborhood workshops; that the PBLP workshops will be scheduled between September 15 and December 15; that the formal process of adopting an updated Comprehensive Plan requires public hearings be held by the City Commission. Commissioner Patterson asked if the schedule under Option II contemplates an opportunity for City Commission input on items of concern prior to the public hearing stage? Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP will work through a series of problem-solving exercises with the public to resolve any conflicts or disputes on issues and recommend an updated Plan for adoption by the City Commission; that the Commission can hold as many adoption public hearings as desired to obtain input and consider changes, or hold joint workshops with the PBLP, as deemed appropriate, before adopting an updated Plan. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission should have an opportunity to receive public input and to refer elements of the Plan on which concern is raised back to the Administration for further review prior to adopting a Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission will have that opportunity during the public hearing stage; that Staff is hoping any changes will be minimal and the schedule can be maintained; however, the adoption process could be extended to accommodate any magnitude of changes desired by the Commission. Attorney Schenk stated that the State mandates adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan by January 1998. BOOK 41 Page 14154 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14155 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that consideration should be given to including an additional step in the schedule for a Commission workshop. Commissioner Patterson stated that a step for a Commission workshop should be included between Steps #7 and #8. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff anticipates exceeding the deadline for submittal; that DCA was contacted and indicated that submittal of a quality product is of greater concern than timely adoption of a product that simply meets the deadline; that no fines will be imposed; that the State Statutes provide for penalties; however, no penalties have ever been administered; that a letter to the DCA requesting a two-month extension beyond the six months normally permitted for the adoption of an updated Sarasota City Plan has been prepared for the Mayor's signature, pending approval. Attorney Schenk stated that petitioners who own property and have an expectation that an updated Comprehensive Plan will be accomplished by the deadline may have standing to file a challenge if the City substantially exceeds the deadline date. Commissioner Patterson stated that delaying the schedule further should be avoided; that the Commission workshop should be incorporated into the timetable established under Option II. Mr. Taylor stated that a Commission workshop can be incorporated between the September 15 to December 15, 1997, time period. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration recommends Commission approval of the Option II timetable for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve Option II with adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan scheduled in January 1998, incorporating a Commission workshop into the schedule. Commissioner Patterson asked if approval of the timetable includes approval of the work program contained in the Agenda material? Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission approved the work program on June 5, 1996, when the EAR was adopted. Commissioner Patterson asked if consideration of a concurrency exempt area for the Downtown and vicinity, as referenced in the work program, was a Commission directive? Mr. Taylor stated that implementation of the concurrency exempt area will require further action by the Commission; that inclusion of the item in the work program authorizes Staff to report back with information for Commission consideration. Commissioner Patterson stated that substantial Staff time should not be devoted to a concurrency exempt area for the Downtown; that traffic congestion in the Downtown has a limit; that concurrency, at times, is a positive restriction which requires participation in the cost for improvements when congestion is created. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1997 = DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO: 1) WORK WITH THE ADVISORY BOARD AND REPORT BACK REGARDING THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT WAY(S) TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE COLSON HOTEL, 2) DEVELOP AND PRESENT A MORE INNOVATIVE PLAN REGARDING THE COLSON HOTEL AND ROSEMARY COURT PROPERTIES AND 3) EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF THE COHEN WAY FACILITY (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #2 (0496) through (2653) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, and Roy Smith, Chairman of the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Smith provided an overview of the issues discussed and the priorities established by the Advisory Board over the past year; and stated that Cohen Way has been prioritized as the number one problem which inhibits redevelopment in the Rosemary District; that the Colson Hotel is another property which has been a disincentive to potential developers who have shown an interest in the District. Mr. Smith presented the following items from the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board's regular meeting of January 14, 1997: A. Cohen Way Mr. Smith stated that the Advisory Board unanimously recommends that the City Commission assist the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) with funds to provide needed cosmetic repairs to the Cohen Way complex by March 1997 to enhance the development opportunities in the Rosemary District and to provide better security for Cohen Way; that a priority list of suggested improvements, including the removal of walls and metal clothes BOOK 41 Page 14156 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14157 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. lines and the installation of concrete walk ways and new lighting, is included in the Agenda materials; that Board Member Jack Conway, who is also on the SHA Board, did not vote on the item but indicated the Advisory Board's proposal would be presented to the SHA Board for discussion. Mr. Smith continued that the condition of the Cohen Way facility has remained unchanged for years; that a positive change is necessary; that making the improvements suggested would significantly improve developers' perception of the Rosemary District. Mr. Hadsell stated that the Administration agrees that changes to the Cohen Way facility are necessary; however, unanimity to the suggested improvements was not gained during the meetings held with residents; that the majority of residents opposed the removal of the walls and the clothes lines; that removing the walls, although a positive step, will have a short-term impact on the Rosemary District and will not solve the problem at Cohen Way; that a more fundamental review of the facility by the City Commission, the SHA, and the Advisory Board is necessary to determine if the facility will remain as public housing or whether some other use for the property should be developed; that the Administration does not recommend investment of any funds until a policy decision is made regarding the future of the Cohen Way facility; that the SHA, who owns the facility, is not in a position to address the issue at this time. Commissioner Dupree asked if all the tenants at Cohen Way were opposed to the suggested improvements? Mr. Smith stated that the majority of the 24 tenants with whom he spoke during a volunteer clean-up day at Cohen Way last summer supported the removal of the wall. Commissioner Dupree asked if the SHA was approached regarding making improvements which would make the facility look less like public housing? Mayor Cardamone stated that the condition of Cohen Way has not remained constant but has continuously deteriorated over the years; that the impacts of Cohen Way on the City were explained and a request was made of Rhonda Pierce, when she was hired as the new Executive Director of the SHA, to make Cohen Way a priority in the renovation of the public housing properties; that Ms. Pierce assured her that the request would be taken into consideration; that the condition of Cohen Way is worse now than when the Ms. Pierce was hired. Mayor Cardamone asked the number of occupied units at Cohen Way? Mr. Hadsell stated that the facility has 72 units; however, the occupancy rate is not known. Mayor Cardamone stated that reports indicate a large vacancy rate exists at Cohen Way. Commissioner Patterson stated that the owner of a privately-owned apartment complex makes decisions regarding issues such as the removal of walls or Clothes lines not the tenants; that the SHA is responsible for maintaining good conditions for the tenants at the Cohen Way facility; that steps which may not receive the endorsement of the tenants will have to be taken to make the Cohen Way facility look less like public housing if the City decides to invest $600,000 to make the Rosemary District more inviting to private investment; that the rows of metal poles, most of which do not have clothes lines attached, identify the facility as public housing; that clothes lines are not permitted at private housing complexes; that she is not prepared to move forward on this issue until the City and the SHA can come to a mutually beneficial decision. Commissioner Dupree stated that public housing which does not look like public housing exists in other areas; that achieving an attractive facility at Cohen Way requires the consent of the SHA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Mr. Hadsell stated that Jacksonville HUD has confirmed that the SHA must be a participant in any discussions regarding renovations or alternatives pertaining to Cohen Way. Mayor Cardamone stated that the SHA should consider the following two alternatives: 1) remove Cohen Way from the property or 2) privatize the facility; that the SHA's financial problems are serious; that renovation funds are not available; that she is disgusted with the lack of participation by the SHA administration to implement changes recommended by the SHA Board; that making a City investment into Cohen Way will not be supported until discussions with the SHA Board are held regarding Federal funds received for the public housing properties. Mr. Smith stated that the lack of progress in the Rosemary District is frustrating to Board members; and requested Commission support to move forward in approaching the SHA Board. Commissioner Patterson stated that approaching the SHA regarding the Cohen Way facility should be delayed until the internal problems currently plaguing the SHA Board have been resolved. Commissioner Dupree stated that the consideration of investing City funds into Cohen Way should be delayed until alternatives can be discussed with the SHA Board; however, he is in favor of making the facility more attractive and less of a deterrent to potential development in the Rosemary District. BOOK 41 Page 14158 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14159 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board was established to make recommendations on issues which would enhance redevelopment in the District; that the Commission does not have authority over the Cohen Way facility; that an expenditure of $600,000 in funds should not be considered until the SHA Board's future plans for the Cohen Way facility are known; however, the Commission should be willing to support the Advisory Board appointed when priorities are presented. Commissioner Patterson stated that all the items recommended by the Board will require substantially more funding than has been budgeted. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the report and refer the items back to the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board to prioritize the use of City funds to maximize the redevelopment of the Rosemary District. Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Smith has not concluded the Board report. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Commission may want to consider a separate motion regarding the Advisory Board's recommendation regarding the Central Avenue Storefront Assistance Program. Commissioner Patterson, as maker of the motion, and Commissioner Merrill, as seconder, agreed to exclude item "C" of the Board report from the motion and to delay the Commission's vote on the motion until the remainder of the report is received. B. Rosemary Court and Colson Hotel Mr. Smith stated that the Board recommends that the Commission purchase the Rosemary Court and Colson Hotel properties to remove the blight created by the existing structures on the properties and to move forward with redevelopment of the Rosemary District. Mr. Smith continued that the results of a hearing before the Code Enforcement Special Master, which was held subsequent to the Advisory Board's January 14 meeting, may address the concerns with Rosemary Court; that the Colson Hotel property has been more of a deterrent than the Rosemary Court property; that a record of the numerous police responses, indicating the magnitude of criminal activity occurring at the Colson Hotel, was submitted to the Commission during a previous Board report; that resolving the problems at the Colson Hotel is vital to redevelopment in the Rosemary District. Mayor Cardamone asked if the funding budgeted can be used to demolish the Colson Hotel? Mr. Hadsell stated that General Fund dollars can be used by showing a public purpose; however utilizing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds is restricted for eligible activities which will benefit low or moderate income individuals; that purchasing the Colson Hotel may not satisfy the CDBG requirements; that the Advisory Board has reviewed acquisition of various properties; that the Administration recommends the Board review and prioritize the properties and work with Staff to develop innovative solutions to redevelop the properties without the need for City purchases; that, for example, financially assisting developers in redeveloping the identified problem properties would result in lower City investment and the ability to address more of the problem properties. Mr. Hadsell continued that the Administration has concurred with the Advisory Board's recommendation to refrain from marketing the City-owned properties in the Rosemary District pending completion of the land use plan for the District; that the Plan is near completion; therefore, the Administration has recommended the Advisory Board participate in the selection of a professional Realtor to sell the City-owned properties for new development in the Rosemary District. Mr. Smith stated that the Advisory Board supports the sale of City-owned properties in the Rosemary District except for the parcel located across from the Police Resource Center on Central Avenue; that completion of the land use plan is scheduled on the agenda for the next Advisory Board meeting. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he shares Advisory Board Member Bilyeu's frustration with the lack of progress being made, as reflected in minutes of the January 14 Advisory Board meeting; that the Advisory Board was established by the Commission and is performing the charge assigned; that the Administration's recommendation is sensible; however, the Commission should feel a responsibility to support the Advisory Board's priorities and recommendations when presented; that the Colson Hotel may be the Advisory Board's number one priority as the Commission lacks the authority necessary to address Cohen Way; that he is prepared to support the Advisory Board's recommendation for acquisition if Colson Hotel is considered the Board's number one priority. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Colson Hotel is the Board's number one priority? Mr. Smith stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that the proposal for the Colson Hotel is within the budget; however, a more innovative approach should be pursued; that the property is not worth $600,000; that the renters are entitled to receive a payment equal to forty-two times the difference between a comparable replacement dwelling BOOK 41 Page 14160 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14161 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. and what the renters currently pay for housing; therefore, the majority of the funds, in excess of $400,000, will be used to relocate individuals who have been nothing but problems for the City; that an alternative approach to accomplish the Advisory Board's goal is necessary. Commissioner Patterson asked if the same relocation payments would be required if a private developer is subsidized by the City to purchase one of the identified problem properties? Mr. Hadsell stated yes, if the tenants are displaced as a result of the use of CDBG funds. Commissioner Patterson asked if relocation payments would be an issue if non-Federal funds are used? Mr. Hadsell stated that the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District requires payment of the Federal relocation payments. Commissioner Patterson asked if relocation payments would be an issue if non-Federal funds other than TIF funds are used? Mr. Hadsell stated that the applicability of Federal relocation payments if funds other than TIF funds are used in the TIF District is being researched; that Staff supports review of the type of innovative alternatives referenced. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is also frustrated with the redevelopment efforts which have become circular; however, better strategies for utilization of the funds is necessary. Mayor Cardamone stated that she agrees the issues have become circular; that this is the third time the Commission has addressed the Colson Hotel property, a structure licensed as a hotel; and asked why the City will be required to relocate people who stay at a hotel and pay a daily rate? Mr. Hadsell stated that HUD reviewed the issue and considers the people staying at the Colson Hotel as permanent residents who, therefore, are entitled to receive relocation payments. Mayor Cardamone stated that the issue should be researched further. Commissioner Patterson asked if purchase of the property by a private entrepreneur who then raises the rent presents a problem? Mr. Hadsell stated no. Commissioner Patterson asked if a private entrepreneur who purchases the property, uses City funds to renovate the property, and then raises the rent presents a problem? Mr. Hadsell stated that he agrees innovative approaches should be pursued. Mayor Cardamone stated that General Funds could be used to purchase the property. Commissioner Patterson stated that the issue should be referred back to the Administration with the mandate that the Colson Hotel be viewed as a priority and an innovative plan be pursued. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot it was moved to amend the motion to request the Administration to work with Mr. Hadsell and the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board to determine the most effective and efficient way(s) to solve the problems with the Colson Hotel and to report back with a recommendation at the earliest possible time. Commissioner Patterson, as maker of the motion, and Commissioner Merrill, as seconder, agreed to substitute the original motion with the motion proposed by Vice Mayor Pillot. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Board has indicated the Cohen Way facility as it currently exists is a major disincentive to private investment and retains underutilized land in the Rosemary District; that poorly-run public housing facilities are the norm nationwide; that social problems result when people in the lowest income levels who possess fewer skills than other citizens are concentrated in one area; that the private sector would purchase and/or renovate properties, i.e., the Colson Hotel and Rosemary Court, if the stigma of public housing were eliminated; that the City should consider purchasing the Cohen Way facility; that the facility could be converted and a percentage of units reserved for residents below a certain income level; that the SHA could utilize the proceeds from the sale to establish alternative forms of public housing. Mayor Cardamone stated that the purchase of the Cohen Way facility could be an option discussed when the Commission meets with the SHA and the Advisory Board. Commissioner Patterson stated that the potential of the City's purchasing the Cohen Way facility was previously suggested to the City Manager with the objective of demolishing the building and relocating the tenants; and asked if relocation payments would be applicable under such a scenario? Mr. Hadsell stated that the relocation payments may not be required as the tenants already receive subsidized rents; however, the City could incur the expense of moving the BOOK 41 Page 14162 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14163 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. individuals; however, the Administration cannot move forward with HUD without participation by the SHA Board; that perhaps one of the SHA Commissioners could be requested to participate in discussions with the Jacksonville HUD representatives. Commissioner Patterson stated that proper address of the Cohen Way facility is the key to redevelopment in the Rosemary District; that providing an incentive, i.e., $50,000 of improvement funds, may encourage private investment which would result in the natural relocation of the occupants at the Colson Hotel; that the Commission is supportive of the items brought forth by the Advisory Board; however, the issues should be referred back to the Administration to recommend innovative approaches which will achieve the accomplishments desired. Mayor Cardamone stated that this is the third major discussion the Commission has had on the identified properties during the past year; that members on the Advisory Board and on the Commission are becoming impatient; that she has also suggested the purchase of the Cohen Way facility to the City Manager; that something must be done not only for the people who are living under deplorable conditions but also for the successful redevelopment of the Rosemary District; that the City has expended funds in the District; that recommendations and innovative approaches from the Administration are necessary to address the identified problem properties. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to include referring the Colson Hotel and Rosemary Court properties and the potential acquisition of the Cohen Way facility to the Administration to develop and present a more innovate plan to the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board and return to the City Commission for review. Commissioner Patterson stated that the intent is for the Administration to develop a more innovative approach than simply purchasing the properties the Advisory Board has identified as problem properties; that evaluating the potential acquisition of the Cohen Way facility cannot be expected within the next month, given the current state of the SHA; however, innovative approaches regarding the other properties could be developed and presented in the interim, which would allow the redevelopment efforts in the Rosemary District to move forward. Mayor Cardamone stated that she is supportive of marketing City- owned property in the Rosemary District. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Advisory Board voted 10 to 0 in favor of purchasing the Colson Hotel property; that Mr. Smith has stated the Colson Hotel is the Board's number one priority; that the Commission has to begin supporting the Board. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the amendment to include referring the Colson Hotel and Rosemary Court properties and the potential acquisition of the Cohen Way facility to the Administration to develop and present a more innovate plan to the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board and return to the City Commission for review. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the amended substitute motion as follows: 1) to request the Administration to work with Mr. Hadsell and the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board to determine the most effective and efficient way(s) to solve the problems with the Colson Hotel and to report back to the Commission with a recommendation at the earliest possible time and 2) to refer the Colson Hotel and Rosemary Court properties and the potential City purchase of the Cohen Way facility to the Administration to develop and present a more innovate plan for review by the Advisory Board and by the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. C. Central Avenue Storefront Program Mr. Smith stated that the Board recommends that the Commission modify the Central Avenue Storefront Assistance Program to include structures located along the east side of North Tamiami Trail between Fruitville Road and 10th Street. Mr. Smith continued that Joe Marconi, Principal, Nello's of Sarasota, Inc., presented his proposal to relocate the Nello's clothing store from the Sarasota Quay into the Rosemary District and requested Board support for modifying the Storefront Assistance Program to include the east side of North Tamiami Trail; that the Board was not aware the Program applied only to properties along or one block off of Central Avenue and supported expanding the Program to encourage other investors into the Rosemary District; that only two businesses along Central Avenue have taken advantage of the funds available. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Storefront Assistance Program was approved to specifically address properties on Central Avenue; that the Administration recommends that no changes be made in the Program at this time. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Mission Harbor property is located from 6th to 10th Streets; therefore, the area to which the expansion is requested is actually Fruitville Road to 6th Street, the western boundary of the Rosemary District; that the Advisory Board recommended the change unanimously. BOOK 41 Page 14164 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14165 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to include structures located along the east side of the North Tamiami Trail, between Fruitville Road and 10th Street, in the Central Avenue Storefront Assistance Program. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Davis Bacon Wage Rates and environmental rules requiring State review of buildings built prior to 1945 are referenced in a memorandum dated February 10, 1997, from Mr. Hadsell to the City Manager; that the project will have difficulty meeting applicable rules as construction has already commenced. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Marconi and his contributions to the community are respected; however, approval of an expansion in the Storefront Assistance Program as proposed cannot be supported; that the Program was established to provide a catalyst for renovations which would otherwise not occur; that a catalyst is not necessary along the area of North Tamiami Trail defined; that the area will be improved with the development of the Mission Harbor property. 7. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ADVISORY BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1997 = AUTHORIZED LETTER INFORMING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE NEED FOR BARRIER-FREE ACCESS TO ENTRANCES; APPROVED INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND BOARD MEMBERSHIP (AGENDA ITEM II-3) #2 (2682) through (3069) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, and Pamela Dorwarth, Chairman of the Citizens With Disabilities Advisory Board (CDA), came before the Commission. Ms. Dorwarth presented the following items from the Citizens With Disabilities Advisory Board's regular meeting of January 17, 1997: A. Accessibility to Financial Institutions Ms. Dorwarth stated that the CDA Board recommends that the Commission direct the Administration to forward a letter to Susan Scott, Area President, First Union Bank, informing her of the need for barrier-free access to entrances and to forward similar letters to all other area financial institutions. Ms. Dorwarth continued that citizens came before the CDA Board reporting difficulties the elderly and disabled have with the heavy entrance doors at the First Union Bank at 1201 South Tamiami Trail; that the Bank was approached and suggested a letter be drafted and sent to the president; that the CDA Board members support forwarding a letter to all financial institutions and offering the Board's assistance regarding compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the co-signature of the Mayor would be helpful. Ms. Dorwarth stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to authorize the Chairman of the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board to write and the Mayor to sign a letter informing financial institutions of the need for barrier- free access to entrances. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. B. Board Membership C. Board Meeting Schedule Ms. Dorwarth stated that positive changes on the CDA Board have occurred; that the Board has the desire, need, and obligation to become more proficient and as successful as possible; therefore, the Board recommends the Commission take the following actions: increase the membership of the Board from five to seven persons, trying to involve seven distinct categories identified by the Board increase the meeting schedule from every other month to every month. Ms. Dorwarth stated that the CDA Board is addressing two major projects: 1) Surveying the disabilities needs of the City of Sarasota, evaluating programs implemented, and considering improvements 2) Updating and developing a more accurate and concise Access Guide; that the Board is excited and looking forward to providing assistance regarding compliance with ADA requirements during the renovation of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that filling vacancies on the CDA Board has been difficult in the past; that an increase in the membership could be supported if candidates are available to serve. Ms. Dorwarth stated that the Board has been revitalized with new members; that the City Auditor and Clerk has applicants willing to serve on the CDA Board; that other people, who have disabilities and recently became aware of the Board's existence, have expressed an interest in serving. BOOK 41 Page 14166 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14167 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot that the Administration has recommended the CDA Board's request for an increase in meetings be considered during the FY 98 budget discussions; that the increased workload of the Board has been referenced; that the Board members are volunteers; that increasing the number of meetings will result in a modest additional cost to the City. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to increase the CDA Board membership from five to seven members and to increase the Board's meeting schedule from every other month to every month. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that increasing the Board membership requires a resolution, which will be drafted and placed on the next agenda for approval. Commissioner Patterson stated that the membership was decreased previously at the request of the CDA Board due to difficulties meeting a quorum. Ms. Dorwarth stated that is no longer a concern. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. The Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, AND 5 = APPROVEDI ITEM NO. 4 = APPROVED WITH STIPULATION; ITEM NO. 6 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 7 APPROVED; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A MODEL FLORIDA YARD AT CITY HALL; ITEM NO. 8 - APPROVED WITHOUT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON SCHOOL AVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT AN ALTERNATIVE, STAFF-S SUPPORTED CONCEPT TO REPLACE THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (3094) through (3712) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item Nos. 4, 6, and 8 be removed and Commissioner Merrill requested that Item No. 7 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County to construct the proposed Communication 800 MHZ Tower at 1761 12th Street 2. Approval Re: Bobby Jones Golf Complex Maintenance Agreement updated to reflect the corporate name change to ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc. 3. Approval Re: Acceptance of a Demand for Judgment in the amount of $5,999.00 for Nicholas Antonas and $9,999.00 for Beverly Antonas for settlement of their lawsuit against the City for personal injuries 5. Approval Re: Award of contract to Central Florida Contractors, Inc., (Bid #97-40) in the amount of $143,327.50 for the Municipal Sidewalks Project On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yesi Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 4. Approval Re: Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Sarasota and Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., regarding the preparation of the Conservation Zone District Commissioner Patterson stated that Item No. 4 refers to the consulting work William Merrill, Attorney, will perform regarding the Conservation Zone District for Laurel Park; that she has a concern with including a blanket wavier of potential conflicts of interest to an attorney who represents numerous developers; that discussions with Attorney Merrill during the recess indicate her concern can be resolved. There was a consensus of the Commission to request that Attorney Merrill come forward. Attorney Merrill came before the Commission and stated that his law firm is large and represents numerous clients on development projects within the City, therefore, an extensive waiver of potential conflicts of interest was prepared; however, his law firm would not represent a development interest located in Laurel Park against the City during the term of the contract for consulting services. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 4 with the stipulation put forth by Attorney Merrill. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 6. Approval Re: Joint Project Agreement between the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Sarasota for improvements to State Road 758 (Bay Road/Osprey Avenue) from U.S. 41 to Siesta Drive BOOK 41 Page 14168 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14169 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the chart of impact fees to be sent to Sarasota County for reimbursement under the Road Impact Fee Interlocal Agreement includes a project to widen Orange Avenue from 10th to 17th Streets; that impact fees should not be expended to widen a road segment the Commission has yet to endorse; and asked if approval of Item 4 approves that expenditure? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the Bay Road/Osprey Avenue was included as one of the 1996 Impact Fee Funded Project Priorities previously approved by the Commission; that the chart was attached as reference; that Orange Avenue was previously included as a priority for impact fee expenditure; however, the Commission can change the list of priorities. Commissioner Patterson requested that an item be agendaed to remove Orange Avenue from the Impact Fee Funded Project Priorities list. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 6. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 7. Approval Re: Interagency Agreement between the University of Florida, Sea Grant College and the City of Sarasota to continue the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission has supported more visibility of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program; that a model Florida Yard plan for City Hall which was requested at a previous meeting by consensus has not been presented. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 7, and to direct the Administration to prepare a model Florida Yard plan for City Hall. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the School Board of Sarasota County, Florida for Sarasota High School and Alta Vista Elementary School implementation of Transportation Mitigation Alternatives Commissioner Patterson stated that Item No. 8 includes the cost sharing program for the installation of a traffic signal on School Avenue for "off-hours" pedestrian crossing, which was an issue she raised at the joint City Commiesion/School Board meeting; that the total cost for the traffic signal is estimated at $60,000; that neither the City nor School Board Staff were enthusiastic about a traffic signal at the proposed location; that a more cost effective alternative should be examined if Item No. 8 is approved, e.g., implementing the concept used for crosswalks on St. Armands, which includes signage indicating the issuance of a fine if the pedestrian right-of-way, is not honored; that installation of rumble strips could be considered to notify motorists of the upcoming crosswalk. Mayor Cardamone stated that the rumble strips would impact only one residential home, which is located on the corner of Bahia Vista Street and School Avenue. Commissioner Patterson stated that the number of rumble strips installed, if deemed feasible, should be limited; that the number of rumble strips installed on Orange Avenue was excessive. Commissioner Merrill stated that the $60,000 figure does not include maintenance of the traffic signal; that an alternative, more cost effective approach for the pedestrian crossing, without the traffic signal, is supported; that a speed table could be considered. Commissioner Patterson stated that a speed table is an acceptable alternative and may be more appropriate than rumble strips. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Interlocal Agreement without the traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing on School Avenue and to direct the Administration to evaluate and implement an alternative, Staff- supported concept to replace the traffic signal. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-957) = ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-956) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-961) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-962) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3983) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #3 (0059) through (0432) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 2 be removed and Vice Mayor Pillot requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R-961 in its entirety and proposed Resolution No. 97R-957 and proposed Ordinance No. 97-3983 by title only. BOOK 41 Page 14170 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14171 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-957, authorizing the execution of a Utility Indemnification Agreement pertaining to a portion of State Road 758 (Bay Road/Osprey Avenue), with the Florida Department of Transportation on behalf of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-961, appropriating $2,928.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund Forfeitures) to purchase electronic video/recording equipment 5. Adoption Re: : Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3983, pertaining to the expiration of permits to allow vacant parcels of land to be utilized as temporary vehicular parking areas as set forth in Section 12-6, Zoning Code; providing for a stay of the expiration of temporary vehicular parking permits issued by the City Manager or his designee pursuant to Section 12-6, Zoning Code; implementing the stay from the effective date of this ordinance to the effective date of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to such vacant parcels which may be considered by the City Commission and subsequent rezoning of the real property, if any, to which - the temporary vehicular parking permit apply; setting forth findings as to need for and public purpose served by such a stay; repealing ordinances in conflict; Providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 3, and 5. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97-956, appropriating $9,085 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund the balance of monies needed to purchase a major crime scene van Commissioner Patterson stated that she is not convinced that spending $83,000 for a crime van is necessary and will vote against this item. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R-956 in its entirety. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No 2. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried (3 to 2): : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, no. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-962, appropriating $47,173.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund a contract with R.M. McCarthy and Associates to review the overall SWAT program Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the appropriation to fund a review of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) program is supported; that the Police Chief promised the public after a recent, tragic shooting involving the SWAT Team that a competent, external review team would investigate the incident; that internal reviews have determined the shooting was justified; that the external review will include but not be limited to selection, training, tactics, policies, and procedures; that the consultants' expertise should be utilized to provide in-service training in addition to a complete review of the fatal shooting which occurred on December 8, 1996. Commissioner Patterson asked how the suggestion differs from the Police Chief's recommendation? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Police Chief has recommended an external review of the shooting and the SWAT Program; that in- service training would be beneficial even absent the tragedy; that the consultants should be requested to provide training in the latest techniques and procedures of SWAT mechanics and services in addition to the review. Mayor Cardamone stated that the four Staff members of R.M. McCarthy & Associates, the external review team, have excellent qualifications. John Lewis, Chief of Police, came before the Commission and stated that Vice Mayor Pillot's recommendation is outstanding; that the consultants chosen to review the SWAT Program have substantial training in both SWAT techniques and management and will provide the City with training scenarios which will be addressed as a separate issue. Commissioner Dupree asked if the training will require additional funds? Chief Lewis stated yes; that the amount of funds required is not known; that training needs will be based on the review of current training policies and proceduresi that the review will determine if further training will be limited to minor operational and management training or will be more extensive in nature. BOOK 41 Page 14172 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14173 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson asked if a funding request for further training will be brought before the Commission following the external review? Chief Lewis stated yes; that a funding request will be brought before the Commission based on the consultants' recommendation for the training required to update the SWAT Team to national standards. Commissioner Patterson stated that the funds required will not be known until after the review is completed. Chief Lewis stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R-962 in its entirety. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No 4, with the addition that the Police Chief through the City Manager will consult with R.M. McCarthy & Associates for additional in-service training and present additional costs for the training to the Commission at the appropriate time. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3985, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO WFR ZONE DISTRICT AND TO APPROVE FINAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 97- PSD-02 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI- FAMILY CONDOMINIUM ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE (F/K/A/ THREE CROWNS AND THE LIDO BEACH INN), WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1234 AND 1314 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 97-CO-01 AND 97-PSD-02, PETITIONER JOEL J. FREEDMAN, AICP, VICE PRESIDENT BISHOP AND ASSOCIATES) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO THE MARCH 3, 1997, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING AND SCHEDULED A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 4, 1997, AT 2:00 P.M. FOR SECOND READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) AND 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 97R-954, APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SWIMMING POOL, POOL DECK AND WATER RETENTION POND TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A GULF - FRONT YARD AS A COMPONENT OF A MULTI- FAMILY CONDOMINIUM IN THE WFR ZONE DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE (F/K/A THE THREE CROWNS AND LIDO BEACH INN) WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1234 AND 1314 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; IMPOSING CONDITIONS; DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITIONER JOEL J. FREEDMAN, AICP VICE PRESIDENT BISHOP AND ASSOCIATES) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO THE MARCH 3, 1997, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING - (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #3 (0433) through #4 (0941) Deborah Marks, Development Review Facilitator, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 is a request to permit construction of a 114-unit condominium at 1234 and 1314 Benjamin Franklin Drive, the site of the demolished Three Crowns Hotel and the Lido Beach Inn, the latter of which is currently in bankruptcy; that the property, zoned Multiple-Family Residential (RMF) -4, is located in an Impact Management Area (IMA) eligible for rezoning to the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District; that Petition 97-PSD-02 is a Preliminary Site and Development Plan which has been submitted in conjunction with Conditional Rezoning Petition 97-CO-01; that the proposed structure is 11 floors over 2 levels of parking with a maximum height of 110 feet; that proposed Resolution No. 97R-954 is a request for a special permit to allow construction of a swimming pool and deck and a small stormwater collection area within the 150-foot Gulf-front setback on the property; that both structures will be less than 30 inches above grade; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found Petition Nos. 97-PSD-02 and 97-CO-01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommended approval subject to: 1) obtaining special permits for any structures constructed within the 150-foot waterfront setback measured from the mean high-water line, 2) locating the retention pond landward of the vegetation line and dune system to ensure preservation, and 3) constructing the pool and pool deck seaward of the 150-foot waterfront setback in compliance with all criteria for obtaining a special permit. Ms. Marks continued that the condition imposed by the PBLP to locate the retention pond landward of the vegetation line was based on the original site plan; that the retention area was BOOK 41 Page 14174 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14175 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. originally located further seaward than in the modified site plan being presented to the Commission at this meeting; that further modifications made by the petitioner to the site plan may eliminate the necessity for a special permit. Commissioner Merrill stated that the site plan indicates the sidewalk on the street side of the proposed condominium will be four feet wide; and asked if the Zoning Code requires five-foot sidewalks? Ms. Marks stated that the sidewalk must meet the five-foot width requirement of the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) Joel Freedman, AICP, Vice President, Bishop and Associates, Carlos Beruff, Vice President, and Lamar Matthews, Attorney, representing the Jacobsen Group - Lido Beach Limited Partnership, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman stated that the Jacobsen Group first acquired the Three Crowns Hotel property and then the Lido Beach Inn when the property went into bankruptcy; that the acreage of the two properties is 4.36 acres; that the Group originally planned a condominium project on the Three Crowns Hotel site for which variances had been received; that the request to change the zoning from RMF-4 to WFR, which permits both hotels and multiple-family condominiums, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Freedman continued that all setbacks for the 114-unit building have been met; that the Zoning Code requires a 30-foot setback on Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the condominium project will be set back 254 feet; that the 52.5-foot side-yard setback meets the City's requirements; that none of the variances required for the Three Crowns Hotel project relating to side-yard setbacks will be required for the condominium project. Mr. Freedman further stated that the original site plan indicated the swimming pool and retention pond were located seaward of the 150-foot Gulf-front setback; that the redesign of the site relocates the retention pond to the side yard, eliminating any retention area on the beachside of the property; that relocating the proposed condominium building landward 35 feet will allow installation of the swimming pool behind the 150-foot setback line; that the request for a special permit will be withdrawn if the Commission accepts the modified site plan; that nothing will be constructed between the 150-foot setback and the mean high- water line; that the proposed condominium will be 185 feet from the mean high-water line. Mr. Freedman displayed on the overhead projector an abbreviated version of the site plan for the property and stated that the three-story Azure Tides is located south of the proposed condominium; that the swimming pool and other, recent improvements belonging to the Lido Beach Club, located north of the petitioner's property, are seaward of the Club building; that concrete walls extend across the seaward side of both properties; that a portion of the wall from the Azure Tides property extends slightly into the Three Crowns Hotel property. Mr. Freedman continued that the retention pond was originally located landward on the north side of the existing wall; that the swimming pool was originally located seaward of the proposed condominium on the south side of the existing wall; that the Jacobsen Group elected to move the entire building 35 feet landward after several meetings with the Lido Key Residents Association; that the swimming pool will be located directly on the site of the former high-rise tower section of the Three Crowns Hotel building which is 150 feet from the mean high-water line and 35 feet back from the southerly curving beachfront line of the property. Mr. Freedman further stated that the issue before the Commission is whether the proposed condominium complies with the Zoning Code; that the Zoning Code requires a 150-foot setback from the mean high-water line; that the redesigned site plan provides a 185-foot setback for the proposed condominium and a 150-foot setback for the swimming pool. Commissioner Patterson asked when the survey was taken which determined the 150-foot distance from the mean high-water line. Mr. Freedman stated that the survey of the mean high-water line was taken on August 20, 1996, and is good for six months; that a new, mean high-water line survey will be required prior to the issuance of building permits; that the 150-foot setback may shift closer to Benjamin Franklin Drive if erosion over the past six months is found to have altered the position of the mean high- water line. Commissioner Patterson stated that concern exists over the possibility that the Jacobsen Group will apply for a building permit in two years rather than two months. Mr. Freedman stated that the survey is only good for six months. Commissioner Patterson stated that beach renourishment is planned for Lido Beach; that the current survey has nearly expired; that a new survey, perhaps funded by the City, should be conducted to determine the 150-foot setback; that although the beach will be renourished, erosion could diminish the beach again in the future. Mr. Freedman stated that conducting a new survey is acceptable; however, the Jacobsen Group has no desire to move the building any closer to the mean high-water line; that a distance can be measured from Benjamin Franklin Drive to indicate the point at BOOK 41 Page 14176 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14177 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. which the building will be constructed; that the Jacobsen Group will proffer the commitment not to move the proposed condominium any closer to the Gulf than proposed at this meeting. Commissioner Patterson stated that the 150-foot setback line determined by a new survey will vary from the one indicated in the August 1996 survey; that a new survey should be conducted as soon as possible to determine the distance at which the building will be located from Benjamin Franklin Drive. Mr. Freedman stated that a new survey could be conducted between first and second reading of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Patterson concurred; and stated that the shifting nature of the beach is a major concern. Mayor Cardamone asked if a completed site plan is available rather than the abbreviated version presented at this meeting? Mr. Freedman stated that the site plan was modified today after consulting with the coastal engineer and the architects to address how the residents' concerns can best be alleviated and the impacts of the original site plan approved by the PBLP diminished; that the Jacobsen Group can provide the Commission with a new survey and a final site plan to be reviewed by Staff between first and second reading of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Patterson asked if the retention pond and the swimming pool will be relocated landward of the 150-foot setback from the mean high-water line? Mr. Freedman stated that the proffer includes a commitment to construct nothing seaward of the 150-foot setback based on the new survey. Mayor Cardamone stated that no revised site plan is available at this meeting. Mr. Freedman stated that the only change in the original site plan is relocation of the building 35 feet landward. Commissioner Patterson stated that the process could be delayed until a revised site plan is available. Mayor Cardamone stated that driveways, the retention pond, etc., will have to be redesigned. Mr. Freedman stated that the driveways do not change; that nothing changes except the seaward boundary of the proposed condominium building. Commissioner Patterson asked the location of the swimming pool in the revised site plan? Mr. Freedman stated that the swimming pool will be more centrally located behind the 150-foot setback on the beachfront; that the angle of the beach, deeper on one side than the other and the shift of the proposed condominium landward by 35 feet will allow the swimming pool to be centered with the building rather than lying to the south of the structure. Commissioner Patterson stated that the property is broader on the southerly side of the proposed development. Mr. Freedman stated that is correct; that the building wraps around the property in a circular fashion on the Gulf front; that the original site plan featured units tucked into the southern, Gulf-front portion of the parcel; that those Gulf-front units will be lost due to the redesign of the site plan; that the Jacobsen Group has considered the economic ramifications of the modified design and is willing to accept the impact of losing those Gulf- front units to expedite approval of the project. Brett Moore, AIA, Coastal Engineer, Humiston & Moore, came before the Commission and stated that a State permit will be required following Commission approval of the project; that the stability of the Lido Key coastline was studied; that a conservative review calculated long-term erosion rates at approximately three feet per yeari that a comparison of current data with a 1944 survey indicates a shoreline change rate of approximately one foot per year. Mr. Moore continued that the stability of Lido Key beaches has depended a great deal on the Federal navigation projects at New Pass; that incremental data was collected and studied to weigh periods of accretion and erosion; that the survey separated the benefits derived from New Pass dredging from coastline changes which are normally caused by nature; that the New Pass dredging benefits cannot be relied upon in the future due to cutbacks in funding for Federal renourishment projects. Mr. Moore further stated that the survey made no allowances for potential seaward shifting of the mean high-water line due to future Lido Beach renourishment; that the benefits of the renourishment, which may provide a greater seaward setback for the proposed condominium, were not incorporated in the survey data; that an erosion-control line will be established to represent the mean high-water line when the renourishment of Lido Beach occurs. Commissioner Patterson stated that an erosion-control line is already in place. BOOK 41 Page 14178 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14179 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman stated that Commissioner Patterson is referring to the Coastal Construction Control Line; that Mr. Moore is referring to the erosion-control line. Mr. Moore stated that a line will be set which will delineate private and public land at the mean high-water line during the renourishment project; that developers will not be able to use a renourished beach to justify building further seaward as the State strictly prohibits development on newly renourished beachfront; that Humiston & Moore Engineering has recommended the proposed condominium be shifted landward to account for the uncertainty surrounding the continued dredging of New Pass and the placement of sand on Lido Beach; that other erosion problems have also been observed and recorded on Lido Key. Mr. Beruff stated that the proposed condominium will meet State requirements for dune protection and setbacks if the building is moved landward 35 feet from the location indicated on the existing site plan and the swimming pool relocated behind the 150-foot setback. Mr. Moore stated that is correct; that additionally, existing structures approximately 1,000 feet in each direction of the proposed condominium were studied; that the proposed condominium will be located well behind the average setback distances of the other buildings from the mean high-water line and the distances seaward of the erosion-control line. Mr. Freedman stated that residents were primarily concerned with the special permit requested to build seaward of the required 150- foot setback; that the redesign of the site plan locating all structures landward of the 150-foot setback renders the special permit unnecessary; that all Zoning Code requirements for building coverage, impervious coverage, parking spaces, etc., have been met; that the PBLP would have rejected the proposed condominium if the requirements had not been met; that the three conditions required by the PBLP for Commission approval related strictly to the swimming pool and retention pond. Mr. Freedman continued that the petitioner would have preferred to present a revised site plan to the Commission at this meeting; that the petitioner proposes the Commission consider allowing a revised site plan to be prepared and distributed to Staff for review between first and second reading of the proposed ordinance to keep the process moving forward; that the petitioner is confident all requirements will be met and the proposal viewed more positively due to the site plan modifications which will be made. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the new modifications eliminate the problem with the retention pond? Mr. Freedman stated yes; that all water retention will occur on the front, landward side of the development. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the design of the building, shifted landward 35 feet, will remain essentially the same, except for the loss of a few Gulf-front units and a slight modification of the driveway? Mr. Freedman stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the swimming pool, relocated landward slightly to the north, will be constructed totally behind the 150 feet setback requirement? Mr. Freedman stated yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a revised site plan including the modifications should be easy to draw; that providing the revised site plan between first and second reading is reasonable; and asked if the stipulations proffered at this meeting enable the project to meet compliance with all City codes? Mr. Freedman stated that is correct. Commissioner Merrill asked if the analysis performed by the coastal engineer revealed evidence of new erosion? Mr. Moore stated that on Monday, February 17, 1997, Bishop and Associates surveyed the seasonal, high-water line used by the State for 30-year erosion projections; that the data, unrelated to the mean high-water line, determines mandatory setbacks according to standards set by the State's coastal program. Commissioner Merrill asked if information is available to determine if the mean high-water line measured in August 1996 is still accurate? Mr. Moore stated no. Mayor Cardamone asked how much time will be required to produce the information? Mr. Moore stated that the time requirement is unknown; that the survey will be conducted by Bishop and Associates. Mayor Cardamone stated that although modifications to the site plan can be visualized, the mean high-water line is pertinent to the issue and important to the location of the swimming pool; that the City is anxious to have a good project located on the property; however, approving a development on the basis of an abbreviated site plan with a pen lying across the drawing on the overhead projector to determine the Gulf-front construction line is not standard procedure; and asked if a major problem such as loss of financing would occur if the process to obtain Commission approval of the proposed ordinance is delayed for two weeks to enable the information to be properly presented? BOOK 41 Page 14180 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14181 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman stated that the purpose of second reading is to enable a petitioner to make the modifications necessary to obtain ordinance approval. Vice Mayor Pillot and Commissioner Merrill agreed. Commissioner Patterson stated that the site plan is reviewed at the first reading; that the second reading of a proposed ordinance is usually scheduled on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Matthews stated that the biblical admonition of "blessed be the peacemakers" is applicable to the issue; that the Jacobsen Group listened and made concessions to Lido Key residents; that the Mayor and Commissioner Patterson now propose to penalize the petitioner for making the concessions and derail a process which began in 1994; that the petitioner requests the project not be derailed even for two weeks; that approval of the proposed ordinance is requested subject to submitting a revised site plan to Staff for review and providing a survey of the mean high-water line before the second reading; that the Commission is not compelled to vote approval if problems have not been resolved by the second hearing; that allowing the process to continue will relieve the petitioner of the burden of paying 8.5 percent interest daily on millions of dollars over a two-week period during which no action can be taken to move the project forward; that the Commission is urged to approve the proposed ordinance at this meeting subject to the petitioner's providing a revised site plan and survey before second reading of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Patterson stated that the request would receive sympathy if a buyer were waiting in the wings or if construction were about to begin; however, the two week delay does not appear burdensome since the petitioner does not have immediate plans to break ground. Commissioner Patterson asked if rezoning the property to the WFR Zone District would enable development of a hotel project at double the density currently requested? Mr. Freedman stated yes; however, developing the parcel into a hotel would require repeating the entire approval process; that the petitioner would be required to submit a new site plan. Commissioner Patterson stated that a site plan does not address the use of a proposed development; and asked if a new site plan would be required to convert the condominium proposal to a hotel? Mr. Freedman stated yes. Mr. Beruff stated that the WFR Zone District allows 50 units per acre for a hotel; that acreage requirements would be calculated differently for a hotel than for a multiple-family development. Commissioner Patterson stated that the density allowed for a hotel is more than double the proposed occupancy; and asked the number of acres involved? Mr. Freedman stated that the property is 4.36 acres. Commissioner Patterson asked if the WFR Zone District would allow development of a 200-unit hotel? Mr. Freedman stated yes; that 218 hotel units would be allowed. Commissioner Patterson stated that the extra width of land fronting the southerly, Gulf-front boundary of the property will not be utilized; and asked why the building could not be shifted landward even further? Mr. Beruff stated that two factors affect the marketing of high- priced condominiums: 1) the price of the land, and 2) the price per square foot to build under the State and local code requirements; that a condominium cannot be built for less than $95 per square foot; that Gulf views constitute the primary marketing attraction; that condominium units featuring panoramic views of the Gulf which are created by projecting the building in front of adjacent buildings have the highest value. Commissioner Patterson stated that potential buyers are usually concerned about the security of their property when a site is too close to the water; that condominiums close to the water are difficult to sell. Mr. Beruff stated that the units which face north and south from the proposed condominium and look straight at another building with little or no view will sell for less; that shifting the proposed condominium 35 feet landward from the original design already places the development further away from the water than the current 150-foot setback required by the Zoning Code. Mr. Beruff continued that the Jacobsen Group expected to complete the public hearings in January 1997; that the Group has already lost one month due to the 30-day wait required between the PBLP meeting and the Commission public hearing, as well as the delays caused by the holidays; that the proposed two-week postponement will delay the schedule a total of six weeks. Commissioner Patterson asked if the petitioner is ready to break ground? Mr. Beruff stated that a luxury condominium project must be 50 to 60 percent pre-sold before bank financing will be approved; that the development process is normally completed in five phases: 1) local approval, 2) design, 3) completion of condominium documents, 4) filing of the application for State approval, and 5) marketing and acceptance of deposits; that the bank will not BOOK 41 Page 14182 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14183 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. lend the funds necessary to begin a $35 million project until the preparatory phases are completed. Commissioner Patterson asked if the intent of the Jacobsen Group is to build a condominium project? Mr. Beruff stated that at the moment, the intent of the Jacobsen Group is to develop the proposed condominium; that parties who have contacted the Group regarding possible hotel projects have been unwilling to place the required non-refundable funds in escrow. Commissioner Patterson asked the advantage of the WFR Zone District? Mr. Beruff stated that the WFR Zone District will enable development of the proposed condominium absent special favors from the City; that the requirements for height and setbacks will be met without having to apply for the special exception for height required under the RMF-4 Zone District; that the Three Crowns Hotel and Lido Beach Inn properties are over two acres each and together constitute more than the three-acre minimum limit required for rezoning to WFR. Commissioner Patterson asked if the WFR Zone District allows more height than is requested for the proposed condominium? Mr. Freedman stated that the WFR Zone District allows 140 feet or, if interior parking is included, 160 feet in height. Mayor Cardamone asked the height of the new L'Elegance Condominium development? Mr. Freedman stated that L'Elegance Condominium, also zoned WFR, is 110 feet in height; that significant reduction in lot coverage and impervious surface coverage are additional benefits provided by the WFR Zone District. Mayor Cardamone stated that two weeks would be critical to the success of the project if the petitioner planned to break ground within that time frame; however, the property could be placed on the market for sale or a hotel built in the WFR Zone District if the abbreviated site plan is approved at this meeting; that a two- week delay designed to ensure presentation of a revised site plan and survey for Commission approval does not seem unreasonable. Mr. Beruff stated that the Jacobsen Group believes the proposal has been properly presented at this meeting; that the architects, structural engineers, and a coastal engineer who served as Engineering Supervisor of the Engineering Department for the State of Florida are all present; that the Group has completed all the prerequisites necessary to assure the Commission that the Lido Beach Condominium project has been planned properly; that the project which began in May 1994 has continued for nearly three years. Mr. Beruff continued that the Jacobsen Group first acquired the Three Crowns Hotel and later, the Lido Beach Inn, which is a boarded-up building for which the Group has received penalties from the City for code violations; that demolishing the structure is preferable to spending an additional $10,000 of the trustees' money to board up the structure against occupancy by vagrants; that the turtle nesting season will begin in April 1997; that the petitioner has been advised of potential legal problems if the turtles are endangered by demolition work. Mr. Freedman stated that the proposed condominium could be marketed next season if the architects could begin immediate work on the design, which will take four months. Commissioner Patterson asked if the lien on the Three Crowns Hotel will be paid off before a construction loan is approved? Mr. Beruff stated that arrangements will be made to pay off the lien as soon as the Jacobsen Group determines what can be accomplished with the property. Commissioner Patterson stated that construction financing will not be approved with the lien in place. Mr. Beruff stated that is correct; that the lien is a title defect. Mayor Cardamone stated that any Commissioner who has had ex parte communications is required to declare that fact; therefore, she is declaring she has had ex parte communication with individuals who support and those who oppose the proposed condominium. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he has not had ex parte communications; and asked if well-written and informative letters received by the Commission constitute ex parte communications? Attorney Schenk stated that written communication does constitute ex parte communication; that copies should be provided to the City Auditor and Clerk for the record. Commissioner Patterson stated that copies of correspondence she has received have already been provided to the City Auditor and Clerk. Mayor Cardamone stated that she received 114 letters from Lido Key residents opposing the Lido Beach Condominium and an additional 50 signatures on letters to be presented to the City Auditor and Clerk; that the letters, delivered today, were written to the BOOK 41 Page 14184 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14185 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. entire Commission; and passed the form letters to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson for inclusion in the record. Commissioner Patterson stated that she has had ex parte communications; that she went to the site by invitation of residents and viewed the area staked out by the developers to determine exactly where the building would be located. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) With Appendices A, D, F, H, J, and M and City of Sarasota local Amendments All documents made part of the record at the PBLP meeting of January 8, 1997, as well as the minutes of that meeting The site and development plan filed for Petition 97-PSD-02 The application for conditional rezoning submitted by Joel J. Freedman The minutes of the February 18, 1997, City Commission public hearings on Ordinance No. 97-3982 and Resolution No. 97R-054 and all exhibits submitted at both public hearings and various correspondence received by the City Commission submitted to the City Auditor and Clerk Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: John Sneyd, 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), displayed on the overhead projector color slides of Lido Beach, and stated that he has been an owner at the Lido Beach Club for 20 years; that the proposed condominium is designed to be too close to the Gulf; that a picture of Lido Beach, taken in the past, indicates North Lido Beach Park was a wide, sandy beach with a great deal of vegetation; that North Lido Beach Park has changed little over the years proving that sand dunes and vegetation prevent erosion; that the beach in front of the Holiday Inn, lacking sand dunes or vegetation, has eroded substantially. Mr. Sneyd continued that most tall, condominium buildings on Lido Beach are set back 240 to 280 feet; that setting the Lido Beach Club back 280 feet from the mean high-water line has allowed vegetation to grow between the building and the beach; that the beach in front of two condominiums set back 280 feet located north of the petitioner's property has dense vegetation and sand dunes; that the Lido Beach Club is set back 280 feet and the Azure Tides is set back 240 feet; that the proposed condominium which is located between the two other structures should be set back 260 feet; that the swimming pool for the proposed condominium is 60 feet long; that the modification offered at this meeting does not provide a sufficient setback; that the 60-foot swimming pool will be only 125 feet from the water; that 25 feet of the swimming pool will remain within the 150-foot setback from the mean high-water line. Commissioner Patterson stated that is not what the Jacobsen Group is proposing; that the modification will allow nothing, including the leading edge of the pool, to encroach beyond the 150-foot setback which will be based on a new survey. Mr. Sneyd stated that the modification will require many alterations in the building design; that the swimming pool, driveway, etc., will require redesign; that the second-level parking area of the garage for the proposed 114-unit condominium has a spacious lobby, elevators, exercise room, mail room, etc. which may require modification due to the 35-foot additional setback; that Commission approval should be delayed until a revised site plan and a new mean high-water line survey is submitted. Joe Moyer, 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive, Apt. 602, (34236), stated that he has spent his winters in Sarasota since 1972 and has owned a condominium at the Lido Beach Club for the past nine years; that an abbreviated site plan should not be approved regardless of the conditions proffered; that conditions promised during public hearings sometimes fail to materialize when the development is actually constructed; that the petitioner has stated a desire to locate the building as far seaward as possible in front of other properties; that obtaining the maximum view and sales dollars has been given as the reason for not increasing the setback and bringing the building in line with adjacent structures; that the petitioner appears to disregard the possible damage inflicted on the neighbors. Mr. Moyer continued that the PBLP approved the site plan absent all the details; that Section 3-12, Paragraph C of the Zoning Code, states that the appearance of the proposed development shall be compatible and harmonious with properties in the general area and shall not be sO at variance with other developments within the area as to cause substantial depreciation of property values; that Staff found the structure compatible with new development on Lido Keyi that a building which is much larger and juts out further than other structures on Lido Key cannot be considered compatible. Mr. Moyer further stated that moving the building back 35 feet is a step in the right direction; that the Commission should decline to approve the project if the reason for not moving the property landward is based on a desire to gain additional sales revenue at the expense of neighboring properties; that all properties on the beach will suffer depreciation in value; that the reputation of BOOK 41 Page 14186 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14187 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Lido Beach as a world-class beach cannot be jeopardized; that the City and St. Armands Circle would be negatively impacted; that fully detailed site plans should be required and the building relocated further landward; that the proposed development may block pedestrian traffic on the beach; that the Commission should not rush judgment. Delores Marchette, 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), stated that Lido Key residents view the deteriorating Lido Beach Inn as unattractive as the Three Crowns Hotel was before the structure was demolished; that residents desire an attractive, proportionately balanced building which integrates harmoniously with the surroundings and is respectful of the beach, the dune system, and impacts positively on neighboring properties; that the proffer to move the building back 35 feet is insufficient. Ms. Marchette continued that L'Elegance Condominium, located on a 6.1 acre site, is 110 feet in height and in full compliance with the WFR Zone District; that the proposed condominium will be 133 feet in height; that L'Elegance, located on a one-third larger site, has only 105 units which is five percent under the density permitted in the WFR Zone District; that the proposed condominium has 114 units; that the depth of the L'Elegance lot is 586 feet at the north end; that the landward setback of L'Elegance from the water is 250 feet; that plantings and vegetation were installed to ensure against beach erosion; that although the proposed condominium site is 779 feet deep, the Jacobsen Group has located the building only 135 feet from the mean high-water line and no vegetation is provided; that a 35-foot additional setback is insufficient as the dune system will be ultimately destroyed, beach erosion accelerated, and neighbors adversely impacted. Ms. Marchette further stated that the proposed condominium will be located 95 feet in front of the Lido Beach Club; that views appear to be important to the petitioner but the neighbors' rights to a view are obviously irrelevant; that the future of the beach is a greater concern than the view; that beaches play a major role in the economy and desirability of Sarasota; that Lido Key beaches should not be diminished but rather nourished and preserved; that two existing condominiums jutting out on South Lido Beach are victims of beach erosion; that the beachfront of the Lido Beach Condominium may be at the same risk in the future. Mayor Cardamone asked the names of the two condominiums on South Lido Key which are threatened by beach erosion. Ms. Marchette stated that the names are not known; however, beachwalkers must wade through the water to pass in front of the buildings. Robert Skalitzky, 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), distributed copies of the proposed Lido Beach Condominium site plan and an overhead photographic view of condominiums lining the beach in the same section of Lido Key as the proposed condominium, and stated that he has lived on Lido Key since 1967; that the addresses of the two condominiums referenced earlier are 1900 and 2100 Benjamin Franklin Drive, and the names are Lido Harbor North and Lido Harbor South; that he has not appeared before the Commission to oppose a development project previously as he is a developer by profession; that a permissible density of 114 units is vested in the two properties assembled by the petitioner; that the current zoning of RMF-4 allows a density of 18 units per acre; that the petitioner has been accommodated by the grandfathering in of the density for the former use; that the rezoning request is opposed as the existing RMF-4 Zone District has a maximum allowed density of 18 units per acre and the requested WFR Zone District has a maximum allowed density of 26 units per acre. Mr. Skalitzky continued that the developer has a duty to build a project which will complement the site, preserve the long stretch of beach on Lido Key, protect the neighborhood residents, follow fair development practices, and improve the desirability of Sarasota; that he developed the Lido Beach Club which has a 280- foot setback; that the Three Crowns Hotel jutted out in front of all the other condominiums; that beachwalkers could not walk in front of the Three Crowns Hotel prior to the last dredging of New Pass and the beach renourishment project; that the water came right up to a six-foot seawall built to protect the Three Crowns Hotel tower. Mr. Skalitzky further stated that moving the proposed condominium 35 feet landward is not sufficient; that although the Commission may have to approve the petitioner's proposal if the Zoning Code requirements are met, ethically, the building should be set back further; that the Commission should delay approval of the proposed ordinance until a revised site plan has been presented which protects the integrity of Lido Key and the sands of the beach. Larry Button, 801 South Boulevard of the Presidents (34236), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Audrey Lucker, 729 Tyler Drive (34236), President, Lido Key Residents Association, stated that a meeting of the Lido Key Residents Association Board held last week was attended by Mr. Beruff, Mr. Freedman, Mr. Sneyd, and Mr. Moyer; that she is pleased with the modifications proffered by the petitioner; that property values will be increased rather than diminished by the proposed condominium; that the development of L'Elegance and Lido Beach Condominiums will be extremely beneficial for Lido Key; that the Radisson Lido Beach Resort has been beautifully renovated. Ms. Lucker continued that she has lived on Lido Key for 44 years; that approval of the petitioner's request is supported inclusive BOOK 41 Page 14188 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14189 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. of the proffered conditions of increasing the setback for the building by 35 feet, relocating the swimming pool behind the 150- foot setback from the mean high-water line, and removing the retention pond from the seaward side of the building. Mayor Cardamone stated that Ms. Lucker informed her by telephone after the Lido Key Residents Association Board meeting last week that drastic changes were proffered on the site plan; that the petitioner had Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and today to complete a revised site plan for presentation to the Commission. Ms. Lucker stated that Mr. Freedman informed her that a revised site plan was not created due to the petitioner's desire to hear and incorporate the residents' objections voiced at this meeting into the final design; that drawing up site plans is expensive; that the proposed condominium will be a great asset to Lido Key. Mayor Cardamone stated that residents generally concur that the proposed condominium, inclusive of conditions, will be an asset to Lido Beach. Commissioner Patterson asked if Ms. Lucker is representing a vote of the Board? Ms. Lucker stated that she is representing the Board of the Lido Key Residents Association; that the Board supports approval of the proposed ordinance inclusive of the conditions proffered at this meeting. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Board of the Lido Key Residents Association reviewed the modified site plan prior to this meeting's presentation? Ms. Lucker stated that the changes were discussed at the meeting last week; that the Board informed the petitioner that the changes were required to obtain the residents' support for the project. Beth Dilworth, 246 Garfield Drive (34236) representing the Sun and Surf Colony, Inc., stated that the Commission is requested to wait two weeks for a revised site plan before granting approval; that she is representing the Sun and Surf Colony, Inc., the last beach club on Lido Key; that the project should be designed and presented properly. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. Mr. Freedman returned to the Commission table and stated that he was the planner and Bishop and Associates the engineers of record for the L'Elegance Condominium project; that L'Elegance is 110 feet in height, the same as the proposed condominium, as measured from the minimum wave crest elevation established by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the most restrictive of the coastline regulatory agencies; that the Zoning Code also allows height measurements to be taken from the minimum wave crest elevation; that the total height of L'Elegance, including the elevation allowed to accommodate the minimum wave crest elevation of 18 feet, is 124 to 128 feet; that the total height of the building being proposed for this project will be approximately 128 feet. Mr. Freedman continued that the width of the L'Elegance property permitted the developers to construct the building sO all the units face east and west rather than north and south and also permitted the building to be set back further landward; that the petitioner will enhance the existing dune area of the proposed condominium with vegetation as required by the FDEP; that the curved wall of the proposed condominium, the closest point to the mean high-water line, is set back 150 feet on the existing site plan; that the wall of the Lido Beach Club is located closer to the water; that the petitioner will be providing more beach to the public than the buildings to the north or the south; that the swimming pool, retention pond, etc., will be landward of the proposed condominium. Mr. Freedman further stated that residents of the property to the north are lobbying to maintain an unobstructed view; that the proposed condominium and all amenities attached to the development will be landward of the 150-foot Gulf-front setback line as required by the Zoning Code; that the proposed condominium meets the requirements of the Zoning Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that possible future renovation of the Azure Tides may block the views of the residents on the south side of the proposed condominium; that a purchaser of a Lido Beach Condominium unit will have to accept that risk; that a speaker referenced a requirement in the Zoning Code that a development must be harmonious with neighboring properties; that the proposed condominium will be a 10-story condominium, a few stories less than the building to the north; however, the height of the proposed condominium is extremely close in height to the Lido Beach Club building which is 122 feet in height; that the modern architecture and construction standards designed to withstand storms better than existing buildings will enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Freedman stated further that the petitioner has tried to accommodate the neighbors; that the modifications proffered at this meeting will relocate the building back 35 feet and contain the swimming pool, retention pond, etc., behind the 150-foot setback requirement; that the petitioner requests the process to move forward; that a new survey and a new site plan will be provided between the first and second reading for Staff review; that the specification of a four-foot sidewalk is an error; that a BOOK 41 Page 14190 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14191 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. five-foot sidewalk will be installed as required by the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) . Vice Mayor Pillot stated that everything will be located 150 feet from the mean high-water line; and asked the distance from the water to the most seaward wall of the building? Mr. Freedman stated that the wall of the building will be located 185 feet from the mean high-water line. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the swimming pool will be located in the 35-foot area between the building and the 150-foot setback line? Mr. Freedman stated that is correct; that the swimming pool will be redesigned to fit within the 35 feet between the 150-foot setback and the building. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if any high structures will be built around the swimming pool which could block the neighbors' views? Mr. Freedman stated noi that as the site plan illustrates, the grading rises up to the swimming pool deck; that a railing may be installed. Mayor Cardamone stated that the swimming pool is elevated. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the site plan shows the views from the Lido Beach Club will not be obstructed; that the most seaward wall of the proposed condominium will be 35 feet further back; that the swimming pool should not block anyone's view. Mr. Freedman stated that the swimming pool will not be over three feet high above the existing grade. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the petitioner proposes to set the proposed condominium back sufficiently to avoid blocking the views of the Lido Beach Club; that only a swimming pool will be located in the first 35 feet from the 150-foot setback to the furthest seaward wall of the proposed condominium; that a swimming pool will not block anyone's view; and asked if the proposed condominium will meet the Zoning Code if rezoned to WFR? Mr. Freedman stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if a special exception will be necessary? Mr. Freedman stated no; that no special exceptions, special permits, or variances will be required. Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the modified site plan will require no special exceptions or permits. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the owners of the property are vested with certain property rights which permit development of the property if all applicable Federal, State and City codes are met? Attorney Schenk stated that the property owner has the burden of submitting competent, substantial evidence to prove that all criteria for applicable codes have been met before the Commission adopts the proposed ordinance at second reading. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the City is potentially guilty of abrogating the petitioner's property rights if the petition is denied after all applicable codes have been met? Attorney Schenk stated that in order to justify a denial, the City must provide competent, substantial evidence in the record to prove the code requirements were not met. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the City is potentially liable for abrogating the property owner's rights if no competent, substantial evidence exists to deny the petition and, in fact, the competent, substantial evidence proves the code requirements are met? Attorney Schenk stated that the petitioner can initiate litigation. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a motion is necessary to extend the meeting. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to extend the meeting beyond the 11:30 p.m. deadline to complete the agenda. Motion died for lack of second. On motion of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to extend the meeting for 15 minutes. Motion died for lack of second. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that people have been waiting in the Commission Chambers not only for the subject at the table but also for agenda items yet to come; that former Mayor Rita Roehr and representatives of Sister Cities of Sarasota have been waiting for hours; that the Commission should extend the meeting to address these two items. Attorney Schenk stated that the Commission is in the midst of a quasi-judicial hearing; that a motion to address the matter should be made before the meeting is adjourned. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to extend the meeting to complete the Public BOOK 41 Page 14192 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14193 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Hearings, Agenda Items IV-1 and -2, Scheduled Presentations, Agenda Item V-1, and New Business, Agenda Item VIII-1. Commissioner Merrill asked if the intent of the motion is to limit discussion to those agenda items only? Vice Mayor Pillot stated yes. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Attorney Schenk stated that documents can only be entered into the record between the time the public hearing is opened and the time the public hearing is closed under quasi-judicial rules; that the public hearing should be reopened, continued to the March 3, 1997, regular Commission meeting, and at that time, the revised site plan entered into the record; that a special meeting could be convened to expedite the second reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that the public hearing is part of the first reading process; and asked how the Commission can vote on the proposed ordinance at this meeting if the public hearing is continued? Attorney Schenk stated that the vote on first reading would be postponed to the March 3, 1997, regular Commission meeting; that a special meeting could be called at a scheduled workshop one or two days after the March 3, 1997, regular Commission meeting. Mr. Freedman stated that the petitioner supports the suggestion to continue the public hearing to March 3, 1997, and expedite the second reading to a special meeting. Commissioner Dupree asked if the proposed condominium would be built 185 feet from the mean high-water line? Mr. Freedman stated that the building will be set back 185 feet from the mean high-water line; that the swimming pool will be located in front of the building but behind the 150-foot Gulf- front setback required by the Zoning Code. Commissioner Dupree asked if the Gulf-front setbacks of adjacent properties are approximately 100 feet greater than the proposed condominium? Mr. Freedman stated that the difference between adjacent setbacks and the setback of the proposed condominium is closer to 60 feet; that the final, revised site plan and survey will identify every measurement in detail. Mayor Cardamone asked if the new survey will provide updated data? Mr. Freedman stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if the public speakers who addressed the issue at this meeting will be allowed to speak again at the March 3, 1997, public hearing? Attorney Schenk stated yes as to the new information. Mr. Freedman stated that the revised site plan will be distributed to representatives of the Lido Key residents. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the petitioner cannot break ground until State approval is acquired, a specific number of condominium units are sold, and financing approved; and asked if potential buyers are likely to make a deposit before the proposed ordinance is approved? Mr. Freedman stated that the petitioner cannot market any condominium units until the preliminary plat is registered with the State; that a significant design program must be created prior to submitting an application to the State; that the Jacobsen Group would immediately have authorized the architects to move forward with the design process if the proposed ordinance had been approved at this meeting. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the petitioner will be harmed by the delay caused by continuing the public hearing to March 3, 1997? Mr. Freedman stated that the entire project will be delayed two to three weeks. Commissioner Patterson stated that the application to the State cannot be submitted before the second reading. Mr. Freedman stated that a major delay will be avoided if the Commission can expedite the second reading. Mayor Cardamone stated that upon receiving approval, the petitioner will be able to construct any development which fits into a WFR Zone District. Mr. Freedman stated that is not correct; that the petitioner will have to repeat the entire development review and approval process if any modifications are made to the use of the property or the site plan. Commissioner Patterson stated that the petitioner, who has just presented a major modification of a site plan before the Commission, will not be required to repeat the process from the beginning; that significant changes have taken place in site plans for other development projects; that those petitioners have not been required to repeat the development review and approval process; that Staff has the authority to rule a change requested BOOK 41 Page 14194 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14195 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. by a developer does not warrant repeating the development review and approval process from the beginning. Mr. Freedman stated that changing the use of a property from a multiple-family condominium project to a commercial hotel would warrant another development review and approval process. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission spent a great deal of time addressing issues which affected a development proposal on Fruitville Road in the past; that the property is now for sale; that a considerable amount of Commission and Staff time and energy was expended for a development which never occurred; that the petitioner may have only been interested in receiving rezoning approval. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a motion is required to reopen the public hearing for both proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 and proposed Resolution 97R-954; that the workshop scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on March 4, 1997, will address the second half of the Target Action Plans; that second reading could be scheduled at a special meeting prior to the workshop. Commissioner Patterson asked if the mean high-water line determined by a new survey will be provided at the March 3, 1997, regular Commission meeting? Mr. Freedman stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to reopen the public hearing of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 and proposed Resolution 97R-954 and continue to the March 3, 1997, regular Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson asked if approval is granted to call a special Commission meeting at 2:00 p.m., on March 4, 1997? Mayor Cardamone stated there is a consensus of the Commission to schedule a special meeting at 2:00 p.m., on March 4, 1997 to conduct the second reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the public hearing on March 3, 1997, will begin at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. 12. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED IN THE 1997-1998 BUDGET FOR COMPLETION OF THE 12TH STREET WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN TUTTLE AVENUE AND BENEVA ROAD - REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES (AGENDA ITEM V) #4 (1027) through (1131) Rita Roehr, former Commissioner and Mayor of Sarasota, came before the Commission and stated that $3.5 million for widening 12th Street from U.S. 301 to Beneva Road was included in the 1989 Local Options Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) referendum; that since 1989, City Commissions have reallocated the funds intended for the completion of the 12th Street Project, from Tuttle Avenue to Beneva Road, to other City projects. Ms. Roehr requested that funds for the widening of 12th Street between Tuttle Avenue and Beneva Road be included in the FY 97/98 budget and completion of the Project be accelerated; that 100 houses, five neighborhood developments, and a youth complex park are affected daily by the traffic intrusion associated with the widening of 12th Street from U.S. 301 to Tuttle Avenue without a continuation of the widening to Beneva Road; that bicyclists and walkers are at risk; that the completion of the 12th Street Project is scheduled on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project list in the year 2015; that the City should fund the 12th Street Project in the next fiscal year budget to restore safety in the neighborhoods and pursue potential reimbursement from the FDOT. Ms. Roehr stated that the Orange Avenue Project, between 10th and 17th Streets, should not be removed from the Impact Fee Funded Project Priorities list; that the business owners and residents who traverse Orange Avenue have suffered the impacts of traffic and drainage problems for many years and deserve some relief. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to refer the 12th Street Project to the Administration for possible funding sources, including revenue from the Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) ten-year extension. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 13. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REQUEST OF SISTER CITIES ASSOCIATION FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT = APPROVED SUBJECT TO CITY MANAGER R'S REVIEW (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (1132) through (1500) Robert Johnson, Former State Senator, Vice President of the Sister Cities Association, came before the Commission and stated that the Sister Cities Association is a volunteer, non-fund raising group; that the organization is able to function effectively because of the countless hours of time donated by an enthusiastic Board of Directors; that the only funding received comes from the annual dues of 70 members; that as the Association's work with five foreign cities has intensified, funds in addition to the traditional resources are necessary; that the Association is requesting financial support in the amount of $10,000 retroactive to January 1, 1997, to be held in BOOK 41 Page 14196 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14197 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. reserve and dispensed only as needed to pay the expenses of official foreign visitors, e.g., hotel costs, local transportation, attendance at receptions, and memorabilia presented to foreign visitors; that the funds would be used only to cover expenses for the foreign visitors and not for the Association members; that expenses for Sarasota representatives visiting Sister Cities are currently paid by the host cities; that the City of Sarasota currently does not provide any recurring financial support for the purpose requested. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Sister Cities Association receives funding from the Board of County Commissioners? Mr. Johnson stated that the County provides no financial support to the Association; that the Association concentrates on the Sister Cities relationships with the City of Sarasota; however, the County has established a relationship with Aberdeen, Scotland. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Sister Cities program benefits the entire Sarasota area; that any City dollars allocated to the Association should not be used to support the relationships established by the County; that the Association should also request financial support from the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Johnson stated that participation by the County in the Sister Cities organization has been discussed with individual County Commissioners; that the Association's involvement with foreign relationships established by the County or any financial support received from the County would be reported to the City Administration. Commissioner Patterson stated that her airfare, hotel accommodations, etc., were paid personally when she participated in a trip to a Sister City; that utilizing the City funds to finance receptions, tours, etc., would be more appropriate than financing foreign visitors' hotel accommodations. Mr. Johnson stated that most foreign visitors are sponsored by the sending Sister City, whose community realizes the value of the economic exchange gained by the visitor's presence in Sarasota. Commissioner Patterson stated that Vladimir, Russia, has a population of 300,000; that Hamilton, Canada, has a large population; that the City of Sarasota is relatively smaller. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration recommends that the request be approved subject to an administrative review of expenses incurred from January 1, 1997, to date; that the City Manager has requested the Sister Cities Association provide the appropriate documentation. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Mayor Cardamone stated that the funding will be money well spent; that Sarasota representatives are treated well when visiting other Sister Cities; that all of her expenses, except for airfare, were funded by the City of Hamilton when she visited the Sister City in Canada. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission's motion to extend the meeting did not include Citizen's Input; however, one citizen who had signed up is waiting to speak. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, the citizen's input will be received. 14. CITIZENS I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: (AGENDA ITEM VI) #4 (1500) through (1837) The following person came before the Commission: Wolf Weinhold, 2560 Fruitville Road (34237) expressed support for former Mayor Rita Roehr's request to include funds for the improvements to 12th Street between Tuttle Avenue and Beneva Road in the FY 97/98 budget and to accelerate the completion of the Project. Mr. Weinhold referred to the following City Targets for Action: Prepare a Development Plan for North and East Sarasota Examine How Best to Abate Residential Traffic Intrusion without Overburdening the Thoroughfare System Mr. Weinhold stated that the City lacks a proactive attitude towards solving future problems related to infrastructure; that polls indicate transportation and water/sewer issues as the highest priorities of citizens; that the City's water system is advanced but the City's road system is lagging in comparison to the County's. BOOK 41 Page 14198 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14199 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Weinhold continued that the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) transportation plan designates 12th Street and Lockwood Ridge Road as two major connecting roads scheduled for upgrades to four or six lanes; that Manatee County is in the process of four-laning and six-laning Tallevast Road, Lockwood Ridge Road, and Tuttle Avenue; that unfortunately, the four-lanes on Lockwood Ridge Road terminate at 17th Street, upon entering the City; that 12th Street is widened only to Tuttle Avenue, not through to Beneva Road as originally planned; that the referenced sections of Lockwood Ridge Road and 12th Street are deplorable; that four of the six options reviewed by the MPO pertaining to the U.S. 301 Corridor Study involved the four- laning or six-laning of Lockwood Ridge Road and 12th Street; that a non-supported decision by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to six lane U.S. 301 through the center of the Downtown should be pre-empted; that the City's development plan for north and east Sarasota should include the widening of Lockwood Ridge Road and 12th Street within the next five years; that both streets connect into well-developed arterials and, once completed, may diminish the need to widen U.S. 301 downtown. Mr. Weinhold further stated that City and County plans developed 15 years ago show Beneva Road connecting to Lockwood Ridge Road and extending to Whitfield Avenue in Manatee County, creating an urban thoroughfare; however, the County's improvements on Beneva Road heading north terminated at 17th Street, and the improvements to Lockwood Ridge Road heading south terminated at 17th Street, at the City/County line; that the City should take the initiative to complete the Lockwood Ridge Road and 12th Street projects; that including improvements to Lockwood Ridge Road and 12th Street on the Countywide projects list would promote public support for the L.O.S.T. extension referendum. Commissioner Patterson asked if improving Lockwood Ridge Road was included as a County responsibility in the dual taxation settlement? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/Clty Engineer, stated yes. Commissioner Merrill asked if the issue is a lack of maintenance or the condition of the paving on the streets referenced? Mr. Weinhold stated that congestion, lack of maintenance, and the condition of the paving are all issues; that the streets have remained unimproved for the past 30 years although the connecting arterials have been improved. Commissioner Merrill stated that substantial traffic congestion has been viewed at the intersection of Beneva and Fruitville Roads but not on Lockwood Ridge Road or 12th Street. Mr. Weinhold stated that motorists tend to avoid the deplorable conditions which exist on the referenced sections of Lockwood Ridge Road and 12th Street; that the MPO traffic counts support four-laning the two streets; that the traffic counts at the 17th Street/Lockwood Ridge Road intersection indicate 17,000 vehicles daily; that engineering and design plans exist for the Beneva Road/Lockwood Ridge Road project; that the urban thoroughfare plan should be pursued; that expanding the request by former Mayor Roehr to include Lockwood Ridge Road should be considered to provide a comprehensive solution for the north and east sides of the City. Mayor Cardamone stated that the improvements to Lockwood Ridge Road could be an item of discussion at the joint City/County Commission meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission delayed to this meeting action on the special exception granted by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) to allow an administrative office in an historic structure in Gillespie Park; that the PBLP's special exception resolution will become effective automatically if the Commission does not take action on Petition No. 96-SE-10 tonight. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, the Commission will take action on proposed Resolution No. 97R-963 before adjourning the meeting. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 97R-963, GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES OF A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION IN AN HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURE AT 1620 6TH STREET IN THE RMF = 3 ZONE DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY PETITION NO. 96-SE-10; DESCRIBING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-SE-10, PETITIONER BEVERLY SCOTT, VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION OF SARASOTA) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #4 (1837) through (1875) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R-963 by title only. Commissioner Patterson asked if the proposed resolution includes a five-year stipulation on approval? Attorney Schenk stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 97R-963. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. BOOK 41 Page 14200 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14201 02/18/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone distributed to the Commission copies of the essay by David Colburn which was presented in materials provided to her at the Rueben O'D. Askew Institute she recently attended at the University of Florida. 16. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1915) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of February 18, 1997, at 12:10 a.m. iclavt MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR ATTEST: Billye Rebuson BILLY E7 ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK