Book 40 Page 13867 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot, Commissioners Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None 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 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1996 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0038) through (0047) 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 November 4, 1996, are approved by unanimous consent. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0047) through (0054) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove New Business, Item No. VII-1, Discussion Re: "Rumble Strips" on Orange Avenue, per the request of Commissioner Patterson. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree F it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 3. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REPORT OF RECOXMENDATIONS FOR AMENDING THE PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) - INCLUDED ITEMS 2 THROUGH 5 IN THE LDRS UPDATE; REFERRED ITEM 1 TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR RECOMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM II-1) # 1 (0058) through (0325) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, Robert Town, Chairman, and Daniel Delahaye, Vice Chairman, Historic Preservation Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Town referred to the following five changes to the historic preservation portions of the proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRs) as récommended at the Historic Preservation Board's special meeting of October 8, 1996: 1. Extend the 45 day stay for demolition of Florida Master Site File (FMSF) structures from 45 days to 90 days. Mr. Town stated that the Historic Preservation Board meets quarterly; that the Board recommends the stay for demolition be extended to 90 days as 45 days does not allow sufficient time for the Board to review all demolition permits or for professional relocation of the structures; that property owners desiring to demolish historic structures without Board approval could file immediately after a quarterly Board meeting. Mr. Taylor stated that review by Staff indicates the 45-day stay provides adequate time in which to locate a new owner for historic structures; that relocating the historic structure can be accomplished within the six-month period of the demolition permit; that extending the stay for more than 45 days could cause neighborhood problems associated with buildings that remain vacant for extended periods of time. 2. Revise the procedure for discovery of violations. Mr. Town stated that Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) are required from the Historic Preservation Board for proposed alternations to the exterior of a locally designated structure; that the existing Code provides for retroactive review by the Board after the violation is discovered; that the Board recommends changing the penalty for violations from removal of the historic designation on the site to mandatory restoration of the building to a Board approved condition; that this will prevent property owners from performing illegal work in order to have the historic designation removed. 3. Permit salvaging of interior features prior to demolition. Mr. Town stated that the Board acknowledges significant features within a building may be salvageable and removing such features before demolition occurs may have merit; therefore, the Board recommends that a provision be included when Section 15-31 of the Zoning Code is updated which will allow the Board to require the owner/contractor to permit the public to salvage features such as mantle pieces, clawfoot bathtubs, doors, glass door knobs, etc., from a building scheduled for demolition if such features are not Book 40 Page 13868 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13869 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. salvaged by the owner/contractor; that these features could be reused in other old homes in the City, thereby preserving a part of the original structure for the future; that the provision would not apply to internal demolitions for remodeling. 4. Amend the proposed Major/Minor review process for COAs. Mr. Town stated that the Board has adopted a revised process for reviewing COAs which provides for Staff review and approval of COA requests considered minor in nature; that most building permits are considered major in nature and would require review by the Board; that the process was approved by the Board in October 1996; that revising the definition of "original materials" as follows will clarify the intent of the Board regarding material or style originating from the period of significance: Minor repairs by replacement of damage or deteriorated "original" materials in like kind from the period of significance or dating to the period of significance. Mr. Town stated that the Board also recommends that Staff review permits to determine if changes are major/minor and refer permits to the Board if review is required. 5. Replace the local application form with a modified version of the National Register application form. Mr. Town stated that the Board recommends the local application form be replaced with a slightly amended version of the State and National Register application forms, which include the same information but have a different cover page; that this would provide a nationally accepted format which would allow the petitioner to forward the designation for National Register consideration by replacing the cover page. Commissioner Patterson requested rebuttal from Mr. Town regarding Staff's conclusions on Item No. 1. Mr. Town stated that an extension of the existing 45-day stay provision or a requirement for more frequent meetings is necessary if the Commission desires Board involvement regarding demolition of historic structures. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if scheduling special meetings of the Board when a demolition permit is filed would be feasible? Mr. Town stated yes, if the Board is notified; however, acquiring a quorum on short notice may be difficult. Commissioner Patterson stated that her instinct is to support the Board's original request and recommendation; however, the purpose for the extension is not clear; that the intent of the review period is to provide the historic preservation community an opportunity to identify economically feasible alternatives which may appeal to the property owners, e.g., finding another individual willing to pay for the relocation and renovation of the structure; that such an opportunity would not be provided if the Board meets and two days later the structure is demolished. Mr. Town stated that the Board's authority to stop a demolition is limited; that in the past three years, the Board has delayed only one demolition by 90 days to provide time for the property owner to come forward and explain the reasons demolition was being pursued; that the demolition was ultimately approved; that the Board should be provided sufficient time to take action if appropriate; that an extension of the stay period would also provide additional time for community awareness and involvement by interested parties. Commissioner Patterson asked if the existing ordinance provides authority for the Board to delay a demolition by an additional 90 days following Board review? Mr. Town stated yes. Mayor Cardamone asked the procedure used to identify if a demolition permit has been filed for an historic structure. Mr. Taylor stated that approximately 100 historic structures in the City have been locally designated; that approximately 1,000 historic structures are listed on the FMSF; that the Historic Preservation Board attempts to preserve as many of the historic structures as possible; that those that are locally designated require review by the Board; that the Building Department immediately forwards requests for demolition permits of historic structures to the Planning and Development Department which attempts to identify alternatives and save the structure; that notice to the Board and the community is provided; however, many times the property owner is determined to destroy the structure and nothing can be done. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends taking no action on Item No. 1 and including Item Nos. 2 through 5 in the LDRS Update for consideration and public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to include Item Nos. 2 through 5 in the LDRS Update for consideration and public hearing and to refer Item No. 1 to the Administration for a recommendation regarding scheduling of special meetings by the Historic Preservation Board when demolition permits for historic structures are filed. Motion Book 40 Page 13870 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13871 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: DOWNTOWN AREA PARKING COMMITTEE - ACCEPTED; ENDORSED RECOMMENDATIONS (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0325) through (2011) City Manager Sollenberger stated that in conjunction with entering into an agreement with Sarasota County regarding the library site at Five Points, the Commission requested the Administration appoint a committee to review parking issues related to the library use; that the Downtown Area Parking Committee's findings will be presented to the Commission. Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, Paul Thorpe, Chairman, and members Deane Allyn, Bruce Franklin, and Adam Segreti, Downtown Area Parking Committee, came before the Commission. Mr. Thorpe gave a computer-generated slide presentation explaining the findings of the Downtown Area Parking Committee and Recommendations. Mr. Thorpe stated that a committee was formed to conduct a parking study addressing concerns in the downtown area; that the study area is bounded by Fruitville Road to the north, Ringling Boulevard to the south, Orange Avenue to the east, the Bayfront to the west, and included the new public library site at Five Points; that the parking surveys were conducted from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; that parking occupancy was determined and compared to available parking; that the number of vacant parking spaces were calculated and alternative parking opportunities identified; that two separate surveys were performed: one in October 1995 and the other in February 1996, to account for increased winter traffic. Mr. Thorpe referred to and explained a bar graph reflecting vacant parking spaces available during the peak hour, at 12 noon on a weekday, as follows: October 1995: 40% of all parking spaces vacant 606 public 1589 private February 1996: 32% of all parking spaces vacant 349 public 1441 private Mr. Thorpe stated that sufficient parking spaces are available for access to major businesses during the peak hour; that a combined total of 5,498 public and private parking spaces are available in the downtown study area. Commissioner Patterson stated that the 32% vacancy rate includes both private and public parking spaces; and asked the percentage of public spaces vacant during the peak hour? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the 349 vacant public spaces in February 1996 represents approximately 19% of the total 1,803 spaces available. Commissioner Patterson asked if the study indicates a 19% vacancy of public spaces during the peak hour during the middle of the winter season? Mr. Thorpe stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone stated that those vacant spaces are not available directly in front of the luncheon establishments. Mr. Thorpe stated that is correct; that the study area included the First Street/Lemon Avenue and State Street parking lots, parking along Palm Avenue, and the parking spaces at the Bayfront/Marina Jack area. Commissioner Patterson stated that the majority of customers attempting to frequent an establishment in the vicinity of Orange Avenue will not walk from the Bayfront/Marina Jack area. Mr. Thorpe stated that many of the merchants encourage employee parking in the Bayfront/Marina Jack area. Commissioner Dupree stated that merchants' employees parking at and walking from the Bayfront/Marina Jack area is feasible; however, consumers with limited time to shop or dine will not park in that area. Mr. Franklin stated that parking spaces in closer proximity to the establishments in the downtown core are made available when merchants, restaurant workers, etc., park in the lots further away. Mr. Segreti stated that a public parking lot which provides three hours of free parking is located one block off of Main Street on Lemon Avenue; however, many customers are not aware the parking lot exists; that motorists should be educated and directed to areas where parking spaces are available. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that all 349 vacant public parking spaces identified in February 1996 are not located at the Bayfront/Marina Jack area. Mr. Thorpe stated that the First Street/Lemon Avenue parking lot has approximately, 40 to 50 vacant spaces daily during the peak hour; that approximately, 15 to 20 spaces are vacant at the State Street parking lot, which is primarily utilized by permit holders. Book 40 Page 13872 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13873 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Thorpe stated that the data from the study was applied to the Downtown Library area; and referred to the following results of parking analysis after construction of the new library: Vacant public/curb spaces 52 Vacant private spaces 362 Total Vacant spaces 414 Spaces provided by library 174 Total spaces available 588 Mr. Thorpe presented the following Committee recommendations: Short Range Plan (Immediate) Improved signage Angle parking at selected locations Mr. Thorpe stated that improved signage will inform customers of parking available in the immediate downtown shopping area. Commissioner Pâtterson stated that parking in the downtown area was an issue during her first campaign for office; that people were unaware the City had invested $4.5 million to create 450 new parking lot spaces; that the program previously initiated to locate signage informing the public of the new parking has not been entirely successful. Mr. Thorpe stated that additional signage showing the public where and how to get to parking will be beneficial and assist in altering the perception that a parking problem exists in the downtown; that various concepts were discussed by the Committee, including the potential of cut-through access from the public parking lots to Main Street. Ms. Allyn stated that signage posted at establishments informing patrons of parking locations assists in educating the public. Mr. Thorpe referred to a diagram of the Downtown Library area; and stated that angle parking at selected locations is recommended; that providing angle parking on Second Street and Pineapple Avenue will provide an additional 56 spaces in the Downtown Library area. Mayor Cardamone stated that the curb parking on Central Avenue is not depicted on the diagram. Mr. Mohammed stated that eliminating the five or six curb parking spaces on Central Avenue, widening the sidewalk, and providing landscaping is proposed based on the close proximity of the library building to the street; that the angle parking on Central Avenue between First and Main Streets will remain. Mayor Cardamone stated that providing angle parking on Lemon Avenue between the median and the City Hall parking lot should be considered. Mid Range Plan (1 to 3 years) > Shared parking with private garages and parking lots Park/Shop Program (Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) trolley) Mr. Thorpe stated that many of the private parking facilities are not utilized during the evening hours or on weekends, e.g. at Barnett Bank; that negotiating an arrangement for people who currently purchase City permits to purchase permits to park in the private facilities and negotiating public access to private facilities during the evening hours and on weekends are concepts being considered. Mayor Cardamone stated that private enterprises which have private parking facilities should be encourage to utilize on-site parking rather than purchasing parking permits for employees to park in the City parking lots. Mr. Thorpe stated that providing continual trolley access from selected locations to the downtown is being discussed with SCAT; that utilizing the parking lots at the Van Wezel and Robarts Arena as vehicle drop-off locations is being considered; that other cities have similar programs; that other cities also charge for parking in public parking lots. Long Term Plan (3 to 5 years) New parking garage Mr. Thorpe stated that financing and location issues associated with constructing a parking garage in the downtown area will have to be addressed; that a parking garage was recently built in Pensacola, Florida, with the cooperation of a major employer and community support. Commissioner Patterson stated that the report and recommendations of the Downtown Study Committee are somewhat contradictory; that the report indicates parking is sufficient, but construction of a parking garage is recommended within three to five years. Mr. . Thorpe stated that the study indicates adequate parking currently exists; that future growth in the downtown is anticipated; that one or two major businesses could choose to locate downtown within the next five years, at which time consideration of providing additional parking, i.e., a parking garage, will be necessary. Book 40 Page 13874 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13875 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that a special assessment district was established to finance the parking lot on St. Armands; that the general taxpayers who have emotionally and financially supported improvements to make the downtown successful will be looking to the downtown property owners to finance further amenities the success of the downtown is driving; that serious consideration should be given to creating a business improvement district; that utilizing the grant from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for a bus terminal, which includes $1 million for site acquisition, as leverage for acquiring additional funding for a parking garage should also be considered; that a commitment from the downtown property owners to contribute toward a parking garage is necessary before she can support the recommendations of the Downtown Area Parking Committee. Mr. Thorpe stated that a committee comprised of downtown business owners is reviewing the concept of a business improvement district; that a cooperative public/private effort is anticipated to construct a parking garage; that the concept envisioned includes a major business, i.e., RISCORP, purchasing the first two Eloors of the parking garage and other merchants committing to purchase parking spaces; that a request for the City to construct a parking garage is not included in the report. Mr. Franklin stated that a public/private venture with the City in a leadership role will be required to coordinate the diverse interests and processes involved with constructing a parking garage in the downtown. Mayor Cardamone stated that the City's taking a leadership role would be appropriate. Commissioner Merrill stated that providing adequate parking for library patrons is important; that parking spaces formally utilized by patrons of Emphasis, Paradise Café, and Goodyear will become available but library patrons will demand parking; and asked if an analysis has been performed to determine if adequate parking for the library will be supplied sO the parking lot at the library is not continually full? Mr. Mohammed stated that surveys were conducted in February to determine the peak demand for parking at the current Selby Library; that a total of 282 spaces will be provided for the new library downtown versus the 125 spaces currently provided at the Selby library. Commissioner Merrill stated that 282 spaces will be provided for a 70,000 square foot library versus 125 spaces for a 30,000 square foot library. Mr. Mohammed stated that the demand for library parking is not directly proportional to the size of the structure. Commissioner Merrill asked if an adequate amount of parking for library patrons to conveniently park will be provided at the new library to be located downtown at Five Points? Mr. Mohammed stated that Staff feels confident sufficient parking for a 70,000 square foot library will be provided by the County and the City. Commissioner Merrill stated that a parking problem for library patrons will not be created by locating the new library at Five Point. Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone asked if a problem with library patrons conveniently parking will be experienced during the peak hour? Mr. Mohammed stated that the absence of parking problems at all times cannot be guaranteed; however, sufficient parking will be available the majority of the time; that in his. professional opinion, a parking problem for library patrons will not be created by locating the new library at Five Points. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends accepting the Downtown Area Parking Committee's report and endorsing the Committee's recommendations. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that endorsing the Committee's recommendations does not indicate a parking garage will definitely be built but that the recommendation appears valid and consideration of a parking garage will follow normal operating procedures. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct; that a parking garage would be examined under a public/private partnership when appropriate. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to accept the Downtown Area Parking Committee's report and endorse the recommendations presented. Commissioner Patterson stated that the initial interlocal agreement prepared by the County as negotiated by the Administration specifically made construction of a future parking garage the sole responsibility of the City; that the Committee's recommendation to provide a parking garage within three years, which will be only 1.5 years after the library opens, worries her; that committing substantial City tax dollars towards the construction of a parking garage is not supported; however, the City's taking a leadership role in a private/public venture to provide a parking facility downtown in the future is supported; therefore, she will vote in favor of the motion. Book 40 Page 13876 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13877 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked if the City prohibits charging fees for parking on privately-owned property? Mr. Taylor stated that the existing Code does not provide for commercial parking lots in the Commercial, Central Business (C- CBD) Zone District; that the issue is being reviewed during the LDRs Update. Mr. Franklin stated that the assistance provided to the Committee and the efforts put forth by Mr. Mohammed and the Engineering Department Staff throughout the study process should be commended. 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. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS 2 AND 3 - APPROVED; : ITEM NO. 1 - NO ACTION; ITEM NO. 4 - APPROVED STREET TREE PROGRAM DOCUMENT AS A GUIDELINE ONLY (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (2012) through (2533) Commissioner Merrill requested that Item Nos. 1 and 4 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Sarasota Sailing Squadron, Inc. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a professional service contract with Environmental Assessment & Consulting, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, (R.F.P. # 96-107) to provide asbestos consulting services On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 2 and 3. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the sale of the south 25 feet of vacated Temple Street east of Euclid Avenue and west of Briggs Avenue to Mr. Richard Allen for the appraised value of $4,600 Commissioner Merrill stated that several months ago Mr. Allen stated he was not interested in purchasing the property referenced in Item No. 1; and asked if approval of Item No. 1 is being requested as a result of the Commission vote on August 19, 1996, or as a result of negotiations with Mr. Allen? V. Peter Schneider came before the Commission and stated that the item was brought back as a result of the Commission vote. Commissioner Merrill stated that a desire by Mr. Allen to purchase the property should be confirmed before the Commission authorizes the sale. Mr. Schneider stated that Commission direction for the Administration to proceed with Mr. Allen before confirming the sale with the Commission was not clear in the minutes; that a letter was forwarded notifying Mr. Allen of the agenda item and requesting a response prior to tonight's meeting if he was interested in purchasing the property; that no response was received from Mr. Allen. Mayor Cardamone stated that there is a consensus to take no action on Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 1. 4. Approval Re: Establishment and implementation of a City of Sarasota Neighborhood Street Tree Program Commissioner Merrill stated that the Street Tree Program is supported; however, the Commission's adopting the program language may limit the Administration's flexibility; that for example, the draft presented states only two species of trees may be used and that proposed planting projects must have at least 75% participation on a street; that circumstances may vary on different streets; that the Street Tree Program will not be successful if 75% participation is required; that the guidelines should provide more latitude. Mr. Schneider stated that the document presented is intended as a framework for the Street Tree Program; that the guidelines will be followed when possible but altered based on unique circumstances. Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, came before the Commission and stated that developing an ownership interest in the community is the concept of the Street Tree Program; that maintenance of the trees on a 75% neighborhood/25: City ratio is desirable as funding is limited; that a neighborhood association pledging 100% participation would receive priority; however, neighborhoods which commit only 65% participation will not be ineligible; that Staff will work within the guidelines using professional judgment. Commissioner Merrill stated that the guidelines should not be viewed as adopted by the Commission. Book 40 Page 13878 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13879 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to accept the guidelines presented for a Street Tree Program, viewed only as guidelines allowing for flexibility in interpretation. Commissioner Patterson asked if the intent is for the City to fund acquisition of the trees? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City will purchase the trees, and the homeowners will water the trees until established. Commissioner Patterson stated that many of the big, majestic trees on the older streets are slowly dying; that the planting of as many trees as possible in the City's rights-of-way is encouraged. Commissioner Merrill stated that commitment for participation may be lacking in neighborhoods which need the trees the most; that many of the redevelopment areas consist of rental properties. City Manager Sollenberger stated that trees planted in neighborhoods where voluntary maintenance can be achieved is desirable; that establishing trees in neighborhoods where people are not able or have no interest in participating in the Street Tree Program is important to help upgrade the City's neighborhoods but would require an additional expenditure; that a number of programs are available to assist in upgrading certain neighborhoods; that applying several resources may be required to provide a successful Street Tree Program. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-948) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3975)- ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3976) ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3977) ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3978) (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (2533) through (2662) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R- 948 in its entirety and proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3795; 97-3976, 97-3977, and 97-3978 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: : Proposed Resolution No. 97R-948, appropriating. $2,650 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to provide funding for police services ($2,000), barricades ($500) and trash pick-up/street cleaning ($150) for the second annual Downtown Christmas Parade; etc. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3975, providing for the designation of the main structure and garage located at 2319 Ixora Avenue, historically known as the Asa Causey House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 96-HD-09, Petitioner Teresa Berket) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3976, providing for the designation of a historic district to be known as the "Second Street District" pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; said district to be located at 1243, 1249, 1251, 1259 and 1267 Second Street, as more particularly described herein; providing for the classification of the structures within said district as contributing or noncontributing; setting forth criteria for the review of new construction within said district; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-HDD-02, Petitioner Mikki Hartig) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3977, providing for the designation of the structure located at 2929 Bahia Vista Street, historically known as the Scarborough House, as a structure of historic significance pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 96-HD-07, Petitioner Mikki Hartig) 5. Adoption Re: : Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3978, amending the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan as referenced in Chapter 22, Sarasota City Code; restricting the boundaries of leaseholds within Ken Thompson Park to the boundaries depicted on the amended Ken Thompson Park Master Plan; providing for the severability of parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 5, inclusive. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yesi Patterson, yes; Pillot, 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 Book 40 Page 13880 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13881 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. 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. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3968, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS SOUTH OF BAY ROAD/ /BEE RIDGE ROAD ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41) CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY SIXTY (60) ACRES M.O.L., AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 97-ANX-01, PETITIONER CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING; APPROVED SOUTH TRAIL ANNEXATION REPORT, INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL PLAN (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (2702) through #2 (2402) Dale Haas, Principal Utilities Engineer, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Mr. Haas stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 annexes 88 parcels pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, which requires a report including plans for financing extension of water and sewer services and a proposed timetable for construction to provide services to the annexed area as a prerequisite to annexation. Mr. Haas stated that developed properties along South Tamiami Trail are in need of central sanitary sewer and water service; that some properties in the annexation area are already serviced by the City; that providing central sewer service to the annexation area is a natural extension of the City's existing system; that three package sewage treatment plants and many septic tanks will be decommissioned after central sewer is made available to the annexation area. Mr. Haas continued that City Staff have been working with many of the property owners in the South Trail Area for the past two years; that owners of 58 parcels have applied to the City for annexation; that 30 other parcels are adjacent to or between parcels seeking annexation; that Section 171.0413, Florida Statutes, allows the City to annex all 88 parcels as long as certain conditions are met. Mr. Haas provided the following general description of the annexation area: Parcels on the north side of Bee Ridge Road east of U.S. 41 to Lime Avenue. Parcels on the south side of Bee Ridge Road east of U.S. 41 to Dearborn Avenue. Parcels on the east side of U.S. 41 from Bee Ridge Road south to Chili's Plaza, including the Bath and Racquet Club. Parcels on the west side of U.S. 41 from Bay Road south to Glengary Street. Parcels south of Bay Road from U.S. 41 to a point 1,400 west of U.S. 41. Parcels north of Hansen Street. from Brown Avenue to Sunshine Avenue, except one residential parcel. A single parcel east of Caminio Real abutting the City Limits. Parcels west of Flores Avenue abutting the City Limits. A parcel south of Bay Road east of Tangier Terrace. Mr. Haas stated that 12 of the 88 parcels are occupied by registered electors who have filed petitions for voluntary annexation of their property; that 46 of the remaining 76 parcels, or 65.4%, have volunteered to annex into the City, which represents 62.92% of the total land area not having any registered electors. Attorney Schenk stated that incorporating revised percentages into proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 is necessary as follows: The figure of 58% is changed to 61% in the fourth Whereas clause on page 2 to read: The owners of approximately 61% of the parcels of land in the South Trail Annexation Area have consented to the annexation The figure of 54% is changed to 63% in the fifth Whereas clause on page 2 to read: The owners of approximately 63% of the land area in the South Trail Annexation Area have consented to the annexation Attorney Schenk stated that the above revised percentages are also incorporated into Section 2, subparagraphs 5 and 6, of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968; that incorporating revised percentages into the South Trail Annexation Report prepared by Dale Haas also is necessary as follows: The figure of 58% is changed to 61% and the figure of 54% is changed to 63% in the last two paragraphs on page 4. Book 40 Page 13882 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13883 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Attorney Schenk stated that the following evidence in the record supports the findings by the City commission in Section 2 of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968: 1. The South Trail Annexation Area is contiguous to the boundaries of the City of Sarasota and reasonably compact. Attorney Schenk stated that the Certification of Dale A. Haas, P.E., Principal Utilities Engineer of the Public Works Department dated November 22, 1996, states that the South Trail Annexation Area is contiguous to the boundaries of the City of Sarasota and reasonably compact. Also the map of the South Trail Annexation Area labeled Exhibit "D" attached to proposed Ordinance No. 97- 3968 graphically illustrates this point. 2. The South Trail Annexation Area is within the Urban Service Boundary set forth in Section 6-31, Zoning Code. Attorney Schenk stated that Section 6-31, Zoning Code, establishes an Urban Service Boundary in order to provide for adequate service delivery with the following approximate boundaries: University Parkway to the north, Interstate 75 to the east, Clark Road and Stickney Point Road to the south, and Siesta Key to the southwest as more specifically described in said section; that the city auditor and clerk is required to render a decision in writing as to whether real property proposed to be annexed is within the Urban Service Boundaryi that in the Certification of Billy E. Robinson, City Auditor and Clerk, dated November 25, 1996, the City Auditor and Clerk states that the geographic area proposed to be annexed by Ordinance No. 97-3968 is within the Urban Service Boundary described in Section 6-31, Zoning Code. 3. All of the South Trail Annexation Area is developed for urban purposes as defined in Section 171.043 (2), Florida Statutes (1995). Attorney Schenk stated that the Certification of Dale A. Haas, P.E., Principal Utilities Engineer of the Public Works Department dated November 22, 1996, states that all of the South Trail Annexation area is developed for urban purposes; that the term "urban purposes' " is defined as land used intensively for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and governmental purposes. 4. All of the owners of sites upon which registered electors reside within the Subarea Having Registered Electors have filed petitions for voluntary annexation of their property. Attorney Schenk stated that Exhibit "B" attached to Ordinance No. 97-3968 sets forth the street addresses for the 12 parcels of real property which are occupied by registered electors; that as indicated on page 5 of the South Trail Annexation Report, all of the owners of sites upon which registered electors reside have filed Petitions for Voluntary Annexation of their property; that the 12 parcels which are occupied by registered electors have been excluded in the calculations regarding the 50% participation requirements of Section 171.043 - (2), Florida Statutes (1995). 5. Owners of approximately 61% of the parcels of land in the Subarea Having No Registered Electors have consented to the annexation of their properties. 6. Owners of approximately 63% of the land area in the Subarea Having No Registered Electors have consented to the annexation of their properties. Attorney Schenk stated that Sections 171.0413 (5),(6), Florida Statutes (1995) provide that a vote of the electors of the area proposed to be annexed is not required if the area proposed to be annexed does not have registered electors residing within the area and the following two criteria are met: 1) owners of more than 50% of the parcels consent to the annexation and 2) owners of more than 50% of the land area in the area proposed to be annexed consent to the annexation. Attorney Schenk continued that Certification of Joanne Koester, as Supervisor of Elections for Sarasota County, dated November 13, 1996, provides a list of addresses within the South Trail Annexation Area at which there are no registered electors residing. Attorney Schenk further stated that the South Trail Annexation Report on page 4 states: 1) owners of approximately, 61% of the parcels of land in the Subarea Having No Registered Electors have consented to the annexation of their properties and 2) owners of approximately 63% of the land area in the Subarea Having No Registered Electors have consented to the annexation of their properties. 7. The entire South Trail Annexation Area would not cause the total area annexed by the City during the calendar year in 1996 to cumulatively exceed more than 5% of the total land area of the City of Sarasota. Attorney Schenk stated that the South Trail Annexation Report, page 4, indicates that the proposed annexation of the South Trail Area is approximately 60 acres in size and that the land area previously annexed by the City in 1996 consisted of 48.9 acres; therefore, the total acreage annexed in 1996 including the South Book 40 Page 13884 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13885 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Trail Annexation Area will increase the City's land area by only approximately 1.5%. 8. The population of the entire South Trail Annexation Area does not exceed more than 5% of the City of Sarasota's population. Attorney Schenk stated that the South Trail Annexation Report, page 4, states that the current population of the City of Sarasota is 51,143; that the South Trail Annexation will only add 87 residents to the population, which is less than 5% of the population of the City of Sarasota. Attorney Schenk continued that the following documents are made a part of the record by reference at the public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968: 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 with a draft date of November 25, 1996. 2. The South Trail Annexation Report prepared by Dale Haas, Principal Utilities Engineer. 3. Annexation Petition No. 97-ANX-01 filed by the City of Sarasota including Exhibits "A", "B", "C" and Appendix 1. 4. Metes and Bounds Legal Description of the South Trail Annexation Area consisting of sheets 1 through 9, dated October 22, 1996, prepared by Darrell E. Gerkin, Professional Surveyor and Mapper 5. All petitions for voluntary annexation filed by owners of real property located in the South Trail Annexation Area. 6. All Municipal Services and Pre-annexation Agreements which have been executed by owners of real property located with the South Trail Annexation Area. 7. Certification of Joanne Koester, as Supervisor of Elections for Sarasota County, dated November 13, 1996, incorporating the list of addresses within the South Trail Annexation Area at which there are no registered electors residing. 8. Certification of Billy E. Robinson, City Auditor and Clerk, dated November 25, 1996, determining that the geographic area proposed to be annexed is within the Urban Service Boundary 9. Certification of Dale A. Haas, P.E., Principal Utilities Engineer, dated November 22, 1996, stating that the annexation area is contiguous to the boundaries of the City of Sarasota and reasonably compact and that no part of the annexation area is included within the boundary of another municipality. Further, said Certification states that the annexation area is developed for urban purposes. 10. Letter from David R. Sollenberger, City Manager, to John Wesley White, Sarasota County Administrator, dated November 25, 1996, with a copy to the Honorable Karen E. Rushing, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, transmitting a copy of the South Trail Annexation Report, and memorandum from Sarah A. Schenk, City Attorney's Office, to Billy Robinson, City Auditor and Clerk, dated November 26, 1996, stating the delivery of said letter as being November 26, 1996. 11. Notice of public hearing pertaining to Ordinance No. 97- 3968 as published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on November 22 and 29, 1996. 12. All Notices of Interest in Annexation to the City of Sarasota filed by owners of real property within the annexation area 13. City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code Comprehensive Plan of City of Sarasota 14. Agenda, minutes, and video tape of the December 2, 1996, City Commission meeting. 15. All documents submitted at the public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 at the December 2, 1996, City Commission meeting. Mr. Haas stated that many of the parcels in the annexation area are already connected to the City of Sarasota water and/or sewer systems; that many of sites on the east side of U.S. 41 have central water provided by Sarasota County; that the only water line extension needed is along Hansen Street from Brown Avenue west to Sunshine Avenue; that the line extension can be made within 60 days of annexation; that those parcels fronting on Brown Avenue may apply for water and sewer service immediately following the annexation since the gravity water and sewer lines exist in Brown Avenue; that the same applies to parcels that back onto Hammond Place between School and Lime Avenues; that the sewer service for the balance of the parcels will be designed and permitted within the first year following annexation; that construction of the central sewer system will take place in the second year after annexation, preferably after the Easter holiday in consideration of the commercial area. Mr. Haas continued that utility impact fees and connection fees which apply to other parts of the City will apply in the annexation area; however, the cost to construct the Book 40 Page 13886 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13887 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. infrastructure will exceed the revenue generated by those fees; that the cost of expanding the water and sewer infrastructure is estimated at $423,000, which will be offset partially by approximately $178,000 in utility impact fees and connection fees collected; that the $245,000 balance will be funded from the water and sewer revenues generated within the annexation area; that based on the revenue projections, the construction balance would be paid within seven years; that in addition, a customer assistance program that allows the utility impact fees to be paid over a 10-year period at no interest will be utilized; that this fee will be charged on the monthly sewer bill, for example, a site with a 5/8" water meter will be charged $12.92 per month in addition to the monthly sewer bill until the $1,550 impact fee is paid; that sites with larger water meters will pay a larger monthly fee. Mr. Haas further stated that out-of-pocket expenses to the customer will be the standard $575 connection fee and on-site construction costs, including but not limited to decommissioning the septic system or package sewage treatment plant and the connection to the central sewer system; that some of the commercial sites will need to construct private sewage lift stations to connect to the City's central system. Mr. Haas referred to and explained the following Financial Exhibits: General Fund Revenue and Expense Projections = providing an estimate of anticipated revenues and expenses impacting the City's General Fund as a result of the annexation. Mr. Haas stated that the City will receive revenue from ad valorem taxes, franchise taxes, excise taxes, and occupational licenses; that other services will be provided on a fee basis, e.g., central water, central sewer, refuse removal, and building permits; that the General Fund will receive in excess of $218,000 the first year, which will reduce to $195,000 in the 20th year. Financial Fund Revenue and Expense providing information on anticipated capital costs necessary to expand water and wastewater service to the annexation area as well as projected operating revenue and expense to be derived from the new customers represented by the annexation area. Mr. Haas stated that the annexation will generate a net benefit to the Enterprise Fund of $50,900 for years one and two combined and $49,150 per year thereafter. Mr. Haas stated that Staff recommends approving the proposed annexation and the financial plan as presented, including the Customer Assistance Program. Commissioner Merrill asked the sites in the annexation area from which the City currently receives in-lieu taxes? Mr. Haas stated that the City currently has Municipal Services and Pre-Annexation Agreements with Sunset Chevrolet, Bersam Development Company, Glengary Shoppes, and Sonny's Real Pit Bar- B-Q, which represent approximately 20% of the $30 million assessed value of all properties in the South Trail Annexation Area. Commissioner Patterson asked for clarification of the $93,000 estimated in annual ad valorem revenue. Mr. Haas stated that ad valorem revenue for the properties with which the City currently has Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreements was not included in the projections; however, revenues for Franchise and Excise Taxes, which the City is not currently receiving, has been included for those properties. Commissioner Patterson asked if the existing Agreement with Glengary Shoppes allows for termination of payments to the City if sewer service from another source becomes available in the future? Mr. Haas stated that Glengary Shoppes are part of the annexation area; that the existing Municipal Services Agreement provides for City sewer service from 1965 until the year 2005; that the annexation will secure utilities for the property beyond the year 2005; that the project is a "win-win" situation for all parties involved. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Staff provided a thorough presentation and the details of the South Trail Annexation, a complex project, to the Commissioners during individual briefings last week. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Joan Mastradea. 2232 Siesta Drive (34239), stated that notice regarding annexation of her commercial property at 2116 Bee Ridge Road, Lot 3, Block G was not received; that the property was purchased in the County, not the Cityi that she is a retiree living on a limited income, has not consented, and is opposed to the proposed annexation. Book 40 Page 13888 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13889 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. James Toale, Attorney, representing James and Orine Stewart, Trustees, and James Stewart, 5037 Remington Drive (34234). Attorney Toale stated that the Stewarts have owned the property located at 1901 Hansen Street on the corner of Brown Avenue, currently operated by Sleep King, Inc., for over 50 years; that sewer lines were installed on two sides of the property approximately 35 years ago; that the City denied a request for sewer service 20 years ago when the property was developed; that the City also denied a request for sewer service 10 years ago when the building was expanded; that as a result of the City's second denial, the Stewarts expended substantial dollars installing an extensive septic system and drainfield to meet the requirements of Sarasota County, which required a system designed for the most intensive use of the property, i.e., a restaurant, although the Sleep King has only two restrooms; that the existing system has a significant, remaining useful life. Attorney Toale stated that the term "may" has been used in reference to connection to the sewer line which will become available; and asked if connecting to the sewer line which has been in existence for many years will be optional upon annexation of his client's property? Commissioner Patterson asked the amount invested in the septic system and the assessed value of the property? Mr. Stewart stated that approximately $7,000 was expended to install the septic system; that taxes currently paid on the property exceed $5,000 annually; that connection to the sewer line was requested from and denied by the City twice, which required an expenditure of funds to install an elaborate septic system; that the City is now requiring expenditure of additional funds to decommission the septic system which is working well; that the finances expended on the septic system cannot be recovered. Commissioner Patterson stated that in-lieu taxes of approximately $1,000 to provide City sewer service would be assessed on a property whose County taxes exceed $5,000; that cumulative in- lieu of taxes would have exceeded the cost of the septic system if connection had been approved as requested 10 years ago. Commissioner Dupree requested a response from the Administration to Attorney Toale's question. City Manager Sollenberger stated that connection to a sewer line to which a property has access is mandatory under the City Code. Commissioner Dupree asked the costs associated with connecting to the City's utility system? City Manager Sollenberger stated that an impact fee, paid over a 10-year period at no interest, the standard $575 connection fee, and the cost for decommissioning the septic system would apply to the annexed properties. Vice Mayor Pillot asked the time limit by which the owner of property on a street where a sewer line already exists will be required to connect to the system? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the time limit is one year from the date of annexation for properties in areas where sewer lines exist and construction is not necessary. Mr. Haas stated that the City Code requires connection one year from the date of notification, which parallels the State codes pertaining to septic systems; that the State determined septic systems as temporary sewage disposal devices and requires connection within one year of notification that central sewer is available; that, for example, property owners in the annexation area would have until December 17, 1997, to connect to the City's system if the proposed ordinance is adopted on second reading at the December 16, 1996, regular Commission meeting, and notice is forwarded to the property owners on December 17, 1996. Mayor Cardamone asked if the date on which the notifications will be forwarded has been determined? Mr. Haas stated no; that Staff has not scheduled a definitive date for the mailing. Commissioner Patterson asked the estimated cost for decommissioning a septic system? Mr. Haas stated that decommissioning costs could vary from $280 to $350 depending on the type of system; that an elaborate system may cost morei that septic system contractors have indicated decommissioning costs would not exceed $500. Mr. Stewart stated that $500 is not realistic of the actual financial burden assessed to the property owner; that removing a septic system from the property and resodding the land area cannot be accomplished for $500; that the purpose for the annexation is to increase the City's tax base; that the affects on property owners who previously requested but were denied connection to existing sewer lines should have received further consideration. Mayor Cardamone stated that benefits other than just increasing the City's tax base will be achieved by the South Trail Annexation. Stephen Rees, Attorney, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 (34236) representing Paul and Elaine Chapman, Trustees, stated that he is Book 40 Page 13890 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13891 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. a land use attorney with the law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A.; / that his clients own several properties on Hansen Street and immediately at the intersection of Brown Avenue and Hansen Street, all of which are currently zoned RMF-1 in the County, and a property at 1820 Nebraska Street, zoned as Commercial, Intensive on the County's land use plan. Attorney Rees continued that the thorough information and clarity of documentation provided by Mr. Haas and Attorney Schenk throughout the process has greatly assisted him in counseling his clients as to a collective judgment and opinion regarding the benefits of pursing annexation; that a Notice of Interest was filed timely; that subsequently, a Pre-Annexation Municipal Services Agreement and the Annexation Petition were received; that the economic consequences were reviewed and a determination made by his clients to proceed with the annexation; that the project is a "win-win" situation; that although some economic hardships may be suffered as a result of the conversion of properties, his clients' properties, as with many of the other properties, have old, dilapidated structures whose age and condition do not warrant a rehabilitation effort but whose private well and septic systems prevent redevelopment to the highest and best use permissible under the County's zoning; that annexing the property into the City will provide central water and sewer and an opportunity for subsequent amendment of the Sarasota City Plan and zoning consideration to accomplish a modern, efficient use of the property; that the City benefits and the property owner benefits from the ability to move forward, develop the property, and receive a reasonable return for ownership and investment in the property. Attorney Rees requested that the Commission pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 on first reading. Russell Natherson and Patrick Gallagher, 1801 Glengary Street, representing RPL Associates. Mr. Natherson stated that the property at 1801/1803 Glengary Street was under single ownership from 1980 to 1989, when he contributed the property into a partnership with Mr. Gallagher; that the Notice of Interest was received and returned indicating interest subject to approval by RPL Associates of all final costs and conditions; that the County-zoned property is not contiguous to the City but contiguous to properties the City is attempting to annex; that the City's denial of a request for sewer service to the property, resulted in a capital expenditure of approximately $75,000 to construct an elaborate septic system, make improvements to the property, and install a 6-inch water main down Glengary Street, which was subsequently dedicated to the County without remuneration; that annexing into the City will have a financial impact of $5,000 to $6,000 annually on RPL Associates - based on the increase in ad valorem taxes, licensing fees, etc., and the imposition of a sewage fee; that in addition, a private sewage lift station and installation of extension lines may be required to connect to the City's central system; that decommissioning the existing septic system which services 15,000 square feet of rental space will cost well over $500; that the out-of-pocket cost to RPL Associates is estimated at $10,000; that the tenants to whom the office space is rented are covered under long-term gross leases, and thus cannot be assessed a portion of the out-of-pocket cost. Mr. Natherson continued that the Notice of Interest was returned sO additional information could be received and the consequences and benefits associated with annexation evaluated; that RPL Associates has determined annexation would not be in the best interest of the partnership at this time; that an annexation petition was not submitted; and asked if the property at 1801 Glengary Street was included in the percentage of property owners who have consented to the annexation? Mr. Haas stated that the property was considered as a non- consenting parcel. Mr. Natherson continued that RPL Associates was led to believe that participation in the South Trail Annexation was voluntary and the legal and processing costs incurred when one property annexes would not apply; that mandatory annexation is not fair to property owners and may be discriminatory; that all of the property owners may not have been accurately informed about the impacts and real costs associated with annexing into the City; that mandatory annexation should be delayed until all the people affected, particularly those property owners who have requested a delay, be given an opportunity to study the annexation more thoroughly. Mr. Natherson Eurther stated that the newspaper indicated the potential of developing property under which septic systems are located once the septic systems have been decommissioned; and requested written documentation if the City's intention is to permit development on top of decommissioned septic systems. Mr. Gallagher referred to the annexation maps displayed in the Commission Chambers to identify the subject property. Mayor Cardamone asked if connection to central sewer would allow building on land currently consumed by drainfields and septic systems? Mr. Haas stated that approximately 10% to 15% of commercial sites with septic systems could be recovered for uses permitted by the City's Codes. Book 40 Page 13892 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13893 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Natherson stated that a site planner indicated developing the recovered portion of the property may be difficult as the City's codes are more stringent than the County's codes, under which the property was originally developed. Mr. Gallagher stated that the property was developed six years ago; that RPL Associates has not had an opportunity to amortize the $75,000 capital expenditure required as a result of the City's denial for sewer service; that remuneration was not received for dedicating the water main installed on Glengary Street to the County. Edmond Kanwit, 4540 Bee Ridge Road (34233), representing the Committee on Bee Ridge Road Safety, stated that the Committee on Bee Ridge Road Safety is concerned about the hazards and poor highway design on Bee Ridge Road, understands the City is pursing annexation of five blocks of property which abuts Bee Ridge Road, and is interested in working with the City to improve the safety and appearance of the land scheduled for annexation; that 10% of the accidents and fatalities in Sarasota County due to highway causes occur on Bee Ridge Road from U.S. 41 to Interstate 75; that installing a raised median and landscaping similar to that on U.S. 41 from Ringling Boulevard to the Manatee County Limit and eliminating the center lane in both directions would enhance safety on Bee Ridge Road. Mr. Kanwit submitted for the record documents pertaining to the Committee on Bee Ridge Road Safety. David Becker, 951 Indian Rodes Road Belleair FL (34616) President, Becker Properties, Inc., stated that his property is located at 4065 South Tamiami Trail on the corner of Glengary Street; that $38,000 to $42,000 was invested in a new septic system last year when the property was remodeled; that acquiring sewer service from the City was not an option; that annexation into the City will result in a $40,000 loss in capital investment and additional investment to connect to the City's sewer system; that annexation of his property is opposed; that relief should be provided for property owners who have beeri required to make substantial investments in septic systems. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97- 3968 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the South Trail Annexation will accomplish three objectives: 1) improve the City's revenue position, 2) provide a bridge for potential, additional annexations, and 3) provide an opportunity for economic redevelopment of properties within the annexation area. City Manager Sollenberger continued the Administration recommends approving the South Trail Annexation Report, including the financial plan, and passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the South Trail Annexation Report, including the financial plan, and to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 on first reading. Commissioner Dupree stated that property owners who have not consented to the annexation should be provided estimates of the costs which will be incurred as a result of the annexation; that consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 should be delayed until such estimates can be provided. Mr. Haas stated that the cost to provide infrastructure to the South Trail Annexation Area is in excess of $400,000; that the City has the authority to charge utility connection fees, impact fees, and additional construction fees which could amount to over $5,000 per parcel; however, the financial plan proposed will limit the cost to the property owner; that the out-of-pocket expense paid by the property owner to the City will be the $575 connection fee; that the impact fee of $1,550 will be paid on a monthly basis for 10 years at no interest; that the cost to construct the infrastructure will exceed the revenues collected by $245,000; that the additional construction costs will not be assessed to the property owners but invested by the City to improve the area; that the City will be providing service at a cost lower than could be obtained elsewhere; that Sarasota County has indicated a cost of $8,500 to $9,300 to provide central sewer service to a single-family, residential home; that the project is beneficial to the annexation area as well as to the City. Mr. Haas continued that the City has not received annexation petitions from 30 of the 88 parcels in the annexation area; that a response to the Notice of Interest and subsequent notification letters was not received from property owners of 27 of the 30 parcels; that data from the Sarasota County Property Appraiser's office was utilized to forward certified letters to all the affected property owners; that attempts were made to find alternative addresses for the property owners whose certified letters were returned; that despite one or two additional attempts to notify the property owners, some of the certified letters were still returned; that some property owners received the certified letters but chose not to respond. Mayor Cardamone asked if each of the property owners were informed of the cost which would be incurred by annexing into the City? Book 40 Page 13894 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13895 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Haas stated that cost estimates were provided to those property owners who responded to the certified letters by phone call or in writing; that data from the County and the City was utilized to determine the existing water meter size of each property and the costs calculated accordingly. Commissioner Dupree stated that the property owners who did not contact the City have not received additional information. Mr. Haas stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification of the change in State laws pertaining to annexation. Mr. Haas stated that in the past, the City's annexation efforts have been stymied particularly in the South Trail area as annexations were 100% voluntary; however, the State law changed in 1995 allowing municipalities to include parcels of property whose owners have not consented to the annexation to prevent the creation of enclaves; that this change in State law has permitted the City to include contiguous parcels in the annexation area. Commissioner Dupree stated that the State law is understood but does not seem quite right; that 49% of the parcels eligible for annexation could not respond or oppose the annexation but still would be required to pay the fees resulting from the annexation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that annexations in Florida can be accomplished in two ways: 1) voluntary annexation, and 2) by referendum; that the voluntary process is being utilized; that the majority of the property owners having ownership of the majority of the land area have consented to the annexation; that the voluntary annexation is not supported by all affected parties; however, referendums typically lack support by all affected parties and are determined by majority vote; that the voluntary annexation process has been similar an election without the need for people to go to the polls; that 63% of the owners of the majority of the property have consented to and support the annexation; that proceeding with the annexation as outlined is important; that omitting the properties which have not consented to the annexation would create enclaves, which is prohibited by State law; therefore, the City is required to include those parcels in the annexation. Commissioner Patterson stated that the analogy of the voluntary process and the election process is valid; that, for example, opposing voters are required to pay the tax resulting from a bond issue which passes by 50% plus one person; that the City Commission determines the millage rate which results in a financial responsibility for which not all citizens have voted; that statistically, the residents in the City of Sarasota have a 20% lower income compared to residents in the unincorporated area; however, those residents, whether or not financially able to contribute to those costs, are required to pay for services and amenities utilized by all County residents; that City property owners on one side of the street pay for a higher level of services while property owners of non-City parcels on the other side of the street receive the benefit of the urbanized area without paying the taxes; that the South Trail Annexation is welcomed. Commissioner Patterson continued that the views of those people who have invested dollars into a septic system is understood and unfortunate, but those property owners were essentially out voted during the voluntary annexation process; that those parcels would have been annexed and the property owners required to pay taxes to help support the urbanized area from which they have benefited for numerous years if the State laws had been different in prior years; that in North Carolina, where annexation laws are not based on voluntary participation, residents in the cities enjoy incomes 20% higher than residents in the unincorporated areas; that Florida's existing annexation laws are destructive, yet working within them Staff has done an excellent job of developing a program which will provide most of the beneficiaries economical central sewer service, which the County will force property owners to acquire at a much higher cost in the future; that Staff's efforts and the financial plan developed to supplement the construction costs are supported; that Staff is encouraged pursue additional annexations in a similar manner. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees with the statements made by Commissioner Patterson regarding the difficulties of the City and the inequities which exist; that property owners who have recently developed and expended funds for newer septic systems will be required to pay additional funds to connect to the City's system, which is unfortunate; however, property owners planning to develop will not be required to install lift stations and water lines, and therefore, will save money by annexing into the City. Commissioner Merrill stated that growing suburbs exist outside the City Limits; that a viable residential community and a viable downtown exist within the City Limits, but large areas converting to lower-income housing also exist within the City Limits; that the Administration is commended for pursing the South Trail Annexation; that the annexation represents a 1% increase in the City's tax base, which will provide for improved services, i.e., the hiring of additional police officers, increased landscaping, public art, and other projects required to maintain the regional hub of the urban area, and renovation of amenities, i.e., the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i that an economically viable City could be retained if annexations of similar size are achieved annually; however, future annexations may be limited as Book 40 Page 13896 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13897 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. the City is targeting areas where redevelopment is desired but central sewer is not provided; that Fruitville Road has central sewer, North Tamiami Trail is within the City, and U.S. 301 north of the City Limit may have sewer access; that the commercial areas immediately south of the new City Limits along South Tamiami Trail is a potential target market if those property owners are seeking to redevelop; however, annexation of residential areas is not likely; that the Administration's continued effort to achieve additional annexations is supported. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to approve the South Trail Annexation Report, including the financial plan, and to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3968 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3970, TO VACATE AN ALLEY THAT RUNS EAST AND WEST BETWEEN FIRST STREET ON THE SOUTH, SECOND STREET ON THE NORTH, BOUNDED BY CENTRAL AVENUE ON THE EAST AND PINEAPPLE AVENUE ON THE WEST; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 97-SV-01, PETITIONERS JOEL J. FREEDMAN, A.I.C.P. AND GARY B. HOYT, A.I.A. PA, REPRESENTING SARASOTA COUNTY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #2 (2414) through (3167) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Petition No. 97-SV-01 is a request to vacate an alley which is located between First and Second Streets, running east and west between Pineapple and Central Avenues, to allow for the construction of a new Downtown Library and adjacent parking lot; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended (5 to 0) approval of the proposed street vacation petition, pursuant to Section 30-82, Sarasota Code, finding that the closing or discontinuing of the public street is in the best interest of the City and public based on the evidence submitted into the record, subject to the petitioner being responsible for the costs of relocation of existing utilities located in the alleyway to the perimeter of the site and reconnection to the existing system; that the alley is no longer needed as a right-of-way; that the alley is not necessary for routing traffic around the library as alternative routes for traffic are available. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson enter the following into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Ed.) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M, and the City of Sarasota local amendments. City Attorney Taylor stated that the construction of the library also makes the street vacation in the best interest of the City; that the street vacation may not be in the best interest of the City if the library were not constructed; therefore, conditioning approval of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3970 upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C/0) within a time certain should be considered. to provide for invalidation of the street vacation if the library is not constructed on the proposed site; that County representatives are amenable to such a condition but have requested the time certain be designated as January 2001. Commissioner Patterson asked if approval could be conditioned on a date for the commencement of construction rather than the issuance of a c/o? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that both conditions could be considered; that expecting construction to begin within 1.5 years is feasible. city Attorney Taylor stated that the location of the library has been a controversial issue; that the County requested the date of January 2001 based on the potential that litigation could delay the project. Joel Freedman, A.I.C.P, Bishop & Associates, Inc.. and Gary Hoyt, Architect, representing Sarasota County Government, Petitioner, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman stated that the street vacation is requested to permit construction of the new library downtown as proposed; that the closing or discontinuing of the public street is in the best interest of the City and the public as provided for under Section 30-82, paragraph 3; of the Sarasota City Code that a central library in the downtown area has been needed and desired for many years; that the condition requiring relocation of existing utilities located in the right-of-way at the expense of the County is acceptable; that a condition requiring issuance of a c/o by January 2001 is also acceptable; that future problems are not anticipated but could occur. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that City Attorney Taylor referenced potential litigation as one of the reasons the County is requesting a four-year time line on the issuance of a c/o; and asked a reasonable time within which construction would begin and a c/o could be issued absent litigation? Book 40 Page 13898 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13899 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hoyt stated that construction is dependent upon issuance of the final construction order, but is anticipated to begin in January or February 1997; that the construction cycle is 14 to 16 months; that the project should be completed in the spring of 1998. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a time line shorter than four years could be considered with specific language included in a motion requiring commencement of construction, e.g., by December 31, 1998, absent litigation and allowing for an extension if litigation occurs; and asked if such a condition would be acceptable to' the County? Mr. Hoyt stated that the condition would be consistent with the current construction schedule for the library. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-3970 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 3970 on first reading and incorporating by second reading language providing for rescission of the street vacation if the library project does not have a C/o issued by a date certain. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Administration should consider incorporating a commencement date and an extension if litigation delaying the project occurs in addition to the January 2001 date requested for issuance of a C/0; that revoking a street vacation on a substantially completed project is not conceivable; however, the City should have some control over the County's completing the project as expeditiously as possible; that hardships will be suffered by the downtown merchants as construction occurs. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his primary concern is with vacating the right-of-way in perpetuity in the event the library project does not proceed; that the January 2001 date can be incorporated. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3970 on first reading, incorporating by second reading language providing for rescission of the street vacation if the library project does not have a C/O issued by January 2001. Mayor Cardamone requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson; yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3974, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM C-CBD ZONE DISTRICT AND TO APPROVE FINAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 97-PSD-03 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC LIBRARY IN A GOVERNMENTAL (G) ZONE DISTRICT ON THE REAL PROPERTY LYING BETWEEN FIRST STREET TO THE SOUTH, SECOND STREET TO THE NORTH, CENTRAL AVENUE TO THE EAST AND PINEAPPLE AVENUE TO THE WEST, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1331 FIRST STREET, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 97-CO- 02, PETITIONERS JOEL J. FREEDMAN, A.I.C.P. AND GARY B. HOYT, A.I.A. PA, REPRESENTING SARASOTA COUNTY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #2 (3171) through #3 (0600) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Petition No. 97-CO- 02 is a request for conditional rezoning from the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District to the Governmental Use (G) Zone District for the parcel bounded by First Street to the south, Pineapple Avenue to the west, Central Avenue to the east, and Second Street, for half of the block, and the alley between Second Street and Fruitville Road, for the remainder of the block, to the north; that Preliminary Site and Development Plan 97-PSD-03 has been filed in conjunction with the conditional rezoning petition to allow for the construction of a new Public Library; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found proposed Petition No. 97-CO-02 and Preliminary Site and Development Plan 97-PSD-03 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommended (5 to 0) approval to the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that proceedings before the PBLP wherein public testimony was taken and the matter was discussed are made part of the record. Joel Freedman, A.I.C.P, Bishop & Associates, Inc. and Gary Hoyt, Architect, representing Sarasota County Government, Petitioner, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman displayed on the overhead projector and referred to the Development Plan for Stormwater & Utilities to explain the location of the building and parking areas. Mr. Freedman stated that 95 parking spaces are located on site with 79 parking spaces provided across Second Street for a total of 174 parking spaces; that considerations for both pedestrian and vehicular access and the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) bus system have been discussed extensively; that rezoning the property from the C-CBD Zone District to the "G" Zone District for a public project is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan; that public involvement has been extensive. Book 40 Page 13900 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13901 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman continued that the following stipulations are acceptable: Providing a bus stop on the south side of First Street Modifying the SCAT trolley route to include the proposed library site Providing a trolley stop on the north side of First Street, east of Pineapple Avenue Providing parking facilities for bicycles on site Providing a right-turn only at the access driveway connection to the public alley at the north parking lot Converting the public alley along the north parking lot to one-way in the eastbound direction Mr. Hoyt referred to the Development Plan displayed on the overhead projector and a board display depicting the library site to explain general site features. Mr. Hoyt stated that the main entrance to the library is located to the south of the. building facing Five Points Park; that a second entrance opens to the adjacent parking to the west and includes a drop-off area which serves two functions: 1) direct access to the library and 2) book drop off; that controlled parking will be provided on site and across Second Street; that use of an operational coin system is anticipated but will not be required in the drop-off area; that a committee is meeting to determine appropriate public art for the site; that the simple two-level layout allows for maximum flexibility of book storage and long-term usage of the 73,000 square-foot library; that the copper dome provides a central space allowing translucent light into the building; that the new library will enhance the improvements previously made to Five Points Park by the City. Mayor Cardamone stated that approval of the site plan and rezoning does not imply support for a coin-operated parking system. Mr. Freedman stated that controlled parking is part of the project; that the intention is to allow the City, County, and library staffs to determine the best manner in which to control the parking, e.g., using a coin-operated or a touchpad system. Mr. Hoyt stated that controlled parking is intended during the operating hours of the library only. Mayor Cardamone stated that she has reservations regarding the controlled parking. Commissioner Patterson stated that the PBLP minutes reflect a statement by Mr. Freedman that the parking located across Second Street will be used for support personnel vehicles. Mr. Freedman stated that library staff will be encouraged or required to park in the lot across Second Street; that the PBLP minutes are a shortened version of his response to a question asking if support personnel would be taking up the parking adjacent to the library. Commissioner Patterson stated that the intent is to have library staff utilize the parking lot across Second Street rather than reserving that parking lot for use by Staff. Mr. Freedman stated that is correct. Mr. Hoyt stated that the proposal for two libraries, one downtown and one east of town, located the technical services function in the east library location; that the expanded program for the downtown library includes the technical services function, which will generate an additional parking need for support personnel vehicles. Commissioner Patterson stated that the technical services function is currently located at the Selby Library which has only 125 parking spaces. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Mary Ouillin, Vice President, Growth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO) 2304 Ringling Boulevard #213 (34237), stated that GEO has been active and supportive of the Friends of Selby Library's position against locating the new central, public library at Five Points, an inappropriate site which does not meet parking concurrency required by the City's Zoning Code; that public consensus has not been achieved for the proposed changes to the library site; that 72% of the people surveyed by the County opposed the building design; that the building is nonfunctional inside and out as compacting a 250,000 square-foot design used for modern libraries into a 73,000 square-foot building cannot be accomplished. Ms. Quillin continued that the Downtown Area Parking Committee reported that no parking problems exist downtown; however, the Downtown Circulation Feasibility Study reported by the City's Engineering Department in November 1995 attempted to prove a parking problem downtown sO Federal funds could be secured; that the City surveyed 600 people from the downtown area; that 85% of the people responding to the survey indicated parking downtown was between "fair" and "poor", with 54.7% considering the parking "poor"; that 50% of the people responding to the survey indicated Book 40 Page 13902 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13903 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. the traffic pattern and accessibility to the downtown was between "fair" and "poor"; that the difficulty people experience accessing and traveling within the downtown will only increase with the location of the library at Five Points. Ms. Quillin continued that Staff has indicated an allocation of 280 parking spaces for the library; that the map obtained from the public records, on which the parking spaces have been numbered, reflects only 157 spaces next to the library and in the Second Street parking lot; that a deficit of 80 feet was noted on the draft for the proposed parallel parking; that making some streets one-way, eliminating sidewalks, or reducing the size of the library site by 80 feet will be required to achieve the parallel parking proposed. Ms. Quillin referred to copies of over 4,000 signatures on a petition which reads as follows: Build the central library with a minimum of 100,000 square feet at Mission Harbor site, purchased in 1992 for the purpose of (building) a library, stop the Five Points project, and keep the promises made to us. Ms. Quillin stated that 1,843 signatures have been collected from citizens in the City of Sarasota, 50% of which are from the zip codes 34236 and 34237; that the petition will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners at the County Commission meeting on Tuesday, December 3, 1996. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson note that Ms. Quillin did not submit copies of the signatures for the record. Edward Harding, 2155 Woods Street (34236), representing Harding Partners, Inc., was sworn by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and stated that Ms. Quillin's statements are supported. Mr. Harding referred to a board display of a development previously presented to the Commission which included a 150,000 square-foot library on top of a 300,000 square-foot convention center and 1,200 parking spaces, a 5-story vertical shopping mall, an 18-story Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) with a restaurant and a cafeteria, and a plaza 15-feet above North Tamiami Trail; and stated that the concept was well liked by David May of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Mr. Harding stated that placing the parking under the library should be considered; that the downtown is dying; that the Kress Plaza is virtually empty, except for Patrick's Restaurant; that the Granary Natural Food Market relocated; that the potential exists that RISCORP will relocate; that City Hall would provide an appropriate site for a library if the City and County consolidate. Mr. Harding continued that the library should be constructed on the Mission Harbor site which is the site the City Commission promised the public the library would be located. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. Mr. Freedman stated that a traffic study was performed as required by the City for all rezoning petitions; that the project was found to meet concurrency; that the project will meet concurrency for stormwater. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-3974 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3974 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3974 on first reading. 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. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3973, TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NOS. 90-3434 AND 95- 3845 PERTAINING TO THE THEATER AND ARTS (TAD) ZONE DISTRICT: SAID AMENDMENT CONSISTS OF A PROPOSED CHANGE OF LAND USE TO THE FRONT (WESTERLY) STRUCTURE FOR RETAIL MEN'S WEAR/WOMEN'S WEAR STORE, AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS, AND SUBSTITUTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN PETITION 96-DPR-07: APPROVING SAID DEVELOPMENT PLAN 96-DPR-07 TO PERMIT THE REMODELING AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE OF A PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41) AND 4 STREET FOR A RETAIL MEN'S WEAR /WOMEN'S WEAR STORE IN A TAD ZONE DISTRICT; WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 332 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 96-CO 07 & 96-DPR-07, PETITIONER STEVEN D. REES, ESOUIRE, REPRESENTING OLEVIA HIGGS) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #3 (0600) through (1100) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97- 3973 modifies existing Ordinance Nos. 95-3845 and 90-3434, which limited the use of the property, to permit a change in land use to a retail clothing store and to permit expansion of the existing building by approximately 1,000 square feet; that the Book 40 Page 13904 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13905 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. property will remain in the Theater and Arts (TAD) Zone District; that Development Plan 96-DPR-07, showing the proposed changes to the site and structure, has been filed in conjunction with Petition No. 96-CO-07; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found Petition No 96-CO-07 and Development Plan 96- DPR-07 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommended approval to the Commission. Stephen Rees, Attorney, Larry Lipper, Project Engineer, and Joe Marconi, Principal, representing Nello's of Sarasota, Inc., came before the Commission. Attorney Rees stated that Nello's clothing store is a well-run, profitable, traditional, family-operated business; that a contract for sale for the property located at 333 North Tamiami Trail was consummated during the month of November; that Joe Marconi, representing Nello's of Sarasota, Inc., is the record owner of the property; that written notice of the change in ownership was delivered to the City Auditor and Clerk. Attorney Rees submitted for the record a copy of the letter dated December 2, 1996, addressed to Billy Robinson, City Auditor and Clerk, which stated the following: Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 4-10(5) (f), please be advised the petitioner and property owner Mrs. Olevia Higgs has closed her contract for sale and purchase with the co-petitioner/purchaser Nello's of Sarasota, Inc. Please find enclosed copy of record deed. Attorney Rees stated that the PBLP unanimously approved both the conditional rezoning petition and the accompanying development plan; that the draft ordinance has been reviewed; that the content is appropriate and the condition to limit the use of the structure to a retail clothing store acceptable; however, the record should be clear that the use limitation is a general reference and is not to exclude the traditional accessories that have been provided by Nello's to patrons, including but not limited to leather goods, i.e., shoes and handbags, toiletries, cosmetics, home accents, etc. Attorney Rees continued that the development plan was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) - ; that the letter dated October 17, 1996, from the City Engineer indicated certain conditions under the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) would be imposed; that the petitioner, as expressed to the PBLP, understands and is able to comply with those conditions. Attorney Rees referred to an exterior elevation of the structure and stated that the development plan proposes expanding the ground level of the building by 1,300 square feet, retaining all of the existing architectural integrity, and emphasizing the pedestrian-oriented intent of the TAD Zone District; that the existing curbs and front driveway on U.S. 41 will be replaced by a sidewalk; that access to the premises will be off of Fourth Street or from the alley on the south property line; that the retail facility will have several sales display areas, accompanying dressing rooms, and receiving of inventory on the ground level; that the second level will be used for office and administrative purposes of operating the business. Attorney Rees continued that Staff found the petition and the development plan consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance; that a number of the existing trees on site will be saved and relocated on site; that Staff also found the proposed use will result in a diminimus change of impact from the prior approved uses. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97- 3973 by title only. V. Peter Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3973 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3973 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone stated that the proposed ordinance references a "retail men's wear/women's wear" store; and asked the purpose for drafting the ordinance in that manner without the inclusion of accessories and gifts? Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the reference was included in the petition presented to the PBLP; that ordinances pertaining to a site have historically been use specific. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language can be amended between first and second reading to reference a retail clothing store for men's and women's wear to include traditional accessories. Commissioner Patterson asked the purpose for limiting the use to a clothing store rather than to a retail establishment? Attorney Schenk stated that the petition was reviewed by the PBLP as a retail clothing store; that the PBLP and City Commission Book 40 Page 13906 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13907 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. limited the use on the site when the original ordinance was adopted. Mr. Taylor stated that expanding the use beyond a retail clothing store with accessories may affect traffic concurrency, which was the original concern of the PBLP and City Commission when the use on the site was limited. Vice Mayor Pillot, as maker of the motion, and Commissioner Patterson, as seconder, agreed to include in the motion amending the proposed ordinance between first and second readings to reference a clothing store with accessories and gifts. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3969, AMENDING CHAPTER 37, WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE IV, USE OF RECLAIMED WATER, BY INCORPORATING THEREIN BY REFERENCE THE CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL MANUAL FOR RECLAIMED WATER SITES; PROVIDING CERTAIN NEW DEFINITIONS; RENUMBERING SECTIONS : PROHIBITING CROSS CONNECTIONS WITH POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #3 (1100) through (1272) Douglas Taylor, Environmental Resources Manager, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3969 amends the City Code, Chapter 37, Article IV, Use of Reclaimed Water, incorporating requirements for the installation of certain approved backflow prevention devices on the potable water services by customers who also wish to receive reclaimed water service; that the specific requirements are detailed in the Cross-Connection Control Manual for Reclaimed Water Sites, which is incorporated by reference into the ordinance; that the manual addresses the type of backflow protection devices to be used and outlines inspection, testing, and record keeping requirements; that the measures will protect the drinking water supply from an accidental cross connection between the reclaimed and potable systems; that the City's managing such a backflow protection program is a requirement of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) ; that the proposed ordinance also provides for certain other changes which are of a housekeeping nature intended to clarify the Code. Commissioner Patterson stated that reclaimed water is used only for external watering purposes; that the reclaimed and potable water lines are separate; and asked how a backflow could occur? Mr. Taylor stated that two pressurized systems go to the same property with a plumbing system associated with each; that a plumber could inadvertently tap into the reclaimed water line instead of the potable water line; that backflow to the potable water supply could occur; that larger irrigation systems often have auxiliary pumps and run at a higher pressure than potable water systems; that the potential of a high-pressure irrigation system connecting to the drinking water exists. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97- 3969 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3969 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3969 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 97R-939, AMENDING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AS SET FORTH IN F.S. 197.3632 BY COLLECTING THE ANNUAL TAX BILL OF THE ASSESSED PROPERTY; STATING THE NEED FOR THE LEVY OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE ADDED TO THE LEVY; PROVIDING FOR MAILING A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, THE SARASOTA COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #3 (1272) through (1340) Christopher Lyons, Deputy Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that on August 5, 1996, the Commission approved the creation of the Hudson Bayou Special Assessment District, including the Central Park Condominiums; however, Resolution No. 96R-855, adopted on December 18, 1995, stating the City's intention to use the Uniform Method of Collecting a Special Assessment did not include the Central Park Condominium parcel; that the first annual assessment has already been placed on the November 1996 tax bills; that in August 1996, the Central Park Condominium Association signed an agreement with the City to collect and pay the special assessments from each condominium owner for the first year; that the purpose of Resolution No. 97R- 939 is to include the 90 Central Park Condominium owners in the Book 40 Page 13908 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13909 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Uniform Method of Collection for years two (1997) through ten (2005). Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97R- 939 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Resolution No. 97R-939 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 97R-939. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 13. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE THIRTY-DAY MINIMUM TIME REQUIREMENT BETWEEN PLANNING BOARD ACTION AND REPORTING TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO ALLOW AN ADVANCED PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REPORT ON DECEMBER 16, 1996, REGARDING PETITION NO. 97- SE-01, MOTE BOAT TOURS - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (1344) through (1543) Judy Jones, representing Mote Marine Laboratories, came before the Commission and stated that a petition has been filed for a special exception to permit boat dockage at the Mote Marine site for an educational tour boat associated with the aquarium tours; that staff was hired and equipment rented to begin operation of the boat tours on December 1, 1996, as Mote Marine was under a false impression that the use was permitted under the existing special exception for the site; however, City Staff has determined an additional special exception is required. Ms. Jones stated that the Petition No. 97-SE-01 is scheduled for review before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) on December 4, 1996; that waiver of the 30-day requirement between PBLP action and presentation of the PBLP report to the Commission is requested to permit an advanced PBLP report on Petition No. 97-SE-01 at the December 16, 1996, City Commission meeting. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to waive the 30-day requirement and to approve the request for an advanced PBLP report on 97-SE-01 at the December 16, 1996, regular City Commission meeting. Commissioner Dupree stated that changing special exceptions to specially permitted uses is contemplated during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Update. City Attorney Taylor stated that formal action regarding the special exception process has not be taken by the Commission; that the issue will be discussed further with the consultant at the December 9, 1996, joint workshop regarding the LDRS. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that a schedule for completion of the LDRs will also be presented on December 9; that adoption of the revised LDRs is anticipated before summer 1997; that a future request similar to that made by Mote Marine would be considered for a temporary use permit under the procedure proposed in the LDRS. Mayor Cardamone stated that the petitioner could proffer language which would make the special exception similar to a temporary use permit. 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. 14. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: #3 (1569) through (1930) The following people came before the Commission: Myron Nickel, 1231 South Orange Avenue (34239), stated that the Commission's efforts to alleviate traffic concerns in the South Sarasota area by voting in favor of the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan have been appreciated; that balancing the public interest at large regarding the use of streets and the interests and rights of homeowners in an area is difficult; that complaints have been registered regarding implemented abatement measures from Phase I of the Plan; that the issue has two sides: 1) those who feel the public interest outweighs the interest of the property owner in the area and 2) those who feel the traffic impacts on neighborhoods should be limited; that the public has the right to utilize streets and expect continued use of heavily- used streets; however, the public does not have the right to misuse a street or an area by speeding, tailgating, and passing in nonpassing zones; that the Commission should filter negative comments regarding elements of the Plan to determine if the reason for opposition is because proper use of a street is required and speeding is restricted; that additional efforts should be put forth to further reduce speeding on Orange Avenue. Edward Harding, 2155 Wood Street (34236) representing Harding Partners, Inc. stated that information regarding composting has been forwarded to the Commission; that the 200 tons of garbage, Book 40 Page 13910 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13911 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. yard waste, etc., generated daily in the City could be made into a valuable product at 50% of the $63 per ton landfill cost the City currently expends; that development of new composting facilities will not only reduce the cost to discard the material but also will produce a marketable product from which the City can generate revenue; that composted soil retains water on lawns and provides organic fertilizer; that orange trees grow three times as fast in composted soil as in normal soil. Mr. Harding continued that moving the large, green trash receptacles is difficult for many people; that the City should consider implementing a blue bag collection system for solid waste, recyclables, and yard waste; that the need for retrieval of trash receptacles and operation of three separate types of collection vehicles could be eliminated and a 50% savings generated if the City implemented a blue bag collection system. Mr. Harding further stated that the downtown is dying; that locating the library at Five Points will not save the downtown. Mr. Harding continued further that dollars wasted in the City of Sarasota are dollars not invested in the Country to produce goods or better services; that the average cost of educating a child annually is $4,800, of which $2,200 is expended on costs other than direct teaching; that the Country will not be able to compete in the world if children are not properly educated; that the waste of taxpayer dollars must stop; that numerous faxes and proposals are sent to the City in an attempt to assist the City with eliminating wasted dollars; that his love for the County is the only purpose behind his continuous efforts. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: SOUTH SARASOTA TRAFFIC ABATEMENT LOMA LINDA STREET, POMELO Al VENUE AND PROSPECT STREET DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION. TO ACHIEVE EOUITY IN TRAFFIC ABATEMENT MEASURES BETWEEN POMELO AVENUE AND LOMA LINDA AND PROSPECT STREETS, CONDUCT COMMUNICIATIONS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS TO DETERMINE HOW TO ACHIEVE EQUITY, AND REMOVE SEMI -DIVERTERS WHEN NEW TRAFFIC ABATMENT MEASURES ARE IN PLACE (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) # 3( (1930) through #4 (3277) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that at the November 4, 1996, regular City Commission meeting, the Administration was directed to conduct traffic studies to evaluate the impact on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue generated by the temporary semi-diverters installed at the Prospect Street/Pomelo Avenue intersection during Phase I of the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan; that the Engineering Department conducted traffic counts for ten days on Prospect Street, Loma Linda Street, and Pomelo Avenue from November 9 to 19, 1996; that a license plate matching survey was also performed during the peak hours, 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., by monitoring the four entry/exit points at Osprey and Orange Avenues to determine the amount, pattern, and origin of the cut-through traffic on the three streets. Mr. Mohammed referred to computer-generated graphics to explain the results of the traffic studies and a comparison of before (12-24/3-95) and after (11/96) counts which indicated an increase of 99 vehicles per day (vpd) on Loma Linda Street, 109 vpd on Pomelo Avenue, and a decrease of 264 vpd on Prospect Street; and stated that an analysis of the traffic counts and the license plate matching studies indicate that the semi-diverters on Prospect Street, speed humps on the streets south of Prospect Street, and traffic signal timings in the area have contributed to a 31% increase of traffic on Loma Linda Street and a 62% increase on Pomelo Avenue. Mayor Cardamone asked the total number of vehicles the graphic depicts for the three streets before and after the implementation of the traffic abatement measures? Mr. Mohammed stated that the before counts of 501 on Prospect Street, 177 Pomelo Avenue, and 322 on Loma Linda Street total 1,000; however, the total number cannot accurately be quantified as the before counts on Loma Linda Street between Pomelo Avenue and South Orange Avenue are not depicted. Commissioner Merrill asked the volume reduction anticipated had speed humps instead of semi-diverters been placed on Prospect Street? Mr. Mohammed stated that volume reductions between 25% and 40% in various City neighborhoods have been experienced by the installation of speed humps; that Prospect Street experienced a 53% reduction in volume from 501 to 234 vpd. Commissioner Merrill asked if installing speed humps on Loma Linda Street would reduce the increased traffic volume to the original counts? Mr. Mohammed stated yes; that based on experience, the traffic volumes on Loma Linda Street would reduce by at least 25%. Commissioner Dupree stated that a significant increase on Pomelo Avenue and a significant decrease on Prospect Street have resulted; that additional traffic in the area would further increase the impacts on Pomelo Avenue and Loma Linda Street; that the semi-diverters have not abated but diverted the traffic onto neighboring streets which previously had lower traffic volumes; that a change is necessary. Mayor Cardamone asked the location of four-way STOP signs. Book 40 Page 13912 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13913 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that four-way STOP signs are located on Pomelo Avenue at Loma Linda Street, at Bahia Vista Street, and at Alta Vista Street. Commissioner Patterson stated that the original traffic counts were taken in March, in the height of the tourist/winter season; that the volumes resulting in a significant decrease on Prospect Street, and significant increases on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue were taken in November; that the volumes will be even higher in March; and asked the percent differential experienced on a low volume residential street during season? Mr. Mohammed stated that a 10% increase is an educational guess; that the traffic volumes on residential streets do not vary significantly as tourists and winter residents tend to drive on the major arterials. Mayor Cardamone asked for the period during which the greatest traffic volume was registered on the three streets. Mr. Mohammed stated that the greatest traffic volume occurred between 5 and 6 p.m. Commissioner Dupree stated that an increase from 177 vpd to 286 vpd, as on Pomelo Avenue, or from 322 vpd to 421 vpd, as on Loma Linda Street, would not be appreciated on his street. Commissioner Patterson asked for clarification of the graphic depicting the results from the license plate matching survey. Mr. Mohammed stated that between 7 and 9 a.m., 14 vehicles entered from Orange Avenue and 8 vehicles entered from Osprey Avenue and cut directly through on Loma Linda Street i that 4 vehicles entered from Orange Avenue and 2 vehicles entered from Osprey Avenue and cut directly through on Prospect Street; that 5 vehicles entered Prospect Street from Orange Avenue, turned left on Pomelo Avenue and right on Loma Linda Street to access Osprey Avenue. Commissioner Patterson stated that the average daily volumes compiled on the three streets are difficult to understand based on the number of cut-through depicted during the a.m. peak hour. Mr. Mohammed stated that neighboriod-generated traffic was not used in determining the cut-through traffic; however, a single- family residence generates approximately 8 to 10 trips per day; that, for example, 26 residences on Prospect Street could generate approximately 240 trips within the neighborhood. Mr. Mohammed continued that between 4 and 6 p.m., 13 vehicles entered from Orange Avenue and 11 vehicles entered from Osprey Avenue and cut directly through on Loma Linda Street; that 5 vehicles entered from Orange Avenue and 2 vehicles entered from Osprey Avenue and cut directly through on Prospect Street; that 6 vehicles entered Prospect Street from Orange Avenue, turned left on Pomelo Avenue and right on Loma Linda Street to access Osprey Avenue; that 12 vehicles entered Prospect Street from Osprey Avenue, turned right on Pomelo Avenue and left on Loma Linda Street to access Orange Avenue. Mayor Cardamone stated that the 12 vehicles are most likely Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) employees traveling home. Commissioner Merrill stated that the abatement measures were recently implemented; that the 12 vehicles accessing Orange Avenue through the neighborhood will find a more direct route over time. Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct; that the traffic counts should stabilize after motorists, who become aware of the abatement measures, choose alternative, more direct routes. Commissioner Merrill stated the traffic volumes on Loma Linda Street increased by 109 vpd, some of which can be attributed to motorist residing on Prospect Street; that the majority of the remaining vehicles could be motorists who were not aware the abatement measures were installed and will either be diverted to Loma Linda Street or to Bahia Vista Street in the future; that the installation of speed humps on Loma Linda Street would reduce that potential. Mr. Mohammed stated that Loma Linda Street experienced an increase of 109 vpd, 90 of which can be attributed to cut-through traffic generated by installation of semi-diverters on Prospect Street. Commissioner Dupree stated that additional traffic will be diverted directly onto Loma Linda Street as motorists become more aware and tired of the semi-diverters on Prospect Street. Mr. Mohammed stated that would be true if traffic abatement measures are not implemented on Loma Linda Street; that traffic abatement measures have been implemented on all streets south of Prospect Street except on Hawthorne Street; therefore, traffic abatement on Loma Linda Street will be necessary whether or not the semi-diverters remain on Prospect Street. Commissioner Patterson stated that installing speed humps or speed tables on Loma Linda Street and replacing the semi- diverters on Prospect Street with speed humps or speed tables would result in traffic volumes lower than originally experienced on Loma Linda Street. Book 40 Page 13914 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13915 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that the increases on Loma Linda Street amount to 20 vehicles here and there throughout the entire day; that residents on Bahia Vista Street and Orange Avenue are subject to 4,000 vpd and 16,000 vpd respectively; that an increase from 234 to 275 vpd could be expected if speed humps were installed on Prospect Street; however, traffic is being diverted onto Loma Linda Street not only from Prospect Street but also from the other traffic abatement measures implemented as part of Phase I of the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan. The following people came before the Commission: Myron Nickel, 1231 South Orange Avenue (34239); stated that reducing the speed on Orange Avenue will effectively eliminate the concerns with cut-through traffic on abutting residential streets; that motorists utilize the residential streets to access Orange Avenue, to speed, and to reach a destination faster than can be accomplished on the six-lane major arterial, U.S. 41; that removing the semi-diverters on Prospect Street or reducing the abatement measures on any of the streets will increase the potential for cut-through traffic on the residential streets and speeding on Orange Avenue; that development of a Walgreen's on the corner of U.S. 41 between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets will generate additional traffic in the neighborhood; that removing the semi-diverters on Prospect Street will increase the potential for traffic from the development to cut-through on Prospect Street to Orange Avenue. Mr. Nickel continued that the Commission's overreacting to the concerns of residents on Loma Linda Street is an insult to residents in other South Sarasota Traffic Abatement area, particularly residents on Orange Avenue; that the concerns of Loma Linda Street residents regarding an increase in speeding traffic is understood; however, the concerns on Loma Linda Street pale in comparison to the concerns of residents on Orange Avenue and Prospect Street; that Loma Linda Street has experienced an increase of 100 vpd; that 14,000 to 20,000 vpd travel on Orange Avenue. Mr. Nickel further stated that the Commission's efforts on Orange Avenue thus far are appreciated. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission has yet to reach a decision regarding the concerns of Loma Linda Street residents; however, the comment made referencing the Commission's "overreacting" to those concerns is objectionable and infers the Commission is not capable of making a sound judgment. Mr. Myron stated that removing the semi-diverters without considering the effect on Orange Avenue would be viewed as overreacting and exercising poor judgment. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Orange Avenue has received more traffic abatement and police attention than any. other street in the City; that motorists are viewed driving around and accelerating between the speed tables, but installing a gate at the end of the street and requiring identification access is not feasible. Mr. Nickel stated that a combination of speed tables and STOP signs every other block should be considered on Orange Avenue; that similar abatement measures have been implemented on Shade Avenue and Bahia Vista Street; that 90% of the traffic on Orange Avenue travels in excess of the speed limit. Commissioner Dupree stated that various solutions may be necessary to effectively address the concerns resulting from implementation of Phase I of the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan; that alternative abatement measures should be explored if motorists are driving around the speed tables and traveling in excess of the speed limit. Mr. Nickel stated that intent of his statements is not to criticize or demean the concerns of Loma Linda and Prospect Streets; however, reducing the speed and preventing an increase of vehicles on Orange Avenue, where he resides, is his primary concern; that eliminating traffic abatement measures implemented during Phase I will not improve the situation. Mayor Cardamone stated that preventing a diversion of traffic from one residential street to another was inherent in the Commission's approval of the South Sarasota Abatement Plan; that traffic has substantially increased on two of the residential streets; that a solution to correct the unintended consequences without destroying the entire abatement program is necessary. Mr. Nickel stated that the Commission should also be obligated to address the concern that 90% of the motorists on Orange Avenue are speeding. Commissioner Patterson stated that the semi-diverters on Prospect Street were installed in a temporary fashion, providing for easy removal and replacement with an alternative form of traffic abatement in the event an increase of traffic occurred on the surrounding streets; that traffic abatement is necessary on Prospect Street; however, another form may be more equitable to the neighborhood. Phyllis Russell, 1661 Loma Linda Street (34239), stated that she has lived on Loma Linda Street since February 1977; that population growth and increased traffic cannot be stopped; however, diverting traffic from Prospect Street to Loma Linda Street is unacceptable; that the increased traffic on Loma Linda Street is dangerous to residents who walk or ride bicycles on the Book 40 Page 13916 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13917 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. street; that an equitable means of traffic abatement should be found for the entire community; that the presence of semi- diverters on Prospect Street should be reconsidered. George Haborak, 1308 Pomelo Avenue (34239), stated that the traffic counts compiled by Staff clearly demonstrate the dramatic increase in traffic on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue caused by the semi-diverters and "Do Not Enter" signs installed on Prospect Street; that removing the semi-diverters and "Do Not Enter" signs on Prospect Street would reduce traffic on Linda Loma Street; that all streets must bear a fair share of the City's increased traffic; that the traffic abatement measures on Prospect Street were a radical solution benefiting only Prospect Street residents at the expense of residents on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue. Mr. Haborak continued that the "Do Not Enter" signs at the intersection of Pomelo Avenue and Prospect Street which force traffic onto Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue should be replaced with three-way stop signs; that changing a two-way stop at the corner of Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue to a four- way stop has resulted in improved traffic abatement. Mr. Haborak further stated that cars must maneuver dangerously when garbage and recycling trucks are parked in front of the semi-diverters; that Prospect Street residents who now consider their street as private are consistently violating the "Do Not Enter" signs; that the traffic abatement measures have unfairly impacted residents of Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue; that the "Do Not Enter" signs and semi-diverters should be removed. Commissioner Dupree asked where the three-way stop sign would be installed? Mr. Haborak stated that a three -way stop sign should be installed at the corner of Pomelo Avenue and Prospect Street; that one stop sign would be on the Pomelo Avenue side and one for each side of Prospect Street intersecting with Pomelo Avenue. James Turner, 1646 Prospect Street (34239), distributed a list of traffic abatement options for the neighborhood, including signage at Orange, Osprey, and Pomelo Avenues, speed humps, speed tables, one-way streets, three-way stops, and a cul-de-sac; and stated that he has been a resident of Prospect Street for three months; that Staff's calculation of a 53 percent reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on Prospect Street is incorrect; that proper calculation results in a total reduction of 23 cars on Prospect Street. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mr. Turner's calculation would be accurate if the traffic were not diverted to Loma Linda Street. Mr. Turner stated that the cars involved in the traffic count originated from either Osprey or Orange Avenues; that the Engineering Department's statistics demonstrate that during 1994/95 501 cars traveled the entire length of Prospect Street per day; that 234 cars per day were counted traveling east from Orange Avenue in November 1996 and 244 cars were counted traveling west from Osprey Avenue in November 1996; that the cars counted in November 1996 would have traveled through on Prospect Street if the semi-diverters were not located at the intersection with Pomelo Avenue; that the semi-diverters have reduced traffic on Prospect Street by only 23 cars if 478, the sum of 244 and 234 is deducted from the 1994/95 traffic count of 501. Commissioner Dupree stated that the two numbers should not be added together; that 234 should be subtracted from the 1994/95 traffic count of 501 on one side of Prospect Street and 244 from the 501 on the other side; that the percentage must be calculated separately on each side of Prospect Street before reaching Pomelo Avenue; that the statistics show that 26'7 cars were reduced on one side of Prospect Street and 25'7 on the other side, resulting in a 53 percent reduction for each side of the street. Mr. Turner stated that Hillview Street should be the appropriate exit and return street for the Harbor Acres neighborhood; that speed tables installed on Hillview Street would allow through traffic at a reduced speed. Patty Robacker, 1678 Loma Linda Street (34239), stated that the traffic counts show clearly that the semi-diverters have increased traific on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue while decreasing traffic on Prospect Street; that the traffic count was conducted for over 10 days and included City personnel counting vehicles in person to confirm mechanical calculations; that the Commission has all the evidence necessary to justify removing the semi-diverters immediately; that Loma Linda Street residents require immediate relief; that Task Force members residing on Prospect Street are requesting more time and taxpayer money be wasted on studies serving only to prolong the misery. of Loma Linda Street residents; that the Engineering Department has informed neighborhood residents that speed humps and stop signs will reduce Prospect Street traffic by 40 percent; and asked why alternative measures were not implemented and such drastic measures as semi-diverters approved in the first place? Ms. Robacker continued that diverting Prospect Street traffic to Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue is unfair; that Prospect Street residents can rally many public speakers in favor of the semi-diverters but the facts remain and the numbers do not lie; that danger to Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue residents from Book 40 Page 13918 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13919 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. increased traffic is real and cannot be ignored; that Prospect Street should implement traffic abatement rather than traffic diversion; that the semi-diverters do not work. Commissioner Merrill stated that Staff is requested to clarify the correct manner of calculating the traffic statistics on Prospect Street. Mr. Mohammed stated that the 1994/95 traffic count of 501 vehicles is still viable; that approximately the same number of vehicles traveled on Prospect Street in November 1996; however, the semi-diverters have cut the traffic flow in half; that no single house on Prospect Street endures traffic from 501 vehicles per day i that the number of vehicles traveling in front of every home on Prospect Street has been reduced by over 50 percent. Shari Shepard, 1237 South Orange Avenue (34239), stated that she lives on the northeast corner of Loma Linda Street and Orange Avenue; that the high traffic volume on Orange Avenue was evident when she purchased her home; that anyone purchasing a home in the Orange Avenue neighborhood in the last 10 years should have expected a high traffic count; that residents who purchased homes without determining the streets which connect Orange Avenue to U.S. 41 failed to adequately study the neighborhood demographics; that the high level of traffic existing on the streets between Orange Avenue and U.S. 41 has been obvious for 10 years. Ms. Shepard continued that she purchased a home with direct access to pedentrian-inclined Loma Linda Street; that living with Orange Avenue traffic was acceptable as the other side of the house faced quiet, family-oriented Loma Linda Street; that the current traffic abatement program closes Prospect Street and provides its residents all the benefits of a private road without the costs; that Prospect Street residents are not paying the major cost for the conversion of their street to a private road; that the privatization of Prospect Street has been financed by the City and the taxpayers; that the residents of Loma Linda Street are paying for the conversion of Prospect Street to a private road and bearing the increased traffic burden resulting from that conversion. Ms. Shepard further stated that the Engineering Department 's traffic count demonstrates the residents of Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue are bearing the burden for the diversion of traffic from Prospect Street; that Staff has recommended mitigating the increased traffic on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue; that the traffic count proves the semi-diverters are the basis for the tremendous impact endured by the residents of Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue. Ms. Shepard stated further that the semi-diverters function only to deposit traffic onto other streets and should be removed immediately; that drivers will travel on Loma Linda Street as long as the semi-diverters are in place; that the increase in traffic impacts her child as well as other children on Loma Linda Street; that traffic on Prospect Street can be abated using alternative methods; that the Commission is asked to reject the Engineering Department's recommendation to allow the semi- diverters to remain throughout the trial period; that the City should practice traffic abatement and not traffic diversion which benefits a few residents at the expense of many. Leonard Wroblewski, 1750 Loma Linda Street (34239), stated that the semi-diverters installed on Prospect Street have created a barrier to freedom of movement in the neighborhood; that people living on Pomelo Avenue can no longer exit the neighborhood via Prospect Street; that Pomelo Avenue residents bought homes believing two exits would be available; that the semi-diverters should be removed. Jamie Schroeder, 1700 Prospect Street (34239), stated that children riding bicycles were previously limited to driveways due to the great many cars traveling on Prospect Street; that walking to the school bus in the dark during daylight savings time was a problem; that traffic has disappeared since the semi-diverters were installed; that children can now play in the streets due to the absence of traffic. Ms. Schroeder continued that the City should implement traffic abatement measures on Loma Linda Street rather than eliminating measures on other streets; that one of the City's goals is providing a safe place for people to live; that Prospect Street was unsafe before the semi-diverters were installed; that viable neighborhoods working together as a community is another of the City's goals; that Prospect Street will work together with Loma Linda Street to find an acceptable traffic abatement program which will work. Adrienne McLaughlin, 1662 Prospect Street (34239), stated that she has three children; that the semi-diverters have substantially reduced the speed and volume of cars on Prospect Street; that another alternative traffic abatement measure would be acceptable on Prospect Street if the reduced speeds and traffic volume are maintained; that the City should address the traffic increase expected by the completion of the proposed Walgreen's development to be located on U.S. 41 between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets; that sacrificing the safety of residents on one street for those on another is undesirable. Christine Furman, 1694 Prospect Street (34239), was no longer in the Commission Chambers. Book 40 Page 13920 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13921 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Carol Springer, 1700 Prospect Street (34239), stated that the presence or lack of semi-diverters or speed humps on Prospect Street is irrelevant; that Loma Linda Street requires traffic abatement; that drivers will continue to travel on Loma Linda Street until traffic abatement measures are installed; that the residents of Loma Linda Street are unwilling to allow traffic abatement measures on their street but request the successful traffic abatement measures on Prospect Street be removed; that all new programs have problems at first; that a successful program should not be eliminated before the solutions for the problems have been found; that the residents should work together during the six-month trial period to iron out any inequities. Ms. Springer stated that Vice Mayor Pillot should abstain from voting on the semi-diverters; that he lives in Harbor Acres and cannot reach an impartial decision on the traffic abatement program on Prospect Street; that Prospect Street residents are filing complaints against Harbor Acre residents for creating disturbances, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc. i that prominent people from Harbor Acres blow their car horns and speed on Prospect Street; that beer cans and bottles are thrown at the "Do Not Enter" signs; that cars have been vandalized on six occasions since the semi-diverters were installed; that Harbor Acres' residents unhappy with the semi-diverters on Prospect Street should come to the Commission meetings rather than create criminal mischief and harass Eamilies at the intersection where the semi-diverters are located. Ms. Springer further stated that the proposed Walgreen's development and the growth of the hospital will adversely affect traffic patterns throughout the entire community; that eliminating the semi-diverters on Prospect Street will exacerbate the situation; that three-way stop signs at Prospect Street and Pomelo Avenue will not be effective. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that under Florida law an elected official may not abstain from voting if a conflict of interest does not exist; that he does not apologize for living in Harbor Acres; that he chose to live in Harbor Acres 13 years ago and still chooses to live there; that he would not abstain from the vote even if he legally could. Donald Smith, 1789 Prospect Street (34239), stated that the main concern of the traffic abatement program is public safety; that traffic should be routed to main highways such as U.S. 41 instead of residential streets; that traffic on Orange and Osprey Avenues has increased in volume and speed; that the safety of neighborhood residents should not be sacrificed for the convenience of drivers; that the increased traffic on Loma Linda Street should be diverted onto the main artery of Bahia Vista Street. Mayor Cardamone stated that rerouting and increasing traffic flow along residential streets has never been an intention of the Commission; that the Commission works to preserve and protect old neighborhoods as well as increase property values; that closing off Prospect Street at Pomelo Avenue is ideal; however, the semi- diverters are currently increasing traffic on Pomelo Avenue and Loma Linda Street. Mila Hodge, 1635 Prospect Street (34239), stated that she purchased her home 10 years ago when Prospect Street was a quiet, residential street; that Harbor Acres has changed from a community of older couples without children to families with cars and teenagers; that Prospect Street has become Harbor Acres I access route to U.S. 41; that cars speed at 40 to 50 miles per hour (mph) i that the Engineering Department and the Task Force devised a traffic abatement program which has helped Prospect Street; that new measures require time for adjustment. Ms. Hodge continued that cars will travel on U.S. 41 when neighborhood streets become less convenient as shortcuts to Siesta Key or Downtown; that the traffic abatement measures on Orange Avenue were disliked at first but are now accepted; that signage is nonexistent at the entrances to Prospect Street from Orange or Osprey Avenues; that most streets installed with traffic abatement devices feature information signs which allow drivers to choose a less inconvenient route; that signs at the Orange and Osprey Avenue entrances to Prospect Street informing drivers of existing semi-diverters would be helpful; that drivers prefer traveling on streets absent traffic abatement measures. Ms. Hodge further stated that traffic abatement would have been unnecessary, if drivers had obeyed the speed limits; that Harbor Acres residents ignore the semi-diverters and drive straight through on Prospect Street, honking their horns continuously; that the semi-diverters should remain throughout the six-month trial period; that curbing should be installed on the semi- diverters which will prohibit cars from driving straight through on Prospect Street; that Loma Linda Street residents should accept responsibility for increased traffic and install speed humps with accompanying signage; that claims by Loma Linda Street residents that increased traffic on their street is caused by the semi-diverters are ludicrous. Sally Drohan, 1740 Prospect Street (34239), stated that traffic on Prospect Street reached speeds of 40 to 60 mph before the semi-diverters were installed; that residents can now exit driveways safely; that the 14 children who live on Prospect Street can walk to school and ride bicycles in the street safely; that traffic abatement measures should be installed on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue; that problems posed by the proposed Walgreen's development should be solved in advance of its Book 40 Page 13922 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13923 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. opening; that the semi-diverters should remain during the trial period and solutions found for existing problems. David Ellwanger, 1727 Prospect Street (34239), stated that he moved to Prospect Street eighteen months ago; that drivers will become accustomed to the semi-diverters and eventually choose alternate routes; that signage should be installed at each end of Prospect Street to alert drivers to the presence of the semi- diverters; that the semi-diverters should remain throughout the trial period. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to extend the meeting to finish the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Bob Hodge, 1635 Prospect Street (34239), stated that Prospect Street is one of the few streets running straight through to U.S. 41; that the change in resident lifestyles, the growth of the hospital, and commercialization of property between Osprey Avenue and U.S. 41 have increased traffic in the past 10 years; that traffic abatement reroutes drivers onto main thoroughfares; that additional traffic abatement on Orange Avenue would further decrease transitional traffic between Osprey and Orange Avenues. Mr. Hodge continued that semi-diverters may not provide the proper solution; that residents of each street should seek a neighborhood-wide solution absent polarization; that the Task Force is open to public input from all residents of the Orange Avenue neighborhood. Mr. Hodge further stated that the semi-diverters should remain throughout the six-month trial period to allow the City to refine the current traffic abatement measures; that the speed of the traffic can be controlled even if the number of cars are not reduced; that traffic problems impact the entire neighborhood and not just one street. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends the Commission authorize Staff to: 1) adhere to the original plan and conduct area-wide traffic counts in January and February 1997, 2) evaluate Phase I of the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan, 3) present the evaluation to the City Commission in April 1997 after consultation with the South Sarasota Traffic Study Task Force, and 4) meet with residents of Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue to develop a traffic abatement plan mitigating the impact of the Prospect Street semi-diverters. On motion of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the Administration's recommendation. Motion died for lack of second. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the following four options presented by Mr. Turner have potential for immediate implementation: 1) traffic abatement information signs at Orange, Osprey, and Pomelo Avenues, 2) speed humps along Prospect Street, 3) speed tables along the streets between the intersections, 4) a speed table at the intersection of Prospect Street and Pomelo Avenue, and 5) three-way stop signs at Pomelo Avenue and Prospect Street. Vice Mayor Pillot continued that traffic abatement measures should be equitably distributed; that using semi-diverters on Prospect Street absent traffic abatement measures on neighboring streets is not equitable. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to authorize and direct the Administration to: 1) meet with residents of Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue to discuss traffic abatement measures as quickly as possible, 2) install the traffic abatement measures acceptable to residents on those streets as quickly as possible, excluding the use of semi-diverters, 3) install the same traffic abatement measures on Prospect Street, after discussion with residents of that street, and 4) remove the semi-diverters on Prospect Street, coordinating removal of the semi-diverters with installation of the new traffic abatement measures. Commissioner Patterson asked if the motion mandates identical traffic abatement measures on Loma Linda and Prospect Streets? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the intent of the motion is to install traffic abatement measures, excluding semi-diverters, which meet the approval of residents of each street; that Staff should meet with the residents, install traffic abatement measures on Pomelo Avenue, and Loma Linda and Prospect Streets, and remove the Prospect Street semi-diverters after new traffic abatement measures are installed on Prospect Street; that the traffic abatement measures on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue are not required to be identical to those on Prospect Street; that Staff should synchronize the construction schedule to avoid conflict between installation of the new traffic abatement measures and removal of the semi-diverters. Commissioner Patterson stated that Prospect Street will not be absent traffic abatement at any time. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone stated that residents of Pomelo Avenue, and Loma Linda and Prospect Streets should meet simultaneously with Staff for more inclusive input. Book 40 Page 13924 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13925 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Staff should schedule meetings including the residents of all three streets; that equitable traffic abatement measures should be installed on Pomelo Avenue, and Loma Linda and Prospects Streets to the satisfaction of the residents absent the use of semi-diverters. Mayor Cardamone stated that residents of Prospect Street who are pleased with the semi-diverters do not expect residents of Loma Linda Street to bear the increase in traffic; that Loma Linda Street does not run straight through to U.S. 41 and was not perceived at risk when the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan was initially presented; that a program should be developed which would satisfy most of the neighborhood residents; that the motion on the floor may not be the solution. Commissioner Dupree stated that the semi-diverters should be removed; that speakers have pointed out how safe Prospect Street has become; however, the children on Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue have been placed at greater risk. Commissioner Dupree stated that the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan must include all streets in the neighborhood; that a combination of stop signs and speed tables may provide a solution but the semi-diverters should be removed. Commissioner Merrill stated that removing the semi-diverters and installing four-way stops and speed humps on Loma Linda and Prospects Streets may not reduce the traffic volume on Loma Linda Street if the semi-diverters are not the actual cause of the increased volume; that recent traffic abatement measures have impacted streets throughout the Orange Avenue neighborhood. Commissioner Merrill continued that Prospect Street which runs through to U.S. 41 may be additionally impacted by the proposed Walgreen's development; that the semi-diverters on Prospect Street resulted in equity with Loma Linda Street which does not run through to U.S. 41; that the semi-diverters should be allowed to remain to ensure Prospect Street does not become the primary route for traffic to and from the proposed Walgreen's development. Commissioner Merrill further stated that the Task Force spent months studying traffic in the neighborhood; that traffic abatement measures were installed for a six-month trial period; that the process should not be disrupted; that the Task Force knows more about the specifics of traffic abatement in the Orange Avenue neighborhood than the Commission; that he supports the Administration's recommendation. Commissioner Merrill stated further that relief should be provided to residents of Loma Linda Street; that he previously suggested installing speed humps on Loma Linda Street; however, the residents of that street requested the semi-diverters on Prospect Street be removed and replaced by speed humps on both Loma Linda and Prospect Streets; that he informed Loma Linda Street residents that speed humps should be installed on Loma Linda Street without removing the semi-diverters from Prospect Street; that traffic abatement measures installed on Loma Linda Street would be reviewed in six months; that the residents of Linda Loma Street have his commitment; that traffic abatement will prevent heavy traffic on Loma Linda Street. Commissioner Merrill continued that a speaker suggested Hillview Street should be the primary route for traffic from Harbor Acres; however, the residents of Hillview Street may. disagree; that medians were constructed on Hyde Park Street following increased traffic volume resulting from traffic abatement measures installed on Shade Avenue; that the medians produced equilibrium by controlling traffic speed on Hyde Park Street; that equilibrium will be reached on Pomelo Avenue when drivers, learning that Prospect Street is not a through street, choose an alternative route. Commissioner Merrill further stated that the Task Force should be directed to work with Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue residents to develop traffic abatement measures for the two streets; that the semi-diverters should not be removed; that Prospect Street should be protected from increased traffic flow expected from the proposed Walgreen's development opening on U.S. 41. Mayor Cardamone asked if the existing South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan, including the semi-diverters, should continue throughout the six-month trial period with the addition of new traffic abatement measures installed immediately on Loma Linda Street? Commissioner Merrill stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that closing off Prospect Street at U.S. 41 would create more equity for Loma Linda Street than Closing Prospect Street between Osprey and Orange Avenues; that traffic abatement measures installed between Orange and Osprey Avenues could control the vehicular speed of Harbor Acres' residents who view Prospect Street as a natural exit. Commissioner Patterson continued that many hours were spent on the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan; however, the Task Force is not perfect; that she was visited by Rob Patten, Chairman, and Richard Ulrich, Member, South Sarasota Traffic Study Task Force, before the Plan was presented to the Commission; that Mr. Ulrich is a resident of Prospect Street; that she voiced a serious reservation regarding installation of Book 40, Page 13926 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13927 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. semi-diverters on Prospect Street as she believed traffic would be diverted onto Loma Linda Street. Commissioner Patterson Eurther stated that the residents of Loma Linda Street had requested a stop sign at the intersection of Loma Linda Street and Pomelo Avenue for four years; that the request was denied because the volume of traffic on Loma Linda Street did not qualify the street for even one stop sign; that the original South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan initially lacked even the one stop sign for Loma Linda Street; that the Task Force informed her that a stop sign would be added to the Plan per the request of Loma Linda Street residents. Commissioner Patterson stated further that she asked the Task Force if more serious traffic abatement measures should be considered for Loma Linda Street due to the probable increase of traffic from the semi-diverters installed on Prospect Street; that she was informed traffic abatement measures were not included for Loma Linda Street due to the absence of any request from residents of that street. Commissioner Patterson continued that no traffic abatement measure will provide equity for Loma Linda Street between Osprey and Orange Avenues if the semi-diverters are not removed from Prospect Street; that the City promised traffic abatement measures would be installed to improve the traffic burden throughout the entire neighborhood; that Prospect Street will not be abandoned to masses of cars from the proposed Walgreen's development; however, the semi-diverters are not the solution to the problem; that Loma Linda Street should not bear the traffic burden caused by the diversion of traffic from Prospect Street; that the Engineering Department will be directed to meet with the residents of all three streets and develop an alternative traffic abatement plan; that Prospect Street could be Closed off at another location closer to U.S. 41; however, the current location of the semi-diverters is not acceptable. Mayor Cardamone stated that trafiic on Prospect Street could be diverted with a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Lasula Court and Prospect Street near the proposed Walgreen's development. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that closing Prospect Street at a location which would not negatively impact Loma Linda Street could be considered; that Waldemere Street, a nospital-access street, allows drivers to turn north or south onto U.S. 41; that residents of Hillview Street between Orange and Osprey Avenues have not voiced any vocal opposition; that Hillview Street between Osprey Avenue and U.S. 41 is commercial and heavily traveled. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the intent of the motion was to implement equitable traffic abatement measures on Pomelo Avenue, and Loma Linda and Prospect Streets as quickly as possible with input from all residents, preferably meeting together; that the semi-diverters should be removed as soon as the new traffic abatement measures are implemented; that closing Prospect Street at an appropriate location closer to U.S. 41 may be a possible option. Vice Mayor Pillot continued that the motion should be simplified to achieve equity in installing traffic abatement measures on Pomelo Avenue, and Linda Loma and Prospect Streets, initiating communication with neighborhood residents, and removal of semi- diverters when the new traffic abatement measures are in place. Commissioner Merrill stated that commercial businesses on U.S. 41 will oppose closing off Prospect Street near U.S. 41; that Prospect Street should be left open from Osprey Avenue to U.S. 41; that Osprey Avenue could act as the feeder street to prevent all of the traffic being diverted to Bahia Vista or Waldemere Streets. Commissioner Merrill continued that the Task Force may have made an error by ignoring Loma Linda Street; however, the Task Force should be given the opportunity to correct the problem using semi-diverters or any other mechanism which will work. Commissioner Merrill further stated that Loma Linda Street should not bear the increased traffic resulting from the semi-diverters; that Prospect and Loma Linda Streets should be made equitable; that achieving true equity requires closing off Prospect Street in the same way Loma Linda Street is closed off before reaching U.S. 41; that Prospect Street should be protected from the increased traffic burden expected from the proposed Walgreen's at U.S. 41; that the Task Force should be granted the authority to decide if the semi-diverters should remain or if full diverters should be installed at an appropriate location near U.S. 41; that the commercial businesses can be expected to object to the use of full diverters closing off Prospect Street near U.S. 41; that closing off Prospect Street at U.S. 41 will become a highly controversial political issue. Mayor Cardamone stated that she will not support the motion including the removal of semi-diverters from Prospect Street. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read the motion as to direct the Administration to: 1) develop equitable traffic abatement measures on Pomelo Avenue and Loma Linda and Prospect Streets, 2) schedule a meeting (s) with neighborhood residents from all three streets to determine how best to achieve equity as soon as possible, and 3) remove the semi-diverters from Prospect Street when the new traffic abatement measures are in place accepting Book 40 Page 13928 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13929 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. responsibility for proper coordination of the construction schedule. Motion carried (3 to 2): Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, no. 16. BOARD APPOINTMENTS RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY - APPOINTED LINDA HOLLAND AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #4 (3310) through (3483) Mayor Cardamone stated that Edward Van Wert has resigned from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) due to unexpected health problems; and requested nominations for appointment. Commissioner Dupree nominated Linda Holland for appointment. Hearing no other nominations, Mayor Cardamone announced the appointment of Linda Holland to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency to fulfill the term of Edward Van Wert. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that applications have been received from highly qualified individuals who should be encouraged to reapply. Mayor Cardamone stated that Ms. Holland's experience and involvement with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) will allow her to serve immediately with full knowledge of ongoing PBLP activities; that the terms of two current members of the PBLP whom are not eligible for reappointment, expire in May 1997. Commissioner Merrill stated that he offers sympathy to Edward Van Wert for his health problems; that Ms. Holland's appointment to the PBLP provides representation from District 1; that District 3 residents should apply in May 1997 to provide the City with full regional representation on the PBLP. 17. BOARD APPOINTMENTS RE: CIVIL SERVICE/GENERAL PERSONNEL BOARD - APPOINTED CLARENCE JONES AND POSTPONED SECOND APPOINTMENT (AGENDA ITEM IX-2) #4 (3485) through (3812) Mayor Cardamone stated that Reverend Desi Echoles and Carolyn Mason have resigned from the Civil Service/General Personnel Board; and requested nominations for appointment. Mayor Cardamone stated that she suggests the Commission postpone the appointment as the two applicants, Mr. Jones and Mr. Milton are unknown. Commissioner Dupree stated that both applicants are known to him. Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification of the Civil Service/General Personnel Board' role? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Civil Service/General Personnel Board reviews applications submitted for positions in the Police Department; that the applications are approved or denied for placement on an eligibility list; that the Board also hears appeals to grievances from all City personnel except the Police Department. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Clarence Jones is a retired, management-level City employee previously in charge of the solid waste program; that Mr. Jones is highly knowledgeable, familiar with City personnel practices, and well-respected within the City administration. Commissioner Patterson nominated Clarence Jones for appointment. Hearing no other nominations, Mayor Cardamone announced the appointment of Clarence Jones to the Civil Service/General Personnel Board. Vice Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Milton's profession prior to retirement? Commissioner Dupree stated that Mr. Milton previously worked at Sarasota Memorial Hospital; that Mr. Milton is currently operating an apartment building on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way. Commissioner Patterson stated that she desires the opportunity to meet with Mr. Milton. 18. BOARD APPOINTMENTS RE: ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTED JACK CONWAY (AGENDA ITEM IX- 3) #5 (0102) through (0139) Mayor Cardamone stated that the term of Rhonda Pierce, Executive Director, Sarasota Housing Authority, has expired; that Ms. Pierce is not eligible for reappointment; that the vacant seat is designated for a representative of the Housing Authority, either a Board Member or the Executive Director; that the Sarasota Housing Authority Board recommends the appointment of Jack Conway. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to accept the recommendation of the Housing Authority Board to appoint Jack Conway to the vacant seat designated for a representative of the Housing Authority on the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board Book 40 Page 13930 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13931 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that, hearing no other nominations, Jack Conway is appointed to the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board by unanimous consent. 19. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: APPOINTED COMMISSIONER PATTERSON TO THE CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL REPLACING COMMISSIONER DUPREE; AGREED TO APPOINT ONE MEMBER EACH TO A TASK FORCE ON THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX PROGRAM; ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT ON GAMBLING BOATS IN SARASOTA AND THE USE OF REUSE WATER IN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS; CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON TO AGENDA AN ITEM MONTHLY ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE CITY (AGENDA ITEM X) #5 (0139) through (0852) COMMISSIONER DUPREE : A. stated that his resignation on the Children and Youth Services Advisory Council is tendered due to pressing other commitments which have precluded his attendance at meetings; that representation on the Council is important. Mayor Cardamone stated that the extent of his other obligations are recognized and asked if another Commissioner is interested in serving on the Council? Commissioner Patterson stated that the appointment is willingly accepted if the meetings are scheduled at a time she is available. Mayor Cardamone asked if the volunteer appointment would be accepted subject to a determination of the regularly scheduled meeting times? Commissioner Patterson stated yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that, hearing no other recommendations, Commissioner Patterson is appointed to the Children and Youth Services Advisory Council. B. stated that a system should be established to inspect and repair roads, potholes, erosion, etc., on a regular basis. Commissioner Patterson asked the current practice? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that observed problems are corrected within 24 hours; that an attempt is made to correct reported problems within 24 hours. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the Police and waste collection personnel can be encouraged to report observed problems? Mr. Schneider stated that all City employees are encouraged to report observed problems through the City's Eyes and Ears Program. Mayor Cardamone asked for a report on the Eyes and Ears Program. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a report will be provided. Commissioner Patterson stated that reminders are necessary from time to time to assure the continued success of such a program. COMMISSIONER MERRILL: A. stated that the District 3 neighborhood continues to appreciate the law enforcement efforts directed at troubled houses. B. stated that a report was received on the consolidated Police dispatch communication system; that the Police Chief's efforts in staying in contact with Police Officers on their perception of the consolidation is appreciated and should continue. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association reported at a recent meeting a concern with dispatch center response time. MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that the Council of Governments will be involved in the Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T) issue which will be on the ballot in the summer of 1997; that the Commissions of the four represented City governments, Sarasota County, and the Sarasota County School Board are requested to appoint Task Forces to consider what the governmental body has done with the L.0.S.T. dollars, how the dollars have been spent, and the proposals for use of future L.O.S.T. dollars; that the proposals for future expenditures of L.O.S.T revenues will be received by the City Commission in late January 1997; that the purpose of the Task Force is to receive citizens' input which will not take the place of but rather supplement any public hearing process; that the six appointed Task Forces will meet together to review the effect of the L.O.S.T. program on the entire County; that the Task Force will not be involved in marketing the L.O.S.T. effort but could add credibility to the expenditures and future plans; that each Commissioner is requested to appoint one member and provide the name to the City Auditor and Book 40 Page 13932 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13933 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Clerk; that the Task Force will last for a period of about two to three months. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff is in the best position to understand L.O.S.T. expenditures; and asked what the Task Force will be expected to accomplish? Mayor Cardamone stated that the concern is whether the L.O.S.T. extension will be passed by the voters; that the involvement of citizens of standing in the community to evaluate the success of the program from a citizen's perspective is sought; that identification of the expenditures can be provided by Staff, which has already been accomplished through various reports received by the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the objectives are: 1) to review prospective uses for the L.0.S.T. program and 2) to provide additional input to the Commission; that the Task Force will also meet with the Task Forces appointed by the five other elected boards to evaluate the program's effectiveness Countywide. Commissioner Patterson stated that Pinellas County is presently grappling with an attempt to gain voter approval of a one cent tax extension; that Pinellas County is identifying projects throughout the County with popular support and erecting signs indicating the project is the result of the "Pinellas penny"; that the slogan of "A Penny for Pinellas" has been adopted; that the experience of Pinellas County may be helpful to Sarasota in heightening public awareness of the program's benefits. Commission Patterson continued that part-time residents may be strong proponents of the program; that criticism will be forthcoming that government is attempting to take this action in the summer while part-time residents are absent; and asked why a vote on the L.O.S.T. program is being held in the summer. Mayor Cardamone stated that the vote will be held in June, which is the same timeframe as the last vote on the L.O.S.T. program; that parents with school children are still in Sarasota at that time; that the schools receive 25% of the penny tax. Commissioner Patterson stated that the June timeframe is better than the summer; however, May would be even better; that the chances for success are improved with more people in town. Mayor Cardamone stated that the timeframe of the vote is driven by the budget cycles of the governmental entities; that unfortunately, the timeframe of the vote cannot be controlled; that selling the L.O.S.T. extension will be difficult; however, Sarasota has a wonderful list of projects financed by L.O.S.T. dollars, including beautification efforts, medians, etc., which could not have been accomplished without the penny tax. Vice Mayor Pillot asked what prospective members should be told about the responsibilities of the Task Force? Mayor Cardamone stated that citizens will be asked to serve on a short-term, five-person Task Force to review past expenditures of the L.O.S.T. revenues in Sarasota over the last eight years and proposed future expenditures, to provide comments, and to meet with other Task Forces from the area; that involving more people in the process will increase support; that Task Force members will not be asked to be advocates for the program; that the Task Force should be comprised of citizens with the best interest of the community keeping in mind who can serve on a short-term basis. B. stated that the City of Venice is facing a return of the gambling interests who have made new arrangements with a local restaurant and are proving the availability of parking; that the Venice City Commission is having difficulty denying a petition as gambling interests become stronger in their approach; and asked if the Commission wants to consider gambling in the City of Sarasota prior to receiving a request? City Manager Sollenberger stated that overtures were received about four or five years ago concerning the possibility of operating gambling boats out of the City; that interested parties have been told the Administration will not recommend approval of any special exception for gambling boat dockage due to parking concerns; that only two locations are thought to be possible sites: Marina Jacks and Payne Terminal; that the Administration has taken a hard line that Staff support will not be torthcoming. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Venice City Administration took the same approach; however, the gambling interests have persisted. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Venice may have a feasible site; however, Sarasota does not. Mayor Cardamone stated that adequate on-site parking was not available; therefore, off-site parking with busing has been identified; that apparently a restaurant with adequate parking has been purchased and will provide dinner only to patrons of the gambling boat. Commissioner Patterson stated that gambling boats are not specified as a special exception possibility in the City's Zoning Code. City Attorney Taylor stated that gambling boats are not recognized as a potential use in the Zoning Code as gambling is not allowed Book 40 Page 13934 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13935 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. in the State of Florida; that the only possibility may be consideration as an excursion boat. City Manager Sollenberger stated that most potential locations are City owned. Mayor Cardamone stated that the use of busing raises additional possibilities; that she is not interested in the City of Sarasota hosting a gambling boat. Vice Mayor Pillot agreed. City Manager Sollenberger stated that such use is a total loss for the City. Mayor Cardamone asked if some policy action should be taken to preclude the opportunity? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the issue should be referred to the Administration. Mayor Cardamone stated that absent objections from the Commission the issue is referred to the Administration for a report. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that utilizing water reuse systems as a tool in redeveloping less affluent neighborhoods has been explored by other communities; that people may be encouraged to do plantings, water lawns and street trees, etc., if water reuse is made available without the normal costs; that Sarasota has been installing reuse system loops; however, a great deal of interest has not been generated in installing home-use water reuse systems; that a redevelopment area where the piping has already been installed could be considered as a potential trial for providing water reuse without charge. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a report will be provided to the Commission. VICE MAYOR PILLOT: : A. stated that mail worthy of public comment is regularly received; that an example is a report of the SWAT Team's seizure of 1,000 cocaine rocks, which is significant Police work and about which the public would want to be informed; that another example is a news article that Sarasota has been identified as one of the ten most financially secure cities in the United States; and asked if a regular means could be identified to bring such items to the public's attention early in Commission meetings. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Vice Mayor could report good news celebrating the City's accomplishments on a regular basis. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that this pleasure could be an on-going responsibility, of the Vice Mayor; and asked if the City Auditor and Clerk could be authorized to place this item on the Agenda early in the meeting? Mayor Cardamone stated that the consensus of the Commission is to place an item on the Agenda on a monthly basis for the Vice Mayor to report on positive events in the City. 20. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #5 (0852) through (0918) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: : A. stated that a workshop on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) will be held beginning at 2:00 p.m. with public input at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 9, 1996. Mayor Cardamone stated that Articles VI and VII of the proposed LDRS will be reviewed. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER : A. stated that Southern Living Magazine will do an article in February or March 1997 entitled "Foot in Sarasota" which will feature the Bayiront, Main Street and the Sarasota Opera. Mayor Cardamone stated that a speaker earlier in the meeting made a point about the appearance of Downtown; that the Kress Building has brown paper hanging loose in the windows and looks terrible. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the problems associated with the Kress Building are the responsibility of the owner. Mayor Cardamone asked about the possibility of code enforcement? Commissioner Patterson stated that an opportunity under code enforcement would have to be identified. Book 40 Page 13936 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13937 12/02/96 6:00 P.M. 21. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #5 (0918) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of December 2, 1996, at 12:43 a.m. 1nulin Cacr MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR ATTEST: BlE Roben Aon BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK