MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: SARASOTA CITY BUSINESS COALITION'S "MARKETING BROCHURE" FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA #1 (0020) through (0089) Paul Thorpe, Chairman; Bohdan Guran, representing the North Trail; Terry Coffrin, representing Southside Village; Chuck Jewett representing the Downtown Association; and Donald Adamec of Briggs & Adamec Advertising; came before the Commission as the Sarasota City Business Coalition. Mr. Thorpe stated that Jetson Grimes, representing Newtown, and Beverly Wright, representing St. Armands, are the members not in attendance; that the Commission authorized the formation of the Sarasota Business Coalition approximately nine months ago, and authorized funds to prepare a brochure promoting the City of Sarasota. The completed city of Sarasota brochure which represents six separate Sarasota communities was presented to the Commission, and Mr. Thorpe stated that the 50,000 brochures produced will be distributed throughout the State to promote the City of Sarasota. Mr. Jewett thanked the Commission for the opportunity to prepare a brochure which will help the City. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission was proud to have been able to fund the development of such an impressive brochure. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0090) through (0223) Book 37 Page 10966 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10967 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1, Presentation Re: Proposed Eastwood Park concept plan and development budget. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this item is being referred to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board for public input. B. Remove under New Business, Item No. VIII-2, Rescission Re: Motion of September 6, 1994, excluding Shoreland Drive and Spring Creek Drive from the Sidewalk Project list, per the request of Commissioner Pillot. C. Remove under New Business, Item No. VIII-4, Approval Re: Private Road Access easement on Citrus Avenue to allow erection of a house on a lot that is not adjacent to a public street. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this item will be scheduled for public hearing at the October 17, 1994, City Commission meeting. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Commissioner Pillot stated that at the last Commission meeting, the Commission was noticed of his intent to rescind the motion of September 6, 1994, which removed Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives from the Sidewalk Project list; that the Sidevalk-to-school priorities for the Sidewalk Program were based on data received from the Sarasota School system with the assistance of the Sheriff's office in determining where conditions of safety or lack of safety existed for children walking to schools; that misinformation that Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives were part of this list was the basis for his decision to rescind the motion of September 6, 1994; that the list has since been reviewed and Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives are not included; that the basis to defend his position to move to rescind the action taken was based on misinformation; therefore, he has requested the item be removed from the agenda. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS I-1, -2) #1 (0224) through (0240) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Hearing no objections, Mayor Patterson stated that the minutes of the regular city Commission meeting of September 19, 1994, and the special City Commission meeting of September 26, 1994, were approved by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 REPORT ACCEPTED; CONTINUED PETITION NO. 94-SE-2 TO BE SCHEDULED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PETITION NO. 94-CO-2 AND PSED 94-B; AUTHORIZED CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT A HEIGHT INCREASE TO 180 FEET IN THE RMF-7 ZONE DISTRICT AND TO ADJUST THE ZONING CODE AS NECESSARY TO AVOID PERMITTING A HEIGHT INCREASE IN THE RMF-4, 5, AND 6 ZONE DISTRICTS (AGENDA II-1) #1 (0242) through (1505) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's special meeting of August 31, 1994, and regular meeting of September 7, 1994: A. Authority of Planning Board to direct preparation of Ordinances. Mr. Annis stated that an action was taken at the August 31, 1994, meeting to request clarification from the Commission regarding the responsibilities of Staff to draft ordinances; that this request stemmed from the situation in which the PBLP was placed with regard to the Sidewalk Cafe issue; that the PBLP held a public hearing on the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance at its regular August meeting; that much public input was received from the restaurant owners who would be affected by the ordinance; that certain aspects of that ordinance as drafted were of concern to both the restaurant owners and the PBLP members; that the Staff was requested to draft revisions based on those concerns for presentation at a special meeting to be scheduled with the concerned parties; that the special meeting was scheduled for August 31, 1994; however, no revised text was available for review; that the PBLP awkwardly worked through a new ordinance with the concerned parties at the special meeting; that a hard copy containing the revisions would have made discussions on the revisions easier. Mr. Annis continued that the issue is whether the PBLP's role is to say only aye or nay to an ordinance, if the PBLP has the ability to revise an ordinance Book 37 Page 10968 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10969 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. before it is presented to the Commission, or if the PBLP has to come before the Commission to request authorization to revise ordinances. Ms. Robinson stated that Staff usually presents the PBLP with code amendment documents containing underlines and strikeouts; that the PBLP presents the code amendment to the Commission with either a request for acceptance if the code amendment is a minor change, or a request for authorization to hold a public hearing before the PBLP; that Commission permission is necessary to have an ordinance prepared; that this procedure was based on the budgetary response received on the Commission's desire to direct legal staff with regard to preparation of ordinances; that code amendments are initiated in ordinance form by the Planning and Development, Building and Zoning, or Engineering Departments when the Commission requests that a code amendment be prepared; that the PBLP reviews the ordinance, accepts or denies it, or makes revisions. Ms. Robinson continued that the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance prepared by the Administration was complicated; that the PBLP felt that a revised document was necessary to review and deal with that ordinance effectively; that Staff does not request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance without Commission authorization. City Attorney Taylor stated that presenting the Commission with two or three ordinances which attempt to achieve the same goal is confusing; that time should not be invested to develop a different and distinct ordinance which could create problems in terms of whether one or two ordinances will be advertised; that the end result could be a third ordinance; that providing the Commission with a report on the areas of an ordinance in which the PBLP finds fault is an adequate procedure; therefore, a second ordinance was not prepared. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP does not appear to be asking that a second ordinance be drafted. Mr. Annis stated that the body of the Sidewalk Ordinance remained the same, but significant deletions and additions to the ordinance were discussed by the PBLP and the concerned parties; that the issue is a matter of role definition; that the PBLP could have taken no action and reported the objections to the Commission during the Board report to receive guidance; that the PBLP was attempting to work with concerned parties to expedite an ordinance to resolve various code enforcement-related problems which have been occurring; that the PBLP feels the concerned parties should have bbeen provided with a hard copy of the revisions prior to the special meeting; that this would have made the ordinance easier to address. Mayor Patterson stated that redrafting an ordinance after PBLP review and again after Commission review could cost 1.5 times as much as the original drafting; that the Commission should be presented with a list of the PBLP's comments; that one revision should be made which incorporates the comments of both the PBLP and the Commission. Mayor Patterson continued that she does not want to receive just a yes or no response from the PBLP. Mr. Annis stated that a list of comments would also require compiling and drafting. Mayor Patterson stated that the hourly rates of the City Attorney and Ms. Robinson are quite different. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the PBLP should be totally satisfied that an ordinance being presented to the Commission will address the needs of the community involved; that the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance was quite restrictive with regard to colors of umbrellas, sizes of tables, locations of tables, etc.; that the potentially affected business community opposed many of the restrictions which the Engineering Department had included in the ordinance; that the business community requested that their concerns be incorporated prior to presenting the ordinance to the Commission; that the business community returned to the special meeting expecting to see those concerns addressed in a modified ordinance only to find those concerns had not been incorporated; that the issue was not redrafting the ordinance, but altering an ordinance which would be presented to the Commission; that she supports the PBLP's position. Mayor Patterson stated that this issue should be scheduled for discussion as a separate agenda item. B. John Ringling Towers - 111 North Tamiami Trail Mr. Annis stated that a Land Use Administration public hearing was held on the following: Conditional Rezoning, Petition No. 94-CO-2 - to rezone the property located at 111 North Tamiami Trail (John Ringling Towers) from the Commercial General (CG) zone district to the Residential Multiple Family (RMF-5) zone district; Special Exception, Petition No. 94-SE-2 requesting a mixed use citicyimtitigmyentuma/rimamtial facility in a historically designated structure; and Preliminary Site and Development Plan, Petition No. 94-B which was filed in conjunction with the conditional rezoning and special exception and encompasses the entire parcel consisting of approximately 11.3 acres. Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP found Petition Nos. 94-CO-2, 94-SE-2, and Preliminary Site & Development plan 94-B consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and Tree Ordinance; that the PBLP Book 37 Page 10970 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10971 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. recommended approval to the City Commission of Petition Nos. 94-CO-2 and 94-SE-2 and PS&D 94-B subject to the following conditions: 1) An off-site parking agreement based on criteria proposed by Staff be reached between First Sunset Development and the John Ringling Centre Foundation to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces prior to the City Commission public hearing; 2) The parking agreement be based on parking standards suggested by Staff; and 3) Clarification of participation by First Sunset Development be made regarding the traffic issues defined in the September 6, 1994, memorandum from the Engineering Department. Mr. Annis stated that significant concern was expressed during the public hearing regarding parking and traffic circulation issues. City Attorney Taylor stated that the listed conditions will be inconsistent with a three-party agreement which exists between the City, the land owner, and the John Ringling Centre Foundation, and an agreement which exists between the tenant and the Foundation; that several meetings have been held with the Attorneys representing the various parties and the City Manager; that the Administration plans to eliminate the conditions and other discrepancies prior to presenting the entire John Ringling Towers proposal to the Commission as a package at the next Commission meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a special exception becomes effective 45 days after the PBLP public hearing if the Commission takes no action; therefore, the Administration's recommendation is to continue the special exception and address it at the public hearing for the conditional rezoning and PS&D petitions. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Commission would be staying the automatic 45-day effective date by continuing the special exception for consideration with the entire package? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to continue Petition No. 94-SE-2 to the public hearing to be scheduled for Conditional Rezoning 94-CO-2 and PS&D Plan 94-B. Mayor Patterson asked Commissioner Pillot if the intent of the motion was to include the recommendations from the PBLP? Commissioner Pillot responded no; that the intent of his motion was for the Commission to consider the conditional rezoning, the PS&D, and the special exception at one time. Mayor Patterson stated that she reviewed the related PBLP minutes and was impressed with the address of the parking issue which was very loosely addressed in the existing agreement; that the City could have an empty building, unable to obtain a certificate of occupancy, if the parking issue is not addressed. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mr. Annis stated that access to the Fruitville Road connector via the Sarasota Quay was discussed; that negotiations to accomplish this right-of-way should be pursued. Mayor Patterson stated that public hearings are scheduled for 6:30 p.m. and it is now that time; that the Commission will complete the PBLP Board Report and proceed to public hearings. C. Proposed Code Amendment No. 94-CA-04, to increase the RMF-7 height limits. Mr. Annis stated that a petitioner essentially filed this petition to be allowed to have ceiling heights above 8 feet within a structure; that the PBLP felt that the this use should be permitted; that the RMF-7 zone district affects only properties along the Gulf Stream Avenue/Ringling Causeway corridor and the Jefferson Center building; that the PBLP found Petition No. 94-CA-04 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended to the City Commission setting it for public hearing. Ms. Robinson stated that the Administration's recommendation is to amend the Zoning Code to allow the height to be increased from 160 feet to 180 feet by special exception for residential structures in the RMF-7 Zone District rather than a permitted use; that the Administration and the PBLP agreed that an increase in height should not be allowed in the RMF-4, RMF-5, and RMF-6 zone districts. Mayor Patterson stated that the memorandum from Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, which is included in the agenda materials states that the height could be increased in RMF- 4, 5, and 6 zone districts if those districts were adjacent to an RMF-7 zone district which permitted the 180-foot height. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Administration's recommendation is as follows and does not refer to RMF-4, 5, or 6 zone districts: Book 37 Page 10972 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10973 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Authorize the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code to allow the height to be increased for residential structures in the RMF-7 zone district by special exception from 160 feet to 180 feet. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the intent of the Administration's recommendation is to limit the increase in height to the RMF-7 zone district only, and to approve the use by special exception. Mayor Patterson stated that the aspects of the Zoning Code related to RMF-4, 5, and 6 zone districts should be addressed since the language for those zone districts specify a maximum height equivalent to the maximum height in an RMF-7 zone district could be gained by special exception; that the height provision will inadvertently be provided to other zone districts if the entire section of the code is not modified. City Manager Sollenberger stated that those sections will be modified. Commissioner Pillot asked what effect approving the Administration's recommendation would have on the Tangerine Development Company, Petitioner, with regard to the Palm Avenue and Gulf Stream Avenue construction for which the 180-foot height provision has been requested? Ms. Robinson stated that the Tangerine Development Company would have to file a special exception to request the 180-foot height. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports the construction as requested by the Tangerine Development Companyi that this construction will be a fine project for the city and should be permitted to proceed expeditiously; and asked how this could be accomplished? Ms. Robinson stated that a public hearing on the proposed code amendment is necessary; that if approval of the code amendment is received by the City Commission, Tangerine Development Company could file a special exception and submit a site and development plan which would then be presented to both the Planning Board and the City Commission; that this process would take approximately three months. City Attorney Taylor stated that this situation relates to the issue discussed earlier regarding PBLP positions versus Administration position; that preparation of this code amendment as recommended by the Administration would provide a process different than that which would be provided if the code amendment was drafted as recommended by the PBLP; that without drafting two ordinances, the only ordinance before the Commission for adoption would be an ordinance with the special exception inclusive; that a second ordinance would have to be drafted if the Commission wanted two ordinances from which to choose, creating a situation the Administration has tried to avoid. City Attorney Taylor continued that the Commission would not want to have an ordinance drafted with the special exception inclusive if the intent is to proceed as expeditiously as possible on the petition filed. Mr. Annis stated that the number of permitted stories could be qualified in the proposed ordinance in lieu of the special exception process; that this would permit the height to be increased to allow greater ceiling height, but would not permit the height to be increased to allow more stories. Mayor Patterson stated that RMF-7 zone district incorporates a limited area; that an ordinance should be drafted which permits a height of 180 feet in the RMF-7 zone districts with no further increase in density and addresses the codes on RMF-4, 5, and 6 zone districts to have those height limits remain as currently permitted. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from the PBLP report: the intent of the motion is to allow height without a special exception up to 180 feet for residential uses in the RMF-7 district only, and have no impact on the RMF-4, 5, and 6 zone districts. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to authorize the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code to allow the height to be increased for residential structures in the RMF-7 zone district to 180 feet and adjust the code as necessary to avoid permitting the height increase in the RMF-4, 5, and 6 zone districts. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that the public hearing should be set before the Commission as recommended by the PBLP. Ms. Robinson stated that a public hearing on the PS&D will be required before the PBLP if the Commission adopts the ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the report of the PBLP's special meeting of August 31, 1994, and regular meeting of September 7, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at Book 37 Page 10974 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10975 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 5. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3792, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE BY REGULATING ADULT BOOKSTORES, ADULT PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIOS, ADULT THEATERS, ADULT VIDEO STORES, ADULT MODELING STUDIOS, SPECIAL CABARETS, PHYSICAL CULTURE ESTABLIBHMENTS, COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS ADULT USES; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS REGULATING THE LOCATION OF ADULT USES; REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR ADULT USES; PROVIDING FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF APPLICATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND DENIAL OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR A PERMIT FEE; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTIONS OF PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS PROVIDING FOR THE EX- PIRATION OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR THE SUSPENSION OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REVOCATION OF PERMITS; PROVIDING IN-STORE VIEWING BOOTH REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR HOURS OF OPERATION; REGULATING PRIVATE PERFORMANCES: PROVIDING CRIMINAL PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS OF PERMIT DENIALS; PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR CHANGE OF BUSINESS NAME: PROVIDING A PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH NONCONFORMING ADULT BUSINESSES MUST OBTAIN A PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR ENFOR - CEMENT; PROVIDING FOR CONSENT; PROVIDING FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION: PROVIDING FOR NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1559) through #2 (0829) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this is the second, required public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 94-3792; that Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's office, will provide a brief outline on the aspects of the proposed ordinance. Sarah Schenk came before the Commission, and presented the following exhibit to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson for entry into the record: II. STUDIES OF ADVERSE SECONDARY EFFECTS OF ADULT USES Report of Pinellas County Sheriff's Department detailing criminal activities associated with Adult Uses in Pinellas County dated June 10, 1987 Exhibit 13 Ms. Schenk stated that proposed Ordinance no. 94-3792 regulates adult use establishments both as to zoning and licensing; that this proposed ordinance allows location of adult use establishments in only three zone districts: Commercial General (CG), Commercial Intensive (CI), and Commercial Shopping Centers, Community and Regional (CSC-C and CSC-R); that the adult use establishments would be prohibited in all other zone districts; that under the current regulations, adult use establishments are allowed in all commercial zone districts; that this adult use ordinance regulates seven types of uses: 1) adult bookstore, 2) adult video store, 3) adult modelling studio, 4) special cabaret, 5) adult theater, 6) adult photographic studio, and 7) physical culture establishment; that as matter of zoning within the three permitted zone districts, there are distance requirements of 1,000 feet along the same right-of-way or 500 feet along an intersecting rights-of-way between adult use establishments and the following incompatible uses: residentially zoned property, property used for residential purposes, churches/synageques, schools, child care centers or another adult use establishment. Ms. Schenk continued that the courts have required that a reasonable number of alternative locations must be provided; that under this proposed ordinance, approximately 4% of the total land area of the City is available for adult use establishments; that although the U.S. Supreme Court has required 6% of available land area in the past, the appellate courts have determined that it is more equitable to view the total acreage available in a city; that approximately 31% of the total commercially-zoned acreage in the City of Sarasota will be available for adult use establishments which is the minimum percentage that would meet the legal, constitutional challenges; that it is the opinion of the city Attorney's office that the percentage requirement and 'the distance requirements meet the applicable judicial requirements for providing a reasonable number of locations as a matter of law. Ms. Schenk further stated that the second component of this proposed ordinance is the permitting requirement; that a permit would be issued after payment of a permit fee; that hours of operation would be regulated; that operations would be prohibited between 2:00 and 8:00 a.m.; that specific regulations are included as to lighting, entrances, and manager's stations for modelling studios, bookstores, and video stores; that the ordinance sets forth criminal sanctions and grounds for revoking a permit; that existing uses located in the incorrect zone district or located within the 1,000-foot distance requirement would be required to get a permit within 45 days of the effective date of this ordinance to be allowed to operate for one year after which time relocation to a permitted zone district would be required. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the 1,000-foot distance requirement between an adult use establishment and a prohibited use could be increased to 1,500 feet or 2,000 feet? Ms. Schenk stated that cases throughout the State of Florida and nationwide in Federal and State courts have been reviewed; that a Book 37 Page 10976 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10977 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. distance requirement beyond 1,000 feet has not been upheld; that in her opinion, the 1,000-foot requirement is as tough as the City can get. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Luke Charles Lirot, Attorney, 2000 Magnolia Drive, Clearwater, FL., stated that he represents a number of businesses involved in adult entertainment and is before the Commission to represent the other side of this issue; that concerns on behalf of his client were expressed in a letter to City Attorney Taylor dated August 3, 1994, regarding the legislation being considered; that the only legitimate purpose for which the Commission can regulate adult entertainment businesses is to control the adverse secondary effects; that in the landmark cases during which this issue originally came before the U.S. Supreme Court, it was stated that the businesses could be regulated if data can be presented that these businesses cause adverse secondary effects; that contrary to the proposed ordinance which is being considered, the Renton Decision, which is the landmark decision referenced, operated only in a prospective manner with no retroactive application to businesses already in existence; that retroactive application is a flaw, with respect to property rights, that came out of subsequent decisions; that Ms. Schenk referred to the secondary effects at the last public hearing stating that the businesses cause a blighting of the neighborhood, a decrease in the property values of adjoining properties, and promotes an increase in crime or general decline of the area; that evidence is available which refutes that viewpoint; that courts have stated this type of ordinance can be adopted if the Commission, as a community, in good faith ignores refutable evidence and in good faith relies on the experiences of other cities; that in light of the great respect this country gives to life, liberty, and property, which technically these adult businesses are, the Commission should consider modifying the ordinance to grandfather-in pre-existing uses; that the businesses would still be regulated; that local and State ordinances provide the framework for regulation; that a nuisance proceeding can be instituted over any offending establishment; that the businesses in existence should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine if adverse secondary effects are generated; that the City has more than adequate means to address those businesses which may be determined to engender adverse secondary effects. Attorney Lirot presented the following documents to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson for entry into the record: 1. List of Real Property Value Comparison 2. Marcia Pally, Sense & Censorship: The Vanity of Bonfires, Americans for Constitutional Freedom and the Freedom to Read Foundation, 1991. 3. Marcia Pally, "Resource Materials on Sexually Explicit Material, Violent Material and Censorship: Research and Public Policy Implications," Sense & Censorship: The Vanity of Bonfires, Americans for Constitutional Freedom and the Freedom to Read Foundation, 1991. Attorney Lirot stated that statistics compared to the 1991 assessed values of the properties in the vicinity of his client's business were evaluated; that the argument that his client's business causes a decline in property values does not hold true; that adverse secondary effects are not caused when there is a responsibility on the part of an owner to run these businesses properly; that the courts have held, unequivocally, that the public has a right to have access to sexually explicit materials. Attorney Lirot continued that the studies placed on record by the City Attorney have been reviewed; that he does not have respect for the research methodology of those studies; that five separate communities had all missed the same four pages of one particular study when a request of the public record was made; that the studies should be read with the scrutiny necessaryi that the volumes placed on record review most of the social science data and a number of other studies related to sexually explicit material; that the widely held cultural beliefs that these businesses cause adverse effects on the community are refuted in the presented volumes; that true studies conclude that individuals in jail for sexually explicit crimes did not frequent adult use establishments or have access to sexually explicit material. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the name and address of Attorney Lirot's client. Attorney Lirot stated that his client's name is Art Newman and the business is Sheer Sensations located on North Tamiami Trail. Esther Rachwal, 4975 Southern Wood Drive, representing American Family Association (AFA), Sarasota Chapter stated that many of the members of the AFA and churches have residences within the City limits; that she supports proposed Ordinance No. 94-3792; that although the AFA would like to see the 1,000-foot distance requirement increased, the ordinance should be able to withstand the scrutiny of the courts; therefore, the 1,000-foot distance requirement should not be increased at this time; however, an attempt should be made by the City of Sarasota to increase the distance requirement once another community is successful with a greater distance requirement; that the 48-page proposed ordinance was reviewed by David Caton, Florida Director of the AFA, who Book 37 Page 10978 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10979 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. supports and feels it will be the strongest ordinance in the State. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Rachwal continued that the existing adult use establishments should not be grandfathered-in; that this would be contrary to the purpose of developing and adopting an adult use ordinance. Ms. Rachwal further stated that Attorney Lirot's reterence to declining values was not based on long term effects; that the decline of the area and the character of people who frequent other communities in which adult use establishments have operated can easily be viewed. Lyn Lloyd-Davies, 4628 Pine Green Trail, stated that he highly commended the work of the Commission and the support of staff with regard to proposed Ordinance No. 94-3792 at the first public hearing and reiterated that commendation; that the first amendment rights of the people mitigate against total prohibition of adult businesses within the City of Sarasota; that those favoring control over these adult use establishments support the City's efforts; that he is concerned that adoption of this proposed ordinance may relocate the adult businesses into areas of the County where the regulations are not as strict; that the County Commission should be approached to request that the County ordinances be made as restrictive as this proposed ordinance. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance was motivated, in part, by the significant increase of regulated businesses within the City since Sarasota County adopted an adult use ordinance; that the City is following the lead of the County; that the more restrictive aspects of the City's proposed ordinance should not drive the businesses from the City into the County. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:06 p.m. Virginia Haley, 1646 S. Orange Avenue, representing the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) stated that the CCNA does not support the proposed ordinance as drafted; that the distance requirements are insufficient and will move the problems from one neighborhood to another within City; that the distance requirements should be increased from 1,000 to 2,000 feet and from 500 to 1,000 feet; that the measurements should be taken from property line to property line as with other zoning codes. Mayor Patterson asked City Attorney Taylor for comment on measuring from the periphery of the property. City Attorney Taylor stated that the distance requirements in the proposed ordinance as drafted are to the greatest extent the City Attorney's office feels can withstand legal challenge; that the proposed ordinance is a synthesis of a number of ordinances adopted in various parts of Florida, particularly on the west coast of Florida, thereby incorporating a standard which has been set by other jurisdictions such as Sarasota County. Ms. Schenk stated that the mapping procedures prepared by the Planning and Development department were reviewed to determine if the distance requirement could be increased beyond 1,000 feet; that Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, had stated that increasing the distance requirement to 2,000 feet would, in effect, ban adult use establishments from the City of Sarasota; that a total ban would not be upheld; that Mr. Taylor had stated that the essential land area available for adult use establishments would be substantially reduced if the distance requirements were measured from property line to property line; that as drafted, the ordinance is close to the 30% of commercially zoned property; that no cases in the State of Florida or the country have upheld a lower percentage of land area availability; that a legal challenge would probably be successful if the land area is reduced in either of those two respects. C. Bart Cotten, Woodland Drive, representing Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association stated that the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association would like the adult use businesses eliminated from the City, but support this proposed ordinance since it will stand up in court; that legal challenges may be forthcoming; that the 1,000-member Association will support the Commission on the effect of adverse secondary causes. Mr. Cotten continued that only 1 out of the 13 existing adult use establishments listed will meet all the requirements if this ordinance is adopted as drafted; that the business would not meet the requirements if the distance requirement was increased to 2,000 feet; that he does not understand Commissioner Atkins' statement at the last meeting that the adult business will be dumped from his neighborhood into Commissioner Atkins' district when this proposed ordinance will remove three adult use establishments in his neighborhood and four from Commissioner Atkins' district; that stalling this type of legislation does nothing but proliferate these type of businesses in the City of Sarasota. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a number of the businesses contained in the list of existing uses are lingerie modelling studios operating illegally, but the illegal operation must be proved; that the restrictions on location, entrances, and lighting in the proposed ordinance will make continued operation of these businesses difficult; that only four of the businesses contained on the list could relocate; that one of those four business is already located where people are afraid the businesses will relocate. Robin Young, 3340 Tanglewood Drive, stated that he is representing himself as a Christian father with two children in Sarasota; that adverse secondary effects have been mentioned; that the primary adverse effects which come from such statements as adult Book 37 Page 10980 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10981 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. entertainment should be addressed; that adult entertainment is basketball, football, swimming, good meals together with a husband and wife; that adult entertainment is healthy entertainment. Mr. Young continued that some people have the perverse nature of selling flesh; that lingerie modelling studios are in the flesh business; that adult bookstores are in the flesh business; that these businesses insight the mind, spirit, and mint of the City, and its young women; that he opposes the proposed ordinance from an ethical point of view; that other cities and counties in the State of Florida should not be allowed to dictate ethical standards for the City of Sarasota; that a legal challenge should not be feared; that a city with the quality of the City of Sarasota has the opportunity to be challenged by making larger distance requirements between adult perversity areas and families, schools, and churches that want to maintain a high level of life. Mr. Young further stated that he is a professional salesman who sees broken homes and families, and men leaving their wives and abandoning their children; that the quality of these establishments harm the quality of life in Sarasota; that men and women run these businesses in Sarasota to make a profit; that a profit can be made in many other ways; that individuals should not profit at the expense of his children's future; that the distance requirements should be re- evaluated; that the Commission should stand up for a new measure of decision-making in the State of Florida which may be contested and set a landmark for reference across the countryi that adult bookstores, adult modelling studios, special cabarets, etc., would not have to be located in the City of Sarasota if the people and the Commission were willing to support a cause to eliminate them; that these establishments are bad, cause adultery, and fornication; that casual sex is not casual, it leads to fornication; that the important promise and future of the City of Sarasota lies in the convictions and decisions made by the Commission tonight with regard to driving these businesses out of Sarasota. Kate Hanson O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive, stated that the changes in demeanor and the nature of U.S. 41 that have been created by these adult establishments is appalling; that citizens do not want visitors from the Sarasota/Bradenton Airport greeted in this manner; that an adult use establishment recently located in her neighborhood on Beneva Road; that children view this establishment while waiting at a school bus stop; that this type of activity in the town that she grew up in is absurd; that she supports this ordinance wholeheartedly; that most of the people in Sarasota will support the Commission in every effort made to curtail these businesses; that the only gentlemen who spoke in favor of these establishments was hired to do sO and is not from this area; that Attorney Lirot would not be affected by the misconceptions he put before the Commission. Lorelei Stepp, 213 Cornelius Circle, West, stated that her children have to walk past the establishment referenced on Beneva Road; that Attorney Lirot has suggested grandfathering in the existing adult use establishments to wait for a problem to arise; that these establishments are like cock roaches, once they exist there is no way to get rid of the them; that she supports the proposed ordinance and urges its adoption. Eileen Linxwiler, 337 North Shore Drive, stated that she recently attended a three-day convention sponsored by the Kentucky Commission on Status of Women which addressed many of the same issues being discussed and was unable to attend the first public hearing on this ordinance; that she applauded the (4 = 1) results published in the newspaper and hopes the Commission has the courage to morally vote the same way tonight to adopt the proposed ordinance; that she has been involved and interested in this type of regulation for some time; that she resents driving by Sheer Sensations and the other adult establishments between her home and the home of her grandchildren aged 12 and 14; that grandfathering-in the adult use establishments would be ludicrous. Ms. Linxwiler continued that she is a member of the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) i that the CCNA supported this ordinance with the exception of the two areas mentioned by Virginia Haleyi that she would like to be able to applaud the City of Sarasota for having the strength and courage to enact this proposed ordinance. Barbara Cherry, 3907 Bayshore Road, stated that she supports this proposed ordinance; that the following statements are in refute to the statements made by Attorney Lirot: 1. Attorney Lirot's client, Sheer Sensations, was involved in a sting operation earlier this year; and 2. When questioned in regard to the substantially reduced appraised value on her motel, a Sarasota County commercial appraiser told her that the North Trail was not perceived as a good area and until it was cleaned up the appraisal would remain lowered. Jon Susce, 524 Erie Court, representing Common Ground, stated that he applauds the statements made by Commissioner Atkins at the first public hearing; that a realistic review of the proposed ordinance will reflect that the adult use establishments will be relocated into his neighborhood where they are not wanted; that the poorer neighborhoods continue to be the dumping grounds; that the owners of the existing adult use establishments will attest that relocation to his neighborhood will occur. Mr. Susce continued that he is the President of the East Sarasota Neighborhood Association (ESNA) and a member of the CCNA; that Ms. Haley brought the Commission the first part of the proposal reached at the last CCNA meeting with regard to the increased distance requirement; however, Ms. Haley failed to mention that the CCNA wanted a request Book 37 Page 10982 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10983 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. made to defeat the proposed ordinance if the distance requirements could not be increased. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3792 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3792 on second reading. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to increase the 1,000-foot distance requirement to 2000-feet. Commissioner Pillot stated that a large portion of the citizens would prefer an ordinance that eliminates this type of activity in the City of Sarasota; that results of competent, legal study have been presented to the Commission on several occasions; and asked City Attorney Taylor to reiterate why the distance requirements were established as proposed. City Attorney Taylor stated that doubling the standards set forth in this proposed ordinance would put the City in a position where the areas of location for this type of business would be so severely restricted that the ordinance would not withstand a judicial challenge; that related questions were raised during the workshop held on the originally proposed ordinance which contained lower distance requirements; that this proposed ordinance includes the increased distance requirements discussed at the workshop and goes beyond the State standards; that his duty is to defend whatever the Commission deems appropriate within an ordinance; however, the City will not have a good probability of successfully defending the ordinance with the large amount of footage suggested; that adopting an adult use ordinance is a big move for the City; that applying the ordinance to the particular businesses to which it relates is moving the City in the right direction; that Federal and State courts continue to rule on cases that set the standards; that the City Attorney's office could analyze future cases and bring back a recommendation for a more stringent requirement at such time a precedent was set and a stricter requirement could be supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the City Attorney's opinion has been accepted with regard to court case feasibility in the past and have not always been accurate; that the City of Sarasota has an opportunity to advocate for the impoverished neighborhoods of the City; that the City only goes to court for the rich and wealthy neighborhoods of the City; that the city of Sarasota has an opportunity to set the precedent on this issue; that the risk should be taken to defend the rights of the citizens of the City of Sarasota. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Atkins' statementsi; that he will vote for the amendment to show national leadership if the City has a chance to escape with no worse than the restrictions set forth in the proposed ordinance; and asked if the City included the 2,000 foot requirement in the ordinance, and a legal challenge was brought against the City, and the courts found in favor of the plaintiff, would the City revert back to the currently proposed ordinance? city Attorney Taylor stated that assuming the issue raised in that legal challenge instance would be the 2,000 foot distance requirement, those provisions of the ordinance would be declared severable; that the ordinance, itself, could survive although a portion of it had been declared unconstitutional; however, he is concerned that applying the 2,000-foot distance factor would so severely limit the available zoned area for location that the City would be prohibiting a use that by law can't be prohibited; that the court could remand the ordinance back to the City; that the City would then have an opportunity to conduct the process again taking the court's ruling into consideration. City Attorney Taylor further stated for the record that damages suffered under the ordinance and entitlement to damages would have to be proven by the plaintiff; however, damages could be assessed as the result of a legal challenge; that the City should not be put in a position where damages could be assessed if adult uses could be effectively regulated without such a restrictive distance requirement. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the proposed ordinance contains two, separate 1,000-foot restrictions: 1) distance between an adult use establishment and residential properties, and 2) distance between adult use establishments; that increasing the distance requirement between adult use establishment to 2,000 feet would not theoretically reduce the available square footage for location; and asked if that could more easily be defended? City Attorney Taylor stated that would be a slightly different issue, but the same argument could be applied; that the Administration based development of this ordinance on 30% of available land area, a precedent-setting percentage on which cases have been won; that a 2,000-foot distance requirement between adult use establishments would reduce the available land area below 30%; however, the reduction would not be as severe as the reduction created by increasing all the distance requirements to 2,000 feet. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission has been told that increasing the distance requirement by 2,000 from residential property would basically prohibit adult use establishments in the Book 37 Page 10984 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10985 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. City; however, increasing the separation between two adult use establishments to 2,000 feet would allow adult use establishments in the designated areas with the first adult use establishment to locate in the area being the only adult use establishment to operate; that this should be more defendable since the use would not be prohibited. Mayor Patterson stated that Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion may not affect the percent of available land area if no adult uses currently exist in the high probability locations for adult use establishments which were calculated as part of the 30% available land area; and asked how the 30% factor is calculated? Ms. Schenk stated that Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion would reduce the number of sites available for location; that Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, performed the calculations. Mr. Taylor came before the Commission and stated that the percentages are based upon the high and low probability sites depicted on the area maps; that the 30% of available land area is a total of all the probability areas on the map. Mayor Patterson stated that an entire probability area is not available for adult use establishment location; that using a 1,000-foot distance requirement would create an encircled area in which another adult use establishment could no longer locate. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that two issues are being addressed: 1) the total land area available initially with no adult use establishment locations, and 2) whether the distance requirement is 1,000 feet or 2,000 feet, the location of an adult use establishment in an area will impact where another adult use establishment can locate. Mayor Patterson that it is not clear to her how Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion would affect the percentage of available area. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the highest number of adult use bookstores or video stores that could locate in the 17th and 12th Streets area would be two if a 1,000-foot requirement is used; that one establishment is already located in that area and increasing the distance requirement to 2,000 feet would pre-empt the location of any other adult use establishments; however, the notion of a concentration of adult use establishments and a Combat Zone will not be realized with a 1,000-foot requirement. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he would love to be able to prohibit adult use establishments within the City of Sarasota, but the issue of assessed damages is of concern; that this proposed ordinance will not create a magnitude problem significantly different than what exists; that Club Mary's, a topless bar, over which the Commission has no jurisdiction since it is not located within City limits, sets the tone and is the real problem which exists on U.S. 301; that one or more adult use establishment may open in the U.S. 301 or Beneva/Fruitville Road areas if the proposed ordinance is adopted, but those same establishments could open there today. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that the Commission should not set the City up for long litigation to reach a settlement with an adult use establishment that would open anyway. Ms. Schenk stated that all the cases which upheld a 1,000-foot distance requirement also had the 1,000-foot distance requirement between adult use establishments; that she is not aware of any case law that upheld a doubling of that distance requirement between adult use establishments; that judges interpreting these type of ordinances tend to be conservative and lean in favor of protecting the plaintiff's first amendment rights. Mayor Patterson stated that earlier City Attorney Taylor had stated that if all the distance requirements were changed to 2,000 feet, a plaintiff litigated and the City lost, and the distance requirements were thrown out, the City would retain the rest of the ordinance; that the City would have no distance requirements if that situation occurred. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an unlimited number of adult use establishments could locate and operate in the designated zone districts if the distance requirements were thrown out; and that two more adult entertainment establishments have opened for business in the City of Sarasota since the Commission received the drafted ordinance on August 24, 1994; that businesses continue to open Citywide as the Commission tries to tighten the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Pillot asked if the motion as amended passed and a legal challenge was brought to court, could the City plea bargain to reduce the distance requirement to 1,000 feèt at that time? City Attorney Taylor stated that the judge would rule specifically to invalidate the distance requirement portion of the ordinance, making the distance requirement zero. Mayor Patterson restated the amendment to the motion to lengthen the distance requirements throughout the ordinance to 2,000 feet. City Attorney Taylor asked if the motion's intent is to include all distance requirements, i.e., from residential zones, churches, and schools, or only as the requirements relate to the distances between the adult use establishments? Commissioner Atkins stated that the intent of the motion is to include everything. Book 37 Page 10986 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10987 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the amendment to the motion to change all distance requirements to 2,000 feet. Amendment failed (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Pillot, no; Patterson, no. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved amend the motion to incorporate a 2,000-foot distance requirement between adult use establishments. Amendment failed (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3792 on second reading. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that the ordinance states it is effective upon adoption; and, therefore, is now the law. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-763, STATING THE CITY OF SARASOTA'S INTENTION TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AS SET FORTH IN F.8. 197.3632, BY COLLECTING THE ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS THROUGH THE TAX COLLECTOR OF SARASOTA COUNTY PURSUANT TO 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 SUBJECT 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-2) #2 (0840) through (1429) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the matter over which this public hearing is to be held is one of the procedural details which is necessary in establishing the assessment district for financing the off-street parking lot on St. Armands along Fillmore Drive. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission, at its July 18, 1994, meeting, directed the Administration to proceed with establishing a Special Assessment District for the proposed St. Armands surface parking lot on Fillmore Drive; that this resolution states the City's intention to use the Uniform Method of Collection; that an exact resolution was originally presented and passed on November 15, 1993, but was discarded in January 1994 when the property purchase could not be resolved; that the problems with the property purchase have since been resolved; therefore, resurrection of this resolution is before the Commission for adoption. Mr. Mitchell stated that confusion with the detailed properties to be assessed has emanated from the elimination of Lot 25, Block 8, being highlighted on the map included in the Agenda packets; that the advertised description included Lots 1 through 25 inclusive, Block 8; that Lot 25, Block 8, which is the First Union National Bank, is part of the St. Armands Parking Special Assessment District. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Gil Waters, 1580 Hillview Drive, representing St. Armands Commercial Property Owners Associationi Jim MacDonald, representing St. Armands Merchants Associationi and Louis P. Mettler, came before the Commission. Mr. Waters stated that he is speaking as Chairman of the St. Armands Parking Committee; that the St. Armands Merchants Association and Property Owners Association have strongly supported and endorsed the Fillmore Drive parking project for the past three years; that this parking project is a cooperative effort between the City of Sarasota and the property owners and merchants of St. Armands; that a group of St. Armands Residential Property Owners Association members have previously voiced their support of the project to the Commission; and that adoption of this resolution is requested. Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Mettler concurred with Mr. Waters' statements. William Carmen, Jr.. 1150 Morningside Place, stated that he supports the proposed resolution; that he has concerns with aspects of the Special Assessment District; that the majority of Special Assessment District properties are zoned Commercial Tourist (CT) with the exception of the First Union Bank site which is zoned Commercial General (CG); and asked if the intent of this resolution is to assess all of the CT zoned properties? Mayor Patterson stated that the intent is to include the First Union Bank as an assessed property. Mr. Carmen stated that is how it should be done. Mr. Carmen stated that Fillmore Drive should not be closed from the alley to Adams Drive; that parking will not be gained by closing that street; that all St. Armands streets should remain open for evacuation purposes; that diagonal parking on Fillmore Drive should be reviewed as an alternative. Mr. Carmen continued that he has actively pursued additional parking on St. Armands for 17 yearsi that Mr. Segal, a former City Planning Director, previously Book 37 Page 10988 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10989 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. developed a proposal for a 279-space parking project; that over 300 parking spaces could be made available without closing Fillmore Drive if a similar proposal was considered and 50 spaces were provided by diagonal parking. Mr. Carmen further stated that he commends the Commission for supporting a proposal to give St. Armands the necessary parking by constructing a parking lot on the property which has been an eye sore to the community for the past three years; however, the complete closing of Fillmore Drive should be reconsidered and could save approximately $200,000 to $300,000 on the project. Mayor Patterson stated that the engineer consulted determined that the parking availability would be substantially reduced if Fillmore Drive were not closed; however, the Commission can review the issue; that many residents who live on St. Armands are very supportive of the street closing since it will limit the number of vehicles travelling through that particular quadrant of St. Armands; that residents previously did not support angle parking; that a substantial amount of neighborhood support could be lost if Fillmore Drive being closed was not part of the parking project; that a separate public hearing on the closing of Fillmore Drive will be held at a later date at which time Mr. Carmen's concerns can be further discussed. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-763 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 94R-763. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3754, AMENDING THE CITY OF SARASOTA LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION, TO REQUIRE, WITH EXCEPTIONS, CERTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR ONE- & TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF THE STANDARD FOR HURRICANE RESISTANT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, SSTD 10-93, OF THE SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 1205 OF THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION; TO PROVIDE FOR CERTIFICATION. BY BUILDING CONTRACTORS THAT ONE- & TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES ARE DESIGNED AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SSTD 10-93; TO PROVIDE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR ONE- & TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES, SUBMITTED BY A PROPERTY OWNER, WHO INTENDS TO BUILD AND OCCUPY THE STRUCTURE DESIGNED THEREIN, WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SSTD 10-93; REPEALING THAT PORTION OF CHAPTER 11 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, SECTION 11-2 (A) WHICH ADOPTS APPENDIX J OF THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION RELATING TO HURRICANE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #2 (1429) through (1972) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that two meetings were held with the Building/Fire Board of Rules and Appeals to discuss in great detail the Commission's request to develop some type of universal approach to allow a homeowner to build a room addition or porch/carport enclosure without meeting the requirements of SSTD 10-93; that the Building/Fire Board of Rules and Appeals determined that attempting to provide an all-inclusive building plan, even for additions and room enclosures, would be an impossible task. Brian Stirling, Chairman, and Building/Fire Board of Rules and Appeals members Sam Holladay and William Halstead came before the Commission. Mr. Hewes stated that the Standard for Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction SSTD 10-93 is difficult to use; that the problem recognized by the Commission is real, but the need for enforcement relative to wind loads is also real; that the City will have to comply with all regulations of the 1994 Edition of the Building Code which will require that architects or engineers approve one and two-family residences, unless the SSTD 10-93 standards have been adopted; that the ordinance has been modified to provide that an owner may use the Standard for Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction SSTD 10-93 if the owner so desires; that most of the cities and counties in Florida have adopted the SSTD 10-93; that the anticipated problems with using the SSTD 10-93 have not been realized. Mr. Stirling stated that the proposed ordinance is supported by the Building/Fire Board of Rules an Appeals which is comprised of a cross-section of the construction and design industries, both architects and engineers, contractors and subcontractors; that this proposed ordinance will not provide a new code; that it provides the only alternative to ensure compliance with the Building Code and meet the objectives of the Florida Board of Building Codes and Standards. Mr. Hewes stated that Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department will attempt to work with the homeowners and perform an in-depth check of the work designed by those homeowners who prefer not to retain architectural or engineering services. Book 37 Page 10990 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10991 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot asked what Sarasota County uses for a standard? Mr. Hewes stated that Sarasota County has adopted the Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction SSTD 10-93. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the majority of builders use Section 1205 of the Building Code; that he attended a seminar on SSTD 10-93, and will never use it; that as a builder, it is less expensive for him to have his architect or engineer use Section 1205 on new construction. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the hurricane standards adopted by the State for remodelling are foolish; that the "envelope" theory behind hurricane resistance is to avoid wind loads entering a structure and lift it upi that enclosing a lanai or carport improves the stability of a home in a hurricane; that on the issue of adding an additional room onto the home what difference does it make if a homeowner has one room standing after a hurricane, if the main structure is not hurricane- proof and gets leveled? Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that the standards adopted by the State for hurricanes has been an anergic reaction resulting in unnecessary regulation on minor remodelling making it cost prohibited; that the notion that SSTD 10-93 will give the homeowner an "out" is ludicrous; that each of the calculations in itself is simple, but all calculations inclusive are difficult. Vice Mayor Merrill added that the City does not have a choice on adopting SSTD 10-93 at this time; however, alternatives with regard to the additional regulations imposed on additions and lanai enclosures should be pursued; that the Commission previously adopted a resolution in support of the Affordable Housing Initiative Plan whereby ordinances which increase the cost of affordable housing would be referred to Don Hadsell, Community Development Director, for a review of the increase in costs; that this ordinance should be forwarded to Mr. Hadsell for review of the implications on homeowners and the City; that the City should not just accept the State's mandate to make homeowner remodelling cost prohibited; that State representatives should be invited before the Commission to explain the reasoning for making remodelling so much more expensive for minor changes on a house. Mayor Patterson stated that provided with data, she would be happy to bring this issue before the Florida League of Cities; that cooperation from the Florida League of Counties could also be requested. Mr. Hewes stated that the associated costs have been calculated and can be forwarded to the Mayor. Mayor Patterson stated that stated that Sarasota County Commissioner Charlie Richards is this year's Florida Association of Counties Chairman; that Sarasota has a unique opportunity on these type of legislative issues, if the city and County are in agreement, to present a united front with a fair amount of clout behind it. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3754 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Ordinance No. 94-3754. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. PUBLIC ARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3816, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO ADULT CARE HOMES IN THE RSF ZONE DISTRICTS; REDUCING THE MINIMUM SIZE OF PARCELS; UPON WHICH AN ADULT CARE HOME WITH UP TO TWELVE (12) RESIDENTS MAY BE LOCATED IF THE PARCEL ABUTS A STREET CLASSIFIED AS AN INTERSTATE CONNECTOR; DELETING THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED BETWEEN ADULT CARE HOMES WITH THIRTEEN (13) TO SIXTEEN (16) RESIDENTS WHEN THE PARCEL UPON WHICH THE ADULT CARE HOME IS LOCATED ABUTS A STREET WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS AN INTERSTATE CONNECTOR; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CA-01, BRUCE FRANKLIN, LRS, REPRESENTING ANDY GARCIA; AND PETITION NO. 94-CA-02, JOEL FREEDMAN, BISHOP & ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING DAN OLUICH) FOUND PETITION NO. 94-CA-01 CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SECTION 8.6(P)(2)(i) AND (iii) PASSED ON FIRST READING; FOUND PETITION NO. 94-CA-02 CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SECTION 8.611)(3)i). (ii), AND (iii) PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS TO 1) LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE ORDINANCE TO INTERSTATE CONNECTORS EAST OF BENEVA ROAD, 2) LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PERMITTED ABUTTING ACHS TO TWO, AND 3) REQUIRE THAT ACHS BE UNDER COMMON MANAGEMENT (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (1972) through #3 (3046) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that there are two components to this privately initiated ordinance; that the first component relates to eliminating the minimum distance requirement for Adult Care Homes (ACHs) in residential districts along an interstate connector; that the second component reduces the minimum land area requirement for ACHS along interstate connectors; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) made a finding of inconsistency based on pubic input and the belief that this ordinance would negatively affect the stability of existing residential neighborhoods; that a consistency finding will be necessary if the Commission chooses to adopt the proposed ordinance. Book 37 Page 10992 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10993 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Bruce Franklin, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., and Andy Garcia, Petitioner, came before the Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that two separate property owners filed petitions to amend the City's Adult Care Home (ACH) section of the Zoning Code; that the amendments are substantively different, pertain to different neighborhoods, and have different associated concerns; that problems differentiating the two petitions was experienced at the PBLP public hearing; and requested that the issues be addressed separately. Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's office, came before the Commission and stated that both ACH Zoning Code changes were put into one ordinance to conserve advertising and legal fees; that the Commission can elect to adopt the proposed ordinance: 1) with the language on page three noted, "Amendment request by Bruce Franklin", 2) the language on pages four and five noted, "Amendment request by Joel Freedman", 3) in its entirety as drafted, or modified as the Commission deems appropriate, or 4) deny the proposed ordinance. Mayor Patterson asked if two separate public hearings can be held and if two separate votes can be taken on the different ordinance changes? Ms. Schenk stated that the public hearing is being held on one ordinance; that the Commission can hear from Mr. Franklin first, request the pub.lic to comment only on the changes contained in Section 8-6 (p) (2), and then hear from Mr. Freedman and request the public to comment only on the changes contained in Section 8-6 (q) (3). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one public hearing was advertised; that the Request to Speak forms do not inform the Commission as to what component the speaker wishes to address. Mayor Patterson stated that one public hearing will be held; that the Commission will focus on the two separate issues being addressed. Mr. Franklin stated that his request deals with a narrow aspect of the Zoning Code as it relates to an ACH in a single-family zone district; that criteria developed changes the code for a narrow location; that the PBLP felt this change would be effective Citywide; that the change would not be effective Citywide, it would specifically apply to an interstate connector; that Commission approval of this change will enable the petitioner to file for a special exception, as currently provided in the ACH Ordinance, to present a preliminary site and development (PS&D) plan, and show what impacts, if any, granting the special exception would generate. Mr. Franklin continued that Mr. and Mrs. Andy Garcia own Beverly's Geri Inn and Beverly's Too which are two ACHS adjacently located on Fruitville Road at Dade and St. Lucie Avenues; that the two ACHS are under common management and ownershipi that the ACHS arê two separate single-family homes substantially buffered with a continuous hedge and a number of oaks trees along Fruitville Road and buffered to the residential neighborhood to the south with a continuous hedge; that the ACHS are both accessed off of Dade and St. Lucie Avenues. Mr. Franklin displayed a graphic exhibit; and stated that the only interstate connector with RSF zoning within the City of Sarasota to which this ordinance would apply is Fruitville Road; that each of the Garcia's two lots are approximately 18,000 square feet each and do not meet the 20,000-square foot limit which was arbitrarily chosen and included in the ordinance; that the primary uses along Fruitville Road are commercial or multi-family; that these low intensity ACHS have been operating for some time; that compatibility with the neighborhood has been determined; therefore, a reduction in lot size should be found compatible within the code at those locations. Mr. Franklin further stated that the demand for elderly home care in a residential setting in Sarasota is huge; that the ACH restrictions of the City and the County Zoning Codes prove to be a disincentive to the private sector to provide that type of housing; that his client plans to request specific review of a PS&D in a special exception to review compatibility if the Commission approves the requested change to the city's Zoning Code. Mr. Garcia displayed a sketched, highlighted lot location mapi and stated that Beverly Geri's has been operating for ten years and a good will has been established in the neighboring community; that his wife and he surveyed the neighbors living on Dade and St. Lucie Avenues and Normandy Street to determine whether the neighborhood supported the petition requested; that all but five neighbors were contacted; that letters in support of expanding the ACHS to accommodate 12 residents each have been obtained by all of the neighbors contacted. Mr. Franklin presented the signed letters to the Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that the only existing parcel to which this code amendment would pertain is currently on Fruitville Road; that approval would enable Mr. and Mrs. Garcia to continue their operation without the burden of the 20,000 square foot limitation; that the specific request is to amend Section 8-6, (p) (2) to permit adult care homes on properties having frontage on an interstate connector and adjacent to another adult care home under common management to reduce the parcel size requirement from 20,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet; that the 20,000 square-foot requirement would be retained for ACHS located on other major or minor arterials. Book 37 Page 10994 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10995 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that he resided in a previously owned home on Dade Avenue from June 1993 through mid December 1993 while his primary home underwent major construction; that Beverly Geri's Inn occupants were fine neighbors; that the property was quiet with limited vehicular traffic; that the ACHS could not be distinguished from single-family residences if a sign was not posted at the property stating such; that the Beverly Geri's Inns are well maintained and have shown to be good neighbors. Commissioner Pillot asked how many occupants currently reside in each of the homes? Mr. Garcia responded six. Commissioner Pillot asked if the ACHS could meet State health and Building Code standards for 12 occupants without additional construction? Mr. Garcia stated that thé home on St. Lucie Avenue can currently accommodate 11 occupants and the home on Dade Avenue can accommodate 8 occupants without additional changes; that a patio area and an existing lanai are being reviewed for possible enclosure. Mayor Patterson asked why the request is being made for the Zoning Code to read 15,000 square feet if each of the affected properties have 18,000 square feet? Mr. Franklin stated that the property survey was not updated subsequent to the right-of-way acquisition to complete the widening of Fruitville Road; that 18,000 square feet is an estimate; that the PBLP had no objections to the 15,000 square-foot requirement; that the code amendment would not apply to other areas unless land was amassed where two single families were located and a special exception was granted. Mr. Garcia stated that the 15,000 square-foot requirement was suggested during discussions with the Planning Staff; that the property is in a block area and includes various easements created by the interstate connector and surrounding side streets. Mr. Franklin stated that the exact acreage can be confirmed prior to second reading if the Commission passes the ordinance on first reading. Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, Dan Oluich, Petitioner, and Michael Furen, Attorney, came before the Commission . Attorney Furen stated that both code amendments are independent; that approval of an amendment is being requested to allow property owners with one-acre lots along the Fruitville Road corridor to seek a special exception for an ACH; that the City's existing ordinance in the RSF zoning district allows for ACHS to operate with 13 to 16 residents by special exception; that the particular special exception section of the ordinance has in it a spacing requirement of 1,200 feet between ACHS; that Mr. Oluich has operated the Casa de David ACH located at Bearded Oaks and Fruitville Road for some time; that this specific request is engendered by Mr. Oluich's desire to operate another facility, with 12 or fewer residents, immediately adjacent to the existing ACH; that his position with the Administration was that the limitation included in the present RSF zone district for special exceptions for facilities with 13 to 16 residents did not preclude the approval of a special exception for a facility with 12 or fewer residents on the adjacent parcel; that his position was not supported by William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement; that the request made this evening is to afford Mr. Oluich an opportunity to file a special exception with a detailed PS&D proposal and attempt to convince the Commission that such a proposed use on Fruitville Road, a major arterial highway with vehicular traffic of 40,000 to 50,000 daily, is an appropriate use; that the Commission is not being requested to approve a site-specific proposal this evening; that the right to subsequently file for a special exception considering the code provisions related to special exception is what is being requested; that many protection and safeguards are included in the code to allow the Commission the flexibility to consider, review and approve or deny a special exception at the time it is filed. Mr. Freedman displayed a 1993 aerial photograph emphasizing the area affected by the proposed code amendment. Mr. Freedman stated that other potentially affected RSF properties were reviewed when the proposal to amend the ACH ordinance was developed; that the report submitted with the petition analyzed Fruitville Road; that few undeveloped parcels or RSF zoned parcels, meeting the minimum lot size required for either type of ACH, remain on Fruitville Road; that the main area affected by this code amendment is the area generally around the existing Casa de David; that land could be assembled further to the west, but realistically this is the only area which would be affected; that frontage on Fruitville Road is one criteria of the proposed change, therefore, would not be applicable Citywide; that this criteria alleviated much of the fear from Beechwood Estates residents. Mr. Freedman continued that 100 invitations were sent out inviting potentially affected residents that a neighborhood meeting would be held to receive and address input and concerns. Mr. Freedman displayed an illustrated graphic of the 17 properties whose owners had responded. Mr. Freedman stated that past problems relating to the operation of the Casa de David clouds this issue; that many of the problems which previously existed have been resolved; that potential concerns of the neighbors could be addressed during a special exception process. Mr. Freedman continued that the PBLP's finding of inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan based on the potential Book 37 Page 10996 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10997 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. degradation of the existing single-family neighborhood; that the ACHS located down the street from Casa de David are not harming that neighborhood; that several goals, objectives, and policies related to the proposal were included in his report and reflect how this code amendment could improve the consistency and assist in implementing the Comprehensive Plan; and cited the following: GOAL 1: Objective 1. to continue to base future land use patterns on compatibility of land uses, suitability of land for development, and availability of facilities and services. Mr. Freedman continued that Fruitville Road was a two lane road when the RSF-E zone district was designated; that Fruitville Road is currently a seven-lane facility carrying a minimum of 40,000 vehicles daily; that the ACHS are an excellent buffer for a highway such as Fruitville Road to protect the neighborhoods behind the fronting properties; that office or commercial should not be the only uses used to buffer seven-lane highways. Mr. Freedman cited the following from his report: HOUSING PLAN: Policy 1.1 - A range of housing densities allowing for a diversity of housing types, including mobile homes, group homes, and foster care facilities, shall be provided for in the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Freedman stated that the special exception procedures currently contained in the Zoning Code in the RSF zone district addresses this policy by providing for ACHS, provided that a petitioner can demonstrate that the neighborhood will not be degraded, and the ACH will provide adequate buffering; that ACH is an excellent housing type, one which is in tremendous demand. Mr. Freedman cited the following from his report: HOUSING PLAN: Policy 1.2 The Land Development Regulations shall identify criteria for the location of single-family and multi-family housing (including low and moderated income), mobile homes, group homes, and foster care facilities, include Adult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF), adult care homes and necessary support facilities as licensed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Freedman stated that Casa de David is exactly what is described in Policy 1.2, and what another facility would be; that this code amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan and helps further implement it. Attorney Furen stated that another important objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to continue eliminating substandard housing conditions through rehabilitation of substandard housing stock; that a single-family residence located at the northwest corner of Bearded Oaks Drive is rapidly deteriorating and will soon fit the definition of a blighted facility; that this type of deterioration could increase along the Fruitville Road corridor; that legal and market pressures will arise to change zoning designations of single-family residences to higher intensity commercial, office, or multi-family uses unless there is a reasonable, beneficial, economic use available to property owners along that corridor; that the ACH use is an ideal solution to enable the City to defend before a judge an argument by opposing attorneys that single-family, use is not a reasonable, beneficial use and zoning designation; that the City has demonstrated a reasonable, economic, beneficial use of single-family zoned property along a major arterial by allowing this low intensity, noncommercial use; that the County has struggled with what to do with the single-family residences on University Parkway and has developed office use, which is a much more intensive, neighborhood impacting use; that this code amendment will allow a property owner to attempt to convince the Commission that a proposed ACH is appropriate in a specific location. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Brian O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive, stated that the residents who spoke about Casa de David at the Planning Board meeting on June 1, 1994, were specifically against the elimination of the 1,200 foot distance requirement since the character and stability of the existing single-family residential neighborhood would be negatively affected; that it is the intention of Dan Oluich, owner of Casa de David, to have two or three ACHS adjacent to one another which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that Mr. Oluich's representative misrepresented the property located across the street from Bearded Oaks Drive, west of Casa de David; that this property is a 4-acre homesite with a 1,000 square foot barn, large oak trees, a 3,000 square foot home with a caged swimming pool, all of which are well maintained; that the Planning Board pointed out the difficulties associated with changing the zoning from single- family; that the Planning Board denied the recommendation based on the information received and public input; that only 17 of 100 residents attended the meeting held by Mr. Oluich; that the residents of Bearded Oaks Drive and Mr. and Mrs. Kaufmann of Fruitville Road are not in favor of the proposed ordinance and value the residential character of the community; that a 30- or 40-bed ACH on three lots is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that Mr. Oluich approached his 90-year-old neighbor regarding the possible purchase of her propertyi that the City Commission should deny the zoning change so that Mr. Oluich cannot do a site- specific change in the future; that this change in zoning is not in the best interest of the City of Sarasota, nor the residents of Book 37 Page 10998 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10999 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Bearded Oaks Drive; that the residents of Bearded Oaks Drive want the character of the neighborhood to remain the same. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Oluich currently has a license for 16 beds. Mr. O'Connell stated that Mr. Oluich has purchased another home which has zoning allowing for occupancy of four non-related members; that this additional property will increase the total number of beds to 20 before the zoning change. Kate Hanson O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive, stated that many of the residents are elderly and families with small children could not, therefore, attend the Commission meeting; that Stanton and Barbara Leggett of 60 Bearded Oaks Drive are against these changes but are unable to be present due to Mrs. Leggett's surgery this morning; that many residents have previously sent letters to the Planning Board objecting to the proposed change; that the implication by Michael J. Furen, attorney for Mr. Oluich, that the Planning Board is not being aware of the exact issue before them is insulting; that the facts were clear and discussed at great length during the Planning Board meeting, resulting in a vote of 2 to 1 against the proposed ordinance; that the result of allowing three ACHS to be linked together in a row will be a 48-bed institution in the middle of a residential neighborhood; that Mr. Oluich currently has 16 beds in the first residence; that application will be made for a 12-bed facility in the next residence, possibly going to 16 beds as was, done in the first residence; that the potential exists for a third residence with the addition of another 12 or 16 beds; that the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan was the integration of a small number of elderly people in need of light care into a neighborhood; that the intent was not to "piggyback" ACHS to form a large institution in the middle of a private neighborhood; that Mr. Oluich's property fronts Fruitville Road but is also adjacent to three areas which are all single-family neighborhoods; that the concept of a 12-bed ACH is acceptable, but not the combination of three ACHS to form a 48-bed facility; that the existing zoning for ACHS was designed to protect neighborhoods while allowing the elderly to live normal lives in a family neighborhood; that the neighborhood status will be endangered by changing the Zoning Code as proposed, and the speed will be escalated at which Fruitville Road's frontage changes to commercial use; that this change will adversely affect the property value of the neighborhood; that owners of large care facilities should choose existing appropriately zoned areas on which to build rather than request the City Commission to change protective regulations for neighborhoods. Mayor Patterson asked Ms. O'Connell the impact of having a 16-bed facility in the neighborhood? Ms. O'Connell stated that Mr. Oluich originally came before the Board for a permit for a 6-bed facility, later requested 12, and ultimately filed for a special exemption for 16 beds; that an increase in traffic and parking problems has occurred with each escalation; that Mr. Oluich has recently put up plantings on the edge of his property to deter employees and visitors from parking on his property near the Bearded Oaks Drive frontage; that Bearded Oaks Drive is a private road, maintained by the residents. Mayor Patterson stated that the Special Exception process requires specific landscaping designs and parking locations; that Mr. Oluich's property only has access to Fruitville Road which means there will be no increase in traffic on any other street. Ms. O'Connell stated that a 48-bed facility will produce a huge amount of pedestrian traffic on Bearded Oaks Drive which is where most of the ACH residents choose to walk due to easy access; that the concept of the ACH is a defined number of people living in a single home becoming part of the community and not a 48-bed institution. Allison Van Jones, 145 Bearded Oaks Drive, stated that he has resided on Bearded Oaks Drive for 14 years; that when Mr. Oluich purchased the first unit for use as a 12-bed facility, the residents were against the ACHS that a meeting was held wherein Mr. Oluich, in an attempt to assuage the residents' fears, indicated a wall would be erected to assure that Bearded oaks Drive would not be utilized; that the wall was never built, and, instead, shrubbery was recently planted; that visitor and employee parking is a continual problem, as well as trash, since the present number and size of garbage cans are insufficient; that the previous owners of Mr. Oluich's property had been granted a 50-foot access easement on Bearded Oaks Drive when it was a single-family residencei that ACHS are a lucrative business but State requirements as to size allows for very small bedrooms which limits future use of the residence in the event it ceases to operate as an ACH; therefore, many ACHS would be in financial difficulty if a change in the flow of people to Florida occurs since ACHS cannot revert to single-family residence status; that the addition of 12 more people in Mr. Oluich's facility will require more workers, deliveries, etc., and the parking will become an even greater problem. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Planning Board's minutes indicate that Planning Board Member Almy was concerned about the increase in parking due to additional residents; that the current parking requirement for ACHS is inadequate since consideration was not given to people retaining their cars after entering an ACH; that an increase in the number of residents may necessitate the use of a dumpster for garbage disposal which would be a real intrusion on a neighborhood. Book 37 Page 11000 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11001 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Oluich will probably submit plans addressing the parking and garbage disposal problems; that Casa de David is a beautiful facility from an aesthetic viewpoint and improves the approach to Sarasota but does not aesthetically improve Bearded Oaks Drive. Lorelei Stepp, 213 Cornelius Circle, West, stated that she was not opposed to nursing care facilities in residential neighborhoods; however, ACHS being grouped together is not simply an integration into the residential neighborhood but a major change in the complexion of the neighborhood; that a 16-bed facility could mimic a residence, but a 50-bed facility with all the attending equipment and personnel is never going to be mistaken for a home. Alan Douglass, 5 Mimosa Drive, stated that he and his wife had developed Beachwood Estates approximately 20 years ago; that he is a founder and past President of the Downtown Association; that many of his friends reside in retirement and nursing homes; that Casa de David is a definite improvement to the neighborhood due to the quality of its construction; that he does object to allowing more units in the facility; that the residents in Beachwood Estates would not allow this type of zoning in their neighborhood; that the language contained in the proposed ordinance should be changed to read parcels which "front or have curb cuts" on Fruitville Road in lieu of parcels which "abut" Fruitville Road; that a fence separating the adjoining property should be required when this type of zoning change is implemented; that the residents have no objection to the proposed ordinance as long as it does not affect Beachwood Estates. Betsy Kelley, 930 N. Tamiami Trail, #507, stated that she has been involved with recreation for the elderly for the past 40 years; that there is a great need for ACHS that she currently works as a home-health aide/nurse; that a former neighbor has been a patient in Beverly's Geri-Inn of Sarasota Inc. for approximately one year; that she visits the facility every Wednesday and considers it one of the best ACHS in Sarasota; that the facility is clean and the patients receive excellent care; that there is a tremendous demand for good ACHS since most of Florida's elderly are alone and need care; that Beverly's Geri-Inn of Sarasota Inc. should be allowed an increase in residents since it has not only the necessary land and facilities, out, most importantly, is an excellent ACH. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that the Petitioners now had the opportunity to rebut. Bruce Franklin, LRS, came before the Commission and stated that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is procedural to allow Andy Garcia, owner of Beverly's Geri-Inn of Sarasota Inc., to proceed to the next step; that the final site plans will be presented in detail at the Special Exception review, showing that the standard criteria is met with regard to access, buffers, etc.; that ACHS do not provide nursing care but rather assisted care for ambulatory individuals who occasionally need help during the day to function and yet wish to live in a residential as opposed to institutional setting; that Mr. Garcia's plan is to expand an existing facility within its existing location without compromising the neighborhood. Michael J. Furen, Esq., representing. Dan Oluich, came before the Commission and stated that some of the comments presented to the Commission defy logic and rationality; that the suggestion of Casa de David being in the middle of a residential neighborhood when it abuts on Fruitville Road is not supportable; that Casa de David is an excellent buffer between the residential area and the noise of Fruitville Road, a major arterial highway; that parking and garbage problems are attributable to the City insisting on picking up garbage along Bearded Oaks Drive; that Mr. Oluich made extensive efforts and finally convinced the City to collect the garbage at the Fruitville Road entrance; that it is not uncommon for a facility to utilize a dumpster and one may be necessary in the future; that the Commission is not being requested to approve a special site plan but merely being asked for a fair opportunity, without preconceived notions, for the petitioner to convince the Commission that Mr. Oluich's request makes sense and will not impact the neighborhood; that the proposed ordinance precludes having more than two employees at any one time in any of these facilities; that the proposed ordinance has specific requirements relating to parking facilities; that definite requirements must be met or the Commission will not approve the site plan; that adoption of the proposed ordinance will merely allow Mr. Oluich to present his plan and will not affect the Commission's decision to be made subsequently on the actual petition; that Mr. Oluich did not offer to buy his neighbor's property as represented by Mr. O'Connell; that Mr. Oluich is prepared to relinquish his access easement on Bearded Oaks Drive because there is no intent to use Bearded Oaks Drive for any type of access to the facilities; that many of the residents' statements are inaccurate and not founded on facts. Joel Freedman, representing Dan Oluich, came before the Commission and stated that the house on the lot fronting Fruitville Road is believed to be vacant; that one of the neighbors has filed repeated requests with the City's Code Enforcement Department to have the site inspected; that the parcel is a 2-acre site and not 4 acres as represented by Mr. O'Connell; that Mr. and Mrs. Leggett, who reside directly behind Casa de David, attended the meeting held at the facility and indicated they would submit a letter to the Commission stating their concerns were alleviated; that it is unfortunate that Mr. and Mrs. Leggett could not attend the meeting conight, but they should be afforded the opportunity to speak for themselves on this Book 37 Page 11002 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11003 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. issue; that an acre is required for a 16-unit facility and the second lot consists of only 28,000 square feet which only allows for the proposed 12-unit facility. Dan Oluich came before the Commission and stated that his intention is to have only two lots, not three or four as represented by the residents of Bearded Oaks Drive, and the Commission can stipulate the number of lots in the proposed ordinance if they sO desire. Vice Mayor Merrill asked Mr. Oluich if he would relinquish the access easement on Bearded Oaks Drive? Mr. Oluich stated that he would vacate the access component of the easement, but, of course, must maintain the utility easement. Mr. Freedman stated that during the meeting held at the facility, and in response to a resident's question, Mr. Oluich agreed to stipulate that no garbage pickup would be located on Bearded Oaks Drive. Attorney Furen stated that all of these stipulations will be further discussed during the Special Exception process and, if satisfactory resolutions are not attained, the plan will not be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the definition of the word "abut" to avoid any possible misunderstandings; and asked if the usage of the word "abut" in the proposed ordinance means there is frontage on the street and direct access? Attorney Furen stated that his interpretation is that there must be direct access to Fruitville Road from an ingress and egress standpoint. Mr. Oluich stated that Casa de David does not require a dumpster since the two garbage cans presently used are sufficient and trash is collected twice a week. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Oluich would be agreeable to include a requirement in the ordinance that the ACHS must be under common management? Mr. Oluich stated that he is not only agreeable to the stipulation, but, in fact, would prefer it. Attorney Furen stated that approval is not sought for any site specific proposal at the present meeting, but only for the opportunity to present the proposal. Attorney Furen continued that, in his opinion, if the Commission denies Mr. Oluich the opportunity to present his proposal, the City is missing a significant opportunity to solve pressures on vital changes in land use along the Fruitville Road corridor which the County has already addressed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 by title only. Mayor Patterson stated that she was approached by a person who owns property on Fruitville Road; that this individual and another property owner were not able to attend tonight's meeting but they had concerns regarding potential landscaping, parking requirements, etc.; that the public hearing should be continued to the following meeting to give these individuals an opportunity to address the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the same person had also approached him; that adoption of the proposed ordinance only grants the petitioner the right to return and present data to support the Special Exception request, and, therefore, does not jeopardize the person's opportunity to voice his concerns; that questions concerning land use, buffering, etc., will be addressed at the Special Exception hearing; that the individual did not express concerns with the adoption of the proposed ordinance but rather with specifics which will be discussed during the Special Exception process, and, therefore, there is no reason to continue the public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that these individuals were commercial property owners, located west of Beneva Road, who are concerned that measures will not be taken to assure conformity with the type of landscaping, buffering requirements, etc., which commercial property is subjected. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that all these issues are considered during the Special Exception process; that City Attorney Taylor should advise the Commission as to the legality of adopting an ordinance which includes limitations to a certain geographical area; that the Comprehensive Plan does state different uses for the east and west sides of Beneva Road, i.e., the west side of Beneva Road is available for office space. City Attorney Taylor stated that drawing a line at a particular location is not improper as long as there are valid reasons and justifications, such as, that the limitations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the proposed limitations in the ordinance are targeted to specific properties; that the area being considered in Mr. Garcia's petition is on a road classified in the Thoroughfare Plan as an interstate connector and is east of Beneva Road; however, the petition of Mr. Oluich as submitted is for a general condition applying to the entire City; that people should Book 37 Page 11004 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11005 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. be reassured knowing that, if this ordinance is adopted, deviations from the Zoning Code require not only a Special Exception process but have also been limited in intent to specific properties; that Mr. Oluich's petition should be revised to include his agreement to limit the number of adjacent ACHS to two rather than three as submitted as well as the "common management" clause; that the proposed ordinance should be revised to include under Subparagraph (q), Item (3), the following: (iv) The adult care home situated adjacent to another adult care home must be under common management. (v) This exception applies only to properties on Fruitville Road, east of Beneva Road. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the issues should be separated; that the Commission should move to adopt these requests with the deletion of one portion and then move to include or exclude the next issue. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission should not lose sight of the fact that Ordinance No. 94-3816 is before the Commission with a finding of inconsistency, in its entirety with the Comprehensive Plan; that a consistency finding must be addressed first before the proposed ordinance can be adopted. Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission should move to find the proposed ordinance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan before addressing the issues contained in Ordinance No. 94-3816? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission should first examine if Ordinance No. 94-3816 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Patterson stated that each issue requires two motions; that Mr. Garcia's petition requires a motion to find a particular part of the proposed Zoning Code change consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to find Petition No. 94-CA-01 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the section of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 amending the Zoning Code pertaining to adult care homes in the RSF Zone Districts and reducing the minimum size of parcels upon which an adult care home with up to twelve residents may be located if the parcel abuts a street classified as an interstate connector east of Beneva Road. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to approve the portion of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 applicable to Petition No. 94-CA-01 for everything pertaining to properties east of Beneva Road. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to find Petition No. 94-CA-02 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the section of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 amending the Zoning Code pertaining to adult care homes in the RSF Zone Districts and deleting the minimum distance required between adult care homes with 13 to 16 residents when the parcel is located abutting a street classified as an interstate connector with the changes as discussed, specifically, that the access, other than utility access to Bearded Oaks Drive, would be relinquished by the owner. City Attorney Taylor stated that the motion, as stated, was site specific and would not be addressed until the Special Exception process. Commissioner Pillot revised the motion with the approval of the seconder as to approve the section of proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3816 which pertains to adult care homes in the RSF Zone Districts, to delete the minimum distance required between adult care homes with 13 to 16 residents when the parcel abuts a street classified as an interstate connector east of Beneva Road, to limit to two the number of adult care homes in a row, and to require there be common management of the adult care homes. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve Petition No. 94-CA-02 as listed in proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 with the following changes: 1) limit the scope of the ordinance to interstate connectors east of Beneva Road; 2) limit to two the number of allowable abutting ACHS; and 3) stipulate that the ACHS are under shared management. Commissioner Pillot stated that Attorney Furen presented a valid argument that the adoption of the proposed ordinance is simply an indication the City Commission is willing to listen to a petitioner present their case for a particular exception with the understanding that passage of the ordinance does not guarantee approval of the Special Exception request; that conversely, by denying the motion, the City Commission is saying that it will not listen to petitioners present their Special Exception requests. Book 37 Page 11006 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11007 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that adopting ordinances changing the Zoning Code places the Commission in a more difficult position when denying a special exception than when the Commission is operating in the legislative mode; that the Commission is leery of approving Zoning Code changes which contain special exceptions as it changes the entire method of operation; that she visited the facility and it is well maintained and attractive; that a facility is no longer integrated into the neighborhood when it becomes too large, but a well-maintained facility with an economic viability abutting a busy street, such as Fruitville Road, is a definite benefit to a neighborhood; that approval of this petition is a positive decision as long as restrictions are imposed on the facility to prevent the realization of the residents' fears that the facility will become a 50-unit ACH. Commissioner Pillot asked for confirmation that the maximum potential number of residents is 28. Mayor Patterson stated that the record should reflect the Commission's concern and intention to addréss all the various issues raised by the residents of Bearded Oaks Drive in the Special Exception process. Commissioner Cardamone stated there are advantages to having an ACH as a buffer between a single-family neighborhood and a major arterial highway; that the ACH concept, as developed in the Comprehensive Planning process, was to give senior citizens the opportunity to live in a home-like neighborhood setting; that 16 people sharing one home is definitely a burden to any household, but an increase to 28 people only amplifies the needs and situations which are detrimental to the neighborhood and is in defiance of the concept of the ACH. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that an ACH consisting of 28 people will change the single-family neighborhood character; that a 28-bed facility does not comply with the requirements listed in Subparagraph (g), Item (4), of the proposed ordinance, which reads: "The use of the dwelling unit for an adult care home shall not change the residential character of the single-family neighborhood in which the adult care home is situated." Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to approve Petition No. 94-CA-02 as listed in proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 with the following changes: 1) limit the scope of the ordinance to interstate connectors east of Beneva Road; 2) limit to two the number of allowable abutting ACHs; and 3) require that the ACHS must be under shared management. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3821, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO CRT ZONE DISTRICT AND APPROVE PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 94-0 IN ORDER TO PERMIT ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE TWO RETAIL STORES AND A OFFICE ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF S. OSPREY AVENUE JUST SOUTH OF RINGLING BOULEVARD WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 229/245 S. OSPREY AVENUE (KNOWN AS THE VALENCIA APARTMENTS) MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CO-07, BRUCE FRANKLIN, LRS, REPRESENTING COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION OF SARASOTA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) ##3 (3047) through (3325) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3821 conditionally rezones the property located at 235 S. Osprey Avenue (known as Valencia Apartments) from the Residential Multiple Family (RMF-4) zone district to the Commercial, Residential Transition (CRT) zone district and approves Preliminary Site and Development Plan No. 94-0 permitting alterations to include two retail stores and an office on the property located at 229/245 S. Osprey Avenue (a/k/a Valencia Apartments) - i that Conditional Rezoning Petition 94-C0-07 and Preliminary Site and Development Plan 94-0 are consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance, subject to the uses shown on the document submitted by Community Housing Corporation of Sarasota and as amended in the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency discussion. Bruce Franklin, LRS, representing the Community Housing Corporation of Sarasota (CHC), came before the Commission and stated that the request to rezone the property located at 235 S. Osprey Avenue (known as Valencia Apartments) to the CRT zone district is to permit conversion of a single-family structure into an office and two storefront units of the Valencia Apartments into retail or office use; that after consulting with the neighborhood association, agreement was reached to propose limitations as to the types of permitted principal uses and structures upon the rezoned parcel to ensure compatibility with neighboring residential properties; that the rezoned parcel has adequate parking and on-site management control. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3821 by title only. Book 37 Page 11008 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11009 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3821 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (3367) through #4 (0811) Bruce Franklin, Spring Creek Drive, came before the Commission and stated that the sidewalk program is both a controversial and political issue which has split the Spring Creek Drive neighborhood; that he has practiced in Sarasota for 15 years but never encountered a situation that has distressed him as much as this issue because there are no clearly defined procedures; that the neighborhood is alienated to the point that those who were in favor of a sidewalk on Spring Creek Drive are now intimidated and afraid to express themselves; that the public policy, on which the City Commission worked for 3 1/2 years, and the Sidewalk Project street list, which has been disseminated for over 2 years, became violated because of an individual who spoke to the Commission at the September 6, 1994, public hearing; that the Commission voted to delete Spring Creek Drive from the Sidewalk Project list based on eight petitions submitted to the Commission, which were typed and contained input solicited by this one individual; that the Commission voted to delete Spring Creek Drive without receiving any input from the people who have worked on this issue for over 3 years. Mr. Franklin continued that, previously, he has never come to the Commission table without having a solution or recommendation on how to develop consensus until now; that the public has a right to rely on consistency in decision-making; that changing a program which was developed out of a clearly documented public policy and defer the issue to a plebiscite or popularity contest undermines the integrity of the process by which public officials are elected; that two years ago, a letter was circulated saying which sidewalks would be constructed as part of the Citywide sidewalk program; that the letter did not say, "will be constructed based on how many people raise their hands"; that, to date, the materials and questionnaire responses submitted to the City Commission do not contain any response that serves as a basis to delete Spring Creek Drive from the Sidewalk Project list; that remarks such as "My mailbox will have to be moved," "We're going to have to move that old hibiscus bush, I "I'm going to have an extra edge to trim when I mow the lawn, I "They're going to take out my irrigation system, - are not valid reasons to delete a street from the sidewalk Project list; that items which must be disturbed will be rebuilt or replaced; that sidewalks are a safety issue concerning children and part of a policy the Commission adopted with funds specifically allocated to this program. Mr. Franklin distributed a copy of an article from the October 5, 1994, issue of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and stated that the article concerned children confronted with traffic hazards due to a lack of sidewalks and the street pictured was Spring Creek Drive; that parents are afraid to allow their children to walk the four blocks to school because of the dangerous traffic so the children are driven the four blocks, exacerbating an already difficult situation on the roadway; that basing decisions on individuals responding "I don't really care as long as it's not on my side of the street" is not the proper way for the Commission to establish policy; that the Commission is requested to provide some direction on how this issue may be pursued further. Commissioner Pillot stated that there are issues which should be put to a plebiscite to determine the express will of the people most directly affected, but other issues are the responsibility of the Commissioners which is why they are elected; that an issue with clear, valid documentation, as in this particular instance, should remain at the table without soliciting the public's opinion; that it is a gross discourtesy to query people on their preference as to whether something should be done if the Commission has already decided to deal with the issue at the table; that questionnaire responses should be considered valid or questionnaires should not be utilized; that his intention to ask for recession of the motion of September 6, 1994, deleting Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives from the Sidewalk Project list was based on an incorrect memory; that he believed the Sidewalk Project list emanated from requests several years ago from the school system which, in turn, used law enforcement agencies to assist them to develop and submit recommendations as to where sidewalks and crossing guards should be placed because of children walking to school; that a basis does not exist to defend his own personal view that sidewalks should be constructed on Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives so the personal views of the individuals affected must be considered; that he did not attend the September 6, 1994, meeting, but, after perusing the minutes, he agrees with Mayor Patterson's comment that the need for the safety of children in certain heavily traveled areas overrides the concern of homeowners for shrubs, etc.; that data is not currently available to substantiate the need for sidewalks on Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives; that the issue can be raised again when facts are received from the experts, i.e., school personnel, law enforcement agencies, etc., substantiating the need for sidewalks for the safety of children on those two streets. Mr. Franklin stated that Staff made recommendations as to the streets contained in the sidewalks-to-schools program which included all streets except Shoreland Drive, the only street Book 37 Page 11010 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11011 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. qualifying under the City's criteria since more negative responses were received than positive and "no responses" from neighborhood residents; that Spring Creek Drive was listed as a "secondary street" did not give cause for concern until after it was voted to exclude Spring Creek Drive from the Sidewalk Project list; that the criteria for a primary street are: 1) the distance of the residential street is no more than 1,000 feet to a collector with a sidewalk or bus stop, and 2) more than eight children traverse the street as a preferred route to a school; that Spring Creek Drive is a 1,200 foot street and by definition meets the criteria of a primary street; that the City's Engineering Department has determined that more than eight children use the street as evidenced by the fact that Spring Creek Drive is listed as a secondary street with more than eight children; that Spring Creek Drive meets the criteria, yet the sidewalks are not being built, and Spring Creek Drive has been excluded from the Sidewalk Project list without legitimate reason. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the surveying technique counting a "no response" as a positive vote was ambiguous; that the si idewalk program is a project that would be implemented only in neighborhoods agreeable to sidewalks as shown by surveys; that an example of this is Bahia Vista Street, between Orange and Osprey Avenues, which certainly meets every criteria but the neighbors voted against sidewalks and the City honored that vote. Mayor Patterson stated that, in the case of a very busy road such as Bahia Vista Street, the people should not be allowed to make the decision as to the need for sidewalks since a hundred children from totally unrelated streets may have a safety issue in traversing Bahia Vista Street; that it is impossible to have the entire population of the City vote to decide which streets should be included in the sidewalk program. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she does not disagree with Mayor Patterson but Bahia Vista was excluded from the sidewalk program, even though the street is a shuttle from Harbor Acres to Sarasota High School, because the program was established under the guideline that sidewalks would not be constructed if the residents did not want them. Mayor Patterson stated that an "if you don't want it, you won't get it" program was never established at the Commission table. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the program was not established at the Commission table, but the City's Engineering Department started the process by conducting surveys with the very first street. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that money for the Sidewalk Project will not be redirected to some other high-priority project; that the money for the sidewalk that did not get built on Spring Creek Drive will enable another neighborhood to get a sidewalk faster; that after building the sidewalks in areas where the residents want them, the issue of those which were not built because the people did not want them can be addressed; that if the residents of Spring Creek Drive were willing to fight as hard as they have against sidewalks, the next neighborhood which desires sidewalks should get them. Commissioner Pillot stated that it is not a question of who is right, it is a question of what is right; that if the data supports that safety is an issue, the Commission should vote on the sidewalk as a safety issue and inform the people they do not have a choice; that the real problem is that polls should not be taken when the responsibility rests with the Commission as is the case if data supports concerns for safety; that the Commission should decry ever taking a poll unless the Commission agreed the results of the poll would be the way to proceed; that the people using Bahia Vista Street who do not live there have a right to be guaranteed a safe passage; that if enough supporting data is collected as to the issue of safety, the Commission should again address the deletion of Shoreland and Spring Creed Drives from the Sidewalk Project list. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration should clarify the distinction between primary and secondary streets; that the number of cars on a street should be taken into consideration when addressing the issue of safety; that the Administration should establish a better criteria for the use of surveys since there are definitely City streets where the use of surveys is inappropriate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the survey should be revised so the votes of people who do not respond are not taken as a positive vote in favor of the issue. Commissioner Pillot stated that the survey should read "yes," "no," and "no response." Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the possibility exists of receiving only three negative and four positive responses from a survey of 30 questionnaires which precludes the drawing of any real conclusion; that in order to insure the poll is not meaningless, a phrase should be added to the questionnaire indicating that a failure to respond to the poll will be considered as either a yes or no, whichever facilitates ease in calculation, and at least alert people that their lack of response will not indicate a lack of interest but will, in fact, be considered either a negative or positive vote. Mayor Patterson stated that the entire sidewalk program originated from the City's lack of funds to construct sidewalks on every Book 37 Page 11012 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11013 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. street; that the Administration was to develop criteria to determine the location of the busiest streets, as well as the streets that impacted kids, so these streets could be addressed first; that the fact people would not want sidewalks never occurred to the Commission; that improved and more consistent guidance is necessary from the Administration. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that many times one irate person instigates situations which affect an entire neighborhood; that homes were purchased on Spring Creek Drive without sidewalks, and if sidewalks were an important issue, people would have bought on a street with sidewalks. Mr. Franklin stated that it is very difficult to undo decisions of prior years; that the question at hand is that of making a commitment and having the resolve to follow through and do the right thing as was said would be done; that he would like the opportunity to meet with the Administration to obtain a clearer picture on technical or specific criteria; that if Spring Creek Drive meets all criteria and the Commission honestly believes in implementing the public policy previously established, this issue should be readdressed at the Commission table. Mayor Patterson stated that Staff first should work among themselves to implement better and more consistent criteria; that Mr. Sollenberger would then be amenable to a meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is difficult for people to vote on having a sidewalk if they are not made aware of which side of the street the sidewalk is going to be placed. 11. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CHANGING THE PARKING TIME LIMITS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA FROM TWO TO THREE HOURS = APPROVED TO CHANGE THE PARKING TIME LIMITS FROM TWO TO THREE HOURS ON PALM AVENUE AND TO REFER TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHICH OTHER DOWNTOWN AREAS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THREE-HOUR PARKING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (0812) through (1357) Mayor Patterson stated that she received a petition from the Palm Avenue businesses requesting the parking time limits be changed from two to three hours in the Downtown area. Douglas Appleton, 1963 Main Street, representing Upper Main Street, came before the Commission and stated that he is an artist and design scientist; that diagonal parking should be installed from Orange Avenue to U.S. 301; that the two-hour parking signs should not be changed but meter maids should be instructed to allow three hours parking time; that people should not be taxed or ticketed for visiting Main Street; that the diagonal parking installed on lower Main Street is very successful with a definite benefit being that traffic has slowed down allowing people to cross the street without the fear of being hit by a car; that there is no need to have four lanes on upper Main Street; that many people would rather shop at a mall than Main Street since the possibility of receiving a ticket is eliminated. Brian O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive, representing the Palm Avenue Association. came before the Commission and stated that he is the Secretary of the Palm Avenue Association whose 30-merchant membership unanimously supports changing the parking time from two to three hours for the downtown area; that many of the patrons of the various businesses in the downtown area require longer than two hours to conduct their affairs. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Palm Avenue Association had discussed angle parking for Palm Avenue? Mr. O'Connell stated that Palm Avenue is not wide enough for angled parking spaces, but upper Main Street would be logical since then parking capacity could be increased by approximately 100 spaces and there is a shortage of parking spaces by the Courthouse. Charles Jewett, representing the Downtown Association, came before the Commission and stated that he is the President of the Downtown Association and supports changing the parking time from two to three hours; that the main reason for requesting an extension of parking time is to allow people to visit the various businesses, art galleries, and restaurants on Main Street; that the only locations without three-hour parking are Main Street, Palm Avenue and a portion of Ringling Boulevard. Commissioner Atkins asked if three-hour parking would negatively impact on the availability of parking spaces? Mr. Jewett stated that there is ample parking spaces on the outskirts of Main Street. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposal is to change the entire downtown area to three-hour parking as recommended by Paul Thorpe, the Director of the Downtown Association. Mr. Jewett stated that it will not be a problem if the three-hour parking is enforced and the merchants' employees currently parking on Main Street use offstreet parking. Commissioner Atkins stated that the intent of allowing two-hour parking on Main Street is to enable people to go in and out of stores expeditiously; that extending the offstreet parking hours would accommodate people who desired to shop longer. Book 37 Page 11014 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11015 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that people are willing to go to offstreet parking when Main Street is full so they should also be agreeable to going to offstreet parking when they require additional time to accomplish their errands. Mr. Jewett stated that parking on Main Street should be one or two hours but then people are being penalized if they stay longer than two hours; that many people will only stay one or two hours, but people who patronize either beauty shops, restaurants, art galleries, or a combination of all of these facilities stay longer. Commissioner Pillot state that offstreet parking should be utilized when longer than two hours is required; that the concept on Main Street should be "turnover". Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Main Street should be short-term parking to encourage turnover. Mayor Patterson stated that Staff has argued that two-hour parking is an attempt to force merchants not to take the most available parking on Main Street and Palm Avenue but rather leave it available for customers; that offstreet parking is not free; that some of the less convenient spots should be changed to three hours since there is no free offstreet parking. Commissioner Pillot stated that people should pay a reasonable amount for offstreet parking. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved for the Administration to recommend to the Commission where three-hour parking in the downtown area is feasible. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission should vote to change the parking limit on Palm Avenue to three hours. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commission Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to post Palm Avenue as three-hour parking. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the amendment to the motion to allow Palm Avenue to have three-hour parking. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to refer to the Administration the remainder of the downtown area to provide the Commission with recommendations as to where else three-hour parking would be appropriate. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that downtown Sarasota is the only place with a charge for parking; that the Administration should bear this fact in mind since people should be encouraged to shop and use Main Street but they are being penalized since they can go anywhere else in the City and park for free. Mayor Patterson stated that Main Street is the only place where the city spent four million dollars of taxpayers' money to provide parking lots. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Downtown Association could organize a taxing district, build parking, and then there would be free parking. 12. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PARKING ENFORCEMENT EXPENDITURES EXCEEDING REVENUES (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (1358) through (1587) Mayor Patterson stated that the Finance Department reports monthly on income and expenditure variances from the City's budget; that parking enforcement has revenues of $253,795 versus $356,220 budgeted, which is approximately $100,000 under projected income for parking enforcement; that the computers were down at the time an audit was received of the parking program which may be the reason revenue is down; that a current status report of the computer situation is necessary, including whether the City is connected to Tallahassee, whether the City can legally boot cars which are defying the City's policies on parking tickets, etc. John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission and presented the Commission with a report on expenditures and costs. Director Lewis stated that the cost of upgrading the network software for the new hand-held computers utilized by enforcement personnel is approximately $20,000 and was not previously budgeted. Mayor Patterson stated that hand-held computers have been used for many years while City Auditor and Clerk Robinson was in charge of parking enforcement. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that hand-held computers have been used for approximately three years. Director Lewis stated that some hand-held computers had to be replaced to be compatible with the software and the cost of repair due to age made them no longer cost effective; that another expenditure was fees assessed inadvertently to the parking division's utilities and a credit is being issued reducing the deficit by approximately $10,000. Book 37 Page 11016 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11017 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that the loss of $100,000 in revenues versus budget is her question and not the additional expenses. Director Lewis stated that the items which contributed to the loss of revenues is the fact that Parking Enforcement was given to the Police Services Bureau in Public Safety in August of 1993 and Parking Collections was assigned to the Support Services Bureau in Public Safety in January, 1994; that the State has a Stop Registration Program which provides that people with outstanding traffic or parking citations cannot renew their registration until those tickets are paid. Mayor Patterson asked if the computers are working and connected to Tallahassee? Director Lewis stated that the computers are functioning with the exception of the Stop Registration Program which will be operational within 30 days. 13. BOARD ACTIONS: : REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1994 - REPORT ACCEPTED; RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY THE ZONING CODE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOARD REVIEW ALL RENOVATIONS ON HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURES - CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO PREPARE NECESSARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING; FLORIDA NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION PROPOSAL: HILTON LEECH STUDIO AND RESIDENCE, AND THE AMAGANSETT ART SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 1666/1656 HILLVIEW STREET = APPROVED (AGENDA II-2) #4 (1588) through (1802) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission, and presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's special meeting of September 16, 1994: A. Land Use Administration, Public Hearing, Preliminary Site and Development Plan No. 94-B for the entire 11.27 acre parcel commonly known as the John Ringling Towers site Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the PS&D plan 94-B and recommended approval to the Commission by a vote of 3-0 with three abstentions; that Board Members Ball, Dart, and Town were in favor of the recommendation, but abstained due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Robinson stated that the Administration recommends acceptance of the Historic Preservation Board recommendation. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that no action is necessary at this time concerning the John Ringling Towers site as the Preliminary Site and Development Plan will be scheduled for review by the City Commission and set for public hearing at a future meeting. B. Amendment Ordinance No. 86-3019, Certificate of Approval- Local and National Register Properties Ms. Robinson stated that the Historical Preservation Board proposes a requirement to review interior renovations at historically designated structures at the Board's discretion and only for certain structures; that, for example, it may not be necessary for the Historical Preservation Board to review proposed interior renovations of single-family structures; that the Zoning Code currently requires the Historical Preservation Board approve all building permits, including interior renovations, which affect historically designated structures; that the Historical Preservation Board proposes modifying the Zoning Code to require review of only those designated structures which the Historical Preservation Board deems necessary. Commissioner Pillot stated that the recommendation is actually to eliminate the necessity of reviewing interiors by the Historic Preservation Board. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the proposed modification to the Zoning Code will reduce and streamline the present regulations. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to direct the City Attorney's office to prepare the necessary Ordinance to set for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. C. Florida National Register Nomination Proposal Hilton Leech Studio and Residence, and The Amagansett Art School, located at 1666/1656 Hillview Street Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board unanimously supported the proposal. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to support National Register Nomination for 1666/1656 Hillview Street. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept September 16, 1994, Historic Preservation Board report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Book 37 Page 11018 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11019 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. 14. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, AND 5 - APPROVED; ITEM NO.4 = APPROVED WITH A CHANGE IN THE LEASH REQUIREMENT TO 26 FEET (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #4 (1803) through (2001) Commissioner Cardamone requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Award of Purchase Order Contract to Center Line Road Striping, Inc., Bradenton, Florida (Bid #94- 132), for painting and/or installing of thermoplastic traffic control stripes, lanes, directional arrows, guide lines, crosswalks, curbs and other markings for a one (1) year period beginning on October 14, 1994 through October 13, 1995 2. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Third Amendment to the existing Araltetura/Bgiering Agreement with Gary B. Hoyt, AIA, P.A., to provide architectural design services for Phase III renovations of the Municipal Auditorium (Exhibition Hall) 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Grounds Landscape Maintenance Contract with ISS Landscape Management Services to extend the agreement for an additional five (5) year period, including the addition of one (1) Grounds Keeper for the Bobby Jones Golf Complex On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 4. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3834, regulating dogs; setting forth findings; defining terms; requiring dogs be on a leash, except when swimming at Bayfront and Island Park; requiring that fecal matter be removed from Bayfront and Island Park; specifying that a dog under reasonable control at a place other than the Bayfront and Island Park, shall be no further than 100 feet from the owner; etc. Commissioner Cardamone stated that many typographical errors and inconsistencies in type style exist throughout the proposed ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that Ordinance No. 94-3834 should undergo proofreading. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3834 for public hearing. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Page 3, Section 2, of the proposed ordinance states an 8-foot leash requirement is acceptable on all public streets except in Bayfront and Island Park where a 26-foot leash requirement is applicable. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to change the lead or leash requirement to 26 feet throughout the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the main motion to approve Ordinance No. 94-3834, as amended, and set for public hearing after proofreading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO. 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-770) ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-771) = ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-772) - ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-773) = ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-774) - ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3831) = ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3832) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM NO. III-B) #4 (2002) through (2317) Commissioner Cardamone requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-771, 94R-772, 94R-773, 94R-774, and Ordinance Nos. 94-3831 and 94-3832 by title only. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-771, opposing Ballot Amendment No. 4, by the Tax Cap Committee, which would remove the single subject requirement for Constitutional Ballot Issues related to Governmental Revenue Powers; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-772, opposing Ballot Amendment Noo 5, by the Tax Cap Committee, which Book 37 Page 11020 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11021 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. would require voter approval before any increase in existing taxes of fees or approval of all new taxes and fees by any State or Local Government; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-773, opposing Ballot Amendment No. 6, which would prohibit new State revenues or increases in existing State revenues except by a Constitutional Amendment requiring a two-thirds vote of the voters voting; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-774, opposing Ballot Amendment No. 7, by the Tax Cap Committee, which will require Local Governments to pay landowners compensation when Cities lawfully exercise their police powers to implement Federal and State Mandated Regulations and Programs; etc. (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3831, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; stating various findings of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as to the Transportation Element; adopting by reference the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designated 94-CRPA-03, as more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3832, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; stating various findings of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; adopting by reference the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan consisting of a Work Program to implement the Comprehensive Plan, as more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that the record should reflect that Vice Mayor Merrill voted against a resolution which states the City does not support a jury trial when a government body limits a person's use of their land which facilitates various items Vice Mayor Merrill has voted against in the past. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he voted to protect private property rights from a government which has forgotten that property is private and is constantly attempting to intrude on people's private property rights. Mayor Patterson stated that an example is informing people they cannot put commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that disallowing commercial uses in residential neighborhoods does not decline but, in fact, maintains a person's property value. Mayor Patterson stated that the time is now 11:30 p.m. and a motion is necessary to continue the meeting. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to continue the meeting and finish the agenda. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-770, establishing the boundaries of Bayfront and Island Park; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is uncertain as to whether proposed Resolution No. 94R-770 was initiated by the Commission but the boundaries should include the boat basin and surrounding water; that the inclusion of the boat basin and surrounding water as part of the identified park boundaries should help solve some of the mooring problems. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the resolution was initiated by Staff since the Bayfront Park boundaries have never formally been defined; that upon completion of the Main Street Project, definition as to which areas park regulations can be enforced will be required. City Attorney Taylor stated that Resolution No. 94R-770 is a land-based resolution defining boundaries which are referenced in the dog-leash ordinance set for public hearing; that the waters are under the zoning designation as part of the Marine Park which carries a certain responsibility under the restriction of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Marine Park designation should be included as part of the land-side portion of the resolution. Mayor Patterson stated that including the Marine Park designation in the resolution would result in the necessity of having dogs on leashes in the water. Book 37 Page 11022 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11023 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-770 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item 1. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: RESCISSION OF THE AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE THE ACCESS FROM GULF STREAM AVENUE TO THE NORTH ESPLANADE PARKING AREA AT BAYFRONT PARK MADE AT THE SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 CITY COMMISSION MEETING - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (2320) through (2362) Mayor Patterson stated that she is declaring a conflict of interest and will not vote on this issue because her husband's law firm represents Marina Jack and passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill. Commissioner Pillot stated that a letter has been received from Marina Jack showing their consent to the access from Gulf Stream Avenue to the North Esplanade parking area at Bayfront Park. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to rescind the authorization to remove the access from Gulf Stream Avenue to the North Esplanade parking area at Bayfront Park. Vice Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, abstain; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #4 (2363) through (2383) Mayor Patterson asked if everything is proceeding on the same schedule as was previously reported? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the Main Street Project is proceeding on the same schedule. 18. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING/CITY ENGINEER TO REPORT ON AN "ON-DEMAND" TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM FOR CERTAIN HOURS (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (2386) through (2567) COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that anyone who has worked on college degrees knows it is difficult and anyone who holds a full-time job and represents the public at the same time has shown a great deal of ability, determination, and courage; that he would like to commend and congratulate Commissioner Atkins on his recent completion and awarding of his degree from the University of South Florida. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that, if the Fruitville Road signals are timed at all, they are timed in the wrong direction; that she travelled Fruitville Road heading into the City at 8:30 this morning and had to stop at every light which seems the reverse of what is logical; that Commissioner Cardamone raised the issue of smart lights when Mr. Glenn Ivey from the Florida Department of Transportation spoke to the Commission; that the City has smart lights which respond to cars being present at an intersection; that she understands that smart lights will not work with the light-timing system; that Mr. Ivy did not really answer Commissioner Cardamone; that it may be a good idea to retain some of the smart lights. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, had indicated that some of the smart lights would be retained. Mayor Patterson stated that she had been told by Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, that none of the smart lights would work any longer. Mr. Daughters came before the Commission and stated that the loop in the highway which detects cars waiting for a signal will remain and the smart lights will work; that on cross streets an instantaneous green will not occur since there will be a longer time period for the green light on the main road; that the smart lights at the intersections will continue to operate. Mayor Patterson asked if the smart lights will go green and then red regardless of whether anyone is at the intersection? Mr. Daughters stated that the light on the main road will dwell on the green. Mayor Patterson asked if that is true as long as no one is at the intersection? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Main Street has a green light and a car is approaching from Orange Avenue and there is a loop in the pavement will the car still be delayed or will the light instantly Book 37 Page 11024 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11025 10/03/94 6:00 P.M. change since there is no traffic on Main Street. Mr. Daughters stated that the vehicle may be delayed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the main concern is that cars have to sit at a red light when there is no traffic in sight. Mayor Patterson stated that the smart light cannot detect the traffic on the main street but only on the side street and asked if an "on-demand" system could be used for the side streets after 11:00 p.m.? Mr. Daughters stated that the system should have that capability and he will report back to the Commission with a definite answer. Mayor Patterson stated that an "on-demand" system may address the concerns better than yellow blinking lights. 19. OTHER MATTERS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (2568) through (2585) city Auditor and Clerk Robinson: A. stated that a joint workshop with the Planning Board will be held concerning the Vision Plan on Monday, October 10, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. and that the meeting will be televised. 20. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2586) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Mova Ataon NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: 1 ilW/E Robnson BILLY EROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON 707 Freeling Drive WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: Xcrry COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY Sarasota Sarasota NAME OF. POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: October 3, 1994 X ELECTIVE a APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict ofi interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay ciose attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature-of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. C FORMI XB 10-86 PAGE 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on October 3, 19. 94 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A motion was made and adopted to rescind the authorization to remove the access from Gulf Stream Avenue to the north esolanade parking area at Bayfron Park made at the September 20, 1993, Citv Commission meeting. My husband is a partner in the law firm that represents Marina Jacks, a marina and restaurant located at Bayfront Park. Hlous - A Kow Aest Date Filed October 17, 1994 Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B 10-86 PAGE 2