MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Jerome Dupree, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the city of Sarasota at 6:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0015) through (0049) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove Consent Agenda No. 1, item No. III A-6, Approval Re: Proposed loan to Maple Manor, Inc., for $120,750 in CDBG funds at a 0-percent interest rate over 21 years for the renovation of Kingsway Apartments, FKA Maple Manor, located at the corner of Maple Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, per the request of Housing and Community Development Director Hadsell On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1997 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1) Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of August 4, 1997; are approved by unanimous consent. 3. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 15, 1997 - REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (.0058) through (0220) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and presented the following items from BOOK 42 Page 15106 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15107 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and presented the following items from the July 15, 1997, regular meeting of the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board: A. City Administrative and Development Fees Mr. Hadsell stated that the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board has recommended that all administrative and development fees, including rezoning, special exception, site and development plan approval, building permit application, and impact fees, be reduced by a minimum of 50 percent; that additional parking fees in the Rosemary District should not be imposed until a parking problem is perceived; that the Mission Harbor property is included in the recommendation. Roy Smith, Chairman of the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board, came before the Commission and stated that reducing administrative and development fees and providing free parking will catalyze redevelopment in the Rosemary District. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Advisory Board is recommending unlimited parking without two- or three-hour limits be allowed? Mr. Smith stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if owners of commercial uses in the Rosemary District can ensure that employees will not park all day along Central Avenue? Mr. Smith stated that employee parking along the commercial frontages will be addressed to the best of the business owners' ability. Commissioner Cardamone asked if parking fines are currently issued? Mr. Smith stated no; that the Advisory Board anticipated the potential for a parking problem when the Central Avenue streetscape project was proposed two years ago; that a decision was made to postpone recommendation of action to the Commission until after completion of the streetscape project; that Staff advised the Advisory Board that City-owned property on Fifth and Sixth Streets could be used for parking; that the Advisory Board considered providing parking on Fourth Street; however, further research determined parking on Fourth Street is not feasible. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if parking spaces requiring payment of fees currently exist? establishing fees on parcels proposed for use as parking lots in the future. City Manager Sollenberger recommended receiving the Board report of the regular Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board meeting of July 15, 1997. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 6 = REMOVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0222) through (0553) Commissioner Cardamone requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the administration to prepare and set for public hearing an interim reuse rate ordinance for reclaimed water service 3. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Central Florida Contractors, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, (Bid #97-82) for the construction of the municipal sidewalks 4. Approval Re: Revised application for Federal Assistance (Cooperative Agreement) between the City of Sarasota and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP) 5. Approval Re: Ratification of Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Sarasota and the Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 73, dated July 31, 1997 to amend Article #7, Section 1 of the existing Contract Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Teamsters Local #173 to read "The base rate of pay for represented employees shall be increased by four (4 percent) effective the first pay period in October 1996, and that the base rate of pay for represented employees shall be increased by two (2 percent) effective October 1, 1997 On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 2, 3, 4, and 5. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. BOOK 42 Page 15108 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15109 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. 4, and 5. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 1. Approval Re: Letter of Understanding from Sarasota Memorial Hospital offering to provide the Sarasota Police Department the facility located at 1873 Hillview and its associated parking area, to be utilized as a police substation Commissioner Cardamone asked for specifics regarding the proposed police substation? Mayor Pillot stated that the proposed police substation will be located in the small, former bank building on the northwest corner of Laurent Place and Hillview Street. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the entire neighborhood will be serviced by the proposed police substation? Russell Pillifant, Deputy Chief of Police, came before the Commission and stated that the city is divided into three districts, North, Central, and South, under the District Commander Program; that the North District police substation is located on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and the Central District police substation in Gillespie Park; that the proposed facility at 1873 Hillview Street will service the South District. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the proposed location will provide the most benefit to the South District? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that the Hillview Street property, centrally located in the South District, provides easy access and adequate parking. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the proposed police substation on Hillview Street will service neighborhoods east of U.S. 41? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if the District Commander will be based at the proposed police substation on Hillview Street? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that the proposed police substation will serve as the district office for the South District; that the Hillview Street facility, adjacent to both Zones 8 and 9, could be used by the District Commander as a base from which the two zones are patrolled. Commissioner Patterson stated that the presence of - a police substation increases police visibility in a neighborhood; that locating a police substation in the middle of a neighborhood or Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) is a duplication of effort as police are already continuously present at the hospital. Mayor Pillot stated that the proposed police substation is located one block from SMH. Commissioner Patterson asked how the neighborhood will be benefited by a police substation at SMH? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that the Police Department searched for an appropriate location in the South District to develop a police substation; that although Arlington Park was investigated, no appropriate office space was found; that installation of a portable building would be required to locate a police substation in Arlington Park. Commissioner Patterson stated that installing a portable building in Arlington Park makes sense. Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that the building provided by SMH at 1873 Hillview Street will cost the City nothing; that installing a portable building requires expenditure of funds and installation of utilities; that a police substation should be located to straddle two zones within a district; that Arlington Park is not located adjacent to two zones; that Hillview Street is the border street dividing Zones 8 and 9; that police vehicles from both zones will be able to access the proposed police substation on Hillview Street. Commissioner Patterson asked how long the City will be committed to maintaining the proposed police substation on Hillview Street? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that the City is not obligated to use the facility for any specified time frame; that flexibility has been provided to maintain the facility for as long or as short a time frame as desired by the City. Mayor Pillot stated that SMH intends to demolish the building and use the land at 1873 Hillview Street for another purpose in the future; that although the facility has not been offered on a permanent basis, the Police Department is free to use the building in the interim period. Mayor Pillot continued that SMH is funding the following amenities: Furnishings, e.g., desks, desk chairs, conference table with chairs, computers, and fax machine; Security alarm system; GTE phone service and phone instruments for four lines, including data connection, providing local- and long-distance telephone service with a monthly total cost BOOK 42 Page 15110 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15111 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. not to exceed $200 to be paid by Sarasota Memorial Hospital; Housekeeping services two times per week; Pest control; Trash removal and recycling services; Interior and exterior maintenance of the facility; and Grounds maintenance. Commissioner Cardamone asked why development of a police substation comparable to the one in Gillespie Park was not recommended for Arlington Park? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that the Police Department investigated the possibility of using a house on one of the side streets close to Arlington Park; however, the property did not provide sufficient access to police vehicles; that SMH then offered to provide a space for a police substation inside the hospital building; that the proposal was rejected because the public would be denied access to the facility. Mayor Pillot stated that police officers patrol the City in vehicles dispatched by radio; and asked if SMH will be provided additional access to the Police Department if the proposed police substation is developed on the Hillview Street property? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated no; that SMH currently hires two off-duty police officers each evening from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m.; that SMH was aware of the Police Department's search for an appropriate location to develop a police substation and offered the building on Hillview Street to fulfill a public need; that the Hillview Street property accommodates the Police Department's needs. Commissioner Merrill stated that in the past, a member of the Arlington Park Neighborhood Watch approached the Police Department regarding development of a police substation in the neighborhood; that a unit in a neighborhood apartment complex was initially offered for use as a police substation; however, the management of the apartment complex changed and the offer was withdrawn; that the appropriateness of the Hillview Street location was discussed with Police Chief John Lewis; that the facility is free, centrally located, and situated on a major street; that he supports developing the proposed police substation on Hillview Street. Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that during the initial search, an apartment located on Hillview Street east of U.S. 41 was considered; that although the Police Department inspected many sites in the Arlington Park neighborhood, accommodations east of U.S. 41 are unavailable or inappropriate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the SMH is providing, free of charge, amenities which normally require expenditure of City funds; however, locating the proposed police substation closer to Arlington Park would have provided more benefit. Commissioner Patterson stated that the proposed police substation on Hillview Street, located in the middle of two zones, is not centrally located. Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that is not correct; that the property is located on Hillview Street on the border between Zones 8 and 9 which are part of the South District; that the proposed police substation will be located in the center of the South District. Commissioner Patterson asked if centralized locations to develop police substations will be sought in the North and Central Districts? Deputy Chief Pillifant stated that the police substation on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way was constructed long before the District Commander concept was developed; that the police substation in Gillespie Park is located in the middle of the Central District. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 1. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-999) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-4013) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0534) through (0593) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R-999 in its entirety and proposed Ordinance No. 97-4013 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-999, appropriating $75,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to fund fact finding stage of legal position thru 9/30/97 concerning Ringling Causeway Bridge; etc. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4013, amending Chapter 11, Sarasota City Code, pertaining to building and building regulations; modifying the fee payable for the failure of a person to appear within a specified time after an alarm activation to deactivate a security alarm system; stating findings of fact; providing for the BOOK 42 Page 15112 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15113 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 and 2. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4008, AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, ADJUSTING RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY ESTABLISHING NEW RATES FOR RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR REPEALING OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0652) through (0754) Christopher Lyons, Deputy Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4008 amends Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, recycling and solid waste, which establishes revised fee schedules for removal of solid waste in the City; that expenditures for Fiscal Year (FY) 21997/98, anticipated to increase by $97,063, include $32,000 in estimated salary adjustments, an estimated 2.25 percent, or $15,000, Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment for Browning Ferris Industries of Florida, Inc., (BFI), $10,000 to purchase bulk container purchases, $9,000 to fund building and equipment maintenance, and $10,000 in Information System charges required to implement the Graphic Information/Mapping system, a component of the Information Master Plan. Mr. Lyons continued that State funding of recycling grants for all municipalities and counties has been reduced; that the City will not receive $54,311 which represents two-thirds of the $81,000 in State recycling grants received by the City last year; that a two-percent increase of all solid waste collection rates, required due to the increase in expenses and the reduction in the State recycling grant, will raise the single-family residence rate from $21.03 to $21.45 per month. Mayor Pillot asked if the statistics have changed from those presented during the June 23, 1997, Budget workshop? Mr. Lyons stated no; that the statistics are the same as presented during the Budget workshop; that the rate increase will be implemented on September 1, 1997; that a special meeting will be required to approve the second reading of the ordinance before September 1, 1997. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-4008 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-4008 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4008 by title only. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4009, TO AMEND AND RESTATE ORDINANCE NO. 95-3840 PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT SITE TO THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE PARK (COP) ZONE DISTRICT: SAID AMENDMENT CONSISTS OF THE SUBSTITUTION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN PETITION 97-DPR-11 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL STORES TO BE KNOWN AS WALGREENS PLAZA IN LIEU OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 94-PSD-K; APPROVING SAID DEVELOPMENT PLAN 97-DPR-11 PERTAINING TO PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL BETWEEN PROSPECT STREET AND BAHIA VISTA STREET IN A COP ZONE DISTRICT, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 97-CO-09 AND 97-DPR-11, PETITIONER WILLIAM W. MERRILL, III, ESO.. REPRESENTING BVP ABBOCIATES/OEIMPIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP) PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH CONDITIONS REGARDING ROOT-PRUNING AND FILL RESTRICTIONS TO SAVE EXISTING TREES; REQUESTED ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW COUNTY'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AT THE WALDEMERE FIRE STATION (AGENDA ITEM NO. IV-2) #1 (0758) through #2 (0770) BOOK 42 Page 15114 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15115 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission, displayed on the overhead projector a Preliminary Site and Development Plan of the project, and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 is a request to modify Ordinance No. 95-3840, adopted on June 3, 1996, which rezoned the property located along the west side of U.S. 41 between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets from the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) and Residential, Single-Family (RSF)-2 Zone Districts to the Commercial, Office Park (COP) Zone District; that Petition No. 97-DPR-11, a Development Plan, submitted in conjunction with Conditional Rezoning Petition 97-CO-09, allows construction of commercial retail stores on approximately 2.84 acres of the southern portion of the same property where the Walgreens Drug Store was developed; that the modifications include a reduction in the building size, increased parking, and a modified circulation plan; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found Petition Nos. 97-CO-09 and 97-DPR-11 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommended approval conditioned to the stipulations stated in Ordinance No. 95-3840 and the dedication of a five-foot strip of property along Prospect Street for a right-of-way as proffered by the petitioner at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. William Merrill, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A.. and R. J. Ezazi, Civil Engineer, George F. Young & Associates, representing BVP Associates, the landowner and Olympia Development Group, Inc., the contract purchaser, came before the Commission. Attorney Merrill stated that no changes to the existing COP Zone District are proposed; that minor revisions to the original site and development plan are requested; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended approval of Conditional Rezoning Petition 94-CO-06 and Preliminary Site and Development Petition 94-PSD-K to the Commission on January 4, 1995; that the Commission denied the petitions and the petitioners appealed the denial in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court; that the Court overturned the Commission's action; that the property was conditionally rezoned to COP and the site and development plan approved under Ordinance No. 95-3840, adopted on June 3, 1996. Attorney Merrill continued that the original site plan indicated commercial retail stores would be developed in Phase II and Phase III which have been combined as Phase II in the new site plan; that the proposed changes are all improvements over the original site plan; that the size of the building will be reduced from the 22,000 square feet approved by the Court to 20,563 square feet, a reduction of approximately 1,500 square feet; that architectural attenuations such as arches and a breezeway area have been added; that the building will be moved away from the residential boundary on the west and 14 parking spaces added to improve internal traffic circulation; that the petitioner originally requested the addition of 20 parking spaces; however, six of the proposed parking spaces were eliminated in order to save existing trees; that changing the rear drive from a two-way drive to a one-way drive will save additional trees and increase the amount of landscaping; that an additional five-foot strip of property will be dedicated for public right-of-way purposes along the northern side of Prospect Street which abuts the southern boundary of the project. Attorney Merrill further stated that the modifications will improve the original site plan; that the existing Court-approved site and development plan will remain in full force and effect if the modifications are denied; that the PBLP unanimously approved and Staff has raised no objections to the modifications; that no adverse impacts are contemplated based on the technical review by Staff; that the revised site plan meets all applicable technical code requirements; that adequate public facilities are available; that the PBLP found Petition Nos. 97-C0-09 and 97-DPR-11 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance; that changes to the COP Zone District are not sought. Attorney Merrill stated further that although a neighborhood workshop was noticed and held, no neighborhood residents attended the workshop; that the petitioner agrees to the language in Ordinance No. 95-3840 Sections "a" through "e," inclusive and to the dedication of the five-foot strip of public right-of-way as indicated in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 under Section 6 (f); that the Engineering Department and the petitioner agreed upon two corrections on Page 5 under Traffic Circulation Review in the June 2, 1997, memorandum from Richard Winters, Engineering Technician; that Item No. 2 regarding the consolidation of two proposed driveways on U.S. 41 should have been deleted and the reference to U.S. 41 under Item No. 3 regarding traffic abatement should have been changed to Brewer Place; that although a corrected memorandum has not been issued, the petitioner and Staff agreed to accept the memorandum with those two changes. Mr. Ezazi displayed a hand-held, architectural drawing and stated that approximately 85 percent of the building will be located 12 to 15 feet further away from the residences abutting the western property line than in the original site plan; that the original site plan provided a 24-foot-wide, two-way drive behind the building in the back portion of the property; that the site plan has been modified to provide a 16-foot-wide, one-way drive to reduce traffic volume on Bahia Vista Street and allow increased landscaping; that 14 parking spaces have been added in the western portion of the property to effect traffic calming and provide employee parking; that the traffic aisles have been reconfigured to accommodate existing trees. Attorney Merrill stated that a memorandum from Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, expressed concerns regarding several trees; that the petitioner has accommodated all BOOK 42 Page 15116 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15117 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Staff concerns; that two large oak trees located within the footprint of the building cannot be saved; that allowing the trees to remain would eliminate development of Suite "A", the southernmost section of the building, and Suite "C", the center section of the building, neither of which can be redesigned on another portion of the site; that six parking spaces have been eliminated from the site plan to save the large oak stand in the back or western portion of the site; that a double-wide landscape island will abut the residential boundary; that trees in the front or eastern portion of the site have been saved by designing additional islands; that saving the two large trees in the middle of the building's footprint is not feasible. Commissioner Patterson asked if the stormwater retention pond in the back or western portion of the property will be irrigated. Mr. Ezazi stated that the dry, grass-seeded, stormwater retention pond will be irrigated. Commissioner Patterson asked if the number of trees eliminated by the modified site plan exceed the number eliminated by the original site plan? Mr. Ezazi stated that 90 percent of the trees on the site would have been destroyed by implementing the original site plan; that many more trees will be saved if the modified site plan, which provides for extensive green spaces and landscaped islands, is approved. Commissioner Patterson stated that existing trees are not apparently illustrated on the original site plan; that the reply indicating more trees will be saved by implementing the modified site plan is sufficient. Mr. Ezazi displayed a hand-held copy of the site plan and stated that the hand-held architectural drawing referenced earlier is not a copy of the site plan but a draft of the aesthetic design concept for the commercial retail development center; that the number of trees on the property is illustrated on the site plan. Commissioner Cardamone asked how many trees will be saved? Attorney Merrill stated that the exact number is unknown. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if the existing COP Zone District will remain unchanged? Attorney Merrill stated yes. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if the modified site plan is in compliance with all City requirements? Attorney Merrill stated yes. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if adequate notice was provided to residents regarding the neighborhood workshop which no one attended? Attorney Merrill stated yes. Vice Mayor Dupree asked the number of existing trees which require removal? Attorney Merrill stated that some palm trees will be transplanted or replaced; that the two substantial oaks cannot be saved. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if the oak trees will be transplanted? Attorney Merrill stated no; that the oak trees are too large to transplant. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the commercial retail development project has a name? Attorney Merrill stated no; that the name of the project is not Walgreens Plaza; that signs featuring the name of the project will be developed and submitted to Staff for approval in the future. Commissioner Cardamone asked who receives notice regarding neighborhood workshops? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that neighborhood residents living within 500 feet of a proposed development project are noticed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that few residences within 500 feet of the proposed commercial retail development project exist; that the area surrounding the project is primarily commercial; that she was not notified of the workshop despite the proximity of her residence to the project; that the meeting was held at the Bank of Boston in the evening; that the place and time were inconvenient; that the few neighborhood residents who may have wished to attend are elderly. Attorney Merrill stated that the Waldemere Fire Station will no longer allow neighborhood meetings even though the petitioner offered to pay for a policeman to remain on duty during the workshop. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the refusal of the County to allow neighborhood meetings at the Waldemere Fire Station should be addressed by the Administration; and asked if the County's refusal to allow neighborhood meetings at the Waldemere Fire Station is common knowledge? Commissioner Merrill stated noi that the City Manager is aware the refusal violates the interlocal agreement with the County regarding the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments. BOOK 42 Page 15118 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15119 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked if the original site plan approved under Ordinance No. 95-3840 as a result of Court action will be implemented if the modified site plan addressed by proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 is not approved? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mayor Pillot asked if the modified site plan is more neighborhood friendly than the original site plan? Mr. Ezazi stated that a building with architectural attenuation is more desirable than a simple block structure; that Staff supported the 16-foot-wide, one-way drive in the modified site plan as an improvement over the original 24-foot-wide, two-way drive in the western portion of the property close to the residential boundary; that the additional parking spaces will reduce vehicular speed on the site; that the building has been moved 12 to 15 feet further away from existing residences. Mayor Pillot stated that architecture and aesthetics are important; however, the reconfiguration of the building away from the residences is an improvement; and asked if the building in the modified site plan is smaller than the original? Attorney Merrill stated yes. Mayor Pillot asked if more trees will be saved if the modified site plan rather than the original is implemented? Attorney Merrill stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if offices will be constructed in the project? Attorney Merrill stated no; that the uses will be commercial in nature. Commissioner Merrill asked if the modified site plan conforms to the City's landscape code? Attorney Merrill stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that egAborhood-frienaly issues include hours of operation, lighting, deliveries, dumpsters, etc. Mayor Pillot stated that the issues were not addressed due to the City Attorney's response indicating that the conditions permitted in Ordinance No. 95-3840 will remain in effect as the result of a court order; that modification to a site plan is the only issue before the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that all stipulations included in the original conditional rezoning ordinance still apply. Commissioner Patterson stated that prior to the court order, hours of operation were one of the stipulations addressed when the original petition was brought before the Commission; and asked for clarification of the hours of operation pertaining to the commercial retail development project? Attorney Merrill stated that Section 5(c) of Ordinance No. 95-3840 indicates restricted hours of operation apply to Phase I addressing the Walgreens Drug Store; that delivery trucks are allowed to access Phase I and Phase II, the commercial retail stores, only during daylight hours; that although restricted delivery hours apply to Phase II, restricted hours of operation do not. City Attorney Taylor stated that the conditions in Ordinance No. 95-3840 include the following: 1) a $10,000 contribution for traffic calming measures, 2) installation of a landscape buffer consisting of specific materials along the western boundary of the site, 3) restricted hours of operation for Phase I, Walgreens Drug Store, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days per week, and delivery truck access restricted to daylight hours for Phases I and II, the commercial retail development project, 4) installation of bicycle racks, and 5) submission of a landscaping plan. Commissioner Patterson asked if the original ordinance indicated specific permitted uses? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that a COP Zone District was approved under Ordinance No.. 95-3840 absent designation of specific permitted uses. Commissioner Merrill stated that the modified site plan indicates access to and from U.S. 41 will be provided; and asked if medians on U.S. 41 prohibiting left turns will be installed? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the City has no plans to install medians on the South Tamiami Trail; that the City is not aware of any plans by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to improve the road. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a strip mall is a permitted use under the COP Zone District? City Attorney Taylor stated that a strip mall is not a defined term in the Zoning Code; that the permitted uses in a COP Zone District should be reviewed; that any uses permitted in a COP BOOK 42 Page 15120 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15121 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Zone District could be chosen by a developer and configured in such a manner as to result in development of a strip mall. Commissioner Patterson stated that allowing two accesses to and from the property onto U.S. 41 is perceived as more neighborhood friendly than limiting the accesses which would divert traffic volume to side streets; that the developers of the Walgreens Drug Store on Fruitville Road near U.S. 301 petitioned for access to and from Fruitville Road; that the petition was denied by the FDOT; that at least two existing accesses to Fruitville Road were closed when the Walgreens Drug Store was developed; and asked why the FDOT would deny accesses to and from a private development on Fruitville Road but allow the same on U.S. 41? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT determines the number of allowable accesses based on a development project's proximity to major intersections; that the Walgreens Drug Store on Fruitville Road is close to U.S. 301 which is a far more substantial intersection than Bahia Vista Street. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that the proximity of his residence to the proposed development qualifies him as a party; that he recommends the Commission approve the rezoning request as no choice to do otherwise exists; however, other issues should be addressed; that hours of operation are restricted for Phase I but not Phase II; that hours of operation for the Walgreens Drug Store were a major concern of neighborhood residents; that a video store in the Phase II, commercial retail development project, could operate 24 hours; and asked if the restrictions in Ordinance No. 95-3840 are applicable under proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009? City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 is amending existing Ordinance No. 95-3840; that the dedication of five feet of right-of-way along Prospect Street is the only new stipulation; that existing conditions in Ordinance No. 95-3840 are applicable in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009. Mr. Babb stated that the hours of operation should be applied with consistency throughout the COP Zone District. Mr. Babb continued that the two large oak trees could be saved if the building is moved further northward and eastward to the front of the property. Mr. Babb distributed photographs of two active, commercial office parks in the City and stated that the landscaping on existing developments differs from the landscaping plans for the proposed commercial retail development project; that Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, is one of the City's most capable employees; that no intention to denigrate Mr. Litchet's abilities or performance exists; that the duties of William Hewes, former Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement were assigned to Mr. Litchet when Mr. Hewes left the City; that the duties of City Staff were not reassigned to qualified personnel when the Parks and Recreation Department was consolidated with the County; that landscape review for new development was transferred to Mr. Litchet's department; that Mr. Litchet's current responsibilities include code enforcement, site and development plan review, and Zoning Code interpretations; that Mr. Litchet is also Secretary of the Board of Adjustment. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Mr. Babb's speaking time has expired. Mr. Babb stated that a party has the right to continue speaking. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission should decide if Mr. Babb's speaking time should be extended. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objection, Mr. Babb can continue speaking. Mr. Babb stated that an analogy between Mr. Litchet's responsibilities and a Swiss Army Knife can be drawn; that a Swiss Army Knife has various components, i.e., knife, scissors, and can opener, each of which can be used to perform small tasks; however, the Swiss Army Knife cannot be used for large projects; that major projects receive less attenuation since Mr. Litchet's role has been diversified; that the Zoning Code requires a parking plan submitted with each application when off-site parking is required; that plot plans including landscaping requirements are supposed to be certified by the City's Parks and Recreation Department before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued; that the Zoning Code requires City Parks and Recreation Department Staff to review plant material intended for use in landscaping plans; that the Parks Department may waive up to 10 percent of the parking requirement to preserve healthy trees. Mr. Babb continued that extensive qualifications including formal college certification are required for the Parks and Recreation Department Staff position which reviews landscaping requirements; however, the responsibilities were transferred to Mr. Litchet when the City's Parks and Recreation Department was consolidated with the County; that Mr. Litchet's additional duties diminish the ability to provide the necessary detailed attention to each task. Mr. Babb further stated that the Commission is requested to require submission of another site plan for the commercial retail development project on the property between Bahia Vista and BOOK 42 Page 15122 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15123 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Prospect Streets; that the Administration should conduct a more detailed and professional review of code requirements to ensure consistency; that dying trees on the subject site were recently replaced with new trees planted in the same location under Florida Power and Light (FPL) lines; that in the past, FPL paid residents $50 to allow removal of trees growing under power lines; that the Commission is recommended to approve proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009; however, the development review process should be made consistent with the Zoning Code. Ellen Maloff, 2620 Grafton Street (34231) Executive Director of ReLEAF of Sarasota County (ReLEAF), stated that the absence of any indication of trees on the original site plan is a concern; that the petitioner, who appeared not to know the location of the trees, has a cavalier attitude; that trees provide the best stormwater mitigation; that a stormwater retention ditch will be installed in the western portion of the propertyi however, stormwater retention ditches are not attractive; that the stormwater retention ditch could be eliminated, a buffer zone with the residences created, and the two large oak trees saved if the building is moved forward. Ms. Maloff continued that a large live oak tree behind the Hollywood 20 Theatre Complex was destroyed absent justification; that the City is not receiving the necessary expert advice; that ReLEAF strives to convey an understanding of how natural resources are integrated with and directly connected to the economic and social well-being of the community; that the Tree Protection Ordinance has not been reviewed in two years. Ms. Maloff further stated that the Commission is requested to suspend the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department's enforcement of the Tree Protection Ordinance; that Code Inspectors should not make decisions regarding removal of native shade trees; that ReLEAF will provide on a trial basis and at reasonable cost to the City the expertise of consulting certified arborists; that arborists, who must pass extensive international examinations for certification, are experts in diagnosing and treating tree problems; that the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department should not make decisions regarding tree removal until an alternate arrangement can be devised; that ReLEAF will provide any help possible. Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that although he is not a certified arborist, the inspectors who handle the technical inspection of trees for the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department attend training courses conducted by Richard Sanger, Horticulturist, Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department; that Mr. Sanger addressed tree removal issues as the City's former Parks and Recreation Supervisor; that the City's inspectors attend two six-month courses, one evening per week, five hours per evening; that photographs are taken of trees which may require removal; that he goes on-site with the inspectors if questions exist; that action is based on common sense; that the City consults David Johnston, Landscape Architect, David W. Johnston Associates, if issues beyond the training of the inspectors exist; that site plans are sometimes redesigned, i.e., a significant tree on a property at Mound Street and Orange Avenue was saved by reconfiguring the site plan; that a variance has been requested to allow development of a building on 17th Street in a location on the site where a building would not normally be permitted in order to save a tree. Mr. Litchet continued that the City consulted Philip Smith, Certified Landscape Architect, David W. Johnston Associates, regarding the property on U.S. 41 between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets on which numerous trees were saved; that the two large oak trees in the building's footprint are not savable; that the original site plan showing the trees in the middle of the building's footprint has been approved; that Attorney Merrill was requested to detail the petitioner's efforts to save the two oak trees; that maintaining the square footage with a redesigned site plan would be extremely difficult due to the trees' root systems. Mr. Litchet further stated that a landscape architect has never been commissioned to redesign a site plan; that the Tree Protection Ordinance provides the authority to require minor redesigns to save trees; that a developer has never been required to break a building into four or five different units to save a tree; that requesting a developer to relocate a building five or ten feet is not a problem; however, a budgeted item will be required if the review process is intensified and landscape architects hired to study each site plan; that the same level of expertise should be provided to ensure consistency for all development projects. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Attorney Merrill and Mr. Ezazi returned to the Commission table. Attorney Merrill stated that the neighborhood residents' concerns regarding traffic volume on the side streets was the greatest issue in the original public hearing addressing Ordinance No. 95-3840; that reconfiguring the building to the front and north of the site would negatively impact the residents as virtually all parking and vehicular traffic would be located on the back of the site close to the residences; that vehicles would access the development project by Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets rather than U.S. 41. Attorney Merrill continued that the stormwater retention pond does not resemble a ditch; that the dry, irrigated area is heavily landscaped; that many native trees have been retained and BOOK 42 Page 15124 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15125 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. the new oak trees are attractive; that a full hedge has been installed next to the wall; that a public speaker's inference that existing trees were not shown on the original site plan is incorrect; that the original site plan clearly indicates existing trees. Attorney Merrill further stated that the issues raised by the public speakers were addressed in the original public hearing and subsequent, unfortunate litigation; that the petitioner does not wish to revisit the issues but to move forward; that the developer has done an outstanding job on Phase I and is committed to making the commercial retail development project successful; that Mr. Litchet recently informed the petitioner that trees in the back of the property were dying or dead; that the trees were replaced within two or three days; that the petitioner, William Touloumis, President/Owner of Olympia Development Group, Inc., intends to develop additional properties in Sarasota County and desires a reputation as a good citizen and developer in the community; that Mr. Touloumis is committed to making this a good project. Attorney Merrill stated further that à reputable developer has purchased the property directly behind the commercial retail development project and intends to develop upscale, high-end residences; that the values in the neighborhood will substantially increase if the proposed upscale residential development is approved. Mr. Ezazi stated that the original site plan indicated existing trees; that the stormwater retention pond is a buffer against the residences to the west of the property. Commissioner Merrill stated that the hours of operation apply only to Phase I, the Walgreens Drug Store; and asked if the petitioner intends to operate a 24-hour store in Phase II, the commercial retail development project? Attorney Merrill stated that he does not believe a 24-hour store will be operated; however, the petitioner is not willing to extend restricted hours of operation to Phase II; that the petitioner will adhere to the current conditions in Ordinance No. 95-3840; however, the petitioner cannot be bound to a promise not to lease a space to a 24-hour establishment; that the commercial retail spaces will be leased on a long-term basis; that a shoe store, a bagel store, and a Hollywood Video store, none of which usually stay open 24 hours, have signed leases; that the petitioner cannot be bound to restrictions on hours of operation. Commissioner Merrill asked if the petitioner would object to a stipulation to use reasonable methods of tree protection such as root pruning or restricting the amount of fill near the trees? Attorney Merrill stated that the petitioner is required to use a professional arborist to find ways to save the trees including good trimming of limbs and root pruning; that the petitioner is willing to abide by professional standards used to save trees. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a 50-inch and a 38-inch oak tree will be lost; that visibility will be facilitated by locating the commercial retail development project close to U.S. 41; that Walgreens Drug Store will shadow the building if the commercial retail stores are set back on the site; that an alternate site plan should be developed; that locating the parking in the back of the property will not negatively impact Bahia Vista or Prospect Streets as long as access to U.S. 41 is provided; and asked if the Commission could impose restricted hours of operation on the commercial retail development project? Attorney Merrill stated that common sense dictates that most of the parking spaces and traffic circulation in front of the development project would be lost if the building is relocated to the same setback line as Walgreens Drug Store; that a vehicle would turn in from U.S. 41, travel a few feet down the drive, and be forced to immediately turn right or left to access the parking area behind the building; that vehicles will use Bahia Vista or Prospect Streets to turn in and out of the property if parking is concentrated on the back or western portion of the site; that the modified one-way drive behind the building would require redesign as a two-way drive; that traffic volume Close to the residences would increase. Attorney Merrill continued that locating buildings close to the sidewalk, an element of new urbanism, does not apply when a property has a major shopping center across the street, an adjacent bank with parking on the side of the building, and frontage on a major highway such as U.S. 41; that moving the building forward will produce a drive going nowhere; that redirecting parking and traffic volume to the back of the property close to the residences will negatively impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a true neighborhood within two blocks does not exist. Commissioner Patterson stated that development of a new residential neighborhood on the property directly behind the commercial retail development project is intended. Attorney Merrill stated that is correct; that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune has reported the houses will be marketed in the $250,000 to $400,000 range. BOOK 42 Page 15126 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15127 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that moving the building forward may not save the 50-inch oak tree. Mr. Ezazi stated that moving the building further forward to save the 50-inch oak tree would eliminate all the parking spaces in front. Attorney Merrill stated that virtually all of Suite "A," would be lost by reconfiguring the site plan to save the two oak trees; that although he likes old oak trees as much as anyone, a way to alter the building design to save the two oak trees is unknown. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission can do one of three things: 1) reject the modified site plan, 2) approve the modified site plan, or 3) request a delay to negotiate further modifications; that the petitioner does not appear willing to modify the site plan any further; and asked if the original site plan will be developed if the modified site plan is not approved? Attorney Merrill stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if Attorney Merrill represents the landowners? Attorney Merrill stated that he represents BVP Associates, the landowners, and Olympia Development Group, Inc., the contract purchaser. Commissioner Patterson stated that the contract purchasers wish to develop an upscale residential area with prices in the upper end of the market behind the commercial retail development project; that anything resembling a 24-hour operation will negatively impact a residential neighborhood; that a landowner may look favorably on restricted hours of operation enforced by the City rather than having to restrict hours of operation in a lease or by individual legal action; and asked if the developer of the residential homes behind the commercial retail development project has been consulted regarding hours of operation? Attorney Merrill stated that neither the landowners nor the contract purchaser of the back parcel proposed for a residential development called "Mandarin Park" have expressed concern regarding hours of operation for the commercial retail development project; that the developer of the proposed new residences, who is aware of prevailing conditions, has retained capable people to address rezoning and development issues; that the contract purchaser has no objection to unrestricted hours of operation and believes a strong high-end market for the residential units exists; that the hours of operation for the Waffle House, Burger King and other commercial and office uses in the area are not restricted despite close proximity to residential zone districts; that he cannot agree to restricted hours of operation in Phase II. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an argument has been made that limiting the parking and traffic volume in the back of the property will protect the proposed residential development; however, hours of operation are as important to residents as parking and traffic issues; that prohibiting a 24-hour, fast-food operation would protect the high-end residential property; that noise is not the sole issue; that patrons of fast-food establishments throw litter on neighborhood lawns in the evening when no one is around to observe. Attorney Merrill stated that the COP Zone District will not permit fast-food establishments; and asked if he may be permitted a moment to confer with his client? Mayor Pillot stated yes. Attorney Merrill left the Commission table. Mayor Pillot asked if the petitioner has vested rights based on the decision of the Second District Court of Appeals? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Court decision may not warrant undue emphasis; that the Commission is being requested to approve an improved site plan. Mayor Pillot asked if the petitioner has vested rights? City Attorney Taylor stated that the petitioner, under Ordinance No. 95-3840, has the right to develop the original site plan absent additional conditions such as hours of operation. Mayor Pillot asked if the petitioner can proceed with the original site plan if the Commission does not approve the modified site plan? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the issues are. understood. Mayor Pillot stated that one and a half hours have been expended recycling the same issues; that Attorney Merrill has repeatedly stated the petitioner will not commit to restricted hours of operation and that the building cannot feasibly be moved to save the two oak trees; that the two issues have been discussed and the petitioner has provided answers; that the petitioner has presented an improved site plan for approval; and asked why the issue is still under debate. Commissioner Patterson stated that the issues are not being debated. Mayor Pillot stated that debate is occurring according to his interpretation of what constitutes debate. BOOK 42 Page 15128 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15129 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Attorney Merrill returned to the Commission table and stated that he has nothing further to add to the discussion. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if the Commission has the legal right to impose restrictions on hours of operation? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission does not have a good, solid basis for imposing restricted hours of operation subject to a decision ultimately provided by a Court of Law; that the restricted hours of operation were imposed when Conditional Rezoning Ordinance 95-3840 was brought to the Commission for approval; that the ordinance has provisions for conditions, proffers, and approvals; that Ordinance No. 95-3840 was previously approved. City Attorney Taylor continued that a modified site plan is now before the Commission; that the site plan is a small component in the conditional rezoning ordinance; that although the Zoning Code provides some authority to condition site plan approval, nothing between the last public hearing and this one has occurred to provide the grounds or basis at this time to impose a condition which the Commission previously chose not to impose; that the facts are not strong enough to support imposing restricted hours of operation. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the Commission lacks legal authority to impose restricted hours of operations. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A, D, F, H, J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments The agenda packet and minutes of the July 2, 1997, PBLP meeting All documentary evidence submitted at the July 2, 1997, PBLP public hearing for Petitions 97-CO-09 and 97-DPR-11 City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration does not make recommendations on quasi-judicial matters. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 on first reading with the added stipulation that the petitioner shall follow reasonable tree protection practices including root pruning and restrictions on fill materials for the existing trees which will be saved. Commissioner Merrill stated that redesigning the commercial retail development project to save the two oak trees could have been required at the original public hearing; that the Commission did not request the requirement; that the Commission should be consistent; that voting to cut down a 50-inch oak tree is undesirable; that the City objected to FDOT guidelines requiring the destruction of oak trees on Bay Road; however, a legal precedent has been established regarding the subject property. Commissioner Merrill continued that the City does not adequately enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance; that Staff is overworked; that a tree close to a building can remain healthy with fertilizing and root-pruning before bulldozer excavation begins; that many developers promise to save trees; however, most trees are dead within a few years after the development project is completed; that saving trees is treated as a perfunctory exercise by most developers; that Mr. Litchet should work closely with the petitioner to ensure the existing trees are saved. Commissioner Patterson stated that the two oak trees are the victim of the lack of stringency in City codes; that a revised and more restrictive Tree Protection Ordinance was recently presented to and rejected by the Commission; that a developer cannot be required to redesign a building absent an ordinance specifying large, old trees must be saved except when efforts to do so completely hinder development of private property. Commissioner Patterson continued that she will vote to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 as the Commission has little alternative; that the development project could have been configured differently if the Commission insisted the developer adhere to the intent of the COP Zone District when the conditional rezoning was first presented; that the COP Zone District was developed specifically to avoid creation of strip malls; that the language in the Zoning Code refers to commercial and office uses rather than strictly commercial; that the Zoning Code delineates the signage for the COP Zone District as being different from the daily advertisements for products marketed by a Walgreens Drug Store; that signage for the COP Zone District should identify the development and not specific sales items, i.e., toothbrushes; that hours of operation for the commercial retail development project are not restricted; that the petitioner may have agreed to restricted hours of operation if the majority of the Commission had not been so intent on prohibiting all commercial uses. BOOK 42 Page 15130 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15131 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson further stated that Mr. Babb presented excellent points regarding site plan approval in memorandums sent to the Commission; that Mr. Litchet and City Attorney Taylor have advised that modifications to the site plan are sufficient to warrant Commission approval but insufficient to reopen issues regarding conditions in the original petition approved by the Court; that the original site plan will be developed if the modified site plan is not approved; and asked why a petition has been brought before the Commission which requires a new public hearing but provides no option but approval? City Attorney Taylor stated that he will not place the City at risk again with another round of litigation; that the City can direct a developer to redesign a site plan and reinitiate the development review process when major changes to the original plan are proposed; however, decisions are made before a petition reaches the City Attorney's Office; that the City Attorney's Office reviews the petition and consults with the individual who rendered the initial decision; that a record regarding the commercial retail development project was compiled before the petition reached the City Attorney's Office; that the record was insufficient to support a recommendation that the Commission nullify the original site plan approval and direct the petitioner to reinitiate the development review process. Commissioner Patterson stated that the public should be aware the Commission has no choice but to approve the modified site plan. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is slightly annoyed with the Mayor's impatience with the Commission discussion; that Staff determined the modifications to the site plan were sufficient to require a public hearing and Commission approval; that the opportunity to negotiate conditions such as restricted hours of operations should be provided; that the discussion with the petitioner did not constitute a debate. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the petitioner will not move the building forward to save the two oak trees because of an unwillingness to negatively impact the residences by increasing traffic volume behind the commercial retail development project; however, the petitioner is willing to allow unrestricted hours of operation; that the petitioner asserts the neighborhood should be protected from speeding vehicles and heavy traffic volume but not from 24-hour retail operations. Commissioner Cardamone further stated that although many permitted uses are listed in the COP Zone District, the commercial retail development project does not satisfy the intent of the Zoning Code; that a commercial office park should be designed to provide a mixture of office, commercial, retail, and restaurant uses; that strip malls will be developed all over the City if the appropriate design and ambiance constituting a commercial office park is not specified; that she will vote against approval on the principle that the permitted uses in a COP Zone District have been configured in a manner which defeats the intent of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Merrill stated that he originally voted against the development proposal as not meeting the intent of the COP Zone District; that the permitted uses met the legal requirements according to the Court; however, the discrepancy should be corrected before the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) update is completed. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4009 on first reading with the added stipulation that the petitioner shall follow reasonable tree protection practices including root pruning and restrictions on fill materials for existing trees which will be saved. Motion carried (4 to 1): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, no; Dupree, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4014, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 507 JACKSON DRIVE AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 97-HD-01, PETITIONER MIKKI HARTIG) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #2 (0772) through (0990) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4014 will designate the structure located at 507 Jackson Drive on St. Armands Key as a structure of historic significance; that at the July 8, 1997, Historic Preservation Board meeting, the Board recommended Commission approval of the historic designation based on Section 15-14(1) (a), (d), and (e) of the Zoning Code; that the proposed ordinance was set for public hearing at the August 4, 1997, regular Commission meeting. Mikki Hartig, Historical and Architectural Research Services, representing James Schor, the owner of 507 Jackson Drive, came before the Commission, displayed slides of the house and surrounding property on the overhead projector and stated that in 1924, John Ringling and Owen Burns established John Ringling Estates, Inc., to develop residences on St. Armands Key; that by 1926, Mr. Ringling and Mr. Burns had constructed only four Mediterranean Revival homes in the John Ringling Estates subdivision; that two others were built by private owners; that the residence at 507 Jackson Drive, one of the four Ringling homes completed in 1926 or 1927, is an exemplary example of the Mediterranean Revival architectural style. BOOK 42 Page 15132 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15133 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hartig continued that in 1931, foreclosure action placed this and other properties in the John Ringling Estates subdivision in receivership; that the house was maintained as a rental property from 1927 until 1945; that in 1972, the square footage provided by the original two-story residence and free-standing, one-story garage/apartment was expanded when the original open courtyard/porch between the two buildings was enclosed; that the original residence is dominated by a multiple-variate roofline with flat, hip, shed, and gable roof forms surfaced with clay pantiles. Ms. Hartig continued that the structure has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places as representing John Ringling's efforts in creating an upscale residential development in the John Ringling Estates subdivision and as a fine representation of the Mediterranean Revival architectural style. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. Ellen Maloff, 2620 Grafton Street (34231), deferred from speaking. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Agenda Packet and Minutes of the July 8, 1997, Historic Preservation Board meeting All documentary evidence submitted at the July 8, 1997, public hearing held by the Historic Preservation Board for Petition No. 97-HD-01 City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-4014 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-4014 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4014 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes;. 9. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: ADVISED ELLEN MALOFF TO SUBMIT TO THE ADMINISTRATION A REQUEST TO AGENDA A PRESENTATION BY AN ARBORIST AT A FUTURE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0991) through (1158) The following person came before the Commission: Ellen Malofff, 2620 Grafton Street (34231) Executive Director of ReLEAF Sarasota County, stated that an attempt will be made to provide a presentation by an arborist to the Commission; that Staff has indicated the City consults Richard Sanger, a Horticulturist for Sarasota County, regarding tree protection issues; that Mr. Sanger is knowledgeable and teaches an excellent horticulture course; however, certification as a horticulturist differs from certification as an arborist; that a horticulturist or landscape architect lacks the expertise necessary to preserve trees; that a 50-inch oak tree on the property between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets will be destroyed to enable construction of a commercial retail development project; that the 50-inch oak tree may have been saved if an expert arborist had been available for consultation; that the expertise of landscape architects and ornamental horticulturists is not sufficient. Ms. Maloff continued that ReLEAF may be able to provide the City the services of an arborist to show the advantages of specialized expertise; that more trees could survive if access to the correct information is provided; that people do not consult a dentist for brain surgery; that consulting an individual lacking the expertise of an arborist regarding tree protection does not make sense; that certification provides a special skill; that one year ago, the Ringling School of Art and Design hired a certified arborist; that the arborist should be requested to provide a presentation to the Commission regarding his duties. Ms. Maloff stated that a comment made during a public hearing for approval of a site plan under Agenda Item IV-2 addressed irrigation of a stormwater retention ditch; and asked why a stormwater retention ditch would be irrigated? Commissioner Patterson stated that the stormwater retention pond on the property on U.S. 41 between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets is not a ditch; that the retention pond is dry, shallow, landscaped, and seeded with grass in the middle; that a stormwater retention pond irrigated in dry times will remain attractive; that an attractive retention pond is located in back of a bank on the corner of Siesta Drive and Osprey Avenue; that a retention pond on Siesta Key is also irrigated and attractive. Ms. Maloff stated that a grass-covered, stormwater retention pond must be mowed and irrigated; that vegetation is a much more intelligent use of the area. BOOK 42 Page 15134 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15135 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) mandates the criteria for stormwater retention ponds. Ms. Maloff asked if a certified arborist could be agendaed to make a presentation to the Commission? Mayor Pillot stated that the request should be submitted to the city Manager. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: ENDORSE SARASOTA COUNTY'S RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW A DIRECTIONAL (LEFT-OUT ONLY) MEDIAN OPENING ON BENEVA ROAD APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (1160) through (1278) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that at the February 3, 1997, regular Commission meeting, the decision regarding the request by the Faith Presbyterian Church (FPC) to construct a median opening on Beneva Road was postponed until the Administration could furnish additional information regarding safety and landscaping concerns. Mr. Daughters continued that the FPC has no plans to build a child-care center, intends to employ 8 to 10 people during weekdays, and has committed to a landscape plan in scale with existing medians along Beneva Road; that the FPC has 800 attendees on Sunday and 150 attendees on Saturday and anticipates 10 vehicle trips during peak hours on weekday afternoons. Mr. Daughters further stated that Sarasota County has informed the City that the County's street-tree ordinance will not allow approval of a full access opening; that a full access opening would remove 8 to 10 of the existing 14 trees in the median; that adequate access can be provided with a lert-turn-out-only median on Beneva Road. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends endorsing Sarasota County's recommendation to allow a left-turn-out-only directional median opening on Beneva Road. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CITY WATER WORKS BUILDING DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO: 1) CONSULT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD TO FORMULATE AN RFP FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION OF THE BUILDING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE BUILDING WILL BE RESTORED FOR PRACTICAL USE, 2) PREPARE A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE 3) AMEND THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT BUDGET TO ADVANCE THE COSTS, AND 4) AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION: TO PURSUE THE COURSE OF ACTION WITH REGULAR STATUS REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1). #2 (1280) through (1480) City Manager Sollenberger stated that on August 10, 1997, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported on the deteriorating condition of the City Water Works building; that a newspaper photograph of the building conveys an impression of some deterioration; however, the damage observed during a first-hand inspection was more substantial than * expected; that on April 23, 1984, the building was officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places; that the building provides no practical use; that the potential for adapting the building for reuse is limited due to the layout of the interior and American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; that a course of action to preserve the historical building should be pursued. City Manager Sollenberger continued that the Administration and the Utilities Department should consult with the Historic Preservation Board to formulate a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an architectural evaluation using the standards of the Secretary of Interior as criteria for restoration; that the City should prepare a grant application to the Secretary of State for funding assistance similar to that provided for the restoration of the Municipal Auditorium; that although no funds have been budgeted for the project, the Utilities Department's budget could be amended to advance the cost of the architectural services. City Manager Sollenberger further stated that the Administration recommends approving the outlined course of action and authorizing the Administration to pursue the course of action with regular status reports provided to the Commission. Commissioner Patterson asked the square footage of one level of the building? William Hallisey, Facilities Operations Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the ground level is approximately 2,500 square feet. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the following course of action outlined by the Administration: 1) consult with the Historic Preservation Board to tormulate a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an architectural evaluation of the building using the standards of the Secretary of Interior as criteria for restoration, 2) prepare a grant application to the Secretary of State for funding assistance similar to that provided for restoration of the Municipal Auditorium, 3) amend the Utilities Department budget to advance the costs, and 4) authorize the Administration BOOK 42 Page 15136 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15137 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. to pursue the course of action and provide regular status reports to the Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that City funds were expended to match the State grant when the Municipal Auditorium was renovated; that City funds should not be expended to restore the City Water Works building if the structure cannot be used for a practical purpose; that expending additional funds to restore the building as a useable facility is supported; that the building could be used for City business, leased to a private entity, or used for public events such as art display; that the cost estimates should include the necessary allocation to convert the structure into a useable facility. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the direction to convert the building into a useable facility should be included in the section of the motion addressing the consultation between the Administration and the Historic Preservation Board required to develop the proper restoration goals. Mayor Pillot stated there is a consensus of the Commission to direct the Administration to address renovation of the City Water Works building for practical use during consultation with the Historic Preservation Board. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a tour of the City Water Works Building is desired. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a tour will be arranged. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to approve the following course of action outlined by the Administration: 1) consult with the Historic Preservation Board to formulate an RFP for an architectural evaluation of the building using the standards of the Secretary of Interior as criteria with the understanding that the building will be restored for practical use, 2) prepare a grant application to the Secretary of State for funding assistance 3) amend the Utilities Department budget to advance the costs, and 4) authorize the Administration to pursue the course of action with regular status reports to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - SUPPORTED DISTRIBUTION OF REVISED DOCUMENT REGARDING FDOT TO DELEGATES OF THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES; REQUESTED ADMINISTRATION TO: DEVELOP VISVALIZATIONS OF LOW-LEVEL, ALTERNATIVE BRIDGES AND EXPEND NO FUNDS FOR VISVALIZATIONS OF 48-FOOT BASCULE OR HIGH-LEVEL, FIXED-SPAN BRIDGES, CONSIDER RETAINING AN ARBORIST TO ASSIST IN ENFORCING THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE, DEVELOP A LONG-TERM MASTER PLAN FOR STREET BEAUTIFICATION AND PREPARE A REPORT REGARDING CURRENTLY UNSIGHTLY STREETS; AND REOUESTED CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP TO ADDRESS PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES AND INVITE LOCAL PARLIAMENTARIAN TO PROVIDE PRESENTATION (AGENDA ITEM X) #2 (1482) through #3 (0167) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. distributed a one-page document entitled "FDOT An Agency Out of Control?" and stated that copies of the document will be provided to the 300 delegates attending the August 21 and 22, 1997, Florida League of Cities meeting in Orlando; that one side of the document presents the findings of David Levin, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., regarding the City's battle with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) as related to the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge; that the delegates will be requested to respond to a questionnaire included in the document regarding their experiences with FDOT; that Attorney Levin and City Attorney Taylor have reviewed the document; that corrections made by Attorney Levin to the original draft have been incorporated in the current document. Mayor Pillot stated that the document is extremely well written; however, the FDOT should be invited to meet with the Commission, as suggested by Commissioner Merrill at the August 4, 1997, regular Commission meeting, before formal litigation is initiated; that distributing the document to Statewide delegates may hinder any positive results from a meeting between the Commission and the FDOT. Commissioner Cardamone stated that distributing the document will enable the City to learn how other communities in the State resolve difficulties with the FDOT; that the delegates are not mandated to respond to the questionnaire. Mayor Pillot stated that the content of the document as approved by the City Attorney and Attorney Levin is not a concern. Commissioner Merrill stated that distribution of the document should be postponed until after the lawsuit against the FDOT is actually filed; that the FDOT should be provided the opportunity to meet with the Commission; that many City infrastructure projects such as landscaping of U.S. 41 and the Southside Streetscape Project were funded by the FDOT. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the medians on John Ringling Parkway were installed due to a State grant from FDOT. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City currently has a difference of opinion with the FDOT; that entitling the document BOOK 42 Page 15138 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15139 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. "FDOT An Agency Out of Control?" may be construed as inflammatory; that David Twiddy, District One Secretary of the FDOT, should be invited to meet with the Commission; that the document could be distributed after litigation becomes inevitable; that changing the heading to soften the tone of the message may be appropriate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the time frame for distributing the document is perfect; that over half of the 400 cities in the State will send delegates to the Florida League of Cities meeting; that Attorney Levin is eagerly anticipating the information from other Cities. Commissioner Merrill stated that distributing a document with a less confrontational heading is supported. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the heading will be revised. Commissioner Patterson stated that three paragraphs of the document end with statements declaring the FDOT acted "in clear violation of State Law" and one paragraph ends with the statement "in clear violation of Federal Law"; and asked if the statements, presented in bold text, should be deleted? Mayor Pillot stated that the statements "in clear violation of State/Federal Law" are a concern; that the new District One Secretary of FDOT may interpret the four statements accusing the FDOT of violating the law as a challenge to the legality of the FDOT's actions. Commissioner Cardamone asked how the language should be revised? Commissioner Patterson stated that the statements could be changed to "in apparent violation of State/Federal law." Mayor Pillot stated that the four statements in bold text should be deleted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the language will be revised. Commissioner Patterson stated that the documents could be mailed to the 300 delegates of the Florida League of Cities after the City decides whether or not to pursue litigation with the FDOT. Mayor Pillot agreed. Commissioner Merrill stated that mailings do not always generate a significant response. Commissioner Patterson stated that distributing the document at the Florida League of Cities meeting would be advantageous and provide Commissioners the opportunity to discuses the issue personally with the delègates. Commissioner Merrill stated that the heading should be revised and the four statements "in clear violation of State/Federal Law" deleted. Mayor Pillot stated that the document will be supported if the four statements are deleted and the heading is revised. Commissioner Merrill agreed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the language will be revised and the tone softened. Commissioner Patterson stated that the document is well done. COMMISSIONER MERRILL: A. stated that continuing research related to construction of a 48-foot bascule bridge to replace the existing Ringling Causeway Bridge is no longer supported. Mayor Pillot agreed. Commissioner Merrill stated that an individual is drafting an illustration of a 48-foot bascule bridge to prove to the Commission that the proposal is inadvisable; that the exercise is pointless as, a 48-foot bascule bridge is no longer supported. Mayor Pillot stated there is a consensus of the Commission to cease further study of a 48-foot or mid-sized bascule bridge. Commissioner Patterson stated that she requested a visualization of the 48-foot bascule bridge; that the City rejected the proposed 65-foot, high-level bridge without reviewing an aesthetic design concept of a 48-foot, bascule bridge. Commissioner Merrill stated that defending the Commission's previous support of a 48-foot bascule bridge may be difficult if an aesthetic design concept is developed and presented to the public at a regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge Aesthetic Task Team previously determined a 48-foot, bascule bridge would be less aesthetically pleasing than a 65-foot, high-level bridge; that the Bridge Too High Committee, which is funding the visualization of the 48-foot bascule bridge, should be notified of the Commission's change of direction. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he, the City Attorney, and Engineering Staff met with Attorney Levin to discuss the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement process; that a consensus was reached to develop visualizations of a variety of bridges such as a BOOK 42 Page 15140 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15141 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. 35-foot, low-level bridge, a 48-foot bascule bridge, and 65- to 80-foot, high-level bridges; that cost estimates to visualize the aesthetics and landing points of various bridges will be returned to the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that the visualization of a 65-foot, high-level bridge is of no interest; that a visualization of Alternative 7R, the construction of a bridge parallel to the existing structure as recommended by the FDOT's Value Engineering Team, should be developed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a visualization of Alternative "R", the proposal to widen and rehabilitate the existing bridge as presented in the Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Report by Greiner, Inc., should be developed. Mayor Pillot stated that funds should not be expended for a visualization of a 65- or 80-foot, high-level bridge. Commissioner Patterson asked if interest in funding a visualization of a 35-foot bascule bridge exists? Mayor Pillot stated that funding a visualization of a 35-foot bascule bridge is not a problem; however, a visualization of a fixed bridge of any height is unnecessary. Commissioner Cardamone agreed. Mayor Pillot stated that Attorney Levin informed the Commission that a 65-foot, high-level bridge cannot be constructed due to United States (U.S.) Coast Guard mandated requirements. Commissioner Patterson stated that 65-foot, high-level bridges are under construction in Florida and North and South Carolina; that instances when the U.S. Coast Guard has informed cities to increase the height of a bridge from 65 feet to 80 feet are unknown; that data regarding the U.S. Coast Guard's rejection of other communities' bridge designs should be presented. Commissioner Patterson continued that Attorney Levin's legal argument includes the claim that the U.S. Coast Guard will not allow construction of a fixed-span bridge under 80 feet in height; that the FDOT can present the opposing argument that the U.S. Coast Guard actually has permitted construction of 65-foot, high-level bridges in other communities. Mayor Pillot stated that Attorney Levin has advised the FDOT has not consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge; that Attorney Levin's case includes the following evidence: 1) Federal Law including Supreme Court Decisions regarding the rights of free navigation, 2) the size and number of boats which cannot travel under a 65-foot, high-level bridge as presented by FDOT's own counsel, 3) the U.S. Coast Guard's declaration that a permit will not be issued for a 65-foot, high-level bridge unless a sufficient number of tall-masted boats are able to travel underneath, 4) the destruction to Bird Key Park by an 80-foot, high-level bridge, and 5) Attorney Levin's absolute declaration that a 65-foot, high-level bridge will not be built in Sarasota. Commissioner Patterson stated that a 65-foot, high-level bridge is being constructed in Daytona Beach. Mayor Pillot stated that the number of boats traveling under the bridge in Daytona Beach obviously are fewer in number than those estimated in Sarasota; that the U.S. Coast Guard required the height of a bridge in Clearwater be increased from 65 feet to 75 feet. Commissioner Cardamone stated that fewer tall-masted boats travel through Clearwater than Sarasota. City Manager Sollenberger stated that 30 tall-masted boats per year travel under the bridge in Clearwater; that 13 tall-masted boats traveled under the Ringling Causeway Bridge just in the month of January. Mayor Pillot stated that an even higher number of call-masted boats travel through Sarasota during April and May. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the high number of tall-masted boats traveling through Sarasota is attributed to the affluence of the local community. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that Ellen Maloff, who addressed the Commission under Citizens' Input, indicated arborists have greater expertise than landscape architects; that although some landscape architects have received training comparable to arborists, the City should consider retaining an arborist as a consultant for specific site plan reviews under the Tree Protection Ordinance; that the City may receive legal protection if the expertise of an arborist is used to determine whether or not a tree is damaged beyond saving; that the services of an arborist will be valuable if the Tree Protection Ordinance is made more stringent. Commissioner Cardamone requested a status report regarding the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) plans to remove oak trees from a section of the public right-of-way located on Bay Road near Osprey Avenue. BOOK 42 Page 15142 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15143 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that a verdict from the FDOT arborist is awaited; that according to Tom Lyons, a columnist for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the FDOT has indicated the trees must be removed for the public safety; that although a written opinion has not been received, the FDOT's report does not appear definitive. Commissioner Merrill stated that overly stringent regulation of private property owner's back yards prevented Commission approval of a recently revised version of the Tree Protection Ordinance; that clear guidelines for saving 50-inch oak trees should be developed; however, the City should not interfere with private property rights; that a tree expert has advised that trees naturally proliferate in residential areas except mobile home parks; that commercial development should be regulated to protect trees. Commissioner Merrill continued that a great many large oak trees remained in front of Albertson's Food and Pharmacy Store when The Landings Shopping Center was first developed; however, none of the trees remain; that the site plan for the shopping center developed at University Parkway and Lockwood Ridge Road indicated a large number of trees would be saved; that only a few dying trees remain; that contractors under deadline do not consider saving trees as a high priority. Commissioner Merrill continued that trees can be saved if the roots are pruned prior to bulldozer excavation; that trees whose roots are eviscerated by a bulldozer become diseased; that the Tree Protection Ordinance should be revised to save large, old trees; however, a single-family home owner should not be prevented from removing a tree to plant a tomato garden. Commissioner Patterson stated that the existing Tree Protection Ordinance is extremely restrictive and does not save large, old trees; that a householder is not permitted to remove a tree to plant a vegetable garden; that although private property owners can plant as many trees as desired, the trees, once full grown, cannot be removed or relocated for any reason; that the existing Tree Protection Ordinance is extremely restrictive, annoying to single-family home owners, and fails to save large, old trees. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Tree Protection Ordinance could include a stipulation that a tree cannot be removed if doing so reduces the number of trees on the parcel to below a specified minimum level. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission comments should be forwarded to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board which will review a revised Tree Protection Ordinance in the near future; that developers should be required to reconfigure a structure on a development site in order to save large, old trees. VICE MAYOR DUPREE: A. stated that the conditions of at least six City streets, require the City's attention; that streets should be repaved within a specified period of time after subterranean pipes are installed; that Central Avenue from Tenth Street to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, Orange Avenue from 10th Street to 12th Street, streets in Gillespie Park, East and Lime Avenues, and sections of Brink and Briggs Avenues require beautification; that a streetscape program should be developed. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Central Avenue, disrupted by the installation of reclaimed water lines, will be repaved soon; that a complete list of the aforementioned streets should be developed; that Orange Avenue between 10th and 17th Street may be rebuilt; that the west side of Lime Avenue may be beautified if the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) extension is approved; that the Administration could provide an report outlining the condition of City streets. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that additional lighting and beautification is required; that the Administration has brought existing problems to the attention of the people responsible for finding solutions; however, only minimal lighting has been installed on the streets; that drug dealing is facilitated by the poor lighting on Cocoanut and Central Avenues and throughout Gillespie Park; that a Master Plan is required to beautify and install lighting on City streets. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the streetscape project for Osprey Avenue in Laurel Park is absolutely beautiful; that Osprey Avenue south of U.S. 41 to Hillview Street and north of Ringling Boulevard to Gillespie Park should be paved with decorative brick circles at each intersection; that the effect is gorgeous. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that he does not intend to imply that City Manager Sollenberger is not following up on Commission requests; that a long-term Master Plan should be developed to make the rest of the streets in the City as beautiful as Osprey Avenue. MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that Yolanda Rodriguez, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reporter who covers City government news made the necessary effort to pursue an interview when he was out of town last week; that Ms. Rodriguez's dedication is appreciated; that the editors of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune should continue to assign Ms. Rodriguez to covering the City's business for a long BOOK 42 Page 15144 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15145 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. time; that good press is honest press; that reporting without preference or favoritism to anyone is the best kind of reporting; that Ms. Rodriguez has never misquoted or misrepresented the Commissioners; that good reporting is impartial reporting; that Ms. Rodriguez provides the public with accurate news reports. B. stated that he attended a Cincinnati Reds baseball game in Cincinnati, Ohio; that he had the opportunity to throw a ball from in front of the pitcher's mound, the ball hit home plate, and the catcher caught the baseball on the rebound; that Marge Schott, the owner of the Cincinnati Reds, invited his party and three other representatives of the Sarasota Sports Committee to watch the game from her private box; that Ms. Schott was a delightful hostess; that after the game, a continuous flow of adults and children requested autographs from Ms. Schott who was friendly and gracious with everyone; that Ms. Schott is extremely honest and trustworthy; that comments made in the past may have caused some difficulty with the National League; however, Ms. Schott is friendly, gracious, and honest. C. stated that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune published articles regarding the inordinate length of Commission meetings; that Commission consensus is requested to schedule a workshop addressing the subject; that the workshop could begin with a review of parliamentary procedures presented by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson; that discussion regarding the proper application of Roberts Rules of Order should follow the presentation; that a workshop could be scheduled if consensus exists. Commissioner Patterson stated that scheduling a workshop is supported; however, the presentation should be made by Jane Pratt, the parliamentarian at Manatee Community College; that disagreement between Commissioners regarding the proper use of parliamentary procedure exists; that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson should not be placed in an uncomfortable position. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he and Ms. Pratt are teaching a parliamentary course in Clearwater in November; that the possibility of Ms. Pratt presenting a review of procedures to the Commission has been discussed. Mayor Pillot stated there is a consensus of the Commission to schedule a workshop to address parliamentary procedures. Commissioner Patterson stated that members of the public have questioned the length of Commission meetings; that Ray Pilon and Jack O'Neil, Commissioners, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners, advised that the County Commission conducts eight-hour meetings, four to five times per month; however, the County Commission is never criticized for conducting long meetings; that the City Commission conducts two meetings per month without the multiplicity of issues addressed by the County Commission; that scheduling regular Commission meetings in the evening is perceived by many citizens. . as a problem; that making rational decisions at a late hour is difficult; that members of the public question why City Commission meetings cannot be conducted during the day. Commissioner Patterson continued that the Commission should review the way items are scheduled on the agendas; that although few items were addressed at this evening's meeting, three items generating enormous public input were scheduled on the agenda of the August 4, 1997, regular Commission meeting; that one or more of the items scheduled at the last meeting could have been placed on this evening's agenda; that the Commission should direct the Administration to place no more than one controversial item on the agenda for each meeting; that armed with concrete direction from the Commission, the City Manager will be in a better position to place an item on an agenda two weeks later than the person requesting the scheduling would prefer. Mayor Pillot stated that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune recently quoted him as saying the scheduling of items on the agenda should be carefully considered; that although parliamentary procedure should not hinder the Commission's freedom to function, criticism has been offered on some occasions for the Chair's lack of leadership and on others for the dictatorial use of the gavel; that the Commission should determine how the meetings should be conducted; that rulings will not be made if the expected result is a motion to overrule the chair; that parameters for parliamentary procedures should be developed. Commissioner Patterson stated that scheduling a workshop will be beneficial; however, the issue of scheduling items on the agenda should not be disregarded. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a special meeting should be scheduled when an item expected to generate extensive public input is scheduled. Commissioner Patterson stated that special meetings are not televised. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that since January 1997, a large percentage of regular Commission meetings have continued past 11:30 p.m.; that scheduling controversial items for meetings in the future will be ineffectual as most of the meetings are already running past 11:30 p.m.; that the current meeting schedule has been in place since the previous Charter of the City of Sarasota was enacted BOOK 42 Page 15146 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15147 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. during a time when the City oversaw a greater number of functions such as the Fire and Parks and Recreation Departments. Commissioner Merrill continued that exercising some discipline would be beneficial; that he and the Mayor were frustrated during the public hearing under Agenda Item IV-2 this evening; that several Commissioners requested the petitioner to agree to restricted hours of operation for a commercial retail development project; that the petitioner's opposition to stipulating restricted hours of operation was evident after the second round of questions; that the discussion became entrenched in constant repetition; that two hours was expended discussing an item the Commission knew would be approved. Commissioner Cardamone stated that continued effort sometimes produces results. Commissioner Merrill stated that Roberts Rule of Order is a time-honored and refined mechanism; that comments previously made that Roberts Rules of Order is not intended for small groups or that the procedures are too dictatorial indicate a lack of knowledge. Commissioner Patterson stated that uncomplimentary inferences towards other Commissioners should not be made. Commissioner Merrill stated that under Roberts Rules of Order, he still has the floor; that Roberts Rules of Order provides guidance as to how meetings should be run; that scheduling special meetings to address controversial issues is the least preferred option. Mayor Pillot stated that scheduling special meetings is his least preferred option as well. Commissioner Merrill stated that one special meeting was scheduled to address a specific issue when he was Mayor; that although opinions differ as to how meetings can be improved, necessary steps should be initiated to expedite the time frame of the meetings. Commissioner Patterson stated that although Commissioner Merrill may not intend to be uncomplimentary, reflecting on other individuals' lack of self-discipline as indicated by comments made to and published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune or commenting on other Commissioner's lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure may hinder good relationships with fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Merrill stated that Commissioner Patterson's comment is out of order; that Roberts Rules of Order indicates Commissioners should not admonish each other. Commissioner Patterson stated that Commissioner Merrill is out of order; that she has still has the floor. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is requesting the Mayor to address a point of order. Mayor Pillot stated that he is going to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Patterson stated that regular Commission meetings have always been conducted in the evening; however, unlimited public input has been allowed only during the past few years; that previous Commissions adjourned at 11:30 p.m. and reconvened the next day; that previous Commissions addressed the problem of long meetings without limiting Commission debate. Commissioner Patterson continued that the Mayor became impatient during the agenda item addressing the commercial retail development project; that she recognized the Commission's lack of legal authority to impose restricted hours of operation; that an attempt was made to persuade the petitioner to consider restricted hours of operation for the commercial retail development project; that this evening's meeting will conclude at 9 p.m.; that controversial items should be distributed equitably between the meetings rather than crowding several items onto one agenda. Commissioner Merrill stated that the sitting Commission rescheduled regular meetings to begin at 6 p.m. rather than 7 p.m. to enable the Commission to expedite important issues and still conclude the meetings at an appropriate hour. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion to allow expanded public input was made in June 1989 when Commissioners Lou Ann Palmer, Kerry Kirschner, Jack Gurney, and Fredd Atkins were serving on the Commission. 13. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS REQUESTED OUT-OF-THE-SUNSHINE MEETING REGARDING JOHN RINGLING TOWERS FEDERAL COURT MEDIATION (AGENDA ITEM XI) #3 (0168) through (0247) CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: A. stated that a Commissioner has inquired regarding the upcoming Federal Court mediation session with C. Robert Buford, representing an owner interest in the John Ringling Towers (JRT) property, and the John Ringling Centre (JRC) Foundation; that the Commissioner requested information regarding the possibility of conducting an ut-or-the-sunahine meeting to provide the Commission a BOOK 42 Page 15148 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15149 08/18/97 6:00 P.M. status report regarding the parties' standings; that an out-or-the-sunshine meeting can be called only if the City Attorney requires Commission input regarding settlement negotiation or litigation costs; that the Commission is requested to determine whether an out-or-the-sunshine meeting should be scheduled at his request for the purpose of receiving an analysis of the parties' standings; that the Commission will have the opportunity to instruct the City Manager and the city Attorney as to the City's position during the mediation session. Mayor Pillot asked if an out-of-the-sunshine meeting would be legal? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mayor Pillot stated there is a consensus of the Commission to conduct an out-of-the-sunshine meeting to address the John Ringling Towers (JRT) litigation. City Attorney Taylor stated that a meeting will be scheduled. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that a special meeting will be scheduled before September 1, 1997, to address the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 4008 regarding the solid waste increase ordinance. Commissioner Patterson stated that she will not be able to attend the special meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a quorum of three Commissioners to approve the proposed ordinance is sufficient. 14. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (0248) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the regular meeting of August 18, 1997, at 9:05 p.m. nin GENE PILLOT, MAYOR SOTA ATTES EL 7 Rul 8 BILLY EEROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 90