BOOK 47 Page 19835 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2000, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT : Mayor Gene M. Pillot, Vice Mayor Albert F. Hogle, Commissioners Mollie C. Cardamone, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen D. McGowan, and Sarah A. Schenk, City Attorney's Office. ABSENT: City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor PRESIDING: Mayor Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:05 p.m. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Pillot stated that welcoming back Jencie Davis, a regular Commission meeting attendee, after an illness is a pleasure. 1. PRESENTATION RE: REPORT RE: REPORT TO THE. CITY COMMISSION FROM THE SARASOTA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO ATTENDED THE HAMILTON, ONTARIO, VIDEO CAMP #1 (0048) through (0605) Mayor Pillot requested that Hope Byrnes, President, Sarasota Sister Cities Association (SSCA), join him before the Commission and stated that several Sarasota high school students attended a video camp in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, which is one of the City of Sarasota Sister Cities; that additionally, the SSCA sponsored a tree planting ceremony on August 7, 2000, at the bayfront. Ms. Byrnes stated that the City and the County established a program to plant 2,000 trees; that the SSCA decided to plant trees in honor of the City's five Sister Cities; that the first tree was planted by the SSCA in December 2000 on behalf the Mayor of Tel Mond, Israel, near the bayfront; that Robert Morrow, Mayor of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and Olga Sokolova, Economics Department, City of Vladimir, Russia, are visiting the City on behalf of two of the City's Sister Cities; that representatives from the remaining Sister Cities will visit in the future; that the planted trees will serve as a living reminder of the ties between the City of Sarasota and the Sister Cities. Mayor Pillot requested that Ms. Sokolova join him before the Commission; stated that Ms. Sokolova is welcomed by the City; and presented Ms. Sokolova an honorary citizenship in the City. Ms. Sokolova stated that serving as the representative of the City of Vladimir in visiting the City is a pleasure and an honor; that the tree planting ceremony symbolizes the strong ties and friendship between the Cities of Sarasota and Vladimir; that the City and SSCA are thanked for the kindness and hospitality; and presented the Mayor with gifts from the City of Vladimir. Mayor Pillot stated that the gifts are appreciated and will be prominently displayed; that a number of residents, including he and his wife, had the opportunity to visit the City of Vladimir five years ago; that the visit was enjoyed by all; that a number of students from the City of Vladimir visited the City of Sarasota for ten days; that the two cities have strong ties; that greetings and salutations are extended to the Mayor of Vladimir; and requested that Mayor Morrow join him before the Commission. Mayor Morrow that the City of Sarasota is personally visited frequently; that the efforts of Dr. Kumar Mahadevan, Executive Director, Mote Marine Aquarium and Laboratory (Mote Marine), to honor William Mote, benefactor of Mote Marine, are appreciated; that Dr. Mahadevan broached the idea of the City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and the City of Sarasota becoming Sister Cities ten years ago; that the efforts of SSCA staff are appreciated; that a strong bond exists between the Cities of Hamilton and Sarasota as a result of the hard work and dedication of SSCA staff; that ten Sarasota high school students went to the City of Hamilton for a video camp recently; that the video camp was 38: initiated by the City of Sarasota in 1998; that 60 high school students from other sister cities and many countries attended the recent video camp in the City of Hamilton; that the video camp was also a result of other exchange efforts, including the exchange of television anchorpersons from Channel 40 of the City of Sarasota and Channel 11 of the City of Hamilton, art exchanges, flora exchanges and a book exchange sponsored by the Selby Public Libraryi that the relationship between the Cities of Hamilton and Sarasota is strong and living; that the support of the City of Sarasota is appreciated; and presented gifts of a flag of .the City of Hamilton, City of Hamilton pins, and a carving crafted by the Inuit people of Ontario, Canada, to the City. Mayor Pillot stated that the gifts will be placed in the display case in City Hall for all citizens to enjoy and requested that Dr. Jeff Giordano, Liaison, SSCA, and the students attending the video camp in the City of Hamilton join him before the Commission and the following students came forward: BOOK 47 Page 19836 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19837 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Laura Echstenkamper, Leila Brown, Mégan Praschak, Eddie Sotomayor, Jr., Vincent Czyzewski, Josh Tammaro, Emily Gironda, and Brandon Pauley Dr. Giordano stated that many of the high school students attending the video camp in the City of Hamilton also attend the video camp hosted by the City of Sarasota in 1998. Ms. Echstenkamper stated that the opportunity to participate in the video camp was appreciated; that the video camp was an educating and enjoyable experience; that all participating students had similar experiences; that much was learned at the video câmp, which was staffed with knowledgeable and experienced teachers; that students had the opportunity to work at a local cable television station while at the video camp; that new Panasonic cameras were donated by the Matsushita Electronic Components Company, Limited, for training; that many students from other countries participated in the video camp, which afforded all students the opportunity to learn about other cultures and peoples; that students also had the opportunity to visit the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; that the City of Hamilton is beautiful and enjoyable to visit; that the efforts of Mayor Morrow to meet the needs of all video camp participants, the hospitality of the families hosting students during the video camp, and the video camp planning efforts of SSCA staff are appreciated. Ms. Brown stated that the efforts of Mayor Morrow and the host families to provide suitable accommodations for students and the efforts of SSCA staff are appreciated; that the City of Hamilton is beautiful; that all students enjoyed the opportunity to visit the City of Hamilton; that the residents of the City of Hamilton were hospitable and friendly; that the opportunity to cooperate with students from other countries and cultures was appreciated by all students; that the opportunity to view the live filming and editing of a television program was informational, educational and provided invaluable experience; that most students had. never participated in the creation of a television program; that the opportunity to visit the City of Toronto is also appreciated; that the video cameras provided by Panasonic enhanced the quality of the education by video camp instructors; that video camp confirmed a personal interest to seek a career in video and television production and provided instruction on film editing and techniques of linear and non-linear systems; that the opportunity to participate in the video camp is personally appreciated. Dr. Giordano stated that the efforts of the City and the community to support the SSCA and the students' attendance at the video camp are appreciated; that Elanor Morrow, mother of Mayor Morrow is present in the audience. Mayor Morrow stated that George Morrow, III, and Kern Morrow, sons, are present in the audience; that George provided help during the video camp; that John Jellinek and Edward Puglia are present in the audience and provided assistance during the students' tours around the City of Hamilton. Mayor Pillot asked the material of the carving presented to the City of Sarasota by the City of Hamilton? Mayor Morrow stated that the carving consists of soapstone and was made by the Inuit people of northern Ontario. Mayor Pillot stated that the gifts from the Cities of Hamilton and Vladimir are appreciated and will be displayed for all to see; that the active participation of Sarasota high school students in the video camp is pleasing; that the City welcomes future exchanges among Sister Cities. 2. PRESENTATION RE: : MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. O0R-1289, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF WILLIAM RUSSELL MOTE, WHOSE LOVE OF THE SEA BUILT AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED MARINE LABORATORY WHICH BECAME HIS NAMESAKE I MOTE MARINE LABORATORY AND AQUARIUM, IN SARASOTA = ADOPTED #1 (0605) through (0835) Mayor Pillot stated that the community, the City, the State, the Nation and the world recently lost William Russell Mote, a gentleman who contributed significant efforts and resources to ensure the success of the Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium (Mote Marine); that the research conducted at Mote Marine provides the global community with many benefits and includes efforts to cure cancer; and requested Dr. Kumar Mahadevan, Executive Director, and Dan Bebak, Director, Mote Marine, join him before the Commission. Mayor Pillot continued that Memorial Resolution No. O0R-1289 recognizes the July 18, 2000, passing of William Russell Mote, a friend and benefactor of the community and read Memorial Resolution No. O0R-1289 in its entirety. Mayor Pillot further stated that Mr. Mote leaves behind a legacy and will long be remembered as a community leader and as a citizen whose life will serve as a role model for future BOOK 47 Page 19838 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19839 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. generations to follow; that Mr. Mote's passing represents a distinct loss to the City and community On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. O0R-1289. Mayor Pillot requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that Dr. Mahadevan was among Mr. Mote's closest friends and associates; and presented a copy of the memorial resolution appropriately framed on a plaque to Dr. Mahadevan. Dr. Mahadevan stated that Memorial Resolution No. O0R-1289 is deeply appreciated; that Mr. Mote loved the City and proudly spoke of the decision to move Mote Marine to City Island; that the efforts of Robert Johnson, former State legislator, Kenneth Thompson, former City Manager, and Perry Hilbert were particularly appreciated by Mr. Mote in the move of Mote Marine to the present location; that Mr. Mote considered the City as the greatest friend of Mote Marine; that the efforts of the City and the community to support Mote Marine are sincerely appreciated. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0835) through (0860) Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Unfinished Business, Item No. VI-1, Presentation Re: Petition regarding the decision concerning closure of Orange Avenue in the vicinity of Booker High School, per the request of Commissioner Mason. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yesi Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF JULY 5 AND JULY 17, 2000, AND THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 20, 2000 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0860) through (0870) Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the July 5 and July 17, 2000 Regular Commission meetings and the July 20, 2000 Special Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 5. BOARD ACTIONS RE: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 6, 2000 SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4223 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-1-A AND B) #1 (0870) through (0980) Robert A. Lindsay, Member, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), and Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission. Mr. Lindsay presented the following items from the July 6, 2000 Regular PBLP meeting: A. Application No. 00-ZTA-06 Re: Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Code (1998) concerning the City's Public. Art Program. Mr. Lindsay stated that Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 00-ZTA-06 amends regulations pertaining to Public Art in the Zoning Code (1998) as follows: 1. Clarifies the definition of public art. 2. Eliminates the provision for temporarily increasing the composition of the Public Art Committee. 3. Adds language describing the intent and purpose of public art requirements. 4. Adds a provision that public art located on private parcels be installed outside of any buildings. 5. Delete a reference to an outdated 1995 map of potential public art locations. 6. Modifies and clarifies the process for public art requirements by developments. 7. Clarifies the timing for the provision of public art and provides a process for granting time extensions. 8. Provides a process for returning deposits after the certification of installation of public art and the forfeiture of deposits, after notice, in the event that requirements are not met. BOOK 47 Page 19840 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19841 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. 9. Provides a process for the appeal of Public Art Committee decisions to the City Commission. 10. Provides standards for the approval or disapproval of public art. Mr. Lindsay stated that at its July 6, 2000, Regular meeting, the PBLP held a public hearing and voted unanimously 4 to 0 to find Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 00-ZTA-06 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4223 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) and satisfies the Standards for Review set forth in Section IV-1206, Zoning Code (1998), and to recommend Commission approval, subject to minor revisions to indicate the durability and permanence of the objects which qualify under the ordinance incorporated as follows: Section II-201. Definitions Public art or public works of art: Public art or public works of art is defined as the relative application of skill and taste by artists to production of permanent tangible objects according [to] the aesthetic principles, including but not limited to, paintings, sculptures, site specific installations, engravings, carvings, frescos, mobiles, murals, collages, mosaics, statues, and bas-reliefs. Public art or public works of art shall also include the creative application of skill and taste by artists according to aesthetic principles to the architectural embellishment of a building or structure. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting proposed Ordinance No. 00-4223 for public hearing and' incorporating changes recommended by the PBLP and Staff in Section II-201, Definitions, into the proposed ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 00-4223 for public hearing and incorporate changes recommended by the PBLP and Staff in Section II-201, Definitions. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Application Nos. 00-CU-04 and 00-SP-16 Re: Proposed Resolution No. O0R-1286 concerning approval for a drive-through accessory use to a proposed ,910-square-foot bank at 3800 South Tamiami Trail (Tract I) Mr. Lindsay stated that Conditional Use Application No. 00-CU-04 and Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-16 is for a drive-through accessory use to a proposed ,910-square-toot bank at 3800 South Tamiami Trail; that the site is in the Commercial Shopping Center-Community Shopping (CSC-C) Zone District and surrounded on all sides by offices and commercial uses and not residentially zoned property; that the proposed bank and drive-through are within an outparcel located in the northwest corner of the Paradise Plaza Shopping Center, formerly known as the Crossroads Shopping Center; that the uses were previously approved through Special Exception Petition No. 95-SE-03, which allows a free-standing supermarket and a drive-through bank in a CSC-C Zone District, subject to a February 27, 1995, Development Agreement between the City and Paradise Plaza Trust; that the terms of the Development Agreement have been fulfilled; that at its July 6, 2000, Regular meeting, the PBLP voted unanimously 4 to 0 to find Major Conditional Use Application No. 00-CU-04 and Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-16 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. O0R-1286 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and to recommend Commission approval; that proposed Resolution No. O0R-1286 which will be considered under Agenda Item III-B affirms the PBLP's actions. Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission should take action on the PBLP's recommendation? Attorney Schenk stated that the Commission will take action on the PBLP's recommendation under Agenda Item III-B, Consent Agenda No. 2, and may choose to affirm the action of the PBLP by adopting proposed Resolution No. O0R-1286 or set proposed Resolution No. O0R-1286 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to receive the board report of the July 6, 2000, Regular PBLP meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS RE: REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE ' S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 5, 2000 RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0980) through (1645) Kate O'Connell, Chairman, Public Art Committee, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission. BOOK 47 Page 19842 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19843 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Ms. O'Connell presented the following items from the July 5, 2000, Special Public Art Committee meeting: A. Proposed Resolution No. O0R-1287 Re: Public Art Policy Statement Ms. O'Connell stated that at its July 5, 2000, Special meeting, the Public Art Committee voted unanimously to approve the City of Sarasota Public Art Policy Statement (Policy Statement) and recommend Commission approval of proposed Resolution No. OOR-1287 incorporating the Policy Statement. Commissioner Quillin quoted proposed Exhibit A, entitled "City of Sarasota Public Art Policy Statement", Resolution No. OOR-1287 as follows: The City will specify in contract its right to reproduce images of the art in print or broadcast media for promotional purposes only, all other copyrights remaining with the artist. Commissioner Quillin asked if a possible conflict exists between the language in the Policy Statement and the City's ownership of art. Ms. O'Connell stated that proposed Resolution No. O0R-1287 allows the City to advertise images of publicly held art in brochures or other promotional media; however, the City cannot produce or manufacture for sale lithographs of publicly held art; that the artist continues to hold certain rights to the artwork after sale. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City holds all rights to art after purchase? Ms. O'Connell stated no. Commissioner Quillin stated that museums manufacture and produce lithographs of purchased artwork. Ms. O'Connell stated that the owner of any artwork cannot reproduce or manufacture lithographs, facsimiles or moldings of a particular artwork without the express consent of the artist but can photograph, display or publicize the purchased artwork. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City could reproduce any publicly held artwork such as images of art printed on coffee mugs? Ms. O'Connell stated that the City could do sO if the consent of the artist is obtained; that artists are generally willing to give consent to such uses which provide further publicity for the artists' works. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City does not budget for the upkeep and maintenance of public art; that a percentage of the funds allotted for the purchase of public art should be set aside for the maintenance of artwork owned by the City. Ms. O'Connell stated that a maintenance contract and schedule is required for the purchase of artwork specifying the annual costs for necessary maintenance; that the Public Art Committee is interviewing individuals to assess the maintenance costs - of current public art; that maintenance costs are evaluated on an annual basis and updated upon the purchase of each new artwork for budgetary purposes; that allocating a percentage of the funds designated for the purchase of public art for maintenance costs of existing artwork would inhibit the Public Art Committee's ability to purchase new artworks; however, the Public Art Committee is cognizant of maintenance and display costs and anticipates funding such costs as each artwork is purchased. Commissioner Quillin stated that a percentage of allotted funds could be deducted before the Public Art Committee receives the actual funds to purchase art. Ms. O'Connell stated that the Commission has the right to withdraw funds from the Public Art fund; that separate funds should be allocated for maintenance in addition to funds already allocated for the purchase of public art. Mayor Pillot asked if the Public Art Committee could devise a budget of maintenance costs for submission to the City? Ms. O'Connell stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Public Art Committee deliberations to purchase artwork include maintenance considerations; that maintenance of public artwork should be funded as part of the City maintenance budget; that acquiring art is expensive and time-consuming; that funds allocated to purchase artwork for the public should be used only for such purposes. Mayor Pillot stated that the Public Art Committee should develop recommendations for presentation to the Administration, which will advise the Commission concerning appropriate action. B. Acquisition of Plaques for Public Art Sculptures BOOK 47 Page 19844 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19845 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Ms. O'Connell distributed pictures of two newly acquired sculptures and stated that at the July 5, 2000, Special meeting, the Public Art Committee voted unanimously to request the Commission approve an expenditure of $1,900 from the Public Art fund to provide bronze plaques for existing public art and two newly acquired pieces; that plaques are requested for installation by the Public Works Department for the following sculptures: 1. Omphalos 2. Mr. Red 3. Interlocking Love 4. The Children's Fountain 5. Exotic 10 6. Garden Sculpture 3 7. Samurai 8. The Buck 9. Artwork donated by Alan Lillie Ms. O'Connell continued that The Buck was donated by Bart Cotton; that another new piece of artwork was donated by Alan Lillie and was created by Linda Howard, who is a local artist. Mayor Pillot asked the size of the piece created by Linda Howard? Mr. Burg stated that the piece is approximately the size of a human being. Mayor Pillot referred to the photographs of The Buck and asked if the man pictured with the sculpture is the artist from Zimbabwe? Ms. O'Connell stated yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving the acquisition of bronze plaques for the nine public art sculptures at a cost of $1,900 from the Public Art fund. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to approve acquiring bronze plaques for the nine public art sculptures at a cost of $1,900 from the Public Art fund. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Resolution No. O0R-1287 may appear quasi-judicial in nature but is, in fact, legislative in nature; that the language of the Policy Statement was changed slightly to appear less like an ordinance; that the Commission can affirm the recommendation of the Public Art Committee without a public hearing and adopt proposed Resolution No. O0R-1287 incorporating the Policy Statement under Agenda Item II-B, Consent Agenda No. 2, or set proposed Resolution No. O0R-1287 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to receive the report of the July 5, 2000, Special Public Art Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City is working with the artist of the artwork entitled "Mr. Red" to improve the artwork? Ms. O'Connell stated yes. Commissioner Quillin asked if the artist had been paid for "Mr. Red"? Mr. Burg stated yes. Commissioner Quillin asked if the Public Art Committee purchased artwork not approved by the Commission? Ms. O'Connell stated that the "Mr. Red" approved by the Commission was too large and structurally too weak to place in public space; that the original "Mr. Red" posed public safety concerns and could not have withstood potential public abuse such as people leaning or children attempting to play on the sculpture; that the artist was requested to produce a structurally stronger version of the original artwork; that the artist's version of "Mr. Red" placed in the public space meets the specifications of the Public Art Committee as was witnessed during the Fourth of July Parade, during which men were witnessed climbing and leaning upon the sculpture; that the artist did not charge the City for any additional costs incurred in strengthening the sculpture which required numerous additional metal beams; that State statutes require any public sculpture be free of spaces in which small children could become trapped; that the original structure did not comply with the law; that the version of "Mr. Red" purchased by the Public Art Committee complies with State statutes; that the Public Art Committee desired to place "Mr. Red" among the public, reminiscent of the days in which horses were tethered to trees on City rights-of- way. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission approved "Mr. Red" based upon certain specifications; and asked if the Public Art BOOK 47 Page 19846 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19847 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Committee is working with the artist to improve the specifications of the purchased version of "Mr. Red"? Ms. O'Connell stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Public Art Committee recently considered the placement of a sculpture in the roundabout at Kane Plaza; that the Commission also took action recently regarding the Public Art Committee's recommendation to place the sculpture elsewhere; and asked if the Public Art Committee based consideration on the recommendations of Staff. Ms. O'Connell stated that the Public Art Committee bases decisions on a number of factors and recommendations; however, the Commission has the right to overrule the recommendations of the Public Art Committee, which is an advisory board; that the Public Art Committee considered the sculpture piece, the optimal siting, the scale, the demeanor, the attitude and optimal location of the sculpture; that Staff's recommendations were reviewed; that public safety was also considered; that the placement decision of the Public Art Committee was clear and unanimous; however, the Commission considers and contemplates factors and circumstances which the Public Art Committee does not in reaching decisions. Commissioner Quillin quoted the minutes of the July 5, 2000, Regular Public Art Committee. meeting minutes as follows: The applicants request a short recess to discuss the matter amongst themselves. Following a recess, Mr. Band stated that the developer wished to locate the sculpture on their property. A planter would be removed to accommodate the sculpture. Commissioner Quillin continued that the Public Art Committee took action after receiving the acquiescence of the developer; and asked if the interpretation of the minutes is correct? Ms. O'Connell stated yes; that the developer's original request would not have been approved; that the developer originally requested approval to place the sculpture in the center of the Kane Plaza roundabout; that the Public Art Committee decided such placement was not in the City's best interest. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission has voted on placement of the sculpture; that any Commissioner has the right to request any matter already decided by the Commission be placed on a future agenda for reconsideration. Commissioner Quillin stated that the interest is to discuss the issue with a member of the Public Art Committee to ensure the Commission took proper action. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission reviewed and decided on appropriate placement of the sculpture; that all Commissioners in making a decision understood the issues involved and the recommendation of the Public Art Committee; that the Public Art Committee is an advisory board; that the ultimate responsiDility to make decisions rests with the Commission. Ms. O'Connell stated that all Public Art Committee members serve at the pleasure of the Commission and are readily available and accessible for input or advice concerning recommendations to the Commission. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the patience and work of the Public Art Committee are appreciated. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (1645) through (1932) Commissioner Quillin requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the contract between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Housing Authority for the provision of supplemental police services to the Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Gregory D. Anderson for water service for a site located at 1729-1775 Myrtle Street 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Todd Fisher for sewer service for a site located at 1393 41st Street 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to a no-cost extension to an Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Florida State University for a Stable Isotope- Nutrient Management study for Sarasota Bay 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Professional Services Contract BOOK 47 Page 19848 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19849 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. between the City of Sarasota and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., (Bid No. 00-54H) for the sanitary sewer collection/transmission system, for a one-year period with the option to renew for two consecutive one-year periods 7. Approval Re: Award of Contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Chartier Development Company, Inc., (Bid No. 00-56H) for modifications to the restrooms at the Ed Smith Sports Stadium for ADA compliance 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Outboard Club, Inc., for an additional five (5) year period, commencing on September 8, 2000, and expires on September 7, 2005 9. Approval Re: FY 2000/05 Consolidated Plan and FY 2000/01 Action Plan 10. Approval Re: Development of a regional water supply plan for the Peace River and Manasota Basins of the Southwest Florida Water Management District 11. Approval Re: Use of the streetscape color scheme when repainting or for new installations of traffic signal poles and mast arms located within streetscape areas On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 1. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 00-4246, amending Chapter 10, Division 2, Section 10-41(A) of the Sarasota City Code relating to speed limitation on watercraft in certain areas; to prohibit the operation of watercratt powered by motor or engine in excess of slow speed in such areas; to provide for a definition of slow speed by incorporation by reference from the Florida Administrative Code; etc. Commissioner Quillin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4246 approves posting signs indicating boaters should observe "slow speed" in certain areas as defined by the Florida Administrative Code; however, the State does not recognize the "slow speed" designation; that the proper speed designation should be "wake" or "no wake" in the desired boating areas; and asked the reason for choosing the words "slow speed" in the designated areas? Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the City had the choice to designate boating areas as either "no wake" or "slow speed"; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4246 designates certain boating areas as "slow speed" following discussion with the Sarasota Police Department marine patrol officers, the Chief of Police, and the Deputy Chief of Police; that the "slow speed" designation yields a boat speed Closer to the current restriction of 6 miles per hour (mph); that marine patrol officers advised 6 mph was not idle speed but slow speed; that the Commission can designate the targeted areas as "no wake" if desired. Commissioner Quillin stated that the State granted the City temporary authority to post boating signage and required the City to post signage in accordance with State standard boating terminology, which is "wake" or "no wake"; that the term "slow speed" should not be used. Mayor Pillot asked the terminology choices available to the City as permitted by the State? Attorney Singer stated that the State permits use of the terms "wake, TT "no wake," and "slow speed"; that the Administration recommends the term "slow speed. - Mayor Pillot asked Staff's recommendations? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the recommendations were made by the marine patrol officers. Commissioner Quillin stated that the standard terminology is "wake" or "no wake" speed signage for boating; that the State requires standardized signage to facilitate and ensure safe boating practices statewide. Mayor Pillot stated that any Commissioner can make a motion to change the wording of a proposed ordinance. Commissioner Quillin asked the potential problems of using the terms "wake" or "no wake" versus "slow speed"? Attorney Singer stated that the City is permitted to designate boating areas as "wake" or "no wake" in addition to "slow speed." Commissioner Quillin asked if the Florida Administrative Code designates such boating areas as "wake" or "no wake"? BOOK 47 Page 19850 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19851 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Attorney Singer stated that the pertinent sèction of the Florida Administrative Code refers to definitions and defines the terms "slow speed" and "no wake." City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends the Commission consider input from the Police Department if a change is considered to the wording of the signage. Edward Whitehead, Deputy Chief, Sarasota Police Department, came before the Commission and stated that the recommended language of the signage is "slow speed, minimum wake"; that marine patrol officers advised the language provides the boat speed necessary to maintain steerage under ocean currents; that a 3-mph ocean current requires a boater to maintain a speed greater than 3 mph to maintain steerage and control the boat; that such currents are common to local conditions; that boaters should be able to maintain steerage in slower speed areas. City Manager Sollenberger stated that boats are observing the "slow speed" designation if not on plare. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the posted signage would read "slow. speed,. minimum wake"?. Deputy Chief Whitehead stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the signage does meet the standard of the boating industry. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1932) through (2075) 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. O0R-1286, approving Major Conditional Use Application No. 00-CU-04 to allow drive through facilities as a major accessory conditional use; said major conditional use to be accessory to a proposed bank to be located at the southeast corner of Versailles Street and Osprey Avenue; providing that said major conditional use is required to be constructed and located in accordance with approved Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-16 (Application No. 00-CU-04, Applicant Mateu, Carreno, Rizo & Partners, Inc., as agent for the owner, World Savings Bank) (Title Only); etc. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. O0R-1287, adopting / a Public Art Policy; (Title Only); etc. 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. O0R-1288, authorizing the execution by the City Manager on behalf of the City of Sarasota, Florida of a utility work by Highway Contractor Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation regarding utility work within the State Road 789 Ringling Bridge Project; (Title Only); etc. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. O0R-1297, pertaining to the billable fee schedule for the Zoning Code (1998); amending the billable fee schedule to set forth a fee for administrative site plans, shared parking agreements and applications to amend previously approved rezone ordinances; amending the billable fees for "G" zone waivers and rezoning; (Title Only); etc. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 92-3589, to vacate that portion of 16th Street lying east of Orange Avenue and extending to Goodrich Avenue within the city limits of the City of Sarasota, Florida (the metes and bounds legal description is available in the office of the City Auditor and Clerk); more particularly described herein; (Title Only); etc. 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 00-4244, amending Chapter 2, Article V, Division 5 relating to Code Enforcement, Section 2-316, recording and enforcement of lien to authorize the recovery of liens by foreclosure or by suit for money judgment and to provide for the duration of such liens; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; (Title Only); etc. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution Nos. O0R-1286, O0R-1287, O0R-1288, and O0R-1297 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 92-3589 and 00-4244 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, inclusive. Mayor Pillot requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll- call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Hogle, yesi Mason, yes; Pillot, yes, Quillin, yes, Cardamone, yes. BOOK 47 Page 19852 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19853 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public hearing sign-up process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that Affected Persons and other interested persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have 5 minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when 1 minute remains. Mayor Pillot requested that Attorney Schenk explain the quasi- judicial public hearing process. Attorney Schenk stated that during the quasi-judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that recommendations for time limits for the quasi-judicial public hearings will be made at the appropriate time; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person for the quasi-judicial public hearings; that Applicants and the City will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and the opportunity for cross-examination. All. individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to: stand and were sworn in by Deputy. City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. 9. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4251, TO VACATE THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF THE 50-FOOT - WIDE WEST WAY DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AS THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY APPROXIMATELY 270 FEET THEREOF TERMINATING IN A CUL-DE-SAC; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (STREET VACATION APPLICATION NO. 00-SV-07, APPLICANTS STEPHEN D. REES, L ICARD MERRILL, CULLIS TIMM, FUREN, L AND GINSBURG, P.A. L AND JOEL FREEDMAN, FREEDMAN CONSULTING GROUP) = DENIED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) 71 (2170) through #2 (0632) Mayor Pillot stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 pertains to Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 to close and vacate approximately 270 feet of West Way Drive terminating in a cul-de-sac; that the Applicant is Stephen Rees, Esquire of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and Joel Freedman, AICP, President, Freedman Consulting Group, agent for Sandra Ruppert, Trustee. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner' II, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that West Way Drive was platted originally to serve the half dozen homes at the northern end of Lido Key, which have since been consolidated into two properties served by the right-of-way, the residents of which seek to place a gate across the vacated right-of-way for security purposes; that Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 is to vacate a 270-foot portion of the 50-foot-wide West Way Drive right-of-way, located northeasterly and terminating in a cul-de-sac over which the City currently has a right-of-way easement; that no opportunity exists for the street to continue beyond the çul-de-sac; that. no future public need exists; that the proposed vacation is" within the public-interest 'that at its July 6, 2000, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing regarding Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval; that the conditions recommended by the PBLP are set forth in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 as follows: 1. that the Applicants shall be responsible to remove existing water, sewer and stormwater mains, services and other utilities, including a water meter and sanitary sewer manhole from the portions of the vacated right-of-way and relocate same to the right-of-way of West Way Place or the remaining public portion of the right-of-way of West Way Drive; 2. that the street vacation shall become effective only after City utilities, including the water meter and sanitary sewer manhole, are relocated, inspected and approved by the Department of Public Works; 3. that the Applicants shall execute and record in the Official Records of Sarasota County a utility easement in favor of GTE Florida, Inc., for the purposes of maintaining and repairing any existing telephone facilities within the pertinent portions of vacated right-of-way; 4. that, in the event the Applicants' plans for development of the vacated portions of rights-of-way require the relocation of any utility facilities, then all expenses of construction, including design cost for relocation, shall be borne by the Applicants; 5. that the design and location of telephone facilities shall be subject to the approval of GTE Florida, Inc.; 6. that the Applicants shall execute a utility easement in favor of GTE Florida, Inc., for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the relocated telephone BOOK 47 Page 19854 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19855 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. facilities as a condition precedent to second reading of the street vacation ordinance; 7. that the Applicants shall execute and record in the Official Records of Sarasota County a utility easement in favor of the Florida Power and Light Company for the purposes of maintaining and repairing any existing electric facilities within the pertinent portions of vacated right-of-way; 8. that the design and location of electric facilities shall be subject to the approval of the Florida Power and Light Company; 9. that the Applicants shall execute a utility easement in favor of the Florida Power and Light Company, for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the relocated electric facilities as a condition precedent to second reading of the street vacation ordinance; 10. that the Applicants shall obtain the consent of the Sarasota County Fire Department for Applicants' proposed construction of a gate across the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated and shall covenant to install a "Knox Box" or other necessary devices so as to assure emergency personnel the ability to access the gate in the event of an emergency. Mr. Hoglund referred to a July 24, 2000, letter from Victor and Beth Kashner, who reside four lots south of the intersection of West Way Drive at West Way Place, to the Commission expressing opposition to the street vacation and indicating the cul-de-sac is a recreational area for residents and closure of the cul-de-sac would infringe upon the residents' right to recreate in the neighborhood; and continued that the letter was received after the July 6, 2000, PBLP meeting; that the Kashners did not appear at the July 6, 2000, PBLP meeting. Mr. Hoglund further,stated that an important issue of any street vacation is distinguishing between the public right-ot-way and private property; that the two property owners initiating Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 plan to repave the road surface with brick materials, have no immediate plans to construct a gate at the present time, but may construct a gate in the future; that access for emergency services would be required if a gate were constructed. Mayor Pillot asked the potential for current or future property owners to prohibit use of the West Way Drive if the street is vacated? Mr. Hoglund stated that future property Owners could prohibit the use of West Way Drive; that the current property owners do not intend to prohibit use of West Way Drive; that the applicant representing the two property owners is available for comment, if desired. Vice Mayor Hogle asked the gain to the City in vacating the street? Mr. Hoglund stated that maintenance costs can be saved; however, no other tangible material benefit exists. Vice Mayor Hogle asked the value of the vacated street? Mr. Hoglund stated that the value is dependent upon use and could be significant if the vacated property could be used as a building site; however, the vacated portion of the street will not be used as a building site and is not highly valued; that the use of the property will not change; that the property will only be resurfaced to a different style. Attorney Schenk stated that the City holds easement rights to the property and not ownership rights. Mayor Pillot stated that the City is not relinquishing property rights if proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 is approved. Attorney Schenk stated that the City will relinquish only the right to use the property. Mayor Pillot stated that a telephone call expressing opposition to the street vacation was received from a resident prior to the meeting. Commissioner Quillin asked the City's rights to service utilities if the street vacation is approved? Mr. Hoglund stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 requires relocation of certain utilities; that easements will be required for the Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L), GTE Florida Incorporated (GTE), and Comcast Cablevision (Comcast). Mayor Pillot asked the current ownership of the area for the proposed street vacation? BOOK 47 Page 19856 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 1985'7 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hoglund stated that two adjacent property owners are applying for the street vacation. Mayor Pillot asked the purpose of the public easement? Attorney Schenk stated that the purpose of the public easement is to provide public right-of-way. Mayor Pillot asked the rights of the neighboring residents to use the property? Attorney Schenk stated that the public easement provides public right-of-way, which allows all persons to use the property. Mayor Pillot asked if the property is a public right-of-way in totality? Attorney Schenk stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the majority of City streets have similar public easements? Attorney Schenk stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked the access to lots 1441, 1461 and 1475 if the street is vacated? Mr. Hoglund stated that lots 1441, 1461 and 1475 were consolidated into the two applicants' current properties; that the street only provides access to the two applicants' properties. Commissioner Cardamone asked the access for properties to the north of the Ewo applicants' properties? Mr. Hoglund stated that the properties located to the north of the two applicants' properties are provided access by John Ringling Parkway. Commissioner Cardamone asked the termination of West Way Drive at the other end of the street? Mr. Hoglund stated that West Way Drive is a loop street and connects to the main street in the neighborhood; that the cul-de-sac was platted after the original street was constructed. Commissioner Cardamone asked if lots 1415, 1441, 1461, and 1475 are owned by one property owner and if lot 1406 is owned by one owner? Mr. Hoglund stated yes. Stephen Rees, Esquire of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and Joel Freedman, AICP, President, Freedman Consulting Group, came before the Commission. Attorney Rees displayed slides of the area on the overhead projector and stated that the applicants have met the requirements of City regulations for a street vacation application; that the planning efforts, assistance, and organization of City Staff are appreciated; that the Staff report indicates the applicants have met all necessary standards; that Staff reaffirmed the Administration's recommendation of approval for the applicants street vacation application on a May 26, 2000, City memorandum; that a copy of the instrument of record was provided with Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 indicating John and Wanda Pickett and Sandra Ruppert, as trustees, own the properties; that Exhibits A and B of Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 denote the original platting of the properties; that the first, plat, which was recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 3 and 3A, forming Lido C, provides for a dedication for public choroughfare; that discussions were held with Staff concerning the nature of the public thoroughfare; that Staff and the agents determined the underlying fee to the road was split between the abutting property owners; that a replat occurred, extended the easterly portion of West Way Drive, creating the present cul-de-sac. Attorney Rees continued that multiple owners existed previously and required use of the cul-de-sac for access purposesi however, the properties changed ownership and were consolidated into the current two properties abutting the cul-de-sac; that unauthorized entries to the applicants' properties occurred recently with the loss of personal property and belongings and resulted in the decision to apply for a street vacation; that an additional burglary and theft occurred on the Ruppert property during the pendency of the application since May 2000; and referred to the July 24, 2000, letter from the Kashners to the Commission indicating the necessity of the property for public recreational use.. Attorney Rees further stated that public or neighborhood recreational use of the cul-de-sac rarely occursi that the cul-de-sac is used instead for parking of vehicles of persons unknown to neighborhood residents; that the Lido Shores Property Owners Association owns a beach recreation area, which is used by a majority of neighborhood residents; that Staff has indicated the street vacation falls within the public interest; that the street vacation will provide piece of mind and safety to the two property owners from further unauthorized entries; that West Way Drive is prevented from further extension through the cul-de-sac by geographical limitations; that the City will no longer be BOOK 47 Page 19858 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19859 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. responsible for the maintenance of the vacated portion of the street; that the property owners agreed to appraise the property and to pay the City the value of the property as part of each property owner's annual taxes; that the two property owners worked closely to arrive upon a design for the vacated road surface and adjoining landscaping which will benefit the neighborhood and general public. Mr. Freedman referred to slides of Zoning Maps of the Lido Shores Neighborhood and the affected residences displayed on the overhead projector and stated that West Way Drive connects to John Ringling Parkway; that the cul-de-sac terminates the opposing end of West Way Drive; that the Pickett residence has access to both West Way Drive and West Way Place; that the Ruppert residence has access to West Way Drive; that residents are considering the construction of a gate and wall around the perimeter of both properties in future development plans; that brick pavers and ribbon curb will be installed at the entrance to the cul-de-sac; that the site work will require the approval of the Engineering Department; that a sign will be posted which reads "Private Property, Do Not Enter"; that a man-hole exists in the cul-de-sac and will be moved to public right-of-way at the property owners' expense; that the FP&L, GTE and Comcast utilities will be relocated to public right-of-way; that the gate and wall system will afford the property owners additional security; that the owners designed the gate and wall system as part of a larger effort to demolish the existing home and to construct a new estate and intend to redevelop a portion of the vacated property; that the applicants have a mutual agreement to provide access for current and future property owners through the cul-de-sac. Attorney Rees stated that the City Attorney's Office provided a draft of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251; that the applicants reviewed the recommended stipulations; that the applicants understand and are in agreement with the stipulations; that the relocation of any public utilities will be at the expense of the applicants; that the vacation of the street is conditioned upon the completion and certification by the Utilities Department of the relocation of all public utilities; that the public interest is protected at the expense of the applicants; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 provides the applicants will pay for the relocation of all private utilities and dedicate new easements in substitution for the facilities in the former public right-of-way; that the applicants contacted the utilities to understand the requirements to provide new easements and will place the utilities on public record upon the Commission's adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251; that City Attorney's Office has protected the City's interests as the applicants must perform all conditions before vacation of the street; that the PBLP had little discussion and approved Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 unanimously as the benefits to the City from the vacation were understood; that the Commission is requested to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 on first reading. Commissioner Quillin asked if a sidewalk exists on West Way Place? Mr. Friedman stated no. Commissioner Quillin asked if construction of a sidewalk to meet the northern sidewalk of John Ringling Parkway at the applicants' expense can be included as a condition of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251? Mr. Friedman stated that few persons will use such a sidewalk; that few sidewalks exist in the neighborhood, which is a low- intensity neighborhood; that the applicants will consider the possibility of constructing an additional sidewalk. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and the following people came before the Commission. Tom Conklin, 1332 West Way Drive (34236), representing the Lido Shores Property Owners Association, stated that a personal residence is owned close to the portion of the street proposed for vacation and across the street from the Kashner's property; that the Kashner's letter to the Commission comments on the use of the cul-de-sac, which is used regularly by neighborhood children and other residents for recreational purposesi that his daughter uses the cul-de-sac frequently for recreational purposes; that the cul-de-sac represents a safe place for neighborhood residents to recreate as traffic rarely enters the cul-de-sac; that traffic enters West Way Drive from West Way Place; that the cul-de-sac is protected naturally from such traffic; that walkers, joggers and bicyclists use the cul-de-sac regularly; that residents do use the cul-de-sac for parking to access boating facilities located at the north intersection of West Way Place at West Way Drive; that residents walk, walk pets, and jog in the neighborhood despite the lack of sidewalks. Mr. Conklin continued that the Sarasota 2040: City of Sarasota Vision Plan (1994) (Vision Plan) and the City Goals 2001 emphasize neighborhoods; that approval of the street vacation closes off a portion of the neighborhood; that the street vacation represents an antithesis to the Vision Plan and Goals and a loss of recreational space to neighborhood residents; that the neighborhood residents did not attend the July 6, 2000, PBLP BOOK 47 Page 19860 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19861 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. meeting as the provided notices listed Affected Persons as owning property within 500 feet of the portion of the street to be vacated; that personal property falls outside of the designated boundary for Affected Person status; that residents assumed some person would represent the neighborhood before the PBLP; however, no residents went to the meeting; that residents were shocked and surprised at the PBLP's approval of Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07; that the City and the Lido Shores Neighborhood will not benefit from the street vacation. Larry Lieberman, 436 Bowdoin Circle (34236), President, Lido Shores Property Owners Association, stated that the cul-de-sac has a history of vacation applications; that a vacation petition for the cul-de-sac was filed in 1973; that the PBLP approved the vacation petition on August 22, 1973; however, the Commission denied the petition; that Dale Murray petitioned vacation of the cul-de-sac in 1985; that the PBLP approved the vacation; however, the Commission voted unanimously to deny Street Vacation Petition No. 86-SV-01 at the December 2, 1985, Regular Commission meeting; that at the time, the Commission indicated in overturning the Board's recommendation that a petition for a street vacation would be denied if the surrounding homeowners had opposition; that several residents of Lido Shores signed a petition requesting Commission denial of Street Vacation Petition No. 86-SV-01; that Commissioner Fredd Atkins upon moving to deny the petition at the December 2, 1985, Regular Commission indicated the petitioner had not given any real cause to vacate; that Commissioner Kerry Kirschner at the same meeting indicated the concern regarding the loss of the cul-de-sac as a turning area for vehicles entering the dead-end road was the reason for the unanimous denial; that West Way Drive is the only traffic artery in the Lido Shores Neighborhood not affected by traiiic on John Ringling Parkway; that residents use West Way Drive, which is much safer to traverse than John Ringling Parkway; that other safe streets do not exist in the neighborhood; that the taxpayers of the Lido Shores Neighborhood pay for the upkeep of West Way Drive; that the City should not allow the vacation of any portion of the street; that the vacation of the cul-de-sac does not serve the public interest but rather serves the interests of a few over the interests of manyi that residents signed a petition opposed to the vacation of the cul-de-sac; that the Commission should not adopt proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251. Mayor Pillot stated that the portion of the street to be vacated is 50 feet in width; and asked the length of the western wall of the Chambers? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the western wall of the Chambers is approximately 60 to 70 feet in length. Mayor Pillot stated that the cul-de-sac is about 100 feet in diameter and represents a significantly sized portion of property; that the diameter of the cul-de-sac provides significant space for public recreational use. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing and requested that the Applicants come forward for rebuttal. Attorney Rees and Mr. Freedman came before the Commission. Attorney Rees stated that a street vacation is not a reterendum or popularity contest; that prior Commissions deliberated over factors and circumstances which do not merit consideration by the current Commission; that Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-07 comes before the Commission based upon the facts as presented, the recommendation of Staff, and the unanimous vote of the PBLP; that the two speakers did not address the criteria and standards set forth in Section 4-1306, Zoning Code (1998), which are met by the applicants; that Staff reviewed the criteria and standards in a professional capacity and determined the applicant has met the standards and recommends approval; that the City has provided a safe and modern walkway and bicycle path along John Ringling Parkway for recreational use by the public; that the Commission can condition approval of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 upon the construction a sidewalk on the eastern portion of West Way Place at the expense of the applicants, who will agree to such condition; that the witnesses in opposition to the vacation indicated West Way Place was heavily traveled; that the cul-de-sac should not be considered a haven for vehicular traffic; that the need for the public to recreate should be balanced with the applicants' concerns for personal safety and the lawful retention of personal property; that any person may park a vehicle or walk in the cul-de-sac; that history demands the Commission grant the vacation to provide for the personal safety of the applicants. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 on first reading. BOOK 47 Page 19862 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19863 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 on first reading. Commissioner Quillin stated that street vacations of areas in which neighbors recreate outdoors regularly are not desired; that a benefit to the Lido Shores Neighborhood and the public is not derived from the vacation; that Andres Duany, Principal, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), does not recommend gating portions of the City's neighborhoods and has indicated neighborhoods should be enjoyed by the general public; that the Lido Shores Neighborhood is unique and has only one street for recreational use; that the vacation is not in the City's interest. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that a greater public service is provided to the entire community by maintaining the cul-de-sac as public right-of-way; that the property could serve as a site for a beautiful residence; however, the vacation will not be supported as the owners intend to use, the area as a private drive. Commissioner Cardamone concurred. Mayor Pillot stated that an August 7, 2000, telephone call from a concerned citizen expressing opposition to proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 was received and should be noted in the record. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an August 7, 2000, telephone call from a concerned citizen expressing opposition to proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 was received and should be noted in the record. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that an August 7, 2000, telephone call from a concerned citizen expressing opposition to proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 was received and should be noted in the record. Mayor Pillot stated that a decision concerning the street vacation is difficult; that providing for the personal security of the applicants is a responsibility of the City; that a personal residence is owned which is located on a cul-de-sac; that the public uses the cul-de-sac frequently for recreation; that previous efforts to vacate the cul-de-sac were not supported; that the public has a right to use such cul-de-sacs for recreational or other purposes; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 does not serve the interests of the general public and will not be supported. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the July 24, 2000, letter from Victor and Beth Kashner into the record. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to deny proposed Ordinance No. 00-4251 on first reading and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yesi Quillin, yes. 10. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4259, AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE 1 RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, ADJUSTING REÇYCLING 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; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-4) #2 (1033) through (1312) Mayor Pillot stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4259 amends Chapter 16, Recycling and Solid Waste, Sarasota City Code, (1986 as amended) (City Code) concerning collection rates. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4259 adjusts recycling and solid waste collection rates to operate and maintain the City's solid waste management system; that solid waste rates will be raised 6 percent or 70 cents per month to a total of $22.80 per month; that operating costs for the solid waste collection and recycling programs continue to increase; that the Administration has attempted to reduce operating costs; that solid waste collection rates have supported the street-sweeping program for the last 10 years; that the cost of the street- sweeping program will be funded in the future through the City's portion of the gasoline tax effective January 2001; that the Administration continues to search for other cost-saving measures; that the increased costs bear no relation to County Landfill charges, which are anticipated to remain the same; that the City hauls a greater tonnage to the landfill each year; that increased hauling increases operating costs without the benefit of additional customers; that the Commission has directed the Administration maintain the high level of service of solid waste collections and disposal; that the increased rates are necessary to continue a high level of service. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and the following person came before the Commission. BOOK 47 Page 19864 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19865 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Mary Ciner, 1635 Cunliff Lane (34239), stated that a Citywide mandatory recycling program would reduce operating expenses for solid waste collection and disposal. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City has a mandatory recycling program. Ms. Ciner stated that many residents do not comply with the mandatory recycling program; and asked if enhanced enforcement efforts can be undertaken? City Manager Sollenberger stated that notices reminding residents of the mandatory recycling program can be posted and sent to all residences; that the City should also inform residents of the nature of the program but should not create a garbage police to enforce the program; that the Commission determined upon adoption of the mandatory recycling program not to grant Staff an ability to enforce the program; that Staff will produce public information concerning the benefits of recycling to generate compliance with the City's program. Mayor Pillot stated that Ms. Ciner's efforts to remind the City of the need to encourage all residents to recycle are appreciated. Ms. Ciner stated that condominiums are not required to participate in the recycling program. Mayor Pillot stated that Staff has few options to enforce the program; that enforcement requires Staff to search disposed garbage and recycling bins; that the Commission does not desire to direct Staff to undertake such actions. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4259 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 00-4259 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4259 on first reading. Commissioner Quillin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4259 is not supported; that Staff formulated alternatives to the rate increase during the July 2000 Budget Workshops and proposed to lower rates by decreasing solid waste collection to once per week per residence; that additional efforts should be made to reduce operating costs. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that a personal survey of resident participation in solid waste collection was conducted of a local neighborhood; that most residents were found to use the solid waste collection service each Friday; that nearly as many residents were found also to use the solid waste collection service on Tuesday; that the City should continue to offer solid waste collection twice per week; that the superior levels of solid waste collection service are preferred to service in County unincorporated areas and fulfill the City's desire to promote healthy neighborhoods and the visual appeal of the City; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Cardamone stated that discussions were held concerning the rate increase at the July 2000 Budget Workshops; that a reduction in the level of solid waste collection service without a rate reduction does not serve the public interest; that the proposed increase of 70 cents per month is supported. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4259 on first reading and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yesi Pillot, yes; Quillin, no. The Commission recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:26 p.m. 11. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4235, TO REZONE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAWTHORNE STREET AND EAST AVENUE AND HAVING STREET ADDRESSES OF 2053, 2069, AND 2089 HAWTHORNE STREET, FROM THE MULTIPLE - FAMILY-RESIDENTIAL-3 (RMF-3) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL, AND BUSINESS (OPB) ZONE DISTRICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (REZONING APPLICATION NO. 00-RE-11, APPLICANT RICHARD W. BASS, AS AGENT FOR RICHARD AND MARTA WEISBROD, - TRUSTEE AND LOLA MORRIS, TRUSTEE, / AS OWNERS) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-1) #2 (1312) through #3 (0725) Attorney Schenk stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is to rezone real property located on the northwest corner of Hawthorne Street and East Avenue, having street addresses of 2053, 2069, BOOK 47 Page 19866 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19867 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. and 2089 Hawthorne Street from the Multiple-Family-Residential-3 (RMF-3) to the Office, Professional, and Business (OPB) Zone District; that the recommendation is to allow the Applicant 20 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for rebuttal; that the City will have 10 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 5 minutes to speak; that time limits are longer as the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) met twice regarding proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Commissioners Mason and Quillin entered the Chambers at 8:27 p.m. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an electronic-mail (e-mail) correspondence dated August 7, 2000, from Richard Martin was received. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that an e-mail dated August 7, 2000, from Richard Martin was received and entered a copy into the public record. Commissioner Mason stated that an e-mail dated August 7, 2000, from Richard Martin was received. Commissioner Quillin stated that an e-mail dated August 7, 2000, from Richard Martin was received; that a telephone call was received from Shannon Snyder, Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Association (SSNA), and recommended Staff be contacted. Mayor Pillot stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Richard Bass, MAI/AICP, President, Richard W. Bass Associates, Inc., and Michael Furen, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., came before the Commission. Mr. Bass stated that the information provided in the Agenda material was substantial; that a list of personal qualifications as an AICP designated land planner relating to zoning and the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) and Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) designation in real estate appraisal have been provided to the Commission; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 pertaining to Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-11 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as indicated by Staff review and analysis; that the property is designated in the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification in the City's Comprehensive Plan and is in a zoning enclave; that rezonings to zone districts implementing the designated land use classification are specifically encouraged in Action Strategy (A.S.) 1.3, Future Land Use Chapter, the City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: 1.3 Consistency with the Future Land Use Map: Because the Sarasota City Plan is a long range plan, rezoning of these parcels to zone districts envisioned by the appropriate land use classification is encouraged. Mr. Bass continued that the Office, Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District is an implementing zone district of the property's land use classification; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is consistent with all 13 criteria established in Section IV-1106, Standards of Review, Zoning Code (1998); that all the criteria have been addressed, analyzed, and reviewed by Staff; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is consistent with Article VI, Division 5, OPB Zone District, Zoning Code (1998), has received positive recommendations from the PBLP, and has been determining by Staff as consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that A.S. 1.3, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan encourages the rezoning of enclaves; that the PBLP recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-11 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 with the following applicant proffers: 1. The real property shall only be developed and used for the following : : adult day care, alarm system, security operation office; data and computer services; essential government services; family day care center; medical or dental laboratory; office, business, or professional; office or clinic, medical or dental; park; radio and television stations 2. The real property - shall not be developed or used for the following uses : : child care centers; drive through facilities; financial institutions; amateur radio antennas and towers, and commercial wireless telecommunication towers BOOK 47 Page 19868 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19869 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. 3. The east wall of proposed building will be located as close to East Avenue as allowed under then applicable zone district regulations 4. The principle structure to be constructed on the subject property shall have a roof which is either a hip, gable, or single pitch style of construction minimum pitch shall be 4:12 and the maximum roof pitch shall be 6:12 a solid plane shall be evident from the soffit to the ridge of the roof. 5. No blank wall construction shall be permitted on the building façade facing East Avenue - the front façade shall have architectural relief such as doors, windows, awnings, shutters, or similar features, whether functional or decorative. 6. : no driveways to provide ingress or egress for motor vehicles entering or leaving the site from or to East Avenue 7. If ground level parking under the primary structure is utilized, the East Avenue building façade shall be enclosed from grade upwards to prevent the viewing of such parking area from the street and the façade shall have an exterior finish and architectural relief described in [Item 5]. 8. Maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the building to be constructed on site is 0.275. 9. A height limitation of 35 feet shall apply to all structures located on any portion of the entire land area rezoned by Iproposed Ordinance No. 00-4235]. 10. If fencing is provided, the site and development plan shall reflect a fence designed in accordance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. 11. [Any] wet retention pond system in the area shall be designed as a visually appealing architectural amenity. 12. the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting to inform the neighborhood regarding the proposed site plan and to receive comments Mr. Bass continued that the FAR is reduced by 21 percent from the recommended 0.35 FAR in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City requires notification of the proposed building to all properties within 500 feet of the subject property; that west of East Avenue is utilized for commercial, governmental, multi-family and office use; that east of East Avenue lies a residential district; that a neighbor is not located on property five blocks away; that the residential properties across East Avenue require appropriate buffering which has been requested by neighborhood residents and City Staff and proffered by the owner; that Staff has provided an analysis of differences between OPB and Office, Professional and Business (OPB-1) Zone Districts; that differences are evident in the allowed height of the structure and a side yard setback; that a height limit equal to the OPB-1 Zone District limitation has been proffered; that the side yard setback has no impact on the property due to the location of the proposed building to the eastern-most point of the property; that the City has expressed intent regarding a Neighborhood Office Buffer (NOB) Zone District as an implementing zone district of the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification; that requesting a zone district which may no longer be applicable to the particular land use classification would be inappropriate; that proffers have limited the subject property to OPB-1 Zone District development standards; however, the property will not be labeled an OPB-1 Zone District and therefore inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan can be established in many ways, not only through the rezoning application processi and quoted Objective 3, Development Review and Approval Process, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: To continue ensuring that future requests for "development approval" are consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Mr. Bass further stated that the term "development approval" as defined by the City's Comprehensive Plan means approval of rezonings, conditional uses, site plans, and subdivision plans; and referred to A.S. 3.4, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: 3.4 Site and Development Plan Approval: All approved rezonings and conditional use permits shall be required to obtain site and development plan approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Bass referred further to A.S. 3.5, Future Land Use Chapter, the City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: 3.5 Consistency of Site and Subdivision Plans: Prior to approval all applications for site and subdivision plans shall be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Development to ensure consistency with the Sarasota City Plan. BOOK 47 Page 19870 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19871 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Bass stated that continuing opportunities are available for ensuring consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and referred to A.S. 3.1, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: 3.1 Consistency of Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits: All applications for rezonings and conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the City Planning Board for consistency with the Sarasota City Plan. The City Commission shall make the final determination as to consistency after consideration of the Planning Board's recommendations thereto. However, until such time as the implementing zone districts are defined in accord with Action Strategy 2.3 and the zoning code has been revised in accord with Action Strategy 2.4 an application to rezone property from a residential to a non-residential zone district may be deemed inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan based on a finding that the current (unrevised) specific uses or development standards for the zone district requested are not compatible with the uses, density, intensity and scale of development in the surrounding area. Mr. Bass continued that the specific uses of permitable principle uses in the OPB Zone District have been proffered to ensure consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that each use requested by Staff and the PBLP has been incorporated into proffers; that intensity of use and a 0.275 FAR which is less than permitted in OPB Zone District and the City's Comprehensive Plan FAR limitation of 0.35 have been proffered; that a general characteristic of the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification is to serve as a buffer or transition space for a step down in land use intensity between single-family residential neighborhoods and more intensive non-residential use or higher traffic areas; that the residents requested locating the proposed building as far east as possible to provide a buffer between the neighborhood and commercial activity to the west; that the property Owners have agreed to placement and reduced size of the proposed building; that the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates maximum non- residential FARS up to 0.35 may be consistent with the intended classification; however, any increase in the FAR exceeding the permitted zoning for an individual lot or parcel must be based in part on other criteria; that the Applicant does not intend to exceed the FAR; and referred to the oning/Subdivision Map indicating different zone districts around the subject property. Mr. Bass further stated that the nine-story Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) is on Hawthorne Street to the west; that Pizza Hut and a parking lot can be viewed from the- corner of the subject property; that a two-story, pitched roof, multi-family building can be viewed from the subject property across Hawthorne Street; that two visible buildings are behind Pizza Hut; that the view west of the subject property contains a roof line of a tri-plex; that a two-story office building, formerly a single-family home, can be seen across Hawthorne Street; that the view north of the property is of the back of Fire Station 2; and referred to photographs illustrating the general intensity of development in the area bounded by Waldemere Street to the north, Hillview Street to the south, US 41 to the west, and East Avenue to the east. Mr. Bass stated further the City may require a site plan; and referred to A.S. 3.3, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: 3.3 Items for Consistency Review: During the review of rezoning applications a site plan or other relevant information may be required. Mr. Bass stated that no doubt remains the appropriate designation for the property is the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification and the implementing zone district should be the OPB Zone District; that the Applicant has proffered conditions reducing development intensity such as height, use, ingress, and egressi that the PBLP has found proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 pertaining to Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-11 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a site plan is not necessary. Attorney Furen stated that continued residential use of the subject property and the location of Fire Station 2 immediately to the north of and adjacent to the property creates problems; that Marta Weisbrod is the only individual who attempted to preserve the neighborhood west of East Avenue in 1983; that the City determined the area adjacent to the subject property appropriate for governmental use; that the subject property is not part of a neighborhood of residential uses; that the area was a residential neighborhood which has been destroyed by actions of City government and other commercial parties; that a residential use is no longer appropriate for the subject property; that SMH helicopter flights, commercial dumpster use, and Fire Station 2 activities create noise; that problems in the area did not develop overnight; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is the result of 17 years of effort by the property owners to achieve a reasonable use of the property; that. the Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) process was diligently completed with the City which resulted in a directive to solve the property use problem; that the PBLP has BOOK 47 Page 19872 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19873 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. indicated residential uses in the area are no longer appropriate; that the land use Classification changed upon adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan, recognizing the futility of maintaining residential uses in an area surrounded by commercial use; and referred to the Comprehensive Plan Consistency chart (Chart) in the Staff Report regarding the Weisbrod Property at Hawthorne Street indicating a finding of consistency with every chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Furen continued that speakers are requested to provide information concerning relative proximity to the subject property; and referred to an e-mail dated August 7, 2000, from Richard Martin which should be part of the public record; and asked if the planning analysis included in the Agenda packet is part of the public record? Attorney Schenk stated yes; that the e-mail is also part of the public record. Mayor Pillot stated that speakers are encouraged to indicate addresses for the public record and requested that Staff. come forward for the City's presentation. Karin Murphy, Senior Planner II, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Applicant has provided an accurate overview of past and current issues relevant to proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 pertaining to Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-11 concerning property located at the northwest corner of Hawthorne Street and East Avenue which is for approval of a rezoning from the Multi-Family Residential (RMF-3) to the Office, Professional, and Business (OPB) Zone District; that the property has been the focus of debate regarding desirability of establishing a transition land use between the commercial use to the west and the quiet, established residential development to the east; that the SSNA has consistently participated in all discussions relating to current and long-range planning issues and land use for transition properties; that establishing neighborhood office uses compatible and sensitive to surrounding residential developments may be appropriate if found consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the existing zone district became a zoning enclave; that privately initiated rezones are encouraged for the area; that the Applicant applied for a rezoning to the OPB Zone District and conducted the required neighborhood meeting; that the greatest concern of residents is the lack of a site plan; that the Applicant does not intend to develop the property; that a site plan would limit development plans for a future purchaser; that the Applicant has agreed to proffers addressing compatibility; that the PBLP continually offered suggestions to the Applicant which have been incorporated into additional proffers; that the Applicant held an additional neighborhood meeting; that Staff was directed to analyze the OPB-1 Zone District for comparison as the other implementing zone district for the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification; that the analysis is contained in the Staff report; that the PBLP recommends approval of Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-11 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 and as proffered; that several issues remain outstanding; that additional proffers may be available for application to the project; that Staff can not anticipate all desired proffers; that discussions have focused on an entrance off of East Avenue; that the narrow end of the property will have an entrance which will be regulated through a proffer such as no blank wall or a façade for under- structure parking; that Staff attempted to balance compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood without limiting an individual during the development review process; that the PBLP will have an opportunity to review the site plan should proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 be approved; that the requested rezoning to the OPB Zone District is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the alternative to the OPB-1 Zone District without proffers does not provide increased compatibility; that the Applicant is not required to apply proffers contained in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 to a rezoning application request for an OPB-1 Zone District; however, the proffers pertaining to uses are tied to the traffic analysis and are required for application to the OPB-1 Zone District; that another concurrency determination would be required if the proffers for uses were not made; that the Commission is afforded discretion due to the lack of an equivalent district to the NOB Zone District. Commissioner Quillin stated that the neighborhood's concerns are known; that the residents were aware the property would be rezoned for some type of commercial use; and asked the height limitation for the OPB Zone District? Ms. Murphy stated that the OPB Zone District permits a height of 65 feet; however, properties adjacent to residential property may not exceed the height of the residential height of 35 feet; that the Applicant has proffered a height limit of 35 feet, even if adjacent property is changed to a non-residential district. Commissioner Quillin stated that enhancements to the neighborhood include sidewalks on the residential side of the street; that residents desire commercial areas provide sidewalks to aid in the walkability of the area; and asked if sidewalks are a requirement? BOOK 47 Page 19874 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19875 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Ms. Murphy stated that Staff originally required a condition of including a sidewalk along East Avenue; that the sidewalk condition was removed to maintain the consistency of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 as a code requirement; that the sidewalk will be included in the site plan as an off-site improvement with curb and gutter; that developers may request a waiver in installing sidewalks; that waivers require the approval of the Administration. Mayor Pillot requested that other interested persons come forward; and the following interested persons came before the Commission: Gerald Tschetter, 2068 Hawthorne Street (34239), located across Hawthorne Street, stated that the family's oldest child was born while residing at 2068 Hawthorne Street; that the family has lived in the home for 41 years; that the area was a residential neighborhood at one time; however, the area is no longer a residential neighborhood; that the house located to the east of 2068 Hawthorne Street received historic designation and has been converted into an attorney's office which is a professional office; that a doctor's office is located to the west of 2068 Hawthorne Street; that a physical therapy office and Fire Station 2 are located across Hawthorne Street; that people are concerned with the appearance of the building and the site plan; that no proposed building can detract from the view of the south side of Fire Station 2; that the area is not a residential neighborhood; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is supported. Mayor Pillot asked if a recommendation would be given to a friend to purchase the property for a personal residence? Mr. Tschetter stated no. Richard Martin, 2347 Arlington Street (34239), located in the Southeast neighborhood, approximately four blocks from the subject property, Vice President, SSNA, stated that the Applicant indicated residences within 500 feet of the property are considered the neighborhood which is not true; that the neighborhood includes the SSNA which is notified of rezonings; that individuals active in the.neighborhood consider the property which is passed by vehicles, foot, bicycles, and strollers due to Close proximity to Davidson Drugs and Kash n' Karry Food Store, Inc., as part of the neighborhood; that application was not made for certification as an Affected Person; however, as an owner and resident of the Arlington Park neighborhood since 1986, Affected Persons status applies; that the property falls into the purview of the SSNA; that attendance at monthly meetings averages 30 to 35 members; that the SSNA is active and engaged; that as a member of the East Avenue Traffic Calming and Beautification Task Force (Task Force) which was 29 members of the neighborhood from 15 different streets, 8 months were spent improving East Avenue as a more pedestrian-trienay neighborhood street; that the Co- chairmen of the Task Force are in the audience; that the Task Force developed a plan which was adopted by the Commission and is in the first phase for groundbreaking and enacts the hopes for improving the area; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 concerns area residents due to the threat to improvements in the area; that the first neighborhood meeting held by the Applicant and the PBLP hearing were personally attended; that a site plan is necessary to ensure the proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the area; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is opposed; that competent and substantial evidence is provided; that as an officer in the SSNA, Affected Persons are represented; that additional time is requested. Mayor Pillot stated that unless overruled, the request is denied; that the opportunity was available to apply for Affected Persons status; however, the required paperwork was not completed. Mr. Martin stated that some alternatives should be considered by the Commission; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 should be denied as not being sufficiently proven as compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, can be reevaluated with additional proffers and stipulations as mediated, can be tabled until the submission of a site plan and an implementing NOB Zone District is adopted, or proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 can be adopted with additional proffers and stipulations; and distributed a list of neighborhood residential preferences (List) regarding the dèvelopment of the property. Mr. Martin continued that the e-mail dated August 7, 2000, was sent due to Staff's inability to recognize the residents' dissatisfaction concerning proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that the residents do not object to the rezoning or the potential medical office use on the parcel; that the e-mail is to express concern regarding the scale, design, and overall compatibility with the existing neighborhood; that the SSNA has been clamoring for respectable enhancing development along East Avenue and was instrumental in framing the new Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification to create a beneficial opportunity for all parties involved; that the land development regulations for the Neighborhood Office Land Use Classification were never implemented; that implementation was promised within a year of adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the neighborhood is left with a rezoning request for the OPB Zone District; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is for an oversized and BOOK 47 Page 19876 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19877 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. insensitive attempt at development; that the subject property is 49,000 square feet; that a building of 35,500 square feet is proposed, which is within the maximum FAR allowed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Quillin stated that diligent work has been taken on the presentation; and asked if additional time can be afforded? Vice Mayor Hogle stated that additional time with some reasonableness should be afforded. Mayor Pillot stated that two additional minutes will be afforded. Mr. Martin stated that the required parking for the proposed building is 90 spaces which will require 300 square feet including isles and turning radii, totaling 27,000 square feet of parking; that the building footprint with parking will total 40,500 square feet and will be located as close to East Avenue as allowed; that principles of new urbanism are not fully being followed; that blank walls should be limited; that a building is moved close to the property edge to create pedestrian relationships; that the proposed building will be a destination building with no pedestrian relationship; that requested alternatives are: a right-of-way deeded to the City to allow for establishment of a sidewalk along East Avenue; signage limited to 20 square feet, located on Hawthorne Street only and unlit; installed fencing meeting CPTED guidelines; photosensitive or otherwise discrete exterior lighting to preserve the existing neighborhood character; a maximum of two stories with the peak no greater than 35 feet; and internal and hidden from view refuse Mayor Pillot requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Bass stated that confusion has been created by the presentation; that sidewalks are required by the land development regulations in the City; that a separate application is necessary to waive the sidewalk requirement; that East Avenue will be made pedestrian-triendly by the addition of sidewalks; that a proffer will be added to proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 regarding sidewalks if necessaryi that the proposed building will be located as far east as is allowable by the City's regulations at the time of building; that the Applicant has agreed to avoiding blank wall construction; that the proposed building will be designed as pedestrian-trienay along East Avenue; that parking area ratios are not important enough to discuss at the present time; that the Zoning Code (1998) is very specific; that the buffering of dumpsters is required by the Zoning Code (1998). Attorney Euren stated that the proposed building will be located as far east as possible to act as an effective noise and visual buffer against the commercial components to the west of the site. Mr. Bass stated that parking for the proposed building will be located on the opposite side of the building away from the residential neighborhood. Attorney Furen stated that the building is not intended for ommercial use; that the intended office use will be less intensive than multi-family residential use; that medical offices have limited daily operations, generally from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.i that the height proffer of 35 feet is consistent with height restrictions under the Multi-Family Residential-3 (RMF-3) Zone District and in other residential communities in the vicinity; that a FAR significantly less than the recommended amount for neighborhood office uses has been proffered; that the Applicant has extended great effort to address any legitimate neighborhood compatibility concernsi that efforts were made legally and practically regarding proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 as proffered; that history and memoranda can be cited from the à Division Chief of Fire Station 2 regarding noise and % deterioration of quality of life in the area; that the neighborhood was lost the day Fire Station 2 was built; that the Applicant does not deny a residential neighborhood exists east of East Avenue; however, the property is located in an intense commercial area west of East Avenue created by the City and exacerbated by US 41; that the Applicant has proven the proposed development is consistent and concurrent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that competent, substantial evidence has not been provided to overcome the burden proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 has relieved; that the Commission's approval of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is requested; that the PBLP as provided by the State Legislature has unanimously agreed proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bass stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 with proffers will provide for a development less intensive than the current zoning allows; that development does not have to meet any BOOK 47 Page 19878 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19879 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. proffers as currently zoned; that the neighborhood residents' concerns have been heard and met; that the Commission has an opportunity to ensure consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan through the site plan approval process; that additional neighborhood meetings will be provided if a structure is built on the property; that all conditions proposed by the City will be met. Attorney Furen stated that the Commission is requested to vote on proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 with legal, proper, and reasonable guidelines. Mayor Pillot requested that the City come forward for rebuttal. Ms. Murphy stated that rebuttal time will be yielded to Commissioner questions regarding the proffers, added conditions, and issues covered by the Zoning Code (1998). Mayor Pillot asked if future developers will be required to meet City requirements with respect to building placement or other site plan issues? Ms. Murphy stated that the answer is dependent upon the developer's design; that the developer will be required to meet guidelines established in the Zoning Code (1998) regarding setbacks; that the developer will have flexibility in determining building orientation; that Staff has review criteria for site plans which questions building configuration in order to achieve certain benefits; that the orientation of surrounding buildings affects the final decision regarding a new building's orientation; that driveway cuts and circulation are considered in determining building placement and orientation; that conditions should provide neighborhood residents with confidence the factors not covered by the Zoning Code (1998) are being addressed; that adding Zoning Code (1998) requirements complicates a proposed ordinance which may limit future site plans for the subject property. Mayor Pillot asked if the OPB Zone District will provide the developer with unlimited discretion? Ms. Murphy stated no. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the compatibility factor which was defined and adopted. Ms. Murphy stated that neighborhood residents have different views regarding development of the property; that the development can be configured as a single building of a unified development or divided into smaller buildings, with screened parking underneath and surface parking, or smaller buildings with parking internal to the buildings; that concepts differ regarding a compatible development; that the surrounding area is a unique transitioning neighborhood with single- and multi-family residences; that establishing a building height limitation and ensuring a roof which appears residential in nature are important to Staff; that the Applicant proffered a residential roof pitch; that the proffers allow for a structure with limited third-story use; however, the roof pitch will not allow for utilization of the entire third-story; that a site plan would be beneficial if provided with each rezoning application; however, certain benefits to the subject parcel remain if a site plan is not required. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the compatibility standards have not been addressed clearly; and asked if any development of the property would be approved by the PBLP in a site plan approval process and if neighborhood residents would have the opportunity to appear before the PBLP at a public hearing during the process? Ms. Murphy stated yes; that the Commission has the most discretion at the current point of the proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 approval process; that requesting a site plan with a rezoning application allows for application of the Action Strategies in the City's Comprehensive Plan to establish compatibility with the residential neighborhood; that a site plan will have to satisfy any conditions set forth by the Zoning Code (1998) and proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 if adopted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a planning standard dictates a zoning divisions should be separated by a street; that no commercial or office establishments exist on the east side of East Avenue; and asked if the property and 2068 Hawthorne Street are the only two properties with non-commercial/non-office zoning on the west side of East Avenue. Ms. Murphy stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that many items detailed in the List are already proffered by the Applicant; that Staff should review the List to determine if further proffers are necessary or if items are covered in the Zoning Code (1998); that some items will be covered during the site plan review process with the PBLP; and asked if any overlooked issues have been identified? Ms. Murphy stated that the List has been compared with proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 and Zoning Code (1998) requirements; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is a work-in-progress with many drafts and amendments to the proffers; that the List may not have BOOK 47 Page 19880 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19881 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. been compiled using the most recent draft of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; and referred to the following item on the List: 2. The minimum roof pitch shall be 4:12. Ms. Murphy continued that the item has been addressed; and referred to the following item on the List: 1. The building will be located as close to East Avenue as allowed. Ms. Murphy further stated that the item is contained in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that some residents want the proposed development pushed against East Avenue while others are against the location of the development sO far to the east. Commissioner Quillin stated that the location of the building will be determined by the Zoning Code (1998). Commissioner Cardamone stated that the site plan will illustrate the location of the building which can be modified at a future date. Ms. Murphy stated that Item No. 1 requests the structure be placed as close as possible to the setback line. on East Avenue; that the length of the parcel allows for placement of a structure farther away from East Avenue than the setback requires. Commissioner Cardamone stated that neighborhood residents requested the proffer of location of the proposed building as close to East Avenue as possible. Ms. Murphy stated that only some neighborhood residents requested the eastern-most location of the proposed structure; that roof pitch has been addressed in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that no blank wall construction will take place; that the proffers in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 address many of the items on the List; that the East Avenue side of the proposed building will be enclosed from the grade upwards if underground parking is utilized; that screening will be used; that the maximum allowable FAR requested on the List is different from the proffered amount in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that the FAR and the tree canopy are difficult to anticipate without a site plan; that a tree survey does not exist at the current time; however, a tree survey will be conducted with the development of a site plan to determine consistency with the tree protection ordinance; that the right-of-way is addressed in a site plan; that signage is addressed by the Zoning Code (1998) and site plan criteria; that CPTED fencing is incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that exterior lighting is governed by the Zoning Code (1998); and referred to the following item from the List: 11. The building will be no higher than 2-stories with a peak no greater than 35 feet. Ms. Murphy continued that the peak height proffered in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 may allow for some third-story use; that refuse pick-up and screening is covered by the Zoning Code (1998); that limits to the uses for the proposed building are incorporated in the proffers in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that the List includes the proffers already contained in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235. Commissioner Quillin stated that Staff has worked diligently with 35 meighborhood residents regarding proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235; that the efforts of all parties involved are appreciated; that zoning the property in the OPB-1 rather than the OPB Zone District has been discussed. Ms. Murphy stated that the comparison originated with the first presentation to the PBLP; that Staff should have completed a more thorough comparison between the two zone districts; that the PBLP held a discussion regarding the benefits of the OPB-1 Zone District; that Staff struggled to provide answers to the PBLP; that Staff was provided a directive to furnish the PBLP with additional information regarding the differences between the OPB and OPB-1 Zone Districts; that differences exist in the lot size requirement and width; that Staff analyzed the benefits of the OPB-1 Zone District; that the City would gain a small number of benefits from granting the OPB-1 Zone District; however, the City would lose the proffers contained in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235. Mayor Pillot asked if the OPB Zone District is more beneficial than the OPB-1 Zone District? Ms. Murphy stated that the OPB Zone District is more beneficial with the current proffers; that unless the same proffers are added to a request for the OPB-1 Zone District, the City should accept the compatibility standards proffered in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235. Mayor Pillot requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. BOOK 47 Page 19882 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19883 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 on first reading. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission of the year 2000 would not have approved building Fire Station 2 in the neighborhood; that the City is attempting to repair past mistakes and problems occurring before Commissions became neighborhood- friendly and neighborhood-anxious; that structures should have never been allowed to cross lot boundaries; however, buildings have gradually crept over lot boundaries and into residential areas; that the City has areas containing residential lots located in completely commercial areas; and quoted a memorandum dated May 30, 2000, to Marta Morris-Weisbrod, from Stephen Handra, Division Chief, Sarasota County Fire Department as follows: [Fire] Station 2 located on Waldemere Street responds to approximately 868 fire incident responses and 1797 Emergency Medical responses. In addition to these emergency responses, the facility also houses equipment and apparatus, which are used in the Neo-Natal Transports for SMH and our Public Education/Special Event programs. The meeting room [is] on the second story of the station . Commissioner Cardamone continued that the building is incompatible with a neighborhood residential structure; that the property owners have fought since 1983 to have Fire Station 2 located in an area other than the neighborhood's backyard; that relocation attempts have failed to receive consideration from the City to rezone the subject property to ensure a return on the initial investment of a single-family home; that the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 is made with pride. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 provides the City with an opportunity to impact the property and surrounding neighborhood in a positive manner; that legitimate concerns regarding the future site plan have been presented; that the developer should work diligently with the neighborhood residents to provide benefit to the entire area. Commissioner Quillin stated that neighborhood residents are wonderful, should remain active regarding the property development, have worked diligently to maintain a certain ambiance in the area, and are concerned with the area remaining pedestrian-friendly and family oriented; that enhancements have been made to East Avenue to ensure the commercial area ties into the residential area; that the commercial area is important to the residents as part of the neighborhood; that area residents are concerned; however, the residents have been planning for the transition to a commercial designation; that the developer will work with neighborhood residents and be a good neighbor regardless of the type of commercial structure built; that many neighborhood concerns are addressed by the Zoning Code (1998). Mayor Pillot stated that any consideration of the property as suitable for family living is astonishing; that the property has not been suitable for family living for a long time; that the Applicant's presentation is excellent, appreciated, and graphically illustrates the subject area; that the property owner's ability to live in the area is respected. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4235 on first reading and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes. 12. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4248, TO REZONE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRUITVILLE ROAD AND SHADE AVENUE AND HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 2402 FRUITVILLE ROAD, FROM THE SINGLE - FAMILY-RESIDENTIAL-2 (RSF-2) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL, AND BUSINESS (OPB) ZONE DISTRICT, APPROVING SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 00-SP-18 WHICH HAS BEEN PROFFERED AS A CONDITION OF THIS REZONING; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (REZONING APPLICATION NO. 00-RE-13, APPLICANT JOEL FREEDMAN, - FREEDMAN CONSULTING GROUP AS AGENT FOR VICTOR F. CALDERON, AS OWNER) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-2) #3 (0725) through (1227) Mayor Pillot stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248 pertains to Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-13 concerning property located at the southeast corner of Fruitville Road and Shade Avenue; that the applicant is Joel Freedman, AICP, Vice President, Bishop and Associates, agent for Victor Calderon, owner, and David Kaus, contract purchaser. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-13 requests approval of a rezoning from the Single-ramily Residential (RSF-2) to the Office, Professional, and Business (OPB) Zone District; that a site plan and a BOOK 47 Page 19884 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19885 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. restriction upon the uses proposed for future development as set forth in the rezone ordinance have been proffered; that at its July 6, 2000, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and found the rezoning consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) and the Standards for Review set forth in the Zoning Code (1998), and recommended approval to the Commission; that the conditions recommended by the PBLP are set forth in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248. Attorney Schenk stated that the recommendation is to allow the Applicant 10 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that the City will have 5 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 3 minutes to speak; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Mayor Pillot requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Pillot, Vice Mayor Hogle, Commissioners Cardamone and Mason stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Commissioner Quillin stated that personal property is owned within 500 feet of the subject property; that notice regarding the neighborhood meetings was received; however, the neighborhood meetings were not personally attended. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Joel Freedman, AICP, Vice President, Bishop and Associates, came before the Commission; referred to drawings displayed on the overhead projector indicating a site plan of the subject property; stated that Victor Calderon, owner, and David Kaus, contract purchaser, are represented for the presentation; that a complete Staff report has been provided along with minutes of the PBLP discussion regarding the subject property which is located at the southeast corner of Fruitville Road and Shade Avenue; that the site is approximately 0.3 acres currently zoned Single-Family Residential-2 (RSF-2) Zone District; however, the property is designated in the Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, as the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification; that the Office, Professional, and Business (OPB) Zone District is requested as a consistent and appropriate implementing zone district; that a 2,450-square-foot, single- story, medical office building is proposed for the site and will house a psychiatry practice; that parking will be located south of the proposed building; that the proposed building is located one foot from the setback along Fruitville Road; that 15 parking spaces are proposed and a tree credit for two trees is expected; that Staff has helped develop a plan to save trees; that the Applicant is interested in saving trees; that tree cover is desired due to the type of use of the proposed building; that neighbors to the south of the property wish to keep as many trees as possible; that the largest tree recognized in the area is off of the subject property in the right-of-way; that orientation of the proposed building is visible in the site plan; that access to the parking lot will be from Shade Avenue; that the location of the wall along the southern property boundary has become an issue of concerni that the Zoning Code (1998) encourages building walls away from the property line to allow for landscaping on the residential side of the wall; that the property owners to the south intend to build a wall; that a wall should not be constructed 10 feet away from the residential wall; that the alley formed by the building of two walls would result in unsafe conditions in the area; that the Applicant and the property owners to the south will build a decorative wall with stucco finish and pillars on the subject property. Commissioner Quillin asked if an existing wall is located to the east of the property? Mr. Freedman stated that a fence in poor condition is located to the east of the property; that the Zoning Code (1998) demands the anticipated future zoning of a parcel be considered; that the property will be in the OPB Zone District; that a decorative wall will positively impact the residential neighbors; that the 3 property has many nice trees; that the pine trees will be the most impacted; that the proposed architecture will maintain a residential, low-scale, Florida character; that parking under the structure is not desired by the Applicant; that the site plan has been proffered as part of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248; that concurrency requirements for traffic, water, and sewer have been met; that the OPB Zone District permits a 30 percent lot coverage of a building; however, the proposed building covers only 18 percent which is extremely compatible with the neighborhood and provides a buffer; that the building is appropriate for view along Fruitville Road; that Staff has requested the Applicant consider the ability to grant an easement along the southern property boundary so future residential developments will have access to Shade Avenue; that the Applicant agrees to discuss an easement with developers at the time of development; that many issues arise in allowing the public to Cross property such as maintenance and safety; that property negotiations provide results which are beneficial to all parties involved; that BOOK 47 Page 19886 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19887 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. concerns will arise regarding access to Fruitville Road; that the future may bring solutions; that the Applicant agrees to discuss future options; however, a proffer to allow an easement will not be made for proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248. Mayor Pillot requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Applicant has provided a thorough review of the points in Staff's review of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248 which was easily matched to the Future Land Use Plan; that a reservation exists in future development of surrounding land to the property and maintenance of spacing standards for State Highway (S.H.) 780 which are designed as access management to prevent conflict points along Fruitville Road; that the City is attempting to gain shared access wherever possible which is a worthwhile goal; that the Applicant is interested. in accomplishing as much as possible without unduly encumbering the property owner; that a requirement is contained in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248 which encourages the property owner to discuss options regarding an easement at the time of development of land to the east of the property; that the ideal solution is to create a single mid-point driveway for the entire block rather than six driveways; that Fruitville Road will operate more efficiently if the number of entryways is reduced; that an Action Strategy within the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) promotes shared access and will be discussed during the update of the land development regulations; - that new language will be developed to benefit the City regarding traffic management issues; that Staff and the Applicant agree with the language of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248. Mayor Pillot requested that other interested persons come forward. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak. Mayor Pillot requested that the Applicant and the City come forward for rebuttal. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated neither the Applicant, nor the City, has any rebuttal. Mayor Pillot requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4248 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes. 13. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4226, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1830 LINCOLN DRIVE, HISTORICADIY KNOWN AS THE SOUTHWICK/HARMON HOUSE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (REQUEST FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPLICATION NO. 00-HD-02, APPLICANT MIKKI HARTIG, AS AGENT FOR JULIAN I. HAZELWOOD AND DIANE P. HAZELWOOD I AS OWNERS) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-3) #3 (1227) through (1502) Attorney Schenk stated that the recommendation is to allow the Applicant 5 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal; that the City will have 3 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes % for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 3 minutes to speak; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. a * Mayor Pillot requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Pillot, Vice Mayor Hogle, Commissioners Cardamone, Mason and Quillin stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Mikki Hartig, Historical and Architectural Research Services, came before the Commission; referred to slides of pictures of the Southwick/Harmon House; distributed copies of a photograph of the Southwick/Harmon House at the time of completion in 1926; and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4226 provides for the designation of a house historically known as the Southwick/ Harmon House, as a structure of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance; that Julian and Diane BOOK 47 Page 19888 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19889 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Hazelwood have recently purchased the property located at 1830 Lincoln Drive and are represented; that the Southwick/Harmon House is a single-tamily, two-story Mediterranean Revival residence; that the home's construction is of hollow clay tile; that the Southwick/Harmon House rests on a hollow clay tile wall foundation, has a slightly irregular plan with projecting salients on the front and rear elevations; that multiplanar roofs cover the various building blocks of the structure with the main block being covered by a hip roof, surfaced in apparently original barrel tile; that an original one bay, one-story garage which has been modified significantly is on the site; that designation is not requested for the garage nor the non-historic swimming pool on the site; that the only alteration to the house on the exterior is a glassed-in screened porch which meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, published in Final Federal Register April 24, 1998; that the guest house is considered non-historic; that the house is an original structure of the Avondale Subdivision which was developed by Irving Bacheller, Edward Brewer, and Fred Woolley under the Bacheller-Brewer Corporation; that the structure was one of the earliest homes completed in the newly platted Avondale Subdivision; that on December 1, 1925, the Bacheller-Brewer Corporation transferred interest in Lot 6 to H.I. and Gladys Southwick; that the Southwicks executed a mortgage to the development company in the amount of $1,035 for the purchase of Lot 6; that an additional mortgage was executed in the amount of $5,000 for the purchase of the house; that the exact completion date regarding construction is unknown; however, the home was definitely completed by November 1926; that Mr. Southwick originated in Warren, Ohio, and later moved to Thomasville, Georgia in 1915; that Mr. and Mrs. Southwick moved to the City in 1922; that Mr. Southwick served as City Clerk for four years from 1923 to 1927; that two years during employment with the City were spent living at the subject residence; that on January 22, 1940, the property was sold to J.D. and Elsie Harmon; that the Harmons are known for long-time ownership of Harmon Liquors and Harmon and LeValley Cigars and Tobacco which is the structure now known as the Gator Club; that Mr. Harmon with William Harmon, brother, operated Harmon's Men's Store located on Main Street; that the Harmons owned the house until 1971. Mayor Pillot requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that staff for the County's Department of Historical Resources has determined the historical resource described in Historic Designation Application No. 00-HD-02 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4226 possesses the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association and meets the criteria contained in Section IV-806(A), Zoning Code (1998): 1. Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural and economic history of the City by its representation of the type of home built at the time of Sarasota's land boom; and 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of the Mediterranean Revival style of architecture as characterized by its stucco exterior, irregular plan, and barrel tile roof. Mayor Pillot requested that interested persons come forward. : Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak. Mayor Pillot requested that the Applicant and the City come forward for rebuttal. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated neither the Applicant, nor the City, has any rebuttal. Mayor Pillot requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. $ Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4226 by title only. -On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4226 on first reading. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Southwick/Harmon House is one of the most attractive homes in the Avondale Subdivision; that the neighborhood is very proud of the home. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yesi Mason, yes. 14. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4227, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 1826 CLEMATIS STREET, , HISTORICALLY BOOK 47 Page 19890 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19891 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. KNOWN AS THE KENNEDY/BARTH HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (REQUEST FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPLICATION NO. 00-HD-03, APPLICANT MIKKI HARTIG, AS AGENT FOR JOHN L. DAMRON AND JUNE M. DAMRON, AS OWNERS) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-4) #3 (1502) through (1650) Attorney Schenk stated that the recommendation is to allow the Applicant 5 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal; that the City will have 3 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 3 minutes to speak; that no one has filed for certification as an Aiiected Person. Mayor Pillot requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Pillot, Vice Mayor Hogle, Commissioners Cardamone, Mason and Quillin stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Mikki Hartig, Historical and Architectural Research Services, came before the Commission and stated that the owners John and June Damron are represented; that the structure is located at 1826 Clematis Street in the DeSota Park Subdivision developed by Lewis Combs and is an example of a simple 1925 Spanish Eclectic home constructed of hollow clay tile with stucco exterior walls; that the original windows are still intact; that the house has various roof planes.; that a small sun porch addition does not detract from the original construction or design of the house; that the house was originally occupied by Dr. Walter Kennedy who was a well-known optometrist; that the home was purchased as a speculation home on December 1, 1926; that the Kennedy family owned the home until 1930; that the house was sold by tax deed which reverted ownership back to the original owner; that the Barth family purchased the property; that Ms. Barth died in childbirth in 1939; that the house has retained the original character. Mayor Pillot requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that staff for the County's Department of Historical Resources has determined historical resource described in Historic Designation Application No. 00-HD-03 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4227 possesses the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association and meets the criteria contained in Section IV-806(A), Zoning Code (1998): 1. Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural and economic history of the City by its representation of a typical bungalow from the time of Sarasota's land boom; and 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of the Mediterranean Revival style of architecture as characterized by its stucco exterior, raised parapet roof, and arched entry. . Mayor Pillot requested that other interested persons come forward; and the following interested persons came before the Commission: Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak. Mayor Pillot requested that the Applicant and the City come forward for rebuttal. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated neither the Applicant, nor the City, has any rebuttal. . Mayor Pillot requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4227 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Quillin, it. was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4227 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4229, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 4511 BAY SHORE ROAD / HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE ETOWAH- - HAGAN/ / JACKSON HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOOK 47 Page 19892 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19893 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (REQUEST FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPLICATION NO. 00-HD-05, APPLICANT MIKKI HARTIG, AS AGENT FOR STANLEY GOLDMAN AND GLORIA GOLDMAN, AS OWNERS) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-5) #3 (1650) through (2055) Attorney Schenk stated that the recommendation is to allow the Applicant 5 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal; that the City will have 3 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 3 minutes to speak; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Mayor Pillot requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Pillot, Vice Mayor Hogle, Commissioners Cardamone, Mason and Quillin stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Mikki Hartig, Historical and Architectural Research Services, came before the Commission referred to slide projections of pictures of the Etowah-Hagan/Jackson House; and stated that Stanley and Gloria Goldman, Owners, are represented with pleasure; that the subject residence is one of the most beautifully preserved homes in the City; that personally, having a part in preserving the City's history is a pleasure; that the structure is historically known as the Etowah-Hagan/Jackson House, located at 4511 Bay Shore Road in the Indian Beach Subdivision, and was completed in 1925; that the original structure remains remarkably intact; that a modern addition designed by Frank Folsom Smith in 1992 has not altered the original structure and is appropriate according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, published in the Final Federal Register April 24, 1998; that a book has been published illustrating the life of an earlier owner; that Felix Jackson began as a farmboy who later founded the Philadelphia Steamship Company; that ownership of the house remained with the Jackson family from 1930 to 1966; that Lee Hagan from Atlanta, Georgia, owned the home before Mr. Jackson; that the home is most associated with the Jackson family; that Mr. Jackson owned a yacht which was parked in an boat basin; that the property contains an historic boat house; that part of the property was sold off dividing the boat basin between the two properties. Mayor Pillot requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that staff for the County's Department of Historical Resources has determined the historical resource described in Historical Designation Application No. 00-HD-05 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4229 possesses the integrity of. location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association and meets the criteria contained in Section IV-806 (A), Zoning Code (1998): 1. Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural and economic history of the City by its representation of a Mediterranean Revival Style home with associated outbuildings and landscape features from Sarasota; and 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of the Mediterranean Revival style of architecture as characterized by its stucco exterior, raised parapet roof, and irregular plan. Mayor Pillot requested that interested persons come forward. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak. Mayor Pillot requested that the Applicant and the City come forward for rebuttal. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated neither the Applicant, nor the City, has any rebuttal. Mayor Pillot requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4229 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4229 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes. BOOK 47 Page 19894 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19895 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City's involvement in designating historical homes is appropriate; that reading the historical nature of the homes presented to the Commission is a pleasure; that a presentation to the public regarding the criteria and processes for declaring historic designation of a structure may be advantageous; that not every home of substantial age in the City has been preserved in the manner of some mansions; however, many homes in the City are worthy of the historical designation recognition; that the public's understanding of the historical designation process is important. Commissioner Mason stated that the topic is appropriate for the program entitled "City Life" broadcast on Channel 19, Access Sarasota. Ms. Hartig stated that over 100 properties have received historical designations over the past 10 years; that the City's historic designation program has been active since 1985; that the City has not provided a public format for promotion of the program; that advertisements should be placed in local papers annually sO residents are aware of the program; that City databases could provide the means to organize a mailing to property owners with homes 50 years or older; that the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation received a grant from the State to create a brochure which explains historical designation programs. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, Staff is requested to consider a segment for the City Life program and advertising concerning the City's historical designation program. Ms. Hartig stated that new tax incentives are available to property owners with historical designation status. 16. CITIZENS! INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (2055) through (2070) John Tewey, 568 Bird Key Drive (34236), was no longer present in the Chambers. Mel Stauffer was no longer present in the Chambers. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Stauffer spoke with Staff regarding displaying paintings in City Hall during the recess. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Stauffer is interested in displaying the paintings at City Hall and at the County's Judicial Center located at 2002 Ringling Boulevard; that potential display areas near the Utility Billing Office in City Hall were discussed; however, the interest was in a larger continuing wall or space; that the suggestion was made to contact the County regarding displaying the paintings at the Judicial Center. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: PETITION REGARDING THE DECISION CONCERNING CLOSURE OF ORANGE AVENUE IN THE VICINITY OF BOOKER HIGH SCHOOL = APPROVED TO BRING BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION THE DECISION TO CLOSE ORANGE AVENUE AT BOOKER HIGH SCHOOL 90 DAYS AFTER THE OPENING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR UTILIZING UPDATED TRAFFIC AND SCHOOL STUDENT CROSSING DATA OBTAINED BY STAFF (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) #3 (2070) through #4 (0056) Commissioner Mason stated that the issue to Close a portion of Orange Avenue came before the Commission several months ago; that several residents of Amyrillis Park, the neighborhood immediately adjacent to Booker High School (BHS), and the Amyrillis Park Neighborhood Association have expressed concern regarding the vote of the Commission and request reconsideration of the action to close a portion of Orange Avenue; and referred to a letter dated July 25, 2000, from Calvin Bryant indicating disappointment and disapproval of the Commission's decision to close Orange Avenue for approximately 8 hours each day during school hours. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that the Agenda Request indicated the topic was for a presentation and not to rescind or amend the prior action; therefore, a supermajority or four votes is required. The following people came before the Commission. Calvin Bryant, 1720 32nd Street (34234), President, Amyrillis Park Neighborhood Association, stated that Amyrillis Park neighborhood residents are requesting the Commission reconsider the closure of Orange Avenue; that the City has been mislead by the BHS Principal regarding the effect of the Closure on the area neighborhood; that the issue has been analyzed and discussed thoroughly since the action had been taken; that the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) has indicated safety is not an issue in the area as tickets are readily written to speeders; that neighborhood residents do not believe a speeding problem should justify closing a street; that the SPD should be notified if speeding is a problem sO tickets may be issued; that speeding is not a severe problem; however, speeding appears to be the main BOOK 47 Page 19896 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19897 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. reason for closing the street; that the BHS Principal previously indicated only 18 people would be affected by the Orange Avenue Closure which is not accurate; that many area residents of 29th Street and Goodrich Avenue are impacted by the Orange Avenue closure; that the City should reconsider the action taken and continue the original Orange Avenue closure only in the morning and afternoon at the beginning and ending of the school day; that the BHS Principal is not a traffic expert; that the City should consult Staff traffic experts who indicated at the time of the Commission vote the closure would greatly impact area streets; that neighborhood residents are witnessing first hand each day the development of traffic problems; that the neighborhood has overcome many problems such. as drugs and crime; that new homes are being built and renovations of older homes are taking place; that the area improvements will be futile due to the increasing negative traffic impacts; that future growth will take place primarily in the northern areas of the City; that the community is located in the expected growth areas; that the points made by area residents concerning the Orange Avenue closure should be considered by the Commission; that the problem intersection has crosswalks and a traffic signal which prevent speeding; that a traffic guard is always available to aid children in crossing the street; that neighborhood residents are concerned for all children in the area not just the children bused in; that some children walk across US 41 to Booker Middle School without a single crosswalk; that a traffic guard is not posted on US 301; that the individuals walking from Newtown Estates to Booker Middle School are small children not adults; that the safety of the children using roads without crosswalks should be a concern of the BHS Principal; that a road was built by the cemetery sO children would not be forced to walk through muddy puddles; that homeless individuals chasing children who walk through the cemetery has been documented with the SPD; that the County and BHS argue over who is to blame for the lack of acceptable walking routes in the area; that a road was completed by personal investment; that children now have a paved road to take to school. Willie Charles Shaw, 1636 32nd Street (34234), representing the Amyrillis Park Neighborhood Association, stated that the Shaw family has lived in the area for over 97 years; that neighborhood residents are a part of and make up the backbone of the community; that traffic flow change to the area will be detrimental; that the streets in Newtown were built approximately 33 years ago with less than one inch of asphalt; that streets are buckling due to the seepage of rainwater; that additional traffic will destroy the substandard roads; that the City should be more neighborhood-friendly to area residents and reconsider the action taken regarding closure of Orange Avenue; that poles to block traffic have already been installed and should be removed; that the area residents are responsible for building and are the heart of the community; that many residents have owned area property for over 50 years; that excess traific will destroy the neighborhood; that reconsideration is appreciated. Commissioner Mason stated that concerns were addressed regarding traffic rerouting during the original discussions of the Orange Avenue closure; that all parties involved in the Closure issue, not just area residents, are concerned for area children; that the Commission should reconsider the vote to close Orange Avenue; that the safety issue has been resolved; however, a larger problem is created with the influx of traffic into the residential neighborhood; that traffic will not stop at Goodrich or Osprey Avenues; that the traific will stop at US 301 which is the destination of most travelers; that the original recommendations of the task force which met with BHS representatives and Staff should be considered; that the area should be blocked off by saw horses at the beginning and ending of the school day. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the ideas presented and the ideas of the BHS Principal are respected; that the ideas of the BHS Principal for the safety of the students are extremely important; that the City should work with the County to find a solution to keep children from crossing US 301 without a traffic crossing guard; that the Commission made a decision regarding closure of Orange Avenue and should allow a 90-day period after the start of the school year to gauge the impact the Orange Avenue street closure has on' the area; that neighborhood residents will have the opportunity to provide input regarding the impacts. : Commissioner Quillin stated that cruising was a problem at BHS; that the Commission was notified of the problem; that Staff recommended placing saw horses in the area and placing a crossing guard with a hand-held controller at the traffic signal to manipulate traffic; that closing Orange Avenue for the entire school day is not supported; that Orange Avenue is an important artery for movement between Myrtle Street and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way (MLK Way)i that motorist speeds in the area are a concern and enforcement is necessary; that the location of the traffic survey data recording devices is unknown; that City and School Staffs has been working together to find an alternative loading/unloading area for school buses; that the neighborhood residents have worked diligently to analyze various aspects of the problem. BOOK 47 Page 19898 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19899 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone referred to a petition addressed to the Commission included in the Agenda material indicating opposition to the closing of Orange Avenue; and stated that the wording of the petition is insulting and unnecessary; that another approach may have met a more favorable response; that the Commission did not take the decision to close Orange Avenue lightly; that deciding against Staff's recommendations is difficult; that the School Board of Sarasota County and the BHS Principal and Staff were consulted; that untoward behavior by drivers was personally witnessed; that the Commission has acted to ensure the safety of the BHS students similar to the action to close School Avenue to protect Sarasota High School (SHS) students; that a detour of traffic using Orange Avenue during a portion of the day does not affect all the addresses listed on the petition. Mayor Pillot stated that simply closing Orange Avenue during pick-up/drop-off times would solve the problem if the loading/unloading of students was the major issue; that students crossing Orange Avenue throughout the day is the reason a vote was cast to close Orange Avenue for the entire school dayi that the SHS Principal was consulted regarding impacts of closing School Avenue to gauge the possible impacts of closing Orange Avenue; that major differences exist between closing School and Orange Avenues; that traffic removed from School Avenue does not impact the neighborhood in the same manner as removing traffic from Orange Avenue; that student crossing of Orange Avenue throughout the school day is the major concern of the Commission, not the loading/unloading of students; that a 90-day trial period is a good idea; that Staff could monitor traffic impacts in the BHS area; that speeding is not the only risk factor; that the mere movement of vehicles at an appropriate speed is dangerous; that Staff can contact officials at BHS to begin compiling data regarding traffic conditions and the number, frequency, and time of students crossing Orange Avenue. Commissioner Mason stated that the 90-day trial compromise is supported; that the wording of the petition is not vicious or malicious; however, the wording represents the true feelings of area residents; that the Commission is interested in the public's true feelings; that apologies are offered if offense was taken by the wording of the petition. Commission Cardamone stated that the petition language is insulting; that the Commission considered the Orange Avenue closure for approximately one year; that numerous task force meetings were held; that one task force meeting was personally attended; that more school personnel attended the task force meeting than neighbors; that public hearings have been held for comments; that no more than six individuals approached the Commission; that individuals decide to protest the Commission's decision after action is taken; and read the petition as Eollows: We oppose the vote taken because the vote was in direct opposition to your Staff recommendations and the will of this community. The Claims of student safety concerns and low community impact that you and the Principal used as justification are unfounded and not supported by fact or data. Many of us worked with your Neighborhood Task Force, IN GOOD FAITH, believing that you could be trusted to honor the wishes of the neighborhood and respect the input of informed citizens and Staff. Since our voices were not heard and respected, we now request that you retract the vote and follow the recommendation of the Neighborhood Task Force and the Professional City Staff thereby allowing this Neighborhood to continue to function quietly and efficiently without such unreasonable intrusion by Government bureaucracies. Commissioner Cardamone continued that only a few individuals worked with the Neighborhood Task Force; that the input of informed and concerned citizens was respected by the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that the statement pertaining to the community not being heard or respected is hurtful; that many requests must be turned down due to the necessity for a decision; that the petition represents the feelings of a concerned and upset community; that the public was heard; however, a majority of the Commission voted for the Orange Avenue closure. R On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to bring back for reconsideration the decision to close Orange Avenue at Booker High School 90 days after the opening of the school year utilizing updated traffic and school student crossing data obtained by Staff. Commissioner Quillin stated that the difference between BHS and SHS is the traffic signal located on Orange Avenue; that a hand- held control for the traffic signal is desired; that a traffic guard can hold a light during times of student crossovers. Mayor Pillot stated that specificity is desired regarding student crossing frequency and times. Commissioner Quillin stated that the presence of a traffic signal is a major factor in the student traffic problem at BHS; that BHS should find a location for bus loading/unloading other than Orange Avenue. BOOK 47 Page 19900 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19901 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that the bus loading/unloading location has been presented to the appropriate BHS officials; that another feasible location currently does not exist. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a decision regarding an issue presented by Staff and BHS officials is being undone without any comment, input, or contact from the individuals who are pleased with the current decision; that reconsideration is unfair. Mayor Pillot stated that the decision is not being overturned; that the issue will be reviewed in 90 days; however, a decision to overturn the closure is in no way inferred. Commissioner Cardamone stated that BHS officials who relied on the Commission to approve the Closure are unaware of the events taking place. Commissioner Quillin stated that evidence presented by Staff was strongly opposed by the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that the decision to close Orange Avenue will not be overturned unless the data collected at the end of 90 days indicates a necessity to do so; that an open mind will be maintained. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to bring back for reconsideration the decision to close Orange Avenue at Booker High School 90 days after the opening of the school year utilizing updated traffic and school student crossing data obtained by Staff. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, no; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: FLORIDA SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROGRAM RECEIVED PRESENTATION AND DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF THE FLORIDA SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROGRAM DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020: PRELIMINARY DRAFT (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY DRAF'T) (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #4 (0056) through (0460) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Susan King, Planning Division, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) came before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Florida Scenic Highways program was brought to Staff's attention by Commissioner Quillin, who expressed interest in implementing the program in conjunction with efforts to reduce traffic lanes on US 41 near the City's Bayfront. Mr. Daughters stated that the Ms. King is the District 1 Coordinator for the Florida Scenic Highways Program, which was presented to Staff at a Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting; that Commissioner Quillin requested additional information on the program; that Ms. King will inform the Commission of the benefits and costs of the program and the relevance of the program to the City and will answer any questions. Ms. King referred to a brochure of the Florida Scenic Highways Program and stated that the State has initiated a unique program to protect our historic, cultural, and natural scenic resources while promoting the individuality of a community; that FDOT developed the program to highlight and showcase Florida's resources along a highway corridor; that through the Florida Scenic Highways Program, highways are recognized for the ability to provide a glimpse of Florida's heritage and beauty; that the Florida Scenic Highways Program is a community-Dased program initiated by persons wishing to showcase a particular local resourcei that each community is responsible to determine local outstanding resources, whether historic, scenic, cultural, recreational, archaeological or natural, identifies the issues significant to each chosen portion of the highway such as speed limits, signage and landscaping, and formulates potential solutions for such issues; that FDOT will assist local communities in seeking funds for improvements to highways; that : funds consist of either local or State funds or private donations; that designation as a Florida Scenic Highway offers increased economic benefits generated by tourism and promotes community spirit; that the key to success of the venture is the extensive partnership among citizens, local government, civic groups, and businesses. Ms. King continued that FDOT Staff is working with the City of Bradenton Beach currently to provide funding for a scenic portion of State Road 789; that FDOT and the City of Bradenton Beach are developing a Corridor Management Plan (CMP) and identified several significant issues such as bike path, parking, drainage and landscaping; that community workshops were held to receive input; that the CMP must first be approved; that funds will be sought to address the issues identified by the community and FDOT Staff upon approval of the CMP; that FDOT funded the development of the CMP for other cities and will fund a CMP for the portion BOOK 47 Page 19902 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19903 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. of any scenic highway chosen by the Commission; that information and brochures will be provided to Staff and the Commission. Ms. King further stated that FDOT obtained scenic highway designation of portions of the Tamiami Trail in Collier County through the Big Cyprus National Preserve and secured a $2 million grant to build a visitor's center; that the National Park Service provided $5 million to build visitor amenities along the designated portion of Tamiami Trail; that a National Scenic Byway Grant was obtained in the amount of $260,000 to develop a CMP; that National Scenic Byway Program funds were also obtained to develop an interpretive plan and a marketing plan; that many grant funding opportunities exist through the development of a CMP. Mayor Pillot stated that the City has expressed interest in the Florida Scenic Highways Program as a means to reduce traffic along the City's Bayfront, which is discussed in the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020: Preliminary Draft (Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Draft); that US 41 would be designated as a Scenic Highway; and asked if a CMP should be developed in conjunction with efforts to implement the Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Draft? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the feasibility and applicability of the Florida Scenic Highways program should be explored; that the Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Draft, requires additional consideration; that the Commission considered the issue of rerouting US 41 in past years; that FDOT is conducting a local corridor study of US 301; that the Florida Scenic Highways Program could assist a City effort to reroute US 41 and should be considered. Mayor Pillot asked if FDOT Staff was familiar with the Downtown Master Plan Update? Ms. King stated no; that a draft of the Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Draft, was not reviewed by FDOT Staff. Mayor Pillot stated that the potential for rerouting US 41 was introduced to the Commission approximately ten years ago; that obtaining permission from Federal and State government agencies to reroute US 41 from the City's Bayfront will be difficult; however, the rerouting US 41 is recommended in the draft of the Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Draft. Commissioner Quillin stated that US 41 should achieve scenic designation under the Florida Scenic Highways Program; that scenic designation of US 41 would be similar to US Alternate 19 which passes through the City of Clearwater; that alternate routes discourage vehicular traffic; that US 301 should be redesignated as US Business 41; that discussions were held with City of Bradenton Staff; that the City of Bradenton currently engages in redevelopment efforts similar to the City's redevelopment efforts and has similar problems and issues to address concerning US 41; that the Mayor of the City of Palmetto could be asked on such issues; that US 41 impacts many communities; however, many businesses will be affected negatively by rerouting US 41; that the negative impacts should be considered; that the City should consider scenic designation of US 41 if the City of Bradenton does not. Mayor Pillot stated that the City should consider scenic designation of US 41 without concern for the actions of the City :T of Bradenton. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to receive the presentation and direct the Administration to include discussion of the Florida Scenic Highways Program during consideration of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020: Preliminary Draft (Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Drait). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. - 19. NEW BUSINESS: REQUEST RE: : PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CASE NO. 99-16046 CM, CITY OF SARASOTA V. GENE BOVINETT REFERRED TO ADMINIS STRATION FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION 4 (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (0460) through (0927) Mayor Pillot stated that the proposed settlement of Case No. 99-16046 CM, City of Sarasota V. Gene Bovinett is presented by Attorney Richard Smith, Nelson Hesse Attorneys at Law. Attorney Richard Smith, Nelson Hesse Attorneys at Law, came before the Commission and stated that the proposal requests the Commission to end the prohibition of mobile ice cream vendors; that the decision of the County Court regarding the constitutionality of the City's current total prohibition of mobile ice cream vending within the City has been appealed to the Circuit Court and is currently pending; that the Commission should examine possible solutions to legitimize regulated activity of mobile ice cream vendors avoiding further litigation BOOK 47 Page 19904 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19905 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. expense over the reasonableness of total prohibition in the City of a business legal in the County. Attorney Smith continued that Mr. Bovinett is willing to dismiss the appeal in return for agreement by the City to consider without any preconditions or commitment whatsoever as to the Commission's final action, an ordinance regulating mobile ice cream vending within the City; that the matter should be brought before a public hearing; that the Commission could render a decision on the matter after receiving input from the public, Staff and safety experts; that predetermination of the matter by the Commission is not sought. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission can schedule a public hearing concerning the matter; that the Administration recommends the matter be referred to the Administration for appropriate action; that Staff submitted statements indicating opposition to ending prohibition of mobile ice cream vending; that regulation of mobile ice cream vending significantly increases Staff time; that the City has other issues to consider at the present time; that some time will pass before Staff can properly address the issue. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the pending litigation requires the Commission seek private legal advice from the City Attorney's Office; that discussion of the matter should not occur until such time. Commissioner Cardamone asked the type of public hearing requested by Attorney Smith and Mr. Bovinett? Attorney Smith stated that a public hearing should be held regarding a proposed ordinance to end prohibition of mobile ice cream vending; that a draft ordinance was submitted to the Administration with the current proposal and reflects similar ordinances adopted by other municipalities to regulate mobile ice cream vending; that the draft ordinance provides for safety concerns and additional regulatory requirements; that significant Staff time will not be consumed; that pending litigation will be dismissed unconditionally with prejudice when the Commission schedules a public hearing of the matter; that the Commission will be required to consider the matter if Mr. Bovinett's litigation efforts are successful; that terminating the litigation is a benefit to the City; that Staff time will be consumed in a reasonable manneri that the Commission wishes to maintain sovereignty on local streets; however, the legal business of mobile ice cream vending should not prohibited; that an opportunity for citizens to voice support or opposition to mobile ice cream vending should be granted; that Staff will be allowed as much time as necessary to ensure proper consideration of the matter. Mayor Pillot stated that the request to bring the matter before a public hearing is an appropriate action irrespective the existence of pending litigation; that mobile ice cream vending is a unique form of business prohibited by the Commission; that the Commission should seek to regulate mobile ice cream vending instead of continuing prohibition; that parents, school Staffs and interested citizens should be granted the opportunity to provide input on the matter; that the City should entertain the proposal. Commissioner Cardamone stated that City can benefit from setting the matter for public hearing. Mayor Pillot stated that the draft ordinance provided by Attorney Smith should be reviewed by Staff; that Staff time exists for purposes of evaluating such matters. Commissioner Quillin stated that the efforts of Attorney Smith and Mr. Bovinett to settle the matter are appreciated; that the draft ordinance will significantly reduce Staff time; that referring the matter to the Administration to set for public hearing is supported. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer the matter to the Administration for appropriate action. Mayor Pillot asked the manner in which Staff should consider the matter? Commissioner Quillin stated that all legal and zoning issues should be examined and addressed regarding the draft ordinance submitted by Attorney Smith and Mr. Bovinett. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 20. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: REPORT RE : METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) - RESULTS OF AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 10, 2000, PRESENTED TO MPO BOARD ON JULY 24, 2000 = RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (0927) through (1134) BOOK 47 Page 19906 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19907 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission Board and Committee Report pertains to results of Ad Hoc Committee Meeting of July 10, 2000, presented to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regarding MPO Project Funding 2005 through 2011. Commissioner Quillin referred to the report of the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting of July 10, 2000, and stated that the MPO decided not to fund programs which had not received additional funding; that funding for the St. Armands Drainage Project, the US 301 Project, the US 41 at Osprey Avenue Project, and the 12th Street Project were approved for 2005; that funding for the 17th Street Project was approved for 2006; that Manatee and Sarasota Counties received relatively equal funding for projects; that the MPO funded several additional City projects through 2011; and asked if the City was accepting new projects? Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the City was not accepting new projects. Commissioner Cardamone asked the meaning of the initials "TSM". and "CMS"? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the initials TSM and CMS stand for Transportation System Management and Congestion Management; that the City usually receives a significant portion of the requested amounts for projects, such as intersection projects and other miscellaneous small projects, and continues to perform well in obtaining funding for projects as result of Commission and Staff efforts. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the City was well represented at the July 24, 2000, MPO meeting. Commissioner Quillin stated that the County Commission assisted the City in obtaining funds; that a few County Commissioners attended the July 24, 2000 MPO meeting. City Manager Sollenberger stated that FDOT funding is available for the St. Armands Drainage project for fiscal year (FY) 2005-06; that discussions were held with County Staff to request County funding to initiate the project ahead of schedule; that County Staff noted engineering studies will be conducted during FY 2000- 01; that the project could commence in three to four years if funds are available; that early initiation of the project will require advance payment of $1.8 million by the City; that funds generated from the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) (also referred to as the Penny Sales Tax) can be used to raise the $1.8 million; that significant funds were designated to address stormwater issues; that Staff is examining projects to recommend to the Commission; that the Administration will seek to set the matter for public hearing in September 2000. 21. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, / ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (1134) through (1163) VICE MAYOR HOGLE: A. stated that local news media issued reports regarding City's actions on the John Ringling Bridge; that the Commission has not been informed of the reports; that Staff should submit a report on the matter to the Commission. 22. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (1163) through (1245) DEPUTY CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK MCGOWAN: A. stated that the Commission suggested the public be allowed input regarding the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020: Preliminary Draft (Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Draft); that the suggestion was discussed with Staff; that an executive summary of the Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Drait, is available; that the Commission could permit the public to sign up to speak according to specific items of interest as provided in the executive summary. Mayor Pillot asked the genesis of the executive summary? Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that Staff used portions of the draft of the Downtown Master Plan Update to produce the executive summary. Mayor Pillot asked Staff's preparation to discuss specific items of the Downtown Master Plan, Preliminary Draft? City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff was prepared; that Commission's suggestion is supported; that the Administration will hold discussions with Staff concerning the authority, responsibilities, and roles of the CRA and the Commission during the public input proceedings. BOOK 47 Page 19908 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19909 08/07/00 6:00 P.M. 23. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1245) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the Regular meeting of August 7, 2000, at 11:23 p.m. chah 1. L6 GENE M. PILLOT, MAYOR ATTES - - FAS Robenson 31LH Y. * RO3INSCN, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK -