MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, city Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and city Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner Fredd Atkins PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO YOSHIE MURAMATSU, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT #1 (0030) through (0220) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, and Yoshie Muramatsu, Architect, joined Mayor Patterson before the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that Ms. Muramatsu, a professional architect who lives in Tokyo, Japan, came to Sarasota as the result of a partnership between the City of Sarasota and the International Internship Programsi that Gary Hudson, Mobile Home Park Manager, initiated the Planning and Development Department's participation in the International Internship Program; that the International Internship Program, based in Tokyo, facilitates and arranges for professionals to work with various organizations to gain international experience in their respected fields at no cost to the host organization; that Ms. Muramatsu has volunteered over 700 hours in the City's Planning and Development Department performing research and developing maps necessary to evaluate 30 non- conforming commercial uses in residential areas, preparing reports for the rezoning of two properties, and meeting with local architects, private planners, and individuals at the School Board relative to their facility planning. Mr. Taylor thanked Ms. Muramatsu for the valuable assistance she provided on numerous projects. Mayor Patterson read the Appreciation Certificate in its entirety and presented Ms. Muramatsu with a plaque. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0225) through (0239) BOOK 37 Page 11142 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11143 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add to New Business, Item No. VIII-5, Discussion Re: Sarasota County Legislative Delegation meeting scheduled for December 21, 1994, at Venice City Hall from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon, per the request of Mayor Patterson. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1994, AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1994 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1 AND 2) #1 (0221) through (0254) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Hearing no objections, Mayor Patterson stated that the minutes of the special meeting of November 14, 1994, and regular City Commission meeting of November 21, 1994, were approved by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1994 - SET PS&D 94-8 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; SET PETITIONS 94-CR-PSD-R, 94-CR-SE-05, 94-CR-8V-03, AND 94-CR-C0-10 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; REPORT ACCEPTED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0260) through (0630) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of November 2, 1994: A. Preliminary Site and Development Plan 94-S - to permit construction of an eighty-one room Marriott Courtyard Hotel to be located at 850 University Parkway Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP found PS&D 94-S consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommended approval to the Commission by a 4 to 1 vote; that the descending vote had concerns over the preservation of trees; that the general thought of the PBLP was to have the conformity issues addressed by Staff. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set PS&D 94-S for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. B. Conditional Rezoning Petition 94-CR-CO-10 to conditionally rezone properties located at 58 Fillmore Drive and 48 Adams Drive to the Governmental (G) zone district; Street Vacation Petition 94-CR-SV-03 to vacate a portion of Fillmore Drive lying between the two above- mentioned parcels to unify the parcels for use as a surface parking lot; Special Exception Petition 94-CR-SE-05 for non- governmental use (surface parking lot) in a G zone district; and Preliminary Site and Development Plan 94-CR-PSD-R - to permit construction of a surface parking lot in conjunction with the above-listed conditional rezoning, special exception, and street vacation petitions. Mr. Annis stated that the above-listed petitions were City initiated requests; that the PBLP recommends to the City Commission approval of Street Vacation Petition 94-CR-SV-03 for the portion of Fillmore Drive lying between 58 Fillmore Drive and 48 Adams Drive; that the PBLP found Conditional Rezoning petition 94-CR-CO-10, Special Exception petition 94-CR-SE-05, and PS&D 94-CR-PSD-R consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and Tree Protection Ordinance and recommend approval to the City Commission by a 3 to 2 vote; that the draft minutes contained in the Agenda packets indicate that the motion was subject to the City, the residents and merchant associations (all interested parities - both residential and commercial) holding a meeting to improve parking-space numbers and landscaping issues prior to a public hearing before the City Commission; that improving parking space numbers was not the intent of the motion; that the intent of the motion was to address tree preservation, and, acknowledging that parking spaces might be lost to such an accommodation, have a meeting held for the three parties involved to arrive at a reasonable balance regarding the issue. Mr. Annis continued that the subject site contains a number of trees which would seem to warrant preservation; that, in general, there was an agreement among the PBLP members that some tree preservation was necessary; that the disagreement was whether to let Staff proceed with a résolve or have the matter brought back to the PBLP. Mayor Patterson stated that the concerns expressed by Mr. Annis seem to be related to the Tree Protection Ordinance; that she BOOK 37 Page 11144 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11145 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. understood the residents' concerns to be 1) with the general landscaping and buffering, and 2) their limited opportunity to comment on the PS&D. Mr. Annis stated that the associations did not have a significant amount of time to review the landscape plan prior to the meeting held before the PBLP; that the meeting with the neighbors did not seem to be part of the criteria the PBLP followed and was therefore not a valid reason to recommend denial to the Commission; that the PS&D met the parking lot, landscape requirements in terms of how many bushes and trees are planted in a row. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff has met with representatives of the various associations; that changes to the PS&D were discussed and indicated on the drawing; that a second meeting will be held later this week; that a presentation will be made at the December 21, 1994, City Commission meeting. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to set 94-CR-CO-1-, 94-CR-SE-05, 94-CR-PSD-R, and 94-SV-03 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the PBLP regular meeting of November 2, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1994 - SET PETITION 94-HD-20 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; APPROVED RESERVING A DESIGNATED ROOM FOR THE ONE-DAY FEMA CONFERENCE (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0630) through (0740) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's regular meeting of November 8, 1994: A. Petition 94-HD-20 - 3540 Alameria Avenue Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends approval of Petition 94-HD-20, Main Structure and Garage to the Commission; that the staff of Sarasota County's Department of Historical Resources also recommends approval. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to set Petition 94-HD-20 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. B. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regulations Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends that the City co-host with the County a one-day FEMA conference at little or no cost to include meeting space, mailing of notices, and attendance from the City's Building Department. City Manager Sollenberger stated the Administration recommends reserving a designated room when - a confirmed date is given and participating in that manner to assist with the arrangements for such a meeting. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the Historic Preservation Board's meeting of November 8, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 9 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 8 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0742) through (0837) Mayor Patterson requested that Item No. 8 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Final Site and Development Plan for 93-M, the Boys and Girls Club located at 3100 Fruitville Road 2. Approval Re: Authorization to draft an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-3719, which adopted a Master Plan for the Ken Thompson Park 3. Approval Re: Grants to fund a School Resource Officer Program in the four elementary schools in the City of Sarasota 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Central Florida Contractors, Inc., S. Pasadena, Florida (Bid #95-1), for the construction of sidewalks along East and Jefferson Avenues 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate contracts with 1) Bishop and Associates; 2) Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Inc.; and 3) Landry and Esber (Bid #95-11) to provide engineering design services, BOOK 37 Page 11146 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11147 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. survey work and construction observation services for the Sidewalks to Schools Program 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Professional Services Contract with KPM Peat Marwick, LLP, St. Petersburg, Florida, (RFP #95-10), for Utility Billing Office Procedures and Management Controls 7. Approval Re: Schedule for study and implementation for changing selected traffic signals from normal mode of operation to flashing mode 9. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3837, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota; amending Section 24-44 of the Code to provide for a two step claims procedure; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; etc. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 7 inclusive and Item 9. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone; yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. Approval Re: Proposed Gulf Stream Avenue Medians, South of Main Street, landscape improvement Concept Plan and Development Budget Mayor Patterson stated that she had received a letter from the President of the Dolphin Tower Condominium Association, Norman Reuter; that Mr. Reuter expressed some concerns with regard to the landscaped medians obscuring vision at the Gulf Stream Avenue/Main Street intersection;, that the City's Engineering Department should have reviewed the sight lines relative to the project; and requested that a member of the Engineering Department meet with Mr. Reuter to explain and clarify the proposed project. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a member of the Engineering Department can meet with-M Mr. Reuter. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to. approve the concept plan and development budget, and. authorize the Administration to proceed with preparation of plans and specifications. Mayor Patterson stated that she feels comfortable her concern will be addressed. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-786) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3838) = ADOPTED; (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0837) through (0939) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-786 and Ordinance No. 95-3838 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-786, opposing mandated functional reclassification and mandated prioritization for expenditure of State Highway Funds; and supporting transfers by mutual consent; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3838, amending Article VIII, Division 12, of the Zoning Code pertaining to sign regulations in the Commer- cial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District; amending said sign regulations pertaining to business names on awnings and temporary portable signs. Providing for the repeal of Ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 and 2. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3818, AMENDING CHAPTER 33, TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES, SARASOTA CITY CODE, ARTICLE IV, STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING, DIVISION 1, GENERALLY, TO ADD AS SECTION 33-120 REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO MOTOR VEHICLE VALET SERVICE; DEFINING TERMS : REQUIRING A PERMIT AS A CONDITION TO PROVIDING VALET SERVICE; SETTING BOOK 37 Page 11148 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11149 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. FORTH STANDARDS FOR THE REVIEW OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS; REQUIRING A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TO STORE MOTOR VEHICLES; SPECIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF CITY- OWNED LAND OR CITY-OWNED PARKING LOTS; SETTING FORTH A PERMIT REVOCATION PROCEDURE; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED; CONSENSUS TO REQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS TO VALET SERVICES; CONTINUED DISCUSSION (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0939) through (1561) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Commission, at its November 7 meeting, requested that input be received from merchants and business owners who would be affected by the valet parking ordinance; that written comments were requested from the affected parties; that a written response was received from the St. Armands Circle Association which chose not to take an organizational position on the issue but to leave the issue for individual merchants on the Circle to address; that a written response was received today from Jack Fehily on behalf of Patricks Restaurant in support of the proposed ordinance; that several telephone conversations were held with merchants who expressed disapproval of valet parking; that several merchants on St. Armands objected to the concept of valet parking and the use of public parking spaces for an individual business; that an objection was expressed by a downtown merchant with regard to a particular parking area used for valet parking. Mr. Schneider continued that subsequent to a meeting between the Administration and representatives of the Sarasota Opera Association, the Administration has recommended several clarifications and minor changes be made to the proposed ordinance between first and second readings if the ordinance is passed on first reading; that an issue regarding clarification of the word "reconfigured" as used on page 6 paragraph (g) subsection (3) was raised by Mayor Patterson at the November 7 meeting; that he suggests the sentence be replaced with the following language between first and second readings: At no time shall the use of the public parking lot be restricted for the purpose of valet service without the prior written consent of the City Engineer. Mr. Schneider stated that this proposed ordinance establishes regulations for valet parking services in the City of Sarasota; that the increase in popularity of valet parking has resulted in an expansion in the number of businesses who use a valet parking service or provide the services themselves; that problems associated with valet parking services have occurred with the safety of using the public right-of-way and in using public parking spaces to store vehicles; that each situation relative to a valet parking service will be unique; that flexibility has been built into the proposed ordinance to approve particular plans for particular businesses. Mr. Schneider explained the following recommended changes: 1. Paragraph (c), add to the end of the first sentence: "that has not already been permitted." Mayor Patterson asked if another $100 permit application fee will be required for each new staging area? Commissioner Cardamone asked if a valet parking service will have one permit for their staging area although various businesses would be serviced? Mr. Schneider stated that a valet parking service with multiple business relationships and multiple valet parking areas will require a permit for each public right-of-way used as a staging area. 2. Paragraph (c), subsection (1), add a sentence: "This information will be jointly submitted as part of one application." 3. Paragraph (c), subsection (3), add a sentence: "If valet service intends to use a schematic plan that differs from the one approved for the business, the differing schematic plan must be submitted." 4. Paragraph (f), subsection (8), change to read: "The valet service shall not utilize any portable objects within the City right-of-way with the exception of traffic cones, a keyboard, and signage. Signage working shall be limited to "Valet Parking" with lettering that does not exceed 8 inches in height. The sign may not exceed 17 inches by 22 inches in size." Mr. Schneider stated that provisions were not previously included for the keyboards in which valet parking services store a patron's automobile keys; that the placement of traffic cones is important to the movement of traffic. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed ordinance does not permit valet parking services in an angle parking area, thereby making Main Street self-limiting; however, St. Armands is not self- limiting; and asked if the Administration has given consideration to how many permitted valet parking services would be allowed in a particular area and how the proposed ordinance would regulate a proliferation of valet parking services which could potentially use the majority of available parking spaces? Mr. Schneider stated that judgement will be used; that a common staging area would be explored in a situation where multiple businesses were requesting permits for valet parking services; that BOOK 37 Page 11150 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11151 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. he does not have an absolute number as to how many valet parking services would be permitted in an area. Mayor Patterson asked if a business that established valet parking in front of their establishment has to accommodate someone who will not enter their establishment but wants to valet park on that public space? Mr. Schneider stated that the issue has not been addressed in the proposed ordinance other than by authorizing the City Engineer to approve or disapprove a valet parking permit; that valet parking staging areas would be approved in front of the business which requests a permit. Mayor Patterson stated that the parking spaces in front of a business are public parking spaces and not owned by a particular business; that the businesses adjacent to the establishment with valet parking should also be able to use that public parking space; that problems could occur if the valet service denied access to someone other than a patron of a particular establishment. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Rick Sanders, 1310 Bay Road, representing people not in favor of valet on public property, stated that he formerly owned a business on St. Armands Circle; that he was on the St. Armands Circle Association Board and had concerns when the issue of valet parking was first raised; that valet parking has affected the businesses on St. Armands; that walk-in traffic decreased when the staging area at Cafe L'Europe was expanded from two to six spaces; that he has since closed his business on St. Armands, but as a citizen continues to pay fuel and road taxes for public parking spaces and parking lots on St. Armands; that individual merchants are using public parking spaces to increase the parking ability for their own business; that public parking spaces paid for by tax dollars should remain for public use; that parking spaces have a dollar value; that a fee is charged for parking a construction vehicle or dumpster in a public parking space in front of a business during renovation; that this ordinance will allow an undetermined number of parking spaces to be used for a permit fee of $100; that the Cafe L'Europe has conducted valet service since 1990 without paying any fee; that expanded problems are now being experienced throughout the City; that the businesses on St. Armands have expanded producing more employees and more customers; that each parking space is valuable. Mr. Sanders presented the City Auditor and Clerk with a petition containing signatures of 116 residents and businesses that were not in favor of valet parking on public property. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for Mr. Sanders' opinion on why the St. Armands Association chose not to take a stand on this issue. Mr. Sanders stated that involvement with City business creates a difficult situation for a Board made up of merchants who are attempting to do the best for all members; that City business often pits merchants against each other; that it is difficult for an association to tell one merchant yes and one merchant no; therefore, the Association feels certain issues should be addressed by the businesses themselves. Commissioner Cardamone asked how the proposed ordinance would address the six parking spaces being used for valet parking in front of the Cafe L'Europe? Mr. Schneider stated that the business would submit an application for a valet parking permit to the City Engineer who would perform a staff analysis to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces necessary for approval of the permit. Mr. Sanders stated that he is not entirely against valet parking; that some members of the community require valet parking services for handicap reasons, etc.; that one valet service could serve all the businesses in an area; however, he does not support allowing individual businesses to conduct valet parking to increase the parking ability of one business. Michael Garey, representing Cafe L'Europe, 431 St. Armands Circle, stated that he has been the General Manager of Cafe L'Europe since 1979; that Cafe L'Europe is in favor of the ordinance as outlined; that Cafe L'Europe has attempted to address the parking issue which has been a major problem on St. Armands since 1960; that the six spaces referenced are used to transport 40 to 120 vehicles per night off of St. Armands Circle into the back parking lot; that vehicles of Cafe L'Europe patrons would be parked on the Circle for 1.5 to 2.25 hours if the valet parking service was not in operation; that the valet parking service at Cafe L'Europe is not and has not been for Cafe L'Europe patrons only; that the valet parking service has been provided to anyone wanting to use it; that the sign indicating, "Cafe L'Europe Valet Parking" was replaced with a sign indicating "Valet Parking" in response to concerns raised by the merchants; that the entire sign was subsequently removed in accordance with the Zoning Code; that the valet parking service employees are compensated, but also work for gratuities; that the valet parking service has been operated with integrity and not solely for the patrons of Cafe L'Europe. Mr. Garey continued that the Merchants Association vote was 70% in favor of valet parking; that the valet parking service of Cafe L'Europe with its staging area located on a dangerous corner has operated for four years without an accident; that the effect of valet parking will remain the same whether or not valet parking is provided; that a BOOK 37 Page 11152 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11153 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. party of four, five, or six will pull up to the restaurant, stop to let their guests off, and proceed to find a parking space. Mr. Garey further stated that Cafe L'Europe incurs costs in excess of $20,000 annually to provide the valet service to Cafe L'Europe customers and all of St. Armands Circle; that Cafe L'Europe carries $3 million in liability insurance. Mayor Patterson asked if Cafe L'Europe would object to having a requirement included in the ordinance that no valet parking service could turn away a vehicle although the driver and passengers may not intend to originate their business at that valet location?. Mr. Garey stated that the suggestion shows good faith on the part of the operator and is a good idea. Bill Carman, 6901 Poinsettia Avenue, representing W.L. Carman & Sons, stated that W.L. Carman & Sons has been located on St. Armands Circle for 30 years; that he is the past Vice President of the St. Armands Circle Association; that in 1990 Cafe L'Europe requested two parking spaces for use with a valet parking service; that six spaces were requested within six months, and, subsequently, the problems began; that vehicles were suppose to be parked in the alleys and back parking lots and off of the Circle; that eight members have addressed the Association's Board with a complaint that vehicles are being valet parked in front of their businesses; that those members also complained their patrons were being denied valet parking service; that the six spaces occupied by the Cafe L'Europe valet parking service are in front of several shops. Mr. Carman continued that a survey was conducted at which time 37 businesses were firmly against valet parking; that prior to the initiation of valet parking, patrons would pull in behind Cafe L'Europe, drop off passengers, and find a parking space; that the restaurant in question has a beautiful rear entrance with direct access to the 180-space surface parking lot recently completed. Mr. Carman further stated that in the past patrons that could not park in front of a restaurant would find other parking and walk by several stores on the way to and from that restaurant; that the morning calls on merchandise which was seen during that time have stopped; that due to the high rental fees charged for retail space, many businesses are forced to stay open at night which creates more completion for the parking spaces; that many people have attempted to park in front of Cafe L'Europe and have been refused because their destination was elsewhere. Mr. Carman added that valet parking is intended for private property; that the 5-minute drop-off law has not been enforced; that all merchants, not just one merchant, should be accommodated; that passing this ordinance would allow six valet parking services to take up 40 parking spaces on the Circle; that the parking spaces should not be made available to individual businesses. Vice Mayor Merrill asked Mr. Carman if his objection would be as strong if the valet parking service were required by ordinance to park any vehicle requesting service whether or not the passengers were patrons of the establishment offering the valet parking service? Mr. Carman stated that the number of public parking spaces allotted for valet parking is wrong; that Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion is an alternative; however, other problems related to the valet parking service have been documented over the past four years. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Carman would still be opposed to the valet parking if the City could draft an ordinance that would eliminate the problems to which Mr. Carman previously referenced by providing an enforcement mechanism, i.e, to address the valet parked vehicles on the Circle? Mr. Carman stated that a letter was sent to the Police Chief on December 6, 1993, explaining a situation which occurred; that vehicles left at the staging area for longer than 5-minutes were supposed to be ticketed; that the officer had explained no vehicles in the six parking spaces could be ticketed unless Cafe L'Europe deemed it necessary. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that it is difficult for him to understand Mr. Carman's objection if all customers and businesses were provided with equal use to the public right-of-ways. Mr. Carman stated that the public right-of-way is public, not private; that the right-of-way should not be given to any one individual for use; that all the parking on St. Armands was previously available on a first come first serve basis. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Carman views this as a philosophical issue? Mr. Carman responded, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that operating the valet parking service as a public valet service and parking the vehicles in a designated parking area would eliminate 140 vehicles from parking on the Circle thereby making spaces available in front of other merchants' businesses. Mr. Carman stated that initiating a valet parking service similar to that of Hyde Park in Tampa which is operated by an association would be fair; that all customers and businesses are allowed to use the valet parking service at Hyde Park. Mayor Patterson stated that the Association would then incur a $20,000 annual fee; that the proposed ordinance states that no valet parking service shall store vehicles in public parking spaces along a City right-of-way; that the proposed ordinance states that BOOK 37 Page 11154 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11155 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. the permit can be revoked if the City finds that the permittee has not complied with the ordinance; that two or three valet parking services could be established to maximize the parking available through private and public parking facilities; that Sarasota is a retirement community and all people do not like to walk a couple of blocks to reach a destination; that the valet parking service could be turned into something of equal benefit to the merchants and the restaurants. Mr. Carman stated that no complaints were received when two spaces were reserved for the valet parking service; that the complaints began after the use of public parking spaces was expanded from two to six spaces; that many customers will park on the Circle at 4:00 p.m., knowing tickets are not issued after 5:00 p.m., shop and have dinner; that customers who find a $25.00 ticket posted on their vehicle when they return at 6:30 p.m. will not return to the Circle. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Administration would determine the actual number of spaces reserved for the valet parking staging area by evaluating and weighing the benefits and trade-offs to the general public; that she supports the concept of public valet parking service with public parking to eliminate the congestion and difficulties associated with parking on the Circle. Deane Allyn, representing the Sarasota Opera, 61 North Pineapple Avenue, stated that the Opera supports the ordinance with the inclusion of the clarifications and minor changes presented by Mr. Schneider; that the Opera supports the need for valet parking within the City. Mayor Patterson asked if Ms. Allyn would have any objection to having the Opera's valet parking service park vehicles that were not attending the Opera? Ms. Allyn stated that the Opera's valet parking service has been operating in that manner for some time. Foster Harmon, 1255 North Gulf Stream Avenue, representing. himself and the Sarasota Opera, stated that the Opera brings approximately 36,000 people into the downtown area during opera season; that thousands of people attend other events at the Opera House throughout the year; that the vast majority of attendees find their own parking spaces; however, some attendees, many of whom are the major supporters of the Opera and other cultural and educational institutions, are handicapped or elderly and have concern with driving around downtown in search of parking; that these individuals who have made a commitment to the quality of life which is currently experienced in Sarasota desperately need valet parking service. Mr. Harmon continued that the Opera brings a very strong image to Sarasota; that the hotel space in Sarasota is inadequate; therefore, many people who would like to cannot attend the Opera or other cultural events in the area. Commissioner Cardamone asked Mr. Harmon for the average number of patrons attending the Opera on an evening? Mr. Harmon stated that 1,200 people attend an event; that a minimum of 100 parking spaces is necessary each evening; that the Opera is attempting to raise funds to construct a private parking lot. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Opera is well-known in the community; however, restaurants in the downtown area also have patrons who are in need of parking. Mr. Harmon stated that the restaurants complaining have access to the large City-owned parking lot adjacent to their businesses; that the restaurants have exclusive use of that parking lot after 5:00 p.m. and prior to the time the Opera needs space; that the valet parking service at the Opera does not begin parking vehicles until 7:30 p.m. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the parking lot located behind the two restaurants in question will not be leased to the Opera for valet parking purposes during the upcoming opera season; that the City recently entered into a lease for private property owned by RISCORP; that the City intends to sublease the parking lot located at Second Street and Central Avenue to the Opera as a valet parking storage area; that sublease arrangements need the prior approval of RISCORP; however, he is confident approval will be granted. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has used the valet parking service at the Opera House many times and was never questioned as to his destination; that on one occasion he had to walk back to his vehicle which was placed in the parking lot by the valet service; that the majority of the spaces in the parking lot were empty. Charles Jewitt, President of the Downtown Association, 1819 Main Street, stated that the Downtown Association supports the valet parking ordinance; that the situation on Main Street is different than that of St. Armands; that angle parking will prohibit valet parking on Main Street; that many off-street parking locations are available for downtown customers; that one of the restaurants utilizes valet parking and leases private spaces from a local church; that the complaints received with regard to the Opera's valet parking service have been resolved; that other complaints or problems associated with the valet parking in the downtown area have not been received. Glynn Armitage, representing. the Mole Hole, 368 St. Armands Circle, stated that the Mole Hole is located in the third quadrant on the Circle and across the Circle from Cafe L'Europe; that he frequents BOOK 37 Page 11156 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11157 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Cafe L'Europe which is a fine establishment; that he was a member of the Board of Directors when the St. Armands Merchant Association supported Cafe L/Europe's valet parking endeavor; however, a number of reoccurring problems have been experienced since that time; that the Police Department has stated that they do not have the manpower or the budget to supervise and police the valet parking service; that the valet parking service often parks vehicles on the Circle taking up parking for customers of other businesses; that the valet parking service contracted, not Cafe L'Europe, is at fault for the parking problem which has gotten out of control; that his customers have complained about the dangerous situation of vehicles double or angle parked in the valet parking service staging area on the corner; that Cafe L'Europe has offered to park vehicles for other patrons; however, this has not always occurred; that he has personally been denied parking at the staging area; that he has witnessed the valet parking attendants entering a one-way alley in the wrong direction; that many other uncontrollable problems arise from the valet service; that he originally supported the valet parking service endeavor, but has found it not to work. Mayor Patterson asked if Mr. Armitage's preference would be to have no valet parking service available on St. Armands Circle? Mr. Armitage responded, yes; and stated that eliminating valet parking would require people to park their vehicles elsewhere on St. Armands; that those people would shop the Circle; that business is lost when people are dropped off and picked up at their destination. Jerry Simons, representing Cafe St. Louis, 1258 North Palm Avenue, stated that he is also the owner of Emphasis; that to a large extent this is a philosophical issue; that public spaces, paid for by the taxpayers, were intended for the taxpayers to use; that valet parking is never free; that there is a cost to the vehicle owner; that the petition he has addresses the public issue of free access to parking that has been provided for the public use. Mr. Simons presented the City Auditor and Clerk with approximately 200 signatures on a petition which stated the following: The last two years, the City of Sarasota has granted the exclusive use of a public parking lot for a period of six weeks to a private enterprise. This action has eliminated private access to this lot during the peak, winter season thereby preventing both local residents and tourists free accessibility to downtown businesses, theaters, and galleries. This action was granted arbitrarily without consultation or consent of the affected parties. Whereas the City intends to repeat its action, the following persons do hereby state its position against the action of granting exclusive use of a public parking lot to a private enterprise. Mr. Simon referenced pages 5 and 6 of the proposed ordinance and cited the following: (f) Staging of Motor Vehicles on Public Right-of-Way (1) All spaces within a public parking lot will be available to the public and those providing valet services on an equal basis. (g) Vehicle Storage on Public Property/Public Parking Lots Mr. Simons stated that the subsequent subsections to (g) basically gives the City the right to enter into exclusive, lease contracts for public space and public parking lots anywhere in the City; that a private entity should not have the right to lease public parking for valet service; that the language included in the Staging section should be referenced in the Vehicle Storage section to eliminate any possibility of leasing public parking spaces to particular entities. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Sollenberger how many spaces have been made available to the Opera in accordance with the potential sublease? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the sublease is for one lot on Second Street and Central Avenue which he believes has in excess of 100 parking spaces. Mayor Patterson stated that the City-owned parking lot in back of Emphasis will remain free to the public on a first come first serve basis; that the property specified by Mr. Sollenberger which is being leased to the City by RISCORP will be subleased to the Opera. Mr. Simons stated that the accurate number of spaces in the City- owned parking lot behind Emphasis used for valet parking by the Opera on the weeknights is on average 25 to 30 parking spaces; that the only time the referenced parking lot has been fully utilized by the Opera's valet parking service has been on the weekends; that the Commission may want to consider this as they proceed to sublease 100 parking spaces to the Opera for 365 day per year. Bruce Franklin, 149 Cocoanut Avenue, representing Cafe L/Europe, stated that Patricks, a restaurant in the downtown area submitted a letter in support of the proposed ordinance; that Cafe L'Europe supports this ordinance; that more regulation in terms of activities will be necessary as the City grows through redevelopment and a greater opportunity for businesses is provided; that the only valet parking service on St. Armands is privately BOOK 37 Page 11158 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11159 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. operated, thereby placing no liability on the City; that the valet parking service is available to the public; that Mr. Garey supported the inclusion of such a requirement in the ordinance; that a business which has operated a valet parking service for four years without an accident is willing to regulate itself through an ordinance adopted Citywide; that the proposed ordinance does not contain provisions which are contrary to a positive public policy benefit, or negative to private business owners. Mr. Franklin continued that the number of parking spaces for the staging area at Cafe L'Europe was modified by the city to create a safer condition; that vehicles would stop to let passengers off regardless of the valet parking service; that the proposed ordinance is a proper response to the changes which have occurred downtown and on St. Armands; that Cafe L'Europe is confident the City Administration will be able to apply the regulation properly without discrimination to any business and to the broad benefit of the City. Paco Ramirez, 1160 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that he was denied access to the public parking spaces used by Cafe L'Europe for staging purposes; that he told the parking attendant that he was a taxpayer and had the right to park in that space; that a representative of the Cafe L'Europe told him that if he parked in the space the police would be notified and his vehicle would be towed. Mr. Ramirez continued that valet parking should not be allowed on the Circle where parking spaces are scarce; that another parking area should be utilized with a golf cart used to retrieve the vehicles; that the valet services should not "own" the parking spaces for which the taxpayers pay. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Ramirez if he asked the valet parking service to park his vehicle? Mr. Ramirez stated that he did not request valet parking; that he parked his vehicle in one of the public, City-owned parking spaces. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission and stated that a number of public meetings were held to resolve the problems associated with the lease arrangements with the Opera House in previous years; that an agreement has been reached whereby the Opera House will sublease the parking lot leased to the City by RISCORP for evenings, weekends, and holidays; that the parking lot is located north of the City-owned Central Avenue parking lot and will hold approximately 93 vehicles; that this arrangement should not adversely affect any of the merchants downtown since the private parking lot owned by RISCORP was not previously available for public use. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the subleased parking lot will be available for use by the general public? Director Lewis stated that the parking lot will be subleased to the Opera for approximately 8 = 10 days in February and 22 days in March during which time the parking lot will not be available to the general public; that the parking lot will be available to the general public with the exception of those 30 days during opera season. Commissioner Cardamone stated that other events occurring at the Opera House would have to make alternate arrangements. Director Lewis stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that speakers have brought up the issue of the difficulty of enforcement related to parking vehicles, i.e., on St. Armands Circle; and asked Director Lewis if the valet ordinance would place an inordinate burden on police officers? Director Lewis stated that he, Police Chief Jolly, and Staff members have met with the City Engineer and Deputy City Manager on this issue and are comfortable with the proposed ordinance; that police officers would respond to complaints in the same manner as other calls; that valet services could have their permits and agreements revoked if the terms of the agreements are violated. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if police officers have responded to many calls in the past? Director Lewis stated that complaints have been received from time to time with regard to the various valet services in both the Downtown and St. Armands areas; that to his knowledge the complaints were properly handled by the Department; that the situation referenced in which a citizen reported inappropriate comments made by the officers was addressed by Police Chief Jolly; that similar complaints were not received subsequently. Mr. Schneider stated that the applicant for a valet parking service will be required to provide an 8.5 by 11 inch schematic of how the valet parking operation will be conducted; that the schematic can be used to determine whether the valet parking service is complying with the terms of the agreement. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has discussed adding a provision to the ordinance that any valet parking space be made available regardless of the destination of the user; and asked for comment on the effect such a provision would have on the enforceability and workability of this ordinance? BOOK 37 Page 11160 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11161 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Schneider stated that such a provision would be appropriate. Director Lewis stated that it would not create an enforcement problem. Mayor Patterson requested that Paul Thorpe and Charles Jewitt from the Downtown Association come before the Commission. Mr. Thorpe came before the Commission and stated that Mr. Jewitt had left the meeting. Mayor Patterson stated that she understands the philosophical objections which have been raised about the use of public parking spaces being used for private interests; that she feels a great deal of the success of the downtown is attributable to the attractions in the area which don't have anything to do with the local businesses; that the Opera is one of those attractions; and asked Mr. Thorpe for the sense of the membership as it relates to what effect the Opera has had on the general business climate in the downtown area? Mr. Thorpe stated that the Opera is an asset to the merchants and restaurants in the downtown area; that the restaurants have benefited and received business from the Opera House's location in the downtown; that people who attend the Opera utilize valet parking or park elsewhere and walk along Palm Avenue and Main Street; that the entire Theater and Arts District is a great asset to the downtown community. Mayor Patterson asked the City Manager for the Administration's recommendation and for comment on the modification discussed by the Commission to mandate that valet parking services be public. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3818 on first reading; and that he feels the modification is a fine amendment to include. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3818 by title only. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the issue of entorcement related to the valet services parking vehicles in parking spaces on St. Armands Circle and in front of merchants' businesses has been mentioned tonight and should be further discussed; that she is concerned with the feasibility of controlling the location of vehicles in an atmosphere where valet parking attendants will quickly and constantly be storing and retrieving vehicles. Mr. Schneider stated that the problems heard tonight would be covered by the ordinance; that information relating to the number of parking attendants employed, an estimate of how many vehicles will be parked, where the vehicles will be stored, and an estimated time in which the valet attendants will transfer vehicles from the staging area to the storage area will be filed with the permit application; that the permit review process will include determining whether adequate parking attendants will be employed, whether the service will be conducted properly, and that the proper storage areas are proposed; that currently the City has no regulatory authority; that the valet services have been operating based on verbal commitments; that the regulatory process will make the issue easier to enforce. Mayor Patterson stated that the alternatives at this point are to approve a regulatory ordinance or abolish valet services; that the valet services should not be allowed to continue operation in the City if the proposed ordinance is defeated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that public valet parking would serve the needs of everyone on St. Armands; that the existing valet service transfers a great number of vehicles from the Circle into other public parking areas, making parking spaces on the Circle available to the patrons of the merchants; however, changing the ordinance to require an entity with valet parking service to serve the general public would make it difficult for that entity to estimate its storage and staging needs. Mr. Schneider stated that those needs would be determined with use; that the additional impact would be difficult to estimate; however, the flexibility to make adjustments for changing needs has been included in the ordinance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that those changing needs may be considerable and generate numerous calls to the Police Department to enforce an ordinance that has had its intent changed by the Commission's modification; that the actual needs of the valet parking service may be greater than allowed in the permit. Mr. Schneider stated that the City would be made aware of such a situation by those calls; that the situation would be dealt with before a major problem developed. Commissioner Pillot stated that several people spoke about vehicles stopping or double parking while drivers let their guests out; however, the Commission has not heard opposition toward valet parking as a convenience for patrons; therefore, the Commission is left with three choices: 1) leave valet parking service operations as they are, 2) abolish and outlaw valet parking service, or 3) regulate valet parking service. Commissioner Pillot continued that abolishing valet parking service seems not to be a viable solution; that allowing valet parking services to continue as they currently exist would leave the City without the authority to regulate them; that the best choice for the Commission tonight would be to move forward on the proposed ordinance with the understanding that the BOOK 37 Page 11162 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11163 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. speakers comments and the enforcement issue would be taken into consideration by the Administration in any changes made between now and second reading and that the Administration would monitor the situation and report back to the Commission with proposed improvements as they are determined; that valet parking could then be regulated to the benefit of all those who use it and the rights of those who don't. Vice Mayor Merrill cited the following from page 4 of the proposed ordinance: No permit shall be issued if the City Engineer determines that valet service will substantially interfere with the use of the public right-of-way. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the standards the City Engineer will use to determine what is appropriate have not clearly been identified; that the standards would be different for different areas; that the proposed ordinance provides revocation of permits only if a provision in the ordinance is violated or there is a threat to the general safety of the public; that another provision is necessary which authorizes the City Manager to revoke a permit on general grounds; that, for example, traffic on St. Armands Circle could get worse after the new bridge is built; that the City may find that attempting to stage vehicles in front of Cafe L'Europe is no longer feasible from a traffic flow perspective; that the ordinance as drafted does not provide the City with grounds to revoke a permit in that situation; that latitude should be maintained in the City's ordinances; that this ordinance as drafted states the permit is valid for a period of one year; however, a situation could arise and the City may want to terminate a permit earlier. Mr. Schneider referenced page 7 paragraph (j) subsection (5). Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the paragraph referenced does not adequately address his concern; that situations not contemplated at this time could arise; that the permits should not be permanent; that the grounds for revocation should not be based only on safety or a violation of the provisions; that a general standard for revocation by the City Manager should be included since the complexities associated with valet parking service are not yet fully understood. Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Merrill's concern; that the City Manager should be able to revoke a permit or all permits in an area or Citywide if it is deemed appropriate. Commissioner Pillot referenced and Mayor Patterson cited paragraph (j) subsection (5) as follows: In those circumstances where the conduct of the valet service permittee has created a threat to the safety of the general public, the City Engineer may summarily cancel the valet service permit, but providing permittee with written notice of summary cancellation. Said notice shall include the grounds for the City Engineer determining that summary revocation was required because of the considerations of public safety. Commissioner Pillot stated that the proposed ordinance gives the City Engineer authority to make a determination to which the valet service operator may appeal; that paragraph (j) subsection (4) states the City Manager, whose action is final, shall render his decision on the appeal; and asked for clarification of the technical, legal use of the words, "summary" and "summarily". City Attorney Taylor stated that the particular section discusses revocation for routine circumstances, a notice of violation, and an opportunity to correct; that subsection (5) refers to a situation that causes a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; that in such an instance, the city can ignore the notice requirements and summarily cancel the valet service permit. Commissioner Pillot stated that the word, "summarily", provides the City Engineer with a great deal of latitude and authority; that rights of appeal to the City Manager are included; that the language specifically states, "The action of the City Manager shall be final. Mayor Patterson stated that she is not comfortable with the language as drafted; that the difficulty may not be associated with public safety; that the City may continue to receive complaints from merchants on the Circle with regard to the provisions being abused by the valet parking service; that the City should not have to institute a "sting" operation to determine the validity of the complaints; that the validity should be left up to the discretion of the City Manager. Commissioner Pillot stated that paragraph (j) Revocation of Permit on page 6 includes: "the failure of the valet service to adhere to any standard or requirement of this section"; that thé due process is established in the subsequent subsections; that a governing body should provide due process; that the City Manager has the final decision. Mayor Patterson stated that one of the weakness of the proposed ordinance is that no criteria has been included relating to the number of valet parking services allowed in an area; that, for example, three valet services may be permitted on St. Armands when a fourth is permitted; that after the fourth valet parking service is permitted, suddenly, a substantial lack of regular parking BOOK 37 Page 11164 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11165 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. spaces is created on the Circle; that the City Manager should have the ability with notice to reduce the valet parking services back to three whether or not a violation or bad faith occurs; that an ordinance which allows discretion for unlimited valet spaces should also include unlimited discretion on reducing those spaces. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Administration will have the right to approve the number of spaces requested when a permit application and diagram is reviewed; that he agrees the Administration should also have the authority to subsequently modify that decision. Mayor Patterson asked the City Attorney for comment. city Attorney Taylor stated that various steps could be taken to address the Commission's concerns; 1. the permit period could be revised to state that renewal will be discretionary; 2. language could be added, "should the City Commission determine in its discretion based upon consideration of the public health, safety, and welfare that the whole permit process is not working, a revocation of this ordinance or pertinent portion thereof shall serve to cancel any existing permit;" and 3. language to expand away from the tratfic-type of considerations could be added for other aspects and standards that would allow for the Administration's revocation. Mayor Patterson stated that this proposed ordinance should be referred to the Administration for a report back with the Commission's concerns addressed. Mayor Patterson asked if there was a consensus of the Commission to require public-access to the valet services. There was a consensus of the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to continue the discussion on proposed Ordinance No. 94-3818 to a meeting scheduled at the discretion of the Administration. Mayor Patterson stated that a public hearing could be planned after one year to hear from the public on whether the regulation is working; that this would thereby place the onus on the valet parking service operators to adhere to the intent of the ordinance and make the situation work. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the issue may not be controversial enough to warrant a public hearing; that the permits should expire after one year at which time the city Manager could address renewal; that any problems with the valet parking services at that time could be brought before the Commission by the City Manager. Mayor Patterson stated that was acceptable. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to continue the discussion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3829, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, AS PETITIONED BY ATLEE A. SCHLABACH, FOR ATLEE A. SCHLABACH, INC. SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; A PARCEL OF LAND BEING THE SOUTH 89.90 FEET BY 76.97 FEET OF LOT 13, FULMER SUBDIVISION FIRST ADDITION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 4, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 2921 FLOYD STREET; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCLUDE SAID REAL PROPERTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-ANNEX-02, ATLEE A. SCHLABACH) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1563) through (2268) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance annexes one lot on Floyd Street east of Tuttle Avenue; that the lot is contained within an enclave of approximately 16 single-family lots zoned RSF-3 in Sarasota County. A Loning/Subaivision map was displayed on the overhead projector. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Taylor stated that the petitioner approached the City approximately one year ago requesting water and sewer service; that the City Utilities Department is able to provide water service; that a septic system will be utilized by the petitioner; that both water and sewer would be provided via Floyd Street if the entire enclave is annexed into the City in the future. Mr. Taylor continued that if the annexation request is approved, the property would be regulated under the County RSF-3 zoning until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to rezone the property to City RSF-3 zoning. Vice Mayor Merrill asked who will be responsible for the street maintenance? Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:16 p.m. BOOK 37 Page 11166 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11167 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that Floyd Street and the right-of-way are County property; therefore, the County's responsibility. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the Sarasota Police Department will respond to the petitioner's property while the Sheriff's Department responds to the adjacent houses? Mr. Taylor stated that there is a reciprocal agreement between the City and the County. Mayor Patterson asked if the City is providing police service to the 16 properties of the enclave? City Manager Sollenberger stated that police service is not being provided to his knowledge. Mayor Patterson requested that the Administration prepare and forward a report on the City services being provided to the County properties on that portion of Floyd Street prior to second reading. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that the Administration investigate whether the Sheriff's Department is aware that the enclave is their responsibility. Mayor Patterson asked for the Administration's recommendation. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3829 on first reading. Atlee A. Schlabach, 1411 Fox Creek Drive, Petitioner, stated that his property of which 20 feet is located within the City is the only vacant property on Floyd Street; that the northern properties on Floyd Street receive City water service. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration informed her that the City had no enclaves when the Florida League of Cities and the State became interested in the annexation of enclaves; that she found an enclave at the end of her street which does not receive City utility service; that, unfortunately, those properties are connected to septic tanks which leach directly into the Sarasota Bay; that she has previously requested that the Administration identify and require the County properties receiving water and/or City services to annex into the city; that the issue should be addressed to determine which properties are receiving but not paying for City services. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3829 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3829 on first reading. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would prefer to delay action on the motion until the Administration reports back to the Commission; and requested that Mr. Schlabach come before the Commission to clarify his intentions for the property. Mr. Schlabach stated that his uncle, who currently resides on Floyd Street, previously owned the vacant property; that he and his wife plan to sell their 5-acre residence located in the County, build and occupy a new residence on Floyd Street. Commissioner Cardamone asked how Mr. Schlabach became aware that an application for annexation into the City was required? Mr. Schlabach stated that the properties surrounding his lot are older homes which were grandfathered-in to receive City water; that he was informed that he would have to annex his property into the City to receive water service when he went to apply for a permit. Vice Mayor Merrill asked when Mr. Schlabach intends to pull a building permit? Mr. Schlabach stated that he intends to apply for a permit after the New Year. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Mr. Schlabach should not be delayed while the Administration develops a report for the Commission; that Mr. Schlabach has paid for this annexation process. Mr. Sollenberger continued that unless a property is annexed or the property owner signs a pre-annexation agreement, water and sewer services will not be provided outside the City limits. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration's report should include a legal opinion on the documents which have previously been signed with the property owners. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the pre-annexation requirement was not in effect prior to his becoming City Manager. Mayor Patterson stated that she wants to know what prerogatives the City has regarding this issue. Mr. Sollenberger stated that information will be provided. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she will support the motion. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 37 Page 11168 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11169 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3808, AMENDING ARTICLE IX, NONCONPORMING LOTS, USES, ETC.; DIVISION 4, NON- CONFORMITY RESULTING FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, BY PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE ZONING CODE FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON TUTTLE AVENUE WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA WHEN SARASOTA COUNTY HAS EXERCISED ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND HAS ACOUIRED OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF ACOUIRING A PORTION OF AN EXISTING LOT OR PARCEL. PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED; CONTINUED DISCUSSION (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2268) through #2 (3749) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Barbara Burton, Right-of-Way Agent, Sarasota County Transportation Department/Real Property Office, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the City's Zoning Code currently provides for exemption of properties made non-conforming as the result of the condemnation of the real property; that this proposed ordinance amends the Zoning Code to allow Sarasota County the same provisions as the City for property acquisition on Tuttle Avenue only in connection with the Tuttle Avenue widening project; that a list of the apparent properties and their created non-conformities, are included in the Agenda packets; that the majority of the non- conformities deal with signs and wall set backs, and minimum area requirements; that most of the properties deal with less than a two-foot take; that other non-conformities could be created which the City has not contemplated. Commissioner Pillot stated that portions of properties will be acquired by Sarasota County through eminent domain; that this will cause certain City properties to become non-conforming with the Zoning Code; and asked if this ordinance protects those property owners from being penalized by the County's action? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson stated that the ordinance will also limit the amount of damages the County will have to pay for acquisition of property since the properties would not be rendered non-conforming and non-usable; and asked if any substantial non-conformities will be created which will be future problems to the City? Mr. Daughters stated that significant problems will not be created; that one of the most significant non-conformities created will be on the vacant properties (Bahia Vista Highlands, Block A, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4) located on the corner of Bahia Vista Street and Tuttle Avenue; that the properties are individual lots; that the take of property on the Bahia Vista Street side will be 13 feet which will create insufficient land area as required by the Zoning Code on each individual lot; that the area is in an Impact Management Area (IMA); that combined as intended, there would be adequate size for development. Mayor Patterson asked whose intent it is to combine the lots? Mr. Daughters stated that the City's intent is to have those lots combined through the IMA process. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the affected properties are under one ownership? Mr. Daughters stated that three parcels which would experience a 13 foot take are under one ownership. Commissioner Pillot stated that this process is being instituted because of an eminent domain proceeding by the County; and asked what alternative the City has? Mayor Patterson stated that the City's alternative is not to pass the ordinance; that the property owner would be reimbursed for the property if the County creates a non-conformity; that the city could use its own judgement on whether the property is adequate for any future use proposed and issue a variance at its discretion; that her question was not aimed at defeating the ordinance; that the Commission should assist the County in this process; however, she is concerned with the City incurring a future liability or this ordinance creating potential problems for the Cityi therefore, assurance from the City Engineer that a problem has not been created was requested; that she accepts his professional word. Mr. Daughters stated that the majority of the resulting non- conformities will be associated with set backs for walls or signs; that the City's Zoning Code currently requires a certain distance that a sign or wall must set back from the property line; that with a 1.75 foot take the set back is reduced. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the lots on Allendale Avenue are currently zoned residential; that potential problems, i.e., driveway access, could arise if the properties are not combined; that perhaps a requirement for lot 1 would be for it to combine with lots 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Daughters stated that lot 1 is under separate ownership. Mayor Patterson asked if Mr. Daughters has predicated his approval on other properties with the assumption that the properties will be combined and a rezoning will take place? BOOK 37 Page 11170 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11171 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that in City-initiated eminent domain proceedings, the City analyzes each property in terms of what reasonable use of the property can be made by the property owner after the take occurs; and asked if the County has conducted a similar analysis? Ms. Burton stated that the properties referenced are unique; that the current zoning of the four parcels indicates that the properties will be combined; that the owners know and understand that zoning; that she understands that to be the intent of the property owners; however, there are separate owners. Commissioner Pillot requested further comment from the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that each parcel on Third Street was analyzed as to what it was going to cost the City for the damages that resulted from the exercise of power of eminent domain to widen what is now Fruitville Road; that he presumed the County had performed a similar analysis with regard to the Tuttle Avenue project on which the city based its determination that no substantial damages would result to the use of lots 2, 3, and 4. Commissioner Pillot asked if the City Attorney feels that data should be available prior to the Commission making a decision on this ordinance? city Attorney Taylor stated that Mr. Daughters referred to lots 2, 3, and 4, as the most significantly impacted parcels; therefore, at a minimum the Commission should receive an analysis prior to second reading to answer the questions being posed. Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. Daughters if data comparable to the data compiled for the Third street/Fruitville Road project has been received from the County? Mr. Daughter responded, no; that the data was not requested; that only the direct impacts to the land associated with the land taking were reviewed. Commissioner Pillot asked if Mr. Daughters feels he should have that data? Mr. Daughters stated that based on the comments made, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that there seems to be two problems: 1) properties with two owners and no mandate that the properties be developed as one, and 2) an analysis that seems to be based on a zoning the Commission has not yet approved. Commissioner Pillot stated that Mr. Daughters has stated that an analysis is necessary based on the comments heard tonight; and asked if the item can be tabled until the data is received? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the situation with an IMA and property with two ownerships on a significant corner at a major intersection is unusual; that the taking will also make the lot an unusual shape and the approach to the property difficult; that Mr. Daughters has stated that the "vast majority of the properties" are signs and walls; and asked if the referenced parcel is the only exception? Mayor Patterson stated that oddball properties, if identified, could be excluded from the ordinance; that the Tuttle Avenue project is behind schedule; that it is in the best interest of all parties for the process to proceed. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the acquisition of properties is holding up the Tuttle Avenue project from moving forward? Ms. Burton stated that the project is moving forward; that two of the three phases of eminent domain have been completed; that the third phase will be completed by the end of December; that some of the properties being addressed tonight have been acquired by Sarasota County. Mayor Patterson asked if there are other specific properties that have "oddball" concerns? Mr. Daughters stated that more than 50% of the properties will have a 1.75 foot take along the frontage affecting the set back requirements for signs and walls; that parcel 381 on the northeast corner of Ringling Boulevard and Tuttle Avenue will have an 8.33 take along Tuttle Avenue; that two parking spaces will be lost resulting in parking below the minimum requirement for business use. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he recommends the matter be continued until a complete report can be presented through the City Engineer from the County that addresses the questions raised. Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees; however, it should be done as expeditiously as possible. Ms. Burton referenced the three page list contained in the Agenda packet which breaks down the parent size of the properties, the acquisition amount, and the percentage acquired; and stated that only five properties have percentages which exceed 15 percent; that small portions of the properties have been acquired by the County. Ms. Burton continued that property owners who are aware or sensitive to the issue and concerned about the affect on their BOOK 37 Page 11172 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11173 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. property may not have settled with the County; that since the non- conformity issue has not been resolved with the City, some of those properties were taken through eminent domain rather than the property owners signing a deed with Sarasota County. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission is not attempting to be an obstructionist or delay the Tuttle Avenue project; and asked Ms. Burton for assurance that continued discussion on this matter by the Commission will not further delay the construction project? Ms. Burton stated that the construction project would not be affected since it is independent of the eminent domain process. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the same procedure was used by the City for the Third Street/Fruitville Road project; that real estate acquisition settlements were made several years after Fruitville Road was completed; that delaying action on this ordinance will not obstruct or delay the project from moving forward. Mayor Patterson asked if Sarasota County has an ordinance that deals with rendering non-conforming properties conforming if it is a result of eminent domain? Ms. Burton stated that an ordinance dealing with the issue of non- conformity on County property was recently adopted which gives the Zoning Manager levity in decision making. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to continue discussion on the subject until it is brought back through the City Manager with information to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3833, AMENDING ARTICLE VII, CHAPTER 33, SARASOTA CITY CODE, REVISING THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN STREETS WHERE THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC IS PROHIBITED AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN; MAKING FIN- DINGS AS TO NEED; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (3749) through (0312) Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill and left the Commission Chambers at 8:59 p.m. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that this proposed ordinance amends the Sarasota City Code to prohibit through truck traffic on the following streets: 1. 19th Street from North Orange Avenue to Central Avenue. 2. Hyde Park Street from South Tamiami Trail to South Tuttle Avenue. 3. Laurel Street from South Orange Avenue to South Washington Boulevard. Mr. Daughters stated that the ordinance also amends the Sarasota City Code to extend the "No Through Truck" designation on: 4. Oak Street from South orange Avenue to South Washington Boulevard. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:02 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there is rare entorcement of the "No Through Truck" designations; that new streets should not be added if the violations will not be enforced. Mr. Sollenberger stated that trucks making deliveries are allowed access; however, that determination should be made when a police officer stops a truck; that the issue is one which people can take advantage and is difficult to administer; however, the matter will be discussed with the Director of Public Safety and Police Chief. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a réport indicating the number of citations issued with regard to the "No Through Trucks" has been requested in the past; that she does not feel the police officers understand the "No Through Truck" signage; that the trucking companies apparently have not been informed to stay off of the designated streets; that she is happy to support a neighborhood issue; however, the funding for signage should not be expended if the ordinance will not be enforced. BOOK 37 Page 11174 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11175 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that identifying how many citations have been issued relating to the "No Through Truck" signage was difficult in the past; however, a separate code category has been developed so the information can be electronically accessed and analyzed. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to the streets listed with "No Through Truck" designations; and stated that the list does not appear complete; that the Administration should investigate whether "No Through Truck" signs were posted on Shade Avenue, Hillview, Arlington, and Floyd Streets; that the list should be kept up-to- date. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3833 on first reading. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3833 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3833 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3835, AMENDING ARTICLE XI OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SIGNS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL SIGNS IN RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND FOR DISPOSITION OF SUCH SIGNS IF NOT CLAIMED WITHIN TEN DAYS. PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = FAILED; REFERRED THE ISSUE OF POLITICAL SIGN REGULATION BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #3 (0317) through (1553) City Manager Sollenberger stated that a number of illegal signs were placed in the public right-of-way during the past election, many of which were not removed by the candidates after the election; that this proposed ordinance amends the Zoning Code to clarify the Sarasota City Code and establish a procedure for removal relative to illegal placement of signs, including political signs in the right-of-way; that violators will be given a 24-hour notice by telephone or in writing; that signs which are not removed within 24-hours will be removed and stored by the City; that a $25.00 redemption fee will be applicable; that the signs will be disposed of if not claimed within 60 days; that the Administration recommends this ordinance as an effective means to control the illegal sign proliferation problems previously experienced. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he supports the intent of this ordinance; however, distinguishing the right-of-way line in residential areas is difficult for candidates; that the set back varies on the residential streets, i.e, 6 feet from the pavement on East Street but 12 feet on Hillview Street; and asked to what degree the City plans to enforce signs in the residential areas? Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that during the last election, the Zoning Staff attempted to enforce the code as written; that the Code Inspectors were provided with maps indicating the right-of-way limits; that the homeowners were notified that the signs would have to be relocated within their property boundaries; that many Staff hours were devoted to sign control. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that over 750 signs were removed after the primary election and through the general election. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the situation gets pushed to the extreme when no enforcement is anticipated; that the candidates and their supporters should be made aware of the right-of-way set backs; that the City has many other code enforcement issues which should be focused upon. Mr. Litchet stated that the Administration has plans to include information explaining the City's regulations in the Candidate Packets distributed by the Supervisor of Elections. Mr. Schneider stated that most of the signs were removed from the more heavily travelled streets; that the intent is to keep the signage off of the areas where proliferation occurs; that the residential areas were not addressed unless a sign was blatant. Commissioner Pillot stated that placing signage outside of a sidewalk is one violation which is easily noticed and should be distinguishable by the person or persons placing the signage; that the good nature and good intentions of most candidates should prevail if those kind of data and a copy of the existing ordinance is included with the Candidate Packets. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this ordinance provides a cheap and easy alternative for defeated candidates to have signs removed after an election; that the City should not store signage for 60 days; that the signs should be disposed immediately; that many of the signs are not worth the $25.00 redemption fee and, therefore, BOOK 37 Page 11176 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11177 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. would not be reclaimed; that storing the signage will create an inordinate amount of Staff time. Mayor Patterson stated that she was seriously concerned with the proliferation of political signs during the last election; that the time and effort spent on developing the proposed ordinance is appreciated; however, she is dismayed by its content; that the County's ordinance simply states that the County has the authority to remove signs found in the right-of-way and charge a $10 redemption fee; that the City should retain the signage for some period of time; that the ordinance not only addresses political signs, but also real estate signs which are valued at approximately $40.00; that realtors will retrieve those signs for $10.00. Mayor Patterson asked whether each candidate would have to be notified for each illegal political sign found if notification is included in the local Candidate Packets? Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 9:17 p.m. city Attorney Taylor stated that the notice procedure was included as a due process because signs are a piece of property owned by someonei that vehicles are not immediately disposed when confiscated by the City; that the vehicles are stored for a period of time to afford the owner an opportunity to reclaim that vehicle; that the County's ordinance does not include due process; that the City has attempted to be a little more cautious; that the proposed ordinance provides for notification by telephone; that when qualifying, a candidate designates a representative who can be contacted; that a violation notice issued applies to all of an individual's illegal signs; that in accordance to the provision of the proposed ordinance listed on the top of page 3, illegal signs found subsequent to notification will be removed without another notice being issued. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Cardamone has voiced a concern for a shorter storage period. Commissioner Cardamone suggested three days; and stated that the retrieval activity is time-consuming; that Staff will be required to unlock the storage facility and wait until a particular sign is found, untangled, and retrieved. Commissioner Pillot stated that he does not support a 60-day storage period; that a ten-day storage period would be acceptable; that many owners will not pay a $25.00 fee to reclaim the smaller signs which get tangled and have little value; that a period associated with the time in which a candidate has to remove signage after an election should be included. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:19 p.m. City Attorney Taylor stated that such language is included in the existing code. Mr. Litchet stated that a candidate has 21 days to remove signage. Mayor Patterson stated that she supports the 10-day storage period; that her concern is that some of the signs are expensive and valuable and candidates may not be aware of the City's ordinance especially at the beginning of a campaign; that real estate signs cost between $25.00 to $40.00 and asked if the $25.00 fee could be reduced? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the fee could be reduced; that many of the signs are not valuable and will not be retrieved. Commissioner Cardamone stated that 750 violations of real estate and signs other than political signs did not occur within a specific period of time; that perhaps the proposed ordinance should address only political signs. Mayor Patterson stated that is correcti however, violations have occurred and a procedure for removal is necessary. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City has survived for many years without the proposed ordinance; that signs will be placed in the right-of-way during a campaign regardless of regulation; that this ordinance will require substantial City Staff time to retrieve and store the signs; that a minimal difference will be noticed; that the less regulation on this issue the better; that the proposed ordinance should focus on the political signs which was the basis for bringing this issue to the Commission table. Mayor Patterson stated that the City has an ordinance which prohibits signage on the right-of-way; that the proposed ordinance provides the City with the means to enforce that ordinance. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3835 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3835 on first reading with the understanding that before second reading a recommendation will be received from the City Manager as to the change in the number of days of storage and the redemption fee. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill) and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass BOOK 37 Page 11178 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11179 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. proposed Ordinance No. 94-3835 on first reading with the number of days reduced to 10 days and the redemption fee reduced to $10.00. Vice Mayor Merrill restated the motion and called for discussion. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that tightening up a regulation which is already on the books is unnecessary; that he will vote no. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion failed (2 to 2): Cardamone, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes; Merrill, no. Mayor Patterson stated that an ordinance will remain on the City's books which the Administration deems to be unenforceable. Commissioner Pillot stated that a fifth Commissioner will be present at the December 19 meeting; and asked for clarification on the proper procedure necessary to place an item on the next agenda. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that there was no action to rescind; therefore, a motion would be necessary to advertise the item for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill), it was moved to take the necessary legal steps to place this item back on the agenda of the December 19, 1994, Commission meeting agenda. Mayor Patterson stated that she is willing to compromise; that if the Vice Mayor is willing to apply the regulation to political signs but not to real estate signs, she will agree; that if Commissioner Cardamone wants the storage period to be three days, she will agree; that the City will be in the same position during the next election if no action is taken by the Commission on this issue; that the Administration has told the Commission that they are concerned with the potential liability associated with enforcing the sign ordinance as it is worded; that she is more than willing to listen to additional suggestions. Commissioner Pillot stated that Commissioner Atkins is absent from this meeting due to City business; that he encourages the motion on the floor to be supported; that this is a significant ordinance; that all five Commissioners should have the opportunity to vote on the issue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she finds it interesting that the Commission is discussing bringing an item back at the next meeting because no action was taken; that the City has a sign ordinance in effect; that she received a notice of illegal signs from the City Auditor and Clerk during her campaign; that she immediately relocated or removed those signs; that the City's laws should be provided to the candidates in much larger print as a major notice. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that candidates for city elections qualify with him; that he has closer input with those candidates; that candidates for County-wide elections qualify through the Supervisor of Elections; therefore, a City. election is easier to control than a County-wide election. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the limited resources of the City's Staff should not be focused on policing an issue which will occur every year during an election period; that he is willing to compromise if political signs could be focused upon; however, the City will not fall apart tomorrow if the Commission takes no action on this issue; that another public hearing should not be scheduled without new ideas set forth. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a member of the prevailing side, in this case those voting "no" on the motion, could make a motion requesting reconsideration of the vote; that a carried vote would place the motion back on the floor for reconsideration. Mayor Patterson stated that the public hearing could then continue without readvertisement. Vice Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion to place the item on the December 19 meeting. Motion failed (3 to 1): Cardamone, noi Pillot, yes; Patterson, no; Merrill, no. Mayor Patterson stated that the Staff and City Attorney should be asked for guidance on how a comfort level for enforcement can be reached if the Commission feels the existing sign ordinance should be enforced; that the signs will proliferate again during election time if this issue is not addressed; that once again, the signs will not be removed until the Commission tells the Administration to disregard their concern for potential liability and remove the signs; that he who disobeys the ordinance and places signs along the rights-of-way gets a lot of free publicity. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the public is wise enough to know those candidates are violating the law and should vote against them; that his argument against the proposed ordinance is based on the associated cost of enforcement; that the Building Department has limited staff to perform code enforcement, building inspections, and various other duties required within the City; that he is willing to strengthen the existing sign ordinance to provide the Administration with authority to address political signs; however, a problem with other signage has not been noticed; that local governments should not overregulate by addressing problems which do not exist. BOOK 37 Page 11180 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11181 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that the Staff does not feel it has the authority to enforce the existing ordinance. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer the issue of removing political signs back to the Administration. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Administration should recognize there is no hurry. Commissioner Pillot stated that with that comment he will vote against the motion. Mayor Patterson stated that the motion has not been restated, therefore the comment is not a valid part of the motion. Mayor Patterson restated the motion to refer the issue of political signs back to the Administration. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. 13. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: PROPOSAL TO TURN THE SARASOTA MOBILE HOME PARK INTO A PARK WITHIN ONE YEAR (AGENDA ITEM V-1 #3 (1553) through (2023) Edward Harding, Harding Partners owner, came before the Commission, displayed visual sketches, and distributed a written presentation. Mr. Harding stated that he has developed a plan to, within one year, turn the Sarasota Mobile Home Park (SMHP) into a park which can be used by all Sarasota as intended by the Payne family when the land was originally donated; that the plan includes building four 100-unit high rise buildings at the, north and south ends of the property; that the present mobile home tenants, by lottery, will be allowed to rent a two bedroom/two bath unit for the present cost of their ground rent, and water and sewer charges, which is approximately $200 monthly; that the areas presently occupied by the mobile homes will be turned into a park with a nine-hole chip and putt course, athletic fields for baseball, soccer, basketball, tennis, lawn bowling and shuffleboard; that the existing mobile homes would be sold by the City at fair market value; that $40 million in City of Sarasota guaranteed bonds would be used to finance the project; that the building design would be similar to that of the Lido Beach Club located at 1212 Ben Franklin Drive with the exception that parking would be provided under each of the four buildings. Mr. Harding further stated that should the Commission want to retain his services for a $100,000 consulting fee, the buildings could be ready for dedication by Christmas 1995. Commissioner Pillot stated that he respects Mr. Harding and his intentions; however, he does not support the proposal; that the Commission should respond to the proposal for the benefit of the SMHP residents present. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Harding's proposal has absolutely no support from her. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he does not support the proposal. Mayor Patterson stated that she hopes the people present did not attend the meeting thinking the Commission would support building four high rise buildings at that location. Commissioner Pillot stated that several days ago he met with Mr. Paco Ramirez regarding concerns of the SMHP residents; that he, with Mr. Ramirez acting as translator, plans to meet with the SMHP residents on Sunday at 3:00 p.m.to reaffirm the action taken by the City Commission at its last discussion relative to the SMHP with respect to the rights of the people who owned and lived at the SMHP before July 1994; that he intends to correct an unintentional, but unfortunate error relating to the letter distributed in Spanish which referenced that the people who lived and owned in the SMHP on July 1994 would be permitted to stay at the SMHP subject to actions taken by the City Commission; that the language should have stated, "by the City Commission that would be seated in September 1999." Commissioner Pillot continued that at the appropriate time he intends to ask this Commission to consider passing a resolution that will request the Commission sitting in FY 98/99 to consider honoring the decision made by this Commission with respect to the rights of the mobile homeowners at SMHP in July 1994; that he also intends to ask this Commission during the next budget deliberations to give some consideration to assisting the people who have purchased mobile homes at the SMHP and who may wish to put those homes on the market. Commissioner Pillot asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if this notification of his attendance at the meeting to be held at SMHP on Sunday at 3:00 p.m. is adequate and consistent with the Sunshine Law? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the meeting will be posted. The citizens signed up to speak on this item relinguished their opportunity to speak. 14. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST OF CITY COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE THE DRAFTING OF A RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION, EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL OF THE EXPANSION OF AMTRAK SERVICE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA = CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION ADMINISTRATION AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO DEVELOP CRITERIA UNDER WHICH SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS WILL BE PLACED ON AN AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM V-2) Walter Diem came before the Commission and stated that in May 1994, Amtrak officials told the city of Sarasota that adequate funding was not available to extend rail-passenger service to Sarasota; BOOK 37 Page 11182 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11183 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. that six months later Amtrak extended the Palmetto trains 243 miles from Jacksonville to Tampa, in addition to over 700 miles of extension to the Sunset Limited trains from Pensacola to Miami via Tallahassee, Florida; that the total additions to the Amtrak system totalled over 1028 miles or 19 times the distance necessary to expand the Silver Star trains from Tampa to Sarasota; that approval of the proposed resolution would make it clear to Amtrak officials that Southwest Florida residents are entitled to the same kind of rail service the Floridians on the east coast, in the panhandle and Orlando areas are receiving. Mr. Diem presented and explained a map of the mentioned extensions. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he suspects Amtrak is under substantial financial pressure to review the economics associated with extensions; and asked if Mr. Diem if he has supplied Amtrak with an estimate of potential users who would use the extended service? Mr. Diem stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has stated that there is enough potential to warrant the extension of rail service in Southwest Florida. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he would support a resolution if numbers could be presented to support the extension of the service. Mr. Diem stated that no Amtrak service is making a profit; that additional service should not be expanded in the State of Florida unless Sarasota is included; that the taxpayers of Southwest Florida should not have to pay for expanded service on the east coast; that the Commission would be supporting that view by passing a resolution for submission to Amtrak officials. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would not support a resolution expressing disapproval; however, she would be willing to support a resolution notifying Amtrak that the Commission would like Sarasota considered in future expansions of service. Mr. Diem stated that Chicago, Illinois, service to Florida is proposed through Nashville, Tennessee, and Atlanta, Georgia, with one section travelling to Miami and one section travelling to Tampa; that a representative of the FDOT stated that an extension of the Tampa service to Sarasota would be feasible; that Amtrak plans to terminate that service in Tampa; that a resolution from the Commission would make it Clear to Amtrak that the Commission supports the Tampa section being extended to Sarasota if the Chicago to Florida service materializes in the future. Commissioner Pillot stated that Amtrak's decision may be based on economic viability; that he would not support a negative resolution; however, he would support the Commission stating an extension of rail service to Sarasota would be desired. Mayor Patterson asked to whom a resolution would be sent? Mr. Diem stated that the resolution would be sent to U.S. Senators, Congressmen, and the State Senators and Representatives from this area. Mayor Patterson stated that at one point this Commission passed a resolution supporting an expansion of Amtrak service to Sarasota; that the previously adopted resolution could be resent. Commissioner Cardamone stated that reference to the expansion of rail services in other parts of Florida should be included. Mr. Diem stated that in May 1994 an Amtrak official made the statement that "Sarasota is a very big market for us and it has nothing to do with disinterest in the market." Mr. Diem continued that Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport has planes full of passengers travelling from Atlanta to Sarasota; that rail service would provide an alternate mode of travel. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Diem if he had suggested language for a resolution? Mr. Diem stated that the language could be forwarded. Mayor Patterson requested that the language be provided to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson so a resolution reflecting this discussion can be drafted and addressed on a future agenda. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Amtrak is partly political; that he does not mind highlighting Sarasota as place to extend service; however, he does not want to encourage an increase in State taxes to build a railroad to Sarasota. Commissioner Pillot stated that in a discussion with the City Auditor and Clerk regarding the criteria necessary for Scheduled Presentations it was pointed out that Scheduled Presentations was an item under which citizens could address the Commission prior to the initiation of Citizen's Input onto the agenda; and requested consensus of the Commission to direct the City Manager and city Auditor and Clerk Robinson to develop criteria under which a Scheduled Presentation will be agendaed. There was consensus of the Commission to refer the item to the Administration for a report back. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a Commissioner's support could be used for the criteria. Mayor Patterson stated that a Commissioner's support or the support of the Administration should be necessary to agenda an item under Scheduled Presentations. BOOK 37 Page 11184 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11185 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that streamlining the agenda in general should be addressed. Commissioner Pillot stated that language such as "a Scheduled Presentation may be on the agenda only when placed by the Administration or by one or more of the Commissioners" could be adopted. Commissioner Cardamone suggested and Mayor Patterson agreed that citizens' comments should be removed from Scheduled Presentations. 15. CITIZENS' INPUT - APPROVED WAIVER OF 30-DAY WAITING PERIOD BETWEEN PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING PROPOSED AT 332 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (2748) through ( - Barbara Stephens, 2312 Britannia, stated that she has acquired the property located at 332 North Tamiami Trail; that a public hearing for rezoning the property to develop an Inn has been scheduled for December 7 before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) ; that the property is located in the Theater and Arts District; and requested that the 30-day requirement between PBLP and Commission public hearings be waived. Commissioner Pillot asked for the location of the property. Ms. Stephens stated that the property is an empty, two-story building located on the corner of 4th Street and U.S. 41. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the referenced item is for a Preliminary Site and Development Plan that has been modified from the original conditional rezoning petition; that the item has been agendaed before the PBLP on December 7; that the Zoning Code requires that the Commission waive the restriction if action will be taken earlier than 30-days from the PBLP date; that Ms. Stephens wants to open for business by the holidays and, therefore, is requesting a waiver from the Commission. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that she does not anticipate the PBLP denying the petition; that the item is a technicality which has to come through the process for a change in use; that the former use approved was for The International Ceramic Headquarters; that the proposed use is consistent with the Theater and Arts District. Mayor Patterson asked for the purpose of the 30-day delay. Ms. Robinson stated that advanced reports from the Administration are often requested; that the 30-day delay provides adequate time for Staff to complete the PBLP minutes and forward a report to the Commission. Mayor Patterson asked if the Administration will have a problem complying with this request? Ms. Robinson responded, no. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he supports the Staff's position and recommends approval of the request for waiver. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to waive the 30-day waiting period for the Commission hearing at the Staff's discretion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yesi Patterson, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CITY-WIDE SIDEWALK PROGRAM = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (3085) through #4 (0397) Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the criteria for the determination of priorities for sidewalk projects has been revised; that the three previous sidewalk lists have been combined into one list entitled "Municipal Sidewalks"; that the evaluation criteria, entitled "Sidewalk Warrant Analysis" has been revised with the prior sidewalk lists re-evaluated; that most sidewalk segments will fall between 0 - 10 points; that sidewalk segments ranked above 7 points are recommended to be mandatory and under 7 points to be optional; that the sidewalks under 7 points would be surveyed and unless more than a 50% negative response is received those sidewalks would be constructed. Mayor Patterson stated that negative responses would be indicated by a firm "no" response. Ms. Hay stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot stated that Hillview Street from Orange Avenue to Flower Drive is a small segment; and asked if only the affected homeowners would be surveyed. Ms. Hay stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson asked how the survey will conducted with regard to which side of the street the sidewalk will be placed? Ms. Hay stated that houses on both sides of street will be surveyed for the segments which cover several blocks; that a detailed design survey has not been completed; that the Administration will determine which side of the street to place the sidewalk if a negative response is not received by more than 50% of the homes located on both sides of the street; that a more detailed survey would be conducted in areas of question. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the side of the street on which the sidewalk will be placed should be determined prior to conducting a survey. BOOK 37 Page 11186 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11187 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned with how the 50% negative response will be determined. Commissioner Pillot stated that the material included in the Agenda packet infers both sides of the street will be surveyed. Ms. Hay stated that the side of the street that the sidewalk will be placed could be determined prior to conducting the survey on both sides of the street. Mayor Patterson stated that the choice may be based on how many people on a particular side of the street object to the sidewalk installation. Commissioner Pillot stated that there are two issues: 1) whether property owners on both sides of the street will be surveyed, and 2) whether the property owners will be surveyed before or after a determination is made on which side of the street the sidewalk will be installed; that there seems to be a consensus that both sides of the street should be surveyed; that either the Engineers will have documentable reasons for placing the sidewalk on one side or they won't; that the property owners should be informed whether a determination has been made or given a choice of preference, for example: yes, I'm in favor of the sidewalk on either side no, I'm opposed to the sidewalk on either side yes, I'm opposed to a particular side Mayor Patterson stated that not informing the property owners of the determination may be a better idea; that the property owner would have to assume the risk and decide whether having the sidewalk installed on their side of the street was worth having a sidewalk installed. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City should be candid with the public if the side of the street for installation due to the location of trees, infrastructure, etc., has been determined. Mayor Patterson stated that in those instances property owners on the other side of the street should not be afforded the opportunity to vote for or against the installation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that sidewalks increase property values; that certain property owners may consider the sidewalk as an asset. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification if the segments with points totalling 7 or above are mandatory for installation; that those property owners will not be surveyed; and that the sidewalks will be installed on the side determined to be the easiest for installation. Ms. Hay stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the mandatory sidewalks will be completed first? Ms. Hay stated that segments of Myrtle Street and Lockwood Ridge Road rank above seven points, but are County roadways; that the County will be installing the Myrtle Street portion soon; that plans to improve Lockwood Ridge Road are included on the County's roadway plan; that the City will work with the County to have the sidewalks constructed to the future design of the road as soon as possible. Ms. Hay continued that Osprey Avenue from Bay Road to Siesta Drive is a State road segment; however, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will not fund the installation of sidewalks on that segment; that since the segment has been highly requested the City will construct the segment above the ranking received. Ms. Hay further stated that the intent is to complete all the sidewalks on the list within the next 2.5 years; that for efficiency, small segments ranking below 7 points may be included when a higher ranked segment is being constructed. Mayor Patterson stated that the Bahia Vista Street segment between Orange and Osprey Avenues has a low ranking of 5.03 which surprises her; that the Bahia Vista Street area is a missing segment of sidewalk which raises concerns with the ranking criteria used. Ms. Hay stated that the Number of Children on the Block and the School Facility criteria award the highest points. Mayor Patterson stated that a missing segment of sidewalk deprives children of safe passage from one point to another; that a long pedestrian route is travelled by children other than those who reside on a particular block. Ms. Hay stated that the ranking was intended as a basis to determine which sidewalks should be mandatory; that certain segments will not meet the mandatory point criteria; however, the segment can be moved forward, surveyed and completed, unless high opposition is received, if the Commission feels it is necessary. Mayor Patterson stated that the Number of Children on the Block criteria should be revised; that the number of children for whom the segment of sidewalk is a logical path should be quantified. Ms. Hay stated that the issue referenced was addressed under Pedestrians Walking the Route. Mayor Patterson stated that the category has much less weight. Ms. Hay stated the weight could be increased. BOOK 37 Page 11188 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11189 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission should not start revising the criteria that the Administration has prepared to the best of its ability; that she has been a proponent of the Bahia Vista Street segment referenced; however, the criteria should not be revised to have that segment fit the mandatory criteria. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that all of the sidewalks will be completed in 2.5 years; therefore, the criteria should not be addressed. Mayor Patterson stated that based on the criteria, the segments below 7 points will be constructed only if support from the neighborhood is received. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the proposed procedure for surveying should remain as presented; that surveying both sides of the street will have a big impact. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission should not attempt to second guess the sidewalk projects tonight; that the projects were ranked by professional engineers who put a lot of time into preparing the sidewalk list; that he is unwilling to substitute his judgement for that of an engineer in establishing criteria. Ms. Hay stated that the Administration's recommendation as follows: 1. Approve the revised criteria evaluation "Sidewalk Warrant Analysis" 2. Authorize the Engineering Department to design and construct all of the sidewalk projects with 7 or more points; 3. Authorize the Engineering Department to survey the property owners of those segments with less than 7 points and design and construct those without a majority of negative responses as outlined above; 4. Authorize the Engineering Department to notify the public that any sidewalk segments requested will be reviewed. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. The seconder, Vice Mayor Merrill, and the maker, Commissioner Pillot, clarified that the intent of the motion included surveying to be completed on both sides of the street. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration's recommendation does not address notifying the property owner on the location of the sidewalk prior to taking the survey. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the property owners should be informed. Commissioner Pillot stated that relevant knowledge known to the City should not be withheld from the public. Commissioner Cardamone agreed and stated that the property owners should be questioned for their preference if the side of the street cannot be determined without expensive engineering and design work. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to approve the Administration's recommendation with the understanding that information on the location of the sidewalks be shared with the property owners being surveyed. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE THE REZONING PETITION TO "G" IGOVERAMENTAL ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPOSED SARASOTA COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #4 (0397) through (0544) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the County is requesting that the City initiate the rezoning of a portion of the County's property (approximate size 75' X 115') to Governmental (G). zone district; that the item will be scheduled before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency on January 4, 1995, if the Commission grants approval. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the request is conducive with some of the incentives and inducements discussed by the Commission with the County's agreement to continue locating its headquarter facilities in downtown Sarasota; that the Administration recommends approval of the request. Stuart Barger, County representative, came before the Commission and stated that the pre-design site analysis phase has been completed for the project and approved by the County Commission; that the first pre-application conference has been completed; that the County is going through the City's process just as a private developer would; that the City has initiated the rezonings to "G" zone district in the past; that initiation of the petition by the City is requested to rezone the subject property from CBD (Central Business District) to G zone district. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to authorize the Planning Department to initiate the rezoning petition in the relevant matter. BOOK 37 Page 11190 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11191 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the motion includes exempting the County from the $1,500 in rezoning fees? Mr. Barger stated that there is no fee if the City initiates the petition. Ms. Robinson stated that the Staff time is not billable. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUTHSIDE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (0573) through (0600) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that a detailed presentation will be made at the December 19, 1994, Commission meeting if the Commission approves setting this item for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set the proposed streetscape improvements to the Southside Village Neighborhood Commercial District for public hearing at the December 19, 1994, Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 19. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CITY MANAGER '8 RECOMMENDATION FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZE THE DRAFTING OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING - APPROVED; CONSENSUS TO HAVE ADMINISTRATION PRESENT A REPORT ON THE POTENTIAL PARKING IMPACT TO ST. ARMANDS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (0600) through (1987) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the existing sidewalk cafes which have been encouraged in the City need regulation; that Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) have made varying recommendations on provisions for the sidewalk cafe ordinance; that he has reviewed both versions and made recommendations on what he feels should be incorporated into the ordinance to be drafted by the City Attorney and set for public hearing. Mr. Sollenberger explained the discrepancies between the PBLP and Staff and gave the following recommendations for the proposed ordinance in detail: ISSUE (Section) CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION FEE (c) Initial - $100; Renewal - $100/yr PARKING FOR No additional parking requirement ADDITIONAL SEATING (d) (5) APPLICATION/ Conditions may be imposed by City CONDITIONS (d) (6) Manager DESIGN In CT zone only, chairs, tables, STANDARDS/PERFORMANCE umbrellas, plants, outdoor lighting, & STANDARDS irrigation be fixed. In all other (f) (1) & (g) (2) zones, chairs, tables & umbrellas must be portable. (f) (3) No table or chair may be affixed to surface. In cases where fixed improvements have been made, the City will not be responsible for any damages that should occur if the City needs to use the right-of-way to access infrastructure that is located beneath the improved areas. SIZE (f) (2) Tables - 48" diameter, 48" length & width, 30" height. Chairs - No restrictions. COLORS (f) (4), (f) (5) Tables and chairs - No restriction on & (f)(6) colors. Umbrellas = No restriction on colors, 8' diameter umbrella permitted. Zoning Code currently prohibits advertising on umbrellas as portable signs, thereby requiring Zoning Code Amendment to allow in the future. PORTABLE SIGNS (f) (6) No signs, banners, sandwich boards, or advertising. DISTANCE 6' walking space, exemption for two (g) (1) existing approved permits of 5' (g) (2) Fixed furniture must be 4' from all infrastructure. Portable furniture- No distance restriction except for curbs, handicapped ramps, pedestrian crosswalks, bus stops, taxi stands, alleyways. BOOK 37 Page 11192 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11193 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. ELECTRICAL OUTLETS/ Electrical outlets - permitted in CT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS zone only for fixed tables & chairs (f) (1) & (g) (5) & (6) with an encroachment permit. Planters & private trash receptacles permitted in CT zone only. Irrigation systems - permitted in CT zone only with an encroachment permit. ALCOHOL (h) Allowed if purchased from corresponding restaurant, patrons are seated at table, and alcoholic beverages served and consumed with a meal INDEMNIFICATION Include in the ordinance. (1) & (m) Commissioner Cardamone asked if the size requirements are maximum measurements? Mr. Sollenberger stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that requiring a 6' foot walking space and 4' location from the curb may limit the areas in which a sidewalk cafe could meet the requirements; and asked if the neckouts on Main Street would be qualifying locations? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the gray sidewalks along Main Street are all in excess of 6 feet; that the brick portions are approximately 4 feet wide; that the neckouts are wider; that existing facilities on Main Street and St. Armands were measured and could easily meet the requirements recommended. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the word "meal" is hard to define and distinguish. There was a consensus of the Commission to have a broader word used under the Alcohol provision. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the City Manager's recommendations and authorize the drafting of the sidewalk ordinance and set it for public hearing. Mayor Patterson referenced the recommendation on no additional parking required for additional seating; and stated that this ordinance will not only apply to the downtown and St. Armands areas but also to the Hillview Street area; that there are two reasons why cities regulate the number of seats in restaurants: 1) public health and fire hazards, applicable only inside, and 2) parking; that the City has contributed $1 million and the property owners will be assessed $2 million for the additional 250 parking spaces on St. Armands; that problems will arise if those parking spaces are largely absorbed by the restaurant owners; that the City has already spent $4 million to provide parking in the downtown area and further provisions for parking are being requested. Mayor Patterson continued that at first, Winter Park, Florida, allowed businesses to expand and absorb whatever parking was available; that when the city was forced to fund additional parking facilities, the businesses were then required to lease parking with a private owner to demonstrate that additional parking was provided in order to expand; that after the private parking was absorbed, Winter Park required the businesses to contribute to a parking fund so other taxpayers would not pay the bulk for future parking constructed; that the situation in Winter Park is recognition of what is disturbing her; that City taxpayers who will not benefit from the additional seating will pay for the additional parking necessary if the provision is left unlimited as to the number of additional seats which can be added; that a reasonable limitation, i.e., 10% of the permitted seating inside the restaurant, should be included. Commissioner Cardamone agreed. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that many of the restaurants in the Hillview and Downtown areas are located in less than 10,000 square feet of space, and, therefore, are not required to provide parking. Mayor Patterson stated that those restaurants are regulated as to how many seats can be set up inside. Vice Mayor Merrill cited the following: (i) Temporary Nature of Use: The use of the public right-of-way as a sidewalk cafe shall be subject to termination by the City in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the referenced provision is extremely broad and could be used if the City suffers a more severe parking problem; that the locations of the sidewalk cafes are largely pedestrian areas which will require less parking; that the right to exist is not permanent; therefore, the parking in the affected areas is not that big of an issue; that restaurants such as Burger King cannot be expected to purchase ten parking spaces which cost $10,000 per space to continue providing outdoor seating space; that the ambiance of sidewalk cafes will tremendously enhance the desirability of the pedestrian environments for businesses which will more than offset the difficulties of getting a parking space. Commissioner Pillot stated that the non-restaurant merchants protesting the parking issue will be heard from at the public hearing. BOOK 37 Page 11194 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11195 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a parking problem currently exists in all of the affected areas of the proposed ordinance; that the majority of the sidewalk dining will take place in the evening; that she does not expect the sidewalk cafes to consume the additional parking space recently provided; however, the percentage of existing seating or a sensible restriction should be explored as a limitation to the amount of seats that can be used on the right- of-way. Commissioner Cardamone continued that an argument which will be heard from merchants is that, "the public right-of-way is being used by restaurants to sell food, why can't we put a table out to sell merchandise?" Mayor Patterson stated that a pedestrian environment is what the City is attempting to create; however, many of the pedestrians got to the area via a vehicle; that the places to park those vehicle are at a premium; that plenty of restaurants that are not very successful will have patrons who choose to sit outside during the evening; however, during the peak season, the very successful restaurants, the ones with the most seating, will be able to fill seating inside and outside; that a minimum should be included so that places like Burger King are not affected; however, the issue of limitation should be addressed; that there should be some criteria for divvying up what is a public asset. Vice Mayor Merrill asked how Mayor Patterson would propose to address Main Street where additional parking is not required? Mayor Patterson stated that an exiting ordinance prohibits unlimited expansion on Main Street. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement came before the Commission and stated that the businesses downtown can expand up to 10,000 square feet without providing additional parking. Commissioner Pillot stated that there are not many places in the City where the proposed ordinance would provide unlimited expansion; that located on St. Armands and being on a corner, Charlie's Crab is one of the places which may have the greatest opportunity; however, he doesn't feel the issue raise will be a big problem. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is willing to discuss anything that will help make the sidewalk cafe ordinance work; however, he does not want parking requirements to discourage the smaller restaurants. Mayor Patterson stated that criteria could be provided to the affected parties to reach a consensus prior to incorporating any requirement into the ordinance; that 10% or 20% of the existing seating could be used; that Charlie's Crab is licensed for a 300 seating capacity; that 20% of 300 seats is 60 seats or 15 tables. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the locations in question do not have land large enough to fit 15 tables and meet the six-foot walkway requirement; that hypothetical problems which could not exist are being discussed. Mayor Patterson stated that the standards used for public health laws regarding circulation inside a restaurant could be duplicated as the requirement. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the philosophical issues of why. food and not merchandise will be raised; that the sidewalk cafes will be temporary uses; that problems which arise can be adjusted to after one year. Mayor Patterson stated that the pressure on the public to provide more parking will increase; that the situation is inevitable. Mayor Patterson stated that the number of additional parking spaces necessary should be quantified assuming all the restaurants on St. Armands were to place seating outdoor. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the same should be generated for Main Street. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration can report back to the Commission with that information prior to the public hearing. Mr. Schneider stated that the demand for the sidewalk cafes will be much greater on St. Armands than downtown. Mayor Patterson asked if there was a consensus of the Commission to have a report presented by the Administration regarding the potential impact of sidewalk cafes at St. Armands? There was a consensus of the Commission. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to approve the City Manager's recommendation and - set the ordinance for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 20. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE NORTH/SOUTH BICYCLE LANES IN AN EFFORT TO DIVERSIFY THE CITY OF SARASOTA ROADWAY NETWORK = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (2001) through (2598) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, and Alexander Boudreau, Senior Civil Engineer, came before the Commission. BOOK 37 Page 11196 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11197 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that in June 1992, the City approved an $8.5 million Neighborhood Improvement Plan; that one of the components of that plan was bicycle improvements. Mr. Boudreau stated that after much discussion with the Sarasota County Bicycle Pedestrian Committee, and various staff, a series of bicycle facilities were recommended for development in the City. Mr. Boudreau displayed and explained in detail the bicycle route map for Sarasota County and the proposed North/South Bicycle Lanes. Mr. Boudreau stated that the installation of north/south bicycle lanes will allow safe and efficient use of the roadway network to all individuals, regardless of age or socio-economic status; that the recommended North/South Bicycle Lanes project will increase the overall use of the City of Sarasota Roadway Network, while reducing the number of single occupancy vehicle trips; that the proposed north/south route will connect Sarasota/Bradenton Airport, Ringling Art Museum, New College, Ringling Art School, Downtown North, downtown Sarasota, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, and Siesta Key via an existing multi-use path; that no construction is anticipated; and that restriping is proposed on Orange Avenue to add a wide, utside-shouldered bicycle lane. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the restriping could be done as part of the City's maintenance program? Mr. Boudreau stated that striping is not generally let to fade away before additional restriping occurs; that the lines would have to be removed to relocate the lines as proposed. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that $118,000 of funding seems excessive to restripe bicycle lanes. Mr. Mohammed stated that $118,271 is the balance remaining in the budget for the entire project; that estimates on the restriping have not yet been determined; that the cost should be approximately 25% of that figure or $36,000 to $50,000; that the Commission is not being requested to approve $118,271 in funding for restriping. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Bahia Vista Street which could easily be restriped to provide bicycle paths to U.S. 41 was not indicated on the map. Mr. Boudreau stated that the North/South Bicycle Lane project is a starting point and was determined to be the most necessary by the Bicycle Pedestrian subcommittee. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Webber Street has not been indicated on the map. Mr. Mohammed stated that the County is improving Webber Street; that he will research whether bicycle lanes are intended for the City's portion of the street. Commissioner Cardamone stated that consideration of Bahia Vista Street should be delayed until the School Avenue/Shade Avenue discussions are held. Commission questions regarding Hyde Park Street, Circus Boulevard, and Ringling Boulevard were addressed by Mr. Boudreau. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to authorize the Administration to proceed with the installation of the north/south bicycle lanes. Mayor Patterson stated that the three areas on Orange Avenue where islands are located seem to have insufficient width for bicycle lanes; and asked if bicycle paths will be used to address this area? Mr. Boudreau stated that there is a difference between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path; that bicycle lanes are portions of the roadway designated for the use of bicycles; that Mayor Patterson's suggestion was one of the suggestions received for the areas referenced; that another was to begin dashing the bicycle lane as the island is approached with a sign indicating that cars yield to bicycles; that cooperation between bicyclists and vehicle drivers will be necessary. Mayor Patterson stated that the bicyclist should have the choice to get off of the roadway at such a dangerous section. Mr. Boudreau stated that studies indicate that bicycle paths next to the road are more dangerous than leaving a bicyclist on the road. Mayor Patterson stated that she has received complaints regarding the difficulties bicyclists have on that portion of Orange Avenue when there is a great amount of traffic. Commissioner Pillot stated that the resolve should be left to the professionals to provide the safest alternative. Mr. Boudreau stated that the problems which arise will be addressed in the safest way possible. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 37 Page 11198 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11199 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone it was moved to extend the meeting to complete the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 21. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: OPTIONS THE CITY HAS TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA COUNTY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX REVENUES FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 1995 - APPROVED EXISTING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (2613) through (2815) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the interlocal agreement and direct the Administration to work on an alternate formula. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County for the distribution of Local Option Gas Tax Revenues is based on the official April 1, 1993, population figures; that research of alternative, available methods of distribution was performed; that the law states that if an interlocal agreement cannot be reached between the municipalities and the County, the distribution will be mandated by transportation expenditures. Mr. Mitchell referenced and explained the Transportation Expenditures for the Past 5 Years which was included in the Agenda packets as Exhibit A; and stated that this formula would increase the City's portion and decrease that of the City of Venice and Town of North Port portions; that this research took time to compile; that this year's distributions began in September 1994 and the City has already received four months' worth of distributions; therefore, the Administration has recommended approval of the Interlocal Agreement for FY 93/94 with the provision that the Administration will bring back the transportation expenditures of the municipalities in the unincorporated area for the preceding five years prior to September 1995 to afford the Commission the opportunity to discuss alternative positions to negotiate the distributions next year. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Mayor Patterson stated that it is unfortunate the City did not compile this information several years ago; that City is currently building fewer roads; that portions of this is an accounting issue; that a compilation of all road-related expenses should be kept; that sidewalks, resurfacing, and medians should be attributable. Mr. Mitchell stated that often account codes are given to a total project; that items within those account codes may be applicable and will be reviewed. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: SARASOTA COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 21, 1994, AT VENICE CITY HALL FROM 9:30 A.M. TO 12:00 NOON - CONSENSUS TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WORKSHOP ON DECEMBER 12, 1994, TO FURTHER DISCUSS TOPICS FOR SUBMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-5) #4 (2815) through (3044) Commissioner Cardamone stated that a letter was received in response to a letter of congratulations sent to Shirley Brown, State Representative, informing her of a Legislative Delegation Meeting scheduled for December 21, 1994, at the Venice City Hall; that two weeks' of Committee meetings have been scheduled in Tallahassee in Januaryi therefore, this is the only opportunity for establishing issues the cities feel are important; that the Commission should discuss issues of importance and attend the meeting. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a long list tends to get lost in the process; that the Commission should submit two priorities: 1) the Lido Beach Renourishment program, and 2) legislation to deal with the Snyder Decision. Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees with both suggestions; however, she feels the inequities of distributions of sales tax with the State should be addressed; that there are inadequately phrased laws in the State which create a problem for cities to litigate problems related to dual taxation issues; that the State has annexation policies that are anti-city and policies allowing bedroom communities to form a city rather than annexing into an existing, adjacent urban hub. Mayor Patterson continued that the Florida League of Cities is suggesting that the appropriate attack to have some of the Florida policies modified to be less anti-city is to get a commission appointed to examine local government policy; that the League almost got that passed last year; that the Commission should request a study commission to examine the issues mentioned. Commissioner Pillot requested that the issues be provided to the Commission at the meeting scheduled on December 12; that the deadline for submission of items for the December 21, 1994, meeting is December 16. BOOK 37 Page 11200 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11201 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a Special Meeting could be scheduled immediately following the workshop on December 12, 1994, to address this issue. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus to schedule a special meeting on December 12, 1994. 23. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = CITY ATTORNEY TO FORMULATE A PLEADING AND CAUSE OF ACTION RELATED TO COUNTY RESIDENTS SUBSIDIZING CITY SERVICES: ADMINISTRATION TO EXPLORE THE PILOT PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR BOATS MOORING IN THE BAY; PBLP COMMENTS TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL OF VISION PLAN REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (3049) through #5 (0231) COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. congratulated City Auditor and Clerk Robinson's appointment as parliamentarian at the recent National League of Cities Meeting held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. B. stated that he recently read the justified concerns about the sewer connections and an opportunity to discuss that City residents have long been paying for Sheriff services, an issue which the City has lost at the Supreme Court level; that part of what the Supreme Court stated in its ruling was that the Sheriff services could not be eliminated because: 1) services could be received when leaving the City, and 2) services were available for back up; that discussions with Police Chief Gordon Jolly indicated that no instances where the County has backed up the City, but close to 100 instances where the City has backed up the County; that the Supreme Court statements should be applicable in both ways; that non- City residents enter the city and receive services; that the City can document back-up. Commissioner Pillot asked for Commission support to have the City Attorney institute a new law suit to force the non-City residents to contribute to the cost of city services. Mayor Patterson stated that she would be happy to pursue that reasoning if only to bring the issue to the public's attention. City Attorney Taylor stated that the logic is compelling; that the legal pleading and a theory for cause of action can be formulated with the Administration if the City Commission grants approval. Mayor Patterson asked if there was a consensus of the Commission to authorize formulation of a pleading? There was consensus of the Commission. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. distributed information received from Walter Stilley, a member of the boating community, relating, to a pilot program for self-regulating boats mooring on the Southwest coast of Florida; and asked for Commission support to have City Attorney Taylor explore the program as an avenue to assist with the problem the City is experiencing with boats mooring in Sarasota Bayi that such a program may create a better opportunity for recreational boaters and economic development or opportunities in the downtown area; that the program appears to establish standards for lboats that are moored in a bay rather than attempting to establish criteria to eliminate boats from mooring in bays. City Attorney Taylor stated that within the next two weeks, the West Coast Inland Navigation District (WCIND) will be asked for approval of the regulatory concept; that the State has been working with Mr. Stilley; that the City may have an opportunity to be the first voluntary participant in the pilot program; that funding may be available to implement the program with the goal being that the bay will be nurtured and kept from degradation by the expansion of boats and inadequate moorings; that Commissioner Cardamone is requesting that the actions of the WCIND be monitored, contact be kept with Mr. Stilley, and the intent and specifics of the pilot program be explored for a report back to the Commission; that the Administration could prepare the report. Mayor Patterson stated that she has concerns with the costs and associated liabilities; however, she supports having the pilot program explored. Mayor Patterson asked if there was a consensus to refer this issue to the Administration for further information. There was a consensus of the Commission. B. referenced page 56 of the minutes of the November 21 meeting which stated the Administration would provide the Commission with a report on the traffic signalization project at the December 5 Commission meeting; that no report was received. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission received information indicating the Florida Department of Transportation has experienced problems with the new contractor hired which has therefore delayed completion of the project. BOOK 37 Page 11202 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11203 12/05/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a report on the problems associated with traffic signalization has been requested numerous times; that she would like the issue addressed. Mayor Patterson requested that Commissioner Cardamone discuss this issue with Mr. Sollenberger for a report to be provided during the Special Meeting on December 12 or a hard copy forwarded to the Commission. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) has expressed concern that they had limited input regarding the Vision Plan document; that the PBLP would like to have input on the Request for Proposal documents that the Administration will develop and distribute; and asked if the Commission would like a PBLP recommendation to accompany the RFPS when presented to the Commission for approval? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he supports the suggestion which is an excellent idea. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is fine with her. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is neutral. Mayor Patterson stated there was a consensus of the Commission to have the PBLP make comments on the contents and details of the RFPS prior to presenting the RFP to the Commission for approval. 24. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #5 (0233) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m. u a Vh enen NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR e TA ATTEST: 3ellg Robnson BILLY Est ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 9.0