MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot, Commissioners Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 (a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ADOPTION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 97R-967, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF REVEREND J.D. HAMEL, WHOSE IMMEASURABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY ARE APPRECIATED - ADOPTED #1 (0049) through (0171) Mayor Cardamone stated that Memorial Resolution No. 97R-967 recognizes the February 17, 1997, passing of Reverend Dr. J.D. Hamel, Chaplain for the City of Sarasota Police Department, Sarasota County Sheriff's Department, the City, County, and State Fire Departments, the Cancer Society and Civil Defense, and Sarasota Memorial Hospital. Mayor Cardamone read Memorial Resolution No. 97R-967 in its entirety, recognizing Reverend Dr. Hamel's contributions, achievements, and accomplishments. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 97R-967. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that a plaque of the memorial resolution will be delivered to the Hamel family. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0171) through (0208) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add to Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-2, Approval Re: Settlement Agreement with Sarasota Welfare Home, Inc., and the City of Sarasota in the amount of $110,000, plus attorney's fees and costs, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger BOOK 41 Page 14202 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14203 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. B. Add under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-3, Approval Re : Four Point Plan of Action for the Rosemary Redevelopment Area C. Add under Board Appointments, Item No. IX-2, Appointment Re: : Sarasota Housing Authority. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yesi Cardamone, yes. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0208) through (0213) Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of February 18, 1997, are approved by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1997 = DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO PROHIBIT GAMBLING, GAMING, TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF GAMBLING PARAPHERNALIA IN THE MP ZONE DISTRICT AND TO BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK TO THE PBLP PRIOR TO PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0215) through (0318) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Ronald Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following item from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of February 5, 1997: A. Development of an Ordinance to Prohibit Gambling Vessels in the City of Sarasota Mr. Annis stated that in an effort to be proactive regarding the prohibition of gambling vessels, Board Member Palmer requested review and discussion of the Venice ordinance pertaining to the subject; that the PBLP voted unanimously to recommend to the City Commission that the PBLP and Staff undertake suitable revisions to the Zoning Code, specifically in the Marine Park (MP) Zone district, to prohibit gambling, gaming, transportation or storage of gambling paraphernalia. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is delighted the PBLP has taken the initiative to address an issue which was raised by the Mayor and supported by the Commission at a previous meeting. Mayor Cardamone requested comment from the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that a judge recently ruled that the City of Venice ordinance pertaining to gambling vessels was not applicable to the particular applicant who had filed suit; that the judge's ruling is not determinative of all the legal issues potentially involved with regulating gambling vessels; that research will be conducted and an ordinance prepared, if deemed appropriate by the Commission; that potential issues of concern will be reported back; that information researched on the subject has been requested from the City of Venice. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code to prohibit gambling, gaming, transportation or storage of gambling paraphernalia in the MP Zone District and to bring the ordinance back to the PBLP prior to presentation to the City Commission. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Mayor Cardamone asked if the ordinance will prohibit gambling vessels only around the Bayfront or in all water accessible areas of the City of Sarasota? City Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance will apply to the MP Zone District, which is the zoning designated in all water areas accessible to vessels. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD' S REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0327) through (0384) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Daniel Delahaye, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Delahaye presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's regular meeting of February 11, 1997: A. John Ringling Towers and Bickel House BOOK 41 Page 14204 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14205 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Delahaye stated that the Historic Preservation Board, which strongly supports the preservation and restoration of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) and the Bickel House, directed that a letter be drafted to Mr. Phil Keb, Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, and presented to the Commission for approval; that the letter asked for an explanation as to the necessity of demolishing the JRT to proceed with the proposed Ritz Carlton development and requested an opportunity for the Board to work with the developer to combine the nationally acclaimed buildings into a proposed development concept; that the front-page article in the February 27, 1997, Pelican Press answered the Board's questions; therefore, the request for Commission approval to forward the letter is withdrawn. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the request for withdrawal does not indicate a lack of interest by the Historic Preservation Board; that the City attorney has advised that contact between the City and representatives of the Ritz Carlton Hotel Company could create a legal conflict. Mr. Delahaye stated that the Board's questions were directly answered in the Pelican Press article prior to the issuance of the City Attorney's memorandum regarding potential legal conflicts. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE/ S REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1997 - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM II- 3) #1 (0384) through (0408) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that a letter was written to the Commission requesting a joint workshop between the City Commission and the Public Art Committee to discuss a proposal to secure Tourist Development Committee (TDC) funds to accomplish and fulfill the objectives of the PAC; that a joint workshop has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 1997; therefore, no action is required by the Commission. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1 AND 2 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0408) through (0717) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 2 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Bobby Jones Golf Cart Equipment-Exact Distancing Communications System (Bid #97-39) On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 1. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 2. Approval Re: Settlement Agreement regarding Sarasota Welfare Home, Inc., Vs. City of Sarasota in the amount of $110,000, plus attorney's fees and costs Commissioner Patterson asked the amount of attorney's fees the City is expected to pay and the amount the City has expended on legal counsel? City Attorney Taylor stated that the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the Plaintiff will be set by the Court. Michael Connolly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission, and stated that paying attorney's fees in excess of $50,000 should be expected; that the City's legal fees will also exceed $50,000. Commissioner Patterson stated that the relationship between the City and the Sarasota Welfare Home, Inc., has been good; that the Welfare Home now known as the Pines of Sarasota was built on land donated by the City; that the two parties would not have had to expend over $50,000 each in legal fees if an amicable agreement could have been reached earlier; that the blame may not lie with the City, but she does not feel good about expending over $200,000 to resolve an issue which could have been addressed in a more timely manner. City Attorney Taylor stated that a generalized complaint for damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount of the Court was filed against the City; that after filing a generalize complaint, the Plaintiff is required to prove their case for damages; that the Plaintiff did not progress or pursue the litigation in a vigorous manner; that the details of the damages being sought were unknown to the City until a few weeks prior to the hearing before the judge; that several years elapsed between the filing of the generalize complaint and the scheduling of a court hearing; that the length of the process was frustrating to the City Attorney's Office as legal counsel for the Plaintiff was not willing to discuss a figure in a manner appropriate to bring forth a settlement to the Commission. City Attorney Taylor continued that the litigation is the result of a surveying error made by the City's engineering consultant which caused the installation of an effluent outfall pipe outside a legal easement; that the mistake was not discovered until the Sarasota Welfare Home, Inc., attempted to expand its facilities; that the location of the pipe significantly impacted the ability of the Plaintiff to develop the site as intended; that the judge entered an order denying the City's defenses and finding that the City's installation of the pipe outside the express written easement area resulted in a taking of the Plaintiff's property; that the amount of damages, if any, the City is responsible for paying has not yet been resolved; that the City Attorney's Office has estimated a potential claim liability of $350,000, not including legal fees; that Commission authorization to pursue a settlement offer in the amount BOOK 41 Page 14206 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14207 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. of $110,000, plus attorney's fees, is requested; that the City Attorney's Office intends to request future authorization from the Commission to seek recovery of the damages against the company that is the successor in interest to the company which provided the City with an erroneous survey. Commissioner Patterson stated that the likelihood of success in a legal challenge against the engineering consultant should be thoroughly researched before the City expends additional funds for legal fees pertaining to this issue. Mayor Cardamone stated that the situation should have been resolved with a compromise many years ago; that the pipe was installed in 1970; that the Sarasota community has been generous and supportive of the Sarasota Welfare Home, Inc., and the Pines of Sarasota; that she recently discussed the issue in a meeting held with City Manager Sollenberger and the Administrator, the Chairman, and two Members of the Board of Directors for the Pines of Sarasota; that litigation between two parties which have been sO supportive of each other is discouraging; that expending $110,000 to settle the issue is not favored; however, expending $350,000 is favored less. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-964) = ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-965) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-966) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0717) through (0833) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 97R-964 and 97R-965 in their entirety and proposed Resolution No. 97R-966 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-964, appropriating $10,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to provide funding for the Sister Cities Association to fund costs of official foreign visitors 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No, 97R-965, appropriating $200,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to provide funding for Joint FDOT Bay Road/Osprey Avenue Project. Funds to be reimbursed by Sarasota County with City road impact fees consistent with the County's CIP Schedule 3. Adoption Re : Proposed Resolution No 97-966 to increase the membership of the Citizens With Disabilities Advisory Board from a five (5) member to a seven (7) member Board; and to provide that said Board shall meet monthly instead of every other month On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 3, inclusive. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to 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. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3985, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF - ZONE DISTRICT TO WFR ZONE DISTRICT AND TO APPROVE FINAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 97-PSD- 02 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI- - FAMILY CONDOMINIUM ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE (F/K/A THREE CROWNS AND THE LIDO BEACH INN), WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1234 AND 1314 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 97-CO-01 AND 97-PSD-02, PETITIONER JOEL J. FREEDMAN, AICP, VICE PRESIDENT BISHOP AND ASSOCIATES) - PASSED ON FIRST READING, AS REVISED; DIRECTED A LETTER PROPERLY WORDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. BE FORWARDED TO THE DEP REFERENCING THE LACK OF COMMISSION CONSIDERATION REGARDING POSSIBLE PROTRUSION BEYOND THE LINE OF PROJECTION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF BEACH EROSION (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) AND 10. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 97R-954, APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SWIMMING POOL, POOL DECK AND WATER RETENTION POND TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A GULF -1 FRONT YARD AS A COMPONENT OF A MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM IN THE WFR ZONE DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE (F/K/A THE THREE CROWNS AND LIDO BEACH INN) WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1234 AND 1314 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; IMPOSING CONDITIONS; DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITIONER JOEL J. FREEDMAN, AICP, VICE PRESIDENT BISHOP AND ASSOCIATES) - REQUEST WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONER (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) BOOK 41 Page 14208 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14209 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. #1 (0833) through #2 (2766) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that on February 18, 1997, the City Commission continued the public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present a revised site plan and to revise the proposed ordinance to incorporate the conditions proffered by the Petitioner. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the requisite codes and information were entered into the record on February 18, 1997; that the revised site plan was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC), who found that all Code requirements had been met; that the Petitioner will discuss the various changes to the site plan. Mayor Cardamone asked the uses and height limitations permitted in the Waterfront Resort (WFR) and Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-4) Zone Districts. Ms. Robinson stated that the Comprehensive Plan intended a resort area but permitted multiple-family dwellings in the WFR Zone District; that the WFR Zone District permits hotels and motels with a maximum density of 50 guest units per acre, and multiple-family dwellings, with a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre; that the maximum height of the structures is limited to 110 feet as measured from the finished floor. Vice Mayor Pillot asked for Clarification of the term "finished floor. 11 Ms. Robinson stated that the finished floor is determined based on the flood plain established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) i that the 110-foot measurement would start at 12 feet if the flood plain is 12 feet and at 8 feet if the flood plain is 8 feet; that the flood plains in the Lido Beach area are between 8 and 13 feet. Ms. Robinson continued that the RMF-4 Zone District permits multiple- family dwellings, including condominiums and apartments, with a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre, hotels and motels with a maximum density of 36 guest units per acre, adult congregate living facilities and child care centers. Ms. Robinson further stated that restaurants permitted by special exception in the WFR Zone District are open to the general public; that use of restaurants permitted by special exception in the RMF-4 Zone District are limited primarily to hotel/motel guests. Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the maximum height of structures in the RMF-4 Zone District is 45 feet with an additional height of 10 feet permitted for interior parking within the structure, measured from the required FEMA elevation. Commissioner Patterson stated that a maximum height of 160 feet can be achieved in the RMF-4 Zone District by special exception; that the height of a structure on the subject property could be 183 feet if the FEMA elevation is 13 feet. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson stated that numerous letters have been received questioning a continuation of density from the Three Crowns Hotel to the new development if the zoning is changed from RMF-4 to WFR; and asked for comment regarding Section 9-8 of the Zoning Code pertaining to continuance of nonconforming structures. Mayor Cardamone asked if Commissioner Patterson is suggesting the grandfathered density would be lost if a rezoning occurs? Commissioner Patterson stated that the question has been raised in numerous letters received and is posed to the Staff member responsible for interpreting the Zoning Code. Mr. Litchet stated that the Zoning Code states the following: any structure or structures on a single lot or parcel under condominium or cooperative long-term leases may be rebuilt after destruction to the prior extent of nonconformity as to height and density of units per acre regardless of the percentage of destruction. Mr. Litchet stated that two issues were discussed with the City Attorney's Office before a determination was made: > Is an act of God required in terms of destruction? > Does the provision apply to all zone districts? Mr. Litchet stated that the term destruction" is not defined in the Zoning Code; that based on the definitions found in legal dictionaries, the Code provision would apply to a structure destroyed in any wayi that as a policy basis the provision anticipates acts of God and allows redevelopment to the same specifications if a major structural defect requiring the destruction and rebuilding of an existing condominium is required; that location of the provision under a general application section of the Code is interpreted as applying to all zone districts; that the Code does not state the provision will not apply if the property is rezoned; that under general, legal analysis something not prohibited in the Zoning Code is generally considered as accepted; that as a policy basis, property owners of parcels with condominiums or cooperative long-term lease structures which are rezoned, e.g., from RMF-4 to WFR, and then experience a percentage of destruction should not be limited to replacing only a portion of the structure destroyed, e.g., units 100 to 200 but not 200 to 300. BOOK 41 Page 14210 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14211 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet continued that an 18-unit-per-acre density is applicable to condominiums in both the WFR and RMF-4 Zone District; therefore, his interpretation does not grant an advantage to parcels in either zone district. Mayor Cardamone asked if the determination made is that a change in zoning does not affect a grandfathered density? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission was copied on a memorandum regarding a potential interest by the Petitioner in developing a hotel; that the number of hotel/motel units permitted per acre in the WFR Zone District is based on the size of the property; and asked if the subject property would support 50 guest units per acre and meet parking requirements, etc., for a hotel? Mr. Litchet stated that a specific site plan for a hotel/motel developed with 50 guest units per acre and which meets all the requirements has not be reviewed; that the subject property may qualify for a density of 50 guest units per acre, but the density could be limited by retention, lot coverage, and parking requirements. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission was informed that the Petitioner met with Mr. Litchet on February 19, 1997, to discuss a proposed hotel project at the former Three Crowns Hotel/Lido Beach Inn site. Mr. Litchet stated that Staff copied the City Commission on the memorandum to the City Manager as the discussion with the Petitioner was viewed as a relevant piece of information. Commissioner Merrill stated that the majority of the Commission felt a certain use may be incompatible and voted against the rezoning of the parcel located at the corner of Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41, commonly referred to as the Walgreens site; that a judge subsequently overturned the Commission's decision, noting the that decision should have been based on existing City ordinances, not the thoughts of the Commission, as the parcel was eligible for the requested zoning under the Comprehensive Plan and Staff had indicated all criteria had been met. Commissioner Merrill continued that Staff has indicated the proposed Lido Beach development meets all the Code requirements; and asked the issues the Commission can debate as to rezoning the subject property to WFR or retaining the existing RMF-4 zoning? Ms. Robinson stated that under the Comprehensive Plan, the subject parcels, located in an Impact Management Area (IMA), are eligible for a rezoning to the WFR Zone District; that an overlay WFR District has been established for the entire Lido Beach area. Commissioner Merrill stated that current ordinances and the Sarasota City Plan, adopted by ordinance, state the subject property is eligible for the WFR Zone District; and asked the grounds necessary for the Commission to override the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Robinson stated that the main issue would be compatibility, in terms of height, setbacks, etc., which were reviewed by the DRC and PBLP and found to be compatible. Ms. Robinson continued that the WFR Zone District is more contemporary than the RMF-4 Zone District; that the intent of the WFR Zone District was to provide more view corridors and to prevent the creation of wall to wall buildings along Lido Beach; that the setbacks are more restrictive but the height requirement is elevated in the WFR Zone District compared to the RMF-4 Zone District. Commissioner Merrill stated that based on the outcome of the "Walgreens" litigation, the latitude the Commission has to deny the request is not clear; and requested comment from the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that this land use petition requires a quasi-judicial proceeding; therefore, any decision made by the Commission must be supported by substantial, competent evidence; that concrete facts received from people competent to testify on the subject, i.e., experts, must be in the record to support a decision; that City Staff and DRC analysis stating that the project meets the requirements of the Zoning Code will be part of the record a Court would review if a legal challenge is filed. City Attorney Taylor continued that the judge in the Walgreens case found that the petitioner's case was made for them by Staff's internal review; that although the judge's finding was viewed as inappropriate by the City Attorney's Office, the City did not prevail on appeal. City Attorney Taylor further stated that the petition should be judged against facts included in the record to support a finding as to the following criteria: Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed amendment necessary. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood Whether the proposed change would create drainage problems Whether the proposed change would seriously reduce the flows of light and air to adjacent areas Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area BOOK 41 Page 14212 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14213 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Whether the proposed change would be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property Whether the proposed change would constitute a granting of a special privilege as contrasted to furtherance of the public welfare Whether substantial reasons exist why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning Whether the proposed change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City Whether finding other adequate sites in zone districts which would permit the use requested is impossible Commissioner Merrill stated that based on the outcome of the Walgreens litigation, strong facts in the record would be required for the Commission to go against the Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Merrill continued that WFR Zone District permits 18 dwelling units or 50 guest units per acre, depending on the use; that a large increase in density is perceived between the two uses; and asked the logic for allowing 18 dwelling units for a condominium versus 50 guest units for a hotel? Ms. Robinson stated that hotel rooms are generally 400 to 600 square feet whereas condominium or multiple-family units are 1,000 to 1,200 square feet; that the increased setback requirements developed for the WFR Zone District were offset by additional height and density provisions; that a density of 50 units per acre for hotels was included as an incentive to promote economic development on Lido Beach and was supported by the community when the WFR Zone District was developed. Commissioner Merrill asked if a hotel with 500-square-foot units would approximate the massing of a condominium with 1,300 square-foot units? Ms. Robinson stated that a specific plan would have to be reviewed to answer the question as each building is different; that some condominiums may have units of 2,000 to 3,000 square feet; that some hotels may have large suites and fewer units; that hotels which could co-exist with multiple-family dwellings were desired on Lido Beach when the WFR Zone District was developed; therefore, the density requirement was increased to provide an incentive for hotel development in the resort area. Commissioner Merrill asked if the intent of the Zoning Code is to give hotels priority over condominiums? Ms. Robinson stated that the intent of the WFR Zone District, developed in 1987, was for hotels and condominiums to co-exist and for hotels to be the catalyst for a revitalization among the older structures. Commissioner Merrill stated that a four to one ratio between a hotel with 500-square foot units and, for example, the L'Elegance which has 2,000-square-foot condominium units would exist, resulting in a similar bulk or massing; however, if the real intent of the WFR Zone District is to convert existing properties to hotels, the issue should be reviewed during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Update. Ms. Robinson stated that a review of the issue during the Comprehensive Plan Update would be required prior to reviewing the LDRs. Ms. Robinson cited the following Intent and Purpose from Zoning Code Section 8-206, which is based on the Sarasota City Plan: The Waterfront Resort (WFR) zone is intended to be a residential district designed to preserve the basic characteristics of multiple-family living while at the same time providing new residential accommodations, attractions, and services for both tourists and residents. The zone district standards are designed to minimize the impact of vehicular traffic and to maximize opportunities for access to the water and views of the water. Commissioner Merrill stated that the intent cited does not indicate an encouragement for hotels on Lido Beach or that priority should be given to hotels over condominiums. Ms. Robinson stated that is correct; that the intent is for the two uses to co-exist. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that City Attorney Taylor read a list of criteria the Commission should take into consideration during the quasi-judicial proceeding; and asked the relevance of those criteria to the findings of the Staff and PBLP? City Attorney Taylor stated that the findings made by City Staff and the findings and record made before the PBLP are all part of the continuing quasi-judicial proceeding for the subject petition; that any findings made by the Staff and the PBLP relevant to the criteria referenced would be given weight during a legal challenge; therefore, evidence on which a Commission decision is based contrary to any decision previously made during the process should be clearly reflected in the record. Vice Mayor Pillot asked the extent of weight which should be given to the findings of Staff and the PBLP? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Court has ruled that staffs and planning boards are comprised of professional people and carry the same weight as experts hired to testify on a particular subject; therefore, the finding of the City's Staff and PBLP would be of equal BOOK 41 Page 14214 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14215 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. weight in the process to any hired professional brought in by either side to help make the record. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission should focus on determining if any evidence heard tonight overrides or outweighs the findings of the Staff and PBLP? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; however, as he was not in attendance at the February 18, 1997, public hearing, he will assume that the basic questions regarding density and volume of building may have been discussed at that time; that the process was continued to receive a revised site plan, modified to deal with a swimming pool and a retention area which may have been forward of the setback line; that receiving testimony regarding issues pertaining only to the revised site plan would be relevant. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission agreed to hear all speakers. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission did agree to hear all speakers again; that the question was asked of Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, and originally reflected as such in the minutes; however, that section of the minutes was revised at the request of Attorney Schenk to stipulate that only new information could be received. Commissioner Patterson referred to the language under the intent of the WFR Zone District; and asked for clarification of maximizing views of the water. Ms. Robinson stated that providing views between buildings to prevent Lido Beach from becoming another Miami Beach was the concern addressed when the WFR Zone District was developed. Commissioner Patterson asked if blocking the views of neighboring buildings was a concern? Ms. Robinson stated that neighboring views would be addressed under the criteria referenced by City Attorney Taylor; that maximizing views between buildings was the intent when the district was written. Commissioner Patterson stated that the seaward positions of the buildings on Lido Beach vary, making a building alignment difficult to establish; that the only stipulation in the Zoning Code relevant to alignment of buildings is the 150-foot setback from the mean high- water line; that buildings which project in front of other buildings will block, not maximize, the views others have of the beach; and asked if the issue that the adjacent buildings will have less views with the proposed site plan versus an alternative site plan is relevant? Ms. Robinson stated that land constraints, e.g., the narrowness of a parcel, often create difficulties in the design and positioning of buildings for in-fill projects; that several structures on Lido Beach exceed the density allowed for the RMF-4 Zone District, resulting in larger buildings; that the proposed development may be compatible with the densities in some of the existing buildings and consistent in terms of views. Commissioner Patterson stated that the rezoning to the WFR Zone District and approval of the preliminary site plan are two separate issues; that the density and height of the structure and whether or not a hotel can be developed on the property are zone district issues; and asked if an inherent right exists for the structure to come within 150 feet of the water? City Attorney Taylor stated not necessarily; that the standards that apply to the site plan process are independent of setback requirements. City Attorney Taylor cited the following standards from Section 3-12 of the Zoning Code: (a) The proposed development design and layout shall be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code. (b) The proposed development shall make adequate provisions for access and internal traffic circulation and shall further the amenities of light, air, recreation, and beautification (c) The appearance of the proposed development shall be compatible and harmonious with properties in the general area and shall not be sO at variance with other development so as to cause a substantial depreciation of property values (d) The proposed development design and layout shall meet the purpose and intent of the Sarasota City Code City Attorney Taylor stated that the standards are subjective; that Section 3-12 (b) could be problematic in terms of application; that substantial facts must be placed in the record to support the application of any of the standards. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Staff made findings specific to the site plan which are part of the record? Ms. Robinson stated that the standards referenced are considered in the analysis of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan prepared by Staff; that the petitioner has the ability to proffer conditions or limitations to the site plan to address concerns raised. Commissioner Patterson asked the density allowed for a hotel in the RMF-4 Zone District? BOOK 41 Page 14216 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14217 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Ms. Robinson stated that a hotel is allowed by special exception at twice the number of dwelling units permitted in the RMF-4 Zone District. Commissioner Patterson stated that a hotel density of 36 would be permitted by special exception if the RMF-4 zoning is retained. Ms. Robinson stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson asked why increased density is permitted for a hotel in the WFR Zone District? Ms. Robinson stated that the additional density was permitted to encourage revitalization of existing hotels on Lido Beach; that three acres is required to construct a hotel with a density of 50 guest units per acre in the WFR Zone District. Commissioner Dupree asked the extent to which a precedent will be set if the Commission accepts the recommendations of Staff and the PBLP? Ms. Robinson stated that proposals are reviewed on an individual basis; that recommendations are based on a review of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; that neighborhood meetings are held to work through issues with the neighbors. Commissioner Dupree asked if the input received at neighborhood meetings, the desires of the residents, and the analysis of the Zoning Code issues and Land Use Element serve as a basis for the decision made by Staff? Ms. Robinson stated yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the site plan approval standards appear to be subjective; and asked if the collective judgment of Staff and the PBLP, who have taken those standards into consideration, constitutes substantial, competent evidence? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission is required to base a decision on the weight of substantial, competent evidence. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Pillot asked the status of an individual's opinion in a quasi-judicial proceeding? City Attorney Taylor stated that opinions can be stated on the record; however, opinions will not be persuasive in a court of law unless supported by substantial, competent evidence. Mayor Cardamone stated that the alignment of the buildings was referenced during the PBLP public hearing; and cited the following from the PBLP minutes of the January 8, 1997: Mr. Freedman assured the Board that the concerns of the continuous line of construction would be dealt with because the State would address and regulate this issue. If the project does protrude beyond the continuous line of construction, then the State would override the City's setback requirement and the more stringent requirements of the State would be enforced. The project would not be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) until City approval for Code compliance was obtained. The State would not issue a permit until all their code requirements were met. Mr. Litchet stated that the term "continuous line of construction" is not defined in the City's Zoning Code; that the State reviews various types of construction, including previous structures located on particular sites; that, generally, the State requests a letter of zoning compliance when projects are considered by the DEP; that the Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement drafts a letter indicating a project has met the requirements of the City's Building Code, Zoning Code, and Comprehensive Plan; that although final approval is preferred, the State, in the past, has accepted contingent letters verifying a project is in the process and pending approval. Mayor Cardamone stated that one building which protrudes beyond adjacent buildings could be more severely impacted during a storm or if additional beach loss occurs; that funding for beach renourishment or means to protect one structure from damage may be necessary in the future if the Petitioner is allowed to position the building seaward of adjacent buildings; that a safer landward position of the building would enhance not hinder sales, from a safety viewpoint. Ms. Robinson stated that the issue of a continuous line of construction for building alignment will be reviewed during the LDRs Update. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff contacted the State regarding the manner in which a continuous line of construction is determined. Deborah Marks, Development Review Facilitator, came before the Commission and was sworn by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Ms. Marks stated that the criteria used to determine the continuous line of construction is subjective; that the State reviews adjacent buildings in both directions, compiles and averages the distances, and the person performing the review makes a discretionary decision. Commissioner Merrill asked if blocking the views of surrounding buildings, potential erosion, and the protrusion of the proposed building were issues evaluated in the Staff analysis? BOOK 41 Page 14218 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14219 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Ms. Robinson stated that the 150-foot setback and compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding area in terms of views, setbacks, and height, were the primary issues reviewed; that locating the retention pond and swimming pool landward of the vegetation line and dune system were issues of concern raised by the PBLP; that the Commission can request that the Administration review and report back with information regarding any issues of concern before making a decision. Commissioner Dupree asked if the City could be legally liable if a project with a building located near the mean high-water line is approved and significant damage to the building results in the future? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City would have to violate a Code provision to be liable; that making a discretionary determination as to the position of a building, which is not prohibited by law, would not subject the City to liability. Mayor Cardamone asked if Zoning Code Section 3-12(c) primarily addresses substantial depreciation of property values Ms. Robinson stated that the section does not relate solely to property values. Mayor Cardamone stated that Staff analysis pertaining to Zoning Code Section 3-12(c) states: Comment: The structure will be compatible with new development on Lido Key. Mayor Cardamone stated that compatibility with the two older buildings adjacent to the subject parcel rather than with new development should have been reviewed; that she does not believe the subject parcel is compatible as new development on Lido Key has not occurred. Mayor Cardamone stated that the public hearing was reopened and continued at the February 18, 1997, meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following into the record: The revised preliminary site and development plan dated February 21, 1997, for Petition No. 97-PSD-02. The boundary survey prepared by Bishop and Associates as revised on February 21, 1997, and submitted by the Petitioner in conjunction with the revised site and development plan for Petition No. 97-PSD-02. A revised copy of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 with a draft date of February 26, 1997. A All exhibits submitted at the continued public hearing before the City Commission held on March 3, 1997, pertaining to proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985. The following people came before the Commission: Joel Freedman, AICP, Vice President, Bishop and Associates, and Lamar Matthews, Attorney, representing the Jacobsen Group = Lido Beach Limited Partnership, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman stated that a revised site plan and a new boundary survey showing the mean high-water line on February 21, 1997, and setting construction activity back 150 feet landward of that line has been submitted; that the revised site plan shows the swimming pool and deck area behind the 150-setback line and the main building moved closer to Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the retention pond shown on the Gulf-front portion of the property on the original site plan has been removed and combined into the large retention area along Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the special permit previously requested to construct the swimming pool, deck, and retention pond within the 150-foot Gulf-front setback is no longer necessary; that a letter requesting withdrawal of the special permit request has been submitted. Mr. Freedman stated that the Petitioner formally requests withdrawal of consideration of Resolution No. 97R-954. Mr. Freedman continued that the memorandum drafted by Mr. Litchet, a copy of which he did not receive, was incorrect; that during the meeting held with Mr. Litchet on February 19, 1997, he was in no way representing the Petitioner; that as a reputable Planner in Sarasota, he was contacted by an architect/hotel developer from Jacksonville, Mississippi, who is interested in pursing a hotel project in the area, specifically on the subject site; that the Jacobson Group did not view his working independently with the hotel developer as a conflict of interest but intends to move forward with the condominium project proposed for the subject site; that he is independently assisting the hotel developer in understanding the City's Codes and in pursing a hotel project unrelated to the Jacobson Group. Mr. Freedman further stated that the minimum flood elevation for height of a building is established from the most restrictive, minimum floor elevation; that part of the subject site is located in the "V-17" zone, indicating a minimum elevation of 17 feet; that a site by site analysis is conducted by the State; however, the last two projects constructed on Lido Beach had a flood elevation of 18 feet. Mr. Freedman stated further that preventing a concrete wall of buildings and preserving views along the roadways was the issue BOOK 41 Page 14220 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14221 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. addressed when the WFR and Waterfront Resort-Baytront (WFR-B) Zone Districts were created; that the side setbacks were increased to provide a view between buildings. Mr. Freedman distributed handouts to the Commission. Mr. Freedman referred to and displayed on the overhead projector the original plat for the Lido Beach Club reflecting the seawall approximately 80 feet and the swimming pool approximately 120 feet from the mean high-water line; and stated that the Lido Beach Club was originally built in the early 1970s; that more beach area exists today compared to the 1970s. Mr. Freedman referred to and displayed on the overhead projector a survey depicting the following footage distances to the mean high- water line as of February 21, 1997, for portions of the proposed development and for buildings 1,000 feet to the south of the subject site: Proposed Development 189.4 Azure Tides 243.1 3 story building 186.8 2 story building 181.7 2 story building 189.1 2 story garage 116.3 4 story building 104.4 2 story building 142.7 2 story building 149.5 13 story building 128.1 Commissioner Patterson stated that the 189.4-foot-measurement for the proposed development does not appear to point to the part of the building closest to the beach; that the pool edge is at the 150-foot setback line and a pool width of 30 feet is indicated; that a 180- foot measurement may be more accurate. Mr. Freedman stated that the arrow drawn to the corner of the building was meant to be the closest point to the beach; that the mid-section of the pool is narrower; that the wrong location may have been chosen when the computer graphic was generated. Mr. Freedman referred to and displayed on the overhead projector a survey depicting the following footage distances to the mean high- water line as of February 21, 1997, of buildings 1,000 feet to the north of the subject site: 13 story Lido Beach Club 211.7 1 story building 237 1 story building 116.3 8 story building 138.2 2 story building 126.3 3 story building 102.7 2 story building 96.7 2 story building 92.7 Mr. Freedman stated that Brett Moore, AIA, Coastal Engineer, Humiston & Moore, who completed a 30-year erosion model for the Petitioner, spoke at the February 18, 1997, public hearing indicating in his opinion that the State would be comfortable with the revised site plan which reflects all construction activities behind the 150-foot setback. Mr. Freedman continued that the proposed structure, which will be constructed to current windload and minimum flood elevation standards would experience less damage than existing buildings during a storm; that the City should be encouraging new construction. Mr. Freedman further stated that language has been incorporated into the proposed ordinance regarding measurement of the building location from the Benjamin Franklin Drive property line; that the Petitioner has no desire to move the building closer to the water, regardless of future shifts in the mean high-water line from beach growth; that the building will have to be moved landward if six months passes before application for the first building permit is made and a future survey indicates a landward shift in the mean high-water line. Mr. Freedman stated further that City Staff has indicated that providing public access to the beach on the subject site would further the City efforts to obtain Federal grant matching funds to renourish Lido Beach; that the Petitioner proffers for 15 years use of a five-foot easement along the northern property line for development by the City as a pedestrian access. Mr. Freedman stated further that the Petitioner has attempted to work with the neighborhood to resolve issues, has moved the building landward, and is confident State approval for the project can be obtained; that the State no longer processes applications submitted with contingency letters; that applications submitted without a final letter of zoning compliance are rejected for incompleteness. Commissioner Merrill asked the reason for stipulating use of the five-foot easement for only 15 years and if the easement will be incorporated as part of the site plan or the rezoning? Mr. Freedman stated that Staff indicated 15 years was the length of time required to obtain and meet the requirements of a Federal grant; that the Petitioner does not want to grant the easement in perpetuity; that the issue could be revisited after the first 15 years; that the condition would be placed on the rezoning and the site plan. Mayor Cardamone stated that the five-foot easement will not be granted if the Federal grant is not received. BOOK 41 Page 14222 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14223 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson stated that the project was moved landward approximately 10 feet as a result of the February 21, 1997, survey. Mr. Freedman stated that the boundary line moved landward approximately 12 feet on one side and 14 to 17 feet on the other side of the site. Commissioner Patterson stated that the position of the building from the mean high-water line appears to be closer to 180 feet than 189.4 feet; and asked if the Petitioner is stipulating the 189.4-foot measurement? Mayor Cardamone stated that the Petitioner previously proffered 35- feet from the 150-foot setback; that the 189.4-foot measurement provides 39.4 feet. Mr. Freedman stated that the survey reflected additional erosion of the beach; that the 189.4 figure is an error; that the 180-foot measurement should be used. Attorney Matthews stated that approval of the project may be a difficult decision from a political viewpoint but not from a legal standpoint; that no special exceptions have been requested; that the Petitioner has met the City's criteria and followed the required processes, as indicated by Staff and the PBLP; that approval of the requested petitions is the Commission's only legal alternative; that approval of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 is respectfully requested. Joe Moyer, 1212 Beniamin Franklin Drive, Apt. 602 (34236), stated that John Sneyd, who was recently hit with a golf cart at the Bobby Jones Golf Course, was unable to attend this public hearing. Mr. Moyer continued that the seaward extension of the proposed building to provide premium views and premium market prices at the expense of neighboring condominium owners was a concern raised throughout the process; that damage to views, vistas, and property values at the Lido Beach Club has been lessened by the revised site plan which shows the building moved significantly landward; however, the elusive, shifting mean high-water line remains a concern; that the setback line could be redefined on the site plan; that the Petitioner's commitment to tie the location of the building to Benjamin Franklin Drive should be made a condition of the rezoning or part of the site plan approval to assure neighboring owners that the building location will not shift seaward in the future even if beach renourishment, beach accretion, a change in use, or a change in ownership occurs. Mr. Moyer further stated that the adjacent condominium owners still have major concerns with the project but if the Commission sees fit to approve the rezoning and the site plan, incorporating conditions requiring a set location to prevent the building from moving any closer to the beach is requested. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance has been revised to establish a method for measuring the location of the building from two survey monuments located at Benjamin Franklin Drive and to assure the building will in the future remain 150 feet back from the mean high-water line; that a new survey will be required if a building permit is not requested within six months; however, the February 21, 1997, survey will prevail if the new survey indicates beach growth has occurred. Mr. Moyer asked if the condition would apply to an alternative project, i.e., a hotel, if the proposed development is not constructed? City Attorney Taylor stated that the stipulation relates to the proposed development and site plan; that site plan approval for a different project would be required. Commissioner Patterson stated that the subject site would have already been conditionally rezoned; that the stipulation should apply to any future projects, not just the site plan being approved. Mayor Cardamone agreed. City Attorney Taylor stated that issue can be addressed with the Petitioner. Carl Weber, 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), read a speech on behalf of John Sneyd which expressed appreciation for the continuation of the public hearing and the relocation of the building further landward; and also referenced the following: A The size of building is more than 2.5 times the size of the adjacent Lido Beach Club and encompasses all usable area on the subject site. The density restriction under the WFR Zone District for the acreage on the subject site would permit only 78 dwelling units. The Petitioner has requested the 114-unit density from the RMF-4 Zone District, which has a height limitation of 65 feet, be transferred to the WFR Zone District to achieve a maximum height of 110 feet. > Granting the conditional rezoning is not in the best interest of the public. John F. Conway, 800 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), stated that he recently moved to the Lido Beach area; that the outcome of the Walgreens litigation may not have been favorable to the City, but the Commission should continue to make its best judgment and not exercise extreme caution on land use decisions; that mistakes can result when decisions are made. BOOK 41 Page 14224 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14225 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Conway continued that after the site plan and density have been determined through a rezoning of the subject property, the petitioner could decline construction and easily shift the site plan to a hotel with hotel density; that establishing density footprints for various uses in the Zoning Code would lessen the conflicts created by alternative uses; and asked if the City Codes would require a reversion to the original zoning if the site plan approved is not pursued? Mr. Conway further stated that the remarks by the Petitioner's attorney were offensive and viewed as an attempt to intimidate the Commission with the threat of a lawsuit if the project is not approved; that the citizenry will support the Commission if a legal challenge is filed. Robert Skalitzky, 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), stated that the Petitioner's offer to locate the building a distance of 189 or 180 feet from the mean high-water line should be accepted; that a grandfathering of density should not be permitted if the zoning on a parcel changes; that approving the conditional rezoning will create another nonconforming use on Lido Beach. Delores Marchette, 1212 Beniamin Franklin Drive (34236), that the Petitioner previously referenced an unobstructed view of the beach and the Gulf of Mexico as an asset in marketing the new condominium units; however, acquiring that asset at the expense of Sarasota's beaches is unconscionable; that the size of the proposed structure will create a hovering, looming effect over the beach; that keeping all tall buildings 260 to 280 feet from the mean high-water line would maintain the symmetry of Lido Beach and serve as a preventative measure to ensure against erosion and to preserve the beach; that the Petitioner should choose to build a structure further back and create a positive asset to Lido Beach rather than a negative precedence that could result in a domino effect along the beach. James Cooney, 720 Garfield Drive (34236), stated that his concerns regard the setback of the building and the accessibility and use of the beach as a recreational facility for the public at-large. Mr. Cooney displayed a photograph depicting the proximity to the water of the Lido Harbour South, Inc., Seaway and Fairway buildings to the water; and stated that similar conditions could occur at the subject site if the distance of the proposed structure from the mean high-water line is not moved landward. Joyce Trimmer, 1212 Beniamin Franklin Drive #805 (34236), stated that she has been a property owner at the Lido Beach Club for the past 24 years; that the south coast of Spain, the east and west coasts of Florida, including Siesta Key and Longboat Key, were reviewed before she and her husband purchased a condominium; that Lido Beach was chosen for its old Florida charm, low density, human-scale development, and environmental protection; that as a former elected official serving Metropolitan Toronto for 20 years, the Commission's difficulty in making a decision is understood; however, the Commission should consider the following: Will approval of the proposed development set a precedent for development of similar, massive-density projects adjacent to lower-scaled developments along Lido Beach? A Is the City's sewage and drainage capacity sufficient to support massive densities in numerous buildings along Lido Beach? Mrs. Trimmer referred to Section 3-12( (c) of the Zoning Code; and stated that the minutes of the February 18, 1997, Commission meeting reflect Carlos Beruff, of the Jacobson Group, stating the following: Condominium units featuring panoramic views of the Gulf which are erected by projecting the building in front of adjacent buildings have the highest value; that units which face north and south from the proposed condominium and look straight at another building with little or no view will sell for less. Mrs. Trimmer stated that the limited weight of property owners' opinions is disturbing; that Staff's finding of compatibility based on new development may be flawed; that the Zoning Code appears to refer to existing development; that she currently has a panoramic view of South Lido Park, the wildlife in the Bayou, Sarasota Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico; that the proposed development will decrease that panoramic view by approximately 90% and depreciate the value of her property. Mrs. Trimmer continued that the comments made by Lido Beach residents who spoke previously are supported; that she concurs with Mr. Sneyd that the development proposed is too massive and too high for Lido Beach; that Lido Beach should be designated as a special review area when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Marcelle Wolf, Vice President, Lido Key Residents Association, 445 McKinley Drive, stated that the Lido Key Residents Association has actively pursued positive changes to the former Three Crowns Hotel and Lido Beach Inn properties; that the Association's Board of Directors, comprised of four condominium owners and three private home owners, recently held a meeting with Mr. Beruff, Mr. Freedman, and concerned residents; that the revised site plan is the result. Audrey Lucker, 729 Tyler Drive (34236), deferred from speaking. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. BOOK 41 Page 14226 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14227 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the succinctness and clarity with which the speakers spoke was appreciated. Commissioner Merrill stated that a speaker asked if a reversion to the original zoning would occur if the project on the site plan is approved but not constructed; and requested that the Administration briefly explain the time restrictions on a conditional rezoning. Mr. Litchet came forward and stated that a conditional rezoning is valid for two years and eligible for a two-year extension; that changes to approved site plans are reviewed to determine the extent of changes requested; that minor revisions can be approved administratively, that a change in use or a change to conditions established in the conditional rezoning ordinance are not considered minor revisions; that building permits cannot be issued unless the construction plans submitted match the site plan which accompanies the conditional rezoning; that the Petitioner would be required to file a modified site plan, a modified conditional rezoning petition, and undergo the entire site plan approval process to change from a condominium to a hotel project. Mayor Cardamone stated that a change to a use allowed in the WFR Zone District could subsequently be permitted although the conditional rezoning is approved with a specific site plan for a condominium project. Mr. Litchet stated that a subsequent project would have to meet all Code requirements with a new site plan; that public hearings before the PBLP and the Commission would be required. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission will have no guarantee that the condominium project proposed will ever be constructed if the conditional rezoning is approved. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City's legal counsel has been advised that the Petitioner is amenable to having the stipulation regarding the setback from mean high-water apply to the proposed site plan or a subsequent site plan relating to the conditional rezoning; that the stipulation should be entered into the record during the Petitioner's rebuttal. At the request of Mayor Cardamone, City Attorney Taylor explained for the audience, in detail, the following: 1) property rights legislation, 2) the quasi-judicial process which must be followed when land use decisions are considered, 3) the effects the quasi-judicial process and new property rights legislation has had on the Commission's decision making, the manner in which testimony is received, and legal challenges, and 3) the City's experience with the legal challenge referred to as the "Walgreens" case. Mr. Freedman came forward and stated that the public hearing has been closed; and asked if the City's process permits his testimony following the public hearing? Mayor Cardamone stated that is correct. Mr. Freedman stated that the February 21, 1997, boundary survey shows all the distances from Benjamin Franklin Drive to the mean high-water line; that the Comprehensive Plan has designated Lido Beach for residential and commercial or hotel/motel uses and references WFR as an appropriate zone district; that the Petitioner will not only have to go back to the PBLP and the Commission but also to the DRC if an alternative project is pursued on the subject site. Mr. Freedman continued that the majority of the concerns regarding the proposed development were raised by residents of the Lido Beach Club, a structure with 99 dwelling units located on 3.1 acres to the north of the subject site; that the Lido Beach Club has 33 dwelling units per acre and height similar to the proposed development; that the proposed development is compatible with development, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and will enhance Lido Beach; that the site plan is consistent with all the rules and regulations designed to govern and protect the property in the City; that Commission approval of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 is requested. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Petitioner is willing to stipulate, as referenced by City Attorney Taylor, that the conditions of the rezoning and the distances from the mean high-water line would apply to alternative site plans for the subject site? Mr. Freedman stated yes; that the Petitioner is willing to stipulate to that effect. Commissioner Patterson asked if the additional language developed for incorporation into the proposed ordinance, which has not been presented to the Commission, regarding the effect of potential beach erosion on the location of the building if a future boundary survey is performed is satisfactory to the Petitioner and considered part of the ordinance voted on by the Commission? Mr. Freedman stated that the language is acceptable to the Petitioner. City Attorney Taylor stated that the additional language is contained in a letter dated March 3, 1997, from Taylor, Lawless and Singer, P.A., to Joel Freedman, AICP, Bishop and Associates; and entered the letter into the record. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 by title only. Mr. Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985, as revised, on first reading. BOOK 41 Page 14228 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14229 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that City Attorney Taylor referenced experience with the quasi-judicial process which applies to the Commission's decision, a number of criteria both objective and subjective which should be considered, including the recommendations of Staff and the PBLP, and the Commission's need to weigh evidence in making a decision; that based on experience, the clear cut decision of the Court in the Walgreens case, input received at the February 18, 1997, public hearing, the input received tonight, and other information reviewed, the responsible decision is to approve proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that reference has been made to the State's preference of receiving final approval from the local government before processing an application; that consideration should be given to forwarding an adjunct letter to the State requesting serious examination by the DEP of the issues on which the Commission is not in a position to pass judgment. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to include forwarding with the letter of zoning compliance to the DEP an adjunct letter with language based on the following concept: Issues of possible protrusion beyond the continuous line of projection are not addressed in the City's Zoning Code. Also, the City does not have an environmental opinion with regard to potential impact of beach erosion, and we are dependent on the DEP to monitor these issues. Commissioner Merrill stated that an additional burden is not being placed on the Petitioner; that the State is required to review the issues raised regardless of a request by the City; that the letter will highlight two of the issues the State representative reviewing the application is suppose to address. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would have more comfort in making a decision if a letter from the State had been received indicating the two issues were addressed; that the letter will point out that the issues were not considered in the Commission's approval. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the intent of the amendment is to draft a neutral letter simply pointing out that the City's ordinances have not taken into consideration the two issues referenced? Commissioner Patterson stated yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that reference to "we depend upon the State to review these issues" should be omitted as the DEP is aware of its responsibilities. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the amendment. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone restated the main motion as to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985, as revised, on first reading and to forward a letter properly worded by the Administration to the DEP referencing that the Commission has not taken into consideration the issues of possible protrusion beyond the line of projection and potential impacts of beach erosion. Commissioner Merrill stated that he felt the proposed Walgreens development violated the intent of the zoning district as the Commercial Office Park (COP) definition differed from the intent language and, therefore, voted against that conditional rezoning; that the proposed Lido Beach development does not violate the intent language for the WFR Zone District, which specifically allows condominiums and hotel/motels; that local governments are obligated to administer the U.S. Constitution; that one of the Bill of Rights pertains to property rights; that the Petitioner would be successful in a legal challenge if the conditional rezoning is denied; that expending City funds on legal fees to defend a legal challenge on this petition would not be beneficial to the public; that, personally, the proposed development would not be supported if he lived north of the subject site; however, in his quasi-judicial capacity, the proposed development is viewed as conforming with the requirements of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that as stated by Mr. Conway, a newcomer to the area, the Commission should not be fearful of a legal challenge and should realize mistakes can result when decisions are made. Mr. Conway stated that the demeanor of the attorney representing the Petitioner was also referenced. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated for clarification that the motion includes the language made a part of the record by the city Attorney per the letter dated March 3, 1997, from Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, to Joel Freedman, Bishop and Associates. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, any proffers made part of the record by the Petitioner pertaining to proposed Ordinance No. 97-3985 are assumed as included in motion. City Attorney Taylor stated that for clarification, the revised site plan was not reviewed by the PBLP. Mayor Cardamone stated that conditional rezonings in general are not supported; that substantial time and energy has been spent on a conditional rezoning which may in the future place the Commission in an unfavorable position in reviewing a hotel of major density that may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that she will stand on principles and vote against the motion. BOOK 41 Page 14230 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14231 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the main motion and requested that the City Auditor and Clerk proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, no; Dupree, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:58 p.m. 11. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST FOR LETTER OF SUPPORT TO ESTABLISH A CHARTER SCHOOL SERVING THE MIDDLE SCHOOL CHILDREN OF SARASOTA COUNTY - AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO DRAFT AND SIGN A LETTER OF CONCEPTUAL SUPPORT FOR THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCE (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (2766) through #3 (0342) Devin Rutkowski, Chairman, and George Sweitzer, Member, Board of Directors, Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences (SSAS), came before the Commission. Mr. Rutkowski stated that in the spring of 1996, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 403 sanctioning charter schools, also called independent public schools, which have the freedom to employ innovative techniques and programs; that the legislation provided for the following in charter schools: An ability to create small schools, Classrooms, and adult- to-child ratios Mr. Rutkowski stated that the maximum future enrollment at the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences (School) is projected at 250 to 300; that the School will be a middle school, serving 50 to 75 6th grade students in the first year; that a 7th grade will be added in the following year and an 8th grade added in the third year. Custom designing of curriculum sustained around a central theme or vision. Mr. Rutkowski stated that in addition to the State-mandated curriculum, refined further by the Sarasota County School Board, SSAS will emphasize, wherever possible, the arts and sciences, taking in the attributes and qualities the City and Sarasota County has to offer. A Hiring of instructional staff based on qualification, not necessarily certifications. Mr. Rutkowski stated that the SSAS is excited about the possibility of utilizing community mentors to influence students of the School. Mr. Rutkowski continued that the success of the School will be based on several elements; however, the following three keys to success are deemed critical to the SSAS: 1. Parental Participation. Mr. Rutkowski stated that the SSAS will initiate a special contract system with the students and the parents; that parent involvement and participation in the education of students will be required. 2. Community Involvement Mr. Rutkowski stated that active community involvement is essential; that alliances and partnerships with various arts and sciences and business institutions, i.e., Mote Marine Laboratories and the Selby Foundation will be pursued. 3. Community Financial Support Mr. Rutkowski stated that charter schools are not eligible for State construction dollars, start-up cost reimbursement, or capital funds; therefore, raising financial support from the community will be an important component of the School start up. Mr. Rutkowski continued that a tremendous desire exists in the community to participate and influence the public school system in a way that allows for more flexibility and freedom; that the SSAS feels confident the community will support the School. Mr. Rutkowski further stated that the SSAS Founding Committee has prepared a Core Beliefs Statement and is dedicated to a downtown Sarasota location which would provide students with convenient access to the great wealth of resources in the community, Selby Library, galleries and theaters, businesses, governments centers and a waterfront environment; that the City Commission could participate in a social studies program at the School. Mr. Rutkowski requested a letter of support from the City Administration and the City Commission for the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences proposal. Mr. Rutkowski stated that the SSAS has submitted an application to establish the School and has met with the Charter School Task Force twice; that a third meeting has been scheduled for next week; that indications are that the proposal has been received favorably by the Task Force. Mayor Cardamone asked the number of charter schools permitted in Sarasota County. Mr. Rutkowski stated that based upon the size of the student population, Sarasota County has been approved for three new start-up schools and three schools which may convert to charter status; that the State recently reviewed 12 applications for charter schools; that BOOK 41 Page 14232 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14233 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. six were approved and six were denied; that 20 to 30 schools are in the development process; that the Sarasota and Manatee County Easter Seals Societies, in a cooperative effort, have submitted an application to locate a charter school in Sarasota which would serve disabled students; that the SSAS has submitted an application; that a third start-up charter school may or may not materialize. Vice Mayor Pillot asked who will make the final decision regarding selection and implementation of the proposed charter schools for Sarasota County? Mr. Rutkowski stated that the Sarasota School Board has established a Charter School Task Force, comprised of former School Board members and community representatives from the educational field, to review applications and provide technical assistance; that the deadline for application submittal is March 18, 1997; that the applications will be reviewed by the Task Force for compliance with State criteria and submitted to the School Board for approval in April; that the following two to three months will be spent developing Charter language; that efforts to secure funding can begin once School Board approval is achieved. Commissioner Dupree asked the purpose of requesting a letter of support from the Commission and the reason an arts and sciences theme was chosen for the middle school? Mr. Rutkowski stated that demonstrating community support for the charter school is a requirement in the application; that several letters of support have been received from arts, sciences, and business institutions within the community; that a letter of support from City government is desired. Mr. Rutkowski continued that the City of Sarasota has a diverse community of businesses, arts and cultural centers, and residential neighborhoods, which will be used to provide a unique way of learning for middle school students. Commissioner Dupree asked the reason the SSAS has focused on establishing a charter school for middle school students? Mr. Sweitzer stated that he was a guidance counselor at Bay Haven School of Basics Plus for seven years before transferring to Sarasota High School; that parents continually ask for a middle school which provides for parent interaction in the education of students. Commissioner Dupree asked if the SSAS Board reflects representation of all areas of Sarasota County, i.e., a member from South County, North County? Mr. Rutkowski stated that 7 of the 11 seats on the Board are filled primarily with founding members; that four seats are available to other community representatives; that the location of the School will be in the City limits; that more influence from North County may exist as the focus is more on the City population and geographical area; that in addition to the Board of Directors, a Parent/Teacher/Student Society (PTSS) and an 11 to 21 member Advisory Council of key members of the community will be created to provide guidance and direction to the Board and administration. Commissioner Dupree asked if Hispanics, Atrican-Americans, etc., are represented on the Board and if minorities have been considered in the development of the School? Mr. Rutkowski stated that the focus to locate the School in the City of Sarasota should result in more than a proportionate share of minorities in the student population and within the governance of the School compared to other public schools in Sarasota County; that any input on the subject is welcomed; that community outreach is scheduled on the Board's next meeting agenda. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if endorsement by the Commission of the concept to locate a charter school for middle school students in the City of Sarasota rather than the specifics of the SSAS application would be sufficient? Mr. Rutkowski stated yesi however, the specific school name should be referenced. Commissioner Patterson stated that conceptual support is a policy issue; therefore, a letter under the Mayor's signature expressing the support of the Commission would be appropriate. Mayor Cardamone stated that she would gladly draft a letter. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to authorize the Mayor to prepare, sign, and forward a letter to the School Board expressing the Commission's conceptual support for the School of Arts and Sciences. Commissioner Merrill stated that location of a charter school in the City of Sarasota will be beneficial; that location maps and sales material for surrounding residential developments reflect the Pine View School; that schools influence people's decisions to purchase a house and attract people to residential neighborhoods located in the vicinity of schools; that the more schools the City has the more attractive City neighborhoods will be to parents of school-aged children; that continued efforts by the SSAS are encouraged. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is delighted SSAS chose to focus on middle school students; that the middle school students are the children who need community and parental guidance the most; that numerous citizens have expressed a desire to have a continuation of the parental interaction provided at Bay Haven School of Basics Plus, which serves elementary students. BOOK 41 Page 14234 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14235 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson continued that the charter school concept adopted by the Legislature is financially flawed and handicaps the development of charter schools as no capital or transportation funds were included; that dividing the overall School Board budget based on the student population results in approximately $10,000 per student; that the charter schools will receive approximately $2,000 per student; that the Legislature should re-address the issue to make it easier in the future for charter schools to develop, grow, thrive, and be a positive alternative to main-stream education. Mr. Rutkowski stated that the lack of capital funding makes development of the School difficult; however, the SSAS Board believes a large segment of the community is willing to contribute to the public school system; that the Clinton Administration has made Federal funds available to provide technical assistance for the development of charter schools; that the State of Florida will receive approximately $5.5 million over a three-year period; that approximately $40,000 to $50,000 will be received for the hiring of a consultant to assist with the start-up of the charter school. Mayor Cardamone asked the amount of State funds allocated per student to the charter schools? Mr. Rutkowski stated that the figure will be closer to $3,000 than to $2,000; that the dividing the School Board budget by the number of students is not a fair analogy. Mr. Rutkowski continued that 375 charter schools existed nationwide in the summer of 1996; that currently, there are slightly over 500 charter schools nationwide; that the vast majority of the charter schools already established are meeting their defined charters; that a charter school unlike other public schools is held accountable and could lose its status if certain benchmarks and criteria outlined in the charter establishing the school is not been met; that the State allows up to a three-year initial period on which the success of the charter school is evaluated. Commissioner Patterson asked if the SSAS can apply for private grants? Mr. Rutkowski stated yes; that charter schools are considered 501- 3 (c) non-profit organizations. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion authorizing the Mayor to draft and sign a letter of conceptual support. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 12. CITIZENS - INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS - ADMINISTRATION TO MEET WITH GRACE LAMBERT; REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION: 1) PROBLEMS WITH MOUNDS OF DIRT AND CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY BETWEEN PROSPECT AND BAHIA VISTA STREETS WEST OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL AND 2) CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS MADE REGARDING EASTWOOD PARK (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (0377) through (1591) The following people came before the Commission: Grace Lambert, 2334 Temple Street (34239), explained the difficulties she recently had with a City- and State-licensed roofing contractor who performed inferior work, used poor quality materials, and had difficulty but finally achieved a signed work inspection order from a City inspector; and requested review of the City license issued to the roofing contractor. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, the issue is referred to the Administration for assistance. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that his comments are not directed at the Administration and reference incidents which have historically occurred on the property located north of Prospect Street and west of South Tamiami Trail, encompassing not only the May Houck property but also the rear residential property also located in the Impact Management Area (IMA) . Mr. Babb continued that procedures are necessary to follow through with issues addressed when ordinances are passed; that in 1985, the petitioner which filed a site and development plan and rezoning on the subject parcel also requested and received approval for a water drainage easement; that the site plan was denied, but the vacated easement remained in effect; that the off-flow water from Loma Linda Street, which previously flowed across the easement and into a collection system at North Tamiami Trail, now flows all over the subject and adjacent residential properties; that the City agreed to abandon an easement, the development for which the easement was approved did not go forward, the City did not recover the easement, and therefore, has no means to address the stormwater run-off. Mr. Babb further stated that Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) subsequently requested and received authorization to utilize the parcel zoned Residential, Single-Family (RSF) for parking; that an ordinance with various safeguards to protect the property was drafted and adopted; that digging swails to address stormwater run-off and erecting a fence to obscure views of the parking activity were two conditions of approval; that the swails were supposed to be filled in when the parking permit terminated but have not been addressed; that the fence surrounding the property remains in a deteriorated state and covered with graffiti. BOOK 41 Page 14236 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14237 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Babb stated further that subsequently the May Houck property, zoned Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) at the time, was utilized by SMH for parking; that SMH constructed a road through the RSF-zoned portion of the property to the MCI-zoned property, without a permit and in violation of City Codes; that after forwarding a letter and meeting with William Hewes, former Director of Building, Zoning, Housing, and Code Enforcement, regarding the issue, the parking activity and use of the road by SMH ceased; that the property owner then erected barriers on Prospect Street and Bahia Vista Street to prevent vehicles from accessing the MCI-zoned property. Mr. Babb stated further that recently the contractor hired by the City to install reuse pipe on Prospect Street began storing mounds of dirt on the subject property; that Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, indicated the activity was temporary; however, the mounds 'of dirt got bigger, and the activity on the site increased; that the contractor created a road between Prospect and Bahia Vista Streets on which trucks regularly traversed at 20 to 25 mph, creating large clouds of dust throughout the entire residential neighborhood; that, in addition, the contractor developing the Walgreens property also began using the route as a convenient method of access to the former MCI-zoned property which is now a Commercial, Office Park (COP) Zone District. Mr. Babb stated further that on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, he met with V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager; that on Friday, February 28, 1997, a barrier was placed across access to the property at Bahia Vista Street; however, the trucks are driving over the barrier; that the property should never have been used to store fill of the existing type and magnitude; that no permit was issued for the use of the property by the City's contractor, thus the contractor was not provided direction on what was and was not permissible; that the activity was ongoing for over one month before his meeting with the Deputy City Manager; that a procedure is necessary to prevent the activities he has described from occurring in the future. Mayor Cardamone asked the number of dirt mounds existing on the residential property adjacent to Prospect Street and to whom the dirt belongs? Mr. Babb stated that the activity began with one small mound of dirt; that the mound which currently encompasses three-quarters of the length of the RSF-zoned property grows and then diminishes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the dirt is from a City utilities project. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Babb informed her of the activity approximately 2 weeks ago; that the issue was discussed with Mr. Schneider, who indicated nothing could be done but that the activity by the City's contractor would cease within a few days which did not occur; that, secondly, he indicated the contractor for the Walgreens project was participating in a similar activity on the property purchased for the Walgreens development and that the City Codes did not prevent such an activity; that the mounds are extensive and approximately six feet in height; that the situation is not acceptable; that the City's contractor should not have been allowed to contract for use of the site with the property owners; that she is embarrassed; that steps should be taken to prevent a recurrence of similar situations in the future; that the Administration should consider approaching the City's contractor regarding this issue. Mayor Cardamone stated that the clouds of dust are affecting the residents in the Avondale and Prospect Street neighborhoods, especially since the weather has been pleasant and people have had their windows open; that the issue was discussed with City Manager Sollenberger several weeks ago; that she thought the situation was temporary and would be resolved quickly; that Gilbert Leacock, Director of Public Works, and William Hallisey, Facilities Operations Manager, Public Works Department, recently informed her that the owners of the property intend to retain the fill to build up the site, which would create additional problems with drainage in the neighborhood; that Loma Linda Street located between Prospect and Bahia Vista Streets already becomes a lake during rain storms; that the subject property is already built up to the extent that a stream of water continuously runs off the property during rain storms; that older aerial photographs of the property depict a drainage ditch, a major part of the Arlington Canal drainage system, in the middle of the site; that the drainage ditch no longer exists. Commissioner Patterson asked if the City vacated the drainage easement? Mr. Babb stated yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that the drainage ditch should have been recovered when the development for which the easement was granted did not occur. Mayor Cardamone continued that the size of the mound is increasing as the Walgreens contractor is also adding dirt to the pile. Mr. Babb stated that the flooding of Loma Linda Street and adjacent properties has been ongoing for many years; that the City has not developed a resolution to the problem; that numerous environmental effects from permitted activities, i.e., the dust and drainage, and the lack of procedure to address conditions of approval, i.e., filling in the swails and taking down the fence, have adversely affected adjacent residents' quality of life; that the property owner expended funds to install barriers to stop the activity from occurring; that the barriers were destroyed; that the City has allowed the activities to continue; that access to the Commercial Office Park (COP) property, through the RSF property still occurs; that the Walgreens contractor is parking on the RSF-zoned property; that an administrative procedure to follow-up on these types of activities is necessary. BOOK 41 Page 14238 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14239 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Dupree stated that something should be done to resolve the existing situation. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to refer to the Administration the establishment of a team of department representatives to address the problems with the property located between Prospect and Bahia Vista Streets, west of South Tamiami Trail. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yesi Merrill, yesi Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Clarence Brien, 419 West Cornelius Circle (34232), stated that approximately four years ago he requested lights, speed humps, and a fence be installed to prevent vehicular access to Eastwood Park; that nine lights, a fence, picnic benches, and play apparatus were installed approximately two years later; that the picnic benches with holes carved out of the tops are currently covered with graffiti and torn loose from the chain posts; that the two benches for mothers to watch children on the playground were torn loose from the 4 X 4 foot posts; that the chains for the swings are wound around the horizontal mountings of the swing set; that a stabbing which occurred in Eastwood Park on February 14, 1997, resulted in blood all over the picnic tables. Mr. Brien distributed copies of a petition with 12 signatures of residents from the Eastwood Park area requesting the following to preserve the green space which is being destroyed by vehicles driving into the wooded area and to prevent a recurrence of the February 14, 1997, incident: 1. Closing of vehicle access fencing at three points of Eastwood Park allowing only one gated point for work crew. 2. Adding a "Dawn to Dusk" sign for park use. Mr. . Brien stated that the widows and other residents in the neighborhood have requested the installation of two benches to provide for enjoyment of the scenery. Mr. Brien continued that the park should be used, not abused or vandalized. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to refer the issued regarding Eastwood Park to the Administration for a recommendation. Mayor Cardamone asked if the City or County maintains Eastwood Park? City Manager Sollenberger stated that Eastwood Park is a smaller park which may be maintained by the City. Mr. Brien stated that Sarasota County maintains the Park; however, the efforts of Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, have been essential to keeping the nine lights operational. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Michael DuQuette, 354 Cornelius Circle (34232), stated that his residence of 13 years is located four houses from Eastwood Park; that on Friday, February 28, 1997, a couple of teenagers jumped the fence surrounding his property, leaving a back pack, a shoe, and blood behind as they ran toward the Park; that after cleaning the blood from his fence, he learned the teenager was HIV positive. Mr. DuQuette continued that his house has been burglarized and both his vehicles vandalized since Eastwood Park was developed; that potential drug dealings have occurred around the picnic tables, located close to the wooded area which provides an easy escape route; that the fenced play area for children aged 12 or under is beneficial to the neighborhood; however, the sheltered picnic areas, which serve only as a gathering area for teenagers, should be eliminated. Mayor Cardamone asked if the majority of the problems are experienced in the evening hours? Mr. DuQuette stated yes. Mayor Cardamone asked if closing the Park at dusk and police patrol of the area would help alleviate the problems experienced? Mr. DuQuette stated that is correct. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Administration should strongly consider closing the Park at dusk. Commissioner Patterson stated that clearing the underbrush and making the wooded area less dense may be beneficial. Vice Mayor Pillot agreed. Mr. DuQuette stated that he believes the wooded area is a railroad right-of-way. City Manager Sollenberger stated that ownership of the property and the possibility of clearing the wooded area will be researched. Commissioner Dupree stated that closing the Park from dusk to dawn and monitoring the area on a regular basis is supported. City Manager Sollenberger asked if the neighborhood has an active Crime Watch Program? Mr. Brien came forward and stated that the neighborhood has no official Crime Watch Coordinator, a position he held prior to having BOOK 41 Page 14240 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14241 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. bypass heart surgery; that the Police Department has been responsive to calls he has made. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Brien should attempt to find a resident to act as the Crime Watch Coordinator for the neighborhood. Mr. Brien stated that the wooded area is a railroad right-of-way with an assessed value of $17,500; that maintenance of the wooded area, drainage ditches, etc., has been neglected; that he is willing to share with the Administration maps depicting the railroad right-of- way. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a team comprised of various department representatives will be established to examine and develop a solution to the problems referenced at Eastwood Park. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REVISED CALENDAR OF BUDGET ACTIVITIES - APPROVED AS MODIFIED WITH BUDGET WORKSHOP - INTRODUCTION SCHEDULED FOR JULY 17, 1997 (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (1601) through (1744) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Calendar of Budget Activities outlines all the dates in the upcoming FY 97/98 budget cycle; that the following dates which will involve City Commission input have been scheduled with all the City Commissioners through the Commission Liaison Office: Tuesday, April 1 Public and City Board Input Meeting 4 p.m. for Budget purposes Tuesday, April 15 Community Workshop 6 to 9 p.m. Thursday, April 17 Annual Goals = Target Action Budget 8:30 a.m. Noon Guidance Tuesday, May 6 CIE and CIP Workshop 4 p.m. Friday, July 18 Budget Workshop = Introduction 4 p.m. Tuesday, July 22 Budget Workshop Wednesday, July 23 Budget Workshop Thursday, July 24 Budget Workshop - Wrap up 2 to 6 p.m. Thursday, July 24 Certification of Millage to 6 p.m. Property Appraiser Wednesday, September 3 First Public Hearing on Budget and CIP Monday, September 15 Final Public Hearing on Budget and CIP Mayor Cardamone and Vice Mayor Pillot stated that they have conflicts with the Friday, July 18, 1997, date scheduled for introduction of the FY 97/98 Budget. Commission consensus was reached to schedule the Budget Workshop Introduction for Thursday, July 17, 1997, at 4 p.m. although Mayor Cardamone will not be in attendance. Mayor Cardamone stated that the commitments of Commissioners should be verified before the Calendar of Budget Activities is developed; that her plans to attend a major family wedding in Raleigh, North Carolina, were known four months ago. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that his conflict arose after being polled by the Administration. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the first public hearing on the budget will be held on a Wednesday not a Monday evening. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, the Calendar of Budget Activities is accepted as modified. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CONTRIBUTION OF $3,000 TO THE FLORIDA SHORE AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION DEDICATED FUNDING COMMITTEE TO HELP FUND LOBBYING EFFORTS TO SUPPORT HB103 (CRUISE SHIP SURCHARGE) - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (1747) through (1922) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that on January 21, 1997, the Commission included support for House Bill 103 (Cruise Ship surcharge) on the 1997 City of Sarasota Legislative Priorities Brochure; that the Cruise Ship industry is mounting resistance to the proposed legislation; that the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association (FSBPA) has committed $60,000, and as Chairman of the FSBPA Legislative Fund Raising Committee, Tom Campbell, of Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., is requesting contributions from beachfront Governments to raise an additional $50,000 to hire two special lobbyists; that $25,000 has been raised thus far; that the Town of Longboat Key has contributed $3,000; that the City of Venice has contributed $1,000. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends contributing $3,000 to the lobbying effort. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve the funding contribution in the amount of $3,000. BOOK 41 Page 14242 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14243 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a contribution was not requested but HB103 was discussed at the last meeting of the Tourist Development Council (TDC) ; that unanimous support was not evident as members expressed concerns about taxing the hospitality industry; however, informal consensus of the TDC was in support of HB103. Commissioner Patterson stated that Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., would benefit from the funding source for which the FSBPA Committee Chairman is requesting contributions to create; and asked if the FSBPA is comprised of people whose businesses derive income from beach renourishment projects? Mr. Daughters stated that elected officials also participate on the FSBPA; that Rita Roehr, former City Commissioner, was a member of the FSBPA representing the City Commission; that the Board of Directors is listed on FSBPA's letterhead, a copy of which can be found in the Agenda materials. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City is a member of the FSBPA, a non-profit organization. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Cruise Ship industry is profitable and an easy target for a tax increase; that taxes should have linkage to the beneficiaries of the tax; that a linkage between Cruise Ships and beaches is not apparent; therefore, he will vote against the motion; that an alternative source to raise funds for beach renourishment could possibly be supported. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1) Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: FOUR POINT PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE ROSEMARY REDEVELOPMENT AREA = APPROVED AS OUTLINED; AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH IMPLEMENTATIONI AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO FORWARD A LETTER TO INITIATE DISCUSSION WITH THE SARASOTA HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF THE COHEN WAY FACILITY (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (1922) through (3750) City Manager Sollenberger stated that on February 18, 1997, the City Commission directed the Administration to develop and present a more innovative plan regarding the properties recommended for acquisition by the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board and to evaluate the potential purchase of the Cohen Way public housing facility. City Manager Sollenberger referred to and explained the following four point plan of action which was discussed with and supported by the Advisory Board on February 25, 1997: 1. Cohen Way The current condition of the public housing facility at Cohen Way is a deterrent to redevelopment of the Rosemary District. The City should initiate discussion with the Sarasota Housing Authority Board (SHA) to acquire the Cohen Way facility for its redevelopment accompanied with a plan for humane and sensitive relocation of tenants. 2. Colson Hotel - The City should acquire and manage the Colson Hotel on a phase-out basis rather than relocate tenants. Management would include tenant leases with specific conduct standards and expectations. One apartment unit would be made available for an office and a temporary police substation. 3. Capricorn - The Capricorn, as a bar, is incompatible with proposed future residential uses in the area and should be acquired. Utilizing the property as a permanent police substation, which would justify use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for acquisition, should be considered. 4. Rosemary Court The present owner of Rosemary Court has indicated that the presence of the Colson Hotel as currently operated and the proximity of the Capricorn to the property makes investment a poor risk. The City can create more favorable conditions for private redevelopment of Rosemary Court through the acquisition of the Colson Hotel and the Capricorn. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends the Commission: 1) approve the Four Point Plan of Action for the Rosemary Area as outlined, 2) authorize the Administration to proceed with implementation of the Plan, and 3) authorize the Mayor to draft a letter on behalf of the City Commission to the SHA Board to initiate discussion regarding City acquisition of the housing project at Cohen Way together with a humane and sensitive plan for relocation of tenants. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if an opportunity for the existing tenants to remain at the Cohen Way facility will be considered? City Manager Sollenberger stated that details of the redevelopment which will be pursued for the Cohen Way facility have not been developed; that renovating the Cohen Way facility for use by the private sector and reserving a percentage of the units based on income limits is feasible. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission would be kept up to date regarding the proposals for redevelopment as the process progresses? City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct. Commissioner Dupree asked if the Administration is in a position to provide the SHA Board with a conceptual plan to relocate the tenants residing at the Cohen Way facility? BOOK 41 Page 14244 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14245 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the relocation of tenants would be discussed between the City and the SHA Board, whose mission is to provide public housing; that a number of public housing units are currently vacant; that relocating tenants from the Cohen Way facility to. other vacant public housing units is a viable solution which may be considered. Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed Plan will vastly expand the City's redevelopment efforts and is a major undertaking; that making an area attractive to mixed-incomes is an important element of redevelopment; that the condition of the Cohen Way facility and other properties in the vicinity creates a negative public perception of the area and discourages redevelopment; that changing the public perception of the area will take time; that he is reluctant to support wholesale relocation of people, which is highly controversial, although the intent of public housing is to provide residency for a temporary period while the recipients gain training and prove themselves in the job market. Commissioner Merrill continued that his major concern is whether City Staff has the skills necessary to handle racial sensitivity and to understand the issues which will make the area attractive to people, e.g., bank tellers or construction formen, who could choose to live in a variety of neighborhoods available in Sarasota Countyi that redevelopment of the Downtown focused on physical improvements; that the residential component is important to successful redevelopment in the Rosemary District; that the Cohen Way facility should be acquired, a standard for renovation and reserving a percentage of units for a specified income level developed, and the property sold; that the City should not act as a landlord and real estate developer in the long term; that taking the tremendous financial risk associated with acquiring problem properties in the Rosemary District is essential to providing a City comprised of neighborhoods with mixed incomes; that hiring a person who has had experience with similar projects, as an employee or a consultant, should be pursued. Commissioner Patterson stated that the shortness and the title of the City Manager's response to the Commission's request for an innovative plan bothers her slightly; that, traditionally, an action plan is specific; that the Four Point Action Plan presented is general; and asked if the Administration is requesting Commission support of the general direction outlined in the Plan and intends to present details regarding funding, etc., for Commission approval in the future? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that she agrees the Action Plan is a major step; however, addressing the character of the Cohen Way facility is essential to successful development of the Mission Harbor propertyi; that expending substantial funds to relocate people is not supported; that the City should employ expertise to develop an innovative, clever, and sensitive approach to redevelop the Cohen Way facility. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the intent is to avoid the need to allocate Federal relocation payments discussed by Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, at the February 18, 1997, regular City Commission meeting; that details regarding the acquisition of the Colson Hotel and the Capricorn as well as aspects related to the Cohen Way facility would be brought back to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Dupree stated that future City redevelopment efforts may require the purchase of other public housing facilities; that moving people into better surroundings versus other public housing units should be pursued if the City is in the position of relocating tenants from the Cohen Way facility; that expending funding to hire an additional consultant to carry out the Action Plan proposed is not supported. Mayor Cardamone stated that expertise is necessary for the City to be successful in the proposed endeavor; that the Cohen Way facility, which has not been successfully addressed by the SHA, continues to deteriorate; that the welfare of the tenants is important; that the Administration realizes the issue should be handled sensitively. Mayor Cardamone continued that Rosemary Court should be brought into compliance with City Codes immediately; that the entire property looks terrible; that the property owner should clean up the property, relocate the buildings to alternative housing sites, or demolish the buildings. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, the Commission supports requiring the property owner to bring Rosemary Court into compliance with City Codes immediately. Commissioner Merrill stated that pursing demolition of Rosemary Court or the Colson Hotel is not supported; that Laurel Park has successfully been revitalized by renovating the older homes which have character; that the property owner of Rosemary Court may be eligible for funding through the Storefront Assistance Program. Mayor Cardamone stated that reference to demolition of the buildings may have been harsh. Mayor Cardamone continued that the discussions heard during Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board meetings indicates Board support for a combination of housing and commercial development. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to: 1) approve the Four Point Plan of Action for the Rosemary Area as outlined, 2) authorize the Administration to proceed with implementation of the Plan, and 3) authorize the Mayor to draft a letter on behalf of the City Commission to the SHA Board to BOOK 41 Page 14246 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14247 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. initiate discussion regarding City acquisition of the housing project at Cohen Way together with a humane and sensitive plan for relocation of tenants. Commissioner Dupree asked if elements of the Action Plan will be addressed in the order presented? City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Hadsell was directed to initiate discussions with the property owners for City acquisition of the Colson Hotel and the Capricorn, pending Commission approval of the Action Plan; that developing a plan to address the management aspect associated with acquiring the Colson Hotel and remodeling the Capricorn into a police substation will be complex issues; however, should take less time to address than the Cohen Way facility; that an approach similar to the approach taken by the City and Sarasota County for the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments, but with more focus on keeping the Commission apprised of progress, will be pursued with the SHA Board regarding City acquisition of the Cohen Way facility; that finding a solution which works well for all interested parties will be a lengthy process. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Administration should move forward as quickly as possible on the acquisition of the Colson Hotel and Capricorn properties; that the revenue realized from actively marketing and selling City properties in the Rosemary District could be used to help fund the acquisitions proposed. Commissioner Patterson stated that concentrating people of the same income level, especially lower income, in one area either within the City or County, is not beneficial to anyone; that people who receive Section 8 certificates can locate within 15 miles of the issuing agency; that utilizing Section 8 certificates should be reviewed as an option when relocating tenants from the Cohen Way facility is considered. Commissioner Patterson continued that the City received a letter from Richard Morris of the Burns Court Cinema requesting use of a portion of the Mission Harbor property to develop a movie theater; that the City is not in a position to donate portions of the Mission Harbor property; however, the Commission could consider offering a City- owned parcel on Central Avenue to Mr. Morris with the stipulation that the Burns Court Cinema not be relocated from the Downtown to the new site. Commissioner Merrill stated that offering Mr. Morris a long-term lease of a City-owned parcel on Central Avenue at a nominal fee could be supported. Commissioner Patterson stated that establishing a second theater on Central Avenue would be risky to Mr. Morris but could serve as a catalyst for development and increase traffic circulation in the area the City is attempting to redevelop. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission should be prepared to answer questions as the Commission's decision regarding the Four Point Action Plan and the potential of relocating tenants from the Cohen Way facility will be published in tomorrow's Sarasota Herald- Tribune. Commissioner Merrill stated that the need to relocate tenants from the Cohen Way facility has yet to be determined; that potential redevelopment would not occur for many years if the Cohen Way facility is acquired by the City; that the phrase "together with a humane and sensitive plan for relocation of tenants" is strong language which may create unnecessary anxieties among the tenants. Commissioner Patterson, as maker of the motion, and Vice Mayor Pillot, as seconder, agreed to delete from the motion the phrase "together with a humane and sensitive plan for relocation of tenants. Mayor Cardamone restated the motion as to: 1) approve the Four Point Plan of Action for the Rosemary Area as outlined, 2) authorize the Administration to proceed with implementation of the Plan, and 3) authorize the Mayor to draft a letter on behalf of the City Commission to the SHA Board to initiate discussion regarding City acquisition of the housing project at Cohen Way. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 16. NEW BUSINESS: RECISSION RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR SARASOTA HIGH SCHOOL AND ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES EXCLUDING THE SCHOOL AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL - RESCINDED MOTION ADOPTED AT THE FEBRUARY 18, 1997, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING; APPROVED EXECUTION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE ADMINISTRATION WILL DETERMINE APPROPRIATENESS OF SCHOOL AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (0051) through (0413) Commissioner Patterson stated that a Sarasota Herald-Tribune article containing inaccuracies regarding the intent of the proposed recission has caused concerns. Commissioner Patterson stated that at the February 18, 1997, regular Commission meeting, she pulled Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 8, regarding the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Sarasota County School Board for Sarasota High School (SHS) and Alta Vista Elementary School for discussion of the traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing on School Avenue, which was included under Traffic Mitigation Projects; that she originally proposed the traffic signal as a BOOK 41 Page 14248 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14249 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. possible safety measure for students crossing the street after school hours; that the traffic signal was placed in the Interlocal Agreement and estimated at a cost of $60,000; that concern was raised regarding the fact that the traffic signal had been placed in the Interlocal Agreement without sufficient evaluation by City or School Board Staff; that the intent of the motion made on February 18, 1997 was to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the understanding that Staff would research the appropriateness of the traffic signal as well as alternative safety measures which would be less costly. Commissioner Patterson continued that the motion as reflected in the minutes of the February 18, 1997, regular Commission meeting was perceived as a mandate to abandon the School Avenue traffic signal; that Daniel Kennedy, Principal of SHS, became concerned when apprised of the vote against the traffic signal stating that SHS students' parents were delighted when the traffic signal was originally proposed; that her intent to rescind the motion was announced at the February 24, 1997, Commission workshopi that the proposed recission was placed on the agenda to allow the Commission an opportunity to clarify direction to the Administration not to abandon the traffic signal but to conduct further research and explore possible alternative safety measures. Commissioner Patterson further stated that Staff should be directed to consult with Mr. Kennedy and appropriate School Board Staff to determine the necessity of the School Avenue traffic signal, research alternatives, and reach a final, joint decision as to the appropriateness and sufficiency of the traffic signal or an alternative traffic safety measure. Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Kennedy has requested the Interlocal Agreement include the provision for the School Avenue traffic signal after observing students traveling back and forth between the two campuses of the school, which requires crossing School Avenue; that Mr. Kennedy was assured the purpose of the proposed recission is to provide an opportunity for further discussion regarding inclusion of the traffic signal in the Interlocal Agreement. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Kennedy left a telephone message this afternoon with the Commission's secretary indicating a discussion with Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, convinced him of the appropriateness of raised speed tables rather than a traffic signal at School Avenue. Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Kennedy indicated that a raised speed table would be a desirable addition to and not a replacement for the traffic signal on School Avenue. Commissioner Patterson stated that vehicles must come to a full stop at a traffic light; that installing both speed tables and a traffic light appears unnecessary. Lamar Matthews, Attorney representing the Sarasota County School Board, came before the Commission and stated that the Interlocal Agreement scheduled for approval before the Sarasota County School Board is the original draft, without revision, as prepared by the City Attorney; that he was present at the February 18, 1997, regular Commission meeting when Commissioner Patterson suggested the School Avenue traffic signal project warranted further research; that the Commission vote was interpreted as directing Staff to determine whether the traffic signal should be included in or excluded from the projects listed under the Interlocal Agreement; therefore, the Commission vote was never reported to the School Board; that School Board Administration became concerned after the Sarasota Herald- Tribune article indicated tonight's meeting agenda included a proposed recission of a portion of the Interlocal Agreement scheduled for approval at the Sarasota County School Board meeting of March 4, 1997. Mr. Matthews continued that George McGonagill, Director of Construction Services, Sarasota County School Board, has discussed the School Avenue traffic signal with Mr. Mohammed; that the City and the School Board are each paying 50 percent of the costs for each project included in the Interlocal Agreement; that the appropriateness of the traffic signal will be determined during the process as the engineering studies are generated; that including the traffic signal in the Interlocal Agreement will relieve the School Board from having to appear before the Commission to repeat the request if the traffic signal is determined appropriate by Staff; that he requests the Commission rescind the motion to exclude the School Avenue traffic signal and approve the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Sarasota County School Board for SHS and Alta Vista Elementary School Traffic Mitigation Alternatives. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion made at the February 18, 1997, meeting should be rescinded; that the motion as recorded in the minutes approved and authorized the Mayor to execute the Interlocal Agreement without the traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing on School Avenue and directed the Administration to evaluate and implement an alternative, Staff-supported concept to replace the traffic signal. Mayor Cardamone stated that the direction did not intend to eliminate the School Avenue traffic signal; that many projects brought before the Commission and the School Board were not formally addressed in the Interlocal Agreement; that the traffic signal was included in the Interlocal Agreement as an approved project before costs and research were presented to the two Administrations. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to rescind the motion adopted at the February 18, 1997, regular Commission meeting to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Interlocal Agreement without the traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing on School Avenue and to direct the Administration to evaluate and implement an alternative, Staff- supported concept to replace the traffic signal. Motion carried BOOK 41 Page 14250 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14251 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. unanimously (5 to 0): : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City and School Board Staffs should determine if the School Avenue traffic signal is the most appropriate safety measure or if an alternative measure should be implemented; that Staff is not required to report back to the Commission prior to implementation. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Sarasota County School Board requires approval. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Sarasota County School Board for SHS and Alta Vista Elementary School with the understanding that both the traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing on School Avenue and alternative safety measures will be researched for a final decision by City and School Board Staffs. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Engineering Department has researched various measures to insure the safety of students crossing School Avenue; that the projects approved in the Interlocal Agreement should progress within the scheduled time frame while the two Administrations determine the most appropriate safety measure. Commissioner Merrill asked for comment regarding the Engineering Department's current position. Dennis Daughter, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that Staff researched alternatives to a traffic signal; that City Staff convinced the School Board Staff that speed tables are preferable to the traffic signal for the pedestrian crossing on School Avenue; that both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. McGonagill agreed; however, concern was expressed that the Interlocal Agreement should include a provision for the traffic signal in the event speed humps/speed tables and signage prove inadequate. Mayor Cardamone stated that Staff is directed to determine if a traffic signal is the most appropriate safety measure on School Avenue; however, speed humps are not included in the motion. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that speed humps are not included in the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct; however, the Commission approved the Interlocal Agreement with the understanding that the appropriateness of the traffic signal will be determined by Staff and alternative solutions researched; therefore, speed tables could be installed rather than the traffic signal if determined more appropriate by the City and School Board Staffs. Commissioner Patterson stated that the pedestrian crossing should not be burdened, for example, with a speed table, two speed humps, and a traffic light; that School Avenue will be virtually closed for two- thirds of the day and should not be made impassable during the remaining time. Mayor Cardamone stated that a speed table is desirable; that students walking across a speed table will be elevated higher than the normal level of the street; that the speed of oncoming traffic will be reduced in advance as students walking on a raised speed table to cross School Avenue will be seen from a distance. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the two Staffs should determine the most appropriate safety measure and prepare a report for the Commission. Commissioner Merrill stated that School Avenue would be more attractive without the traffic signal. 17. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT RE: 1995-1996 AUDITORS' MANAGEMENT LETTER - ACCEPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #4 (0415) through (0485) City Manager Sollenberger stated that on February 7, 1997, the City's Certified Public Accountants, Varnadore, Tyler & Hawthorne, P.A., summarized the management findings in the audit report written for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's response to the audit report is included in the agenda material; that the Administration recommends accepting the Audit Report and Management Response; that he and the City Auditor and Clerk will sign a joint letter and file the Administration's response to the Audit Report with the Auditor General following Commission acceptance; that the Director of Finance is responsible for following through and issuing a quarterly report on the status of each of the Management Responses contained in the audit report. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the Audit Report and Management Response. Commissioner Patterson stated that the audit is impressive and the Administration's responses commendable; that she agrees with the Administration's response that the City can be more aggressive in collecting funds owed from various sources. Mayor Cardamone stated that the auditor's recommendation and the Administration's concurrence to remove the $10,000 cash travel advance fund is supported; that traveling expenses should not be disbursed from cash funds kept in a vault at City Hall. BOOK 41 Page 14252 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14253 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 - RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (0492) through (0524) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the Finance Department has prepared the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996; that in addition to meeting legal requirements, the Report continues to present the City's strong tradition of full financial disclosure; that the financial statements have been audited by the City's independent certified public accountants, Varnadore, Tyler & Hawthorne, P.A.. Mr. Mitchell continued that the City has received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its CAFR for the past 15 consecutive years; that the Administration is confident the 1996 CAFR continues to meet the Program requirements and will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association to expedite the City's eligibility for another certificate. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to receive the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 19. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO ISSUE CONDUIT BONDS = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (0503) through (0660) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City requires procedures for handling conduit bonds; that the Commission expressed concerns when the City issued conduit bonds to assist the Ringling School of Art and Design raise financing for construction of a new student apartment complex on the campus and to refinance outstanding bonds; that the Commission indicated formal procedures should be developed to ensure against the issuance of conduit bonds becoming a wide-spread policy of the City; that Staff has prepared Financing Guidelines for Conduit Bonds which should alleviate the Commission's concerns. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, stated that under Initial Review and Approval, the Administration and the Commission will be involved in any conduit financing from the initial stage; that the Financing Guidelines creates a bond financing team which will determine if the application is complete, and then, after initial review of the application by the Director of Finance, will schedule a preliminary meeting with the applicant; that the bond financing team, comprised of the City Attorney, the City's Finance Director, the City's Financial Advisor, and the City's Bond Counsel, may then come before the Commission with one of the following three options: 1) recommend the project for further consideration, 2) reject the project, or 3) take other action, including adoption of inducement or bond resolutions of the Issuer; that the Commission is included in the process from the first stage of the application process; that the bond financing team will be precluded from taking independent action. Commissioner Patterson stated that the procedure is no longer applicable to the Ringling School of Art and Design conduit bond issue approved by the Commission; that developing the Financing Guidelines may give the appearance the City is willing to make a practice of issuing conduit bonds. Mr. Mitchell stated that on August 5, 1996, the Commission directed the Administration to develop procedures which would discourage requests by the public for conduit financing. Commissioner Patterson stated that neither she nor Commissioner Merrill, who led the discussion at the meeting during which the Ringling School of Art and Design conduit financing was addressed, suggested the drafting of procedures; that future participation in conduit financing was opposed by the Commission; and asked which section in the Financial Guidelines requires a project to provide a benefit to the public as a condition of approval for conduit financing? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the section entitled "Community Need" indicates any request for conduit financing must serve the public purpose. Commissioner Patterson stated that many private enterprises could be promoted as serving a public purpose. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to adopt the procedures presented for handling conduit bonds. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 20. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REAPPOINTED JOHN TERAN AND TOLLYN TWITCHELL (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #3 (0661) through (0681) Mayor Cardamone stated that the terms of John Teran and Tollyn Twitchell have expired; that Mr. Teran and Mr. Twitchell are eligible and have expressed an interest in reappointment. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to reappoint Mr. Teran and Mr. Twitchell. Motion carried BOOK 41 Page 14254 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14255 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yesi Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 21. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: SARASOTA HOUSING AUTHORITY APPOINTED TOM WALKER (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #3 (0683) through (0735) Mayor Cardamone stated that Laurae Gene Malone, serving in the seat designated for a tenant who resides within the Housing Authority's jurisdiction, has resigned from the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) Board; that SHA members are appointed by the Mayor with the consensus of the City Commission. Mayor Cardamone continued that she is disappointed at receiving the resignation of a recent appointee; that a great deal of effort had been expended in interviewing people; that she recommends the appointment of Tom Walker who has served as the President of the McCown Towers Residents Association and has visited the Mayor's office on several occasions to address matters concerning McCown Towers and the SHA; that McCown Towers, which has problems requiring immediate attention, has never before been represented on the SHA. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to affirm the Mayor's appointment of Tom Walker to the Sarasota Housing Authority Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 22. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: REQUESTED ADMINISTRATION TO: NEGOTIATE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF MOVIE THEATER IN CENTRAL AVENUE AREA AND PROVIDE UPDATE ON REMODELING PLANS FOR THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AND BOBBY JONES GOLF COMPLEX TURF CARE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0736) through (1360) COMMISSIONER DUPREE : A. stated that the Commission should receive input from Newtown residents to encourage economic development in the community; that he will assume the responsibility of organizing neighborhood residents into groups which represent various factions of the community; that a proposal will be presented to the Commission in the future. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that Ordinance No. 96-3910, passed to vacate a portion of Links Avenue, will remain in effect until January 16, 2000; that the ordinance was approved to allow construction of the Hollywood 18 Cobb Theatres which has since relocated from the original Links Avenue site to the former Maas Brothers site at the corner of Main Street and U.S. 301; that reversing the ordinance will allow the City to base reviews of future development projects on their own merit; that the City should not allow potential developers to exploit the existing vacation of Links Avenue; that any future development should be required to submit a separate application for vacation of the street. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Dr. Mark Kauffman, a Managing Partner of Theatre Associates by BBK, Inc., has been contacted regarding reversal of the existing ordinance vacating Links Avenue; that Dr. Kauffman is willing to have the vacation terminated; that the City Attorney has been requested to contact Attorney Kathryn Carr, who participated in drafting the documents for the project, to determine a simple way to reverse the ordinance; that the issue will be addressed with Attorney David Band, another Managing Partner, on March 4, 1997. Mayor Cardamone stated that constituents have been advised the Links Avenue vacation was already terminated; that bringing the matter to the table is appreciated. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the vacation automatically terminates in the year 2000 if a 20-screen movie theater is not constructed on the abutting property; however, steps should be taken to terminate the vacation before 2000. B. stated that Commission support is requested to negotiate possible development of a movie theater with Richard Morris, of Burns Court Cinema; that the Administration should contact Mr. Morris to determine if interest exists in developing a movie theater in the Central Avenue neighborhood. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the issue should be referred to the Administration for a recommendation. Mayor Cardamone stated that the subject generates no interest. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that although not eager to address the issue, he is willing to refer the matter to the Administration. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Burns Court Cinema attracts many literary and artistic people to Downtown; that attracting the same segment of the population into the Central Avenue neighborhood would act as a marvelous catalyst. Commissioner Merrill stated that sufficient demand for an avant-garde movie theater may not exist in the Central Avenue area. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Morris will probably decline an offer to develop a Central Avenue site. BOOK 41 Page 14256 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14257 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Morris originally proposed the City donate a portion of the Mission Harbor property to enable him to develop a movie theater; that she finds it interesting when people who are consistently critical of Commission and Administration decisions request a favor from the City. Vice Mayor Pillot agreed. Commissioner Patterson stated that performing a favor is not the intent of the suggestion; that a movie theater would provide an interesting catalyst for Central Avenue redevelopment. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Burns Court Cinema which attracts a sophisticated clientele has been a major asset to Laurel Park; that Mr. Morris may be able to recreate the Burns Court Cinema on another site. Commissioner Patterson stated that suggesting Burns Court Cinema relocate is not the intent of the proposal. Commissioner Merrill stated that relocating the Burns Court Cinema from the present location may be untortunate but inevitable. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Administration should research every opportunity presented to the City. Commissioner Merrill stated that positive results can be foreseen if another Burns Court Cinema were recreated on Central Avenue. MAYOR CARDAMONE : A. stated that the City has discussed remodeling the Commission Chambers and the cart storage building at Bobby Jones Golf Complex since October 1996; that the public and Staff were anxious to remodel the facilities; that no action has been taken since the Commission granted approval; that an update of the remodeling plans is requested from the Administration. B. stated that the process to expedite the request by the petitioner, Jacobsen Group - Lido Beach Limited Partnership, to rezone the Three Crowns Hotel and Lido Beach Inn properties from a Multiple-Family Residential (RMF) Zone District to a Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District approved by the Commission at this meeting is cause for discouragement; that the inadequacy of existing rezoning procedures has once again produced a rezoning for a development which may never materialize; that the petition was brought before the Commission with Development Review Committee (DRC), Planning Department, and Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) approval of Zoning Code criteria and recommendations for final approval; that an enormous amount of time and energy was expended by the Commission to review a petition which appears to have required, once again, nothing more than confirmation of the Staff and PBLP recommendations. Mayor Cardamone continued that she voted against the rezoning on principle; that the Commission which is supposed to represent all segments of the community was presented no choice but to approve the petition; that the site plan was presented with a stamp of approval from the Staff and PBLP; that the Commission's role appears to involve no more than casting a vote to increase the value of the property as the parcel will be worth substantially more in the WFR Zone District than in the RMF Zone District; that another tedious, extensive review can be expected if the property changes ownership and a site plan is presented for another development on the same property; that the time and effort expended by the Commission, Staff, and neighborhood residents are futile absent rational, established rezoning procedures. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission could have chosen to refer the petition for rezoning back to Staff as the County regularly does; that the proposed condominium with a 150-foot setback for the pool and 185-foot setback for the building will be located more seaward than adjacent properties with 240 to 260-foot setbacks; that long-standing residents of neighboring properties will be deprived of beachfront views; that the Zoning Code clearly states a new development is prohibited from devaluing neighboring properties; that the petition could have been referred back to Staff to research the potential devaluation of neighboring properties whose beachfront views will be obstructed. Commissioner Patterson continued that the petition was presented by Staff with a recommendation for approval even though the Administration had agreed in the past that Staff would refrain from presenting development recommendations to the Commission; that Vice Mayor Pillot requested the City Attorney to advise if Staff and PBLP approval constituted substantial, competent evidence; that the City Attorney's affirmative answer established that substantial, competent evidence necessary to deny the petition did not exist. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the City Attorney's advice was requested to confirm the understanding that Staff and PBLP approval would be difficult if not impossible to legally oppose. Commissioner Patterson stated that Commission approval became no more than a "rubber stamp, II a position in which a Commission should not be placed; that the petition could have been referred back to Staff; however, the Commission chose to approve the petition; that the only significant problem was obstruction of the neighbors' views; that the 150-foot Gulf-front setback allowed in the Zoning Code should be changed to require new developments to conform with the setbacks of existing structures. Mayor Cardamone stated that although sending the rezoning petitioner back to Staff was considered, no apparent, sufficient reason existed BOOK 41 Page 14258 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14259 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. to do soi that a major lawsuit could ensue if the Commission disregards the fact that a petition meets Zoning Code criteria; that the rezoning process for the Condominium on Lido Beach was similar to two previous requests for rezoning of properties on Fruitville Road; that the Commission expended a great deal of time and energy reviewing the site plans, held public hearings, referred the petitions back and forth to Staff, and finally approved the rezonings; that both properties are currently for sale; that the entire rezoning process will be repeated when the new owners present development proposals to the City; that the Commission's efforts resulted only in an increase in the properties' market value. Commissioner Patterson stated that increasing property values should not be perceived as a problem; that rezoning the Lido Beach parcel allows any owner of the property to develop a hotel or condominium, from which the City will benefit. Commissioner Patterson continued that eliminating the site plan from rezoning petitions may expedite the process; that property owners could come before the Commission for consideration of a simple rezoning. Mayor Cardamone stated that eliminating the site plan may be the perfect solution; that the desirability and compatibility of a hotel, condominium, or any other kind of development could be determined, the property rezoned, and the Commission spared the time and energy required to examine a site plan; that a rezoning procedure will be finalized during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) update; that the Commission has tried for two years to acquire procedures for quasi-judicial hearings. Commissioner Merrill stated the Mayor may wish formally to request the Administration present quasi-judicial procedures to the Commission. Mayor Cardamone stated that rezoning petitions should not come before the Commission if Staff and PBLP recommendations eliminate all grounds for denial. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the authority of the Court should be considered; that his question to the City Attorney was not intended to create evidence but to make the public aware of the legal restraints placed upon the Commission by the Zoning Code criteria. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that referring the petition back to Staff to determine if the proposed condominium would devalue adjacent properties should be considered in terms of the evidence available for presentation in Court; that the minutes of the February 18, 1997, regular Commission meeting indicate the President of the Lido Key Residents Association asserting the proposed condominium will increase property values. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff did not research the economic impact of the proposed condominium obstructing the views of adjacent properties; that she has sold Gulf-front condominiums for many years; that a condominium unit with a beachfront view is worth $50,000 more than a condominium without one. Commissioner Merrill stated that a legal right to a view must be proven; that the value of a condominium with a beachfront view is discounted if the potential exists on an adjacent lot for future construction which could block the view. Commissioner Patterson stated that Zoning Code criteria contains the requirement that a proposed development will not depreciate values of surrounding properties; that Staff's answer when asked how the criteria was met totally ignored the depreciation issue; that Staff determined the site plan is compatible with neighboring properties; that the Planning Director stated the proposed condominium is compatible with new development on Lido Key; that L'Elegance Condominium and the renovated Radisson Lido Beach Resort are the only new developments on Lido Key; that most of the condominiums are older; that the analysis may not have been conducted sufficiently in depth; that the petition could have been referred back to Staff; however, she believes the project is a positive catalyst to improve development on Lido Key; that the only regret is that the Commission could not require the proposed condominium to locate further landward. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission should not receive a petition approved in advance by the DRC, Planning Staff, and the PBLP; that the LDRs workshops produced a proposal for the development of a criteria checklist; that each reviewing entity would determine if the petition met sufficiency for specific criteria, sign off on each criteria, and pass the petition on to the next entity for review; that two public hearings are unnecessary; that the Commission will review the initial application after the DRC and the Planning Staff have signed off on the criteria and determine at that time if a public hearing should be conducted by the PBLP or the Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that criteria such as setbacks, drainage, etc., must meet standards requiring technical expertise; that Staff provides the facts necessary to determine if a development project meets sufficiency according to the Zoning Code; and asked where the Commission would find the substantial, competent evidence to approve or deny a petition absent Staff review? Mayor Cardamone stated that Staff would bring the petition before the Commission in the same manner as the petitioner currently does; that the Commission would determine, prior to a public hearing, if the petition should move forward or be returned to the petitioner for revision. Commissioner Patterson stated that an essential component is missing from the existing development approval review process. BOOK 41 Page 14260 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14261 03/03/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that a petition should not be addressed initially by the Commission at a public hearing in front of the petitioner and the public; that the Commission is placed in an untenable position by trying to determine in a public forum whether denial or approval may lead to litigation. Commissioner Patterson stated that land planning decisions will never again be returned to the will of a popularity vote. Mayor Cardamone stated that a popularity vote is not desired; that neighborhood residents have expressed frustration regarding the lack of neighborhood input in the development approval review process; that a neighborhood planner who could advocate for the residents and examine the effects of a development on adjacent property values is nonexistent; that the City must improve the existing process. Commissioner Patterson stated that a more in-depth analysis should be required from Staff. 23. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (1360) through (1382) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that two workshop are scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 1997; that a workshop addressing the second portion of the Target Action Plans is scheduled from 2 to 5 p.m., and a joint workshop with the Public Art Committee from 5 to 6 p.m.; that a statutory meeting is scheduled at 12 noon, Wednesday, March 12, 1997, to declare the results of the Tuesday, March 11, 1997, City Commission election. Commissioner Patterson stated that she cannot attend the Wednesday meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that only three Commissioners are required for attendance; that a joint City/County Commission meeting is scheduled at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 1997. 24. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) ) #4 (1382) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of March 3, 1997, at 11:25 p.m. se - MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR ATTEST:. JOTA 3ii LL Elolnoon BILLY E. CROBINSON CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 03 lis 90 BOOK 41 Page 14262 03/03/97 6:00 P.M.