MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Albert F. Hogle, Vice Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary J. Quillin, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: City Manager David R. Sollenberger PRESIDING: Mayor Hogle The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: : EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY 2001, DETECTIVE RICHARD LEWIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT #1 (0030) through (0155) Mayor Hogle requested that Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police, and Richard Lewis, Detective, Police Department, join him before the Commission; and requested that Deputy City Manager Schneider join him at the table to make the presentation. Chief Jolly stated that Detective Lewis previously served as a Downtown foot patrol officer for a significant period of t'ime; that during his tenure on the foot patrol, Detective Lewis provided exemplary service and was partially responsible for recently detecting and arresting several persons who were defrauding Downtown restaurants; that the persons were prosecuted on many charges; that Detective Lewis was responsible for identifying problems concerning towing from private property Downtown; that the result was the development and adoption of an ordinance which regulates private property towing Downtown for the benefit of citizens; that Detective Lewis also identified and proposed solutions to Downtown parking problems; that the efforts of Detective Lewis exemplify community policing; that Detective Lewis serves with excellence and pride. Mayor Hogle presented Detective Lewis with a certificate, a plaque, and a City-logo watch as the July 2001 Employee of the Month in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota; congratulated him for his outstanding efforts; and BOOK 49 Page 21586 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21587 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. stated that Detective Lewis is currently in the latter half of his career as a police officer but is always increasing the quality of service provided to the public; that Detective Lewis works hard and serves with excellence and pride. Mr. Lewis stated that the support and efforts of Chief Jolly and his immediate supervisors, Sergeant Howard Hickok and Lieutenant Forrest Paulson, are appreciated; that he is currently serving in the latter half of his career and plans to serve the City four additional years before retiring; that the opportunity to serve as a City employee is appreciated; that recognition as the July 2001 Employee of the Month is especially appreciated. 2. PRESENTATION RE: 2000 FLORIDA TREE CITY OF THE YEAR AWARD #1 (0155) through (0220) Mayor Hogle requested that Norman Easey, incoming President of the Florida Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture join him before the Commission. Mr. Easey stated that he has lived in Sarasota for 20 years; that the Florida Urban Forestry Council and Trees Florida 2001 selects one city in the State each year as the Florida Tree City of the Year; that Florida has many Tree Cities; that the City of Sarasota has been selected as the 2000 Florida Tree City of the Year; that the award recognizes outstanding people, projects, techniques, and management of the State's natural resources with special regard to Florida's Urban Forest; that the Florida Tree City of the Year Award is co-sponsored by the Florida Trees 2001, the Florida Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, Florida Urban Forestry Council, and the Florida Division of Forestry; that presenting the award to the City is considered an honor. Mayor Hogle requested that William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, Duane Mountain, Public Works Capital Projects Manager, and Lisa Goodson, Capital Projects Coordinator, Public Works Department, join him before the Commission and stated that Mr. Hallisey, Mr. Mountain, and Ms. Goodson are responsible for implementing and managing the City's urban forestry and tree conservation projects and are commended for excellent service to the City; that the efforts of former Commissioner and Mayor Mollie Cardamone, who is present in the Chambers, in providing valuable assistance and support in the development of the City's urban forestry and tree conservation projects are appreciated. 3. PRESENTATION RE: : 2001 COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR AWARD, PAMELA DORWARTH #1 (0220) through (0355) Mayor Hogle requested that Pamela Dorwarth, Member, Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board, join him before the Commission for the presentation and stated that Ms. Dorwarth was recently recognized as the 2001 Volunteer of the Year by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); that Ms. Dorwarth is a tireless advocate for the rights of the disabled, especially regarding issues concerning the transportation disadvantaged, and is currently serving on seven Statewide, County, and City advisory boards; that as a result of Ms. Dorwarth's volunteer service, many elected officials and citizens have been sensitized to the transportation needs of the disadvantaged; that Ms. Dorwarth also recently educated local officials concerning the importance of legislation to increase funding for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund, participated in the 2001 Transportation Disadvantaged Legislative Day at Tallahassee, Florida, and is currently assisting the efforts of the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) to evaluate all bus stops for compliance with the accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ; that SCAT will utilize the findings to determine required improvements; that Ms. Dorwarth is a diligent advocate for the transportation disadvantaged in the County and State and is commended for her volunteer efforts; and displayed the crystal award previously presented to Ms. Dorwarth in recognition of her service. Ms. Dorwarth stated that the recognition of the Commission for receiving the 2001 Volunteer of the Year Award is appreciated; that the award was received while attending the 2001 Training and Technology Conference sponsored by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged; that receiving the award was a surprise; that SCAT was also presented the 2001 Urban Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) of the Year Award by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged; that SCAT also received the 2001 Rural CTC of the Year Award; that receiving the Urban and Rural CTC awards for the same year is a prestigious accomplishment; that the efforts of SCAT to assist the transportation disadvantaged are appreciated; that the 2001 Volunteer of the Year Award could not have been achieved without the assistance of many people; that Sarasota is an excellent community in which to live. BOOK 49 Page 21588 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21589 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0355) through (0510) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-11, Approval Re: Priority Highlight Accomplishments, August 2001- January 2002, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger Commissioner Palmer stated that the following Change to the Orders of the Day is requested: B. Move consideration of New Business Item No. VII-3, Presentation Re: Petition to amend the Sarasota City Charter to specify the direct election of a Mayor by the voters of the City for a term of four (4) years, to follow Board Actions Mayor Hogle stated that Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1, Discussion Re: Charter Review Ad Hoc Committee, should be considered with New Business Item No. VII-3. Commissioner Quillin stated that Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1 was personally placed on the Agenda; that the order of consideration of Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1 should not be changed on the Agenda. Mayor Hogle asked the desire of the Commission concerning the proposed Changes to the Orders of the Day? Commissioner Quillin stated that considering Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1 earlier on the Agenda is not supported. Commissioner Martin concurred. Mayor Hogle asked the required vote to change the Agenda? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Commission is required to change the order of the Agenda; that only three Commissioners have indicated support for the proposed change to the order of the Agenda; therefore, the proposed change to the order of the Agenda would fail. Commissioner Martin stated that the proposed Change to the Orders of the Day should be amended as follows: B. Move consideration of New Business Item No. VII-3, Presentation Re: Petition to amend the Sarasota City Charter to specify the direct election of a Mayor by the voters of the City for a term of four (4) years, to immediately follow Citizens Input and prior to Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1. Commissioner Martin continued that New Business Item No. VII-3 and Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1 are directly related and should be considered jointly. Mayor Hogle, Vice Mayor Mason, and Commissioner Palmer concurred. Commissioner Quillin stated that New Business Item No. VII-3 and Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1 are not directly related; that considering New Business Item No. VII-3 prior to Unfinished Business items is appropriate but will not be supported. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to approve the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-11, Approval Re: Priority Highlight Accomplishments, August 2001- January 2002, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger B. Move consideration of New Business Item No. VII-3, Presentation Re: Petition to amend the Sarasota City Charter to specify the direct election of a Mayor by the voters of the City for a term of four (4) years, immediately prior to Unfinished Business Item No. VI-1. Motion carried (4 to 1): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Hogle, yes. The Commission recessed at 6:20 p.m. into a Special meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and reconvened at 6:27 p.m. 5. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 2001, CONCERNING PROPOSALS TO INITIATE A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NEWTOWN AREA, THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 2001, CONCERNING THE PRELIMINARY MILLAGE LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BOOK 49 Page 21590 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21591 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. (FY) 2001/02, AND THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 16, 2001 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS I-1, I-2 AND I-3) #1 (0510) through (0525) Mayor Hogle asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Hogle stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the July 13, 2001, Special Commission meeting concerning proposals to initiate a Redevelopment Plan for the Newtown Area, the July 13, 2001, Special Commission meeting concerning the preliminary millage levy for fiscal year (FY) 2001/02, and the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 6. BOARD ACTIONS RE: : REPORT RE : PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S (PBLP) REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 5, 2001 SET ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-03 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0515) through (0650) Robert Lindsay, Chair of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), and Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, came before the Commission. Mr. Lindsay presented the following item from the July 5, 2001, Regular PBLP meeting: Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 Height Limitations for Single-Family Homes Mr. Lindsay stated that Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 is to change the definition of height to create a separate method for measuring the height of single-family dwellings and the accessory structures of single-family dwellings; that the height bonus allowed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for single-family homes in flood zones will be eliminated; that Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 also amends regulations for the repair or. restoration of non-conforming structures that have been destroyed or damaged; that the PBLP held a public hearing on July 5, 2001, unanimously found Zoning Text Amendment No. 01-ZTA-03 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) and the standards for review in the Zoning Code (1998), and recommended Commission approval subject to the following condition: 1. The replacement value for a home that is destroyed up to 75 percent based on the market value of the house as determined by a state-certified property appraiser. Mr. Lindsay continued that the concern was the market value of a house should be determined by a well-qualified individual such as a state-certified property appraiser; that Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 contains very simple language and will be easily implemented; that the FEMA height bonus allows the construction of taller single-family homes in flood zones than would be allowed by the City in other higher areas; that an enclosed garage and the utility spaces of single- family homes are allowed in the flood zone and are not counted against the overall height of the home; however, the City would calculate the space consumed by an enclosed garage and the utility spaces for the issuance of building permits for single- family homes outside the flood zone; that encouraging the construction of larger homes in the flood zone is illogical; that immense single-family homes are being constructed on very small lots; that constructing large homes in the flood zone will still be allowed but will require additional land; that new single-family homes will generally not exceed the height of the existing tree canopy of the barrier islands. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends setting Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 for public hearing and receiving the board report of the July 5, 2001, Regular PBLP meeting. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to set Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 for public hearing and to receive the board report of the July 5, 2001, Regular PBLP meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS RE: REPORT RE: NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT - RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0650) through (0710) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that Scott Eller, Chair, Nuisance Abatement Board (NAB), and Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, were scheduled to provide a presentation to the Commission concerning the NAB Quarterly Status Report for BOOK 49 Page 21592 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21593 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. the period June 30, 2001; however, neither Mr. Eller nor Attorney Singer are currently present in the Chambers; that the Commission may move to receive the NAB Quarterly Status Report for the period of June 30, 2001, or could reschedule the item for another Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Quillin stated that the item should be rescheduled; that the NAB Quarterly Status Report is important; that the presentation of the NAB Quarterly Status Report represents an opportunity to discuss the City's nuisance abatement efforts with the NAB. Vice Mayor Mason stated that any questions or concerns concerning the City's nuisance abatement efforts could be raised independently with NAB members or Staff. Commissioner Quillin stated that concerns or questions should be raised at a public meeting for the benefit of citizens; that a list of citizens' questions and concerns has been compiled for a public meeting with representatives of the NAB. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to receive the NAB Quarterly Status Report for the period of June 30, 2001. Motion carried (3 to 2): Martin, no; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Hogle, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10 - APPROVED, ; AND ITEM NO. 11 = APPROVED WITH THE PROVISION THE FINAL PRIORITY HIGHLIGHT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT WILL INCLUDE ALL THE: CITY'S GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PRIORITIES FROM AUGUST 2001 THROUGH JANUARY 2002 (AGENDA ITEM III-A-1) #1 (0710) through (0965) Commissioner Quillin requested that Item No. 5 be removed for discussion. Commissioner Palmer requested that Item No. 11 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Amendment to Interim Parking Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Hotel Associates of Sarasota, Ltd., to allow the Hotel Associates of Sarasota, Ltd., developer of the Hyatt and Beau Ciel projects, to utilize the Renaissance Project site for replacement parking during construction of their projects in lieu of the Payne Terminal site, retaining the right to utilize Payne Terminal as a back- up site 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Omni Eye, Inc. and Murtco, Inc. (a Joint Venture) for the Lift Station #1 and #5 Private Building Sewer Rehabilitation Pilot Program, Phase 2, (Bid #01-46M) in the amount of $650,920 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands, Inc., for right-of-way improvements such as replacement of sidewalks and street lighting 4. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Jon F. Swift, Inc., (Bid #01- 49M) in the amount of $498,000 for the construction of the St. Armands Circle: Sidewalk and Lighting Improvements Project 6. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Tampa Contracting Services, Inc., (Bid #00-005) for the Ken Thompson Park Habitat Project 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Joyce Flanagan Samuelson, Trustee, for water service for property located at 2922 Arlington Street 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Frank E. Buschor, Jr. and Richard Buschor, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, for water and sewer service for property Located at 1393 46th Street 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Clifford A. and Patricia V. Cain, as well as the Board of Trustees for KTM Holdings, an irrevocable trust, for water service for property located at 3025 Arlington Street BOOK 49 Page 21594 08/06/01. 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21595 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate an Agent of Record Agreement between the City * of Sarasota and The Gehring Group to assist the City with plan and design of employee various benefit packages On motion of Vice Mayor Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to Agreement for Architectural Services between the City of Sarasota and Barger+Dean Architects, Inc. Barger+Dean), for the Federal Building Commissioner Quillin stated that Unfinished Business Item No. VI-3 concerns hiring an owner's representative to supervise the renovations to the Federal Building; that the concern is the Agreement for Architectural Services with Barger+Dean does not contain a reference to an owner's representative; and asked if the Agreement for Architectural Services will be amended to include a reference to an owner's representative? Nancy Carolan, Director of General Services, came before the Commission and stated that the Agreement for Architectural Services contains many provisions requiring Barger+Dean to report to the City as the owner of the Federal Building; that a reference to an owner's representative is not required. Commissioner Quillin stated that.the City desired but did not hire an owner's representative at the time the Federal Building was purchased; and asked if the original intent was for a Staff member to act as the owner's representative? Ms. Carolan stated no. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the City had not decided to designate an owner's representative at the time the Agreement for Architectural Services was developed and later executed; that Unfinished Business Item No. VI-3 will recommend the City hire an owner's representative; that the owner's representative will supervise the work of Barger+Dean and report directly to the Commission. Commissioner Quillin stated that the owner's representative should have been hired at the time the Federal Building was purchased and prior to the hiring of an architect to design and supervise renovations; and asked if the Agreement for Architectural Services will be amended if the: Commission approves an owner's representative for the Federal Building renovations? City Attorney Taylor stated that Unfinished Business Item No. VI-3 concerns approval of a contract for services for an owner's representative; that the owner's representative will have specific responsibilities which will include reporting directly to the Commission and will interact with and supervise the work of Barger+Dean; however, an amendment to the Agreement for Architectural Services is not required. Commissloner Quillin stated that the Agreement for Architectural Services indicates Barger+Dean and any hired. contractors should report to the City as owner; that an amendment to the Agreement for Architectural Services is legally required to obligate Barger+Dean to report to the owner's representative. Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that an amendment to the Agreement for Architectural Services concerning the hiring of an owner's representative is not required; that the City has a contractual right to hire an owner's representative; that written notice will be provided to Barger+Dean of the selected owner's representative. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the representatives of Project Development International, Inc. (PDI), the recommended firm to serve as the owner's representative for the Federal Building renovations, are present in the Chambers to answer any additional questions if desired. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Hogle, yes. 11. Approval Re: Priority Highlight Accomplishments, August 2001 through January 2002 Commissioner Palmer stated that the Priority Highlight Accomplishments report was developed during the August 2, 2001, Commission Workshop concerning a Workplan for the Administration and Staff, indicates the goals, objectives, and priorities of the City from August 2001 through January 2002, but does not BOOK 49 Page 21596 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21597 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. contain all the goals, objectives, and priorities identified during the August 2, 2001, Commission Workshop; that the public should be informed of all the City's goals, objectives, and priorities; that an example is hiring a new Director of Redevelopment and Development Services, which is not indicated in the Priority Highlight Accomplishments report; that the final Priority Highlight Accomplishments report should indicate all the City's goals, objectives, and priorities from August 2001 through January 2002. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 11, with the provision the final Priority Highlight Accomplishments report will include all the City's goals, objectives, and priorities from August 2001 through January 2002. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1377) - ADOPTED, ITEM NO. 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1386) = ADOPTED : ITEM NO. 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1391) = ADOPTED ; ITEM NO. 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1392) = ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1393) - ADOPTED, ; ITEM NO. 6 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1398) - DELAYED TO THE AUGUST 20, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING AND CHANGED THE REFERENCE IN THE EXTENSION PERIOD IN THE TITLE AND SECTION 1 OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1398 TO "NO LATER THAN JANUARY 31, 2002"; ITEM NO. 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4311) ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4317) = ADOPTED; AND ITEM NO. 9 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4318) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0965) through (1485) Commissioner Quillin requested that Item No. 6 be removed for discussion. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1377, establishing a Minority Business Enterprise Utilization Plan; making findings as to need; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1386, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against all real or personal property owned by the violator for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1391, adopting a schedule to process City-initiated administrative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (a/k/a Sarasota City Plan [1998]) as more fully specified herein; authorizing the Planning and Development Department Staff to commence preparation of said amendments; setting forth findings; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1392, appropriating $35,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Eund to settle the claim of Fred Rassmussen. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1393, appropriating $21,691 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to provide mat tching funds for the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) application. 7. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4311, to rezone a parcel of real property consisting of .51 acres located at the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Cocoanut Avenue with street addresses of 1257, 1265, 1275 and 1281 Fruitville Road from the Multiple-Family Residential-5 (RMF-5) to the Theater and Arts District (TAD) Zone District, as more particularly described herein; approving Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-08 to allow 15 townhouse units to be constructed upon the above-described rezoned property; providing for conditions of this rezoning, inclusive of a proffered site plan; etc. (Title Only) 8. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4317, amending Section 33-112 of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) to prohibit stopping, standing or parking a motor vehicle in the portion of any right-of-way between a curb or edge of pavement and sidewalk behind such curb or edge of pavement or on the unpaved portion of any right-of-way where signs are posted by authority of the Traffic Engineer; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) 9. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4318, to rezone a parcel of property located at the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Shade Avenue (a/k/a 209 Shade Avenue) from the Office Park (OP) to the Office BOOK 49 Page 21598 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21599 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District; said parcel being included within Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-15 to construct two (2) office buildings in two (2) phases, with the inclusion of an adjacent parcel located at the northeast corner of Fruitville Road and Seeds Avenue (a/k/a 2401 Fruitville Road) zoned in Office Professional Business (OPB) Zone District; approving the construction of one (1) office building depicted as Phase I on Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-15, which has been proffered as a condition of this rezoning; providing for conditions of this rezoning; etc. (Title Only) Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan came before the Commission and read proposed Resolution Nos. 01R-1377, 01R-1386, and 01R-1391, and Ordinance Nos. 01-4311, 01-4317, and 01-4318 by title only and proposed Resolution Nos. 01R-1392 and 01R-1393 in their entirety. On motion of Vice Mayor Mason and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Hogle, yes; Martin, yesi Mason, yes; Palmer, yes, Quillin, yes. 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1398, amending Resolution" No. O0R-1304 by extending to at least January 31, 2002, a twelve (12) month self-imposed moratorium by which the City of Sarasota will not process any new applications for voluntary annexation in which the subject property is 25 acres in size or larger; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Quillin stated that renewing the 12-month, self- imposed annexation moratorium was not discussed at the July 31, 2001, Joint Workshop of the Commission and the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC); that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1398 is not supported; that the moratorium was discussed at a previous Convocation of City Governments; that the County requested the moratorium due to an annexation conflict with the City of North Port; that renewing the moratorium is not in the City's best interests; that the intent is not to annex any large parcels of property; however, all options should be available to the City. Commissioner Palmer stated that the most recent Convocation of City Governments was not attended; and asked if the annexation moratorium was discussed at the most recent Convocation of City Sovernments? Commissioner Quillin stated no. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the moratorium was requested by the County due to an annexation conflict with the City of North Port; that the County is also requesting each municipality approve an extension of the moratorium to January 31, 2002; that the Administration wishes to propose a technical correction to proposed Resolution No. 01R-1398; that the title and Section 1 of proposed Resolution No. 01R-1398 indicate extending the moratorium "to at least January 31, 2002"; that the reference should only be "to January 31, 2002." Commissioner Quillin stated that the words "at least" should not be deleted; that the City would be required to observe the moratorium to January 31, 2002; that the reference could be "up to January 31, 2002." Commissioner Palmer stated that is not correct; that the words "at least" indicate the City would be required to observe the moratorium to January 31, 2002, and possibly beyond; that the reference should be "no later than January 31, 2002." City Attorney Taylor concurred and stated that indicating the reference as "no later than January 31, 2002" would allow the City to terminate the moratorium prior to January 31, 2002, if desired; that the words "at least" indicate the City will be required to observe the moratorium until January 31, 2002. Mayor Hogle stated that the City of Venice has already approved an extension to the moratorium. City Attorney Taylor stated that deleting the words "at least" would still require the City to observe the moratorium until January 31, 2002; that the words "no later than" could be added to provide the option to terminate the moratorium prior to January 31, 2002, if desired. BOOK 49 Page 21600 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21601 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin asked if the requested extension is for six months or one year? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the requested extension is for five months; that the original moratorium expires on August 31, 2001; that the requested extension would be to January 31, 2001. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Cities of North Port and Venice have recently annexed large parcels of property from the County; that the City is not involved in the dispute and is not currently planning to annex any large parcels of property; that the City should not be involved in the dispute between the County and the Cities of North Port and Venice; that the extension of the moratorium is not supported; that the intent of the moratorium was to provide one year to allow the County and the City of North Port to discuss the annexation of large parcels of property. Commissioner Palmer stated that more information is required to make a decision concerning the extension of the moratorium; that the discussions concerning the moratorium which occurred at previous Convocations of City Governments should be provided; that consideration of proposed Resolution No. 01R-1398 should be delayed to the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to delay consideration of Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 6, to the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting and to change the reference in the title and Section 1 of proposed Resolution No. 01R-1398 from "at least January 31, 2002" to "no later than January 31, 2002." Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. Mayor Hogle requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public hearing sign-up process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that Affected Persons and other interested persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. Mayor Hogle requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that during the quasi-judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that recommendations for time limits for the quasi-judicial public hearings will be made at the appropriate time; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; that Applicants, the City, and Affected Persons will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and the opportunity for cross- examination. 10. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1383, CHANGING THE NAME OF PLATT STREET BETWEEN HUDSON AVENUE AND ITS DEAD-END AT HUDSON BAYOU TO HUDSON POINTE DRIVE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) #1 (1485) through (2050) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Natalie Rush, Transportation Planner, Engineering Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters distributed copies of and referred to a May 10, 2001, letter to the Engineering Department from Sarasota County Historical Resources and stated that property owners on Platt Street submitted a petition to change the name of Platt Street to Hudson Pointe Drive on June 26, 2000; that the property owners believe the proposed name will better identify the neighborhood and surroundings; that Staff contacted several affected government agencies concerning the change of the street name; that the United States Postal Service (USPS) was contacted to determine if other streets in the County bear the same name; that the USPS indicated Hudson Pointe Drive is an original name; that Sarasota County Historical Resources was contacted to determine if the name of Platt Street is historically significant; that County Staff indicated Platt Street was named after the Platt family which continues to live in Sarasota; that a member of a family with the name of Platt in City was contacted but indicated no knowledge of the naming of Platt Street after a particular family member. BOOK 49 Page 21602 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21603 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters continued that Sarasota County Emergency Services was also contacted and disapproved of renaming Platt Street to Hudson Pointe Drive, which could be confuséd with Hudson Drive or Hudson Avenue; that the Platt Street property owners were informed and indicated Platt Street could be renamed Vintage Pointe Orive or Renaissance Drive; that Sarasota County Emergency Services indicated Vintage Pointe Drive could be confused with Vintage Drive; that City Staff indicated Renaissance Drive was not preferred as the Renaissance of Sarasota was recently constructed on US 41, causing confusion; that the County also regulates the renaming of streets; however, the County's regulations do not prohibit the renaming of City streets; that City Staff supports the renaming of Platt Street to Hudson Pointe Drive; that only six lots are located on Platt Street, which is a very small street. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing. Ronald Butine, 1572 Stickney Point Road (34231), came before the Commission and stated that he purchased the parcel of property located at 1608 Platt Street approximately one year ago and intends to construct a single-family home on the property; that six properties are located on Platt Street; that the property owners on Platt Street were originally organized to seek neighborhood and utilities improvements; that an older property owner indicated the name of Platt Street should be changed and does not reflect the character of the neighborhood; that Hudson Pointe Drive was proposed as the street is. located on a point in the Hudson Bayou; that Staff has provided excellent service and assistance; that the name change was requested over a year agoi that Platt Street property owners have been very patient; that the intent is to continue the improvements to the neighborhood; that other Platt Street property owners are also constructing new homes; that a building permit was recently received to commence construction of a personal home; that Platt Street is currently a dead-end street which is not attractive; that the desire is improve the area to an aesthetically pleasing neighborhood; that the vacant lots have been purchased; that new homes will be constructed; that the neighborhood will be rejuvenated. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Hogle closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1383 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 01R-1383. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1383. Commissioner Quillin referred to the May 10, 2001, letter to the Engineering Department from Sarasota County Historical Resources indicating a member of the Platt family had served as carpenter for the construction of historical buildings in Sarasota and stated that Platt Street was named in honor of an important community member and should be maintained; that the Platt name is part of the City's heritage; that the efforts of Platt Street property owners to improve the neighborhood are appreciated; that the names of the City's important streets, parks, and historical sites should not be changed; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1383 will be supported as all Platt Street property owners have indicated a desire for the name change; however, the request to eliminate the Platt name is personally displeasing; that the historic importance of a street name should always be remembered; that the Platt family assisted the construction of historic buildings in the City. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that a street name can have historic significance; that the City's historic names should always be remembered; that Sarasota County Historical Resources should have provided a better analysis of the historic importance of Platt Street and the Platt family; that the hope is a record will be maintained of Platt Street and the importance of the Platt family to Sarasota; that another concern is the advice of Sarasota County Emergency Services, which should be heeded; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1383 will be supported despite the concerns. Commissioner Palmer stated that the historic importance of the Platt name is a concerni however, the advice of Sarasota County Emergency Services is not a concern; that many streets have similar names in the same jurisdiction; that the same name is frequently used although a different type of roadway is utilized such as Boulevard, Road, Drive, Street, Circle and others; that Sarasota County Emergency Services Staff will cope with the name of Hudson Pointe Drive. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to adopt Resolution No. 01R-1383 and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk BOOK 49 Page 21604 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21605 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes;. Palmer, yes, Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes; Martin, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325 pertain to two parcels of property owned by AMC Properties, L.L.P. (AMC), which will be utilized for the same development; and asked if the Commission wishes to consider proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325 simultaneously? David Smith, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325 could be considered as part of a single public hearing if desired; however, separate votes will be required for each proposed ordinance; that Staff and the Applicant could be provide single presentations for proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325, which were considered as part of a single public hearing held at August 1, 2001, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) meeting. Mayor Hogle stated that the consensus of the Commission is to consider proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325 in a single public hearing. 11. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4324, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA (1998 EDITION) BY THE ADOPTION OF THE SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN APPLICATION NO. 00-PA-01 FILED BY AMC PROPERTIES, L.L.P.; SAID SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CONSISTS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A PARCEL OF PROPERTY FROM "COMMUNITY OFIC/STIUPIONAN TO "COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL", SAID PROPERTY BEING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES IN SIZE AND BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY 10" STREET, ON THE WEST BY OREGON COURT, ON THE NORTH BY 11" STREET AND ON THE EAST BY AN 18- FOOT-WIDE ALLEY RUNNING NORTH/SOUTH BETWEEN OREGON COURT AND COCOANUT AVENUE; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF THIS SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF, : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 00-PA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-2) AND NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : * PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4325, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA (A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN [19981) TO ALLOW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ON PROPERTIES CLASSIFIED AS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND LIMITING THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE MIXED USE TO A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 25 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 00-PA-01 AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF i ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 00-PA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-3) #1 (2050) through #2 (0255) David Smith, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, referred to displayed computer-generated slides throughout the presentation and stated that proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325 concern Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01, which was requested by AMC Properties, L.L.P. (AMC) i that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01 concérns two AMC requests; that the first request concerns an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), to change the current Community Office/Institutional (COI) to the Community Commercial (CC) Land Use Classification for a 2.2-acre parcel of property bounded on the south by Tenth Street, on the west by Oregon Court, on the north by 11th Street, and on the east by an alley located between Oregon Court and Cocoanut Avenue; that the second AMC request concerns an amendment to the text of the CC Land Use Classification contained in the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow mixed-use developments; that residential uses up to a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre would be allowed within the CC and COI Land Use Classifications if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4325 is adopted. Mr. Smith referred to displayed computer-generated slides of the location of the properties on the Euture Land Use Map and other aerial photographs of the properties and continued that the property located immediately to the east across Oregon Court from the 2.2-acre parcel is designated in the CC Land Use Classification; that a single-family home is currently located on the southern portion of the property; that Le Cocoanut Apartments are located on the northern portion of the property BOOK 49 Page 21606 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21607 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. and represent affordable family housing; that the property is currently zoned Multi-Family Residential-3 (RMF-3); that the adjacent 3.1-acre parcel of property owned by AMC is currently designated in the CC Land Use Classification and is in the Commercial, Intensive (CI), North Trail (NT), and RMF-3 Zone Districts; that only one residential home is located on the adjacent 3.1-acre parcel; that the remaining portion of the 2.2- acre parcel is generally undeveloped; that the 2.2-acre parcel is designated in the COI Land Use Classification on the Euture Land Use Map; that the COI Land Use Classification allows professional and medical offices, personal services, institutional uses, retirement centers, government activities and laboratories, churches, schools, and clubs. Mr. Smith further stated that Staff supports allowing mixed-use developments in the COI Land Use Classification; that AMC is proposing to allow mixed-use developments in the CC Land Use Classification; that retail and similar commercial uses are allowed in the CC Land Use Classification; that AMC is proposing to redevelop the properties to construct a mixed-use development including condominiums, multiple-family dwellings, and retail and commercial uses; that the total project consists of 5.3 acres; that AMC does not own the Speedway Gas Station located on the northeast corner of US 41 and Tenth Street; that many benefits to the public could be derived from the proposed mixed- use development; that the only concern was the provision of affordable housing; that the existing affordable housing will be eliminated if the mixed-use development is constructed; that AMC did not indicate an intention to construct affordable housing as part. of the mixed-use development; that overall, the proposed mixed-use development will benefit the public. Mr. Smith stated further that at a August 1, 2001, public hearing, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) unanimously recommended Commission approval of the sections of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01 to allow the proposed change from the COI to the CC Future Land Use Classification for the 2.2-acre parcel owned by AMC; that the remaining sections of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01 concern an amendment to the text of the CC and COI Land Use Classifications in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that Staff supports the text amendment and incorporated the similar revisions to the text of the COI Land Use Classification to allow mixed-use developments; that the CC and COI Land Use Classifications would be amended to allow a mixture of residential and non-residential units; that a maximum density of 25 residential units per acre would be allowed; that the intent of the mixed-used development is to further the concepts of New Urbanism and specifically to reduce dependence on automobiles, to improve pedestrian access to housing, shopping, offices, and employment opportunities, to provide for new shops and offices in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, and to improve transit access; that New Urbanism places an emphasis on walkable neighborhoods. Mr. Smith stated that up to medium-intensity commercial uses will be allowed in the CC and COI Land Use Classifications; that allowing a maximum of 25 multiple-family residential units per acre corresponds to the Multiple Family - Medium Density (MF-MD) Land Use Classification; that the residential uses will be considered secondary uses to and will only be allowed in conjunction with the development of non-residential uses; that commercial and office uses will be the primary non-residential use allowed in the CC and COI Land Use Classifications; that the intent is to allow complementary residential uses; that the majority of properties designated in the COI and CC Land Use Classifications are located on major arterials and transit routes in the City; that the existing references to residential uses as non-primary uses will be deleted. Mr. Smith continued that the COI Land Use Classification will be amended to allow a density of 25 residential units per acre for assisted living facilities and multiple-family housing; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 00-PA-01 complies with many of the goals and Action Strategies of the Future Land Use, Transportation, Housing, and Neighborhood Chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan and was transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) during March 2001; that DCA raised no objections to Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 00-PA-01; that at a August 1, 2001, public hearing, the PBLP recommended Commission approval by a vote of 3 to 2 of the proposed text amendments to the COI and CC Land Use Classifications; that PBLP members expressed concern for allowing multiple-family residential uses in the COI Land Use Classification but did not object to allowing residential uses in the CC Land Use Classification, which is proposed by AMC; that Staff recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325. Joel Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Group, as agent for AMC, came before the Commission and stated that AMC owns the 5.3 acres of property which are the subject of proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4324 and 01-4325; that AMC's intent was to purchase as BOOK 49 Page 21608 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21609 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. much property as possible to construct a viable mixed-use development; that AMC purchased a significant amount of property and is proposing to construct a mixed-use development which will benefit the public; that mixed-use developments are currently desired by the public but are only allowed in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District in the Central City Land Use Classification; that initially, an application to redesignate properties in the Central City Land Use Classification was submitted; that the Central City Land Use Classification is too intense for the surrounding neighborhoods; therefore, AMC withdrew the application after Staff proposed amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow residential uses in the CC Land Use Classification. Mr. Freedman continued that mixed-use developments are being promoted Statewide; that Staff proposed allowing mixed-use developments in the COI Land Use Classification as part of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4325; that AMC has no objection to allowing mixed-use developments in the COI Land Use Classification; that the appropriate zone district has not been developed to allow mixed uses; that Staff indicates an appropriate zone district will be developed in conjunction with Phase II of the revisions to the Zoning Code (1998); that AMC intends to construct a grocery store, mid-rise condominiums with a waterfront view along US 41, and a mixed-use development consisting of retail uses on the ground floor and townhouses, apartments, and small offices on the second floor; that a concern regarding the elimination of affordable housing on the property was raised; that the condominiums with the waterfront view will not be considered affordable housing; that the townhouses may be priced between $150,000 to $175,000; however, a definite price cannot be determined at this stage of the development; that AMC may request Oregon Court be vacated for internal use in the future; that Oregon Court would be immediately rededicated for public use with the provision AMC would be responsible for maintaining the roadway; that the mixed-use development is exciting and will benefit the public. Commissioner Martin stated that the concern was previously if any nearby streets would be vacated; that vacating Oregon Court may be acceptable. Mr. Freedman stated that vacating Oregon Court will help maintain as many access points as possible to the property. Commissioner Martin stated that another concern is the designation of the property in the CC Land Use Classification; and asked the proposed commercial use on the property? Mr. Freedman stated that the CC Land Use Classification is required to allow construction of a grocery store on the property; that a grocery store will create the feel of an urban village, will face inwards, and will not have direct frontage along a street; that the more intense retail uses will be located at the perimeter of the proposed mixed-use development; that the intent is not to create a commercial strip or shopping plaza with frontage directly on US 41. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the proposed mixed-use development is supported; however, the concern is the removal of affordable of housing from the property; that the current affordable housing residents will not be able to. afford townhouses costing between $150,000 and $175,000. Mr. Freedman stated that the Future Land Use Map designates the property in the CC and COI Future Land Use Classifications; that the intent of the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to designate the entire property for commercial and not residential uses; that the existing housing is not envisioned as part of the City's future; that the concern to replace the affordable housing is understood; that the hope is the mixed-use development will spur the revitalization of the area and the development of additional affordable housing. Commissioner Quillin stated that the existing affordable housing is only ten years old; that the affordable housing is being eliminated and not definitely replaced; and asked if the existing affordable housing units were sold to individual tenants or are rentals? Mr. Freedman stated that the existing affordable housing is now owned by AMC properties and not individual tenants. Commissioner Quillin stated that the concern is the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, which consists mostly of working-class citizens; that neighborhood residents support the mixed-use development but are concerned with a potential increase in neighborhood traffic, primarily on 11th Street; that the traffic study included in the Agenda backup material did not thoroughly address the potential vehicular traffic increase on 11th Street; that the mixed-use housing units should be more affordable and could be rented; that the affordable housing units which will be BOOK 49 Page 21610 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21611 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. eliminated should be replaced with similarly priced units; that the citizens living in the affordable housing units will require similarly-priced units; that townhouses which cost between $150,000 and $175,000 are not too expensive for the géneral public; nowever, $150,000 may be too expensive for the citizens living in the current affordable housing; that the mixed-use development should be revised to incorporate more affordable housing units. Mr. Freedman stated that a site plan has not been but will be developed; that the intent is to construct apartments above the mixed-use retail development adjacent to the proposed grocery store; that the apartments will be rented; that constructing affordable apartments will be examined during further refinement of the mixed-use development. Commissioner Quillin stated that constructing affordable apartments over retail units as part of a mixed-use development is desired and supported; that further refinement of the proposed mixed-use development should also include a thorough examination of the internal traffic circulation on the property. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Hogle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Palmer stated that the PBLP indicated a concern for allowing mixed-use developments in the COI Land Use Classification; that the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (Selby Gardens) is designated in the COI Land Use Classification, which would allow the construction of 25 residential units per acre if Ordinance No. 01-4325 is adopted; that the construction of high- rise condominiums at the Selby Gardens is not desired and will not be supported; that the COI Land Use Classification should not allow intense residential development on recreational properties; that the Selby Gardens is not currently planning to construct high-rise condominiums; however, the proposed revisions to the COI Land Use Classification may encourage intense residential development; that the Commission should not allow intense residential development until assured such development will not be allowed on properties such as the Selby Gardens. Mr. Smith stated that the Selby Gardens is designated on the Future Land Use Map in the COI Land Use Classification; that the City's leaseholds in Ken Thompson Park are also in the COI Land Use Classification but are in the Governmental Use (G) Zone District which does not allow the construction of intense residential uses; that the approval of the City is required for any developments in Ken Thompson Park; that the Selby Gardens' properties are currently designated in the Single-Family Residential-1 (RSF-1), Multi-Family Residential-1 (RMF-1), and RMF-3 Zone Districts, in which condominiums could be constructed if desired; that the RSF-1 Zone District allows up to 2.9 residential units per acre; that the RMF-1 Zone District allows up to 6 residential units per acre; that the RMF-3 Zone District allows up to 13 residential units per acre; that the Office, Professional and Business (OPB), Office, Professional and Business-1 (OPB-1), Office Park (OP), Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI), and G Zone Districts implement the COI Land Use Classification and would allow for varying intensities of residential uses as part of Phase II of the revisions to the Zoning Code (1998), which will require Commission approval. Mr. Smith continued that developing a high-rise condominium with 25 units per acre at Selby Gardens would require a rezoning and Commission approval; that Selby Gardens could construct less intense residential units if desired; that the COI Land Use Classification would allow the Selby Gardens to construct residential units; however, the residential units would be required as a secondary use to primary office or institutional uses. Commissioner Palmer stated that the MCI Zone District implements the COI Land Use Classification and allows the construction of 25 residential units per acre as a primary use. Mr. Smith stated that is correct; that the MCI Zone District allows the construction of 25 residential units per acre as a primary use; however, an assisted living facility is the only primary residential use allowed in the MCI Zone District and is limited to a building height of 35 feet; that any intense residential development would require a rezoning and Commission approval. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concern is not only the potential use of the Selby Gardens' properties but any property designated in the COI Land Use Classification; that the requirement to submit a rezoning for Commission approval is understood; however, the Commission must specify the substantial BOOK 49 Page 21612 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21613 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. and competent evidence utilized to approve or deny an application for a rezoning; that an argument could be made for the non-compatibility of a proposed use with the current use of a property or the surrounding uses; that the Commission approved the land use classifications; that denying a use allowed in a sanctioned land use classification would be difficult; that the City may be encouraging undesirable development. Mr. Smith stated that substantial and competent evidence is considered on a case-Dy-case basis as applications are submitted to the City. Commissioner Martin asked the areas of the City currently designated in the COI Land Use Classification? Mr. Smith referred to a computer-generated slide of property in the City designated in the COI Land Use Classification included as Illustration 1 in the Agenda backup material in the Staff Report and stated that the COI and CC Land Use Classifications are primarily designated for properties which allow significant public access and located on major arterials and roadways such as Orange Avenue, Fruitville Road, US 301, and US 41; that 134 properties totaling 563 acres are designated in the COI Land Use Classification; that the properties in the COI Land Use Classification are currently utilized for schools, the Sarasota Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), other athletic clubs, the Selby Gardens, and similar uses. Commissioner Martin stated that the minutes of the August 1, 2001, PBLP meeting indicate Staff drafted a Commercial, Residential (CR) Zone District to implèment mixed-use developments in the COI Land Use Classification; and asked for clarification of the proposed CR Zone District? Mr. Smith stated that the CR Zone District was drafted to implement the CC and not the COI Land Use Classification; that three zone districts have been draited for the COI Land Use Classification to allow mixed-use developments; that the Office Neighborhood (ON) Zone District was drafted to allow mixed-use developments containing up to 9 residential units per acre with a building height limit of 28 feet; that the Office Community (OC) Zone District was drafted to allow mixed-use developments containing up to 13 residential units per acre with a building height limit of 35 feet; that the Office Regional (OR) Zone District was drafted to allow mixed-use developments of up to 25 residential units per acre with a height limit of 45 feet; that public hearings will be required to adopt the proposed zone districts; that the Commission could change the proposed zone districts as desired during the public hearing process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4324 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4324 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4324 on first reading. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the proposed mixed-use development is supported and will benefit the surrounding neighborhood; however, the concern is affordable housing is being demolished without any definite replacement. Commissioner Palmer concurred. Mayor Hogle stated that the proposed mixed-use development is supported; that the neighborhood has needed a grocery store for a significant period of time. Mayor Hogle requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4325 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that: the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4325 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Mason and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4325 on first reading. Commissloner Palmer stated that the concern is the allowed density of 25 residential units per acre for properties designated in the COI Land Use Classification; that faith is held in Staff to ensure intense residential development is not BOOK 49 Page 21614 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21615 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. encouraged; that the concerns should be addressed in the development of implementing zone districts proposed during Phase II of the revisions to the Zoning Code (1998); that the Selby Gardens has not indicated an intent to construct high-rise condominiums; however, the City may be unintentionally encouraging intense residential development in certain areas; that mixed-use developments are supported, are recommended in the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020), and reflect an implementation of the concepts of New Urbanism. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that the proposed mixed- use development is supported; that Staff has successfully developed appropriate zone districts in the past; that the Commission will ultimately be responsible for ensuring the implementing zone districts are appropriate for the desired uses. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4325 on first reading and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes. 12. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4327, TO VACATE THREE SEPARATE AND CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE 50-FOOT-WIDE SIXTH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS A: BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE EAST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF ALLENDALE AVENUE AND BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DODGE AVENUE AND B: BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE EAST RIGHF-OF-WAY LINE OF DODGE AVENUE AND BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RHODES AVENUE AND C: BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RHODES AVENUE AND COMMENCING EASTWARD APPROXIMATELY 144.5 FEET, ALL AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-SV-01, APPLICANT BRUCE E. FRANKLIN OF LAND RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. AS AGENT FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITIES, SARASOTA, INC. AND FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AS OWNERS) - DENIED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-4) #2 (0255) through (2070) Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, Planning Department, and Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mr. Hoglund referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of a City Map indicating the sections of Sixth Street requested for vacation and stated that at the June 5, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, the Commission approved Ordinance No. 00-4236, which allowed the rezoning of 11.59 acres from the Single-Family Residential-2 (RSF-2) to the Single-Family Residential-4 (RSF-4) Zone District to allow Habitat For Humanity, Sarasota, Inc. (HFHS), to construct affordable housing units; that the allowed residential density of the subject property was doubled; that a site plan was not proffered with Ordinance No. 00-4236; that HFHS held many meetings with Staff and the Development Review Committee (DRC) concerning the development of the houses; that Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01 was presented at the July 5, 2001, PBLP Meeting and included Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-02, which indicates the building locations according to the original platting of the property; that the building lots have a width of 50 feet and a depth of 146.feet, which is an unusually deep lot; that Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01 is to vacate three sections of Sixth Street; that the first section consists of the half-block section of Sixth Street immediately east of Rhodes Avenue; that the second section consists of Sixth Street between Rhodes and Dodge Avenues; that the final section consists of Sixth Street between Dodge and Allendale Avenues. Mr. Hoglund continued that Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-02 indicates HFHS will construct the houses in phases; that Phase I will consist of constructing houses on Rhodes Avenue north of Sixth Street between Sixth and Eighth Streets; that Phase II will consist of the construction of houses on Dodge Avenue between Eight and Sixth Streets; that Phase III will consist of the construction of houses on Allendale Avenue immediately north of Sixth Street; that HFHS is proposing to construct 73 houses if the requested sections of Sixth Street are vacated; that five additional houses are planned for construction in the vacated portions of Sixth Street; that HFHS will only be allowed to construct 68 homes if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 is not adopted; that Fruitville Road bounds the southern portion of the Avion Subdivision and serves as the main connection to Interstate (I)-75 (I-75); that Tuttle Avenue and Lockwood Ridge Road serve as the respective east and west boundaries of the Avion Subdivision; that Eighth Street serves as the major east- west connecting roadway through the Avion Subdivision, is designated in the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) as a minor collector, and is north of the HFHS property; that streets in the Avion subdivision were BOOK 49 Page 21616 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21617 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. designed as a grid system to allow connectivity with major streets. Mr. Hoglund further stated that Staff indicated and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) agreed the grid system should be maintained and extended if possible for future development in the City; that at the July 5, 2001, public hearing, the PBLP voted 3 to 1 to find Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01 inconsistent with the Standards For Review set forth in Section IV-1306, Zoning Code (1998) and recommended denial to the Commission; that the intent of Planning Department Staff is to extend the concepts proposed in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 to the remainder of the City; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates the grid system should be enhanced and extended and discourages the creation of dead end streets; that Allendale Avenue does not currently but should be extended south to Fruitville Road in the future; that pedestrian connectivity should be promoted in the Avion Subdivision; that vacating the requested sections of Sixth Street would inhibit pedestrian connectivity and internal circulation in the Avion Subdivision; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 encourages an increase in pedestrian connectivity and internal circulation in neighborhoods. Mr. Daughters stated that the grid system provides the greatest internal circulation in a neighborhood and should not be restricted; and referred to Action Strategy (A.S.) 1.13 of the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), as follows: 1.13 Protection of Existing Rights-of-Way: The City shall not vacate any public rights-of-way unless it is not in use, provides no public benefit, or is not in the best interest of the City to retain for future use. Mr. Daughters continued that A.S. 5.6 of the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan also indicates the importance of maintaining the grid system as follows: 5.6 Integrity of the Grid Pattern: The City will maintain the integrity of the street grid pattern by encouraging traffic calming techniques to reduce volume and/or speed to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of thru traffic. Closing of local streets will only be pursued if traffic calming or alternative methods are not appropriate. Mr. Daughters further stated that the recommendation is to maintain and improve Sixth Street and other neighborhood streets; that Aspinwall Street and Rhodes Avenue require significant improvement; that as many access points as possible should be maintained into the neighborhood; that the grid system should be maintained. Mr. Hoglund stated that Phase IV of the proposed construction includes the extension of Rhodes Avenue south to Aspinwall Street and the improvement of Aspinwall Street to connect Rhodes and Dodge Avenues; that Division 13, Vacation of Streets and Rights-Of-Way was recently revised to require developers to weigh the benefits of a street vacation to the public; that HFHS indicated the benefit would be the construction of five additional homes if the requested sections of Sixth Street are vacated; that residents of the Avion Subdivision indicated concern for a potential increase in vehicular traific intrusion into neighborhood from Sixth Street and supported the requested street vacation; that the City could vacate only the half-block section of Sixth Street immediately east of Rhodes Avenue and alleviate the concerns of the neighborhood residents if desired. Mr. Hoglund continued that the efforts of HFHS to construct affordable housing are appreciated and should be applauded; that HFHS is part of a larger worldwide effort to construct affordable housing; that Habitat For Humanity International, Inc., was initiated in 1976, has chapters in every state and in many countries, and has constructed over 100,000 housing units; however, HFHS will no longer be responsible for the houses aiter construction is completed and will focus efforts on constructing new housing; that the City will be responsible for maintaining the Avion Subdivision; that completing the neighborhood street system is an important step for integrating the Avion Subdivision into the City; that Staff recommends, maintaining the grid system. Mr. Daughters distributed copies of and referred to a August 6, 2001, letter from Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU) Drainage Operations Staff to Engineering Department Staff indicating the vacated sections of Sixth Street would not be maintained by the SEU and stated that Staff has examined the sections of Sixth Street for vacation; that the City's cost proposals to develop the vacated right-of-way was higher than the cost proposal indicated by HFHS; that public drainage improvements will be required for the vacated sections of BOOK 49 Page 21618 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21619 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Sixth Street and to the surrounding streets; that private stormwater retention areas must also be constructed; that HFHS is proposing to integrate the require public and private stormwater utilities; that County Staff is not willing to maintain the public stormwater utilities if integrated with the private stormwater utility after Sixth Street is vacated; that the housing units will share a retention pond on the Florida Power and Light (FPL) property located on the northwest corner of Dodge Avenue and Sixth Street; that retention ponds will be constructed along the rear of the lots and will collect stormwater run-off from the properties and adjoining streets; that the County has indicated retention ponds located on private property will not be maintained by the SEU; that accessing the retention ponds with maintenance equipment will be difficult; that the County refuses to maintain ponds for private developments. City Attorney Taylor asked the relevance of drainage operations to the vacation of Sixth Street? Mr. Hoglund stated that at the July 5, 2001, PLBP meeting, the responsibility for maintaining drainage operations and the retention ponds if the requested sections of Sixth Street were approved for vacation was unresolved. City Attorney Taylor stated that the responsibility for maintaining drainage operations and retention ponds is not related to the vacation of a City street; that the subject of the public hearing is not approval of a site plan or drainage operations; that Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01 is not dependent upon the County's maintenance of drainage operations. Mr. Hoglund stated that the PBLP indicated concern for the management of the retention ponds at the July 5, 2001, PBLP meeting. Commissioner Quillin asked the reason the management of the drainage operations was not resolved by the PBLP prior to submission to the Commission? Mr. Hoglund stated that a concern was obtaining Commission approval prior to the end of August 2001; that significant grant funding may not be awarded to * HFHS if approval for the construction of the proposed housing units is not obtained by the end of August 2001. Commissioner Quillin stated that the PBLP delayed Commission consideration of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02 dué to the unresolved drainage operations issue; that Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02 could have been considered by the Commission at a previous meeting; that the management of drainage operations is not related to the requested vacation of Sixth Street. Mr. Hoglund stated that the management of drainage operations is related to the requested vacation of Sixth Street; that drainage and other utilities are located in the right-of-way on the sections of Sixth Street which may be vacated; that maintenance will be required for the utilities in the right-of-way. Mr. Daughters stated that additional stormwater retention facilities will be required if requested sections of Sixth Street are vacated. Judson Boedecker, Vice President, HFHS, and John Schaub, Board Member, HFHS, came before the Commission. Mr. Boedecker referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of a Zoning Map of the Avion Subdivision and stated that the management of drainage operations and the retention ponds was not raised as a significant concern previously by Staff or the PBLP; that the required neighborhood meeting was held; that neighborhood residents indicated support for the requested vacation of Sixth Street; that the Avion Subdivision was platted over 40 years ago; that the subject property is the only remaining undeveloped property in the Avion Subdivision; that HFHS only acquired the platted lots and not the rights to any right-of-way, which belong to the City; that the subject property was rezoned; that the neighborhood residents indicated concern for increased vehicular traffic intrusion in the Avion Subdivision, which would also have a negative impact on HFHS's planned affordable housing community; that a traffic light has been installed at the intersection of Eight Street and Tuttle Avenue; that Sixth Street can be utilized to drive to Lockwood Ridge Road or Dodge Avenue from Tuttle Avenue; that neighborhood residents support the vacation of the requested sections of Sixth Street. Mr. Boedecker continued that vacating Sixth Street will benefit the potential home owners; that five additional houses will be built on the vacated sections of Sixth Street; that the houses will have City water and sewer service; that the intrastructure costs for construction will be reduced by approximately $1,300 BOOK 49 Page 21620 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21621 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. for each home; that low-income families usually purchase houses constructed by HFHS; that $1,300 represents a significant savings to a low-income family; that HFHS's costs to acquire the lots will be reduced; that improving Sixth Street will cost HFHS $54,600; that the value of each lot is approximately $20,000; that HFHS will be losing $154,600 which could be utilized to construct three completed houses; that only Planning Department Staff objected to the proposed vacation of Sixth Street; that Staff indicated a concern for the preservation of the existing grid system in the Avion Subdivision; that the Sixth Street right-of-way has not been improved for over 40 years; that the City has not indicated a concern or desire to maintain or complete the existing grid system in the Avion Subdivision during the previous 40 years; that the intent is to improve Aspinwall Street between Dodge and Rhodes Avenue; that Dodge and Rhodes Avenues will be improved between Eighth and Sixth Streets; that a giant "U" or street loop will be created; that a cul-de-sac will not be created. Mr. Schaub referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-02 and stated that the street loop will consist of Rhodes Avenue from Eighth Street to Aspinwall Street to Dodge Avenue and returning to Eighth Street; that many other areas in the City have streets of similar length or contain a street loop in a neighborhood; that many City blocks are oddly shaped and contain long streets without a connection. Mr. Boedecker referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-02 and stated that the PBLP indicated a concern for pedestrian connectivity in the Avion Subdivision; that a public easement to construct a sidewalk in the vacated Sixth Street right-of-way will be proffered as a condition of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01; that the sidewalk would be constructed to connect Allendale and Rhodes Avenues to Dodge Avenue which would increase the pedestrian connectivity in the Avion Subdivision; that HFHS recently completed the construction of houses in the Beacon Place West community; that housing Lots were 100 feet deep; that Beacon Place West is a deed-restricted community in which the construction of fences is prohibited; that a park-like atmosphere was created in back yards of the homes on each block; that the proposed houses will have lots 150 feet deep; that a park-like atmosphere will be created to a greater degree than Beacon Place West; that over 100 feet of open space will be created between a house and the proposed retention area; that the back yards of each house will have a gentle, grassy slope; that the dry retention area will fill with water only during the rainy season; that a perception of open space will be created; that any utility easements requested by the City will be granted. Mayor Hogle asked the relevance of the construction plans to Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01? City Attorney Taylor stated that a direction relationship between the construction plans and Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01 cannot be determined. Mr. Boedecker stated that the intent of HFHS is to provide as many affordable housing units as possible in the community; that the desire is to vacate the requested sections of Sixth Street to provide five additional affordable housing units for five low-income families; that the provision of affordable housing in the City is a pressing need. Mr. Schaub stated that pedestrian connectivity is a concern for any neighborhood or community; that HFHS will construct a sidewalk system in the proposed housing community to provide for pedestrian connectivity; that a complete street loop will be created; that dead-end streets will not result; that the intent is to purchase and develop the property located to the south of Aspinwall Street on Dodge and Rhodes Avenues, which would be extended to Fruitville Road if the property is purchased; that the grid system would then be completed; that HFHS will lose $154,600 if the requested sections of Sixth Street are not vacated; that the City would be providing a significant contribution to affordable housing in Sarasota without a cost to the taxpayers if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 is adopted; that the property owners and residents support the street vacation; that Dodge and Rhodes Avenues and Aspinwall Street are not paved and will be improved significantly; that the construction of the five additional homes will also increase the ad valorem tax revenues of the City; that the five additional homes will be sold to low-income families which desperately need adequate housing. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Hogle closed the public hearing. BOOK 49 Page 21622 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21623 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the subject property was previously rezoned at the request of HFHS; that the construction of sidewalks is a condition to Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends denying proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327. On motion of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Quillin stated that the subject property is located in District 3, which is personally represented as a Commissioner; that neighborhood residents have requested the improvement of the streets in the Avion Subdivision; that other Commissioners did not previously support the improvement of the streets in the Avion Subdivision; that only the requested section of Sixth Street between Brinks and Rhodes Avenues should be vacated; that the remaining portion of Sixth Street should be improved; that Sixth Street is utilized by many neighborhood residents. Commissioner Martin stated that the intent was to second Commissioner Palmer's motion. Commissioner Quillin stated that vacating the section of Sixth Street between Rhodes and Allendale Avenues is not supported; that only the requested section of Sixth Street between Brinks and Rhodes Avenue should be vacated; that the internal circulation in the Avion Subdivision must be improved and not inhibited. Mayor Hogle asked if the indication is proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 should be denied and the PBLP requested to propose revisions to Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-01? Commissioner Quillin stated no; that the indication is Sixth Street should only be vacated between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues; that stormwater runoff collects on Sixth Street between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues; that the collected stormwater runoff is a problem. On motion of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to vacate the section of Sixth Street between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327. Commissioner Palmer stated that she served on the PBLP at the time HFHS originally proposed the construction of the affordable housing community in the Avion Subdivision; that the subject property was originally designated in the Single-Family Residential-2 (RSF-2) Zone District, which would allow the construction of a total of 33 houses; that the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates the property should be in the Single-Family Residential-3 (RSF-3) or Single- Family Residential-4 (RSF-4) Zone District; that the PBLP recommended the RSF-4 Zone District to allow HFHS to construct 68 houses; that the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 00-4236 which rezoned the subject property to the RSF-4 Zone District; that the proposed affordable housing community will not develop all the remaining undeveloped residential property in the Avion Subdivision; that the grid system should be maintained to facilitate future residential development in the Avion Subdivision; that pedestrian connectivity and internal circulation must be provided and enhanced if possible in City neighborhoods; that A.S. 1.13 and 5.6 of the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan support maintaining the grid system; therefore, the motion is to deny proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327; that HFHS is an outstanding organization; that funds have personally been raised for HFHS projects; that HFHS will always be personally supported; however, the existing grid system must be maintained and enhanced if possible. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that the grid system is important and should be maintained; that the City is in the process of repairing and enhancing the grid system; that the City's traffic congestion is increasing; that a functioning grid, system will be a critical element of the City's efforts to mitigate traffic congestion; that the vacation of sections of Sixth Street may result in increased future vehicular traffic on Eighth Street, on which Tuttle Elementary School is located; that maintaining the grid system will benefit the Avion Subdivision residents and the public in the future; that the increased costs to HFHS are regrettable; however, the future costs to the Avion Subdivision and the surrounding community may be greater; that the grid system must be maintained and facilitates the etiorts of Sarasota County Emergency Services to provide service to the BOOK 49 Page 21624 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21625 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. public; that denying proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 will be supported. Vice Mayor Mason stated that she recently met with representatives of HFHS to discuss the proposed project, which was supported at the time; however, after reviewing Staff's recommendations and the Staff Report included in the Agenda backup material, denying proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 will be supported. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Avion Subdivision is part of District 3, which is personally represented as a Commissioner; that the internal circulation is a significant concern; that HFHS was informed of the concern; however, neighborhood residents have indicated support for the vacation of Sixth Street between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues; that Sixth Street could be improved in the future; that vehicular traffic intrusion could increase in the Avion Subdivision if the Commission denies proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327; that residents indicated concern for increased neighborhood traffic; that vacating Sixth Street only between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues would allow HFHS to utilize the vacated right-of-way to build an additional house; that neighborhood residents support the vacation of Sixth Street between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues; and asked the legal description of the Sixth Street right-of-way between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Sixth Street right-of-way between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues is describéd in proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 as the 50-foot-wide Sixth Street right-of- way bounded on the west by the east right-of-way line of Rhodes Avenue and commencing eastward approximately 144.5 feet. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission should support the desire of the neighborhood residents to prevent increased vehicular traffic in the Avion Subdivision on Sixth Street. On motion of Commissloner Quillin, it was moved to amend the motion to approve the vacation of the 50-foot-wide Sixth Street right-ot-way bounded on the west by the east right-of-way line of Rhodes Avenue and commencing eastward approximately 144.5 feet. Motion to amend died for lack of a second. Commissioner Martin stated that aggressive traffic calming efforts in City neighborhoods will always be personally supported as required; however, the grid system must be maintained if possible; that neighborhood residents seeking traffic calming measures will always be personally supported. Commissioner Quillin stated that Eighth Street is currently experiencing increased vehicular traffic; that neighborhood residents indicated concern regarding increased vehicular traffic and are requesting City assistance to provide a traffic mitigation strategy; that vacating Sixth Street between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues has been requested to ensure vehicular traffic does not increase in the Avion Subdivision and adjoining neighborhoods as well; and asked if neighborhood residents should be informed the City does not support the request? Commissioner Martin stated that neighborhood residents should be informed the Commission supports traffic calming measures in City neighborhoods, which will always be personally supported. Commissioner Quillin that the best traffic calming strategy is to vacate Sixth Street between Rhodes and Brinks Avenues. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to deny proposed Ordinance No. 01-4327 and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Hogle, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes, Quillin, no. 13. QUASI-JUDICTAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4326, TO REZONE A .70 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRUITVILLE ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE FROM THE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-2 (RSF-2) AND OFFICE PARK (OP) ZONE DISTRICTS TO THE OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS (OPB) ZONE DISTRICT, AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN; SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED AT 2494, 2476 AND 2462 FRUITVILLE ROAD ; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-RE-09, APPLICANT SHANE H. SAAH, AS AGENT FOR GERALDINE SAAH, L LAURENCE SCOTT PROFFITT AND SHANA E. PROFFITT, / AS OWNERS) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-1) #2 (2073) through #3 (0444) Mayor Hogle requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the time limits for the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that the recommendation is to allow ten minutes for the Applicant's presentation and five minutes for rebuttal; that the City will have ten minutes for presentation and five minutes for rebuttal; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person; that other interested BOOK 49 Page 21626 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21627 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. persons will have five minutes to speak; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission. Mayor Hogle stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, the recommended time limits are approved. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Rezone Application No. 01-RE-09 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 is to rezone an approximately .70 parcel of property located at the southeast corner of Fruitville Road and Jefferson Avenue from the Single-Family Residential-2 (RSF-2) and the Office Park (OP) to the Office, Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District. Mayor Hogle requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Hogle, Vice Mayor Mason, and Commissioners Martin, Palmer, and Quillin stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Shane Saah, as agent for Geraldine Saah, Laurence Scott Proffitt, and Shana Proffitt, came before the Commission and stated that the request is to rezone property located at 2494 Fruitville Road and two adjacent parcels located to the west at 2476 and 2462 Fruitville Road from the RSF-2 and OP Zone Districts to the OPB Zone District; that the rezoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) and meets the standards set forth for review in the Zoning Code (1998). Commissioner Quillin asked the reason a site plan is not available? Mr. Saah stated that a site plan has not been developed at this time and is not required for a rezoning. Commissioner Quillin stated that previous requests for rezonings on Fruitville Road haye been accompanied by preliminary site plans for Commission review; and asked the information represented to the neighborhood during the April 26, 2001, neighborhood meeting? Mr. Saah stated that a rezoning for which a preliminary site plan was not submitted was previously approved for property on Fruitville Road; that 7 of the 15 allowable land uses in the OPB Zone District were proffered out as a result of the neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Palmer referred to a May 2, 2001, memorandum from the Acting Director of the Neighborhoods Department indicating the concerns of the neighborhood regarding the rezoning and stated that representations were made at the neighborhood meeting which are not included in the application presented to the Commission; that the neighborhood was told a single-story building would be constructed. Mr. Saah stated that constructing a single-story building is intended. Commissioner Palmer stated that a proffer is not made in the application indicating a single-story building which is compatible with the neighborhood would be constructed. Mr. Saah stated that assuring construction of a single-story building was a concern of some but not all residents of the neighborhood; that the concern regarding a single-story building was not enough to necessitate proffering a single-story building in the application. Commissioner Palmer stated that a representation was made to the neighborhood; that the lack of a preliminary site plan does not generate confidence a single-story building will be constructed; that a single-story building can be proffered during the presentation. Mr. Saah stated that the intention is to construct a single-story building as represented at the neighborhood meeting; that applying for the rezoning without a preliminary site plan was due to the timeframe of developing the property; that engineering design work must be redone if progress is not made on the property soon; that a single-story building with parking in the rear is intended for the Fruitville Road side of the property; that the most intense uses of the property have been proffered out. Mayor Hogle stated that a proffer for a single-story building is not being made during the presentation. BOOK 49 Page 21628 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21629 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Saah stated that the preference is to not make the proffer for a single-story building during the presentation. Commissioner Quillin stated that the corner of Jefferson Avenue and Fruitville Road is dangerous; that traffic in the neighborhood is heavy; that trees have been moved from the corner of Jefferson Avenue and Main Street due to the significant number of accidents; that the neighborhood is concerned; that the neighborhood is also concerned about the building which will be constructed by the Applicant; that a representation was made to the neighborhood for construction of a single-story building; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) was informed the building constructed may be higher than single-story; and asked if the property will be developed or if the rezoning is desired to sell the property? Mr. Saah stated that the intention is to develop the property; that an engineer and an architect reviewed the property and indicated drainage will be a problem; that constructing a single or two-story building is desired; that the final site plan will be discussed at a neighborhood meeting and reviewed by the PBLP. Commissioner Quillin stated that the neighborhood has limited input in the construction after the rezoning has been obtained; that preliminary site plans are generally offered during a rezoning application; that the City has been lenient with rezoning on Fruitville Road to foster development; that concerns are held; that a conceptual plan has not been presented. Mayor Hogle requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Karin Murphy, Senior Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Staff report provides an analysis of consistency of the rezoning request with the future land use of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the site is in the Community Office Institutional (COI) Land Use Classification; that a portion of the site is in the RSF-2 Zone District which is not an implementing district for the COI Land Use Classification; therefore, a portion of the site is a zoning enclave; that the City's Comprehensive Plan encourages privately initiated rezonings to implementing districts; that the implementing districts of the COI Land Use Classification are the OP and OPB Zone Districts; that the OP Zone District which helps eliminate multiple access points and promote unified development is preferred along Fruitville Road; that the Applicant previously indicated on the record an inability to meet the OP Zone District lot requirement on the adjacent parcel; that the request to rezone was partially to address neighborhood compatibility concerns which were limited to concerns regarding the land use; that issues related to a site plan were raised by the neighborhood; that the May 2, 2001, memorandum indicates the concerns raised by the neighborhood which are: hours of operation, noise, traitic, building height, intended use, the need for a buffer between properties, orientation of the building, and having design standards compatible with existing structures Ms. Murphy quoted Action Strategy 3.3, Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: During the review of rezoning applications, in certain instances in order to determine consistency with the future land use plan, a site plan or other relevant information may be required. Ms. Murphy stated that the issues raised in the May 2, 2001, memorandum could be addressed through the proffering of a single-story building during the presentation; that at the July 5, 2001, public hearing, the PBLP voted unanimously to find Rezone Application No. 01-RE-09 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (1998) and to recommend Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The uses of the property shall be limited to adult day care, alarm system/security operations office, data and computer services, dwelling multiple family, essential government services, office, business or professional, office or clinic, medical or dental limited to 1,500 square feet rental space, park and radio or television station 2. A consolidated plat shall be submitted prior to filing an application for development. 3. The floor-to-area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5. Ms. Murphy continued that Condition Nos. 2 and 3 were originally omitted from proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 but should be incorporated prior to second reading. BOOK 49 Page 21630 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21631 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin asked if 24-hour services will be offered on the site? Ms. Murphy stated that the land use is professional; that 24-hour services such as a convenience store will not be allowed. Commissioner Quillin stated that a concern is the high traffic volume; that multi-family dwellings are allowed; and asked the impact of multi-family dwellings on the neighborhood? Ms. Murphy stated that reducing the number of required driveways on Fruitville Road is desired; that the surrounding neighborhoods should be protected from intrusion; that potential negative impacts are difficult to discern without a site plan; that allowing drivers to make a left-hand turn from Jefferson Avenue onto Fruitville Road without the ability to make a right-hand turn onto Fruitville Road is being examined; that the lack of a site plan makes determination of possible negative impacts difficult. Commissioner Quillin stated that accidents are inevitable; and asked if the property has been the subject of code enforcement violations? Ms. Murphy stated yes; that single-family homes on. the property have received seven separate code enforcement violation citations from 1998 through 2000. Commissioner . Quillin asked the type of code enforcement violation citations issued? Ms. Murphy stated that the code enforcement violation citations included improper vehicle sales from the property, inoperable vehicles located on property, doors and windows below code entorcement specifications, trash and rubbish, junk trash and rubbish, and improper care of premises. Mayor Hogle thanked Ms. Murphy for the presentation. Mayor Hogle requested that interested persons come forward. Donn Tipton, 2556 Ringling Boulevard South (34237) came before the Commission and stated that he is an affected person; that he attended the neighborhood meeting; that constructing a two-story building was not a significant concern if the building is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that two options introduced during the neighborhood meeting were converting the existing buildings on the property into office buildings or demolishing the existing buildings and constructing a building; that he lives in the neighborhood; that traffic intrusion is already accepted as the neighborhood has several roads used as cut-through roads; that other buildings in the area do not cause significant problems; that code enforcement violations are evident on the property; that a professional building on the property would be an enhancement to the neighborhood and the City. City Attorney Taylor stated that the difference between an Affected Person and an interested person requires clarification; that filing for Affected Person status prior to a Commission meeting is required to qualify; that Mr. Tipton did not prequalify for Affected Person status and is therefore an interested person. Mayor Hogle requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Saah stated that each of the properties was purchased at separate times; that tenant problems and home problems were inherited with the purchase of each property; that code enforcement violation citations have been corrected as received; that removing unruly tenants is difficult. Commissioner Quillin asked the length of time the property has been owned? Mr. Saah stated that the property at 2494 Fruitville Road has been owned for five years; that the properties located at 2476 and 2462 Fruitville Road were purchased within the last year to year-and-a half. Commissioner Palmer stated that constructing a single-story building on the site was represented to the neighborhood. Mr. Saah stated that constructing a single-story building is intended. Commissioner Palmer asked if the single-story building will be proffered as represented to the neighborhood? BOOK 49 Page 21632 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21633 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Saah stated that construction of a single-story building will be proffered if necessary, for approval of the rezoning; that not proffering a single-story building is preferred; that the option to construct a two-story building is desired; that a site plan will be reviewed by the PBLP prior to construction. Commissioner Palmer stated that a site plan should be submitted prior to the rezoning for the neighborhood to fully understand the proposed development; that a representation was made to the neighborhood but is not being offered to the Commission; that the Commission must protect the neighborhood's interests. Mr. Saah stated that the representation made to the neighborhood for constructing a single-story building was one possible use of the propertyi that the neighborhood was informed of possible renovation of the current buildings, which are single-story, or of construction of a new building; that construction of a new building is Iikely; that a representation was made to the neighborhood based on the information available at that time. Commissioner Quillin stated that telephone calls were received in support of the Applicant's desire to clean-up the property; however, a single-story building was represented to the neighborhood; that the Commission desires a definite representation indicating a single-story building will be constructed; that the neighborhood was contacted by the Applicant for support; that support was offered by the neighborhood based on a representation which may or may not be accurate; that development along Fruitville Road is encouraged. Mr. Saah stated that the intention is to construct a single-story building. Commissioner Martin stated that a representation was given to the neighborhood to construct a single-story building; that a single-story building has not been proffered; that assuring the neighborhood a single-story building will be constructed but remaining unwilling to proffer a single-story building to the Commission is inconsistent. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission's concern is determining consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Commission can choose to deny proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 if desired. Mayor Hogle requested that the City come forward for rebuttal. Ms. Murphy stated that a rezoning amendment process is available to the Applicant if a single-story building is proffered but is determined unsuitable at a later date. Commissioner Martin asked if compatibility issues can be addressed through a proffered site plan? Ms. Murphy stated that compatibility issues can be addressed through a site plan to a certain degree; that the site plan review will allow modifications to reduce the impact on the neighborhood if necessary. Mayor Hogle requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 on first reading. Commissioner Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 is generally supported; however, compatibility with the neighborhood is a concerni that reviewing the rezoning application without a site plan is difficult. Commissioner Quillin stated that the motion is not supported; that the presentation is lacking; that a proffer of a single-story building was desired and would have garnered confidence; that confidence is not held in the rezoning application at this time; that a comfort level is not felt; that the representations made to the neighborhood and the Commission are inconsistent. Commissioner Palmer stated that the misrepresentation is a concern; that neighborhood meetings should not be held if the representations may not be accurate; that the application could be reviewed again if the neighborhood approves the rezoning with a site plan; that the rezoning application is inconsistent with the representations made to the Commission; that the motion is not supported. Mayor Hogle stated that progress is supported; that a two- or three-story building is possible in the neighborhood while BOOK 49 Page 21634 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21635 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. maintaining compatibility; however, the Commission is tasked with representing businesses and neighborhood communities; that the representations to the neighborhood and the Commission are inconsistent; that the motion is not supported. Commissioner Martin stated that the motion is not supported after hearing the Commission's discussion. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 on first reading. Motion failed (5 to 0): Martin, no; Mason, no; Palmer, no; Quillin, no; Hogle, no. Mayor Hogle recessed the meeting at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. City Attorney Taylor stated that the result of the previous motion to pass Ordinance No. 01-4326 is unclear; that during the recess, the Applicant communicated a proffer will be made to limit construction to a single-story building; that legally, the public hearing can be reopened if desired; that requiring the Applicant to enter the rezoning process again will waste time, effort, and funds; that the public hearing could be reopened, the Applicant allowed to proffer the single-story building, and a new motion determined. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the motion to pass Ordinance No. 01-4326 on first reading failed; that receiving the proffer could result in a new motion. Mayor Hogle reopened the public hearing and requested * the Applicant to come forward. Mr. Saah stated that the ability to revise the application at a later date after proffering a single-story building was unknown prior to the previous indication of Staff; that a single-story building is proffered. Commissioner Palmer referred to the May 2, 2001, memorandum indicating the following reassurances presented to the neighborhood: 1. the building/puldings will be single story; 2. the building/buildings will be oriented towards the street; 3. the intended use is professional offices/low impact; 4. the ullding/pulldings will be compatible with exiting structures. Commissioner Palmer asked if the reassurances previously provided to the neighborhood will be proffered? Mr. Saah stated that making a proffer concerning compatibility with existing structures will be difficult; that the existing surrounding structures are single-family homes; that the other reassurances are proffered. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that compatibility with existing structures pertains to compatibility of design standards rather than with existing structures. Mr. Saah stated that a community office building will be compatible with the neighborhood. Mayor Hogle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Martin asked if Staff foresees any difficulties? Ms. Murphy stated that proffering compatibility with adjacent structures may be difficult; that the design standards must be considered compatible. Commissioner Palmer asked if the other concerns of the neighborhood are addressed by the proffers? Ms. Murphy stated yes. Commissioner Martin stated that discussions can be held if other neighborhood concerns are determined at a later date. Ms. Murphy stated that the application will be processed administratively through the Development Review Committee (DRC) if the building is less than 5,000 square feet; that the PBLP will review the application and the Planning Department will prepare a Staff analysis to assist the neighborhood and the Applicant if the building is larger than 5,000 square feet. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proffer along with the PBLP's recommendations of requiring a consolidation plat and limiting the FAR to 0.50 will be incorporated into proposed Ordinance No. 01-4326 prior to second reading. BOOK 49 Page 21636 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21637 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Ms. Murphy stated that the FAR will be limited to 0.35; that the implementing districts cannot exceed the 0.35 FAR. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 01-4326 on first reading including the proffer of a single-story building oriented towards Fruitville Road with a use as professional/low impact office space, a 0.35 floor area ratio, and a requirement for a consolidation plat. Commissioner Palmer . stated that the motion includes the proffers addressing the concerns indicated in the May 2, 2001, memorandum. Commissioner Quillin stated yes. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes Martin, yes. 14. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (0445) through (0710) The following people came before the Commission: Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive, (34237), stated that the Human Resources Department scheduled presentations with City employees to explain the new Personnel Rules and Regulations and solicit comments after his last. appearance before the Commission; that the phrase 'permanent employee" has been replaced with the phrase with "regular employee" in the new Personnel Rules and Regulations; that the phrase "permanent employee" is utilized in the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter); that the new Personnel Rules and Regulations will be inconsistent with the City Charter; that City employees are considered either civil servants or general employees while working for the same municipality; that all employees should be treated fairlyi that a Public Works employee cleans the beaches of dead fish after a red tide and repairs and Ccleans sewer problems after major storms; that such an employee is serving the municipality and should be considered a civil servant rather than a general employee; that making a distinction between civil servants and general employees has a significant impact on the manner in which classified employees are treated. Dick Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that each Commissioner should imagine being a strong mayor and accomplishing goals; that building a skateboard park is an important accomplishment; that a Commissioner who has contemplated becoming a strong Mayor should begin by being a strong Commissioner; that the construction of a skateboard park is overdue; that excess soil from any construction in Payne Park should be utilized to assist in the construction of the skateboard park if possible. Mayor Hogle stated that the County has allocated $100,000 towards the construction of a skateboard park in Payne Park; that the total amount of funding is currently $205,000. John Flaherty, 500 Royal Road (34228), distributed a card concerning the possibility of a special election for a strong mayor and stated that the strong mayor concept is not supported; that equal voting between members of a body of elected officials is desired; that each vote should be equal; that the current Commission is cordial; that the City is well managed; that not every vote is unanimous which indicates the Commission acknowledges all sides of an issue; that none of the potential candidates for the City Manager position are from the City; that the University of South Florida has just graduated nine Fulbright US Graduate Student Program Scholars who are intelligent and altruistic; that an established local man or woman should be considered for the City Manager position. 15. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: PETITION TO AMEND THE SARASOTA CITY CHARTER TO SPECIFY THE DIRECT ELECTION OF A MAYOR BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY FOR A TERM OF FOUR (4) YEARS - PRESENTATION GIVEN; APPROVED HOLDING A REFERENDUM FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA CHARTER (1996) (CITY CHARTER) AMENDMENT TO HAVE AN ELECTED STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT ON MARCH 12, 2002, AND AN ELECTION FOR A STRONG MAYOR ON MARCH 11, 2003, IF THE CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT PREVAILS (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (0727) through (3796) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the presenters will have five minutes for the presentation; that persons wishing to speak will have three minutes to speak. Robert Richardson, President, Linda Holland, and John Schaub, Coalition for Sarasota's Future, came before the Commission; presented a petition for an elected strong mayor submitted by BOOK 49 Page 21638 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21639 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. the Coalition for Sarasota's Future (petition) signed by at least 3,054 City voters; and stated that the petition is for an amendment to the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) to provide for an elected strong mayor form of government; that electing a strong mayor is straightforward democratic government; that the Coalition for Sarasota's Future has abided by the procedures set forth in the City Charter and requests the Commission consent to placing the City Charter amendment on a referendum ballot on November 6, 2001, as 10 percent of registered voters of the City desire; that the Coalition for Sarasota's Euture requests the Commission support the democratic process, follow the will of the citizens, and allow the citizens to vote for an elected strong mayor; that modifying the task of the Charter Review Committee to exclude further consideration of the City's form of government is also requested; that the citizens should be allowed to vote on November 6, 2001, for an elected strong mayor; that time, effort, and significant funds have been contributed to the petition process for the City Charter amendment. The following people came before the Commission: John Browning, 1376 Harbor Drive, 34239, Charles Hegener, 637 40th Street (34234), and Mary Anne Servian, 326 Arthur Drive (34234). Mr. Browning submitted and read for the record a prepared statement indicating that he is curious and concerned about the petition;. that the current form of government is neither broken nor feared by the citizens; that City business and development leaders fear the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) will impede personal development agendas and fear the Commission is too accessible to the citizens - and neighborhood groupsi that the City is being asked to fund $50,000 for a Special Election in a non-election year for unclear reasons; that the signers of the petition have been deceived; that the petition is not to simply hold an election to determine if a strong mayor is desired but will rather drastically alter the City Charter; that the proposed strong mayor will have excessive veto powers, significant control over the City, and will dictate Commission meetings; that the elected representative Commissioners will be relegated to a role of review and concurrencei that the election of a strong mayor is a packward step in the democratic orocessi that an autocratic form of government is not desired; that a strong mayor facilitates patronage and cronyism as a strong mayor will. have complete control over City employment standards, duties, and firings, including the City Manager and the Sarasota Police Departmenti, that a tax increase will be necessitated to fund a more expensive strong mayor form of government; that the City retracted from a similar strong mayor form of government over 50 years ago; that the Charter Review Committee requires more time to determine the most democratic City Charter. Mr. Hegener submitted and read for the record a prepared statement indicating that underestimating the seriousness of the current City Charter amendments is not desired; that the City is in a state of constitutional crisis; that the proposed strong mayor form of government could affect the governance and quality of life in the City for years; that the mission of the Coalition for Sarasota's Future indicates the desire for better leadership in an elected strong mayor; that detractors from the strong mayor form of government indicate unprecedented power would be held by the office of a strong mayor; that City leaders continually argue over the development of condominiums, bridges, bus stations, libraries, waterfront hotels, roundabouts, etc.; that a strong mayor could effectively prohibit important constituencies, even majorities, from participating in these same arguments which is not desired; that a full and open democratic process must be available for officials to execute policies; that testimony from Dr. George Hanbury, Professor, Nova Southeastern University and a former City Manager, during the Charter Review Committee proceedings indicated a concentration of political and administrative power such as in an elected strong mayor form of government will reduce the democratic process and jeopardize the professionalism and accountability of the Administration; that membership is held in a newly formed group called the Opposition to a Power-Based Mayor. Mr. Hegener stated that the City currently has a democratic process for reviewing the City Charter through the Charter Review Committee; that the Charter Review Committee provides an open. forum which includes citizen input and expert witness testimony to arrive at a consensus of recommendations; that adapting the City Charter through a direct referendum, as proposed by the Coalition for Sarasota's Future, is a device for legislative change which is a last resort applied when the normal processes of representative democracy have broken down; that democratically-driven changes are currently underway; that the current Commission is considered by many citizens as the best qualified sitting Commission in years; that a new City BOOK 49 Page 21640 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21641 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Manager is being selected; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020, the City of Sarasota SmartCode, Draft, January 2001 (SmartCode), and other Citywide plans are currently being enacted; that many changes are occurring; that determining which changes are helpful and which changes are harmful will be difficult; that the commotion and confusion surrounding an elected strong mayor will only add to the situation; that democracy is alive and well in the City; that the CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE should be allowed to complete the task assigned to review the City Charter without further discussion of the form of government; that the Commission has the discretion to extend the Charter Review Committee schedule to allow the citizens greater opportunity to become fully aware of the context, ramifications, and alternatives of an elected strong mayor; that the question of an elected strong mayor should not be put before the voters prior to November 2002 sO the citizens of the City can make a fully knowledgeable decision. Ms. Servian submitted and read for the record a prepared statement indicating that the petition presented by the Coalition For Sarasota's Future is not supported; that she is a member of the Charter Review Committee; that the Charter Review Committee was tasked with reviewing the form of government as well as other possible changes to the City Charter; that the Charter Review Committee is composed of ten members selected by the Commission; that two of the ten members were active members of the Coalition for Sarasota's Future at the time the Charter Review Committee began the review; that one of the two members has actively resigned from the Coalition for Sarasota's Future yet has remained personally committed to the goal of the Coalition for Sarasota's Future; that the Charter Review Committee rejected the Coalition for Sarasota's Future City Charter amendment proposal by a vote of 7 to 1 during the July 12, 2001, Charter Review Committee meeting; that the Charter Review Committee then decided by majority consensus to explore a hybrid form of an elected mayor who would provide leadership and be accountable to the public yet not carry the extraordinary and excessive powers assigned to the strong mayor in the petition; that the petition should not have been considered by the Charter Review Committee any longer; however, the petition has become the outline for a new City Charter; that the Charter Review Committee was not tasked with developing a new City Charter; that a member. of the Charter Review Committee still involved with the Coalition for Sarasota's Future has indicated a' consensus for a hybrid form of government is not supported; that his support and commitment are given to the petition; that a personal agenda is being advanced, rather than accomplishing the assigned task; that a fair and democratic review of the City Charter is impossible in the remaining timeframe; that the Charter Review Committee has become a free televised forum for the Coalition for Sarasota's Future to promote the petition; that the Charter Review Committee requires greater time to adequately review and frame a reasonable alternative to the petition. Charles Senf, 2316 Pelican Drive (34237), stated that the petition is 20 pages long; that the entire City Charter amendment was not presented to signers of the petition; that signers of the petition were not able to make an informed decision; that time to absorb and reflect regarding the significant issues raised by the petition is necessary; that signing the petition was not a clear statement of intent; that a canvasser visited a neighbor to solicit a signature and misinformed the neighbor as to the intent of the petition; that truly representative government can be messy; that a movement to reverse the progress of the City's government is being backed by the City's wealthy and influential leaders; that time is required to absorb and understand the petition for citizens to make an intelligent and informed decision. Dick Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that neither a strong mayor nor an elected mayor is supported; that the current system works well; that the citizens feel the Commission is accessible. Antony Stefan, 2325 Admiral Way (34231), representing the Sarasota County Green Party (Green Party), stated that the Green Party is opposed to the petition for a strong mayor; that an interest in promoting decentralization of power and grass roots democracy compels the Green Party to oppose the petition for a strong mayori that the Green Party has volunteers waiting to canvass the City, hold public forums and debates, issue press releases, and conduct street theater if necessary to defeat the petition. John Flaherty, 500 Royal Road, Longboat Key (34228), stated that commercial real estate interests support the proposal for a strong mayor; that the City is in the business of selling dream vacations, retirement, and tranquility; that the City pays a $350 membership fee for the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce (Chamber of Commerce); that the Chamber of Commerce is interested in changing the form of government in the City; that BOOK 49 Page 21642 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21643 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. the Chamber of Commerce receives $600,000 in County Occupational tax funds; that the Chamber of Commerce endorses incumbent politicians for elected office and expended $30,000 illegally to assure a certain Slate of incumbents was elected. Commissioner Palmer stated that the topic for discussion is the petition for a strong mayor rather than the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Flaherty stated that the County generates significant revenue for the Chamber of Commerce; that the City does not generate revenue for the Chamber of Commerce; that the Chamber of Commerce has paid employees who solicited signatures for the petition; that the Chamber of Commerce has no right to endorse a form of government. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission; referred to an August 1, 2001, memorandum to the Commission addressing certain questions regarding the petition; and stated that the petition has been certified by the Supervisor of Elections; that the Commission has a legal obligation to hold a referendum; that the date the referendum is held is subject to the discretion of the Commission; that the referendum must be held no later than November 2002; that an ordinance must be passed by the Commission to place the proposed City Charter amendment including a summary on the referendum ballot; that the summary of the petition complies with City Charter regulations; that the City Charter amendment is cumbersome as the City Charter amendment affects many aspects of the City Charter; however, the Supervisor of Elections indicated the petition is legal and valid if the complete proposed City Charter amendment was attached to the petition; that the date of the referendum and the subsequent date of an election if the referendum prevails are the requested determinations of the Commission; that the summary for the referendum ballot will be brought back to the Commission in the form of an ordinance to hold the referendum. City Attorney Taylor stated that the advertising requirements of the ordinance require the summary for the referendum be brought back to the Commission by the September 4, 2001, Regular Commission meeting if the referendum is held on November 6, 2001. Attorney Fournier stated that the summary for the ballot must be submitted to the Supervisor of Elections by September 14, 2001, if the referendum is scheduled for November 6, 2001. Commissioner Quillin asked if a Special Commission meeting will be required to adopt the ordinance on second reading sO the ballot question can be submitted to the Supervisor of Elections within the given timeframe? Attorney Fournier stated yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Charter Review Committee is attempting to develop a hybrid form of government; that problems will occur if opposing questions are placed on the same referendum ballot. Attorney Fournier stated that conflicting questions on the referendum ballot such as a proposal for an elected mayor with little or no executive authority and a proposal for a strong elected mayor should not be placed on the ballot simultaneously; that placing conflicting referendum questions on the same ballot is not illegal; however, placing conflicting referendum questions on the same ballot is not suggested; that the City Charter requires the ballot format include a substantive summary of the City Charter amendment; that voters will be requested to indicate support for or opposition to the City Charter amendment; that a referendum ballot with separate but competing and irreconcilable questions on the same subject has the potential of being very confusing to the voters; that a vote opposing both amendments would be permissible; that a vote supporting both amendments would not be permissible; that the applicable Florida Statute and City Charter regulations require a majority vote of the qualified electors of the City prior to the effective date of a City Charter amendment; that a runoff election is probable; that questions concerning City Charter amendments for a form of government, if more than one, should be on separate ballots. Commissloner Martin asked who prepares the summary? Attorney Fournier stated that the City Attorney's Office prepares the text of the ordinance which includes the proposed summary for the referendum ballot; that the City Charter requires the ballot provide a clear and concise statement describing the substance of the proposed City Charter amendment; that the applicable Florida Statute indicates the substance of the City Charter amendment must be printed on the referendum ballot in clear and unambiguous language; that the summary presented in the petition does not suffice; that the summary on BOOK 49 Page 21644 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21645 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. the ballot must include all material facts necessary to ensure the summa: ry is not misleading; that. the failure of the petition summary to mention the strong mayor would have executive and administrative authority is a material fact important to understanding the petition. Commissioner Martin stated that the summary would include the ability of the strong mayor to veto and set the agenda. Attorney Fournier stated that the Florida Statutes limit the summa: ry on the referendum ballot to a 15-word title and a 75- word summary. Commissioner Martin stated that the petition is confusing; that the referendum ballot should be clear. Attorney Fournier stated that the ordinance will provide the summary for submission to the Supervisor of Elections for the referendum on the ballot. Commissioner Quillin asked for a legal opinion concerning the summa: ry of the City Charter amendment presented on the petition? Attorney Fournier stated that the summary on the petition could not be used as the summary on the ballot; that material facts are omitted. Commissioner Quillin stated that the summary on the petition indicates a Special Election will be held on November 6, 2001. Attorney Fournier stated that the date of the Special Election indicated in the petition is a request. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Florida Statutes require indicating a date on the petition; that many petition drives have been personally worked on. Attorney Fournier stated that all the Florida Statutes are not applicable to a City Charter amendment. Commissioner Quillin stated that County petition drives were subject to Florida Statutes; that the summary on the petition is deceptive; that a constituent approached her and indicated the petition had been signed; that the constituent was misinformed and attempted to retract agreement to the petition; that many constituents were deceived; that the true intent of the Coalition for Sarasota's Euture is not known; that,a young." boy, was witnessed soliciting signatures for the petition without carrying supporting documentation at the Farmers' Market; and asked the legal recommendation concerning the petition? Attorney Fournier stated that the summary and title included on the petition complies with the City Charter and Florida Statutes as the City Charter and the Florida Statutes do not address the summary and title of a petition for a municipal charter amendment; that the text of the proposed City Charter amendment was appended to the petition; that the text of the proposed amendment is long; however, signers of the petition were given the opportunity to read the proposed City Charter amendment. Commissioner Quillin stated that no certification the solicitors abided by the regulation to append the entire proposed amendment was received; that telephone calls have been received indicating the proposed amendment was not available for reading. Attorney Fournier stated that suggestions will be made to the Charter Review Committee concerning methods to assure petition compliance with the City Charter regulations and the Florida Statutes; that the current petition complies with the City Charter and the Florida Statutes. Commissioner Quillin asked if the petition complies with all City Charter and Florida Statute regulations? Attorney Fournier stated yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that challenging the right of the Coalition for Sarasota's Future to submit the petition and place the City Charter amendment on the referendum ballot is very serious; that petition processes may include minor irregularities; that the City Attorney's Office cannot recommend denying the petition as the petition is valid; and asked if the right of the Coalition for Sarasota's Future to place the City Charter amendment on the referendum ballot is being challenged? Attorney Fournier stated that receipt of the Coalition for Sarasota's Future petition cannot be denied as the petition is valid. Commissioner Quillin stated that as an elected official, she has the right to ensure the public correctly understands the information; that the community is concerned; that the BOOK 49 Page 21646 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21647 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Commission meeting is the only public forum to disseminate information to the public. Commissioner Palmer stated that certification of the petition by the Supervisor of Elections indicates the petition signatures have been verified; that agreeing or disagreeing with the purpose of the petition is moot; that the determination of the legitimacy of the petition is not the Commission's responsibility; that the Commission is tasked with determining an election date rather than the legitimacy of the petition. Mayor Hogle stated that extending the timeframe for determining the outcome of the petition presented by the Coalition for Sarasota's Future will create divisiveness among the citizens and employees of the City and is not desired; that an expedient resolution is desired. Commissioner Martin stated that the City Charter amendment for the election of a strong mayor should be placed as a referendum on the ballot in March 2002. Commissioner Quillin asked the reason March 2002 is suggested rather than November 2001? Commissioner Martin stated that City issues are generally placed on a March ballot as the majority of the residents are in the City; that March 2002 allows all stakeholders a lengthy timeframe to educate voters. On motion of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to place a referendum concerning a City Charter amendment for an elected strong mayor form of government on the ballot in March 2002 and hold an election for a strong mayor in March 2003 if the referendum prevails in March 2002. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Mayor Hogle who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to place a referendum concerning a City Charter amendment for an elected strong mayor form of government on the ballot on November 6, 2001. Commissioner Palmer stated that many issues are involved in the discussion of a new form of City Government; that a cloud hangs over the City for as long as the petition circulates with no resolution; that the Commission is in the process of hiring a new City Manager and has great expectations for the new City Manager; that significant responsibility will be held by the new City Manager in executing commitments and handling various jobs and responsibilities concerning reorganization of the City departments; that an elected strong mayor is not supported; that the Coalition for Sarasota's Future has adhered to the required regulations and has earned the right to a referendum; that elongating the time prior to the referendum will only create problems for the City and the Commission; that the Commission has asked for trust and support from the City for many issues recently; that the Commission's responsibility is to move forward; that the Commission is responsible for allowing a straight for-or-against vote; that the issue must be resolved. On motion of Commissioner Martin, it was moved 'to amend the motion to place a referendum concerning a City Charter amendment for an elected strong mayor form of government on the ballot from a date of November 6, 2001, to March 2002. Motion to amend died for lack of a second. Commissioner Palmer stated that the petition indicates the date of the election. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct; however, the Commission has the authority to schedule the date for a vote on the referendum and the date for the election of a mayor if the City Charter amendment for a strong mayor form of government prevails; and referred to Question 15 of the August 1, 2001, memorandum, the response to which should be revised to add the word "substantive" as Eollows: 15. Is the City Commission authorized to alter the text of the proposed amendment in any way before placing the measure on the ballot at referendum? No. - The entire substantive text of the amendment must be as proposed by its sponsor, the Coalition For Sarasota's Future. Attorney Eournier continued that the ability to schedule the date of the referendum allows for the corollary ability to schedule the date of an election for a mayor if the referendum passes. Mayor Hogle stated that the City will be increasingly ill-run the longer the delay in voting on the referendum; that the new City Manager must have the opportunity to perform the job from BOOK 49 Page 21648 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21649 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. the beginning without being subject to a challenge of authority; that postponing the referendum is a disservice to the City; that if the petition for an elected strong mayor fails, the petition should fail fairlyi that a prompt decision is desired. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the referendum is inevitable; that the date of the referendum is being discussed. Commissioner Quillin stated that the motion is not supported; that the timeframe is too short; that too many citizens are not in town; that the City does not have the funding to distribute information concerning the implications of a strong mayor; that attaching a copy of the proposed City Charter amendment to an absentee ballot is not required; that the full text of the proposed City Charter amendment is advertised in the newspaperi however, citizens voting by absentee ballot will not receive the full text of the proposed City Charter amendment; that all citizens who will be voting should have the opportunity to review the proposed City Charter amendment; that November 6, 2001, is an inappropriate date for an election; that the Coalition for Sarasota's Future does not wish the citizens to realize the ramifications of a strong mayor; that the petition is ambiguous and misleading; that the citizens of the City will be protected; that funds were not allocated in the budget for a Special Election; that the Sarasota County School Board (School Board) has been pressured by a community group to hold the millage vote on November 6, 2001; that the School Board desires to hold the millage vote in March 2002 which is an appropriate time; that the community is very smart; that the responsibility of the Commission is to hold the referendum no later than November 2002; that almost $60,000 in funding will be required for a Special Election at a non-election time; that an election should be held in March 2002; that she has an obligation to represent the community and has sworn to uphold the City Charter. On motion of Mayor Hogle, it was moved to call the question. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Quillin stated that other Commissioners had ample time to discuss; that she has a right to advocate for her constituents. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the entire Commission was elected to represent the citizens of the City; that November 6, 2001, is too soon to hold the referendum; that sufficient time should be available to prepare and assist the community to make an informed, intelligent decision. Commissioner Martin stated that the passion of the parties involved is respected; that November 2001 is too soon; that much confusion exists; that allowing sufficient time to make an informed decision is the responsibility of the Commission; that the cost of funding the Special Election, the potential cost of funding a run-off election, and the potential cost of a mayoral election are concerns; that the motion on the table is incomplete; that a date for the election of a strong mayor is necessary if the referendum prevails. Commissioner Quillin asked if a motion can be made to set the referendum date no later than November 2002 and determine the referendum date at a later time as long as the referendum can be advertised 90 days in advance? Attorney Fournier stated that the ordinance to hold the referendum cannot be properly advertised if the motion is made to set the referendum no later than November 2002; that both the referendum date and the election date must be incorporated in the ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to amend the motion to include the date of the election of a strong mayor in March 2003 if the reterendum prevails. Motion died for lack of a second. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to place a referendum concerning a City Charter amendment for an elected strong mayor form of government on the ballot on November 6, 2001. Vice Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed (3 to 2): Hogle, yes; Mason, no; Martin, no; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no. Commissioner Martin stated that the Coalition for Sarasota's Future is congratulated for a successful petition; that the opportunity to place proposed City Charter amendments on a ballot for a vote of the citizens is supported; however, the confusion surrounding the petition for an elected strong mayor is a concern. Vice Mayor Mason passed the gavel back to Mayor Hogle. BOOK 49 Page 21650 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21651 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to hold a referendum concerning a City Charter amendment for an elected strong mayor form of government in March 2002 and the election for the strong mayor in March 2003 if the referendum prevails. Commissioner Quillin stated that significant taxpayer funds will be required if the School Board determines to hold the millage. vote in March 2002; that the taxpayers' money will be wasted if the City decides to hold an election for a referendum at a time no election is otherwise scheduled. Commissioner Martin stated that no decision is perfect; that the desire is to determine the best decision possible; that March is the month in which elections are generally held as the majority of residents are in the City; that sufficient time will be allowed for citizens to make an intelligent, informed decision. Commissioner Palmer stated that the School Board does not desire to place the referendum concerning the millage vote on the same ballot as the form of City government; that both issues are controversial; that a date should be determined for the referendum and the potential election of a strong mayor; that compromise is a must; that the other Commissioners are personally respected; that balancing concerns is difficult; that the motion, though not of personal preference, will be supported to resolve the issue. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to hold a referendum concerning a City Charter amendment for an elected strong mayor form of government in March 2002 and thé election for the strong mayor in March 2003 if the referendum prevails. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. Commissioner Palmer asked the specific dates in March 2002 and 2003 on which the referendums will be held? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the referendum concerning the petition will be on the ballot on March 12, 2002, and the subsequent election for a strong mayor if the petition prevails will be held on March 11, 2003. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS : DISCUSSION RE : CHARTER REVIEW AD HOC COMMITTEE (CRC) - APPROVED FOR THE CRC TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE CITY OF SARASOTA CHARTER (1996) DURING THE REMAINING TWO MEETINGS WHILE NOT CONSIDERING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT OVERBURDENING STAFF (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) #4 (0080) through (1102) Commissioner Quillin stated that comments by a member of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) made earlier in the meeting clearly indicate problems concerning the CRC; that the CRC has not been reviewing the existing City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) as tasked; that rather, the CRC has been forced to continually discuss the petition for an elected strong mayor submitted by the Coalition for Sarasota's Future (Coalition's petition) and a charter created. by the Coalition; that members of the Coalition sit on the CRC and have forced the Coalition's agenda; that the CRC has only two meetings left; that she spoke at the last CRC meeting às concerns are held; that the City Charter must be strengthened; that a proper review of the City Charter is not being conducted; that the charge to the CRC should be reaffirmed to clarify the purpose of the CRC to review the City Charter for warranted changes including the form of government, election procedures, procedures for City Charter amendment proposals, and other such items as the CRC deems appropriate for review and recommendation; that the CRC should report back to the Commission as scheduled; that recommendations have been made to the CRC concerning the form of government; that the timeframe within which the CRC must work can be extended; that many items of the City Charter should be reviewed; that the remaining time is insufficient to review the City Charter properly; that City Charter amendments not concerning the form of government should be placed as a referendum on the March 12, 2002, ballot; that the City Charter must be strengthened. if the petition for an elected strong mayor fails; that the CRC's purpose is to review the City Charter. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Manager requested the City Attorney offer the City Manager's input during his absence; that the City Manager is concerned the total focus of the CRC has been to develop a hybrid form of government including an elected mayor who has some power; that the City Manager is concerned the CRC is developing the worst possible scenario; that insufficient time remains to provide appropriate input to properly review the. City Charter; that the CRC is faced with many controversial issues; that the CRC should be suspended while the Commission redirects the CRC; that the CRC should be allowed to start anew rather than attempt to develop final BOOK 49 Page 21652 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21653 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. recommendations concerning the City Charter in the short remaining time; that appropriate support cannot be provided to the CRC due to the time constraints; that the many legal questions being asked by the CRC relate to the form of government; that the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk have insufficient time to adequately support the CRC's requests; that the CRC should be suspended and re-implemented at a more appropriate date at such time as adequate information can be provided. Commissioner Quillin stated that the CRC voted not to accept the Coalition's petition; that one CRC member will not participate in the majority consensus with the other members which is a violation of the oath taken to uphold the City Charter; that the CRC member should be replaced if refusing to abide by the oath taken; that the CRC should be comprised of members with neutral politics and who can develop reasonable suggestions rather than force personal agendas; that the CRC should report recommendations at the September 4, 2001, Joint Workshop with the Commission and the CRC as scheduled; that the CRC can indicate at that time if more time is required to adequately review the City Charter; that a hybrid form of government is not desired; that the CRC was tasked with reviewing the City Charter; that the review time can be extended after the September 4, 2001, Joint Workshop with the Commission and the CRC; that the current CRC members must determine if serving on the CRC is personally appropriate. Vice Mayor Mason stated that suspending the CRC is supported; that the CRC members have committed time and effort; that the CRC has strayed from the original task; that the Commission should redirect the CRC. Commissioner Palmer stated that the CRC should not discuss the form of government during the remaining two meetings; that the Coalition's petition has been set for a referendum on the March 12, 2002, ballot; that the City Attorney's Office indicated two questions concerning the form of government on the same March 12, 2002, ballot is not desired and would be confusing; that other City Charter amendments could be included as referenda on the March 12, 2002, ballot; that the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk have significant responsibility regarding the CRC, possible referenda, choosing a new City Manager, and general operations; that the CRC should refrain from discussing the form of government any further. Commissioner Martin stated that the CRC has conducted valuable work; that the CRC's effort is appreciated; that the CRC's focus on the form of government is a concern; that the CRC should refrain from discussing the form of government any further; that other aspects of the City Charter should be reviewed; that the timeframe within which the CRC is to review the City Charter should be extended; that the CRC's task should be clarified. Commissioner Quillin stated that the CRC can develop recommendations for City Charter amendments during the two remaining meetings; that the CRC should refrain from discussing the form of government any further; that a new CRC can be established regardless of whether the current CRC is suspended or disbanded; that the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk have provided significant support and assistance to the CRC. The following people came before the Commission: Dick Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that the Commission has given the City every reason to respect the current form of government; that previous discussions have been informational and exciting; that he is proud of the Commission. John Flaherty, 500 Royal Road, Longboat Key (34228), stated that Mr. Sheldon's comments are supported; that the County has generated $600,000 for the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce (Chamber of Commerce) to perform marketing services; that the CRC should consider the fact the City holds elections in March; that resident occupancy is highest in March; however, the rest of America holds elections in November; that buildings and recreational facilities are being named for living public officials. Mayor Hogle stated that the current subject should be addressed. Mr. Flaherty stated that a proposal was presented to the CRC but was dismissed; that refraining from naming buildings and recreational facilities for living public officials should be placed on the March 12, 2002, ballot as a referendum. Mayor Hogle stated that naming buildings and public facilities for living public officials is not being discussed and is not being reviewed by the CRC. BOOK 49 Page 21654 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21655 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Flaherty stated that refraining from naming buildings and recreational facilities for living public officials was personally presented to the CRC for review and inclusion on the ballot as a referendum; that the current CRC is operating without a scope of purpose; that the Commission should place a referendum concerning the naming of buildings and recreational areas for living public officials on the March 12, 2002, ballot. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to allow the CRC to continue the review of the City Charter during the remaining two meetings while refraining from consideration of the form of government and without overburdening Staff. Commissioner Martin stated that the CRC's reliance on Charter Officials and Staff for support is a concern; that the support offered the CRC should be reviewed; that changes recommended by the CRC may have repercussions; that the CRC should proceed at a measured pace. City Attorney Taylor stated that the CRC initially met for two-hour periods; that the CRC has indicated an intent to extend the time period for the meetings until the review is complete; that a two-hour period is sufficient. Commissioner Palmer stated that the CRC was led to believe the timeframe was pre-determined and could not be changed; that the CRC meetings were extended to accommodate the timeframe; that additional time will be granted for proper review; that the CRC identified issues other than the form of government which should be discussed during the September 4, 2001, Joint Workshop meeting with the Commission and the CRC. Commissioner Quillin stated that the CRC strayed from the task assigned; that too much emphasis was placed on the form of government; that the City Charter has not been reviewed; that a charter developed by the Coalition has been reviewed; that the CRC should narrow the focus of the remaining CRC meetings; that the CRC can indicate if a proper review has been completed during the September 4, 2001, Joint Workshop; that the other items which the CRC should review and on which the CRC should provide recommendations can be discussed during the September 4, 2001, Joint Workshop. Vice Mayor Mason stated that limiting the time the CRC meets due to the pressure placed on support staff has been discussed; that extending the time for the CRC to review the City Charter extends the pressure placed on Staff; that limiting the meeting length to two hours allows for Staff and the CRC to work within defined time parameters. Commissioner Quillin stated that the discussion of some of the previous CRC meetings was narrowly focused on the Coalition's petition rather than the City Charter; that the timeframe could be extended past the CRC's original deadline allowing for a thorough review of the City Charter; that limiting the CRC meetings to two hours provides sufficient time to : properly review the City Charter. Mayor Hogle stated that the City Attorney's recommendation to suspend the CRC is supported. Commissioner Martin stated that limiting the remaining CRC meetings to two hours is supported; that the City Attorney and City Auditor and Clerk are thanked for their efforts. Commissioner Palmer stated that the remaining two CRC meetings should be used to determine items in the City Charter which should be reviewed and amended; that the City Attorney and City Auditor and Clerk are overburdened and do not need greater responsibility at this time. On motion of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to call the question. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk proposed items to the CRC for review; that the CRC was tasked with addressing the proposals of the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk; that the CRC should provide a review of significant issues concerning the City Charter during the September 4, 2001, Joint Workshop. Commissioner Palmer stated that the CRC has identified items for recommendation to the Commission. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to allow the CRC to continue the review of the City Charter during the remaining two meetings while refraining from consideration of the form of government and without overburdening Staff. Motion carried (3 to 2): Hogle, no; Mason, no; Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. BOOK 49 Page 21656 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21657 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to continue the August 6, 2001, Regular Commission meeting to complete the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. The Commission recessed at 11:27 p.m. and reconvened at 11:30 p.m. Mayor Hogle stated. that the presenters for New Business Item No. VII-2 concerning the Neighborhood Grant Program have waited patiently in the audience for 5.5 hours; that New Business Item No. VII-2 concerning the Neighborhood Grant Program is the second-to-last Agenda item; and asked if New Business Item No. VII-2 concerning the Neighborhood Grant Program could be moved up on the Agenda and presented next? Deputy City: Manager Schneider stated that consultants from Project Development International (PDI) have also waited in the audience for 5.5 hours to present Unfinished Business Item No. VI-4 concerning an owner's representative for the Federal Building; that the PDI consultants are scheduled to present prior to New Business Item No. VII-2 concerning the Neighborhood Grant Program. Mayor Hogle stated that hearing otherwise, the meeting should proceed in the order on the Agenda. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : FIGG ENGINEERS, INC. DESIGN FOR THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) #4 (1103) through (1476) Commissioner Palmer stated that at the July 16, 2001, Commission Workshop PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. (PCL) indicated that the proposed John Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement (replacement bridge) will mirror the world-class bridge determined during the Design Charette process (charette); that Figg Bridge Engineers, Inc. (Figg) can review the PCL designed bridge for consistency with the design standards set forth during the charette if desired. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and referred to an August 1, 2001, memorandum which included a proposal for the replacement bridge review by Figg; and stated that the Florida Department 'of Transportation (FDOT) issued Clear instructions to PCL for the replacement bridge construction; that PCL indicated the replacement bridge constructed will mirror the bridge designed during the charette as instructed by EDOT; that PCL did not offer a detailed representation of the replacement bridge; that Figg could offer a stronger assurance to the Commission the replacement bridge will be built according to the design charette; that Figg will review PCL's drawings and submit a report of the review findings for. a $9,600 fee. Mayor Hogle stated that the results of the charette design and the construction contract between FDOT and PCL for the replacement bridge compare as follows: Charette Design: Classic Contemporary design with long spans - 300 feet, variable depth superstructure - 9 feet to 16 feet and 6 inches, single box, smooth underside, single elliptical flared piers, submerged foundations FDOT Construction Contract: 300 foot spans with a minimum of 184 foot span ends, variable depth superstructure, single box with smooth underside, single flared elliptical oval-shaped columns, submerged footings Mayor Hogle stated that the charette design and the FDOT construction contract are almost the same; that PCL will be prepared to begin casting the replacement bridge in September 2001; that foundation construction will begin in early November 2001; that requesting Figg to review and assure the replacement bridge is being built according to charette standards is moot considering the assurances of PCL and the approaching construction date; that $9,600 would be wasted by hiring Figg as a consultant. Commissioner Quillin stated that spending $9,600 for a consultant report is not desired; that FDOT would not acknowledge inconsistencies in building the replacement bridge as the contract has been awarded and signed and the replacement bridge is in the beginning construction phases; that the Figg report would not be submitted until after construction of the replacement bridge had begun. Commissioner Martin stated that construction of the charette-designed replacement bridge is desired; that PCL has constructed numerous bridges designed by Figg; that FDOT and PCL assured the Commission the replacement bridge will be BOOK 49 Page 21658 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21659 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. constructed according to the charette design; that further delays are not desired; that the Commission should trust FDOT and PCL. Commissloner Palmer stated that the City is constantly being criticized for lack of oversight; that the City is responsible for ensuring the replacement bridge will be constructed as designed during the charette. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission is handcuffed concerning the replacement bridge. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1396, APPROPRIATING $188,750 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE OLD PENNY SALES TAX TO FUND THE COST OF AN OWNER'S S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RENOVATION AND REMODELING OF THE FEDERAL BUILDING; ETC. ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) #4 (1498) through (1860) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that funding of $188,750 is requested from the previous Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) funds for an owner's representative to oversee the Federal Building renovations; that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 01R-1396 appropriating the funds. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City entered into an Agreement for Architectural Services with Barger+Dean Architects, Inc. Barger+Dean), on September 1, 2000; that an owner's representative should have been designated and funded prior to approving the Agreement for Architectural Services; that the funding for the owner's representative should be appropriated from the funds borrowed for the Federal Building renovations and not from the previous. L.0.S.T. funds; that the City is planning to pay the owner's representative $13,750 for the design phase of the Federal Building renovations; that the design phase has already been completed; that a professional owner's representative was personally recommended prior the execution of the Agreement for Architectural Services. Mayor Hogle stated that hiring an owner's representative for the Federal Building renovations was not discussed prior to approving the Agreement for Architectural Services with Barger+Dean; that an owner's representative was not desired until the problems with the renovations of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) were clarified; that hiring an owner's representative will provide confidence similar problems will not occur during. the Federal Building renovations. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the City was not yet aware of the specific nature of the problems with the VWPAH renovations during September 2000. Commissioner Quillin disagreed and stated that the City was aware of the problems with the VWPAH renovations during September 2000; that the proposed contract for an owner's representative requires the City to provide office space and to fund other unnecessary expenses; that the need for adequate supervision of the Federal Building renovations should have indicated the hiring of an owner's representative prior to approval of an Agreement for Architectural Services; that the required funding to hire an owner's representative should have been included in the original budget for the Federal Building renovations. City Attorney Taylor stated that the decision to hire an owner's representative did not occur until after September 2000; that the recommended owner's representative is Project Development International (PDI), which provided assistance to the City to remedy the problems with the VWPAH renovations; that the desire for an owner's representative increased as knowledge of the specific nature of the problems with the VWPAH renovations unfolded; that the City was aware problems had occurred but did not precisely know the specific extent of the problems with the VWPAH renovations during September 2000; that after learning of the specific extent and nature of the problems with the VWPAH renovations, the Administration and the Commission agreed the Federal Building renovations should not proceed without proper supervision; that at the time, the desire was to hire an owner's representative; that the City should proceed with ensuring the required supervision is acquired and the Federal Building renovations are commenced. Commissioner Quillin stated that the funding to hire an owner's representative should be appropriated from the funds previously borrowed for the Federal Building renovations and not from the previous L.O.S.T. funds. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the Commission only indicated support to hire an owner's representative for the Federal Building renovations after learning of the specific extent and nature of the problems of the VWPAH problems, which were not revealed until after September 2000. BOOK 49 Page 21660 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21661 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that she was the first Commissioner to propose the hiring of an owner's representative; that adequate supervision of the Federal Building renovations should be assured; that Staff time is limited; that a professional owner's representative should be hired to ensure adequate supervision; however, the cost of hiring an owner's representative should come from the funds borrowed for the Federal Building renovations. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that a budget for hiring an owner's representative was not included in the funds originally borrowed for the Federal Building renovations; that at the time, the Commission had not indicated a desire to hire an owner's representative. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1396 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1396. Commissioner Quillin stated that adopting proposed Resolution No. 01R-1396 will be supported as hiring an owner's representative for the Federal Building renovations was personally requested during September 2000; that the City was aware of the problems with the VWPAH renovations during September 2000; that a budget for an owner's representative should have been included in the funds originally borrowed for the Federal Building renovations; that the Federal Building is an important local building; that City ownership of the Federal Building generates feelings of pride; that a lack of adequate supervision of major City projects will generate support for a strong Mayor form of government. Commissioner Palmer stated that the City was not aware of the specific extent and nature of the problems with the VWPAH renovations during September 2000; that hiring an owner's representative was proposed much later than September 2000; that the Commission desired to hire an owner's representative for the Federal Building renovations to ensure problems do not occur similar to the VWPAH renovations. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1396 and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $188,750 FOR THE FEDERAL BUILDING RENOVATION PROJECT APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI-4) #4 (1477) through (2000) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that Project Development International (PDI) is the selected owner's representative; that the agreement with PDI will not exceed $188,750; that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the agreement with PDI for an amount not exceed $188,750. Commissioner Quillin stated that the proposed agreement stipulates PDI will be paid according to the duration of the Federal Building renovations; that PDI may be paid less if the Federal Building renovations are completed earlier than scheduled; that early completion of the Federal Building renovations should be facilitated. John Flaherty, 500 Royal Road, Longboat Key (34228), came before the Commission and stated that the cost for the owner's representative will be $188,750; that the Administration should be responsible for exercising the appropriate supervision of the Federal Building renovations; that the concern is the agreement for an owner's representative was not issued as an Request For Proposal (RFP); that the State requires municipalities and counties to issue an RFP for any project which costs over $100,000; and asked the number of companies which provided a response to an RFP to become the owner's representative for the Federal Building renovations? Mayor Hogle stated that Mr. Flaherty should contact the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to obtain the information. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve the agreement with PDI for an amount not exceed $188,750. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. BOOK 49 Page 21662 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21663 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. 20. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE : LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING DESIGNATED MAYOR HOGLE AS THE COMMISSION'S DELEGATE TO THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2001, COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #4 (2000) through (2090) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that Nancy Detert (R), Representative, District 70, Florida House of Representatives, has indicated the Sarasota County Legislative Delegation Meeting will be held on September 21, 2001, in the County Commission Chambers; that the Commission should determine the issues of importance for presentation to the Legislative Delegation; that a delegate should be designated for the County Legislative Delegation Meeting; that Commissioners should submit the identified issues after the August 21, 2001, Florida League of Cities meeting; that the issues should be provided by September 10, 2001. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to designate Mayor Hogle as the Commission's delegate to the September 21, 2001, County Legislative Delegation Meeting. Mayor Hogle stated that he is willing and able to serve as the Commission's delegate to the September 21, 2001, County Legislative Delegation Meeting. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 21. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : THE NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT COMMITTEE/: S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT PROGRAM APPROVED WITH AN ADDITIONAL $3,815 EACH APPROPRIATED FOR THE GREATER DOWNTOWN SARASOTA ACTION TEAM AND SARASOTA COURT WATCH (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (2090) through (3036) Patrizia Barbone, Acting Director of Neighborhoods, and Kathlyn Vieira, Neighborhood Coordinator, came before the Commission. Ms. Barbone referred to the July 24, 2001, memorandum to the Administration indicating the funding recommendations of the Neighborhood Grant Committee (NGC) for the Neighborhood Grant Program included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the July 24, 2001, memorandum indicates the NGC recommendations concerning funding applications to the Neighborhood Grant Program; that several issues arose during consideration of applications for Neighborhood Grant Program funding; that Administrative Regulation No. 029.A001.0998 establishes a $5,000 annual funding limit from the Neighborhood Grant Program for each neighborhood association; that applications requesting more than $5,000 were received from the Rosemary District, Park East, and Gillespie Park Neighborhoods, which had received more than $5,000 during previous years but were not aware of the $5,000 annual limit; that the NGC decided the $5,000 annual limit should be observed; that the recommendation is to provide the Park East, Gillespie Park, and Rosemary District Neighborhoods with $5,000 each; that the respective neighborhood associations will be responsible for determining the use of the funding. Commissioner Quillin stated that the understanding was meeting certain criteria was required to receive funding from the Neighborhood Grant Program, which is funded by fines and forfeitures from the Civil Seizures Special Appropriation Fund; that the indication was applications should be related to neighborhood crime prevention and reduction; that during previous years, bicycles, signage, and other requests related to crime prevention were funded; that the annual limit was $5,000; however, the requirement was a neighborhood association had to match the City's funds; that neighborhood associations have indicated the City should continue to provide funding from the Neighborhood Grant Program for staffing of neighborhood programs; that the City previously provided funding for the staffing of certain neighborhood programs; that the intent of the Neighborhood Grant Program is to fund enhancements in neighborhoods for crime prevention and not to fund staffing; that the other funds from fines and forfeitures of the Civil Seizures Special Appropriation Eund are appropriated to the Nuisance Abatement Board (NAB) and are therefore not available for the Neighborhood Grant Program; that providing funding for the NAB is a decision of the Commission; that the NAB is responsible for providing recommendations concerning the City's nuisance abatement efforts, which helps all City neighborhoods. Ms. Barbone stated that the understanding was neighborhood associations are not allowed to utilize City funds from other programs or projects to match the funds awarded from the Neighborhood Grant Program; that the NGC reviewed all funding applications regardless of the requested amount; that the funding applications were reviewed for adherence to the criteria BOOK 49 Page 21664 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21665 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. of the Neighborhood Grant Program including use of the funding for - crime prevention or reduction; that the applications recommended for funding meet the criteria of the Neighborhood Grant Program; that the NGC also reviewed the funding applications to determine if the required matching funds could be provided and did not consist of City funds from other projects or programs; that the concern was a neighborhood association could not receive more than $5,000 annually; that the NGC decided to award an annual maximum of $5,000 to a. neighborhood association; that the expenditure of the funds should be verified. Commissioner Quillin asked if the required matching funds can be valued in terms of in-kind or other services? Ms. Barbone stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the criteria for the Neighborhood Grant Program are very liberal concerning the requirement of matching funds; that the matching funds cannot consist of City funds from other projects or programs. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concern is the regulations for the Neighborhood Grant Program were changed after funding applications were submitted; that the indication was only the received funding applications would be evaluated according to the previous regulations and the new regulations would be observed during the next grant funding cycle; that the Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team (GDSAT) and Sarasota Court Watch are valuable community programs, are experiencing significant financial difficulties, and should be funded; that the City should clearly indicate the new regulations to all applicants to the Neighborhood Grant Program prior to the next grant funding cycle; that Sarasota Court Watch is a model program Statewide and possibly nationally and should be funded; that the GDSAT exerts significant efforts to reduce crime in the Rosemary District, Park East, and Gillespie Park Neighborhoods; that an alternate recommendation should be provided. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the indication is GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch should receive the amount of funding received during previous years; that Department of Neighborhoods Staff acted appropriately; that the funding requested for GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch could be provided if desired by the Commission. Commissioner Palmer asked the City funding received by GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch during 2000? Ms. Barbone stated that Gillespie Park Neighborhood received $12,000 during 2000, $10,000 of which was utilized to fund Sarasota Court Watch; that the Park East Neighborhood received $9,897 during 2000, $5,000 of which was utilized to fund a Neighborhood Coordinator position for GDSAT. Commissioner Quillin asked if the Rosemary District, Park East, and Gillespie Park Neighborhoods applications indicate the request is to provide funding for the staffing of GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch? Ms. Barbone stated no; that previous applications indicated requests to fund staffing; that the current applications do not indicate a request to fund staffing. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission should approve the funding recommended by the NGC at the current meeting; that GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch could be allowed to present a financial report and request for Eunding to the Commission at an future meeting; that the current funding sources for GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch should be examined; that providing funding for Sarasota Court Watch is supported; that GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch are receiving funding from other sources; that the financial management of GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch should be evaluated; that GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch are encouraged to apply for grants or funding from other jurisdictions as well; that Neighborhood Grant Program funds are for City neignborhoods and not non-profit organizations; that GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch are excellent community programs; that Staff should provide assistance to GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch to obtain grant funding. Commissioner Martin stated that Sarasota Court Watch is a resourceful program which has obtained grant funding from other jurisdictions previously; that the Commission previously indicated support for funding and not applying the revised regulations to the received applications; that the maximum annual limit of $5,000 was not discussed with the Commission; that the decision of the NGC is respected; however, GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch should be provided funding; that the Neighborhood Grant Program may require revision; that a concern is the same neighborhood associations continue to receive funding although many other neighborhood associations are not receiving funding from the Neighborhood Grant Program; that the BOOK 49 Page 21666 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21667 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. funds are available to fund all approved applications; that funding should be. provided for the approved applications. Ms. Barbone stated that the recommended funding totals $29,634,58; however, the total funding would be $55,754.93 if all approved applications are funded; that the available funds in the Neighborhood Grant Program total $66, 630; that $41,390 was carried over from fiscal year (FY) 1999/2000; that $25,240 is available for FY 2000/01; that the NGC wished to retain the $25,240 until FY 2001/02 funding is received sO $41,390 would remain for grants; that $4,125 must be subtracted from the $41,390 for the grants to attend the Neighborhoods USA and the Florida Neighborhood Conferences; that $37,265 remains as a utilizable total for the Neighborhood Grant Program; that subtracting the $29,634.58 from the $37,365 yields an approximate balance of $7,630 available for expenditure; that the $7,630 could be halved to provide both GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch an additional $3,815. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Neighborhood Grant Program funding for GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch was intended as a one-time funding; that GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch were aware funding would only be provided one time; that the City should encourage as many neighborhood residents as possible to attend State and National neighborhoods conferences; that the criteria for the Neighborhood Grant Program should be reevaluated; that a few applications did not meet the criteria of the Neighborhood Grant Program and should not be funded. On motion of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to direct representatives of the Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team (GDSAT) and Sarasota Court Watch to meét with Staff to discuss potential grant funding and to approve the following funding recommendations of the Neighborhood Grant Committee: Neighborhood Total Amount Alta Vista $4,784.58 Gillespie Park $5,000.00 Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores $2,000.00 Laurel Park $2,249.00 Park East $5,000.00 Ringling Park $2,090.00 Rosemary District $5,000.00 Southeast $3,511.00 Total: $29,634.58 Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Palmer asked if the recommendation is to divide the funding of $7,630 between GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch? Ms. Barbone stated yes; that the Rosemary District, Gillespie Park, and Park East Neighborhoods have each applied for $5,000 for GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch, which would each receive $15,000 if the applications are approved as requested; however, $7,500 would be received if the Rosemary District, Gillespie Park, and Park East Neighborhoods each decided to provide half of the recommended $5,000 to GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch; that GDSAT would receive $11,315 if the $3,815 is approved; that the Alta Vista and Southeast Neighborhoods have each applied for $2,000 for Sarasota Court Watch, which would receive $15,315 if the additional $3,815 is approved. Commissioner Palmer stated that GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch are important community programs and should be provided additional funding if possible. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve the following funding from the Neighborhood Grant Program: Neighborhood Total Amount Alta Vista $4,784.58 Gillespie Park $5,000.00 Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores $2,000.00 Laurel Park $2,249.00 Park East $5,000.00 Ringling Park $2,090.00 Rosemary District $5,000.00 Southeast $3,511.00 Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team $3,815.00 Sarasota Court Watch $3,815.00 Total: $37,264.58 BOOK 49 Page 21668 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21669 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that the motion is not supported; that additional funding for GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch should not be provided until financial reports are provided to the Commission; that GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch were provided a one-time funding previously; that Neighborhood Grant Program funding should not be utilized to fund the administrative costs of GDSAT and Sarasota Court Watch; that other neighborhoods are being disadvantaged; that Neighborhood Grant Program funds should also be utilized to provide funding for neighborhood residents to attend National and State neighborhoods conferences; that Staff should be allowed time to develop alternate funding recommendations; that the funding should not be approved. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, no; Hogle, yes. Ms. Barbone distributed copies of the previous and revised versions of Administrative Regulation No. 029.A001.0998 to the Commission. 22. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: : NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD - APPOINTED TULLIO GIACOMAZZI (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 4 (3036) through (3135) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Sandra Vaughn has resigned from the Nuisance Abatement Board; that Lauren Faye Jawer and Tullio Giacomazzi have indicated interest in and applied for appointment to the Nuisance Abatement Board. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to appoint Tullio Giacomazzi to the Nuisance Abatement Board. Commissioner Martin stated that he has worked with Mr. Giacomazzi previously; that Mr. Giacomazzi does not reside in the City but owns several properties in the City which are well maintained. Commissioner Quillin stated that Mr. Giacomazzi has been personally known for many years and owns several properties in the Cityi however, a City resident should be appointed to the Nuisance Abatement Board if possible; that City residents are encouraged to serve on the City's advisory boards. Mayor Hogle stated that Mr. Giacomazzi is an excellent candidate and participates actively in the United States' Naval Academy Recruiting Program with local high schools. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the nomination. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 23. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (3135) There were no Commission Board or Committee Reports. 24. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (3135) through (3225) COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that August 5 through 11, 2001, has been proclaimed National Farmers Market Week by the United States Department of Agriculture. Mayor Hogle stated that the City could also proclaim August 5 through 11, 2001, as National Farmers Market Week. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc., only indicated the Commission should be informed of National Farmers Market Week but did not request a City proclamation. B. stated that the Sarasota Sister Cities Association will be holding a meeting on August 7, 2001, to discuss the upcoming trip to Dunfermline, Scotland; that a poster of the City will be presented to the Fife Council to commemorate the association as a sister city; that each Commissioner is requested to sign the City poster. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: A. stated that the current meeting was very long; that the efforts of Commissioners to actively and thoughtfully participate in the meeting are appreciated; that Commissioners are cooperating together. BOOK 49 Page 21670 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21671 08/06/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Hogle concurred and stated that the Commission acted professionally at the current meeting despite many differences of opinion on controversial issues. 25. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (3225) There being no further business, Mayor Hogle adjourned the Regular meeting of August 6, 2001, at 12:21 p.m. - DAL ALBERT F. HOGLE, MAYOR ATTEST: Bilye Rabmeon BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK