MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION OF JANUARY 18, 1994, AT 6:00 P.Mo PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone, and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. PRESENTATION RE: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO BATTALION CHIEF RANDY STULCE, CAPTAIN DAVE STERSHIC, FIRE FIGHTER/ ENGINEER JAMES JARRETT, FIRE FIGHTER/ENGINEER GARY POTTER AND FIRE FIGHTER/PARAMEDIC MARK TUTTLE FOR SERVICES PERFORMED ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY ON AUGUST 10, 1993, WHILE ASSISTING MULTIPLE AGENCIES IN THE LARGEST MARINE INCIDENT IN TAMPA BAY'S HISTORY #1 (0030) through (0228) Mayor Pillot stated that several months ago there was a major incident in Tampa Bay, involving a freighter and tug boat; that public safety officials from the area were involved in extinguishing the fire on the freighter as well as assisting with the oil spill created. Julius Halas, Chief of the Fire-Rescue Services Bureau, came before the Commission and introduced the following individuals of the Fire-Rescue Services Bureau: Fire Fighter/Engineer James Jarrett Battalion Chief Randy Stulce Captain Dave Stershic Fire Fignter/Engineer Gary Potter Fire Fighter/Paramedic Mark Tuttle Mayor Pillot read the following letter from the Tampa Port Authority: The Tampa Port Authority Board of Commissioners, on behalf of all of the customers and users of the Port of Book 36 Page 10076 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10077 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Tampa, wish to extend its sincerest appreciation and commendation to the brave and gallant fire fighters of the Sarasota Department of Public Safety for the swift, effective, and very efficient response to the barge Ocean 255 fire on August 10, 1993. The manner in which the Sarasota fire fighters met the challenge of this incident was demonstrated in the professionalism and expertise of those individuals serving on that day. It is especially commendable to have witnessed the degree of mutual assistance given by your agency in combatting this catastrophe affecting the west coast of Florida. The commendable professionalism of the fire fighters of the Sarasota Department of Public Safety during this arduous incident reflects great honor upon the Department and the City of Sarasota. Chief Halas stated that there was an urgent call for help on the day of the incident; that our personnel are especially to be commended; that the barge and tug boat were under extreme fire conditions with petroleum products that could have exploded. Chief Halas continued that he had received a letter from the Coast Guard's federal on-scene Commander who commended the knowledge, experience, and efforts of the City's personnel as being instrumental in the successful outcome to a difficult emergency response. Chief Halas stated that he is tremendously proud of his personnel. Mayor Pillot presented Certificates of Appreciation to Battalion Chief Randy Stulce, Captain Dave Stershic, Fire Fighter/Engineer James Jarrett, Fire Fighter/Engineer Gary Potter, and Fire Fighter/Paramedic Mark Tuttle. Battalion Chief Stulce stated that he is proud to be a part of the City of Sarasota Fire-Rescue Bureau and proud to serve with the other fire fighters. 2. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER 1993 WILLIAM E. DAVIS, SENIOR FOREMAN, PUBLIC HORKS/UTILITIES DIVISION #1 (0229) through (0315) William Hallisey, Facilities Operations Manager of Public Works, and Gary Randall, Operations Supervisor, came before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey introduced William Davis and stated that Mr. Davis has been employed by the City for 28 years and has done everything when dealing with Public Works projects; that Mr. Davis has been steadily promoted to positions requiring additional skills and responsibilities; that Mr. Davis has been a Utility Man, Motor Equipment Operator, Mason, Foreman, and - is currently a Senior Foreman. Mr. Randall stated that he nominated William Davis for Employee of the Month because he is one of the most skilled and knowledgeable employees he has; that Mr. Davis has no problem handling jobs he is given; that Mr. Davis serves with excellence and pride for the City. Mayor Pillot presented William E. Davis with a plaque and certificate for Employee of the Month for December 1993 in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts; that because the City only has 12 Employees of the Month each year with over 900 employees, fewer than 1% of the City's employees achieve this honor; therefore, it is a very distinct honor. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0316) through (0367) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add to Unfinished Business Item VII-6, Presentation Re: Intersection of U.S. 41 and the Main Street extension per City Engineer Daughters B. Add to New Business Item VIII-3, Discussion Re: Closure of the Police Substation located on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way per Commissioner Cardamone C. Add to New Business Item VIII-4, Discussion Re: Interlocal Agreement between the MPO, the Florida Department of Transportation, and Member Governments of the MPO, in order for the MPO to take action prior to January 24, 1994 D. Move Unfinished Business Item VII-1, Adoption Re: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3770 forward on the agenda before 6:30 p.m. per Bruce Franklin, petitioner, due to a previous engagement Mr. Franklin has in Bradenton Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Franklin is the Chair of a very important charitable organization that has its annual meeting this evening. Book 36 Page 10078 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10079 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Piliot, yes. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION OF JANUARY 3, 1994 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0368) through (0377) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Sarasota City Commission of January 3, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 29, 1993 - - REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0378) through (0414) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and presented the following items from the Board of Adjustment's Meeting of December 29, 1993: A. Petition No. 94-05 B. Petition No. 94-08 C. Appeal No. 94-07 Mr. Hewes stated that all of the items listed above were postponed; that Frank Conrad, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, sent his apologies for not being able to attend tonight's meeting because he was unaware the meeting was changed from Monday to Tuesday and had made an appointment for tonight. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the Board of Adjustment's Report of the meeting of December 29, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEMS 3 THROUGH 7 = = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, AND -7) #1 (0415) through (0438) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Items 1 and 2 be removed for discussion; that discussion of these items could be held after hearing Unfinished Business VII-1 from Bruce Franklin. 3. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3758, amending Chapter 11, Article III, relating to the Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licensing by the City of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in contracting and for the regulation and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings; providing for the authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed contractors; providing for the authority of the Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board; providing for. standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; providing for such Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a contractor certified by the State of Florida under certain conditions; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition, pertaining to certain contractors to amend such sections to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. 4. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing Ordinance No. 94-3759, amending Chapter 11, Article IX, relating to the Electrical Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licensing by the City of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in electrical contracting and for the regulation and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of such disciplinary proceedings; providing for the authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed contractors; providing for the authority of the Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon such locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Electrical Contractors . Licensing Board; providing for standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the National Electrical Code, 1990 Edition, pertaining to electrical contractors to amend such sections to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. 5. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3760, amending Chapter 11, Article V, relating to the Mechanical Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licensing by the City of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in mechanical contracting and for the regulation Book 36 Page 10080 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10081 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings; providing for the authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed contractors; providing for the authority of the Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board; providing for standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a mechanical contractor certified by the State of Florida under certain conditions; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the standard Mechanical Code, 1991 Edition, pertaining to mechanical contractors to amend such sections to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. 6. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3761, amending Chapter 11, Article VI, relating to the Plumbing Board of Rules and Appeals, providing for licensing by the City of Sarasota of qualified persons to engage in plumbing contracting and for the regulation and disciplining of such locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to enact rules for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings; providing for the Authority of the Board to impose disciplinary penalties upon locally licensed Contractors; providing for the Authority of Board to recommend discipline to be imposed upon locally licensed contractors by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board; providing for standards of conduct for locally licensed contractors; providing for the Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a Plumbing contractor certified by the State of Florida under certain conditions; amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the Standard Plumbing Code, 1991 Edition pertaining to plumbing contractors to amend such sections to be in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida and to amend the schedule of permit fees relating to hot water heaters; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing a penalty for violation; etc. 7. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3781, amending the definitions of "Average Compensation" and "Salary" in Section 24-21 of the City Code to exclude lump sum payments of accrued leave unless paid as part of a uniform policy; amending the definition of "Firefighter", authorizing eligible rollover distribution; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 Items 3 through 7. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. It was the consensus of the Commission to follow Vice Mayor Patterson's recommendation and move Unfinished Business VII-1 forward for discussion prior to discussing Items 1 and 2 of Consent Agenda No. 1. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3770, EXTENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PETITION 90-W FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF SAID APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-2 ZONE DISTRICT TO COP ZONE DISTRICT, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS MEASURED FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 90-W FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 17 EAST LESS THE SOUTH 310 FEET THEREOF, AND LESS R.O.W. FOR DESOTO ROAD (NOW KNOWN AS UNIVERSITY PARKWAY), AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF PETITION 90-W; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 90-CO-08, ATTORNEY FUREN) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (0444) through (0580) Bruce Franklin, representing the petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that he appreciated the Commission's indulgence of his request to move this item forward on the agenda; that he is the outgoing Chair of Project Rainbow and the annual meeting for election of new directors is tonight. Mr. Franklin stated that the Commission passed proposed Ordinance No. 94-3770 on first reading on January 3, 1993, with the stipulation that a report be presented at second reading regarding a solution for the drainage problem and a time frame for it to be corrected; that the proposed ordinance is a request for a two-year extension for the build out of what is generically known as "Royal Palm Plaza"; that at the January 3, 1994, Commission meeting an individual representing the Royal Palm Condominium Association appeared and talked about a drainage problem. Book 36 Page 10082 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10083 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Franklin stated that the petitioner contracted with Mosby Engineering to assess the problem; that Rick Winters, Engineering Technician V, also assessed the situation; that it turned out that two drainage pipes leading from the condominium property to the petitioner's property were clogged; that C & M Contractors was hired last week to clean the ditches leading to the outfall on University Parkway; that the pipes were cleaned today. Mr. Franklin continued that he spoke to Mr. Robert Weir, president of the Royal Palm Condominium Association, today and Mr. Weir indicated his pleasure at the work that has been done. Mr. Franklin stated that in talking with Mr. Winters, he understands the drainage problem has been solved. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3770 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3770. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM 1 POSTPONED UNTIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION OF FEBRUARY 7, 1994, ITEM 2 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS III-A-1 AND -2) #1 (0582) through (1050) 1. Approval Re: Extension of Mote Marine Laboratory, Inc.'s sublease agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Item 1 is a sublease of property the City leases to Mote Marine Laboratory, Inc.; that Mote Marine is subletting the property to the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) for $1,600 per month; that while Mote Marine and the NEP are both very worthwhile organizations, she has a certain amount of discomfort with the City providing free land or free facilities and having an organization sublet said land or facilities at a profit. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that there may be extenuating circumstances and she is open to an explanation; that another situation could be the library building the City is going to allow the Gulf Coast World of Science (GCWS) to use for $1.00 a year and whether GCWS could then sublet space at a profit. City Manager Sollenberger stated that this question of subleasing space was raised by the Gulf Coast World of Science in the lease negotiations; that he informed GCWS's attorney that GCWS would have to pursue the issue of subleasing space with the City Commission and this issue has now-been dropped; that-he thinks a discussion with Dr. Mahadevan (Executive Director of Mote Marine Laboratory) is in order since Dr. Mahadevan was not advised this item would be on tonight's agenda. Mr. Sollenberger continued that Mote Marine has charged the National Estuary Program a rental since the NEP has occupied the building for the past four or five years; however, there now is a substantial increase in the rent; that Mote Marine takes care of the building and provides utilities and maintenance, but he feels there is probably a profit to Mote Marine (in the sublease). Commissioner Cardamone asked the lease arrangement Mote Marine has with the City? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Mote Marine lease is about $1.00 a year; that it is basically a free lease. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Patterson and that the Commission should find out whether Mote Marine is making a profit on this sublease to the NEP. Mayor Pillot stated that the Amendment to Sublease Agreement refers that the original sublease expires January 31, 1994, and asked whether the Commission should take this item up at the Commission Workshop of January 24 before the lease expires? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the topic for the Commission Workshop on January 24 is the Crime Plan and he would rather that nothing else be on the agenda except the Crime Plan; that he feels this sublease issue can be brought back to the Commission at its first meeting in February. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supported Vice Mayor Patterson's position on the lease arrangements; that he would like further information on this item since the National Estuary Program is one the City helps to sustain with money; that he feels it is improper if Mote Marine is making a profit from some of the donations the City is making to the NEP and this needs to be investigated. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to postpone Consent Agenda No. 1 Item 1 until the Regular Meeting of the Commission of February 7, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. Approval Re: Authorize subdividing of the city-owned property located at 1551 2nd Street into Parcels A & B; declare Parcel A (Human Resources Building) surplus; authorize advertising Parcel A for sale; and authorize the City to retain Parcel B (17 parking spaces) for parking Book 36 Page 10084 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10085 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Item 2 is in regard to the sale of the Human Resources Building, which the Commission voted to sell to supplement the City's General Fund; that she does not think it is appropriate to sell a capital resource to supplement a budget that pays annual repetitive expenses; that this building was purchased in March 1990 for $560,000, presumably based on an appraisal, although she does not know who did the appraisal for the City; that less than four years later, the building and parking lot is appraised for $396,500, which is a loss of $163,500; that she realizes commercial property is not doing well in value; however, commercial property was not doing too well in March 1990 either; that she would like to know why there is such a discrepancy in the appraisals between March 1990 and nowo Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this is not a good time to be selling a building and perhaps the City would be better off using reserves than taking close to a 30% loss on the sale of this propertyi; that perhaps it would be better to rent the property and attempt to sell it when the value of commercial property is better. Mr. Sollenberger stated that when the City purchased the subject property, the main value was for the parking lot; that the property was purchased just as the City was embarking on renovating city Hall; that offices would have had to be rotated for about two years outside City Hall during the renovations; that rather than rotate different offices, it was decided at that time to locate the Human Resources Department at the subject property. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she thinks the City should take a close look at the provider of the appraisal done in 1990 due to the disparate amounts of the appraisals; that she does not feel it is clever to sell the building if the City is going to take such a loss on it. Commissioner Merrill stated that market values of real office space all over the world have fallen dramatically; that if the building is surplus property, he feels the City is better off to sell it and get the property on the tax rolls. Commissioner Atkins asked whether anyone is ready to buy the property? Mr. Sollenberger stated that there are five parties who have expressed interest in the property, which could work to the City's advantage. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the Administration's recommendation, which is to declare Parcel A surplus and authorize advertising the property for sale using the estimated current market value as an acceptable bid. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time the petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes; that he will time speakers and advise them when they have 1 minute remaining. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3715, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW OPEN-AIR DINING FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH RESTAURANTS AS PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES IN THE CSC-N, CSC-C, CSC-R, CT, COP, CBN, CN, CG, CI, CRT, C-CBD, AND TAD ZONE DISTRICTS, PROVIDED SAID FACILITY NEITHER ABUTS NOR IS LOCATED ACROSS AN INTERVENING STREET OR ALLEY FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY; PROVIDING THAT OPEN-AIR DINING FACILITIES ARE PERMISSIBLE BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE CSC-N, CSC-C, CSC-R, CT, COP, CBN, CN, CG, CI, CRT, C-CBD, AND TAD ZONE DISTRICTS WHEN SAID FACILITY ABUTS OR IS ACROSS AN INTERVENING STREET OR ALLEY FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY; SETTING FORTH DISTRICT REGULATIONS AS TO THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF OPEN-AIR DINING FACILITIES DELETING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST HEATING OR COOKING OF FOOD OR OPEN FLAMES AT OPEN-AIR DINING FACILITIES IN THE C-CBD AND TAD ZONES: DEFINING TERMS; MAKING FINDINGS AS TO NEED; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1052) through (1262) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that this issue has been before the City Commission several times. Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioners had questions on this matter? No one had any questions. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3715 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3715 on first reading. Book 36 Page 10086 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10087 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that in reading the material provided on this item, she had searched for language that allowed for revocation of the Special Exception if a restaurant should violate the intent of the ordinance and was unable to find such wording; that she wanted to ask what happens if a restaurant allows their planning wall to be less than two feet or its constructed wall to be less than 65 feet, or any of the things that this proposed ordinance prohibits? City Attorney Taylor stated that there is no revocability clause in the proposed ordinance; that at a prior meeting the Commission instructed the Administration and his office to present a recommendation concerning what to do with Special Exceptions in the future; that this particular ordinance is part of the process; that thought was given to eliminating the Special Exception process altogether, but the trouble with doing this is that Special Exceptions are intricately woven into the fabric of the Zoning Code and virtually every Zone District in the City as well as every use imaginable. Attorney Taylor continued that the proposed ordinance follows the same concept that has been in the Zoning Code since the early 1970s; that a violation of the provisions of this ordinance would be handled by Code Enforcement with the Special Master process and fines or prosecution through the County Court system for injunctive relief. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yeso 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3762, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 26, OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE NORTH TRAIL (NT) ZONE DISTRICT AS SET FORTH HEREIN; SPECIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARCELS AS TO FRONTAGE ON U.S. 41, 10TH STREET, DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. WAY, MYRTLE STREET, OR UNIVERSITY PARKWAY (F/K/A DESOTO ROAD) IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR REZONING TO THE NT ZONE DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS AS TO NEED; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1263) through (1316) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission. Mayor Pillot asked whether any Commissioners had questions on this matter? No one had any questions. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3762 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3762 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3764, AMENDING CHAPTER 29.5, SITE IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA, BY DELETING THEREFROM SECTION 29.5-5, FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, SUBSECTIONS (C), (D), (E), (F), AND (G); REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (1317) through (1365) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he thinks the proposed ordinance will clean up the City's Zoning Code and eliminate a practice of extractions, which he believes is in the best interest of the City; that he recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3764 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3764 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3780, GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION FOR THE FILING OF A FINAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE OBTAINING OF A BUILDING PERMIT PERTAINING TO PETITION 90-V FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN: PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-4 TO WFR-B ZONE DISTRICT, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS MEASURED FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY; THAT PARCEL OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL OPPOSITE 12TH AND 13TH STREETS, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1201 AND 1301 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF PETITION Book 36 Page 10088 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. * Book 36 Page 10089 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. 90-V: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 90-CO-04, CHARLES E. GITHLER, III) - - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (1366) through (3151) Mayor Pillot stated that he thought the petitioner was not present when the City Auditor and Clerk swore everyone in for the public hearings. The petitioner, Charles Githler, stood and was sworn in by city Auditor and Clerk Robinson, and came before the Commission. Mr. Githler stated that he represented Sarasota Hotel and Marina to petition for a time extension for the site and development plan; that Marriott Hotels is still very interested (in this venture); that he hoped the Commission would look favorably on this request. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and the following individuals came before the Commission: Dolores Volpe, 1100 Imperial Drive, #605, stated that she is a resident of Bay's Bluff Condominium; that she has lived in Sarasota for three years and has been hearing about the proposed development; that she feels this very valuable parcel of land is being tied up when it could be part of the tax base for the City; that she is not sure whether there is a cap on how often extensions can be requested, but feels there should be a cap. City Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance the property owner must adhere to for the process of Conditional Rezoning specifically provides for the extension; that the ordinance was changed within the past year to grant additional time to certain property owners under certain circumstances in recognition of the fact that people do have difficulty getting financing and construction under way in the difficult economic times we are in; that he understands that the extension being requested tonight will be for a two-year period and will be the final extension allowed under the ordinance. Mrs. Lee Stone, 1100 Imperial Drive, stated that she is a resident of Bay's Bluff Condominium, which is next door to Mr. Githler's property; that she moved to Bay's Bluff 13 years ago and the subject property was zoned Residential at that time and had a house on it called The Acacias; that The Acacias was torn down and the property was rezoned Commercial; that following this, the property was rezoned again for Waterfront Resort; that she understands the property was changed from Residential in the hopes of building a casino on the site; however, this was defeated by the voters; that it has been approximately 10 or 11 years that this property has been in and out of different types of zoning; that this property is one of the prize pieces of property left on the waterfront in Sarasota; that she feels the property should be rezoned back to Residential for people who live in Sarasota the year round rather than people who come to Sarasota for a few days. Mrs. Stone continued that the property is not good for any water recreation because it is not suitable for swimming or boating; that she would like the property to be zoned for Residential use for permanent residents. Peter M. Hearden, 1100 Imperial Drive, #602, stated that he wanted to read a prepared statement as follows (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) : My name is Peter M. Hearden and I live at 1100 Imperial Drive Apartment 602 of Bay's Bluff Condominium in Sarasota. Bay's Bluff Condominium adjoins the subject property to the north along the Bayfront. With your permission I would like to read my Statement. Some of you Commissioners will remember my previous appearance before an earlier Commission regarding the present usage of Centennial Park which I pleaded to remain as a passive park which was the original intention when the land was purchased. Be that as it may. Again the City of Sarasota has an opportunity it may never have again and that is to deny this request by the petitioners for Granting a Time Extension for the Filing of a Final Site and Development Plan and the Obtaining of a Building Permit Pertaining to Petition 90-V for a Period of Two Years from the Automatic Expiration of the Approval of the Preliminary Site and Development Plan. It is my hope as well as others that the City of Sarasota Commission seriously consider purchasing that parcel of land on the west side of North Tamiami Trail opposite 12th and 13th Streets with the street address of 1201 and 1301 North Tamiami Trail from the present owners for the purpose of building a beautiful Waterfront City Park to be contiguous with the present owned City Park Property formerly known as the Franklin Manor. There is really so little truly Waterfront Property remaining in our City and NOW is the time to have the foresight to give our city the Waterfront City Park we will be forever proud of, and be an enhancement to our cities beautification and it's gateway to our city from the north. The very most this Commission should do is limit the petitioner's request for an EXTENSION to one year instead of two years. This present parcel of vacant land has been an unsightly distraction for many years to the citizens of Sarasota and our Visitors who drive down US 41 with an eye toward viewing our waterfront. Book 36 Page 10090 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10091 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Less than one week ago the Director of Sarasota County Parks Department recommended that the County purchase five small parcels of beachfront property. In this connection one of the County Commissioners agreed with this recommendation and pointed out the need to acquire as much beachfront property whenever it becomes available even tho one of the parcels is presently under water. If after one year the proposed hotel is not under construction the City of Sarasota should seize it's one-time opportunity to purchase the property identified above with the full intention of giving our city a LASTING TREASURE - A WATERFRONT CITY PARK the envy of all Floridians and the likes of which no other Florida City can make claim. I hope you will give this statement your serious consideration. I thank you for your time to speak. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether the Commission could limit the extension to one year? Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission has the right to limit the extension to one year; that the entitlement under the ordinance states a maximum of two (years). Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would have difficulty limiting the extension to one year, knowing how difficult it is to raise the money, make the plans, and get under way with construction of a hotel. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she feels the City has so much of the City's waterfront devoted to parking and parks now; that she thinks increasing the tax base would be a real asset to the City; that she would have a little difficulty adding another park next to Centennial Park, which is a parking lot for boats and trailers; that Franklin Manor will also be developed as a park for residents of the City to use. Mr. Hearden stated that this parcel of land presents an opportunity for a City park so people passing by could see the Bay; that the waterfront becomes available to viewers only for about a quarter of a mile (at Bayfront Park). Commissioner Merrill stated that he agreed 100% with Mr. Hearden; that he feels the best use of the parcel is as a park; however, he does not feel there is money or real community support for a park at this time; that if Mr. Hearden could generate the community support for a park, he thinks the land could be purchased from the owners. Dr. Gary L. Edenson, 15937 Nott's Hill Drive, Lutz, Florida, stated that he owns a piece of property adjacent to the parcel in question; that he feels the highest and best use for the property is a hotel or some sort of development, not as a park; that North Tamiami Trail should be the gateway to the community and be the nicest area to draw people into downtown Sarasota; that, unfortunately, North Tamiami Trail is an area that has been riddled with prostitution and drug addicts. Dr. Edenson continued that the subject property is the keystone that can turn the area around; that the North Tamiami Trail area is very dependent on this piece of property; that the longer the property sits vacant, the longer the other pieces of property adjacent and north of the parcel will fall prey to prostitutes and drug addicts. Dr. Edenson stated that he is of the opinion that Sarasota is a very upscale community and is one of the highest per capita income cities in the world; that Sarasota has one of the last large pieces of property that is on the Bay on the whole west coast of Florida that is available; that the parcel needs to be developed and the City cannot wait any more. Dr. Edenson continued that he thinks Mr. Githler's intentions are good; however, he does not see any activity happening; that the lack of activity is costing him $70,000 a year having his property vacant waiting for something; that he does not know what he is waiting for anymore; that someone has suggested he use his property for an adult bookstore but he does not like this idea; however, he is told that an adult bookstore is the only thing that would be compatible with the use there now. Dr. Edenson stated that if this key piece of property sits for two more years, three more years, or five more years, the whole North Tamiami Trail area will go down the tubes; that he is very upset by this concept. Mayor Pillot stated that he inferred that Dr. Edenson is opposed to the (time) extension. Dr. Edenson stated yes; that he thinks the property will develop into something else in two years if the extension is denied. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he has a request from the mortgagee to read a letter into the record (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) ; that the letter is from Attorney Stephen D. Rees as follows: January 18, 1994 Dear Mayor Pillot and Commissioners: Proposed Ordinance No. 94-3780 would grant a time extension for the filing of a final Site and Development Plan and the obtaining of a building permit pertaining to Petition No. 90-V, for the real property presently owned by and proposed to be developed by Sarasota Hotel and Marina, a Florida Corporation. The undersigned holds a first, superior mortgage, dated January 17, 1992, Book 36 Page 10092 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10093 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. recorded at Official Records Book 2361, Page 1075, Sarasota County Public Records, as Successor Trustee under Agreement dated December 12, 1989, and not individually. As the Mortgagee, I am in favor of the Mortgagor's request for the time extension to preserve related development rights and zoning. The Recitals within the proposed Ordinance recite that Petition No. 90-V requires. a final Site and Development Plan approval and the obtaining of a building permit prior to May 27, 1994, and recites that Sec. 6 of Ordinance No. 93-3667: provides that in the case of conditional rezoning and site and development plans which were finally approved prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 93-3667, they shall be subject to the time limitations set forth therein provided, however, that they shall not have a duration of more than a total of four (4) years from the date of initial approval. Respecting Petition No. 90-V, "the date of initial approval" (Ordinance No. 90-3456) was November 5, 1990; however, the proposed Ordinance extends two (2) additional years through May 27, 1996. The mortgage at Paragraph 22.B requires the Mortgagor to keep in full force and effect the City of Sarasota, Florida, Zoning and Development approvals for the approved hotel project. Therefore, in order to assure the Mortgagee that the Mortgagor has met this covenant within Paragraph 22.B, upon what legal basis can this Ordinance provide for a time extension beyond "a total of four (4) years from the date of initial approval, i.e., November 5, 1994? I am unable to personally attend this evening's public hearing; therefore, I would appreciate a written response from the City Attorney advising me, as the Mortgagee of record, of the legal basis upon which, by adoption of this Ordinance, the City can extend for the two year period through May 27, 1996. Thank you. Very truly yours, Stephen D. Rees Attorney Taylor stated that when this rezoning initially took place, one of the conditions the City Commission applied to the Waterfront Zone District was that this property not be deemed a DRI (Development of Regional Impact) project, which took quite some time to obtain; that a question was raised early in the process as to whether the time limitations of the ordinance were still running during the period of time compliance with the first condition of the ordinance was being attempted; that the opinion of his office was that, because of the nature of the condition, the time was not running and did not start to run until the letter came from the State that this property was not a DRI project; that this is why there is an extra time period that has been built into this (petition). Attorney Taylor continued that he will answer the letter from Attorney Rees by stating that the City can legally extend the additional two years because the time was stayed from running because of the special conditions of the City Commission. There was no one else who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot Closed the public hearing. Mayor Pillot stated that if the petitioner wished, he could speak at this time. Mr. Githler stated that he had nothing further to say unless the Commission had questions. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3780 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3780 on first reading. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she assumed the City Attorney would respond to Attorney Rees. Attorney Taylor stated that he will respond in writing (to Attorney Rees). Vice Mayor Patterson asked what zoning the land would revert back to if the Commission denies the extension? Attorney Taylor stated that this would be within the discretion of the City Commission; that he thinks the Commission has three options as follows: (1) leave the zoning the same, (2) set a public hearing at the same land use category the property was in before the Conditional Rezoning was received, which he thinks was RMF-4, or (3) rezone the property to a category which is less intensive than currently, but which the Commission would believe, under all the facts and circumstances, to be a reasonable category to put the property in; that any of these options would have to take place after the public hearing process and would be a quasi-judicial proceeding; that the decision could not be arbitrary but based on input and competent, substantial evidence to, support a reasonable category for the property. Book 36 Page 10094 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10095 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Section 1 on page 3 of the proposed ordinance talks about a two-year extension "adopted April 19, 1993" which would be April 1995; however, the Agenda Request lists the expiration as May 27, 1995; that there seems to be some discrepancy in dates; that the end of the paragraph for Section 1 (on page 3) states that "approval shall automatically expire on May 27, 1996." Sarah Schenk, Assistant City Attorney, came before the Commission and stated that as currently provided, the rezoning would expire May 27, 1994; that she does not know where the date of May 27, 1995 on the Agenda Request form came from because it is incorrect. Commissioner Merrill stated that one person mentioned the City buying the land for a park and he would like to do this; that he does not favor downzoning the property and denying the owners their zoning in order to buy the land for a park; that two other individuals stated they would like to see the property developed and put on the tax rolls; that he feels the people with the greatest incentive to develop this property are the owners of the property; that he is sure the owners of the property are paying more than $70,000 a year; that he thinks it would be bad for the North Tamiami Trail area if the owners of the property would have to develop this property prematurely and go bankrupt; that one of the reasons the owners of the property are putting the property on hold is because the County has a study under way for a conference center. Commissioner Merrill continued that his first choice is for the land to be a park, and he thinks the second best use for the property would be a conference center; that he is supportive if the public wants to buy the property for a park, because he supported buying Franklin Manor; however, in the absence of purchasing the land for a park, he feels the City should give the property owners time to develop a conference center. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she also would support buying the property for a park if the City had the funds to do so; that since the City does not have the funds, she assumes Commissioner Merrill is indicating he would support a bond issue to purchase this property for a park. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would support purchasing the property, but would not go so far as to say he supports a bond issue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she does not see where rezoning the property is going to provide the impetus to see that this property is developed any earlier than it currently will be. Commissioner Atkins stated that he would like the Commission to encourage Mr. Githler to do all he can as soon as possible to change the development posture of this piece of property so that the City can start reaping some of the benefits of it; that he encourages the development of this property as an economic boost to the City of Sarasota. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she concurs; that she feels it will take another five years to find someone to develop the property if the Commission denies the time extension now; that Mr. Hearden made the comment that the property has been an unsightly distraction for many years; that since the City has been favorable to Mr. Githler, she feels perhaps the front of the property could be landscaped or something done to make the property more attractive than it is now. Mayor Pillot stated that he thinks Mr. Hearden's opinion is correct; however, the City does not have the money to buy the property; that the City is getting Closer to developing the Franklin Manor property into a passive park; that the unfortunate use of Centennial Park (as a parking lot) was brought about by the need to relocate the boat ramps due to a conflict with the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall; that he was misquoted in a publication that said he was supportive of using part of Franklin Manor for a parking lot for a proposed conference center; that Mr. Githler and his associates know from him directly how displeased he was at this bad misquote. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-698) = ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-709) = ADOPTED; AND ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-710) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B-1, -2, AND -3) #1 (3153) through (3274) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-698 and 94R-710 by title only and proposed Resolution No. 94R-709 in its entirety. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-698, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount reported therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-709, appropriating $23,750 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Fund 110) for the purchase of computer equipment and software for the Department of Public Safety, etc. Book 36 Page 10096 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10097 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-710, authorizing the City Manager to apply for a Highway Beautification Grant from the Florida Department of Transportation; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Items 1 through 3. Commissioner Atkins stated that he wanted to make the Commission aware that he plans to bring forth some examples of how forfeiture funds can be used for more progressive needs in communities other than continuing to spend the fund as the City has in the past. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS =- PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST FOR A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL OPB ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2058 MAGNOLIA STREET (PETITION NO. 87-CO-02) = DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO LEAVE THE OPB ZONING IN PLACE AND ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #1 (3275) through #2 (0560) Richard L. Smith, Attorney at Law, and Mrs. Ferne Rubin, property owner, came before the Commission. Attorney Smith stated that he wanted to point out that the property, which is zoned OPB (Office, Professional, and Business) is flanked on the south and west sides by the NationsBank asphalt parking lot and flanked on the north side by the parking lot behind Southside Baptist Church; that immediately to the east of the property there are two single-family residences that are part of an Impact Management Area (IMA) i that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that it would be appropriate for the two single-family residences to also be used for offices. Attorney Smith continued that he would like to read a short letter addressed to the Mayor into the record as follows (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) : January 18, 1994 This is to advise the Sarasota City Commission that my client, Mrs. Ferne Rubin, fully supports and accepts the City Administration's recommended option 2 with regard to the property at 2058 Magnolia Street, i.e., to: Leave the OPB zoning in place and any future development would require preliminary site and development approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Mrs. Rubin is also willing to accept a condition to require that the preliminary site and development plan be submitted by a date certain. While a 6 month deadline would probably be feasible if the property is purchased by Dehart Alarm Systems, Inc., which has expressed strong interest in the property, we would request a 12 month deadline for submission of the preliminary site and development plan in the event another purchaser had to be found. Mrs. Rubin only recently received clear title to the Magnolia Street property as her principal asset from the dissolution of her 32 year marriage. She is dependent upon the OPB development of the property for her future financial security. The rezoning of her property, flanked on three sides by paved parking lots, to a residential zone would be financially devastating. Accordingly, Mrs. Rubin requests that the Commission approve the Administration's recommended option 2 with the condition that a preliminary site and development be submitted within 12 months after final action by the Commission on this agenda item. Yours very truly, Richard L. Smith Commissioner Merrill stated that he thought the concept of Conditional Rezoning was that the zoning and the site plan were tied together; that (regular) zoning simply gives a zoning and a site plan is presented later for approvals; that it seems to him the City is moving back to the concept of zoning this property and at a later date the site plans will be presented and asked whether this is correct? Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the subject property is already in an IMA with IMAs nearby; that it is felt that (OPB) is still an appropriate Zone District since the property is currently zoned OPB with IMAs to the east and south; that the owner still needs to present a site plan approval within a certain amount of time. Book 36 Page 10098 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. : Book 36 Page 10099 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked whether the City was moving away from the whole concept of Conditional Rezonings with this approach? Ms. Robinson stated that this is a variation; however, a petitioner would need to present a site plan within a certain time frame, 6 months to 12 months rather than 2 years, 3 years, or 4 years. Commissioner Merrill asked what would happen if a site plan was not presented on time? Ms. Robinson stated that a date certain could be set to hold a public hearing to deal with the Zone District or zone the property back to another zone. Commissioner Merrill stated that the zoning seems to be separate from the site plan to some degree. Ms. Robinson agreed. Commissioner Merrill stated that he thought the Commission had a clear concept of Conditional Rezonings; that someone who wanted a zoning had to tell the Commission what was going to be built so the Commission could look very closely at it so mistakes were not made; that he feels the site plan and zoning are separate. Ms. Robinson stated that this matter is not the extension of a site and development plan because the site and development plan turned into building permits and finally the building permits expired; that this matter is a little uncharacteristic from the usual. Commissioner Merrill asked why the City does not just grant a straight extension of the site plan that exists? Attorney Taylor stated that could not be done because the City does not have the authority to do it; that procedurally this (extension) reached the Commission different than the other (extensions) the Commission deliberated on earlier this evening; that in the other instances, no building permits were ever issued; that one of the shortcomings of the Zoning Code pertaining to the Conditional Rezoning process is that when the building permit extensions run out, the Zoning Code is not clear about how to treat such a circumstance. Attorney Taylor continued that Ms. Robinson is saying that the options available under the Zoning Code are as follows: (1) to rezone the property back to RSF-3 if, after an appropriate public hearing, this is still a reasonable use of the property and such a regressive zoning could be supported judicially, (2) zone the property to something less than OPB but greater than RSF-3, or (3) leave the property zoned exactly as it is but require that, within a limited period of time, the site plan be merged back with the parcel again in order to fulfill the requirement that the Conditional Rezoning has attached to it regarding the site and development plan. Commissioner Merrill asked whether it was Ms. Robinson's premise that the City should move away from Conditional Rezonings? Ms. Robinson stated that she talked about this today with the City Manager and the City Attorney; that when Conditional Rezoning was instituted, the City did not have the kind of Comprehensive Plan that is now in place; that she thinks the City could evolve away from Conditional Rezonings if the City has a tight Comprehensive Plan with the exact future land uses the City wants. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the City should either have Conditional Rezoning or not and not be in a quasi state; that he thinks the Commission needs to clarify exactly what the City is looking for. Ms. Robinson stated that the primary criterion for an extension is whether there is a reasonable reason for the extension; that in this situation (2058 Magnolia Street), there was a structure being built and due to unfortunate circumstances, the structure did not get finished and Mr. Hewes (Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement) required that the uncompleted structure be demolished. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is going to vote against this (extension) because he thinks the City needs to clarify what it is doing (with regard to Conditional Rezonings). Attorney Taylor stated that this matter is a presentation; that the Commission does not have anything before it tonight to act on; that Attorney Smith has brought this matter to the Commission because there is a problem with the City trying to decide what the posture this (parcel) should be in when the matter comes back to the Commission; that the ordinance (90-3410) now on the books says that it is the intent of the City Commission that an ordinance be prepared and set for public hearing which rezones the subject property from OPB Zone District to RSF-3 Zone District in the event that the site and development plan approval expires; that this is what Attorney Smith is making a presentation about tonight. Attorney Taylor continued that the City needs to change this ordinance because, by the terms of the ordinance, instructions are given to do something that may not be in the City's best interest or defensible. Commissioner Atkins stated that he believes this piece of property begs to remain OPB; that he does not see any way that the Commission cannot support this. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to leave the OPB zoning in place and any future development would require preliminary site and development plan approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Attorney Taylor stated that if this motion is what the Commission approves, he will bring back an ordinance to handle this. Book 36 Page 10100 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10101 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels the Planning Department needs to meet with the City Attorney to examine this process because it seems that everything of this nature leaves her struggling every time. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City's Zoning Code has become like an automobile that is in the garage every week because it needs repairs; that he intends to bring a proposal to the Commission within the next 30 to 60 days about an approach and funding for a comprehensive rewrite of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Merrill stated that he does not think the whole Zoning Code needs to be revised because a lot of things will be slipped into it of which the Commission will not be aware. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to leave the OPB zoning in place and any future development would require preliminary site and development plan approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Ms. Robinson stated that she wanted to note that the uses listed in the Conditional Rezoning, which will still be valid with OPB, are low intensity uses. 15. CITIZENS . INPUT - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO REPLACE RESOLUTION NO. 90R-380 ON THE ISSUE CONCERNING AN AMTRAK RAILWAY LINE TO SARASOTA (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0627) through (0802) Walter Diem, 3429 Clark Road, Apt. 229, representing the Florida Association of Railroad Passengers, came before the Commission and stated that he wants to ask the City Commission to support a resolution extending Amtrak's proposed Chicago to Florida service via Nashville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta to the Sarasota-Bradenton area; that if the resolution is passed by the City of Sarasota supporting the extension of Amtrak's proposed service from Atlanta to the Sarasota-Bradenton area, a copy of the resolution will be sent to the Governor, the Secretary of Transportation for the State of Florida, the County Legislative Delegation, United States Senators Connie Mack and Bob Graham, and Congressman Dan Miller. Mayor Pillot asked where the route would terminate? Mr. Diem stated that the route would terminate at the 8th Street coach yards. Mr. Diem presented a copy of Resolution No. 90R-380, which was passed in 1990, to the Mayor and stated that the only major revisions to the resolution would be the proposed route from Atlanta and the reference of the Silver Star coming to Sarasota; that Mr. Nick Sarentini of the Florida Department of Transportation has made Amtrak aware of the desire of the people of Southwest Florida for a rail line into Sarasota. Mayor Pillot asked whether all of the railroad track was in good, usable condition? Mr. Diem stated that the track from Tampa to Oneco is top class rail with all new ties; that the CSX Railroad has indicated that it would hold Amtrak to a 40 mile speed limit; that eight miles of track are in bad condition and would have to be fixed; that presently the State of Florida is planning to spend an additional $6.5 million to fix some railroad tracks from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach on the Florida East Coast Railway through St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. Mr. Diem continued that Amtrak has said that if there is any new service, it would have to be funded by the states; that he understands that the Georgia Department of Transportation has asked the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida to join a compact to determine the amount that each of the states would have to pay for the operation of the service. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports this. Commissioner Atkins stated that he thinks the resolution deserves support. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that he thinks the Commission should direct the Administration to prepare a resolution to be brought back to the Commission at the next Regular Meeting of the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to refer this matter to the Administration to prepare a resolution. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - APPROVAL RE: REJECT THE FEASIBILITY OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WITH THE COUNTY = REJECTED THE FEASIBILITY OF THE SOLID WASTE CONSOLIDATION PER THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO BRING BACK TO THE COMMISSION, OR PRESENT INDIVIDUALLY TO THE COMMISSIONERS IN WRITING, AN ITEMIZATION OF THE $439,000 IN INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION AND $145,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL COSTS (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (0805) through (1307) City Manager Sollenberger stated that last October the Commission asked the Administration to discuss with the County the issue of consolidating solid waste management; that the City's "garbage Book 36 Page 10102 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10103 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. rate" pays for a variety of things which would have an $800,000 impact on the General Fund if the City were to consolidate the solid waste operation with the County; that the City's "garbage rate" pays $175,000 for street sweeping, $75,000 for litter removal, $439,000 in indirect cost allocation, and $145,000 in administrative personnel costs. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he does not believe consolidation (of solid waste management) is in the best interest of the City. Commissioner Merrill stated that he thought the City would have some overhead cost reductions by consolidating (solid waste) with the County; that he would like to see more numbers to justify not consolidating; that he supports the Commission having a full-scale Workshop on this issue for an explanation of the amounts presented today. Commissioner Merrill moved to have the Commission hold a Workshop (on solid waste consolidation with the County) . The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Cardamone asked for an explanation of the Conclusion in Deputy City Manager Schneider's interoffice memorandum to the City Manager dated December 14, 1993, which states "If the City wishes to pursue a consolidation plan further, it should first develop a financial plan that will satisfy the capital obligation of $2.1 million to BFI." Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City would have to figure out how the contractual obligation with BFI (Browning Ferris Industries) would be paid because BFI built the transfer station with a 20-year amortization schedule; that this investment was made because the City anticipated that the County would switch its landfill operations from Bee Ridge Road to the Walton Tract, which would have meant more time would be spent on the road to haul the garbage collected from the City to the (Walton Tract) landfill. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to reject the feasibility of the solid waste consolidation, per the Administrative Recommendation, and to have the Administration bring back to the Commission, or present individually to the Commissioners in writing, an itemization of the $439,000 in indirect cost allocation and $145,000 in administrative personnel costs. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is confused as to why the Commission would want to spend time trying to analyze the numbers if the consolidation is rejected. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that if the Commission feels that the City provision of recycling and garbage service is not the most economical, she feels a more feasible move for the long term would be to look into privatization. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is going to vote against the motion for the reasons mentioned by Vice Mayor Patterson; that he thinks the Commission needs to hold a Workshop on this issue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she does not feel passing this motion prevents the Commission from having a Workshop once the figures are made available. Mayor Pillot stated that the County Administrator pointed out that the Board of County Commissioners could not consider taking over the City's recycling given the contract with BFI; that he feels this is a logical stance for the County to take; that for the City to consider any consolidation, absent recycling, makes no sense to him; that he feels the motion on the table is appropriate. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to reject the feasibility of the solid waste consolidation, per the Administrative Recommendation, and to have the Administration bring back to the Commission, or present individually to the Commissioners in writing, an itemization of the $439,000 in indirect cost allocation and $145,000 in administrative personnel costs. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - REPORT RE: STATUS OF SPORTS COMPLEX LIGHTING - ADMINISTRATION TO ATTEMPT TO FIND FUNDING FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (1322) through (1475) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City has an estimate of $100,000 for replacing field lights at the Sports Complex; that Patrick Calhoon, Sports Facilities Manager, predicts that the lights could be installed by March 30 if there are no untoreseen complications. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City has contacted the County and asked whether a response had been received? Peter Schneider, Deputy city Manager, stated that the County had responded verbally that they are not willing to participate. Mr. Sollenberger stated that if the Commission is interested in doing this project, he would like to explore some funding support from the School District. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she did not want the City to spend $100,000 on stadium lighting when there are some very pressing needs in neighborhoods, Central Avenue specifically. Book 36 Page 10104 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10105 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she fully supports Commissioner Cardamone's comments; that City residents pay for bond issues which benefit a much larger community; that she is willing for the City to pay part of this amount (for replacement of field lights), but not the whole amount since those who benefit far exceed the boundaries of the City. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Administration continue to look for funding for this project and that no action was necessary at this time. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration will attempt to get some financial participation to bring back to the Commission. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - APPROVAL RE: WAIVER AS CITED IN FLORIDA STATUTE 112.313 (7) & (12) TO ALLOW ROBERT M. TOWN, PRINCIPAL OF THE ADP GROUP AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMBER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION WORK IN THE SMALL AREA PLAN AS PART OF THE 50-YEAR VISION PLAN APPROVED THE WAIVER AS CITED IN FS 112.313(7) AND (12) sO THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY PROCEED WITH THE HIRING OF THE ADP GROUP, AS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCES, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT MR. ROBERT TOWN NOT VOTE AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ON ANYTHING REMOTELY RELEVANT TO THE CONTRACT WITH THE ADP GROUP (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (1476) through (1750) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the waiver is necessary because the consultant the City would like to use for the Small Area Plan is the ADP Group and a member of ADP. is on the City's Historic Preservation Advisory Board; that State Legislation states that if the City uses someone (as a consultant) who is on a city Board, the City needs a two-thirds vote from the Commission to waive this. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval of the waiver. Commissioner Merrill asked whether this waiver was an issue of the Historic Preservation Board or would the rule apply for any Advisory Board? Ms. Robinson stated that the rule applies to any City Board. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission, based upon the disclosure that State Law prohibits such relationships, is being asked to recognize that in certain circumstances, when an individual is an appointed Board member, the Commission has the right, by the extraordinary majority, to waive said provision. Commissioner Merrill asked whether a historical agenda would be a primary component being reviewed as part of the study (by ADP)? Ms. Robinson stated that the historical aspect would be a basic foundation. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the waiver as cited in FS 112.313 (7) & (12) so that the Planning Department may proceed with hiring the ADP Group, as to provide an analysis of existing Historic Resources. Commissioner Merrill stated that he thinks it is always best that the City avoids any hint of impropriety; that he thinks an alternative would be for Mr. Robert Town to take a leave of absence (from the Historic Preservation Board); that he thinks it is good for the public to feel that the Commission takes every step it can to avoid any conflicts of interest. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she sometimes runs into conflicts with her husband's business and when a conflict arises, she does not vote on certain issues; that she would be happy to make part of the motion the stipulation that Mr. Town not vote as an Historic Preservation Board member on anything even remotely relevant to this contract (with ADP). On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to stipulate that Mr. Robert Town not vote as a member of the Historic Preservation Board on anything even remotely relevant to the contract with the ADP Group. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the amendment to the motion. Motion to amend carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to approve the waiver as cited in FS 112.313(7) and (12) so that the Planning Department may proceed with the hiring of the ADP Group, as to provide an analysis of existing Historic Resources, with the stipulation that Mr. Robert Town not vote as a member of the Historic Preservation Board on anything remotely relevant to the contract with the ADP Group. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT = DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO HAVE THE ARTIST (VIRGINIA HOFFMAN) PRESENT A REPORT OF HER DESIGNS FOR THE PROJECT TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #2 (1751) through (1982) Book 36 Page 10106 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10107 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, and Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson and left the Commission Chambers at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Daughters stated that the (street) lights are installed on the north side of Main Street and are working; that the large overhead lights rented on a temporary basis will be removed very soon; that trees are being planted. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the globes in the lights were plastic? Mr. Daughters stated that he thinks they are plastic but is not sure. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there are plastic globes at Selby Five Points Park which have turned yellowish; that she thought the globes for this project were going to be glass. Mr. Daughters stated that the cost of the glass globes was much higher. Ms. Hay stated that the glass globes are easily vandalized. Vice Mayor Patterson asked when the Commission would see something representing the artwork that will be proposed for Gulf Stream Avenue? Mr. Daughters stated that the artist works for the contractor; that he just received a copy of a proposal from the artist to the contractor; however, he has not had time to review the proposal yet; that he feels the Commission should be presented with the proposed artwork soon; that the artist has requested an extension of time over and above the contractor's contract time of June 16 (1994). Mayor Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:24 p.m. and Vice Mayor Patterson passed the gavel back to Mayor Pillot. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to see some representation of where the artist is going with the design; that she would like a report from the artist because the artwork will be a prominent part of the project. Mr. Daughters stated that he could provide the Commission with a written schedule within a week. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would prefer to have the artist meet with the Commission rather than to receive a written schedule. Mr. Daughters stated that the fountain subcontractor recently made a mockup for the snowball fountain; that some of the artist's designs are dependent upon her views of this mockup so that her work can be incorporated to fit the fountain. Mr. Daughters continued that a trip is being scheduled to go to see the fountain mockup. Vice Mayor Patterson asked that Mr. Daughters bring back photographs of the fountain mockup for the Commission to see. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS PRESENTATION. RE: INTERSECTION OF U.S. 41 AND THE MAIN STREET EXTENSION - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS CURRENTLY PLANNED BUT TO EXPLORE LEFT-TURN LANES AS THE SECOND STAGE OF THIS PROJECT IF APPROVAL CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FDOT (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #2 (1983) through #3 (0668) Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had requested this discussion on December 6; that she understands that work is moving ahead to start the intersection. Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, and Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Ms. Hay distributed copies of drawings (copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) to the Commissioners and also displayed the drawings on the overhead projector. Mr. Daughters stated that the first drawing depicted the U.S. 41 and Main Street intersection plan that the Commission previously approved, for which permits have been issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and is contracted to be built. Mr. Daughters stated that if the Commission decides to pursue left-turn pockets (on U.S. 41 at this proposed intersection) and FDOT approves the left-turn pockets, the only work that would have to be redone (currently scheduled to be paid for with the EDA Grant), that is contracted to be done now, would be about 100 feet of curb and a storm drain inlet that would have to be modified; that the work that would have to be redone would cost about $5,280. Mr. Daughters stated that the drawing showing left-turn pockets was based on current criteria approved by the FDOT; that the existing left-turn pockets at Ringling Boulevard were designed under the FDOT's 1991 criteria and now the FDOT has its 1993 criteria which changed significantly for left-turn pockets; that the FDOT's 1993 criteria would require a minimum 150 foot storage lane and a 300 foot transition lane. Mr. Daughters continued that the posted speed of 40 miles per hour on U.S. 41 would require this combined distance of 450 feet (for left-turn pockets) o Book 36 Page 10108 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10109 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked what the distance (for left-turn pockets) was under the FDOT's 1991 criteria? Mr. Daughters stated 350 feet. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether there was any possibility the Commission could petition the FDOT to allow the City to use the same criteria used at Ringling Boulevard (at U.S. 41). Mr. Daughters stated that the Commission could petition the FDOT. Mr. Daughters stated that the (1993) 300 foot transition lane is a full 12 foot width the entire length due to the new criteria; that the old criteria was that the lane tapered from 12 foot wide at a straight angle back to 0 in the 150 foot distance; that the new criteria means the median would be too narrow for landscaping; that the FDOT said they are required to look at the new 1993 criteria if the City changes the currently approved design. Mr. Daughters continued that the existing left-turn lane pocket on northbound U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue, going to the islands is very long but the full-width distance is currently only 200 feet; that this left-turn lane pocket distance would have to be shortened, even though this pocket backs up now, in order to meet the new criteria of 450 feet for left-turn lane pockets at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Main Street; therefore, the distance required (for left-turn lanes at Main Street) would have to be met by going in the other direction (south). Commissioner Cardamone asked again whether the City could ask the FDOT to allow the City to build the same kind of intersection that was approved at Ringling Boulevard (and U.S. 41)? Mr. Daughters stated that the City can ask the FDOT anything. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the request referred to by Commissioner Cardamone would be met with reasonable success? Mr. Daughters stated that he has asked this question already and the answer was no because the City would have to abide by the current (1993) criteria; however, if the Commission directs the Administration to pursue left-turn pockets on U.S. 41 at Main Street, he will do everything he can; that the City has been successful in getting everything thus far. Mr. Daughters stated that the City consulted with David Johnston as a specialist on the affect (of left-turn lane pockets) on the landscaping. David W. Johnston, landscape architect, came before the Commission and stated that a visibility triangle is mandated through one of the highway design guidelines by the FDOT in Index 546; that this guideline mandates that from the stop bar at any intersection, presuming the driver's eyes are 10 feet behind the stop bar, the driver needs to be able to see 950 feet in either direction with an unobstructed view of any major vegetation; that the rule allows vegetation within the visibility triangle; however, the vegetation cannot be over 30 inches in height unless the trunk diameter is not more than 4 inches and the foliage on such vegetation must have a 65 to 7 foot clear trunk above the top of the curb. Mr. Johnston continued that all of the Sylvester Palms, oaks, and oleanders would have to be removed from Ringling Boulevard to Gulf Stream Avenue (on U.S. 41) because of noncompliance with Index 546 (if left-turn lanes are added). Mr. Daughters stated that because of the short distance between Main Street and the Ringling Boulevard intersection, the left-turn pockets would be back-to-back with a narrow ribbon of landscaped area about four to five feet wide sufficient only for ground cover. Mr. Johnston stated that the minimum (FDOT) standard from face of curb to any impediment is four feet; that major renovations would have to be made to the irrigation system (currently in the medians) because of the valving and main lines that run down the median as well as removal and relocation of the majority of the existing vegetation; that the cost estimate ($19,070) for these changes is provided in his letter to Mr. Daughters dated January 17, 1994 (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk). Mr. Daughters stated that the cost to construct the two left-turn pockets, one to go to Marina Jack and one to go up Main Street, would cost in the range of $70-75,000; that this amount includes the $19,000 referred to by Mr. Johnston. Mr. Daughters stated that the vegetation currently on the medians would not be approved (ly the FDOT) today because it does not meet the current criteria; that the landscaping was based on the fact that the plan for the Main Street crossing originally was as a pedestrian crossing only; therefore, visibility problems were not a factor; that after some traffic engineering studies, the FDOT very reluctantly approved the current plans for Main Street as a (vehicular) crossing with all movements except left-turn movements off of U.S. 41; that if the City requests changes to the currently approved plans, the FDOT is going to have to look at the landscaping criteria and he is not very optimistic about the retention of the current landscaping. Mr. Daughters stated that left turns impact intersections from the vehicular point of view in reducing through capacity in terms of time of getting through a certain area; that the impact to through capacity would not be known until a detailed traffic analysis is made. Mr. Daughters stated that the Administration recommends authorizing the contractor to proceed with the work that is approved and permitted now because, if action on the approved work is delayed, Book 36 Page 10110 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10111 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. there is the possibility that the project will not be funded by the grant from the EDA (Economic Development Administration); ; that it is to the City's benefit to have to pay only 20% of this project (with the remainder funded by the EDA Grant). Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 8:50 p.m. Paul N. Thorpe, Jr., 47 S. Palm Avenue, #212, came before the Commission and stated that he is the Executive Director of The Downtown Association of Sarasota; that The Downtown Association would like to see whether a left-hand turn onto Main Street is feasible since Main Street is the main artery of the City of Sarasota and would give access to the Main Street business district to people traveling south on U.S. 41. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether The Downtown Association knew previously that no left-turn lanes were planned (at Main Street) for this project. Mr. Thorpe stated that The Downtown Association reviewed with Mr. Daughters the original plans for a pedestrian walkway; that The Downtown Association pushed for and advocated having the trolley go through (the pedestrian walkway) so that the trolley could loop around Marina Jack and come back out to Main Street; that The Downtown Association was aware that no left-turns were planned when it was decided to permit vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian traffic in the area. Commissioner Cardamone asked how much the city was spending on the redevelopment of Main Street for this project? Vice Mayor Patterson stated $400,000. Commissioner Cardamone asked the total cost of the project? Commissioner Merrill stated $2 million. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:52 p.mo Lee Sullivan, #2 Marina Plaza, representing Marina Jack and Bayfront tenants, came before the Commission and stated that he is not in favor of postponing the work in progress; that he understands that it will be relatively easy to construct such left-turn lanes later and would avoid added expense with the contractor; that the left-turn issue has been one that Marina Jack favors; that he understood the reason for not having left-turns was because of the elimination of landscaping in the median; however, in the past the City has been able to obtain whatever requests made of the FDOT to modify regulations and rules on U.S. 41. Mr. Sullivan continued that it is apparent there are some inadequacies with traffic flow through the parking area (at the Bayfront) on the west side of U.S. 41 now and some redesign will need to take place; that traffic consultants explained to him that left-turn lanes at Main Street would increase the green time on U.S. 41 and would not lengthen the red time or slow down traffic, but actually increase the flow of traffic. Mr. Sullivan stated that he feels restricting traffic to the Bayfront or downtown would be unwise in view of all of the money spent on redeveloping the area. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels signage is real important for someone coming from the south who wants to go to Marina Jack or to Island Park who may not be aware that the Ringling Boulevard entrance is the only opportunity for access; that she hopes very clear signage is planned to alert motorists of the only opportunity to enter Island Park and the other amenities, including the restaurant. Mr. Daughters stated that the issue of signage has been discussed with the FDOT and there are regulations on signage also; that the FDOT would allow signage in advance of Ringling Boulevard or at Ringling Boulevard, but not both; that he would not recommend identifying private businesses because it is not commonly done; that the FDOT might approve use of the wording "Marina Plaza." Mayor Pillot stated that he questions that identifying private businesses on (highway) signage is not commonly done because the interchanges on the interstate highways have signs showing the logos of gas stations and hotels. Mr. Daughters stated that he would be more optimistic about asking the FDOT for dual signage or multiple signage than he would for left turns. Mr. Daughters stated that residents along Gulf Stream Avenue have already indicated displeasure that Gulf Stream Avenue will have Stop signs at Main Street; that left-turn lanes have the potential to impact Gulf Stream Avenue residents even more by increasing traffic on Main Street. Commissioner Merrill stated that access (to the area) is going to be easier after this project is completed than it was before the changes; that today U.S. 41 and Main Street do not connect and motorists still cannot turn into Marina Jack; that people have not been complaining to him because it is hard to get to Marina Jack; that if someone misses the access to Marina Jack, a U turn can be made or a right-hand turn made on Gulf Stream Avenue; that the original plan for the opening at Main Street was for pedestrians, not automobiles; that he feels the access to the area will be better after this project is completed than before the changes. Commissioner Merrill continued that there could be better traffic flow to get cars into Island Park but the compromise of cutting down the trees in the median is not a better option; that he agrees clear signage is needed for traffic; that he feels it would be wrong to clear the trees out of the medians; that he thinks the plans the Commission has approved are the best ones. Book 36 Page 10112 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10113 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether it was appropriate for her to vote on this issue tonight since her husband's law firm represents Marina Jack? Attorney Taylor stated that he thinks it is appropriate for Vice Mayor Patterson to vote on this item because there is no involvement of the firm in the process going on. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to proceed with the current plans. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City will be able to see how the plan works for a relatively small cost and she feels proper signage will be a determining factor of whether the plan works or not. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports the motion to continue with the current plans, but feels the City should explore left-turn lanes for the highest and best use for Main Street and the Bayfront property. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to include exploring left-turn lanes as the second stage of this project if approval can be obtained from the FDOT. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she thinks the City should first see how the current plan works before deciding to change it. Mayor Pillot stated that the landscape architect stated that the trees would be relocated and not cut down. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the amendment to the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the amended motion to proceed with the work as currently planned but to include exploring left-turn lanes as thè second stage of this project if approval can be obtained from the FDOT. Motion as amended carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 21. NEW BUSINESS - ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-707, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART II, CHAPTER 166, FLORIDA STATUTES AND CHAPTER 132, FLORIDA STATUTES, OF NOT EXCEEDING $8,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO ADVANCE REFUND ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE $8,000,000 OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, DATED MARCH 1, 1987, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WERE USED TO PAY THE COST OF THE STADIUM PROJECT (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) DESIGNATING THE UNDERWRITERS WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED: DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO FIX CERTAIN DETAILS OF THE BONDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED AND THE REFUNDING OF THE BONDS TO BE REFUNDED (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) TO APPROVE THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND OFFICIAL STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH BONDS, WITH THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO APPROVE THE FORM OF AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT OF PURCHASE BETWEEN THE CITY AND SUCH UNDERWRITERS RELATING TO SUCH BONDS AND TO TAKE OTHER ACTIONS REOUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND, IN THE CASE OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT, THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY UNDER THE CONDITIONS HEREIN; AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE BONDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED THROUGH NEGOTIATION WITH ONE OR MORE UNDERWRITERS SELECTED BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) AND 22. NEW BUSINESS - ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-708, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $20,000,000 INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX REFUNDING BONDS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO ADVANCE REFUND ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE $15,755,000 OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA INFRABTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX BONDS, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1989, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WERE USED TO PAY THE COST OF THE 1989 PROJECT (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED); DESIGNATING THE UNDERWRITERS WITH RESPECT. TO THE BONDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO FIX CERTAIN DETAILS OF THE BONDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED AND THE REFUNDING OF THE BONDS TO BE REFUNDED (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED), TO APPROVE THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND OFFICIAL STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH BONDS, WITH THE ADVICE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO APPROVE THE FORM OF AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT OF PURCHASE BETWEEN THE CITY AND SUCH UNDERWRITERS RELATING TO SUCH BONDS AND TO TAKE OTHER ACTIONS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND, IN THE CASE OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT, THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY UNDER THE CONDITIONS STATED HEREIN; AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE BONDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED THROUGH NEGOTIATION WITH ONE OR MORE UNDERWRITERS SELECTED BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (0670) through (0950) Mayor Pillot stated that he thought Agenda Items VIII-1 and VIII-2 could be addressed simultaneously. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission. Commissioner Merrill asked for an explanation of the purpose of proposed Resolution No. 94R-708. Book 36 Page 10114 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10115 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mitchell stated that as interest rates go lower, it requires more bonds to effectively replace them. Commissioner Merrill asked whether the debt of the City was being increased. Mr. Mitchell stated no. Commissioner Merrill asked how much it would cost the City to pay off the outstanding principal? Mr. Mitchell stated that the analysis he received late last week indicated issuing bonds in the amount of about $14 million; that it is an advance refunding. Mayor Pillot asked that the City Manager explain the reason for the presentation to be made in New York City. City Manager Sollenberger stated that it is important for the City to meet with the grading houses, Moody's and Standard and Poor's, so that the very best rating can be achieved which translates into the interest amount to be paid; that the financing for the trip to New York City to make the presentation comes out of the bond issue proceeds. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-707 and 94R-708 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-707 authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds not to exceed $8,000,000 and to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-708 authorizing the issuance of Infrastructure Sales Surtax Refunding Bonds, Series 1994 not to exceed $20,000,000. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 23. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION RE: CLOSURE OF THE POLICE SUBSTATION LOCATED ON DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. WAY DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A STATISTICAL REPORT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A REPORT ON THE WHERE ARE YOUR PARENTS PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (0954) through (2357) Commissioner Cardamone stated that she requested this item placed on the agenda because she was surprised to learn of the closure of the Police substation on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way without the Commission being apprised of the closure and she would like an explanation. Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that the substation is not closed on a permanent basis; that two goals of the City Commission for Public Safety are as follows: (1) Citywide community policing, including reevaluation of substations and (2) Expand community policing by reallocating existing staff resources. Chief Jolly continued that the Police Services Bureau is in the process of training the entire department in community based policing as well as integrating the Community Resource Team (CRT) back into patrolling so that everyone is doing the same thing, namely community based policing. Chief Jolly stated that as part of the reallocation of resources for community based policing, the CRT this year has been reduced from 16 officers and 2 sergeants to 8 police officers and 1 sergeant, who are still performing their specialized function; that four of these police officers are contracted by the Housing Authority and paid for through a HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Grant to be in public housing. Chief Jolly continued that the CRT staffing and where the CRT has been allocated over the last few months is being reevaluated with primary focus on the public housing complex on Orange Avenue at 18th Street; that staffing is maintained at this location because of the problems at Augustine Quarters until Augustine Quarters was demolished. Chief Jolly stated that now the two police officers assigned to the Orange Avenue at 18th Street complex will soon be returned to the King Way Substation; that he wants police officers to use this substation and all of the substations when appropriate; that recently he strongly reemphasized the need for this; that it was never his intention to close the substation, but the substation has been short staffed recently. Commissioner Atkins stated that when the Commission talked about the goals of reevaluating community based policing, he had hoped that someone would bring the reevaluation to the Commission relating to the new direction being taken; that things being done need to be explained to the Commission ahead of time as well as during the time things are being done so the Commissioners can have some explanations for their constituents. Commissioner Atkins asked about POP policing. Chief Jolly stated that POP is Problem Oriented Policing; that it means going back to an old fashioned form of policing by trying to work with the community and residents to solve problems; that POP is a more formalized training program but almost identical to the training program given to the CRT five years ago; that he thought it was the intent of the Commission to have everyone in the entire Police Bureau doing the same thing the CRT officers have been doing, which is trying to find root causes of long-term problems, find solutions for long-term problems, and work closely with residents to determine what the problems are and the solutions to the problems. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that police are not going to be able to find all the social problems in the City and correct them; that the police substations should not be staffed with people just sitting, Book 36 Page 10116 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10117 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. but should represent a focus of a community oriented patrol as the base of operations for a police beat; that she believes Commissioner Atkins is correct that the Commission needs to be updated on what is happening. Chief Jolly stated that he agrees the substations need to be the focal point; that one of the down sides to establishing substations is that many times an expectation is created on the part of the public that a police officer should be sitting inside the substation 24 hours a day all week; that the police are not going to try to solve the social causes of crime. Chief Jolly continued that an example he would like to use is Cohen Way and what it was like five years ago and what is has become; that a great deal (of the change) occurred not because the police officers doing community based policing solved the social issues which create crime, but facilitated some simple solutions to very serious problems; that simple solutions like implementing screening of tenants, working with the Housing Authority to evict criminals, and being a pain in the neck until someone painted the place so it looked better and created a better environment; that this is the type of policing to which he is referring. Chief Jolly stated that the Police Bureau is going to make a presentation to the Commission on January 24 and hold a discussion on Problem Oriented Policing and community based policing. Mayor Pillot stated that he believes a police officer can help an individual and social problems are made up of individuals causing the social problems; that he is optimistic this can happen in Sarasota. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City has problems which need to be taken care of and a lack of visibility by the Police Department sends a signal to the people giving the City a lot of the problems. Chief Jolly stated that he sincerely apologized for the lack of information on this to the Commission. Commissioner Merrill stated that he holds the Police Chief responsible for the crime rate and not for programs; that he wants to see the crime rate go down and have the Chief tell the Commission what to do if the crime rate does not go down. Mayor Pillot stated that during the budget meetings the Commission eliminated ten (Police) positions that were in the Table of Organization but not filled; that the Community Service Aides were virtually eliminated, which placed burdens on sworn officers; that police presence makes a difference; that he feels the City's Police Department is trying very hard to do what the community, through the City Commission, wants done. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to receive a report as to how many officers are actually on the street at any given time as opposed to support personnel or desk jobs, how many officers are involved in provision of law enforcement as opposed to desk jobs, and how many officers are already allocated to the north part of town. Chief Jolly stated that twice the Police Bureau ran a temporary armed robbery task force when there was a serious problem with armed robberies; that the task force was effective; that the old tactical squad was abolished and a new unit in the Criminal Investigations Division called the Street Crimes Unit was created which is staffed with a lieutenant, a sergeant, and 11 police officers; that this unit has been working on Central Avenue for the last two months and the unit has made a significant difference in that area; that this unit will be targeting Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK), Jr. Way soon with the same problem oriented approach that was applied to Central Avenue. Mayor Pillot asked whether anyone in the audience wanted to make any comments. Dr. Ed James, no address given, came before the Commission and stated that the businessmen with him in the audience have concernsi that one businessman had the windows in his business broken six times in two weeks; that it is hard for businesses (in the Newtown area) to get insurance and incidents such as this would escalate the premiums; that the businessman did not report this to his insurance company and had to cover the loss; that the community is concerned that the area is slipping back to the old days where the community was treated with benign neglect; that crimes are being committed and police officers drive by and ignore the crimes. Dr. James stated that since the MLK Way Substation was one of the first ones he does not understand how it could be Closed while the Gillespie Park Substation was manned; that if the City does not support the (Newtown) community to deal with the problems, the problems will move to other areas of the City; that he hopes that the Police Chief will reallocate the officers so that (Newtown) gets the same kind of service that every other place in the City gets. Dr. James continued that the businessmen have cooperated with the Police and have done everything that has been asked of them and the community deserves better. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has asked Public Safety Director Lewis and Police Chief Jolly to work on having the police officers take more affirmative action by walking patrol and making more contact with the people in the area in order to achieve the kind of policing the community wants. Book 36 Page 10118 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10119 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that it seems the Police Force is being viewed by the public as a line of defense against crime and the Police are only a piece of criminal justice, which includes judges and the prisons; however, the Commission is always pressured to solve the crime problems with Police; that random, violent crime is up and it is hard to station someone on every corner to stop random, violent crime. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Chief has gotten some nice publicity beyond the local area for the Where Are Your Parents program; that she would like to have a report as to how this program is working. 24. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MPO, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), AND MEMBER GOVERNMENTS OF THE MPO - REJECTED RATIFICATION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE INTENT IS TO ALLOW THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO BE AN EOUAL VOTING MEMBER (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #3 (2358) through (2600) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he received a letter from Michael Guy (Executive Director of the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization MPO) this morning asking that the Commission act on the Interlocal Agreement (between the MPO, the FDOT, and member governments of the MPO) ; that he has not had a chance to read the Agreement; that the voting membership (of the MPO) is being expanded; that the question is how comfortable the City Commission is with cities being further and further relegated to lesser and lesser roles by virtue of diminished participation; that the MPO would like to have this Interlocal Agreement in place by a meeting later this month. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she has difficulty with the way the MPO works in terms of the City of Sarasota's particular interests; that the (John Ringling Causeway) bridge issue was a substantial example of this; that the letter from Mr. Guy states that the Interlocal Agreement is so the Airport Authority can be made a voting member of the MPO; that she has trouble with someone in North Port having an equal say as to what a bridge should be like that crosses the Sarasota Bayfront; that she thinks such a move would be a further dilution of the City's ability to affect decisions of which she thinks the city should have control. Commissioner Merrill stated that the MPO gets significant funds which go to the Sarasota/Manatee) Airport and no one from the Airport is on the MPO to discuss these funds; however, he thinks the Commission should vote against supporting the proposed Interlocal Agreement. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to reject ratification of the Interlocal Agreement because the intent is to allow the Airport Authority to be an equal voting member. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 25. BOARD APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT RE: CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD = REAPPOINTED DR. MARY JELKS (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #3 (2601) through (2613) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to reappoint Dr. Mary Jelks to the Sarasota County Solid Waste Management Citizens Advisory Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 26. REMARKS OF COMMISBIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A REPORT ON THE PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING SPEED BUMPS ON HILLVIEW STREET: DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO NOTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL WHEN THE ISSUE OF THE STRIPING ON U.S. 41 BETWEEN OSPREY AND ORANGE AVENUES IS PLACED ON THE COMMISSION'S AGENDA; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO CHECK INTO THE ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DISTRIBUTED BY COMMISSIONER ATKINS; DIRECTED THE ADKINISTRATION TO CONTACT MRS. IVORY WILSON REGARDING HER HUSBAND'S ABSENCE FROM WORK DUE TO ILLNESS (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (2614) through (3552) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the Bayfront area looks better with the landscaping being well maintained; however, the dwarf bougainvillea on the southern part of the U.S. 41 median is looking ratty and she thinks it will have to be replaced and asks that it not be replaced with more dwarf. bougainvillea. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would have the Staff confer with David Johnston, landscape architect, for a different material to replace the dwarf bougainvillea. B. stated that she thinks the Commission approved speed bumps on Hillview Street and she understands there is substantial (neighborhood) opposition to this; that on the next Commission Agenda she would like a report as to what public input has been received. Book 36 Page 10120 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10121 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. C. stated that people have had numerous meetings with Asim Mohammed (Assistant city Engineer) regarding traffic abatement for Bahia Vista Street; that she understands the residents have settled on an innocuous request for a neckout to narrow the main intersections to what it would be if a car were parked there; that she would like a report on this as well. D. stated that she thinks the striping on U.S. 41 going east between Orange and Osprey Avenues is a hazard. city Manager Sollenberger stated that he thinks this item should be placed on an upcoming Commission Agenda. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Neighborhood Advisory Council should be notified. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. distributed copies of an article to the Commission that was in the St. Petersburg Times on January 14, 1994, entitled "Drug Money Recycled for Good" and stated that he thinks it is a great example of what he has been trying to say all along; that he would like for the City Police Department, under the direction of the Administration and with the support of the Commission, to look at the type of activity mentioned in the article because there are a lot of worthy causes. Mayor Pillot stated that the article states "Law enforcement agencies that collect at least $15,000 a year through the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act must give 15 percent of the proceeds to promoting support or operation of drug treatment, education, crime prevention, or school resource officer programs.' It was the consensus of the Commission to direct the Administration to check into the items mentioned in the newspaper article distributed by Commissioner Atkins. B. stated that Ivory Wilson (a City employee) is very sick and he spoke to Ivory Wilson's wife recently and she told him that Mr. Wilson was about to come to work one day so that he can be recognized as having been back on the job as it relates to the City's health plan; that he thinks this needs to be checked into; that some compassion is needed. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how long Mr. Wilson has been on sick leave? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that he believes it is about 10 weeks. Commissioner Atkins asked that someone reassure Mrs. Wilson about this situation as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER MERRILL: A. stated that he is glad Commissioner Atkins advised the Commission of the newspaper article (on money collected through the Florida Contraband Act); that he thinks the city grossly lacks support for the Crime Watch groups and perhaps some of the money could be spent to provide radios to these groups. B. stated that Vice Mayor Patterson used the word "innocuous" regarding traffic abatement on Bahia Vista Street; that (traffic abatement) cannot be innocuous and move 6,000 cars on a street but will create a backlash; that he has been a big supporter of traffic abatement and he is reluctant to have such a massive change so fast. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that since she became a Commissioner, numerous presentations and awards have been made to some fine people in this City; that the problem with the presentations is that the people always have their backs to the Commission; that she would like to see some way that the audience has a view of these people but that the Commission has a view of the people also so congratulations can be offered. Mayor Pillot stated that he appoints Commissioner Cardamone to come up with a solution to this dilemma. MAYOR PILLOT: None 27. OTHER MATTERS (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #3 (3553) through (3566) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: None CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that the meeting on Monday, January 24, is at 6:00 p.m. and the meeting will be televised. Book 36 Page 10122 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10123 01/18/94 6:00 P.M. CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: None 28. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (3569) The Regular Meeting of the Sarasota City Commission of January 18, 1994, adjourned at 10:30 p.m. OTA A - > GENE M. PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: o 90 lly E Robnson BILLY ECROBINSON, CI'TY AUDITOR AND CLERK