BOOK 58 Page 29583 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 2005, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Richard F. Martin, Vice Mayor Mary Anne Servian, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Lou Ann R. Palmer, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, City Attorney Robert M. Fournier, and V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager ABSENT: City Manager Michael A. McNees, attending an arbitration in Tampa, Florida PRESIDING: Mayor Martin The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:30 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED CD 2:35 through 2:42 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IV-A-13, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants for the City Pointe Mixed Use Project, per the request of City Attorney Fournier. B. Add Unfinished Business, Item No. VI-3, Report Re: Status of the rezoning to the four new Downtown Zone Districts, per the request of City Attorney Fournier. Mayor Martin stated that Agenda Item XVII-1 regarding a budget amendment for $2,050 to help fund costs for the 25th Anniversary of the Farmers Market is near the end of the Agenda subsequent to lengthy public hearings; that the item should be moved to be heard prior to the public hearings in the evening session if acceptable to the Farmers Market. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that input concerning advancing the Agenda Item will be sought from the representative of the Farmers Market. Mayor Martin asked if the Commission has any objections to the Changes to the Orders of the Day; stated that hearing none, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. 2. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDAS REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1, ITEM NO. 13, WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS CD 2:42 Mayor Martin asked if any Commissioner wished to remove an item from Consent Agenda No. 1 or 2. Commissioner Palmer stated that some questions exist regarding Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 13 regarding the Cancellation, Satisfaction and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants with the City Pointe project (Agreement), which presents issues regarding rezoning and ownership of property; that historic properties on site are involved; and asked the impact or effect of the rezoning and ownership of property issues? City Attorney Fournier stated that the Exchange Agreement involves a property the developer is attempting to assemble and close; that the property is under contract and the lender requested the cancellation of the Exchange Agreement to enable the project to move forward. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Agreement is specifically for the historic properties. City Attorney Fournier stated that is correct; that the Agreement does not become effective until the ordinance approving the rezoning and site plan is passed on second reading and an application to move the historic structures is filed. Commissioner Atkins stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Items IV-A-1 and -2 are a concern regarding the City's ability to remove trash and rubbish; that the price charged is unreasonable based on the market value; that people who own the property request a waiver as the property owner cannot afford the removal; that a vicious cycle is created for people who can barely maintain property to all but forfeit the property due to the price charged by the City. BOOK 58 Page 29584 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29585 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. City Attorney Fournier stated that the issue can be addressed during a public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the two items are to set the issues for public hearing soothe response can be provided at that time. Mayor Martin requested that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IV-A- 13, concerning authorizing the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Cancellation, Satisfaction and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants for the City Pointe Mixed Use Project be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IV-A-13, will be considered under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item No. VI-4, which will be heard in the afternoon session. 3. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:42 There was no one signed up to speak. 4. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 2:42 through 2:43 Mayor Martin asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Martin stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the Regular City Commission meeting of January 3, 2005, are approved by unanimous consent. 5. BOARD ACTIONS: APPROVAL RE: HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD REPORT RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM III-1) CD 2:43 through 2:50 Suzanne Atwell, Chair, and Manuel Chepote, Vice Chair, Human Relations Board, came before the Commission. Ms. Atwell stated that an Executive Summary dated January 18, 2005, has been prepared and is included in the Agenda backup material. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the outreach activities of the Human Relations Board are pleasing; and asked if the activities will be ongoing events? Ms. Atwell stated yes; that the next event will be Fair Housing Month; that the Human Relations Board is moving forward with other events. Vice Mayor Servian asked if budgetary issues have been considered for the next fiscal year 2005/06 sO the Human Relations Board requirements will be included in the budget workshops in July 2005? Ms. Atwell stated yes. Mayor Martin stated that a part of the Board Report process of all the advisory boards is the budget considerations for the next fiscal year. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Executive Summary is the first report from the Human Relations Board; that an overview of the activities since the Human Relations Board was initiated should be provided. Mr. Chepote stated that an attempt is to reach the Spanish community which is significant in the area; that the Spanish publications are being contacted to reach a large part of the population; that the Human Relations Board has finalized, approved, and distributed a nondiscrimination brochure in Spanish. Ms. Atwell stated that Human Relations Board Member, Michelle Martin, is participating in the Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence (SCOPE) study concerning race and cultural relations; that the Human Relations Board has participated in various events such as the National Night Out, the Fair Housing Summit, and the Newtown Unity Celebration; that she was pleased to attend a meeting at the Central-Cocoanut Neighborhood Association at the time Kelley Cornish, President, Avery & Associates Diversity Specialists, spoke; that Ms. Cornish was presenting at an unfortunately poorly attended neighborhood meeting concerning diversity issues in the neighborhoods; that the hope is in the future Ms. Cornish will speak at more neighborhood associations and will speak at the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) meeting; that Ms. Cornish is a wonderful person; that Ms. Cornish attended the January 17, 2005, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration; that at the next Human Relations Board meeting, Richard Bergman, the Director of the Sarasota-Manatee Arch Family BOOK 58 Page 29586 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29587 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Holocaust Education Center, will be speaking to inform the Human Relations Board and attendees regarding the Embracing Our Differences exhibit; that the Human Relations Board is working with the Florida Commission on Human Relations to bring the "Taking the Commission to the Community" program to the City in April 2005; that the Human Relations Board has two active complaints; that since inception, seven complaints have been adjudicated; that many of the complaints have been referred out as the complaints do not fit the criteria of the Nondiscrimination Ordinance; that. the measure of an effective ordinance is the lack of enforcement; that the bias is to conciliate issues; that conciliation is the basis of the Human Relations Board; that the mere existence of the Nondiscrimination Ordinance has a broad impact; that continuing to work the outreach efforts makes the community increasingly aware of the existence of the Human Relations Board; that employers, housing personnel, and representatives of public accommodation facilities will by default look at the regulations as a deterrent; that the existence of the Human Relations Board rather than the measurement of complaints may have a wider impact. Mayor Martin stated that the activity and visibility of the Human Relations Board are impressive; that establishing the Human Relations Board is one of the most significant sources of pride to the community and Commission; that the Human Relations Board is one of the most important initiatives to the community and the Commission. Ms. Atwell stated that the Human Relations Board brings a tangibility to the nondiscrimination issue. Mayor Martin recognized Lottie Swan Crawford, a member of the Human Relations Board, present in the Chambers audience and thanked her for her part on the Human Relations Board. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to receive the report of the Human Relations Board of January 18, 2005, concerning activities since April 15, 2004. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. The Commission recessed at 2:50 p.m. into a Special meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and reconvened at 4:05 p.m. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, AND 12 = APPROVED; ITEM NO. 13 REMOVED AND WILL BE DISCUSSED UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS AS AGENDA ITEM NO. VI-4 (AGENDA ITEM IV-A) CD 4:05 through 4:06 1. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 05-4596, amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code, 1985 Edition, as adopted by reference in Chapter 11, Article II, Sarasota City Code; Providing that in an action to enforce an order or to foreclose on Lien, the City shall be entitled to recover all costs, including a reasonable Attorneys fee, that it incurs thereby; Repealing Ordinances in conflict; Providing for severability if any of the parts hereof are declared invalid; etc. 2. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 05-4599, amending the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 16, Recycling and Solid Waste, Article III, Accumulations of Junk, Trash, Rubbish, Weeds and Vegetation, Section 16-56, Enforcement and Collection by providing that in an action to enforce an order or to foreclose on a Lien, the City shall be entitled to recover all costs, including a reasonable Attorneys Fee; Repealing Ordinances in conflict; Providing for severability if any of the parts hereof are declared invalid; etc. 3. Approval Re: Authorize Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Agreement between the City Of Sarasota and One Source Landscape and Golf Services, Inc., for the purpose of providing maintenance services for the initial term of five years beginning February 4, 2005. 4. Approval Re: Amendment to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, to delete the Storefront Renovation Program/Economic Development ($50,000) and add this amount to the improvement of Fredd "Glossie" Atkins Park, which includes acquisition of property, design and construction. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to accept the William G. Selby and Marie Selby Foundation Challenge Grant #S05-44. BOOK 58 Page 29588 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29589 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Human Relations Board Rules of Procedure. 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Waiver of Construction Security Agreement between the City Of Sarasota and Mote Marine Laboratory Inc., for the construction of Ann and Alfred Goldstein Marine Mammal Research and Rehabilitation Center. 8. Approval Re: Annual Board Report of the Citizen Tax Oversight Committee on the Penny Sales Tax Extension. 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Neighborhood Partnership Office to use $2,500 from the Neighborhood Grant Program to fund the cost scholarships and speaker expense for the Manasota Regional Neighborhoods Summit on February 26, 2005. 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Florida Holocaust Museum, Inc., for the Florida Holocaust Museum. 11. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the West Coast Inland Navigation Grant Third Party Agreements for funding toward the Moorings Project (Project No. S-89) in the amount of $75,000.00 and the Police Marine Improvements (Project No. S-88) in the amount of $161,500.00. 12. Approval Re: Amendment to 2005-2005 Consolidate Plan. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 through 12, inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yesi Martin, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 05R-1821) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 4:06 through 4:07 1. Adoption Re: Resolution No. 05R-1821, calling for the First Municipal Election to be held on March 8, 2005, and the Second Municipal Election to be held on April 12, 2005, if required, for the purpose of electing two At-Large City Commissioners for a term of four years; setting forth the location of the polling places; names of clerks, inspectors and officers; etc. (Title Only) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 05R-1821 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. Mayor Martin stated that a letter of thanks should be sent to the William G. Selby and Marie Selby Foundation for the Challenge Grant and to the members of the Citizens Tax Oversight Committee for their etforts. 8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: : ST. ARMANDS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD DIRECTORS = REAPPOINTED VICKY FRY (AGENDA ITEM V-1) CD 4:07 through 4:08 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the St. Armands Business Improvement District Board is comprised of three members; that the term held by Vicky Fry expired December 31, 2004; that Ms. Fry is eligible for and has expressed an interest in reappointment. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to reappoint Vicky Fry to the St. Armands Business Improvement District Board. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Ms. Fry has been serving well and the belief is Ms. Fry will continue to do sO. Commissioner Palmer concurred. Mayor Martin stated that the current members of the St. Armands Business Improvement District Board are on an excellent track; keeping the team together is good; that the improvements on St. Armands Key are exciting. BOOK 58 Page 29590 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29591 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to reappoint Vicky Fry to the St. Armands Business Improvement District Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - DISCUSSION RE: : INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUNDS FOR PROJECTS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE INCREASED DENSITY IN THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT (DROD) FROM $2,500 AND $1,000 RESPECTIVELY TO A TOTAL OF THREE PERCENT OF THE SALES PRICE OF THE UNITS FOR ALLOCATION ON THE SAME BASIS AS AT PRESENT AND POSSIBLY IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON APPROVAL OF REQUESTS SUBMITTED UNDER THE DROD DURING THE PROCESSING OF ANY INCREASE IN THE CONTRIBUTIONS RESCHEDULED AGENDA ITEM VI-2 TO THE FEBRUARY 7, 2005, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING, : DIRECTED AN ORDINANCE BE PREPARED AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO AMEND THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT (DROD) ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE CONTRIBUTION FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUNDS TO THREE PERCENT OF THE SALE PRICE OF ALL UNITS EXCLUDING THE UNITS WHICH MEET THE 1,250 SQUARE FOOT CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS AT PRESENT, TO ADD A REQUIREMENT THE DEVELOPMENT MUST MEET THE DOWNTOWN CODE, AND TO REQUIRE THE UNITS BE OWNER-OCCUPIED (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 4:08 through 4:46 Mayor Martin stated that the item is to discuss an increase in the amount of contribution to the Affordable Housing and Transit Development Trust Funds for projects taking advantage of the increased density in the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) from $2,500 and $1,000 respectively to a total of three percent of the sales price of the units for allocation on the same basis as at present and possibly imposing a moratorium on approval of requests submitted under the DROD during the processing of any increase in the contributions. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the issue was discussed significantly by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). ; that she has done a considerable amount of research and found many communities have a goal of increased density in a given area by allowing density bonuses; that in exchange for the density bonuses, a variety of formulas are being used to make contributions; that some are to fund an affordable housing trust fund; that some are to help the homeless; that many different formulas exist; that the City has chosen affordable housing and transit; that the two most common formulas were a percentage of the sales price of the units over the number allowed; that another was a calculation of the difference between the market price of the unit being built and the cost to build an affordable comparable unit; that the developer pays the difference to a trust fund; that most calculations were from California; that for example, the market price of a condominium in a project is $600,000; that the price of an affordable unit would be approximately $270,000; that the difference is paid by the developer to the trust fund; that the difference is $300,000 to $400,00 per unit which provides incentive to the developer to build affordable units. Vice Mayor Servian continued that the percentages being charged throughout the country range from two to four percent of the sale price; that the reason three percent was chosen is currently fees of six to seven percent are given to real estate agents for sales; that the fees are factored into the price of the development and no one objects; that adding a three percent of the sale price fee for the benefit given to a developer to increase revenue substantially provides the City with a twofold benefit: 1) increasing the number of people living in the DROD, and 2) providing the City substantial funding for affordable housing and transportation; that increased density in the Downtown will require Downtown transportation; that increasing the fees will provide the ability to receive the benefit of trust funds sooner; that some people in the development business felt jumping to three percent immediately is too much; that starting at one and one-half or two percent was suggested; that others indicated paying three percent for the ability to build at market value in the DROD would be welcome; that the City is not selling density; that individuals have indicated the City is selling density; that for the development community to take the density to enrich revenues while the community is deriving a benefit is on balance a good ideal; that the development community can reap a reasonable benefit from the increase in the density; that a provision should be the units must be owner- occupied. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concept of the increased density was to increase the number of residents in the Downtown; that discussion occurred with the first developer requesting increased density regarding the development of a fund based on the additional units due to the high price of land sO the City could invest in walk-to-town housing; that the benefit is twofold; that the development community is benefited by having BOOK 58 Page 29592 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29593 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. additional density; that the City is benefited by the additional density for Downtown and the funds accrued for the Affordable Housing and the Transit Development Trust Funds; that a Downtown business person indicated the Commission should consider the land costs of the property and require 50 percent of the land cost for the increased density which may yield additional funds above the three percent and indicated three percent is not sufficient; that no further applications should be accepted until the new rules apply; that Vice Mayor Servian's proposal has merit; however, other methods should. be researched; that no applications for increased density should be addressed until a resolution is reached. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports the suggestion of Vice Mayor Servian; that the issue should be clean and simple; that the different formulas will create more complications and delays; that he is ready to move forward and pleased the Commission has advanced on the issue; that another eight month delay is not desired. The following person was signed up to speak: Chris Brown, 112 Fillmore Drive (34246), joined by Stephen Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 (34237) Mr. Brown stated that Attorney Rees was an inspiration at the time the DROD was conceived; that he worked with the City Attorney's Office and Staff to draft the DROD Ordinance; that he is familiar with overlay districts in other cities and is the Chair of the Downtown Partnership Walk to Downtown Housing; that the Commission is requested to delay any action until recommendations may be made by the Downtown Partnership; that he is the first developer to participate in the DROD; that a fee of $2,500 per unit, or approximately $250,000, will be paid for approximately 100 units of a proposed project to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; that approximately $100,000 will be paid for the Transit Development Trust Fund; that the word "moratorium" is disturbing; that a solution should be reached soon as the momentum of interest of providing Downtown housing will be lost; that the three percent fee is supported; however, the fee should be phased in; that the DROD Ordinance requires 20 percent of the units must be 1,250 square feet or less; that approximately 40 percent of the units in the 1350 Main Street project are under 1,250 square feet; that the fee is exempted from the smaller units; that the concept in most communities is either pay or build; that both cannot be done. Attorney Rees stated that the imposition of the conditions in the approval of the 1350 Main Street project, which were voluntarily proffered and incorporated into the DROD Ordinance, govern both the developer and the City in the processing of the approvals for the construction and are fixed costs built into development; that the hope is the Commission acknowledges any changes in the DROD Ordinance are prospective and do not have retroactive application; that the 1350 Main Street developers were pioneers in the proposal; that the discussion of the DROD Ordinance is a source of pride; that he looks forward to working with Mr. Brown on another project to come before the Commission for good deliberative discussion concerning implementing improvements to the initiatives; that the 1350 Main Street developers are here to support the community and to create a better place. Mayor Martin stated that clarification regarding the exception if units are affordable due to being smaller would be appreciated; that a question remains regarding keeping the units affordable; that the smaller units will be affordable relative to other units. Mr. Brown stated that the person purchasing the unit would have the right to live in the unit but at the time of resale some restrictions would apply; that a portion of the gain upon the sale of the unit would go back into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; that the municipality would own the land and the home buyer would own only the house; that the value of the land creates the value at resale; that the exemption was requested as continuing to raise the fee makes the unit less affordable; that the developers who are producing smaller units at more affordable prices should be rewarded. Mayor Martin stated that the County will have the community land trust established by May 2005. Vice Mayor Servian stated that without the density bonus, 50 units could be built; however, the request is to build 70 units; that 20 of the units would be 1,250 square feet or less; and asked if the number of 1,250 square foot units would be subtracted from the density bonus and the three percent only collected on the few above? BOOK 58 Page 29594 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29595 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mr. Brown stated no; that the requirement is to build the 1,250 square foot units to receive the bonus; that for the City to grant the density and not receive payment would be unfair; that 14 units are required but 20 are being built; that six units would be exempt. Commissioner Palmer stated that additional information is required prior to taking action; that the units may be built at 1,250 square feet or less; however, the sales price cannot be controlled. Mr. Brown stated that the issue was discussed with City Attorney Fournier and Staff; that a study by the Brookings Institution indicated small is the most direct way to attain affordability. City Attorney Fournier stated that the indication was the size of the units is most effective in attaining attordability. Commissioner Palmer stated that a provision should be included the units must be owner-occupled. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the DROD was not developed to build affordable housing; that the DROD was designed to increase the number of people living in the DROD; that the affordability and the potential for inclusionary zoning or other issues will be on the edges of the Downtown; that the prices cannot be controlled; that increasing the contribution will allow the City to buy down some of the costs of other units and make other areas more affordable; that providing affordable units in the DROD was never a requirement. Mr. Brown stated that the Downtown Housing Partnership recommendation is if more density is desired in the Downtown Edge Zone District, building is the most efficient direct system; that building the unit is more effective than the City collecting money and determining a way to get the units built; that having the development industry build the unit is better. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Mr. Brown is exactly right; that the developer either pays or builds; that the DROD was established to create density; that a fee was added to help with affordable housing; that he is not prepared to make a decision today; that the recommendation is developers should attend a meeting for input; that he would rather give the ability to the development community to provide input; that the preference is not to collect money but for the developers to build the units. Mayor Martin stated that affordable units are created as well if smaller units are required; that the units will be affordable relative to the other units in the building. Commissioner Atkins stated that the more the Commission attempts to determine a simple opportunity for lower cost housing, the more complicated the issue becomes; that the more added into the process, the further away delivery of service becomes; that the DROD has a specific purpose; that if the houses are $500,000 less than the most expensive, the housing is still not affordable which was never the intent; that the intent was for an opportunity to obtain funds for increased density to help in other areas; that affordable housing in the DROD area will never exist; that the struggle is to ensure building occurs in the DROD as proposed with the support for the rest of the community; that the Downtown Edge Zone District is different; that the three percent contribution is the best manner to accomplish the intent of the DROD. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to extend the afternoon session beyond the 4:30 p.m. deadline to complete the current Agenda Item and hear the individuals who have signed up to speak to Agenda Item VI-3. Mayor Martin stated that the following items are scheduled for the afternoon session: Agenda Item VI-2 concerning proposed changes in the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department, Agenda Item VI-3 concerning the status of the proposed Downtown rezonings, Agenda Item VI-4 concerning the City Pointe project. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that Agenda Item VI-2 could be rescheduled to the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting if desired. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, Agenda Item VI-2 will be rescheduled to the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting; and continued that Agenda Item VI-4, which was pulled from the Consent Agenda, will likely not take a great deal of time and could be considered prior to the recess if acceptable to the Commission. BOOK 58 Page 29596 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29597 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian stated that considering Agenda Item VI-4 is acceptable. Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer agreed. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification concerning consideration of Agenda Item VI-3. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that two people have signed up to speak to Agenda Item VI-3. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that John Matthews, representing the Farmers Market, indicated attendance at the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota, Inc., dinner precludes an earlier attendance at the current meeting; that the request is to hear the item as originally scheduled. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission could hear from the people signed up to speak and continue deliberations concerning Agenda Item VI-3 to the evening session. On motion of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to continue consideration of the current Agenda Item to the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Atkins called a point of order and stated that a motion is currently on the floor. Commissioner Palmer withdrew the motion. Mayor Martin restated the motion as to extend the meeting to complete the current Agenda Item, receive public input concerning Agenda Item VI-3, and hear Agenda Item VI-4. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yes. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to continue consideration of the current Agenda Item to the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting to receive input from the Downtown Assoclation of Sarasota, Inx., and others who may have an interest. Commissioner Palmer stated that the suggestion concerning amending the DROD Ordinance is not opposed; however, receipt of additional input is desired. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that additional information is required. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, noi Martin, no. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to have an ordinance prepared and brought back to the Commission to amend the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) Ordinance to increase the contribution for the Affordable Housing and Transit Development Trust Funds to three percent of the sale price of all units excluding the units which meet the 1,250 square foot criteria for application in the same proportion as at present, add a requirement the development must meet the Downtown Code, and require the units be owner-occupied. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the Commission continues to resist the issue; that if a definitive stance is not taken, six to eight months may go by before a resolution is reached; that moving forward is desired to avoid sending the message to developers development in the DROD is not desired; that additional units in the area is the objective and the Commission should take the leadership position and move forward; that now is the time for action. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a public hearing concerning an ordinance to amend the DROD Ordinance will be held? City Attorney Fournier stated yes; and asked if an ordinance to amend the DROD Ordinance should be brought back for introduction and discussion prior to the public hearing? Vice Mayor Servian stated that an amendment to the DROD Ordinance should be brought back for introduction and discussion prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Bilyeu agreed. Commissioner Palmer agreed and stated that the motion is supported; that the idea is excellent; that other ideas may be available; that the thought was to delay discussion to the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting if other ideas should BOOK 58 Page 29598 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29599 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. be considered; however, other issues and ideas can be considered at the time of introduction and the public hearing; that amending the DROD Ordinance should move forward. Mayor Martin stated that the motion is supported; that other ideas may be developed through a task force, a review of best practices, or a consultant to further define the efforts concerning affordable housing; that the motion addresses the Commission's impatience to develop a better funding mechanism for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; that the portion of the motion indicating new construction under the DROD must meet the Downtown Code is pleasing and provides a tool for the Commission to better identify the type of buildings desired; that a concern is monitoring or enforcing owner occupancyi that a method to address the concern n an amendment to the DROD Ordinance is not known. Vice Mayor Servian stated that simple methods to address the concern are available. Commissloner Palmer asked if the motion includes a postponement of any additional projects until the amendment to the DROD Ordinance is adopted? Vice Mayor Servian stated no; that the desire is to take the amount of the contribution and any postponement separately. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to have an ordinance prepared and brought back to the Commission to amend the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) Ordinance to increase the contribution for the Affordable Housing and Transit Development Trust Funds to three percent of the sale price of all units excluding the units which meet the 1,250 square foot criteria for application in the same proportion as at present, add a requirement the development must meet the Downtown Code, and require the units be owner-occupied. Commissioner Atkins asked if ten 1,250 square foot units built beyond the required percentage would be exempt? Vice Mayor Servian stated that the exemption is only on the smaller units; that the requirement is to build 20 percent at 1,250 square feet; that if more than 20 percent are built, the developer will not be penalized; that the additional units will be exempted from the three percent contribution. Commissioner Atkins asked the result if all the units are 1,250 square feet or less? Mayor Martin stated that the question is the basis of the required contribution if 100 percent of the units are less than 1,250 square feet; that Commissioner Atkins' concern is if the exemption would apply only to the required 20 percent. Vice Mayor Servian stated for clarification that applying the exemption to only the required 20 percent is acceptable. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, no; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE REZONING TO THE FOUR NEW DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICTS = CONTINUED TO THE EVENING SESSION (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) CD 4:46 through 4:52 City Attorney Fournier stated that in accordance with the previously approved motion, the introduction will be provided at the evening session and the speakers will be heard at this time. The following people were signed up to speak: Craig Colburn, Attorney, law firm of Norton, Hammersley, Lopez & Skokos, P.A., 1819 Main Street (34236), and Allie ElHage, 924 Gillespie Avenue (34236), came before the Commission. Attorney Colburn referred to a January 18, 2005, letter to the Commission and stated that he represents two entities; that one is Mr. ElHage's company, Designology, which is a company specializing in formatting partnerships to promote development in the Gillespie Park area and redevelopment embracing the ideals embodied in the Downtown Code; that 14 properties were previously involved; that currently 18 properties are involved; that the intent is to bring forth new single family homes in Gillespie Park; that the other entity is owned by Richard Rudloff, a partner of Mr. ElHage; that the recommendation was made at the January 12, 2005, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) meeting to table the rezoning issue due to procedural problems; that the implementation of the rezoning may take as long as eight months; that an indication was people can initiate individual rezoning; that large projects will not be able to take advantage of an expedited review. BOOK 58 Page 29600 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29601 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Attorney Colburn referred to a checklist required for a rezoning application; that a request is to direct Staff to process rezone applications which fit within the designed rezoning with the relief granted listed in the January 28, 2005, letter; that the relief will benefit the residents of Gillespie Park and the City. Mr. ElHage that the 18 sites will be developed in compliance with the Downtown Code. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE CANCELLATION, SATISFACTION AND RELEASE OF EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH SPECIAL COVENANTS FOR THE CITY POINTE MIXED USE PROJECT = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI-4) CD 4:52 through 4:58 Mayor Martin stated that the item concerns the City Pointe Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants; that originally the Exchange Agreement between the City and Veronica Morgan included encumbrances and was based on the relocation of the Luke Wood House and the Crocker Church; that the Exchange Agreement required the structures be used only pursuant to the terms of the Historic Preservation Ordinance by keeping the structures open periodically to the public for tourists interested in the history of the properties; that the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants releases the requirement; and asked the reason the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants could not be executed concurrently at the time the application is received? City Attorney Fournier stated that an Exchange Agreement between the City and Veronica Morgan was executed in the 1980s at the time the structures were moved to the site; that a termination agreement is before the Commission for consideration; that the Commission will be approving the termination agreement; that the Exchange Agreement was provided as backup material as the clauses in the Exchange Agreement are being terminated by the current termination agreement. Mayor Martin stated that if approved, the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants would not be effective until two things happened; that one was an application for historic preservation must be received. City Attorney Fournier stated that an application to move the structures must be received; that the understanding is the developer has the site under contract; that the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants is a requirement of the lender to close the financial transaction. Mayor Martin stated that the concern is to assure the Luke Wood House and the Crocker Church will be saved; that an application tor a moving permit has been filed; however, a concern is if an application is submitted and the project does not proceed. City Attorney Fournier stated that moving the structures was not made a condition of the development approval; however, the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants makes moving the structures a condition; that the applicant has two options under the Historic Preservation Ordinance; that the applicant can apply for a demolition permit or a moving permit; that a demolition permit could be denied; that the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants requires a moving permit. Mayor Martin stated that the concern remains if the project never reaches fruition and the move will not happen. City Attorney Fournier stated that a cure is unknown; that the structures would be moved if the project was going forward; that an incentive exists for the developer to move the structures; that the applicant applied for the moving permit rather than a demolition permit; that the request was to terminate the Exchange Agreement; that the determination was the Cancellation, Satisfaction, and Release of Exchange Agreement with Special Covenants should be conditioned on Rezone Ordinance No. 03-4480 becoming effective as the restriction should stay in effect for the preservation of the historically significant structures if the site does not get rezoned or the project is not built. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to approve the Cancellation, Satisfaction and Release of Exchange Agreement and Special Covenants. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. BOOK 58 Page 29602 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29603 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. 12. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS DIRECTED AN ORDINANCE BE PREPARED TO REPEAL THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT (DROD) ORDINANCE AND REPLACE WITH A NEW ORDINANCE (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 4:58 through 5:01 COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that under Agenda Item No. VI-4 Vice Mayor Servian indicated a separate motion would be made not to accept DROD applications until a new ordinance is adopted. Vice Mayor Servian stated that if any applications are in process is not known; however, any applications should be postponed until the DROD Ordinance is refined. City Attorney Fournier stated that if a moratorium is imposed, extraordinary notice and hearing requirements are entailed; that two public hearings must be conducted; that repealing the existing ordinance which is set to expire in January 2006 may be easier; that for simplicity, the Commission may consider the repeal of the current Ordinance and the adoption of a replacement ordinance. Vice Mayor Servian asked if a public hearing is required for repeal? City Attorney Fournier stated that one public hearing rather than two will be required which is the easiest manner to reach the same result; that the perception is the Commission does not desire applications processed at the lower contribution rate. Vice Mayor Servian stated that sending out the message of a moratorium is not desired; that a moratorium is a horrible message as the message is always misconstrued. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to direct an ordinance be prepared to repeal the current Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) Ordinance and replace with a new ordinance. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. The Commission recessed at 5:01 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. 13. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: RECOGNITION OF CITY OF SARASOTA UNITED WAY DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATORS FOR THE 2004/2005 CAMPAIGN ACHIEVEMENT, PLUS PRESENTATION TO DEMETRIO'S RESTAURANT FOR UNITED WAY SUPPORT (AGENDA ITEM XII-1) CD 6:07 through 6:15 Mayor Martin requested that Steve Brett, United Way of Sarasota County, Inc., join him and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation; and stated that the United Way is a gift to the community; that the amount of work the. United Way performs in the community is amazing; that some of the amazing work is not realized; that the City is proud to generously participate in the United Way's annual campaign. City Manager McNees stated that Mr. Brett spends most of his time ensuring other people receive credit, thanks, plaques and certificates; that Mr. Brett's work deserves recognition; that Mr. Brett works extremely hard; that he served on one of Mr. Brett's committees during the year; that Mr. Brett gives everyone else the credit for the work he performs. Mr. Brett stated that the City runs a United Way campaign faithfully each year; that the level of contributions increases each yeari that the actual contribution level from the City employees for 2004 was $45,000, which is phenomenal and would not be possible without the assistance from many employees who work on the campaign in addition to their regular job; that the United Way solicits City employee volunteers each year; that recruiting volunteers is never a hardship; that the employees are extremely generous in offering time and money, which should be recognized; that lives are improved and saved by the contributions the volunteers bring in from different City departments; and requested that the following hard working, vitally important City employee Departmental Coordinators come forward for recognition: Tony Welicki, Administrative Assistant, City Manager's Office Cynthia Cumbie, Coordinator, Duplicating, General Services Linda Joyce Bryant, Office Assistant, Planning Department (Not present) Lynette Garrett, Human Resources Specialist, Human Resources Department Julie McKee, Administrative Specialist, Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department (Not present) BOOK 58 Page 29604 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29605 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Jean Berkey, Administrative Assistant, Finance Department Karen McGowan, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk, Office of the City Auditor and Clerk Paul Sutton, Lieutenant, Sarasota Police Department Margaret Sawyer, Accounting Specialist, Office of Housing and Community Development Carol Karr, Personnel Payroll Specialist, Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall Donita "Maggie" Sumney, Manager, Employee Relations, Human Resources Department Mr. Brett stated presented each Department Coordinator with a United Way gift and continued by stating that Ms. Sumney is the Chief Coordinator for the City's United Way Departmental Coordinators; that the efforts of Ms. Sumney are appreciated; that Ms. Sumney is extremely busy; that working on the United Way campaign with Ms. Sumney has been a joyi that the City Manager's leadership is appreciated. Mr. Brett requested that Gus Sokos, owner and operator of Demetrio's in Bradenton, Florida, come forward; presented Mr. Sokos with a Proclamation recognizing Demetrio's United Way campaign achievement; and stated that Mr. Sokos' support, time and energy are appreciated; that everyone enjoyed the pizza donated by Demetrio's. 14. ADOPTION RE: : MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 05R-1819, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF ROBERT EDSON BRACHLE, A CITIZEN WHO EXEMPLIFIED COMMUNITY SERVICE = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM XII-2) CD 6:15 through 6:19 Mayor Martin stated that Memorial Resolution No. 05R-1819, recognizes the passing of Robert Edson Brachle, a citizen who exemplified community service; and read in its entirety Memorial Resolution No. 05R-1819. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 05R-1819. Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. Mayor Martin stated that City Manager McNees is absent due to attendance at the annual meeting of the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota; that the Commission is typically able to attend; however, the City Manager is attending due the scheduling conflict with the current Regular Commission meeting. Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public hearing sign-up process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that time limits for speakers at the quasi-judicial public hearings will be established at the appropriate time. 15. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 05-4603, AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2004 BY PROVIDING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNTS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-1) CD 6:22 through 6:25 Mayor Martin stated that the item is the second public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 05-4603 amending the budget for the fiscal year (FY) beginning October 1, 2004; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the item is the second public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 05-4603 which appropriates funding to provide $6,800 from the General Fund, $40,9 900 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, $5,200 from the Equipment Replacement BOOK 58 Page 29606 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29607 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Fund, and $85,424.98 from the Community Development Block Grant; that Section 166.241(3) (c), Florida Statutes, 2004, requires an increase in fund appropriations must be adopted in the same manner as the original budget with two public hearings; that the General Fund appropriation is $2,800 for the Sarasota Film Festival and $4,000 for the Sarasota Arts Council; that the Law Enforcement Trust Fund appropriation is for $40,900 for DNA kits, Glock lights, the laser speed detection unit, a Smart Trailer replacement, and traffic unit in-helmet communications; that the Equipment Replacement Fund appropriation is for $5,200 for funding the difference of the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle in Code Enforcement; that the Office of Housing and Community Development desires to appropriate $85,424.98 to align the Community Development Block Grant budget with the funds provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development; that the recommendation is to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 05-4603 on second reading. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 05-4603 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian, and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 05-4603. Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes. 16. PUBLIC HEARING RE: ORDINANCE NO. 05-4601, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, CHAPTER 37, WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE IV, USE OF RECLAIMED WATER, SECTION 37-74, INSTALLATION/CON/CONSTRUCTION OF RECLAIMED WATER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, BY DELETING THE ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL MANUAL FOR RECLAIMED WATER SITES AND REPLACING IT WITH ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WATER UTILITIES DIVISION POTABLE WATER CROSS - CONNECTION CONTROL MANUAL; : REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-2) CD 6:25 through 6:37 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 05-4601 is to amend Chapter 37, Water and Sewers, Article IV, Use of Reclaimed Water, Section 3-74, Installation/Con/Construction Of Reclaimed Water Irrigation Systems, Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) Code, by deleting the adoption by reference of the City of Sarasota cross connection control manual for reclaimed water sites and replacing with adoption by reference of the City of Sarasota Public Works Department Water Utilities Division Potable Water Cross-Connection Control Manual; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward. Douglas Taylor, Deputy Director, Public Works Utilities Division and Javier Vargas, Supervisor, Utilities Operations, came before the Commission. Mr. Taylor referred to photographs of cross connection control plumbing device called a backflow preventer displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the device is on the customer's property and is owned and maintained by the customer; that the device is installed by a plumber; that the backflow preventers are required for reclaimed water service and are for new construction if a potential exists for cross connection; that one year ago, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) changed the rules in an effort to require the installation of backflow preventers on existing structures; that the Sarasota County Health Department administrates the rule in the County and has been working with the City and other utilities to rewrite and update the practices concerning cross connection sO a program can be implemented to bring customers into compliance with the FDEP regulations concerning cross connection control. Mr. Vargas stated that cross connection control is not new to the City's customers and has been in use since 1996; that approximately 300 backflow devices have been installed and maintained by the customer at sites served with reclaimed water; that the program will be implemented within the next three years only for commercial accounts; that the program will be implemented for residential accounts with swimming pools or irrigation systems in the third year; that only owners of sites will be identified as potential sources of cross connection; that the owner will receive a letter; that a cross connection technician will meet with every affected customer to discuss the requirements and issues regarding the rule; that an explanation will be provided to the customer regarding the need to install BOOK 58 Page 29608 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29609 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. the backflow device into their plumbing system; that a site survey to determine if a backflow device is needed will also be conducted; that the customer will be given six months to comply with the rule; that approximately 2,200 commercial accounts will be affected; that not all of the commercial accounts will be required to comply with the rule which is the reason for conducting site surveys prior to making a determination; that less than 10 percent of the 14,500 residential customers would be affected by the rule; that the cost per device is estimated at between $300 and $400; that the device must be installed by a licensed plumber; that the rule requires annual testing of the device, which must also be performed by a licensed plumber; and referred to photographs of a typical residential backflow installation displayed on the Chamber monitors. Commissioner Atkins asked if a method exists to make the devices more attractive? Mr. Vargas stated that an application waiver allows for the customer to move the device Closer to the house. Commissioner Palmer asked the reason people cannot plant greenery around the device and the closest proximity in which greenery can be planted since the device is not attractive. Mr. Vargas stated that the customer can choose to plant greenery around the device as long as access to the device is available. Commissioner Palmer stated that some Deautification should be suggested to people. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the annual inspection of the units. Mr. Vargas stated that Public Works has a database to track all the devices and certifications. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding tagging of the device after annual certification. Mr. Vargas stated that a tag indicating the month and year the device was inspected will be displayed on the units; that the customer will mail the certificate to Public Works; that the information will be entered into the database. Mayor Martin asked if Public Works will conduct a site inspection if the customer does not receive the certificate? Mr. Vargas stated that the customer will be contacted by letter. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 05-4601 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 05-4601 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. 17. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 05-4602, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, CHAPTER 23, PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS, / ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, SECTION 23-3.6 COMMERCIAL VENDING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 05-4591 TO EXTEND THE HOURS WITHIN WHICH COMMERCIAL VENDING IS PERMITTED BY ALLOWING COMMERCIAL VENDING TO COMMENCE AT 6:00 AM RATHER THAN 8:00 AM; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-3) CD 6:37 through 6:40 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 05-4602 is to amend Chapter 23, Peddlers and Solicitors, Article I, In General, Section 23-3.6, Commercial Vending on Public Property and Public Right-of-Way, Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) and amending Ordinance No. 05-4591 to extend the hours within which commercial vending is permitted by allowing commercial vending to commence at 6:00 a.m. rather than 8:00 a.m.; and opened the public hearing. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the City passed an Ordinance in December 2004 which changed the hours of vending on public rights-of-way and public property; that the previously allowed hours were 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.i that the Ordinance adopted in December 2004 changed the hours from 8:00 a.m. until BOOK 58 Page 29610 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29611 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. 12:00 midnight; that during the course of the public hearing, requests were made to move the morning hours up from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; that the Commission directed the proposed Ordinance be prepared; that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 05-4602 on first reading. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 05-4602 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 05-4602 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Servian, yesi Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. Mayor Martin requested that City Attorney Fournier explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. Mayor Martin requested that City Attorney Fournier explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Fournier stated that the requirements of quasi-judicial public hearings were defined by the judicial process; that during the quasi- judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that the recommendations for time limits for the quasi-judicial public hearings will be made at the appropriate time; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; that Applicants, the City, and Affected Persons will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and the opportunity for cross-examination. 18. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4579, TO REZONE A 1.08 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1114, 1124 AND 1140 SYLVAN DRIVE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY-2 (RSF-2) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY-2 (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT; APPROVING SITE PLAN 04-SP-30 WHICH HAS BEEN PROFFERED AS A CONDITION OF THIS REZONING; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 04-RE-16 AND 04-SP-30, APPLICANT JOEL J. FREEDMAN, A.I.C.P., AS AGENT REPRESENTING ROY AND MARY BOWEN, / JAMES YOW AND SLED DOG ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., AS OWNERS, AND BAYOU BY THE BAY, L L.L.C., AS CONTRACT PURCHASER) DENIED AND GRANTED A WAIVER TO THE ONE YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN UNDER THE RMF-1 ZONE DISTRICT (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-1) CD 6:41 through 9:30 City Attorney Fournier stated that 24 requests for Affected Person status have been received; that Richard Clapp, Gretchen. Serie and Donald Farr would like to make a joint presentation on behalf of and as the designated representatives of the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association (IBSSA); that the number of other Affected Persons present in the Chambers audience is not known; that the time limits should be established once the number of people desiring to speak is ascertained. Mayor Martin stated that at least 11 Affected Persons have signed up to speak; that five interested persons have signed up to speak; that anyone else desiring to speak should sign up. City Attorney Fournier stated that under the circumstances, the recommendation is to allow the Applicant 15 minutes for the presentation, 10 minutes for the City's presentation, 15 minutes for the IBSSA representatives, 4 minutes for the Affected Persons, and 3 minutes for members of the public; that the Applicant, the City, and the IBSSA representatives will be allowed 10 minutes for rebuttal; that Affected Persons will be allowed 2 minutes for rebuttal; and continued that the time limits are shorter than normally allowed but are considered appropriate due the number of people signed up to speak. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved; and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. City Attorney Fournier stated that Mr. Clapp has indicated he would be speaking on behalf of four Affected Persons; that the amount of time desired by Mr. Clapp should be determined. Mayor Martin requested that Mr. Clapp come forward. Richard Clapp came forward and stated that 15 minutes will be sufficient for the presentation. BOOK 58 Page 29612 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29613 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that 15 minutes will be allowed and requested that the Commissioners disclose any ex parte communications which have occurred. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that all electronic mail (email) and telephone messages have been forwarded to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk. Vice Mayor Servian stated that any email received has been forwarded to the Office of the Auditor and Clerk; that the site was visited. Commissioner Palmer stated that email has been forward to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that the site has been visited. Mayor Martin stated that email has been forward to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that he has had three communications concerning the subject; that one was a letter from Alan Lillie, who was expressing opposition to the project; that a discussion was held in the past with Tony DeLoach, Bayou by the Bay, LLC, regarding dredging in the Whitaker Bayou project, which relates to the issue; that a brief comment was provided to him by Cindy Clifton regarding the request of the IBSSA concerning the proposed project. Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4579 is to rezone a 1.08 acre site located at 1114, 1124, and 1140 Sylvan Drive from the Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2) Zone District to the Residential Multiple Family 2 (RMF-2) Zone District Zone District and to approve Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-30, which has been proffered as a condition of the rezoning; opened the public hearing; and requested that the Applicant come forward. Joel Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Development, LLC, as agent representing Roy and Mary Bowen, James Yow and Sled Dog Enterprises, LLC, as owners, Tony DeLoach, Bayou by the Bay, LLC, as contract purchaser, and Phil Smith, licensed arborist with David W. Johnston and Associates, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman referred to a site map of the proposed area, photographic views of the property from the north, an aerial photograph with a view from the south, the Future Land Use Map, and the Zoning Subdivision map displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the property is 1.08 acre in size; that the property is across the street from the Yacht Center; that the view from the north indicates the existing boat slips and the Yacht Center; that the site map indicates the commercial property adjacent to the three lots; that in March 2004, the Commission approved a small scale amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), changing the Future Land Use Classification from Single-Family Residential Future Land Use Classification to the Moderate Density Multiple Family Land Use Classification; that the property is unique due to its relationship to the commercial property to the south and to US 41 and the commercial property to the east; that the amended 2010 Future Land Use Map allows the Applicant to apply for rezoning from the RSF-2 Zone District to the RMF-2 Zone District which allows 9 units per acre; that surrounding zoning consists of the Commercial General (CG), and North Trail (NT) Zone Districts; that two implementing Zone Districts are available for the Moderate Density Multiple Family Land Use Classification, which are the RMF-1 and the RMF-2 Zone Districts; that the request is to rezone to the RMF-2 Zone District which allows development of the 9 units being proposed. Mr. Freedman referred to photographs of the site with a view from the south to the north displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the photograph indicates the Bayou is shallow at low tide; that 33 boat slips are on the site since the boat slips are grandfathered; that the boat slips are fully rented to boat owners who do not necessarily live on the propertyi that the hope is to improve the neighborhood situation by removing the condition through redeveloping the property; that some homeless people frequent the area on a regular basis due to the proximity to US 41 and the transitional nature of the area; that some people are living under the bridge; that the situation will be changed and improved if the proposed redevelopment is approved; that the proposal is for three buildings with three units in each building; that the number of curb cuts on Sylvan drive has been minimized; that a significant number of the existing driveways are being used since the properties have grown up around the large trees; that the trees will not be impacted and will act as a buffer to the neighborhood. Mr. Freedman further stated that all three parcels were developed with multi-family uses; that one was a duplex which was converted into a single-family house in 1991; that one BOOK 58 Page 29614 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29615 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. remains as a duplex; that the other property has three units; that the property was purchased by Sled Dog Enterprises; that the property had six units at the time; that issues arose as to if three of the units were legal; that the current owner of the property did not add kitchens to the units; that the number of units actually on the property remains a question; that the property has always consisted of multi-family uses; that the existing 33 boat slips would be reduced to 9 slips if the rezoning is approved; that only one boat slip per unit is allowed under the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that all the existing homes and structures adjacent to the property on Sylvan Drive are all nonconforming as the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are not met; that any reconstruction of any units will require the units be elevated, which will significantly change the character of the street; that the proposed project will have larger front yard setbacks at 30 feet than allowed in a single family project, which is 20 feet; that the side yard is 15 feet as compared to 8 feet for a single family project; that the proposed project is allowed to build to 35 feet in height above the FEMA requirement. Mr. Freedman stated further that the site plan has gone through many iterations; that two main issues exist; that one issue is buffering; that the other issue is existing tree preservation; that the existing trees will provide a significant buffer along the street; that several site visits with Staff were conducted; that the site plan was slightly altered to preserve the trees by angling the buildings, which did, however, affect the view; that a concern was indicated regarding the garage doors facing the street; that the garage doors have been recessed five additional feet sO as to not appear as prominent. Mr. Smith stated that eight grand oak trees exist on site; that saving the trees was hard work; that only one tree will be removed as the tree's root system is intertwined with existing septic systems; that an opinion was received from a civil engineer indicating the necessity of removing the septic tank if the site is developed; that the tree would, therefore, not survive; that seven of the eight grand oak trees are preserved on site; that the landscape plan indicates the removal of the one existing tree, and the proposed buffer as required by the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department; that a superimposed photograph of the site with the proposed project indicates the existing trees, the proposed low screen wall with landscaping, which breaks up the view of the garagesi that only one full garaged can be seen; that bits and pieces of a couple of other garages can be seen; that significant work was conducted to preserve the trees and to ensure the important part of the site is preserved. Mr. Freedman stated that the Applicant disagrees with Staff regarding portions of Staff's analysis; that Staff found some inconsistencies with the proposed project; that both elements of the inconsistencies concern the size and scale of the buildingsi; that the size and the height of the building can be the same even under existing zoning; that FEMA requirements must be met regardless of the type of development on the site; that redevelopment of the property is difficult due to the relationship with US 41 and the single family neighborhood; that the intent was to portray three individual unique buildings to help reduce the size and scale of the project; that the height, bulk and mass of the buildings will not change regardless of rezoning to the RMF-1 or RMF-2 Zone District. Vice Mayor Servian stated that redeveloping the site as single family would require developing under the Mega-House Ordinance; that the proposed town homes do not have the required slope, which is part of the impact. Mr. Freedman submitted for the record letters from adjoining property owners in support of the proposed project; and stated that the Applicant desires to redevelop the property and reduce the number of boat slips; that developing nine units is necessaryi that six or seven units will not work; that the hope is the Commission will approve the rezoning request. Mayor Martin requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission; referred to a map of the proposed area displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that two general interfaces for the site exist; that one is toward the commercial areas to the east and south; that the other is toward a single-family residential neighborhood to the north and west; that Staff typically supports projects which add housing stock to the City; that at the same time, Staff favors design solutions which are the most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that the garage door problem was considered the most obvious conflict; that the number of units allowed on the property is the only difference between the RMF-1 and RMF-2 Zone District; that six units on the property would provide more BOOK 58 Page 29616 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29617 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. freedom of design sO the parking could be located in a different manner; that Staff believes the ideal solution would be to have side loading rather than front loading garagesi that Staff contemplated various configurations for the nine units; that only a few possibilities exist, which are one building with nine units, two buildings with five and four units, or three buildings of three units each, which is the proposal before the Commission at this time; that Staff still recommends six units to resolve the conflict between new housing in the City and providing compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods; that lesser density is preferable to higher density; that Staff's final analysis with which the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) agreed by a 4 to 1 vote is the proposed project is one in which lesser density is more desirable; that the scale of the project would be reduced if consisting of 50 percent less units; that the choice is difficult. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the size of a single family home on the proposed project property would be close to the size of one of the proposed buildings. Mr. Hoglund stated that no upper limit seems to exist on the size of homes in Sarasota; that homes are becoming larger and larger; that some upper limit to the amount of building area could be established; that less building would occur on the site if the number of units was reduced; that the Commission could request the Applicant to lessen the number of units. Commissioner Palmer stated that the proposed project is eligible for rezoning to the RMF-1 or RMF-2 Zone District; that nothing would prevent construction of single family homes on the site. Mr. Hoglund agreed; and stated that the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet for single family homes; therefore, four or five single family homes could be constructed on the site. Mayor Martin asked if the site plan before the Commission at this time is considered the best possible to protect the trees? Mr. Hoglund stated that the Applicant designed the project to protect the trees; that the site plan before the Commission at this time is probably the best since sufficient room does not exist to construct side load garages. Mayor Martin asked if the tree canopy would shield the garage doors as indicated in the Applicant's superimposed photograph? Mr. Hoglund stated that the view from eye level while walking along the street is the issue of importance; that the tree canopy would be above eye level; that some lower material could interfere with the view; that the garage doors can likely be screened; however, one of the objectionable features is having a view of a parade of garage doors. Mayor Martin requested that the Affected Persons come forward. Yvonne Lacey, 1038 Caloosa Drive (34234), stated that she is also representing Miles Laceyi that the Commission will hear the opinion of the vast majority of the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood and other neighborhoods concerning the project; that a great concern from the outset is the intimidating manner in which the project began; that requests for rezoning to the RMF-4 Zone District were brought to the neighbors for signature; that the developer indicated other neighbors intended to sell; that many neighbors were frightened and confused; that the tactics continue; and referred to photographs displayed on the Chamber monitors of signs appearing on the properties of the project after the PBLP recommended rezoning to the RMF-1 Zone District indicating: Duplex - one or both For Rent for a large family total of 6 Animals OK Family of 10 or more only Parking for 7 cars Free boat slips Five bedroom - 3 bath Ms. Lacey continued that the house advertised for rent with a total of six units actually has three units according to the Sarasota County Property Appraiser; that the neighbors have lived under the threat of the project for quite some time; that the neighbors have been informed the project will increase property values; that a difference exists between property owners, the investors and the homeowners; that homeowners purchase a house as a home; that the home is an investment; however, the house is lived in as a home; that the belief is the property value of the homes across from the proposed project will not increase; that she would not desire to purchase a home across from such a massive project; that the preference is to BOOK 58 Page 29618 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29619 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. have a view of blue sky; that the indication has been the proposed project is not in the neighborhood but is on the edge of the neighborhood; that residents living directly across the street from the project would disagree; that the proposed project is either in the neighborhood or not; that she believes the proposed project is in the neighborhood. Ms. Lacey further stated that the project size has increased since the property has changed hands; that the reason is the developer paid a high price for the property; that the decision of the RMF-1 or RMF-2 Zone District should not be determined by the developer's ability to make a large profit, but rather whether the proposed project is compatible or right for the neighborhood; that the proposed project is not compatible with the homes on Sylvan Drive; that the developer's inability to make a profit is not the responsibility of the neighborhood; that speculators take risks; that the speculator should assume the responsibility for bad judgment; that she was taught to count the cost before entering into any risk; that the reason the developer is requesting nine units is not understood; that the reason for the possibility of allowing the development in the established single family residential neighborhood is not understood. Ms. Lacey further stated that she looked up the terms "zone" and "rezone" in the dictionary; that the definition for the term "zone" is: A zone set apart from its surroundings by some characteristics. Ms,. Lacey stated that a zone set apart from its surroundings by some characteristics in their neighborhood would be eclectic single-family homes with oaks, palms and quiet streets; that the neighborhood has been misrepresented several times as being a high crime district; that the neighborhood is not a high crime area; that a definition for the term "rezone" was not found in the Webster's dictionary; that perhaps Mr. Webster had the best idea of all; that the Commission is requested to reject the request for the rezoning to the RMF-2 Zone District. Mary Kay Ryan, 1039 Sylvan Drive (34234), submitted letters from neighbors against the proposed project into the record; and stated that she is speaking on behalf of herself and fellow Affected Persons, Jenifer Rowland, who resides at 1121 Sylvan Drive, Mary Newman and Mary Locicero, who reside at 1105 Sylvan Drive; that the notice of the proposed project was received one and one half years ago; that the proposed development has caused extreme concerni that envisioning the project across the street from her home caused her to feel ill; that the process has been educational; that the PBLP did not believe the proposed project was compatible with the neighborhood, which provided a feeling of joy; that the opinions of the members of the PBLP were deemed incorrect by the majority of the Commissioners and the change in the Future Land Use Classification was approved; that countless meetings and telephone calls ensued with the goal of stopping the proposed development; that significant time and energy has taken place on both sides; that the Applicant desires to develop a mismatched project on a precious and lucrative waterfront location; that the neighbors desire to improve the integrity of the old Sarasota neighborhood of eclectic single-family homes on the oak canopied street; that a change in life is imminent; that she is a native Sarasotan with a career in the hospitality business and is familiar with change and adaptation; that a project of such size and height is better suited elsewhere; that the proposed project will severely compromise the current ambience on Sylvan Drive; that more suitable options than the proposed project must be available; that six units are better than nine; that the RMF-1 Zone District is preferred over the RMF-2 Zone District. Walter Verizzo, 1008 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that confusion exists regarding boat docks and slips; that he has boated for many years; that nine full docks are being proposed, which translates to 18 slips; that the developer proposes constructing a fence to isolate one side of the dock, which does not make sense; that good rental income is received for boat docks; that many more boats will likely dock in the nine proposed docks than allowed; that the views of the IBSSA regarding the proposed project are shared. Mary Bowen, 1114 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that she and her husband Roy operate as the neighborhood watch for the bayou and the docks; that the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) is alerted if people are observed breaking into boats at the Yacht Center; that three boat engines were stolen off boats at the docks during the first hurricane; that the homeless people living under the bridge are forced to leave; that the neighborhood must be carefully watched; that changes in the neighborhood will not occur if the proposed project does not move forward; that prostitutes on Sylvan Drive are observed being picked up in vehicles all the time; that telephone calls are made to the SPD; BOOK 58 Page 29620 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29621 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. that the SPD indicated nothing will be done unless an officer is in the area; that the proposed project will Clean up the neighborhood, which everyone should support. Mary Anne Jablonski, 1031 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that people purchase homes in certain neighborhoods which fit lifestyles; that people purchase homes in areas which are loved; that she purchased her home in a neighborhood which is loved; that the neighborhood consists of single-family homes; that the rules should not be changed; that the neighborhood has evolved and has not been destroyed by decimating the properties; that the neighborhood has been revitalized by renovation; that the renovations have not destroyed the character and ambience of the neighborhood; that the love and the feeling of the neighborhood remain the same; that big buildings should not be constructed in the neighborhood; that US 41 is not considered a problem; that the roadway has existed for yearsi that the neighborhood homes have been sold for years; that the indication is the proposed project will make the neighborhood more upscale; that she is an upstanding citizen of Sarasota; that the City and the neighborhood are loved; that speculation was not the purpose of purchasing the home; that the home is the largest investment of her life; that someone with money is coming into the neighborhood and indicating the land can earn more moneyi that the situation is not about money; that people's lives and lifestyles are involved; that the neighborhood is not crime ridden; that the people living in the neighborhood may not be upscale but are outstanding members of the City; that the neighbors deserve to live in the neighborhood as created years ago; that future renovations in the neighborhood will be made with love and class; that the future renovations will not be made at the expense of anyone else's rights. Gretchen Serrie, 657 Mecca Drive (34234), Richard Clapp, 426 South Shore Drive (34234), and Donald Farr, 3301 Bay Shore Road (34234), representing the IBSSA, Cindy Clifton, and Scott Franczek came before the Commission. Mr. Clapp distributed and referred to photographs and graphics of the proposed project in relation to the neighborhood and surrounding area displayed on the Chamber monitors, and stated that the neighborhood has great concern regarding the proposal; that people have vested rights in their homes; that the purpose of the City's laws is to protect the citizens and the rights of citizens which is considerably more important than for a developer to make moneyi that the neighborhood has provided the dream of a single-family home in the midst of similar homes; that unfortunately, the dreams of many were abruptly altered at the time the zoning on the property was changed to allow multi- family homes; that the neighborhood is now faced with the consequence of the decision; that the previous developer painted an attractive picture of modest, charming, town houses with character which would be beautiful; that the reality is the property has been resold and the present developer is promising a big box development across from modest, single-family homes; that people have asked the reason a developer is receiving a bonus of three units since only six legal units presently exist; that a question 1S what the City is receiving in return. Mr. Clapp continued that the proposed development is not compatible with the neighborhood on Sylvan Drive nor with any other single family neighborhood in Sarasota; that Staff has indicated the proposal is not consistent with the City's codes; that the density is too high and the mass is too large, which are the main concerns of everyone; that the Commission has the responsibility to uphold both the spirit and the letter of the law; that clearly the proposal violates both; that a photograph indicates the proposed buildings are larger in mass and scale than other buildings in the surrounding area; that the proposal is not compatible with the single-family neighborhood but could be compatible if located directly on US 41 or in a Downtown urban setting; that the proposed project does not act as a buffer; that the neighborhood should be buffered from the proposed project. Ms. Serrie stated that the Commission questioned David Smith, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, at length, prior to approving the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that precedent and compatibility were the issues; that the Commission's concerns led to requiring a site plan concurrent with rezoning; that the Commission unanimously agreed the first multi-family units allowed must be compatible with the neighborhood, which is appreciated; that the existing grandfathered and partially illegal rentals and docks are now irrelevant to the rezoning; that compatibility with the existing neighborhood is the issue which must be addressed; that the neighbors are stunned regarding the project concept drawing shown by the developer throughout the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan process; that the project concept drawing dated September 16, 2003, depicts light, airy, Key West style town houses with two stories, 2,519 square feet of living space under air conditioning, two-car garages and a charming low BOOK 58 Page 29622 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29623 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. picket fence; that the concept drawing has morphed into three stories above garages which are 47 feet in height creating a wall of garages providing four parking spaces for each unit of 4,400 square feet of living space. Ms. Serrie continued that the square footage is a 75 percent increase from the size shown previously; that a high wall is now separating the enclave from the neighborhood; that the average square footage of homes on Sylvan Drive is 1,849; that the original concept drawing indicated 2,519 square feet of living space; that the developer indicate the Encore urban town houses on Fruitville Road were similar to the proposed project; that the units in the Encore Project only have 1,630 square feet of living space; that the belief is the 4,400 square foot units are attached mega-houses which are compatible in an urban core but not in a low density, single-family neighborhood. Ms. Serrie stated further that the neighborhood is acutely concerned the developer is using a supposed need for multi- family units to buffer or protect the neighborhood from high intensity commercial development on US 41; that the neighborhood needs protection from traffic on US 41; that the commercial development on US 41 provides the appropriate buffer from the traffic; that higher, larger buildings protecting the neighborhood from lower structures on US 41 makes no sense; that at the advertised price of $1.7 million per unit, a gift of $3.4 million results with the RMF-1 Zone District and a gift of $8.5 million results with the RMF-2 Zone District; that the City receives something in return if development in the Downtown is incentivized by award of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds; that the gift comes with no infrastructure payback; that the developer will be celebrating property rights at the exclusion of responsibility; that the developer has only one requirement which is the project must be compatible with the neighborhood; that compatibility is the reason the Commission requested a concurrent site plan; that the IBSSA does not believe the proposed massive structures fulfill the developer's responsibility to the neighborhood or to the City. Mr. Farr stated that the desire is to preserve the integrity of the single-tamily neighborhood; that the Commission must decide the level of incompatibility of the proposed development to the neighborhood; that a question is if the Commission will work to minimize the incompatibility by denying the request for rezone and requiring a re-submittal for rezoning to the RMF-1 Zone District, which was recommended by Staff and the PBLP; that the question of capability is subjective; that the neighbors most directly impacted by the development are best able to answer the question; that the vast amount of the neighbors believe the proposed development is incompatible with the neighborhood; that only the RMF-2 Zone District would allow the monstrosity being proposed by the developer; that the RMF-1 Zone District would reduce the number of garage doors, automobiles, boats and people on the site; that the RMF-1 Zone District would likely reduce the footprint and height of the buildings; that four mega-houses with the likely diversity in style and architecture as well as a clear passage for light and air between each is clearly a superior result as compared to the single, super mega-structure currently proposed and disguised as a town house. Mr. Farr continued that the property owner was not totally forthright with the neighborhood or the Commission during the process leading up to the final site plan submission; that the neighborhood and the Commission were led to believe the proposed project would be more compatible with the neighborhood; that the ownership of the property changed hands once the land use change was granted; that the once described charming project is no longer charming; that the neighborhood has learned a painful lesson during the process; that land use designation is sacred; that the neighbors will never again be lulled in to complacency by pretty pictures and promises; that the cold reality is, once the land is changed, the property owner will likely attempt to maximize development of the site to generate the largest profit available, with only enough regard for the surrounding neighborhood as is absolutely required to move the project forward; that the Commission is requested to deny the request for rezoning two the RMF-2 Zone District. Mr. Clapp stated that no attempt is made to integrate the proposed project with the neighborhood; that the proposed project presents a façade of boring, un-detailed surface; that residents across from the proposed project have indicated a preference for four, single-family mega-houses; that the developer could design homes which would fit with the neighborhood and could possibly be compatible; that the developer should be required to submit a site plan with any subsequent request for rezoning if the Commission denies the request; that the Commission's foresight in requiring a site plan for the particular request for rezoning was excellent; that the developer should be encouraged to present a design which is compatible in both mass and density; that the Commission is requested to deny the proposal; that the fear is no place is BOOK 58 Page 29624 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29625 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. safe from the relentless march of developers attempting to make moneyi that the Commission has the opportunity to show the residents the spirit and the letter of the law will be followed; that the Commission should demand a compatible proposal. The Commission recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:09 p.m. Mayor Martin requested that the interested persons come forward. Carl Meyer, 5110 Brywill Circle (34234), stated that the incursion of development such as the proposed project is a concern; that he is an architect and graduated from the University of Virginia; that the mass of the proposed project is totally unsuitable for the location and the neighborhood; that the developer indicated the following: I think this will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. It is not a hugely intensive development. I think this would be a beautiful addition to that neighborhood. Mr. Meyer continued that a bait and switch situation has taken place; that the Commission collectively should not allow the proposed development to move forward; that any proposed development must be more compatible with the neighborhood. David Brain, 615 Corwood Drive (34234), stated that he is a new Board member of the IBSSA; that he is speaking as an individual who has some professional involvement with issues of planning and urban design; that he is not always in agreement with the IBSSA; that he does not automatically oppose development projects; that he is actually in favor of infill and redevelopment projects, mixing land use and in some cases, increasing density; that however, he joins his neighbors in requesting the Commission deny the proposed project; that the proposed project is clearly not compatible; that approving the proposed project would set a poor precedent and example for future redevelopment prospects; that rezoning to the RMF-1 Zone District is also a concern; that the design, the scale, the massing and the manner in which the buildings address the street is a concern; that the buildings are referenced as town houses; that the buildings are not town houses; that town houses are designed to create a coherent and attractive street frontage; that town houses do not have garages dominating the façade and do not require green buffers since contributing the public realm; that he would like to see town houses or garden apartments incorporated into the neighborhood; that such development would add to the diversity, affordability and walkability presently existing in the neighborhood; that the Commission is urged to carefully consider the proposed development and to think in general of the manner in which higher densities and mixing of land uses in the existing neighborhoods will be controlled and designed; and submitted written comments regarding the proposed project for the record. James Toale, 2028 Alameda Avenue (34234), stated that he could be afforded Affected Person status but is speaking in favor of the proposed project; that he and his wife purchased their home four and one half years agoi that the proposed project property is in dire need of redevelopment; that the 33 boat slips filled with boats does not speak to a single-family residential neighborhood; that the current conditions are considered even more incompatible with the neighborhood than the proposed development; that he is a member of the IBSSA but disagrees with the neighborhood association concerning the issue; that he is a believer and supporter of neighborhood associations; that the boat docks drive the decision; that the worth of boat docks has become realized through his real estate law practice; that the 33 nonconforming slips are likely worth $3 million or more; that the worth of the slips will drive the decision of the property owner; that the Commission is encouraged to vote in favor of the proposed project. Nancy Mina, 15 Warren Street, Apartment 425, Jersey City, New Jersey (07302), stated that the property was purchased since deemed special; that the boat docks drive the value of the property; that the property and the proposed project are unique; that an opportunity exists for a multi-family environment; that the hope was everyone would live in harmony; that unfortunately, she had to move to New York, sO the property could not be properly managed, which is the reason for passing ownership; that she would have loved to remain involved; that the project was begun with the intent to improve the look of the area traveling north to south into Sarasota; that the Whitaker Bayou dredge has not gone forward, which is disappointing; that the waterway is special; that the direct access into Sarasota Bay would benefit the people and the marine life; that controversy has been heard regarding the effect on snook; however, a clean waterway would be a benefit to the City; that the concern regarding garages facing the street is ironic; that all the garages of the single-family houses on Sylvan Drive face the street; that the developer has attempted to harmonize the garages with the docks, the trees, etc., to the benefit of all BOOK 58 Page 29626 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29627 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. the property owners; that some of the facts have been distorted; that the issue has been emotionally charged which is unfortunate; that the Commission is requested to approve the project as proposed with nine units. Bob Sondgerath, 707 40th Street (34234), stated that he is opposed to the request for a change in zoning to the RMF-2 Zone District. Jennifer Ahern Koch, 1105 Tahiti Parkway (34236), stated that she is speaking on behalf of Elizabeth Degtoff, Paul Eisenbart, Paula Sommers, and Thomas Koch, who also live in the Tahiti Park subdivision, south of Sylvan Drive; that the Commission is requested to deny the request for rezoning to the RMF-2 Zone District; that the proposed project is threatening to all single-family neighborhoods and will set a bad precedent if approved; that the Applicant indicated the neighbors do not support the project due to its size and scale, which is true; that the Applicant indicated the proposed project has a stabilizing effect on the neighborhood; that the proposed project has caused instability; that developers have been coming into single-family neighborhoods, purchasing properties, tearing down houses, and threatening to develop massive, multi-family structures in the neighborhoods; that developers should not be allowed to function in such a manner. Mary Newton, 5224 Eastchester Drive (34234), stated that she admires the heartfelt eloquence of previous speakers; and read from a prepared statement indicating the immediate impact on her personally is peripheral view driving by on US 41; however, all are affected; that she lives near many land tracts and motels on US 41 which have been sold or are for sale; that the type of redevelopment is a concern; that the Commissioners campaign promises were consider carefully prior to voting; that the hope is the Commissioners have the best interest of Sarasota at heart; however, the perception is the Commissioners' intentions have been compromised; that the question is the fear which is driving the City to embrace sO many massive building projects which. radically change the character of Sarasota; that the high density building project proposed for Sylvan Drive is opposed; that a: concern is the Commission decisions related to new developments too oiten seem to fly in the face of regulations and advice from the planning and zoning boards; that the Commissioners are hard working people with good intensions; that the Commissioners should listen to the voters who will be in the City for years and the developers will not;. the development is right for the community. John Featherstone, 2020 Chippewa Place (34234), stated that he is an Affected Person; that the City has done a marvelous job of landscaping throughout the City, especially on US 41 and the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that millions of dollars have been spent to make Sarasota a fantastic and beautiful community; that Sarasota has a unique beauty which cannot be compared to other communities; that the Commission has a duty to ensure Sarasota remains unique; that the developer has indicated the roads and grand oak trees will be preserved; that the hope is the Commission can ensure the developer will adhere to the promise; that the benefits and negatives of the proposed project are seen; that the hope is Sarasotans will continue to create a beautiful environment; that the grand oak trees are significant; that his heart will hurt if the grand oak trees are destroyed; that his elderly neighbor informed him the homes presently along the waterway did not exist in the 1930s and 1940s; that only a pathway ran from US 41 sO people could walk along the waterway; that people could watch the sun set; that the homes were constructed along the waterway in the 1950s; that the Commission must assure future development is beautiful. Jane Lyons, 3021 Bay Shore Road (34234, stated that she lives in the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood; that the concerns of the neighborhood are shared; that the size of the proposed units is of most concern; that a question is if similar development will occur if the proposed project is approved; that zoning exists for a reason. Kafi Benz, Box 2900 (34230), stated that the Commission has an opportunity to withdraw from a dangerous precipice; that the Commission had proverbial good intensions which was compounded by a failure to mount appropriate opposition by the neighbors; that due to a sense of improbability and a need to focus on several projects at one meeting without exhausting all, the neighbors and leaders presumed a minimal assertion of opposition to the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would be effective; that the misjudgment is regretted; that the neighborhood will perhaps be required to remain vigilant for a long time; that Mayor Martin had the foresight to require a site plan as part of the review for any proposals for rezoning on the site; that the single-family neighborhood deserves protection from the incompatible proposed project; that if approved, every single-family neighborhood in the City will be in jeopardy; that BOOK 58 Page 29628 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29629 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. the Commission is requested to deny the request for the rezoning to the RMF-2 Zone District. Mayor Martin stated that Ms. Lacy requested he read the names of the following people into the record who submitted correspondence in opposition to the proposed project: Mary Newman, Mary Locicero, Henry Adrien, Dr. Robert Moore Mayor Martin requested that the applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Freedman and Mr. DeLoach came forward. Mr. Freedman stated that he does not necessarily take offense to some of the comments made; however, perhaps he should; that a speaker indicated the situation is similar to a bait and switch situation. Mr. Freedman referred to the graphic shown during the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan process displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the proposed buildings are indicated; that the only difference is an attempt was made to create a unique look between the three buildings by incorporating a different exterior cOlor and slightly enhancing the exterior grill work; that the screen wall to hide the garage doors was improved as well; that no bait and switch situation occurred; that a change took place after the first neighborhood meeting; that the desire was to create more of a Key West type appearance; that the current contract purchaser decided upon the appearance of the buildings indicated on the concept drawing after market studies were conducted indicating the size of units in demand along the water; that the units are 3,900 square feet; that the 4,400 square foot units were prior to the redesign which took place as a result of comments received from the neighborhood; that waterfront units demand and can be much larger units; that several single family homes being constructed nearby are well over 5,000 square feet; that the garage doors were indicated as a concern; that an alternative design was considered which would consequently attract a different type of market; that the alternative design included one large building rather than town houses; that the applicant will be required to prove to the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Director the fact only one boat will be allowed at each dock; that people desire a personal dock for their boat; that rip rap can be constructed on the other side of each dock to ensure only one boat will be allowed for one dock; that a fencing situation is also proposed. Mayor Martin asked the length of the docks and the boat length which would be permitted? Mr. Freedman stated that the docks are 25 feet in length; that the docks could handle boats up to 40 to 45 feet; that rules regarding the amount of boat which can protrude from a dock exist; that a dispute exists if 9 versus 6 units exist on the property; that the City is receiving redeveloped property and additional tax revenuesi that the City will be losing noncontorming structures; that FEMA always reviews the status of nonconforming structures; that the proposed project will do away with the 33 boat docks which are extremely valuable; that the neighborhood is not stable at this time; that tremendous pressure to develop on the edge and fringes of the neighborhood exists; that the reason is the properties are not at their top level of use; that the effect of further redevelopment pressure on the neighborhoods will be stabilized by redeveloping the property. Mr. DeLoach stated that higher density is being requested due to the challenges on the site; that the intent is to attract the right type of buyer to the area; that the proposed development is driven by economics; that he has worked on the dredging project for two years; that he learned to fish on the bayou as a child; that the project was personally undertaken; that he has met many friends on the bayou; that commitments have been made; that he is different than the normal developer and is not proposing to construct condominiums or high rises in the Downtown; that the belief is the proposed project will work with the neighborhood; that the property will eventually be redeveloped to the FEMA regulations which are 35 feet or more; that someone will maximize the square footage on the lot; that he owns a project on the south side of the bayou, is a builder, owns a home on the south side of the bayou, and is proposing to construct a 5,100 square foot home since the lot is on the water; that a bait and switch situation has never been attempted; that the buildings have been adjusted to work with Staff recommendations; that an attempt has been made to work with the neighbors to identify a compromise; that the manner in which the buildings can face on the property is limited to the uniqueness of the site; that the proposed development has successtully saved the grand oak trees. BOOK 58 Page 29630 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29631 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the applicant was able to comply with Staff's recommendations for change other than decreasing the density to six units? Mr. Freedman stated that the applicant complied with all Staff recommendation except for decreasing the density and changing the location of the garage doors. Mayor Martin quoted the PBLP meeting minutes of December 8, 2004, included in the Agenda backup material indicate: Mr. DeLoach would also stipulate the placement of rip rap on the opposite side of those slips sO that it will create a more natural area for water habitat. Boats cannot be docked there. Mr. Freedman stated that the rip rap will guarantee only one boat per slip. Mayor Martin requested that the Affected Persons come forward for rebuttal. Ms. Lacy came forward and stated that illegal boats have been docked in the slips for some time; that no one has been able to address the problem; that nine docks with rip rap will not provide a guarantee for only one boat per slip; that policing the docks is extremely difficult; that prostitutes have never been seen in the neighborhood; that prostitutes have been seen on US 41 and in the Downtown; that people do come into the neighborhood and steal; that the indication the proposed development will clean up the area is exaggerated; that a wall is proposed; that no wall was proposed at the neighborhood meeting; that lighting could be included under the bridge sO the area would be more safe; that a wall will provide the opportunity for more homeless people to sleep; that construction of a wall would be a tragedy. Mr. Verizzo came forward and stated that the developer has indicated the docks will be 25 feet in length which could accommodate 40 foot boats; that the developer should be aware the State requires 50 percent of the water be available for passage of boats and maneuvering; that the owner of a 40 foot boat will not dock a boat with the bow up against the seawall; that any rip rap constructed will be on State water; that rip rap is constructed on an owners property in a situation of no seawall; that the waterway is 50 to 60 feet wide; that 25 foot docks will be constructed housing 40 foot boats; that room will not exist for the boats to back out; that the boats may not be able to maneuver into the slip; that the situation will not comply with State law. Ms. Jablonski stated that Mr. Freedman did not work with her regarding the proposed development and did not speak with the neighborhood but rather showed the neighborhood the desired development; that Mr. Freedman desires to construct his desired development; that the Commission has regretted previous decisions; that the Commission is requested not to make a decision negatively affecting a neighborhood. Mr. Clapp, Ms. Serrie and Mr. Farr came forward. Mr. Clapp stated that he heard the property was under contract; that the Sarasota Property Appraiser's website indicates Whitaker Bay Residential is the owner of the propertyi that the actual owner of the property is questioned; that a homeless person was observed sleeping under the bridge on his way to this meeting; that homeless people sleep anywhere and everywhere; that development does not deter homeless people from sleeping in desired locations; that the view from the street was not depicted in any of the graphics shown; that garage doors and windows and stairs in a grid pattern will be in full view of people living across the street; that the side yard setbacks for the RSF-2 Zone District, which is the current zoning, are 15 feet per house which would leave 60 feet of open space; that four houses could be constructed on the propertyi that a total of 15 feet at each end of the property would be allowed if the RMF-2 Zone District is granted. Mr. Clapp continued that the proposed development should not be supported; that the IBSSA is not automatically opposed to every development proposal; that the IBSSA is concerned with development which is compatible; that the IBSSA was not opposed to the Houses of Indian Beach development; that the IBSSA was opposed to specific issues such as the size of the lots and use of the road; that the IBSSA desires the best compatible development possible; that the RMF-2 Zone District does not provide for a compatible development; that the proposed development will set a precedent if approved; that Whitaker Bayou is long and extends through a long distance of single family neighborhoods; that a great demand exists for land on a waterway; that the demand will continue north of Dr. Martin BOOK 58 Page 29632 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29633 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Luther King, Jr. Boulevard; that the amount of square footage of the units remains a question. Ms. Serrie stated that the space between the buildings will be blocked with a gate; that the areas will not be open space; that the design of the project focuses on maximizing the dollar; that no effort has been made toward being sensitive to the neighborhood; that the simple request is to make the proposed development compatible with the neighborhood; that a previous developer made many concessions to the neighborhood; that the neighborhood supported the developer's project in the end. Mr. Clapp stated that a mega house would likely not have three stories; that the ceilings would likely be 15 feet high; that a mega house would likely not be 47 feet above grade; that single family homes with large square footage and high ceilings could be designed which would be significantly more compatible with the neighborhood; that six town house units could be designed compatibly with the neighborhood. Mayor Martin requested that Staff come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Hoglund came forward and stated that the RSF-2 Zone District allows 4.3 dwellings per acre; that the two options before the Commission at this time are six units and nine units; that the RSF-2 Zone District has a 10,000 square foot minimum lot area and an 80 foot width; that part of the difficulty with the site is the lots are unusually deep at approximately 136 feet; that some area exists which does not serve any purpose maximizing use of the site; that the RMF-1 Zone District has a 7,500 square foot minimum lot area; that the RMF-2 Zone District has a 5,000 square foot minimum lot area; that the allowed lot width is 70 feet for the RMF-1 Zone District and is 50 feet for the RMF-2 Zone District; that if the developer were to construct single family homes under a multi-family zone, which seems improbable, six lots exist under the RMF-2 Zone District and five lots exist under the RMF-1 Zone District; that the range is somewhere between four and six homes; that six platted lots exist; however, the lots do not meet the current standards for the RSF- 2 Zone District; that the Building Department would require a re-plat which would be at current minimum lot area and lot width standards. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the four foot wall. Mr. Hoglund stated that the wall was not indicated on the plans; that the wall was discussed at the PBLP meeting as an option; that six foot fences are allowed in front yards throughout the City; that the wall could conceal the garage doors; that the applicant proffered the wall as a way of dealing with the frontage along the property; that Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, can provide clarification regarding the boat docks. Mr. Litchet came before the Commission and stated that both the State and City regulations require the middle 50 percent of a waterway remain open which includes both the boat and the dock; that the width of the bayou is believed in the range of 117 feet. Mayor Martin stated that a 40 foot boat would likely be precluded. Mr. Litchet agreed; but stated that the specific measurements would require review. Mayor Martin asked the manner in which the number of boats docking in the slips would be enforced? Mr. Litchet stated that the developer's proposal technically meets the requirements of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that nine docks with a railing down the side of one are proposed; that enforcement is a concerni that telephone calls regarding additional boats being tied up at the docks will likely be received; that some type of rip rap along one side of the docks has also been discussed; that if the State would permit the rip rap is not known since the situation could be dangerous if not well marked; that a more sensitive design would be one dock with some finger piers; that individual docks are likely more valuable than a joint dock; however, another design could eliminate his concerns regarding enforcement. Mayor Martin stated that the State may require a different design such as finger docks. Mr. Litchet agreed; and stated that the Manatee Protection Plan will be considered in the design of the docks; that the Commission should indicate if changes in the design of the docks is important if the proposed development is approved; that a condition could be included to ensure he cannot override any condition imposed by the Commission. BOOK 58 Page 29634 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29635 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that the State would be concerned with minimal environmental impact. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; however, the area does not have considerable environmental impact; that sea grasses have not been observed in the area; however, no specific study has been conducted. Commissioner Palmer stated that provisions may be required if the proposed project is allowed to move forward; that a waiver of the one year waiting period to allow a project to come back with a request for rezoning would be required of the Commission. Mr. Hoglund stated that another option may exist; that the possibility of placing nine units on the property with far less impact than the proposed project is a question. City Attorney Fournier stated that the one year waiting period applies to conditional uses and rezonings; that the application could be amended under the RMF-2 Zone District with a different site plan; that the one year waiting period would not apply to submitting a new site plan and another application for rezoning to the RMF-2 Zone District. Mayor Martin stated that the site plan makes no reterence to fencing or buffering; that the manner in which the fencing or buffering can be included in the proposed project if not in the site plan is not understood. Mr. Hoglund stated that the developer can apply for permit; that the recollection is the developer made a proffer to apply for a permit for fencing and buffering; that fencing and buffering are not included in any of the supporting documents. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4579 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 04-4579 and to waive the one year waiting period for the applicant to come back with a site plan under the RMF-1 Zone District. Commissioner Palmer stated that issues of compatibility are apparent; that the change to the Multiple-Family Future Land Use Classification was not initially supported; that a single-tamily development is preferred; that the applicant has the right to construct a single-family development in a multiple-ramily Zone District; that the proposed project is too intense. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the scale and mass of the proposed project is not compatible with the single-family neighborhood next door; that the design is also a concern; that the hope is the developer will design the project in a more compatible manner with the neighborhood; that the applicant made a statement indicating the neighbors' properties are not being used to the best use which was found offensivei that the statement was insensitive; that the hope is the applicant will be more sensitive and work with the neighborhood; that the neighbors have purchased homes which are the greatest investments in their lives; that another comment was the Commission is more concerned with tax revenue, which is also considered offensive; that the Commission is significantly more concerned with preservation of the City's neighborhoods than with maximizing tax revenues. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the decisions during quasi- judicial public hearings must be based on substantial, competent evidence; that the situation is emotional, which is understood; that the State is changing immensely; that Florida is similar to New York at the time immigrants came over during the early 1900s; that nothing existed in the area of the proposed development in the 1930s and 1940s; that developers came in and constructed single family homes; that land uses are changing; that good change is desired; that a significant portion of the evidence presented and testimony heard indicated the possibility nine units is too excessive; that the quality of life in Sarasota is excellent; that the issues concerning land use are problematic; that a comment always heard is the developers are the enemies; that people should remember a developer had a vision and was willing to take the risk to build the single family homes in which everyone lives; that everyone should be more civil regarding the process; that the hope is everyone can get along. Commissioner Atkins stated that the change to the Multiple Family Future Land Use Classification was supported; that the area is in a transitional status; that the hope was the proposed project would be Closer to the outcome desired by the BOOK 58 Page 29636 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29637 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Commission; that the proposed project is more intense than originally anticipated; that the motion to deny is supported; that the IBSSA should decide which developments will be supported; that the IBSSA attempts to stop all development in the area; that the intent was to support the proposed development if the project was close to the expected plans; that the IBSSA has never supported any project before the Commission for the last 15 years, which is a concern; that the IBSSA should be willing to share part of Sarasota; that he represents a community which is endowed with significant poverty; that members of the IBSSA are not helping others in the City; that he is concerned with others in the community; that changes must take place. Commissioner Palmer stated that Mr. Freedman has been known for a long time; that Mr. Freedman's statements are believed true; that Mr. Freedman has never told an inaccurate story; that more civility and less attack on both sides is the preference; that civility is important for everyone; that the City is unique due to developers who have come in and built, which should be appreciated; that the Commission has the responsibility to deny projects which do not meet the City's codes or projects for which substantial and competent evidence is not shown; that people coming forward with projects have the intent to make the City a better place. Mayor Martin stated that the motion to deny is supported; that underlying issues sometimes exist; that the future of the City is at issue as well; that everyone should try to get along and work together; that his decision regarding the proposed project could go either wayi however, he has chosen to support the motion to deny; that everyone cares about the City which is the reason for the display of passion and criticism; that the applicant has worked with the City and the neighborhood to develop the best project possible; that the issue is compatibility; that determining compatibility is sometimes difficult; that compatibility matters; that developers are good business people who care about the community; that the hope is the economics of the project will work sO the area can be redeveloped in a way which is compatible; that the north end of the City requires redevelopment; that problems with crime and prostitution exist on north Tamiami Trail; that redevelopment will assist with the problems; that the community must address the problems and come together. Mayor Martin called for vote on the motion to deny proposed Ordinance No. 04-4579 and to waive the one year waiting period for the applicant to come back with a site plan under the RMF-1 Zone District and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. Commissioner Bilyeu left the Chambers at 9:30 p.m. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to extend the meeting past the 9:30 p.m. deadline to the end of the Agenda, but no later than 11:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. The Commission recessed at 9:31 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 19. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4580, AMENDING REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 03-4489 TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF SITE PLAN 04-SP-31 FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN 03-SP-23 PERTAINING TO A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT KNOWN AS THE METROPOLITAN, ; INCREASING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN THE PROJECT FROM 128 UNITS TO A MAXIMUM OF 145 UNITS ON PROPERTY ZONED COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 1150 RITZ CARLTON DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO THE PARKING LAYOUT AS SET FORTH IN SITE PLAN APPLICATION 04-SP-31; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 04-ROA-02 AND 04-SP-31, APPLICANT BRENDA L. PATTEN, ESQ., AS AGENT REPRESENTING METROPOLITAN SARASOTA, LTD, AS OWNER) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-2) CD 9:45 through 9:58 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4580 is to amend Rezoning Ordinance No. 03-4489 to reflect the approval and substitution of Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-31 for previously approved Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-23 pertaining to a residential condominium project known as the Metropolitan, increasing the number of dwelling units in the project from 128 units to a maximum Of 145 units on property zoned in the Commercial Central Business District and located at 1150 Ritz Carlton Drive and changing to the parking layout as set forth in Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-31. BOOK 58 Page 29638 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29639 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. City Attorney Fournier stated that three individuals applied for Affected Persons status; that the Applicant is the only party signed up to speak; that establishing time for Affected Persons will not be necessary; that the applicant will have 7 minutes for presentation; that the City will have 5 minutes; Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved; and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Vice Mayor Servian, and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu and Palmer stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Brenda Patten, Attorney, law firm of Kirk Pinkerton, Millard Yoder and Bill Eager, Wilson Miller, came before the Commission. Attorney Patten stated that in 2003, the Commission approved the Metropolitan project with 128 units; that the project was eligible for 144 units; that 128 units were requested due the desire for large floor plans; that the desire at this time is to create some smaller units within the building; that the request is for an increase to 16 units; that no changes to the site plan are taking place except for internal changes to the building; that the 16 unit increase will be made by splitting up existing units; that one parking space is being eliminated since some of the areas within the garage will be closed to create private parking spaces; that 216 parking spaces are being provided; that only 180 parking spaces are required. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) only requires 1.25 parking spaces per unit which is unfortunately considered low; and asked the plan for excess parking if the project does not have sufficient parking spaces for vehicles? Mr. Eager stated that the building will have valet parking; that the valet parkers are always able to understand who is in and out of the building; that vehicles can be parked in spaces which are not necessarily occupied at a particular moment; that buildings having 100 percent occupancy at any given time are unlikely; that 1.3 vehicles is typical. Commissioner Palmer stated that the number of parking spaces should be sufficient to accommodate guest parking. Mayor Martin stated that having sufficient parking during the tourist season is a concern. Mr. Eager stated that parking spaces assigned to particular individuals can be used since the valet parkers will be aware of who is in the building; that vehicles will be queued into the garage and will be parked as parking spaces become available; that the flow of the parking garage will not be affected. Mayor Martin requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission and stated that two issues are involved; that one is a rezone ordinance amendment which is substitute a new site plan for the site plan approved in 2003; that the site plan is not changed; that all the changes to the building are internal, mainly on the lower floors; that some of the units have been divided into additional units; that the changes will not be visible externally; that the most obvious change as a result of the modification is a slight increase in traffic; however, the increase is well below the number of trips prior to the site being cleared. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if less traffic will be generated? Mr. Hoglund stated yes; and continued that a neighborhood meeting was associated with the project; that not many people attended; that one gentleman expressed concern regarding maintenance of the parking lot; that the concern was addressed; that the conditions originally imposed remain in the ordinance except for a couple which no longer apply. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4580 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4580 on first reading. BOOK 58 Page 29640 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29641 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 20. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 9:58 There was no one signed up to speak. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE REZONING TO THE FOUR NEW DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICTS = RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM XVI) CD 9:58 through 10:24 Mayor Martin stated that the item concerns the status of the rezoning to the four new Downtown Zone Districts. City Attorney Fournier stated that on December 15, 2005, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held the first required public hearing regarding the four applications for rezoning the Downtown into the four new Downtown Zone Districts; that prior to the public hearing, a lengthy letter addressed to Mayor Martin was received which was signed by four of the land use attorneys at the law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg; that copies were provided to the Commissioners, the PBLP, and the Charter Officials; that the letter requested the December 15, 2004, PBLP public hearing be cancelled; that the public hearing was held but was continued to January 12, 2005. City Attorney Fournier continued that the letter provided three reasons in support of the request; that the first reason was alleged deficiencies in the notices of hearing which were mailed out to property owners; that the second reason was alleged deficiencies in the materials submitted along with the rezoning applications; that the third reason was a claim the public hearing should be conducted in accordance with quasi-judicial procedures rather than legislatively; that the first two reasons are not considered a concern; that the notices were correctly prepared; that neither the PBLP nor the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk is faulted in any way; that the problem is with the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) which is geared to the site specific rezonings; that the notices sent out had a map from which an individual could reference the location of their property; that the notice suffices under the State Statutes; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) should be more clear; that the more significant issue is the third reason which is the classification of the rezoning decision as quasi-judicial or as legislative. City Attorney Fournier stated further that some criteria is available through case law which provides the difference between the quasi-judicial and legislative actions; that case law to the effect a comprehensive area-wide rezoning which impacts large portions of the general public is legislative in nature rather than quasi-judicial exists; that having the decision characterized as legislative is in the City's best interest; that defending the City in court if challenged will be easier since a court would be obliged to offer a greater degree of deference to the Commission's judgment as a legislative body than if a quasi-judicial decision; that Planning Staff did not purport to conduct a separate analysis of 1,800 parcels; that preparing 1,800 separate Staff reports and holding 1,800 separate quasi-judicial hearings is not feasible; that the ar rgument is cynical since unrealistic; that any challenges received would likely be more parcel specific, which would be easier to address. City Attorney Fournier referred to Section IV-202, Notices and Public Hearings, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) displayed on the Chamber monitors as follows: 1) The following land development approval hearings will be conducted legislatively.. 2) The following land development approval hearings and administrative appeals will be conducted quasi- judicially City Attorney Fournier stated that site specific rezonings are typically conducted quasi-judicially, that although not Listed, the expectation would be area-wide comprehensive rezonings would be included under the approval hearings which will be conducted legislatively; that the concern is the argument the City would hear is Florida case law allows a rezoning as either quasi- judicial or legislative; that the Zoning Code (2002) Ed.) only allows for quasi-judicial rezoningsi that the possible success of the argument is not known; that time should be taken to correct the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that some housekeeping amendments as to the notice and the application submittal requirements which would apply should also take place; that more BOOK 58 Page 29642 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29643 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. attention should be paid to City-wide rezonings; that a draft of the text amendment can be prepared by the week of January 24, 2005 which could hopefully be forwarded to the Development Review Committee (DRC) for the first meeting in February 2005; that the time line will likely be one or two months. Commissioner Palmer stated that the process should move forward as fast as possible; that the public hearing process could be accelerated; that making changes as necessary to move the process forward is supported. Mayor Martin agreed; and stated that the process should be expedited. Vice Mayor Servian agreed. Commissioner Palmer stated that several telephone calls have been received from individuals who have indicated a readiness to move forward; that the hope is the City Attorney can determine some method to allow the individuals to move forward without having to go through the normal machinations; that people do not understand the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) has been in effect for 30 years; that the City is making changes to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) to alter the manner in which development occurs in the City; that the situation will occur in which people will attempt to beat the rezoning deadline, which is understood. City Attorney Fournier stated that the zoning text amendment is regarded as a high priority item which must proceed. Mayor Martin stated that the lack of clarity in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) is disappointing. Vice Mayor Servian stated the prudence exhibited by City Attorney Fournier is appreciated; that the desire is for being expeditiously prudent. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the efforts of the City Attorney are appreciated; that the City Attorney's opinions to avoid the City's having to go to court are respected. City Attorney Fournier stated that anyone is free to file an application; that the issues being raised are the extent to which the City will go to accommodate, facilitate or make the process easier by waiving fees or application submittal requirements; that meetings will be held with Planning Staff and Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to discuss the issues. Commissioner Palmer asked if the legislative rather than the quasi-judicial process could continue if groups of people came in and batch requests together? City Attorney Fournier stated that the possibly exists; that specifics regarding the extent of the possibility cannot be provided; however, a set of circumstances in which the situation is possible can be envisioned. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a time line prior to moving forward is requested. Mayor Martin agreed. City Attorney Fournier stated that information can be brought to the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Atkins stated that the time line has already begun; that information being brought back at the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting would be appreciated. Mayor Martin stated that the hope is to have everyone support the Downtown rezones. Vice Mayor Servian stated that information in the form of a memorandum prior to the February 7, 2005, Regular meeting would be appreciated. City Attorney Fournier stated that information could be provided as soon as next week. 22. APPROVAL RE: : REQUEST BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $2,050 IN CITY FUNDS TO HELP FUND COSTS FOR THE 25" ANNIVERSARY OF THE MARKET = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM XVII) CD 10:24 through 10:28 Mayor Martin stated that the item is a request for a budget amendment for $2,050 in City funds to help fund costs for the 25th Anniversary of the Market. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the request for $2,050 in City funds to help fund costs for the 25th Anniversary of the Market. BOOK 58 Page 29644 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29645 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that brackets and banners will not be supported by Administration due to the cost involved; that the cost should be considered as part of a fiscal year (FY) 2005/06 budget process; that the budget includes 250 tee shirts commemorating the anniversary; that 250 tee shirts are likely not enough for the 3,000 to 5,000 people who will visit the market. Chris Matthews, City of Sarasota Downtown Partnership, came before the Commission and stated that overburdening the budget was not the desire. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a list could be compiled and people could order tee shirts. Commissioner Palmer asked the color of the tee shirts. Mr. Matthews stated that the tee shirts will likely be white. Mayor Martin stated that the preference would be for being generous and have more tee shirts; however, a motion is on the table; and asked for clarification regarding entertainment at the celebration. Mr. Matthews stated that many interesting events are planned; that the entertainment planned is a surprise. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to approve the request for $2,050 in City funds to help fund costs for the 25th Anniversary of the Market. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 23. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) CD 10:29 through 10:39 COMMISSIONER BILYEU: A. stated that a Juvenile Justice Council of the Department of Juvenile Justice meeting was attended; that he does not have much to report at this time other than January 2006 is National Mentoring Month; that the County will have a month-long celebration next year; that the amount of juvenile delinquents has decreased, which is good; that some of the decrease is attributed to the recent hurricanes; that significant work is being conducted to turn the lives of the juveniles around. COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that a report will be provided regarding all three of the City's Pension Boards; that investments for all three Boards for the period ending September 30, increased as follows: 2004, Firefighters Fund increased 11.7 percent, General Employees Fund increased 13.53 percent, and Police Officers Fund increased 9.5 percent; that the General Employees Pension Board meeting was attended earlier in the dayi that the indication was the fund increased higher than any other fund; that the portfolio totals for the first quarter fiscal year from October 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004, for the Firefighters Fund increase in value was over $5 million; that the Police Officers Fund was over $7 million and the General Employees Fund was over $7 million; that the City's Pension Boards have done an excellent job. B. stated that at the ManaSota League of Cities meeting, Kathy Dent, Supervisor of Elections, discussed early voting for the City Commission election which will begin 14 days in advance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the polls will remain open for half day on Saturday and Sunday rather than a full day on Saturday on the two weekends prior to the election; that Ms. Dent indicated a significant number of requests for the Sunday voting were received; that the City will assist with staffing the effort to keep the costs down. Commissioner Palmer stated that Ms. Dent spoke regarding elimination of the second runoff; that State legislation would be necessary to allow the Instant Runoff Voting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that State approval is required for the Instant Runoff Voting software; that the software has not been approved in the State of Florida. Commissioner Palmer stated that Ms. Dent is also proposing a municipal election day in Sarasota County sO all the cities would have elections on one day. BOOK 58 Page 29646 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29647 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Town of Longboat Key changed their election date to coincide with the City's last year. Commissioner Palmer stated that Ms. Dent raised an interesting point regarding mailing; that an election can take place by mail in Florida as long as a candidate is not on the ballot and the issues concern only referenda; that some analysis from the City Auditor and Clerk is necessary concerning the costs; that the City Auditor and Clerk is preparing the legislative agenda; that the City Auditor and Clerk is requested to distribute the lobbying schedule sO the Commission can sign up for dates; that the Manasota League of Cities will pay hotel and airfare. C. stated that the County Administrator is interested in the problem concerning red light running; that all the cities and counties as well as the neighborhood associations are concerned with red light running; that she is requesting a resolution regarding red light running be placed on the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting agenda; that the County will be preparing the resolution for the Commission's consideration. City Auditor and Clerk stated that he has the County's resolution; that the resolution will be on the Agenda of the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting; that the County has already passed the resolution. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that he was on the District 55 State Legislative Regional Conference Committee held at the regional conference last weekend for the Florida Black Caucus of State Legislators; that 24 African American State Legislatures exist in the State of Florida; that 17 are in the House of Representatives and 7 are in the Senate, which is considered a significant Caucus; that he has decided to more actively participate; that he is committed to going to Tallahassee, Florida, to advocate for the region and to voice City concerns with which he agrees; that the legislative slate is Clear and consists of health care, economic development, housing and education; that the Caucus supports reorganizing the taxing process based on the McKay proposal; that an interesting time will take place in Tallahassee. 24. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - CONSENSUS TO PLACE DISCUSSION OF EXPANSION OF THE CRA ADVISORY BOARD FROM NINE TO TEN ON THE AGENDA OF A FUTURE COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 10:39 through 10:59 VICE MAYOR SERVIAN: A. stated that the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota will be holding a retail forum on January 19, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that a panel will be conducted at 9:30 a.m.; that an expert in retail strategies will speak; that the discussion will focus on the manner in which to move forward with the Downtown retail strategy; that the discussion should be broader than only the Downtown; that she and the City Manager are part of the panel. Mayor Martin stated that he will be making opening statements; that a number of Commissioners are planning to attend. COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that the Lido Pool is being rededicated on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. B. stated that Arts Day was fabulous; that the crowds were the largest ever seen; that the Arts Council made a significant amount of money from admittance fees; that the cost for admittance was $3.00 per person, which was inexpensive; that everyone had an enjoyable time and did not have to spend a lot of money. C. stated that the 25th Anniversary of the Market will be held on February 5, 2005; that the celebration will be excellent. D. stated that a schedule of Commission meetings for 2005 was received; that a request was made to the City Manager to eliminate a meeting in July or August 2005 and to move the December 19, 2005 meeting up to December 12, 2005; that the City Manager indicated revising the calendar will not be a problem if done in advance. BOOK 58 Page 29648 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29649 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that rescheduling the December 19, 2005 meeting is supported; however, the other Commissioners should be consulted regarding eliminating a July or August 2005 meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that the issue can be decided at the February 7, 2005, Regular Commission meeting sO Commissioners will have time to review their schedules. E. stated that a request is to receive a report on the progress of the Neighborhood Action Strategy in the first three areas which are: Park East, Gillespie Park and the Rosemary District neighborhoods; that the Administration is requested to provide a report; that a follow-up file should be established for the Bayou Oaks and the Central Cocoanut neighborhoods Neighborhood Action Strategies; that the Arlington Park Neighborhood Action Strategy kick-off is tomorrow evening, January 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Waldemere Fire Station. Mayor Martin stated that Neighborhood Partnership Office (NPO) has been requested to provide a report regarding the existing Neighborhood Action Strategies; that the information may not have been compiled. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the report is in the process of being prepared; that the NPO will have the three reports complete within the next month. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that he has communicated with the Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Staff regarding preparing to dedicate the Robert L. Taylor Complex; that he will be notified as soon as a date is set for the dedication. B. stated that thanks are extended to the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration Committee for the fine job performed over the last week; that the committee's efforts toward the golf tournament and the activities in the park are appreciated; that thanks are extended to the Front Porch Committee for the celebration march; that the participation of the County is appreciated; that the efforts to ensure safety from the Sarasota Police Department are appreciated. MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that having the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Celebration Committee recognize the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) at the breakfast was pleasing; that the SPD has made efforts to diversify the workforce. B. stated that the Commission met jointly with the Historic Preservation Board and some commitments have not been reported back to the Historic Preservation Board in approximately 90 days; that he will meet with City Manager McNees to obtain a report sO the Commission can report back on some of the issues; that he has discussed with the Financial Director the tax exemption issue. C. stated that an informal meeting is scheduled for January 19, 2005, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the City's Federal Building. D. stated that a joint meeting with the Sarasota Housing Authority is scheduled for January 21, 2005, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., that an update will be requested regarding demolition, redevelopment, maintenance, etc., of the Janie Poe public housing complex,i that the understanding is the Sarasota Housing Authority and a County and a City liaison will meet and report back prior to the January 21, 2005, meeting to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the issue of redevelopment of the Janie Poe public housing complex may take up the entire meeting; that maintenance and financial reports are made available in the Commission office after every Sarasota Housing Authority meeting for public review; that the reports also are available in her office. Mayor Martin stated that a public hearing would be helpful as significant criticism exists regarding the lack of a public status report. Commissioner Palmer asked if any backup information can be provided sO the Commission is better informed prior to attending the meeting? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that an answer is not known. Commissioner Palmer stated that a summary would be appreciated. BOOK 58 Page 29650 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29651 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that Vice Mayor Servian can provide the latest Sarasota Housing Authority Board report. Commissioner Palmer stated that only the report is not sufficient; that the issue is the tri-party agreement which will be memorialized in the Memorandum of Understanding. Mayor Martin stated that no information currently exists regarding the tri-party agreement; that information will be available at the January 21, 2005, joint Commission and Sarasota Housing Authority workshop meeting. Vice Mayor Servian stated that if a demolition permit has been issued is not known; that the application has been filed; that the lack of activity and information is frustrating. Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is the Commission will be informed in January or February 2005 regarding the demolition permit. E. stated that the work of a photographer, Sergey Skuratov, from Vladimir, Russia, was accepted for the COEXISTENCE exhibit; that Mr. Skuratov's wife, Natalie Zhigalova is a commissioner and a psychiatrist; that Ms. Zhigalova is involved in public health and social issues; that Mr. Skuratov and Ms. Zhigalova can be introduced at the beginning of the February 3, 2005, Downtown Parking Master Plan Workshopi that he will sponsor a reception for the couple; that invitations have been extended to the Commissioners and spouses to attend. F. stated that a standard format for advisory board reports for easy review was previously discussed; that the form provided to thc different boards is the same; however, the boards fill out the form differently; that for example, the attendance record is reported differently; that making substantial changes is not desired; however, the idea is to improve the uniformity of the reporting on the form; distributed the reports of the Human Relations Board and the Historic Preservation Board to illustrate the difference in filling out the form. G. stated that an appreciation event has been scheduled for the advisory board members on February 25, 2005, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. H. stated that he had dinner with the French Ambassador to the US, Jean-David Levitte, on Arts Day; that the French are interested in working with tourism and businesses to make the French community more aware of the west coast of Florida. I. stated that Commissioner Bilyeu brought up the possibility of an additional seat on the CRA Advisory Board; and asked if the issue should be placed on an Agenda of a future meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) ? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a group of individuals indicated an interest in serving on advisory boards; that the advisory boards are important and are an integral to the Commission's future activities; that the issue should be placed on a future Agenda for discussion. Mayor Martin stated that the item could be placed on the Agenda of next CRA meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the resolution establishing the CRA Advisory Board was a Commission Resolution. Commissioner Palmer asked if the intent is to create a new position for someone from the Young Professionals Group; that having a discussion regarding appointing someone the Commission likes is not desired; however, a category is missing; that the Young Professionals Group should be represented on the CRA Advisory Board; that the preference is based on category, not on an individual. Mayor Martin stated that the issue should be discussed; that the concept is everyone should have the appropriate Downtown representation; that a future Agenda Item should address expansion of the membership of the CRA Advisory Board from nine to ten. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is to place discussion of expansion of the CRA Advisory Board from nine to ten on the Agenda of a future Commission meeting. 25. OTHER ATERS/ADAINISTATIVE OFFICERS SCHEDULED AN OUT-OF-S SUNSHINE, I ATTORNEY- - CLIENT SESSION FOR JANUARY 25, 2005 (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 10:59 BOOK 58 Page 29652 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. BOOK 58 Page 29653 01/18/05 2:30 P.M. CITY ATTORNEY FOURNIER: A. stated that he desires to seek advice from the Commission regarding a settlement proposal and litigation expenses in the matter of City of Sarasota versus Brooke G. Asbury, Case No. 2001 CA 005973 NC, Circuit Court for Sarasota County, which is the old Siesta Fish Market Case; that time is available for an out-of-sunshine, attorney-client session subsequent to the January 24, 2005, Budget Policies Workshop. Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, a Special Commission meeting will be scheduled. 26. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVIII) CD 10:59 There being no further business, Mayor Martin adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of January 18, 2005, at 10:59 p.m. SOTAS A dlarhr ukaw 0 RICHARD F. MARTIN, MAYOR D a tl E Robenson BILLY E.CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK