BOOK 43 Page 16385 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 6, 1998, AT 3:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Jerome Dupree, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill (arrived at 3:13 p.m.), and Nora Patterson, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 (a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 3:06 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 #1 (0020) through (0114) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove Board Action, Item Nos. VII-2(a) and VII-2(b), Report Re: Historic Preservation Board's regular meeting of March 10, 1998, concerning Fort Amistead, per the request of Planning and Development Director Robinson and place on April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting. B. Remove New Business, Item No. X-1, concerning the appointment to the Sarasota Coastal Advisory Committee, and place under board Appointments, Item No. V-4. C. Remove New Business, Item No. X-2, concerning the proposed Implementation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Wynnton Group, Inc., and place immediately following Public Hearings, Item No. VIII-1(c). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that two additional applications have been received for the Historic Preservation Board for the position of architect; that Robert Town resigned from the Historic Preservation Board on Friday, April 3, 1998; that two architect positions are now vacant; that additionally a position is vacant for a licensed engineer or contractor; that a total of three vacancies exist. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1998 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0115) through (0122) Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission had any changers to the minutes. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the minutes of the March 16, 1998, regular City Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 3. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1,3,4,5,6 AND 7 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II-A) #1 (0123) through (0375) Commissioner Cardamone requested that Item No. 2 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Receipt of the 1997 Annual Board Reports in accordance with Section 2-259 of the Sarasota City Code 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Fraternal Order of Police Sarasota Lodge Number 3, to permit the sale of Christmas tree sales in the future 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Renewal to the Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Sarasota, Florida, (RFP #96-49), to provide engineering services as the Engineer of Record for the City of Sarasota Water and Sewer System for an additional one year period 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interagency Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the University of Florida, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences, for the Florida Yards Program 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Director of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program to issue an administrative letter to the contractor extending the Interagency BOOK 43 Page 16386 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16387 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Agreement with the University of Florida, Sea Grant College at no cost to September 30, 1998 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Funding Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County in the amount of $50,000, to implement elements of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) Commissioner Merrill arrived in the Chambers at 3:13 p.m. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. Approval Re: Renewal Contract between the City of Sarasota and Marlowe & Company, in the amount of $15,000, for continuation of Lido Beach lobbying services Commissioner Cardamone stated that while in Washington D.C. recently, meetings were held with Howard Marlowe, the City's lobbyist; that meetings were also held with Senator Connie Mack, Senator Bob Graham and his environmental assistants, Congressman Dan Miller and Congressman Porter Goss; that the City should continue working with Mr. Marlowe, who is very knowledgeable and doing an excellent job; that his approach to the legislative aides and elected officials was very impressive and professional. Commissioner Cardamone continued that an indication was received that work on south Lido Beach may be delayed one year; that sand may not be placed on the beach until the year 2000/01; that current pictures of a Lido Beach condominium practically touching water were shown to legislators; that the message was conveyed that beach renourishment on Lido Beach should be accomplished as quickly as possible; that her implication is not her influence can affect final action concerning Lido Beach by the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives; however, an occasional presence on behalf of the City is important; that each visit was followed by thank you letters including maps indicating the proposed dredging projects in the City and funding sources. Mayor Pillot stated that the report is very informative. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes, Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. - Commissioner Patterson stated that a Sarasota County initiative is to change the pass designated for dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) from New Pass to Big Pass; that dredging will take sand from the shoal, which was not allowed previously; that the location of the designated pass has an implication to the City in terms of availability of sand and in terms of where the sand will migrate; that most people on the south end of Lido Key believe the dredging of the New Pass channel was harmful to Lido Keyi that the City's engineers have stated and newspapers have reported that the sand's natural migration is south; however, the sands' southerly migration does not benefit the property owners from Lido Key's public beach to South Lido Park; that sand from dredging has been necessary to maintain the beaches in that area; that a proposal calls for dredging Big Pass and placing the sand on Siesta Key; that if the designation for dredging changes, the City should be very honest in its needs as the City desperately needs a share of the sand. Commissioner Cardamone agreed; and stated that Longboat Key has received permission and is currently completing a groin extension into the Gulf, which will keep sand from flowing southward; that the combination of a new groin extension and changing the dredging from New Pass to Big Pass could result in a sand-starved beach; that the effects on the City if the groin is extended should be considered; and asked for a report on possible ramifications to the beaches and shorelines if the New Pass channel is no longer dredged and the Big Pass channel is designated as the boat channel in Sarasota Bay. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, Staff will monitor the sand dredging and the groin extension and educate the Commissioners on the potential positive and negative ramifications. Commissioner Patterson stated that. the City will be years ahead of the projected schedule if sand can be obtained in the year 2000/01. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1063) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 98-4048) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 98-4049) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 98-4050) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0382) through (0446) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1063 in its entirety and proposed Ordinance Nos. 98-4048, 98-4049, and 98-4050 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1063, appropriating $24,440 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to provide matching funds for BOOK 43 Page 16388 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16389 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. the Family Resource Officer Program at Tuttle Elementary School per the agreement with the Federal Government; etc. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4048, to vacate an alley running east to west connecting Higel Avenue and La Paloma Avenue, as more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 98-SV-03, Petitioner, Brenda L. Patten, Esquire, representing Ms. Rosie A. Turner) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4049, to conditionally rezone from the Industrial (I) Zone District to the Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District a portion of the following described property (known as Discount Auto Parts) located on the west side of North Washington Boulevard at 21st Street, with a street address of 2035 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, more particularly described herein; approving Site and Development Plan 98-PSD-B to permit the construction of an automobile parts store on the entire site in a CI Zone District; etc. (Title Only) (Petition Nos. 98-CO-01 and 98-PSD-B, Petitioner, Kenneth H. Ehlers, P.E., as Agent representing Discount Auto Parts, Inc. as the owner of the real property) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4050, providing for the designation of the commercial structure located at 1490 Main Street historically known as Worth's Block A/K/A Gator Bar and Grille as a structure of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 97-HD-02, Petitioner Mikki Hartig, representing Mr. Ernest Ritz, President, Gator Club Corporation) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 4, inclusive. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA, MAIN STREET DEPOT, INC. AND GREAT AMERICAN CONCESSIONS, INC.. SARASOTA BANK, AND MERTZ ENTERPRISES OF SARASOTA, INC., FOR THE BUYOUT OF THE MAIN STREET DEPOT LEASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,000 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-1) #1 (0447) through (0570) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the City has been negotiating during the past month to purchase the leasehold of the Main Street Depot from the lessee through a Termination Agreement at a cost of $171,000, which is an appraisal-based amount as follows: 1. Appraisal undepreciated value) $148,463 2. Equipment appraisal 18,560 3. Value of architectural plans 3,977 Total Cost $171,000 Deputy City Manager Schneider continued that the lessee has agreed to the amount, which is considered a fair value; that the anticipation is most of the cost will be recovered from a future lease; that a charette will be conducted by the Downtown Association to determine the future use of the premises if the Termination Agreement is approved; that the Administration recommends approving the Termination Agreement. Commissioner Patterson stated that her husband has represented the lessee in prior business activities; therefore, she is declaring a conflict of interest and will abstain from voting on this item. The following person came before the Commission: Paul Thorpe, 1818 Main Street (34236), Executive Director of the Downtown Association stated that the Commission is encouraged to approve the purchase of the leasehold of the Main Street Depot through the proposed Termination Agreement; that the Downtown Association has also had conversations with the lessee, who approves the Termination Agreement; that the Board of Directors of the Downtown Association approves the proposed Termination Agreement; that a good relationship exists with the lessee. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to approve the Termination Agreement with Great American Concessions for the purchase of the Main Street Depot lease at a cost of $171,000. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her hope is the City can move forward with a new tenant and the money paid for the Termination Agreement will be repaid in many ways. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration's intention is for repayment in a new lease. BOOK 43 Page 16390 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16391 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot, yes. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1066, APPROPRIATING $171,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND THE BUYOUT OF THE MAIN STREET DEPOT LEASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT ETC. - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-2) #1 (0571) through (0615) Mayor Pillot stated that proposed Resolution No. 98R-1066 is to appropriate $171,000 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund to fund the purchase of the leasehold on the Main Street Depot. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1066 in its entirety. Commissioner Patterson stated that her husband has represented the lessee in prior business activities; therefore, she is declaring a conflict of interest and will abstain from voting on this item. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 98R-1066. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot, yes. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: WORKPLAN AND PROPOSED FUNDING MECHANISM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OF THE GREATER NEWTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GNCRC) AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ACTION - AUTHORIZED $128,000 IN FUNDING TO THE GNCRC AND DIRECTED THE PREPARATION OF AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION: APPROVED THE GNCRC WORKPLAN AND THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT APPROVED THAT THE GRANT BE CONSIDERED AS A ONE -TIME GRANT APPROVAL; APPROVED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION PREPARE A POLICY TO EVALUATE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT GRANT REQUESTS IN THE FUTURE (AGENDA ITEM III-3) #1 (0616) through #2 (0431) Greg Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment, and Jetson Grimes and Cynthia Porter, representing the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC), I came before the Commission. Mr. Horwedel stated that the City approved $128,000 in funding to the GNCRC, a portion of which is Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; that a workplan is required to obtain funding, has been developed and is provided in the Agenda materials. Mr. Grimes asked if the eight questions, previously directed to the GNCRC by Commissioner Cardamone, have been sufficiently answered? Commissioner Cardamone stated that her opinion is the by-laws should be less legalistic and written in more user-friendly terms. Mr. Horwedel stated that the by-laws are currently being modified. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her questions one through four have been answered satisfactorily with the understanding that the by-laws, pertaining to question five, are being modified; that GNCRC's response to her question six pertaining to presenting monthly progress reports to the Commission was monthly reports will be given to Staff who will report to the Commission; that her preference is for the GNCRC to present reports to the Commission; that reporting to the Commission once a month or every two months with an opportunity for Commission questions is appropriate; that GNCRC's response to question seven pertaining to a prohibition against employment or compensation of a past or current member of the GNCRC Board is the City's lack of jurisdiction or authority to legislate, suggest or control Board membership policy or structure; that her request is a personal suggestion for her continued support of the funding request; and asked if GNCRC is prepared not to employ the five original members or new Board members? Mr. Grimes asked for clarification. Commissioner Cardamone stated that certain Commissioners have expressed the concern that a group identifying a need, requesting funding for the need and employing themselves to address the need is awkward and perhaps, improper; that the idea of a Board employing themselves is difficult to understand. Mr. Grimes stated that the positions of Executive Director, Assistant Director and Secretary/Reeptionist will be accepted from the public; that successful applicants will be selected by the GNCRC Board. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her continued support will be based upon assurances that no person who originally signed the BOOK 43 Page 16392 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16393 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Articles of Incorporation will be given employment paid by City funding to the GNCRC. Mr. Grimes stated that the application process will be open to the public; that most likely, applicants will not be GNCRC Board members; that the most qualified applicants are sought for the positions. Commissioner Cardamone asked if definite assurance is being given that no applicant who is part of the GNCRC will be hired? Mr. Grimes stated that members of the Executive Committee have the right to apply for a position; that Board members are not being asked to apply for an open position; that non-members of the GNCRC have the right to apply; that denying an application to anyone who feels qualified would be a form of discrimination. Commissioner Cardamone disagreed and stated that not hiring a member of the GNCRC Board is a matter of policy and not a question of discrimination. Mr. Grimes stated that applications for the open positions are not being accepted from GNCRC Board members. Commissioner Cardamone asked the founding members who signed the Articles of Incorporation with the State of Florida? Mr. Grimes stated that his recollection is the founding members were Carolyn Mason, Steve Jones, Fredd Atkins, Stanford Perkins, Pauline Hodges, Calvin Bryant, and Jetson Grimes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Board has recently been increased with some very professional people and asked if no person from the original GNCRC Board will be employed with City funds? Ms. Porter asked if a particular person is being referenced? Commissioner Cardamone stated that her opinion is none of the original GNCRC founders should be employed with City funds. Ms. Porter stated that no original member is or will be employed by the GNCRC Board. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her last question pertained to Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine law (Sunshine Law) for open meetings and public records; that GNCRC's response is the Sunshine Law is not thought applicable. Ms. Porter stated that GNCRC reconsidered and found the Sunshine Law applicable. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification. Mr. Horwedel stated that organizations receiving public funds must provide an accounting of funds and meeting minutes. Commissioner Patterson stated that private, not-for-profit organizations are not subject to Florida's Sunshine Laws. Mr. Horwedel stated that is correct, however, CDBG funding requires an open-book, open-meeting policy. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if the City gave CDBG funds to the Senior Friendship Center? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that no CDBG funds were given to the Senior Friendship Center to the best of his knowledge. Commissioner Cardamone asked if CDBG funds are mostly for sidewalks, parking lots, etc., and rarely given for individual, undesignated uses? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that CDBG funds are generally for hard costs and not soft costs. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the funding is permitted from CDBG funds? Mr. Horwedel stated that a portion of the funding recommended is from CDBG funds; that GNCRC meeting minutes and expenditures will be public record, meeting the Commission's public disclosure goal. Mayor Pillot stated that significant amounts of private dollars may be donated to the GNCRC and asked if any Commissioner's objections to the proposal will continue if private funds are used to employ any founding GNCRC member? Commissioner Cardamone stated that her concern is using City public funds. Mayor Pillot stated that clarification is important regarding the use of private funds; that the Commission's position must be understood as the GNRDC Board employs Staff. Commissioner Cardamone stated the basic premise is not personality driven but rather driven by the impropriety of forming an organization, declaring a need and requesting funds for personal employment; that in retrospect, employing original members may not seem correct; that her support is pledged to do anything necessary to begin redevelopment in the Newtown area. BOOK 43 Page 16394 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16395 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that submitting reports on the use of funds is GNCRC's responsibility; that accountability of private funds should be only to the funding source and not the City. Mayor Pillot stated that a local business person, aware of the GNCRC, already verbally committed funds, which were promised not due to a request but rather a desire to contribute to the public good. Commissioner Patterson stated that the distinction between using funds for employee salaries or projects is not clear; that the funds are fungible unless the $128,000 is specifically designated for production or construction; that her support has not been given this funding request for different reasons; that the City is a relatively small city with many working-class neighborhoods requiring improvements, similar to Newtown; that the recent GNCRC presentation was attended and enjoyed; that an excellent job was done; that the point made concerning Newtown residents who do not have a great deal of money and must work for a living is well taken; however, several City neighborhoods have the same problems; that residents living in affluent neighborhoods also work unless retired; that the problem is a question of resources and the availability of resources to fund improvement projects in areas like Newtown; that funds to resolve these problems are easier to obtain and are usually one-time grants; however, funds to pay employees are hard to come by; that the City also struggles at budget time; that the Gillespie Park area, the east Sarasota neighborhoods, and a couple of other areas would also have to be given funding for three employees if the recommendation is supported; that these areas also desperately need more neighbor commitment; that a volunteer board assisted by the City in any possible way is a personal preference; that her decision has not yet been reached; that her support is given the GNCRC; that a vote against the funding does not mean that her support will not be offered; that the City cannot afford to fund Staff for all neighborhoods requiring assistance; that establishing criteria upon which to accept or reject funding neighborhoods requests will be difficult. Ms. Porter stated that the Newtown neighborhood is different due to the high unemployment rate; that residents in more affluent neighborhoods understand work is necessary to create a large tax base for the City and for the neighborhood to profit; that many people have benefited from the work of those who were underemployed or enslaved; that the City has benefited from the work of Newtown residents; that Blacks paid to build the City with sweat equity when Blacks were not permitted to vote, enter into contracts, have licenses, or included in the minimum wage laws; that Blacks worked and were underpaid; that the beneficiaries of privilege and those unable to see or understand what having privilege may have cost others are very short-sided; that a question is how the Black neighborhoods can benefit, be affluent and have the tax base of more affluent neighborhoods. Mr. Grimes stated that Newtown's geographic lines are between 10th Street to the south, Tuttle Avenue to the east, U.S. 41 to the west and 47th Street to the north; that these geographic lines encompass many neighborhoods; that GNCRC is all-inclusive, not exclusive; that all neighborhoods mentioned are welcome to utilize the GNCRC; that Staff will help everyone in the area; that all area neighborhoods will benefit. Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed plan is very broad and asked if the $128,000 has been specifically divided among the many projects in the workplan and if enough resources have been allocated for the workplan to be successful? Mr. Grimes stated that the resources will support Staff, lease of a location, accounting and the projects; that a volunteer concept will be used; that GNCRC's Education Committee has expanded into many different areas; that people are already handling the jobs and job training divisions; that the GNCRC will coordinate committees to oversee the initiatives. Ms. Porter stated that GNCRC Staff will communicate with people in different areas; that everyone will be informed of community events; that Staff's job will be to assure all meetings are attended and the newsletter is delivered to business people and community residents; that specific methodologies, deliverables and timetables have been established; that priorities will be divided into Phase I, II and III. Commissioner Merrill asked if the $128,000 will fund the many projects, if the GNCRC can manage the many volunteers to carry out the tasks, and if the non-profit, redevelopment corporation will enter into a home-building business for revenue? Ms. Porter stated that certain developers desire the GNCRC to help people in the homeowning process; that developers have expressed interest in giving the GNCRC a portion of the closing commission; that this possibility is being investigated; that the State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs find land, renovate houses and move people from apartments to homes; that the GNCRC desires to be a part of the homeowning process and to train Staff to help lower-income people locate agencies and complete necessary paperwork; that developers have expressed interest in training GNCRC Staff to help potential homeowners; that a GNCRC Staff member will be able to assist members of different cultures in buying a home. Commissioner Merrill asked if the GNCRC will bring developers into the Newtown area? BOOK 43 Page 16396 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16397 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Ms. Porter stated that the GNCRC is not in the home-development business; that GNCRC wishes to help people own homes regardless of the developer; that the developer's advantage may be for the GNCRC to help people with the homeowning process; that the GNCRC will help first-time homeowners with a difficult process. Commissioner Merrill stated that his vision is for the GNCRC to develop the Newtown area into a business area and not a community housing replacement corporation, which is a housing company and not a redevelopment project; and asked if GNCRC plans to be a housing company or a redevelopment corporation? Mr. Grimes stated that the GNCRC's basic purpose is to generate economics to the community by training people to find employment and own homes; that the GNCRC will encourage these types of projects in the Newtown area; that the bottom line is to bring welfare economics and money back into the community. Commissioner Merrill asked how much of the $128,000 will be spent on organizing festivals? Mr. Grimes stated that no money will be spent on festivals; that the $128,000 will help provide Staff and other budgeted items. Commissioner Merrill stated that Project I in the workplan is an Historical Preservation and Cultural Heritage Festival; that the workplan indicates GNCRC Staff will collaborate with many different interests and organizations to develop and implement a festival proposal to define the best attendance and will rely on private/public partnerships to bring the Historical Preservation and Cultural Heritage Festival to reality; that creation appears to require a lot of effort and asked if part of the $128,000 will be used for this purpose? Mr. Grimes stated that the $128,000 will not be used for festivals; that the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Celebration and Easter Parade Committees function independently; however, the committees will report to the GNCRC. Ms. Porter stated that some committees are small; that the GNCRC plans to be the umbrella agency to help combine smaller groups with larger groups. Commissioner Merrill stated that a redevelopment corporation is involved in creating businesses and other opportunities; that a redevelopment corporation is not meant to be the leader for an Easter parade; and asked if the GNCRC is a mini-community neighborhood association group combining all activities together? Mr. Grimes stated that marketing a community is part of economic development; that parades and festivals market a community; that involving people who spend money will give legitimacy to the community; that the Newtown area will continue to deteriorate until people come back, invest and move freely around the community. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Downtown Association organizes many activities but is not called the Downtown Redevelopment Association; that a small group of people cannot take over everything and create housing for revenue, educate people and coordinate festivals; that the proposed plan is very broad; that successful, tangible goals may be created by narrowing the focus to redevelopment. Ms. Porter stated that the Historical Preservation and Cultural Heritage Festival is not a top priority. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification. Ms. Porter stated that the primary focus is on the first five of the ten projects included in the workplan as follows: Project A: Retention and Expansion Survey Project B: Storefront Renovation Program Project C: Economic Development Grants Project D: Part 1 - Neighborhood Land Use Plan Part 2 - Site Development Inventory Project E: Employment and Job Training Commissioner Merrill stated that the possibility is the first five projects should be included in Phase I and the others in Phase II. Ms. Porter stated that including the first five projects in Phase I is acceptable; that most festivals are very small and occur one time per year. Mr. Grimes stated that these festivals have taken place for 27 years. Mayor Pillot stated that the term "redevelopment 1 has always been taken in a broad sense, not the usual, physical context; that the term has been interpreted to mean commercial, economic, physical and, importantly, social redevelopment and asked if the interpretation is correct? Mr. Grimes stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that much progress by the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association and in Gillespie Park has been witnessed; that progress occurred on an individual basis; that the Commission budgeted a large amount of money for neighborhoods and economic redevelopment for Fiscal Year 1997/98; that a Department of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment was created, staffed by a director and two other employees; that the intended focus is the Newtown and southeast Sarasota area; that her BOOK 43 Page 16398 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16399 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. reluctance is hiring more people when the Department of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment was created specifically for these neighborhoods; that much can be accomplished if the Department of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment is used to provide needed services and the GNCRC hires a liaison person; that the Director of Neighborhood and Redevelopment has been professionally trained to carry out the proposed ideas; that $100,000 could be spent on projects, surveys, etc.; that a friendship is sensed between Mr. Horwedel and the GNCRC; that the GNCRC could benefit greatly from a three-person office, a liaison person and a sizeable budget; and asked if everything possible is being done with the CDBG funds and the significance of the following in the Subrecipient Agreement: ARTICLE FIFTEEN: CONFLICT OF INTEREST No employee, agent, consultant, officer or elected official or appointed official of the SUBRECIPIENT who exercises or have exercised any function or responsibility with respect to CDBG activities assisted under or who are in the position to participate in a decision making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from a CDBG assisted activity or with respect to the proceed of the CDBF assisted activity, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during their tenure or for one year thereafter. Mr. Horwedel stated that Article Fifteen is a standard clause; that no actual or apparent conflict of interest whereby an individual is benefiting from discussions or decisions made by the GNCRC can be allowed; that Article Fifteen prohibits using inside information, buying properties the GNCRC intended to buy and inflating the market value; that the regulations are very clear. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the importance of not violating the CDBG requirements and the implications to the City if the funding request is approved. Mr. Horwedel stated that the local government agency is responsible for assuring all applicable CDBG regulations are followed; that Staff takes this responsibility very seriously; that an adverse finding by the Federal government on the use of CDBG funds would cause the local government agency to be considered in a suspect manner in the future; that Staff will be extremely careful that all expenditures are in line; that Staff recommends the first month's funding allocation be distributed upon receipt of an approved budget; that subsequent monthly allocations will be on a reimbursement basis. Commissioner Cardamone stated that actual or apparent conflicts of interest must receive serious consideration and asked the extent of the Scope of Services? Mr. Horwedel stated that the Scope of Services is the workplan; that comments concerning the workplan are appreciated; that the GNCRC has been encouraged to look at housing development as a long-term funding mechanism; that revenue-producing initiatives must be developed to ensure the long-term viability of the GNCRC; that evaluating intended projects and possible funding sources is very important; that the recommendation is that the $128,000 be a one-time, start-up initiative; that developing funding mechanisms for later years is incumbent upon the GNCRC. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Scope of Services includes the recommended initiatives? Mr. Horwedel stated that the work program is contained in the submitted workplan; that the deliverables will be an addendum to the actual contract. Commissioner Cardamone stated that documentation has been located indicating the original members of the GNCRC are Calvin Bryant, Carolyn Mason, Fredd Atkins, Jetson Grimes, Pauline Hodges and Steve Jones, none of whom could be employed by the requested funding; that total agreement is not given to Mayor Pillot's understanding of private funds; that all City funds should be as carefully accounted for as the CDBG funds; that operating under the Sunshine Laws and assuring Newtown community residents are aware of developments is good protection against a feeling of disentrancnisementez that her support is whole-heartedly given. Ms. Porter stated that the GNCRC must produce reports accounting for City funds; that CDBG funds can be used for Staff; and asked if reports must also be given for private grants and donations? Commissioner Cardamone asked the reasons for not wishing to make reports? Ms. Porter stated that her question did not give preference to making or not making reports. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission should determine the conditions to release the requested funds; that no applicable statute exists. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the GNCRC is under the City's umbrella and is receiving funds from the City, regardless of other funding sources; that funds are being provided because the GNCRC is an arm of the City; that an accounting should be made of all funds for the benefit of the donors. BOOK 43 Page 16400 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16401 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Ms. Porter stated that the City should have requirements that the GNCRC benefit from the funds given; that the City has benefited from Newtown residents; that requests to the City by Newtown residents should not be considered unusual. Mayor Pillot stated that accountability of all funds given the GNCRC is very important, whether legally required or not; that accountability shows all funds being appropriately, wisely and productively spent; that restrictions placed on grants depend on who is donating the moneyi that on a previous board, restricted grants were given and happily accepted; that an accounting was made of the grant funds; that the dollars were not refused if the grants were restricted for specific purposes; that dollars donated for a restricted purpose should not necessarily be refused; that the position taken is personal; that his support is given to all Commissioner Cardamone's requests, including accountability for the $128,000 and how the funds should be used; that his support is not given to restricting external grants; that the grantor and the GNCRC should cooperatively agree how external grants will be used. Ms. Porter asked if agreement exists? Commissioner Cardamone stated that her agreement is not total; however, her specific concern is the use of City's funds. Vice Mayor Dupree asked for comment on the use of CDBG funds. Commissioner Patterson stated that only $30,000 of the requested amount is CDBG funds. Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that no specific detail was given as to how the $30,000 in CDBG funds will be used; therefore, the CDBG restrictions were not limited to $30,000; that bi-annual auditing is required as Federal funds are involved; that a single audit will be performed under the Federal guidelines. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if Federal funds will be involved? Mr. Hadsell stated yes; that CDBG funds are Federal funds. Mayor Pillot asked if private funds will be restricted in the same way as CDBG funds? Mr. Hadsell stated that no distinction is made between CDBG funds and other dollars; that the project consists of a grant where a portion of that grant is CDBG dollars. - Mayor Pillot asked if a private donor can provide plants for street beautification if a street is paved using CDBG funds? Mr. Hadsell stated yes; that a clear distinction between the funding source would exist. Mayor Pillot asked if a problem would exist using privately restricted, accounted dollars with no CDBG funds involved? Mr. Hadsell stated that $30,000 in CDBG funds is being used for this Scope of Service; that a Clear distinction between the CDBG funds and other funds must exist not to subject the entire funding to CDBG accounting and other requirements. Mayor Pillot stated that the restrictions appear onerous, if clearly understood; that his recommendation may be for the GNCRC to take the $98,000 and forget the $30,000 in CDBG funds; and asked if money privately donated to the GNCRC can be used to hire temporarily an employee to work directly under the authority of someone being paid from the $128,000? Mr. Hadsell stated that additional information is necessary; that the project's present Scope of Service includes the entire plan. Mayor Pillot stated that his recommendation to the GNCRC is to ask for no CDBG money if the City Attorney's Office agrees with the interpretation just presented. City Attorney Taylor stated that a potential cure is to allocate the $30,000 to a specific object in the workplan so the general restrictions would not apply. Commissioner Patterson asked the limitations on the use of CDBG funds? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the proposed restriction would prohibit using the funds in employing the specifically referenced people. Commissioner Patterson stated that the restriction is based on a Commissioner's initiative, not the use of CDBG funds. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the proposed restriction will limit the use of City funds for salaries; that whether privately donated funds can be used to fund salaries for a workplan funded by $128,000 in City funds including CDBG funds is not known. Commissioner Patterson stated that two different points are being discussed; that one set of restrictions deals with accounting for CDBG funds; that the second proposed restriction has nothing to do with CDBG restrictions; that Federal restrictions will be placed on the entire amount unless CDBG funds are specifically designated; that the extent of the restrictions on CDBG funds is BOOK 43 Page 16402 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16403 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. not known; that the imposition of suggested restrictions is dependent on the Commission's action. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the starting point is the $128,000 in City and CDBG funds. Commissioner Patterson stated that some potential restrictions depend on Commission action; that different restrictions are involved in the use of CDBG funds. Mr. Horwedel stated that specific portions of the workplan can be identified for the use of CDBG funds; that the entire workplan was incorporated under the funding agreement, which includes CDBG funds, to bring a sense of accountability and familiarity with Federal funding programsi that the GNCRC will abide by specific accounting requirements if more Federal grants are received. Commissioner Patterson stated that abiding by CDBG requirements has not been a problem. Mayor Pillot asked if the GNCRC can specifically identify projects for completion using the $30,000 CDBG funds? Mr. Horwedel stated that the use of City funds will be modeled after the CDBG program; therefore, the GNCRC will use only one set of reporting guidelines and requirements. Commissioner Cardamone stated that using CDBG guidelines will result in having one set of meetings and one set of auditing procedures. Commissioner Patterson stated that separate guidelines may not be necessary; that her preterence as to separated or consolidated guidelines is not being expressed; and asked if CDBG guidelines impose a restriction on hiring employees? Mr. Horwedel stated that the use of CDBG funds do not impose a hiring restriction. Commissioner Patterson asked if any Federal guidelines on the use of CDBG funds would handicap the GNCRC? Mayor Pillot stated that the entire $128,000 will be under CDBG guidelines as no Clear distinction differentiates between projects using CDBG funds and other funds; that all funds will be under CDBG guidelines absent accounting distinctions. Mr. Horwedel stated that the Federal government requires organizations to abide by all Federal accounting standards and procedures if Federal funds are used; that no problem exists if CDBG funds are clearly specified and an accounting made. Mayor Pillot asked if any problems exist if all CDBG funds are clearly specified and accounted for? Mr. Horwedel stated no. Commissioner Patterson asked if limitations attached by the City will be attached to further funds if the entire $128,000 must be accounted for in accordance with CDBG guidelines? Mr. Horwedel stated no; that only CDBG funding is affected. Commissioner Merrill stated that not hiring founding members is not part the proposed contract but could be added; that the contract could be separate from receipt of CDBG funding. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that Staff's recommendation has four points: 1. Approval of $128,000 in funding, $30,000 of which is from CDBG funds and $98,000 of which is from City funds. 2. Approval of the workplan, which includes entering into the Subrecipient Agreement. 3. Recognition of the $28,000 as a one-time, start-up funding grant. 4. Development of a policy for evaluation of future grant requests. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission can vote on these four issues together or separately. Commissioner Patterson asked if a resolution must be passed to approve the requested funding? Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that his recollection is a resolution has already been passed appropriating the requested funds. Commissioner Patterson stated that no resolution was adopted when the funding was approved; that a funding request was approved by the Commission but no resolution attached; that a resolution must be adopted when appropriating funds from the General Fund; and asked if a funding request is accompanied by a resolution when funding is appropriated from the General Fund? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if a resolution has been approved for the funding request? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated no. Commissioner Patterson stated that her vote will be cast against the resolution when presented; that the reasons for her vote will be made clear; that her support will be given for motions which can be supported; that the issue is important; that her support BOOK 43 Page 16404 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16405 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. is given to the effort; that the GNCRC contract is ambitious and well assembled; that her support is not given to providing funding for salary purposes; that City support is not given to employing people who are volunteers in other neighborhoods; that a resolution is anticipated; however, her support will not be given; that the effort of the GNCRC is supported and asked when a resolution will be brought to the Commission? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a resolution can be returned at the April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the GNCRC previously came to the Commission to request funding; that her request was for a second meeting to consider levels of responsibility; that no resolution has been presented; that the funding request was approved but never formalized. Mayor Pillot asked the wishes of the Commission concerning the Administration's four recommendations? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the four items should be voted on separately; that the resolution should be voted upon when the resolution comes to the Commission; that the funding request has already been approved but the resolution has not been approved. Mayor Pillot asked if a formal motion is the appropriate method of action? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to authorize $128,000 in funding to the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC) and to direct the preparation of an appropriate resolution. Commissioner Patterson stated that her support is not given for the mentioned reasonsi that most organizations have a provision in the by-laws stipulating a period of time between a member's coming off a board and being able to benefit in any wayi that the Newtown neighborhood is not the only neighborhood with unemployed people; that nevertheless, her support is given to the effort of the GNCRC. Commissioner Cardamone agreed that other neighborhoods need assistance; and stated that the deterioration of the Newtown neighborhood has been witnessed; that Newtown should be improved from a grass-roots level; that neighborhood residents should join together to improve the Newtown area; that extensive cooperation must come from the community; that no one will revitalize Newtown if the neighborhood does not join together; that this initiative has been supported from the beginning; that Newtown residents may be the only people who can revitalize the community; that the response from the GNCRC regarding her eight questions previously presented is very encouraging; that the proposed workplan is different; that her support is given; that the burden is on the GNCRC to assure the success of the plan and the Commission's involvement. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that that his confidence is the GNCRC will not fail; that his support will be given the recommendations to support the GNCRC; that the GNCRC has put a great deal of work into the workplan and the development of the organization since the $128,000 was approved; that the Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment will be working with the GNCRC; that a need exists for people who are working with the GNCRC and who will be hired to carry out the workplan. Commissioner Merrill stated that $98,000 was not in the City's budget; therefore, the money will be coming out of Reserve Funds; that the workplan is not sufficiently focused, is very broad, and lacks clarity even though projects are ranked in order of importance; that the workplan does not instill confidence in a feeling of success as many projects are listed; that most urban revitalization projects fail; that money given for salaries and consulting fees is usually lost; that millions of dollars were spent in south Los Angeles, which did not change as a result; that the workplan contains many good projects; that the area would probably be revitalized if the projects are accomplished; that a focal point must be chosen, be a success and be built upon; that the workplan is too inclusive; that the GNCRC may be given $128,000; however, the workplan will fail without focus. Mayor Pillot asked if the GNCRC agrees the $128,000 will not be used to hire any original charter member? Mr. Grimes stated yes. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to authorize $128,000 in funding to the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC) and to direct the preparation of an appropriate resolution. Motion carried (3 to 2) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that the approval of the workplan includes the Subrecipient Agreement. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the workplan as presented by the GNCRC as well as the Subrecipient Agreement. Motion carried (4 to 1); Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, noi Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commission Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved that the approval of the grant, which will be considered at the April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting, be considered as a one-time grant approval. Motion carried BOOK 43 Page 16406 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16407 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved for the Administration to prepare a policy under which administrative support grant requests can be evaluated in the Euture. Commissioner Merrill asked why a policy of future grants is being addressed and if the current motion is related to future grants? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the intent is to have a process in place to deal with similar requests in the future; that a policy is not currently in place; that the Commission would have to decide if the GNCRC falls within the guidelines once established; that the Administration's recommendation is that the GNCRC should fall within the guidelines. Commissioner Patterson stated that her support will not be given; that approving grants for redevelopment corporations is not appropriate; therefore, future consideration is not appropriate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her vote will be against her motion. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, no; Dupree, yes, Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot asked where the resolution will appear on the Agenda of the April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that agreed-upon resolutions are usually placed under Consent Agenda II. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the resolution will be placed under Consent Agenda II. Mayor Pillot thanked the Commission and presenters for the valuable input. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) #230 - STATUS OF THE SARASOTA - BRADENTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION - AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO SCHEDULE A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE BOARD OF SARASOTA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TO COMMUNICATE THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS TO THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (AGENDA ITEM III-4) #2 (0455) through (0680) Robert Fournier, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the terminal project at the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport was approved in 1985; that sufficient changes to the project had occurred over 10 years to result in a substantial deviation, which is statutorily defined; that the Airport Authority proposed additional non-aviation improvements which were not reviewed as part of the original DRI but which were thought to have . additional regional impact; that a new application for development was required, which was filed in late 1995 as a request for Substantial Deviation; that the City has received a letter dated March 16, 1998, from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council which, in accordance with statutory procedures, advises the local jurisdictions affected, i.e., the City of Sarasota and the Counties of Sarasota and Manatee, that the issue can be set for public hearing; that the statutory requirements are: 1) the matter be scheduled on the next regular Agenda of the governing bodies for the affected jurisdictions to schedule a public hearing, which is the purpose of this Agenda item and 2) a process be initiated following the same procedures as for a rezoning ordinance including a public hearing, which must be held within 90 days of the date of the letter of notice from the Regional Planning Council (RPC), i.e., June 16, 1998. Attorney Fournier continued that a request for joint public hearings was made at the request of the applicant, which is specifically allowed by statute; that Manatee County originally consented to the procedure but changed its position; that public hearings have been scheduled by Manatee County for the Planning Commission on June 11, 1998, and for the County Commission on June 23, 1998; that the City and County of Sarasota can hold joint meetings if still desired; that an additional advertising requirement of 60-days notice of the public hearing is imposed if local jurisdictions hold joint public hearings at the applicant's request; that scheduling joint public hearings may be unrealistic considering the date requirements; that holding a joint Sarasota City and County Commission public hearing subsequent to a joint Planning Commission public hearing by June 16, 1998, will be difficult due to the advertising requirement; that the statute allows the applicant to consent to an extension of the 90-day period; that assurances have been received from the Airport Authority that consent will be given to an extension; that the RPC must be notified when the public hearing is scheduled; that the RPC will prepare a report and make recommendations on any issues of regional impact; that the City may also request comment on any issues of local impact; that the action requested is to: 1. Authorize the Administration to contact Sarasota County to coordinate scheduling of the joint Commission public hearings, which must occur after public hearings before the Planning Commissions. BOOK 43 Page 16408 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16409 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. 2. Authorize Staff of the Planning and Development Department to communicate with the RPC as to the action taken at this meeting, explaining the public hearing was not set at this meeting sO the schedules for joint public hearings could be coordinated with Sarasota County. 3. Determine if comments on issues of local rather than regional impact are desired from the RPC. Mayor Pillot asked the recommendation of the Administration and the City Attorney's Office? Attorney Fournier stated that the above three action items are recommended. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office. Motion carried unanimously: (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if possible changes to the municipal election procedures will be presented to the Commission? Attorney Fournier stated yes; that an Agenda item will be presented in the near future. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an Agenda item will be placed on the April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting, time permitting. 9. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SARASOTA CITY PLAN 1998 EDITION - TENTATIVELY APPROVED THE RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN, SUBJECT TO NECESSARY CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (0680) through (0835) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the schedule to review the Sarasota City Plan has been developed to provide maximum flexibility. John Burg, Chief Planner, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed schedule for adoption of the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, is as Eollows: Phase I - Introduction of Document prepared by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) May 18 9:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Workshop (All Chapters except Future Land Use May 18 1:00 = 5:00 p.m. Continuation of Workshop (Future Land Use) Phase II - Public Hearing June 17 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing June 18 6:00 p.m. Continuation of Public Hearing if necessary June 19 9:00 a.m. Continuation of Public Hearing if necessary Phase III - Deliberations June 19 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Deliberations (if Public Hearing is completed) 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Deliberations June 22 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Deliberations 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Deliberations June 23 6:00 - 11:00 p.m. Deliberations if needed June 24 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Deliberations if needed Phase IV Adoption August 10 6:00 p.m. Meeting to adopt final draft Commissioner Patterson stated that conflicts exist with the scheduled joint meetings with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) member Boards concerning the issue of the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement at the time the Commissioners' schedules were originally reviewed; that her understanding is the Mayor does not wish to participate in the joint meetings with MPO member Boards; that the schedule should not be finalized if conflicts still exist; that for example, a meeting with the Airport Authority is scheduled at 1:00 p.m. on May 18, 1998, which conflicts with the proposed schedule. Commissioner Cardamone stated that all meetings on the Sarasota City Plan are not Public Hearings requiring advertising, etc.; that the proposed Workshop at 1:00 p.m. on May 18, 1998, could be delayed sO the meeting with the Airport Authority can proceed; that other MPO member Boards may give the courtesy of placing the Sarasota City Commission first on their agendas; and asked if the Public Hearings scheduled to begin on June 17, 1998, can be changed if necessary. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Public Hearings for the Sarasota City Plan require large advertisements and seven-day notice. Commissioner Cardamone stated that approving the schedule to consider the Sarasota City Plan and working around the schedule with the MPO member Boards is acceptable. BOOK 43 Page 16410 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16411 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that visiting the MPO member Boards may not be desirable if the Sarasota City Commission does not have unanimity. Mayor Pillot stated that his decision concerning attendance at MPO member Board meetings will be made after the discussion on Agenda Item IX-1 concerning the Ringing Causeway Bridge, later in the meeting. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve tentatively the recommended schedule of meetings for the Sarasota City Plan, with the understanding that changes may be necessary. Motion carried unanimously: (5 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 10. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTED SID D. JOHNSTON AND NORMAN SIEGEL (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #2 (0839) through (0876) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that two vacancies exist on the Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility Advisory Committee; that members are selected by the City Commission and must be City residents. Commissioner Cardamone nominated Sid D. Johnston. Commissioner Patterson nominated Norman Siegel. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Siegel is an engineer and may have a great deal to contribute. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the nominations of Sid D. Johnston and Norman Siegel to the Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility Advisory Committee: Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot announced the appointments of Sid D. Johnston and Norman Siegel to the Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility Advisory Committee. 11. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVAPION BOARD - APPOINTED MICHAEL K. WALKER, THORNING LITTLE, AND CHRISTOPHER WENTZEL AND (AGENDA ITEM V-2) #2 (0877) through (1002) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board has a membership of seven, five of whom must live in the City; that of the four current members, three live in the City and one lives outside the City; that the Historic Preservation Board has three vacancies, two seats for architects and one seat for a registered Professional Engineer or a General or Specialty Contractor. Commissioner Cardamone nominated Michael K. Walker. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Walker is a general contractor who lives in the City. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no additional nominations, Michael K. Walker is appointed by acclamation. Commissioner Cardamone nominated Mark H. Smith. Commissioner Patterson nominated Thorning Little and Christopher Wentzel. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the nomination of Mark H. Smith: Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the nomination of Christopher Wentzel: Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot yes. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the nomination of Thorning Little: Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Pillot announced the appointment of Thorning Little. Mayor Pillot stated that Messrs. Smith and Wentzel received three votes each; therefore, a second vote is necessary. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the nomination of Mark H. Smith: Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the nomination of Christopher Wentzel: Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot announced the appointment of Christopher Wentzel. Commissioner Merrill left the Chambers at 5:12 p.m. 12. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD - APPOINTED BEVERLY L. SCOTT (AGENDA ITEM V-3) #2 (1002) through (1030) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one vacancy exists on the Nuisance Abatement Board. BOOK 43 Page 16412 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16413 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone nominated Beverly L. Scott. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Ms. Scott will be an asset to the Nuisance Abatement Board and will be very effective. Mayor Pillot called for additional nominations. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no additional nominations, Beverly L. Scott is appointed by acclamation. 13. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: SARASOTA COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPOINTED DENNIS DAUGHTERS (AGENDA ITEM V-4) #2 (1021) through (1045) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Sarasota County Coastal Advisory Committee consists of five voting members with backgrounds in coastal engineering, coastal geology, coastal zone management or a similar related field; that the Administration recommends Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, as the City's representative; that in addition, an ex- officio member will be appointed from each of the four coastal government entities within Sarasota County, i.e., the Town of Longboat Key, the City of Sarasota, the City of Venice and Sarasota County Government. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, Mr. Daughters is appointed by the City to the Sarasota Coastal Advisory Committee. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the selection of an ex-officio member should be delayed until the April 10, 1998, reorganization of the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the ex-officio member will be appointed after the Commission's reorganization. 14. OTHER MATTERS - MODIFIED COMMISSION PROCEDURES TO ALLOW TWO SPEAKERS ON EACH SIDE OF THE ISSUE OF AGENDA ITEM IX-1 CONCERNING THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR FIVE MINUTES AND TO ASK THEIR SUPPORTERS TO STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED. #2 (1031) through (1237) Mayor Pillot stated that Agenda Item IX-1 is a status report of the Ringling Causeway Bridge litigation; that a large number of people will probably be in attendance and sign up to speak; that the likelihood is the same ideas and concerns will be expressed; that having speaker stand in the audience and use a portable microphone would expedite hearing those speakers who merely wish to indicate their support on either side of the issue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the audience will likely reflect a predominate view; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement has been discussed for five years; that every possible dialog has been held; that her suggestion is to allow representatives of each side to have 30 minutes each; that alternatively two speakers from each side could be designated to speak. Mayor Pillot stated that in addition, each side could ask supporters to stand. Commissioner Patterson asked if a vote to modify Commission procedures is necessary? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yesi that a two-thirds majority vote is required to modify Commission procedures. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved for the Mayor to announce immediately upon reconvening that Commission procedures have been modified to limit public input on Agenda Item IX-1 concerning the Ringling Causeway Bridge to two speakers selected by each side to speak for three minutes and ask supporters to stand and be recognized. Commissioner Cardamone stated that as an alternative, 30 minutes could be offered to each side. Mayor Pillot stated that his support will not be given to an hour of public speakers on the subject. City Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney David Levin, who will be presenting the status report, should not be included in the limitation. Mayor Pillot stated that the limitation does not apply to Attorney Levin as the City's representative. Commissioner Patterson stated that five minutes should be allowed in view of the circumstances. Mayor Pillot stated that with the approval of the maker and seconder of the motion, the time allocated is changed in the motion from three to five minutes. Commissioner Patterson stated that the placement of advertisements urging people to speak to the Commission on the Ringling Causeway Bridge is frustrating; that the implication is such action constitutes the referendum two Commissioners have called for on the issue, which is not the case; that her inclination was to announce to the audience that extending the BOOK 43 Page 16414 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16415 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. meeting beyond 11:30 p.m. requires a vote; that her intention would not be to stay, meaning the normal amount of time for public input would be allowed; that the speakers may then be inclined to limit their comments more voluntarily than if the motion on the table passes. Commissioner Patterson stated that a short break could be taken after the announcement to allow proponents time to caucus. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, a short break will be taken aiter the announcement. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as for the Mayor to announce immediately upon reconvening that Commission procedures have been modified to allow two speakers on each side of the issue of Agenda Item IX-1 concerning the Ringling Causeway Bridge the right to speak for five minutes each and to ask supporters to stand and be recognized. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. RECESS UNTIL 7:00 P.M. (AGENDA ITEM XII) #2 (1237) Mayor Pillot recessed the Commission at 5:16 p.m.i; and stated that the meeting will reconvene at 7 p.m. Mayor Pillot reconvened the City Commission meeting of April 6, 1998, at 7:03 p.m. 16. PRESENTATION RE: EXCHANGE STUDENTS VISITING FROM THE SISTER CITY OF PERPIGNAN, FRANCE #3 (0040) through (0319) Mayor Pillot stated that the City of Sarasota participates in the Sister Cities Association and has formed relationships with the following cities: Vladimir, Russia; Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Tel Mond, Israel; and Perpignan, France. Hope Byrnes, President, Sarasota Sister Cities Association, Helen Simonet, French Teacher at Sarasota High School, and Mrs. Bernice Griswald, Teacher at Riverview High School, came before the Commission Ms. Simonett stated that 15 students, 2 chaperones, and the son of one of the teachers from the coordinating school in Perpignan, France, arrived in Sarasota on Friday, April 3, 1998; that the foreign visitors will be staying with families of students attending Sarasota's high schools until Wednesday, April 15, 1998; that Sarasota has participated in an exchange program with a - coordinating school in Normandy, France, for the past seven years; that Sarasota students will be touring France between June 21, 1998, and July 17, 1998; that five days in Paris, seven days in Normandy, and a visit to Perpignan are planned. Mayor Pillot welcomed the visitors; and stated that he and his wife plan to visit Perpignan, France, in October 1998; that the City Commission is proud to make the Perpignan students honorary citizens. The following students were made honorary citizens and presented with certificates and City of Sarasota flag sticks: Sandra Alliata Marie-Agathe Julien Vincent Bouleau Pascal Karsenti Nathalie Bouleau Thibaud Monzo Clement Bret Philippe Marty Marie-Claire Demailly Sebastien Poujol Nicolas Durand Gaelle Papineau Virginie Gombert Tomas-David Sallares Sebastien Jubal Pascal Karsenti thanked the Mayors of Sarasota and Perpignan as well as the Sarasota City Commission for making the students honorary citizens; and stated that Sarasota is a great city with friendly people. 17. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOMEE OF THE MONTH FOR MARCH, 1998, JEROME V. "JERRY" GHIGLIETTI PUBLIC SAFETY NETWORK COORDINATOR, POLICE DEPARTMENT #3 (0319) through (0476) John Lewis, Chief of Police, requested that E.J. Whitehead, Captain, and Jerome Ghiglietti, Public Safety Network Coordinator, Sarasota Police Department, join him before the Commission. Captain Whitehead stated that Jerry Ghiglietti has worked for the City of Sarasota for nearly two years and proven himself to be an asset to the Police Department; that Mr. Ghiglietti maintains equipment and serves approximately 100 internal Police Department customers in fulfilling computer needs; that in November 1996, the Police Department began a pilot project to determine the functionality and practicality of using laptop computers as replacements for desktop models; that the laptop concept worked reasonably well but nagging problems resulted in lost production time; that research revealed the model purchased had been discontinued by the vendor and upgraded, presumably to eliminate the flaws identified; that with great persistence and patience, Mr. Ghiglietti negotiated and persuaded the vendor to replace all of the flawed laptops with new upgraded models; that the replacement resulted in a $35,000 cost benefit to the City. BOOK 43 Page 16416 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16417 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Chief Lewis stated that Mr. Ghiglietti has been honored not only as the Civilian Employee of the Year for the Sarasota Police Department but also as the Civilian Employee of the Quarter. Mayor Pillot presented Mr. Ghiglietti with a plaque, a City-logo watch, and a certificate as the March 1998 Employee of the Month, in appreciation of Mr. Ghiglietti's unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. 18. ADOPTION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1065, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF ELEANOR "HELEN" MARIE SALMON, A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE; ETC.- ADOPTED #3 (0476) through (0650) Mayor Pillot stated that the City of Sarasota Memorial Resolution No. 98R-1065 recognizes the March 17, 1998, passing of former City employee Eleanor "Helen" Marie Salmon, an outstanding citizen of Sarasota. Mayor Pillot read Memorial Resolution No. 98R-1065 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 98R-1065. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. The following family members came forward and were presented with a copy of the memorial resolution appropriately framed on a plaque: : Gayle and Bernard Salmon, son and daughter-in-law, Eleanor Bearder, daughter; Bernard Salmon, grandson; and Jill Stouffer, granddaughter. Mrs. Salmon stated that Helen loved working for and with the employees of the City of Sarasota; that the memorial resolution is a great honor and tribute to her mother-in-law's name. 19. ADOPTION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1055, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF JOHN BRUNO, A LONGTIME EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC.- ADOPTED #3 (0650) through (0760) Mayor Pillot stated that the City of Sarasota Memorial Resolution No. 98R-1055 recognizes the March 29, 1998, passing of John Bruno, a longtime employee of the City's Public Works Department. Mayor Pillot read Memorial Resolution No. 98R-1055 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 98R-1055. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. The following family members came forward and were presented with a copy of the memorial resolution appropriately framed on a plaque: Cecelia Bruno, wife; Dominick Bruno, brother; Carol Gordon, daughter; and grandchildren Jacquelene and Leland Gordon. Mr. Bruno stated that John loved working for the City; that the memorial resolution honoring his brother is greatly appreciated. 20. OTHER MATTERS: PUBLIC INPUT UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS, ITEM NO. IX-1, REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE LITIGATION #3 (0760) through (0927) Mayor Pillot stated that the Ringling Causeway Bridge has been a long-standing issue; that the Commission is well aware of the division in the community and well informed of the updated information compiled; that the Commissioners have received numerous telephone calls and substantial correspondence from citizens; that both sides of the issue have been outlined by the media in recent weeks; and explained the decision made earlier by the Commission to limit public input under Unfinished Business, Item No. IX-1, to two speakers representing. the views of those in support of a high-level, fixed-span bridge and two speakers representing the views of those in support of a low bridge, with the four speakers allowed five minutes each. The Commission recessed at 7:31 p.m. to provide an opportunity for the members in the audience to discuss, select, and submit the names of the four representatives who will speak on their behalf following the status report on the Ringling Causeway Bridge litigation provided to the Commission later in the Agenda. The Commission reconvened at 7:42 p.m., immediately recessed into a special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. 21. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S SPECIAL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 24, 1998 AND MARCH 10, 1998 - RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (0927) through (1159) BOOK 43 Page 16418 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16419 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development and Robert Lindsay, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Lindsay presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's special meetings of February 24, 1998 and March 10, 1998. Public Hearings Proposed Revisions to Sarasota City Plan Mr. Lindsay stated that the PBLP has completed the public hearing requirements for the Comprehensive Plan Update; that two PBLP meetings have been scheduled to finalize proposed recommendations and review the revised draft prepared by Staff for presentation to the Commission in May; that the document presented to the Commission will include matrixes showing the original Staff recommendation, comments from the public hearing, and the PBLP recommendation. Commissioner Patterson stated that a fair amount of input has been received from neighborhood citizens regarding the sweeping nature of change and the lack of detail inherent in the new format of the revised Comprehensive Plan, specifically in reference to the effects changing specific land use categories will have on individual properties; that the Commission should be advised as to whether unease with the issue exists on the PBLP. Mr. Lindsay stated that the issue will be raised at the next PBLP meeting; that the PBLP members will have the opportunity to express their individual views on the subject at the joint workshops with the City Commission; that the main issue causing discomfort is the elimination of Impact Management Areas (IMAs) and the implementation of a more conventional concept for designating land use; that IMAs limit changes in zoning to specific areas and effect a relatively small portion of property in the City; that the proposed concept, which applies general designations and future land use to the entire City, will not restrict the areas where rezonings can be petitioned; that the specific future land uses designated for IMAs in the existing Comprehensive Plan have created presumptions in favor of the petitioner, making denial of petitioned rezonings difficult; that a greater ability to deny rezonings viewed as inappropriate will be provided under the proposed concept; that a compromise may be to designate IMAs in areas where rezonings are anticipated but to designate the future land use in more general terms so as to preserve the burden of proof in the City's favor; however, development and review of such a concept this late in the process would cause a substantial delay in the Comprehensive Plan Update. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to receive the board report of the PBLP's special meetings of February 24, 1998, and March 10, 1998. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 22. BOARD ACTIONS : REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 24, 1998 - RECEIVED; SET PETITION NOS. 98-HD-02 AND 98-HD-03 FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (1159) through (1275) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Norman Sharrit, Vice Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Sharrit presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's special meeting of March 24, 1998: Petition No. 98-HD-02 1616 Oak Street (Lynn Silvertooth House) Mr. Sharrit stated that based on a review by Staff from the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources, the Historic Preservation Board unanimously recommends historic designation of the structure located at 1616 Oak Street, which meets the following criteria listed under Section 15-14 (1) of the Zoning Code: (a) Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of the City of Sarasota (d) Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style or period, or a method of construction. Petition No. 98-HD-03 2035 Fruitville Road (Steakely House) Mr. Sharrit stated that based on a review by Staff from the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources, the Historic Preservation Board unanimously recommends historic designation of the structure located at 2035 Fruitville Road, which meets the following criterion listed under Section 15-14(1) of the Zoning Code: (a) Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of the City of Sarasota Mr. Sharrit stated that the Historic Preservation Board requests that Petition Nos. 98-HD-02 and 98-HD-02 be set for public hearing. BOOK 43 Page 16420 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16421 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petition Nos. 98-HD-02 and 98-HD-03 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the report of the Historic Preservation Board meeting of March 24, 1998. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 23. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4051, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM THE RMF-3, RMF-4, AND RMF-5 ZONE DISTRICTS TO THE C-CBD ZONE DISTRICT AND TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 98-DPR-B TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE RENAISSANCE OF SARASOTA AND TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL, OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED ON NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL BETWEEN 6TH STREET ON THE SOUTH, 9TH STREET ON THE NORTH, AND COCOANUT AVENUE ON THE EAST, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 750 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 98-CO-02 AND 98- DPR-B, PETITIONER, WYNNTON GROUP, INC.) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1A) AND 24. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4052, TO CONDITIONALLY VACATE THAT PORTION OF 8TH STREET BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY COCOANUT AVENUE AND ON THE WEST BY NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL; TO CONDITIONALLY VACATE THAT PORTION OF 7TH STREET BETWEEN NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL ON THE WEST AND COCOANUT AVENUE ON THE EAST; TO CONDITIONALLY VACATE THAT CERTAIN ALLEY RUNNING IN A NORTH TO SOUTH DIRECTION ADJACENT TO AND WESTWARDLY OF THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 11, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK D, PLAT OF BROADWAY PLACE, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 98-SV-04, PETITIONER, WYNNTON GROUP, INC.) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1B) AND 25. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 98- DA-01, BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE WYNNTON GROUP, INC. A GEORGIA CORPORATION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS RENAISSANCE OF SARASOTA ON THE SITE LOCATED AT 750 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL BETWEEN 6TH STREET ON THE SOUTH 9TH STREET ON THE NORTH, COCOANUT AVENUE ON THE EAST AND NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL ON THE WEST; ETC. (PETITION NO. 98-DA-01, PETITIONER, WYNNTON GROUP, INC.) APPROVED INCLUDING PBLP #2, TO CHANGE THE CONSTRUCTION DATE FROM APRIL 1, 2001, TO JANUARY 1, 2001, EXCLUDING PBLP #1, TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ON COCOANUT AVENUE, AND INCORPORATING LANGUAGE TO REFERENCE THE DEVELOPERIS ADVANCE CONSENT TO THE DELETION AND SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE MECHANISM FOR THE PROPOSED LANE EXPANSION AT THE U.S. 41/GULF STREAM AVENUE INTERSECTION AT THE CITY'S DISCRETION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1C) #3 (1350) through #5 (1010) Gerald Chapin, Senior Planner, came before the Commission, displayed a zoning subdivision map on the overhead projector, and stated that the City of Sarasota Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) has been working with Sarasota County since September of 1996 to promote the economic development of the site bounded by 6th Street on the south, U.S. 41 on the west, Cocoanut Avenue on the east, and the Players Theater on the north; that on January 7, 1998, Wynnton Group, Inc., submitted petitions for Development Plan Review, Conditional Rezoning, Street Vacations, and a Development Agreement. Mr. Chapin continued that Petition No. 98-SV-04 is a request to conditionally vacate an alley between 6th and 7th Streets, a portion of 7th Street between North Tamiami Trail and Cocoanut Avenue, and a portion of 8th Street between North Tamiami Trail and Cocoanut Avenue; that on March 4, 1998, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found the proposed street vacations in the best interest of the public and recommended approval to the City Commission subject to the following conditions: BOOK 43 Page 16422 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16423 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. 1. City water and sanitary sewer systems being relocated or easements granted. 2. Prior to second reading of the Street Vacation Ordinance, the petitioner shall execute a utility easement in favor of Florida Power & Light (FPL) and Comcast cable television for operation and maintenance of utility facilities within the vacated right-of-way or shall provide written confirmation from the utility companies that an easement is not necessary. If the petitioner's plans require relocation of existing utilities, the expense shall be borne by the petitioner. 3. The Street Vacation Petition is contingent on the issuance of the Building Permit for Phase I of the project which shall include not less than 125 dwelling units. Mr. Chapin stated that Petition No. 98-C0-02 is a request to rezone property from the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-3,-4, -5) Zone Districts to the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District for a mixed-use development to be known as Renaissance of Sarasota; that the net site area is 10.9 acres; that the proposed development may include the following uses: Dwelling units not to exceed 500 Hotel non-convention) not to exceed 100 rooms - Office space not to exceed 40,000 square feet Restaurant space not to exceed 20,000 square feet - Retail space not to exceed 35,000 square feet Institutional space not to exceed 20,000 square feet Parking structure (s) to provide on-site parking required by Zoning Code Section 8-133 Mr. Chapin stated that Development Plan approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-3298 is required in the C-CBD district for all new development having a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or more. Mr. Chapin continued that on March 4, 1998 the PBLP found the Petition Nos. 98-CO-02 and 98-DPR-B consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommended approval to the City Commission subject .to the following conditions: 1. Execution by the petitioner and City of a Development Agreement to enable the issuance of a Certificate of Concurrency as to transportation no later than April 21, 1998, as required by Section 21 of the Development Agreement. 2. Elimination of the westerly most driveway accessing 6th Street for the proposed hotel within the project and provide internal circulation to the hotel site via the parking garage driveway off of 6th Street. 3. Consolidation of the two driveways on Cocoanut Avenue located between 6th Street and Rosemary Lane with the driveway across from Rosemary Lane retained. 4. Submittal by the petitioner of a site landscaping plan prepared by a Florida registered landscape architect and showing the trees proposed to be preserved, relocated, or removed to the Manager of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase of the project. 5. Petitioner's having all tree protection and tree removal on the site monitored by a Florida registered landscape architect in accordance with the requirements of the Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement. 6. The buildings of the project being set back 7.5 feet from existing right-of-way line of Cocoanut Avenue. 7. Execution of a warranty deed by the petitioner dedicating to the City 4 feet along 6th Street Mr. Chapin stated that on March 4, 1998, the PBLP also found Petition No. 98-DA-01, the Proposed Development Agreement, consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended execution of the document to the City Commission. Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission, distributed hard copies and gave a computer-generated slide presentation on transportation and traffic circulation issues. Mr. Mohammed stated that the two main traffic issues analyzed for the Renaissance of Sarasota project were concurrency and traffic circulation; that the City is mandated by State law to ensure that no development orders are issued that would degrade level of service (LOS) conditions on impacted roads below the adopted standards; that the Sarasota City Plan requires safe and efficient driveway operation, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety, and efficient traffic circulation around the site. Mr. Mohammed continued that the traffic study indicates the proposed project, when entirely built out, will generate approximately 7,000 trips over a 24-hour period and a total of 711 trips during the p.m. peak hour (4 to 6 p.m.) with 381 trips entering the site and 330 trips leaving the site; that a conservative approach was taken when the traffic study was performed; that completion of the proposed Hyatt hotel expansion BOOK 43 Page 16424 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16425 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. to incorporate an additional 175 rooms and a 22,000 square foot conference center as well as impacts of developments on surrounding sites, i.e., Sarasota Bay Club, was assumed. Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained a graphic display showing the following PM Peak Hour Link Volumes and LOS results: 10th Street U.S. 41 6th Street Cocoanut Ave. 1997 Existing 342 2936 86 263 Renaissance 7 104 221 206 2000+ Hyatt 342 3240 347 556 Existing LOS C D/E C C 2000 LOS C C/D C C Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained a graphic display showing the Peak Hour Driveway Volumes results; and stated that full driveways from the site are not provided on U.S. 41; that only 65 vehicles are expected to turn right from U.S. 41 into the site during the p.m. peak hour; that the majority of traffic will enter the site from 6th Street and Cocoanut Avenue. Mr. Mohammed referred to aerial photographs of the site and conceptual street graphics to explain the following Concurrency Improvements necessary to meet the transportation currency requirements: Add an additional southbound to eastbound left turn lane on U.S. 41 at Fruitville Road Add an additional northbound to westbound left turn lane at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue, which will include widening Gulf Stream Avenue from U.S. 41 to Sunset Drive Widen 6th Street to provide left turns and landscaped medians from U.S. 41 to Cocoanut Avenue Widen Cocoanut Avenue to provide extended left turn lanes at the intersection of Cocoanut Avenue with Fruitville Road and 6th Street Extend southbound to eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of U.S. 41 and 6th Street Mr. Mohammed stated that the 6th Street/Cocoanut Avenue improvements will provide a route by which traffic can bypass the busy and congested conditions at Fruitville Road; that build out of the Renaissance of Sarasota project is anticipated in the year 2000, at which time, with completion of the concurrency improvements referenced, U.S. 41 is expected to improve to a LOS "C" in the northbound direction and LOS "D" in the southbound direction; that low volumes of traffic currently exist on Cocoanut Avenue, 10th and 6th Streets; therefore, the LOS on those streets is expected to remain at the adopted level without the need for lane expansion. Commissioner Patterson asked if a median will exist on Cocoanut Avenue between Fruitville Road and 6th Street? Mr. Mohammed stated no; that extended left turn lanes will be incorporated without a median. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if a median is planned on 6th Street between Cocoanut Avenue and U.S. 41? Mr. Mohammed stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that three left turn lanes onto Gulf Stream Avenue are proposed where two left turn lanes currently exist; and asked how traffic will safely dissipate at the point at which the roadway returns to two lanes? Mr. Mohammed stated that advanced signage notifying motorists of the reduction in lanes will be posted, similar to the technique currently used on Mound Street at Osprey Avenue where traffic transitions from three lanes to two lanes before accessing U.S. 41 and also used in the vicinity of the Ringling Museum where the three lanes on University Parkway narrow to two lanes on U.S. 41. Vice Mayor Dupree asked for clarification of the increase in traffic volumes for Cocoanut Avenue. Mr. Mohammed stated that the total number of trips generated by the project during the peak hour represent both ingress and egress trips to the site; that sophisticated computer modeling techniques were used to estimate the trip generation and distribution of traffic to surrounding streets via the driveways on site; that currently Cocoanut Avenue has 263 trips during the peak hour; that the proposed project will add an additional 206 trips to Cocoanut Avenue during the peak hour. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the trip generation estimated for the project seems low based on the number and square footage set forth for the dwelling units, hotel rooms, restaurants, institutional space, etc. Mr. Mohammed stated that the trip generations were determined based on national data and a process used by the City and other jurisdictions for many years; that the traffic study estimated 97 vehicles would exit the site and turn right onto Cocoanut Avenue during the peak hour; that the impact on Cocoanut Avenue will not be substantial since egress will be provided by two or three driveways, and a low volume of traffic currently exists on Cocoanut Avenue. BOOK 43 Page 16426 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16427 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained the following Other Improvements recommended and required of the Developer: Eliminate the separate driveway for the hotel and provide access to hotel off 6th Street via the parking garage driveway for better efficiency and safety. Consolidate driveways shown on Cocoanut Avenue between 6th Street and Rosemary Lane into two driveways. Set back the building along Cocoanut Avenue 7.5 feet from the existing right-of-way line of Cocoanut Avenue to provide for potential future widening of the roadway. Dedicate to the City four feet along the southern boundary of the property to accommodate a third lane with sidewalks, bikepath, and medians Submit attenuation calculations for stormwater drainage before issuance of the building permit. Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained the following Concurrency Improvement Schedule, listing the project description, commencement year, estimated cost, and funding source: Add left turn at 04/2002 $650,000 Impact Fees Fruitville. Rd. Add left turn at 04/2004 $350,000 Impact Fees Gulf Stream Ave. Widen 6th Street 05/1999 $350,000 Impact Fees to three lanes Extend turn lanes 04/2001 $100,000 Impact Fees on Cocoanut Ave. Extend left turn 04/1999 N/A FDOT on US 41 at 6th St. Close median on US 41 04/1999 N/A FDOT at 6th to 10th St. Mr. Mohammed referred to and explained the following Streetscape Improvement Schedule, listing. the project description, commencement year, estimated cost, and Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) as the funding source: 6th Street US 41 to Orange Ave. 01/1999 $250,000 Orange Ave. to US 301 01/1999 $170,000 Cocoanut Avenue Gulf Stream Ave. to Fruitville Rd. 01/1999 $ 50,000 Fruitville Rd. to 10th St. 01/1999 $550,000 Mr. Mohammed stated that after making the committed improvements referenced, the project driveways will operate in a safe and efficient manner and the adopted LOS standards will be met on all impacted roadways; that the LOS will actually improve over existing conditions on the roadways. Commissioner Patterson stated that the projections made to the year 2000 include impacts from the Renaissance of Sarasota project; however, a strong probability exists the Hyatt expansion and development on the John Ringling Towers site (Buford property) will be constructed by the year 2000; that the two other projects will impact traffic on 6th and 10th Streets as well as Cocoanut Avenue. Mr. Mohammed stated that potential traffic impacts from the Hyatt expansion were considered in the traffic study for the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that potential impacts generated by the Buford property could not be included since the scope of a potential project is not known. Commissioner Patterson stated that complaints have been received from residents at 888 The Condominium on the Bay regarding current difficulty accessing U.S. 41 via Boulevard of the Arts, which is west of 6th Street; and asked the impact the proposed project will have on that situation? Mr. Mohammed stated that the proposed project will not add traffic to Boulevard of the Arts, the west approach to U.S. 41, but only to 6th Street, the east approach to U.S. 41; that improvements have been incorporated to mitigate the impacts of traffic at the intersection of 6th Street and U.S. 41; that planned changes in the signal timings and the improved LOS on U.S. 41 will provide easier access onto U.S. 41 from 6th Street and Boulevard of the Arts. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Selby library, which generates 1,200 to 1,500 trips daily, will no longer be located on Boulevard of the Arts in the year 2000; that the replacement use planned for the library building will generate less traffic. Mr. Mohammed stated that additional traffic will be generated on Boulevard of the Arts if the Hyatt expansion planned is constructed. Robert Fournier, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that two separate agreements are on the Agenda for Commission consideration: 1) the Development Agreement, which is a part of this quasi judicial rezoning hearing and 2) the Implementation Agreement, which is not a part of the quasi judicial rezoning hearing and will be addressed immediately following the public hearings, under New Business Item No. X-2; that the Florida Local Government Development BOOK 43 Page 16428 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16429 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Agreement Act specifies the exact intent and required components of a development agreement; that the essential purpose of a development agreement is to ensure adequate public facilities and services needed to meet the demands generated by new development will be in place within the time limits specified by Statute; that the Statutes require tramsporation-related improvements necessary to service new development be in place or under actual construction within three years from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; that for example, the transportation improvements identified for the Renaissance of Sarasota would be required to be in place or under actual construction by July 1, 2001, if the project were built immediately and certified for occupancy by July 1, 1998; that locally the statutory requirement is implemented through a Certificate of Concurrency, as defined in the City's Zoning Code, which is issued by the Administration, required by every rezoning request, and based on a finding that the development proposed will not result in a degradation of the adopted level of service standards set forth in the Sarasota City Plan; that a finding has been made that a degradation of the level of service standards for transportation on the surrounding roadways will result if the Renaissance of Sarasota project is constructed; that the Development Agreement presented has been prepared to ensure the facilities are constructed and improved sO a degradation of the level of service will not result. Attorney Fournier referred to and explained the following statutory components required in the Development Agreement: reference to the residential density, the intensity of the development and the maximum allowable height of any structure Attorney Fournier stated that Paragraph 2, Description of Development Uses addresses the residential density, specifying a maximum of 500 with 250 dwelling units in Phase I and an additional 250 units in Phase II; that the intensity of the nonresidential development is expressed in terms of square footage; that the maximum height of the residential structures is 180 feet; that the maximum permitted height of nonresidential structures is 90 feet, with the potential for a maximum of 170 feet, based on satisfaction of criteria set forth in the Zoning Code pertaining to the C-CBD Zone District. a legal description of the property and the names of the legal and equitable owners of the property Attorney Fournier stated that Exhibit A provides the legal description; that Paragraph 3, Ownership of Land Subject to Development Agreement discloses the owner of the property as Sarasota County with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the Wynnton Group, Inc. as having an equitable interest in the property by virtue of previously executed agreements. a description of all the public facilities needed to service the development specifying the provider of the facilities and, in the event any new facilities are required to be constructed, when those facilities will be provided or constructed Attorney Fournier referred to Paragraph 4, Description of Public Facilities which lists the public facilities that will service the project as follows: a) Potable Water The City Utilities Department will provide potable water service to the project in sufficient quantity to service the Permitted Uses as and when actually constructed via facilities which are already in place b) Sanitary Sewer The City Utilities Department of the City will provide sanitary sewer service to the Project in sufficient quantity to service the Permitted Uses as and when actually constructed are facilities which are already in place c) Recreation/Open Space - Facilities are already in place d) Stormwater Management With the design and construction of the proposed stormwater facilities on site in compliance with Part 4 of the Engineering Design Criteria Manual, the project will meet concurrency requirements for stormwater and will not result in degradation of the adopted level of service. These facilities will be constructed by the Developer subsequent to its purchase of the property. e) Transportation - In order to maintain the current level of service and to meet the requirements for the issuance of a Certificate of Concurrency for the new development, the public improvements described in Section 6 of this Development Agreement are required to be constructed and implemented as described therein. In accordance with Section 163.3227 (1) (h), Florida Statutes, this section contains conditions, terms and restrictions which the City has determined to be necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Attorney Fournier stated that the Development Agreement essentially recites that water, sewer, recreation and open space facilities currently exist and meet concurrency and provides for the Developer to construct necessary on-site stormwater BOOK 43 Page 16430 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16431 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. improvements after closing; that transportation concurrency is the major issue. Attorney Fournier referred to and explained the following improvements listed under Paragraph 6, Construction of Transportation Concurrency Project: The City shall design, construct and provide financing for the following: (1) Widen 6th Street from U.S. 41 to Cocoanut Avenue to provide a third lane for medians and left-turn storage lanes. This improvement is projected to be under actual construction by May, 1999. The estimated time to complete construction is eighteen (18) months. (2) Extend the existing southbound to eastbound left turn lane on Cocoanut Avenue at its intersection with Fruitville Road. This improvement is projected to be under actual construction by April 2001. The estimated time to complete construction is six (6) months. (3) Extend the existing northbound to westbound left turn lane on Cocoanut Avenue at its intersection with 6th Street. This improvement is projected to be under actual construction by April 2001. The estimated time to complete construction is six (6) months. (4) Widen Cocoanut Avenue from 6th Street to the northern most entrance to the Project Site to provide a third lane for medians and left turn storage lanes. This improvement is projected to be under actual construction by January 1, 2004. The estimated time to complete construction is eighteen months. The City shall design and construct the following public improvements at its expense subject to the necessary permits form the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) : (5) Construction of a second southbound to eastbound left turn lane on U.S. 41 at the intersection with Fruitville Road and widening U.S. 41 south of the intersection with Fruitville Road to provide a transition lane for through traffic. This improvement is projected to be under actual construction by April 1, 2002. The estimated time to complete construction is two (2) years. (6) Construction of a third northbound to westbound left turn lane on U.S. 41 at the intersection with Gulfstream Avenue and widen Gulfstream Avenue to add another westbound lane between U.S. 41 and Sunset Drive to accommodate traffic from the additional left turn lane on U.S. 41. This improvement is projected to be under actual construction by January 1, 2004. The estimated time to complete construction is two (2) years. Attorney Fournier stated that the City will design, construct, and finance Improvements 1 through 6, if approved; that Improvements 5 and 6 are subject to the necessary permits from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) ; that Improvements 7 and 8 have been included in FDOT's adopted work program and will be designed and constructed at the expense of FDOT; that Improvements 1 through 5, 7 and 8 shall be in place or under construction within three years after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for Phase I; that Improvement 6 shall be in place or under construction within three years after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for Phase II. (7) Extend the existing southbound to eastbound left turn lane on U.S. 41 at the intersection with 6th Street. Construction of this improvement is scheduled to commence in April 1999. The estimated time to complete construction is one (1) year. (8) Close all median openings on the North Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) between 6th Street and Tenth Street. Construction of this improvement is scheduled to commence in April 1999. The estimated time to complete construction is one (1) year. Attorney Fournier stated that Paragraph 7, Transportation Concurrency Exception Area, acknowledges and advises the Developer the schedule of improvements and construction time frames set forth under Paragraph 6 may not be adhered to if the City adopts a transportation concurrency exception area and decides to adopt an area-wide schedule of improvements in lieu of or overlapping those specified in the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier continued that other components of the Development Agreement include a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the land development regulations and a listing of the local permits required for the development to proceed. Attorney Fournier further stated that the Development Agreement is enforceable by the City, the Wynnton Group, Inc., the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), or any aggrieved or adversely affected party as defined by the Florida Statutes, which includes any person who can allege an interest protected by the Comprehensive Plan was affected to a greater degree than the impact shared by the public at large; that the Statutes provide the Development Agreement is enforceable by injunctive relief and can also be challenged on the basis that one or any of the statutorily required components is lacking. Attorney Fournier further stated that the PBLP has recommended approval of the Development Agreement subject to the following BOOK 43 Page 16432 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16433 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. two revisions, which have been included but highlighted for reference in the draft document: PBLP #1. Add Improvement 4 to Paragraph 6, widening Cocoanut Avenue from 6th Street to the northernmost entrance to accommodate a third left turn lane into the project for northbound traffic. PBLP #2. Change from April 1, 2001 to January 1, 2001, the earliest date the Developer is allowed to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the first residential dwelling unit in Phase II and change the corresponding date for construction of the road improvements required to meet concurrency for Phase II. Attorney Fournier stated that the Administration recommends incorporating PBLP #2, the date change, but not PBLP #1, the additional transportation improvement. Attorney Fournier continued that the Administration's recommendation for approval of the Development Agreement is contingent upon the City Commission's approving the Rezoning Petition. Commissioner Patterson stated that the details concerning Players Theater, Inc. have not been finalized to date; and asked if the Commission's prerogatives would be retained to resolve concerns with the Developer between first and second reading if the rezoning Ordinance is passed on first reading without adequately addressing the concerns regarding Players Theater, Inc. Attorney Fournier stated that discussion of outstanding issues or considerations regarding the Implementation Agreement would be appropriate only after the quasi-judicial proceeding of reaching a decision on the rezoning ordinance based on its consistency or inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the criteria enumerated in the Zoning Code; that consideration of the Implementation Agreement would be unnecessary if the rezoning ordinance is denied. Michael Connolly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052 has been prepared as a conditional street vacation in accordance with the Disposition Agreement approved by the CRA in October 1997; that the intent is to avoid a situation whereby the streets are vacated but the project does not occur so the streets have to be unvacated; therefore, issuance of a full and complete building permit for Phase I of the Renaissance of Sarasota project to include a minimum of 125 dwelling units has been incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052 as a condition precedent to the actual closing and vacating of the rights-of-way; that the Sarasota City Code provides for the vacation of a street if one of the following three criteria is met: (1) the street has not been used as a street or any prior use has been abandoned, (2) the street is of no benefit to the City and the public, or (3) the street closing is in the best interest of the City and the public. Attorney Connolly stated that the Staff and PBLP concluded all three criteria apply to the alley running in a north to south direction in the southeast quadrant of the project site and that the second and third criteria apply to 7th and 8th Streets; that the Commission, if in agreement, may conditionally vacate the streets; that temporary water and sewer easements will be retained by the City for 7th and 8th streets as facilities currently exist; that the temporary easements would expire at such time as the pipes are abandoned; that the Developer will be required to relocate an existing fire hydrant on 7th Street to an area within the right-of-way along U.S. 41 or near the property boundary once 7th Street has been vacated; that as currently drafted, the relocation of the fire hydrant is a condition precedent to second reading, which is not feasible; that relocation of the fire hydrant should be a condition precedent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; that a language revision will be necessary between first and second readings if the proposed ordinance is passed on first reading. Commissioner Patterson asked if the street vacation is contingent upon issuance of a building permit being pulled? Attorney Connolly stated that yesi that a full and complete building permit for Phase I, which must include at least 125 dwelling units is required. Commissioner Patterson asked if background traffic generated by the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) was included in the traffic study for the Renaissance of Sarasota project? Mr. Mohammed stated that performances at the VWPAH typically do not occur during the peak hour; however, any fluctuations in traffic would have been reflected in the study since traffic counts compiled over the past two years as well as traffic counts from December 1997 were examined. Commissioner Cardamone stated and the Commission agreed that the Staff report was complete, clear, concise, and well presented. John Harshman, President, Harshman & Company, Inc.i Bill Levielee. President, Ai Group, and Project Architecti and Sarah Benac, AICP, Manager of Planning, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, BOOK 43 Page 16434 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16435 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Inc., representing Wynnton Group, Inc., came before the Commission. Ms. Benac stated that the Application for Conditional Rezoning from Residential, Multiple-Family Districts RMF-3,-4,-5) to Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) and Development Plan approval for the site is being presented. Ms. Benac referred to an aerial diagram of the site plan and photographs displayed by a slide projector to explain existing land use patterns in the area and to reference specific properties surrounding the proposed Renaissance of Sarasota site. Ms. Benac stated that the proposed mixed-use development and C-CBD zoning is consistent with the land use pattern, which includes a mix of commercial, multi-family, residential, institutional and civic uses; that the vacant site is surrounded by various developments including the Players Theater and parking lot, Jefferson Center, Unity Church sites, McCown Towers residential apartments, the Municipal Auditorium and Civic Center Area, the Visitor's Bureau and various vacant land. Ms. Benac continued that C-CBD zoning is requested to allow for intensive mixed-use development deemed appropriate for the gateway location of the site; that the 1983 Regional/Urban Design Assistant Team (R/UDAT) study designated the site as appropriate for intensive high-rise buildings to create a strong profile along the eastern side of U.S. 41; that subsequent planning studies, which include the Sarasota 2040 Vision Plan and the Rosemary District Plan, found the subject area has suffered from a lack of investment and recommended changes in zoning to facilitate additional rental residential uses, streetscape improvements, and economic development; that the Rosemary District Advisory Board, established by the City Commission to prepare a long-range land use plan and to establish specific land uses for the area, noted the purpose of the "Mission Harbor" property, with its prime frontage, was to set the stage for development of other areas in the Rosemary District; that the Rosemary District Plan included upscale retail, hotel and office uses, parks and open space, and stated a multi-family residential, high-density component would add a 24-hour vitality to the area; that the Rosemary District Advisory Board has reviewed and found the proposed site and development plan to be consistent with the proposed land uses detailed in the Rosemary District Plan. Ms. Benac continued that the proposed mixed-use zoning and development plan for the Renaissance of Sarasota project will implement Objective 5 of the Future Land Use Element in the Sarasota City Plan which is to reduce blight, discourage urban sprawl, and encourage aesthetic amenities; that the proposed zoning classification and accompanying site plan show the area will be improved significantly, including a commitment by the City to provide for streetscape improvements on 6th Street and Cocoanut Avenue which will provide a catalyst for further redevelopment in the area; that the request is also consistent with Policy 1.3 of the Sarasota City Plan which allows for rezoning of lands to zone district classifications for which a previously expired' site and development plan had been approved; that a determination has been made that with the adoption of the Development Agreement, which is a condition of rezoning approval, adequate public facilities to service the proposed development are either currently available or will be in place prior to occupancy. Ms. Benac further stated that a traffic study was completed to determine the type of road improvements required to mitigate anticipated traffic impacts from the proposed development; that required improvements have been listed in the accompanying Development Agreement; that with completion of the required improvements, the proposed project was found to meet the City's concurrency, management requirements; that location of the proposed mixed-use development in the Downtown Core Area will further the City's mobility initiative to develop transportation alternatives, i.e., mass transit and pedestrian corridors through the Downtown and Civic Center areas; that the proposed site will provide significant pedestrian opportunities. Mr. Levielee stated that the proposed Renaissance of Sarasota site and development plan has been presented at neighborhood meetings and to the PBLP. Mr. Levielee gave a slide presentation showing the site plan, conceptual drawings of the development and building elevations, computerized graphics of sun/shadow study results, and photographs of building exteriors, internal courtyards, and fountains at existing developments to explain the boundaries, mixed-use components, and architectural details of the project and to provide a visual perspective of the proposed Renaissance of Sarasota development. Mr. Levielee stated that the subject site is bounded by U.S. 41, 6th Street, Cocoanut Avenue, and the Players Theater; that the goal is to create a residential community with appropriate amenities to support the residential components; that the development includes two residential towers with a maximum height of 180 feet each, one consisting of rental units and the other consisting of condominium units; that the residential towers will face a 3-acre landicaped/aterecaped park fronting on U.S. 41; that a hotel is proposed to front on 6th Street; that retail, institutional, restaurants, and office space will be provided along the boundaries of the development; that sufficient parking to meet zoning requirements has been provided within the internal BOOK 43 Page 16436 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16437 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. portions of the development; that the parking garage height will be a maximum of four to five stories; that the buildings housing the retail shops and restaurant uses will be approximately two and three stories in height; that internal streets, walkways, and plazas have been included to encourage pedestrian flow; that relocation of the high-rise residential towers closer to U.S. 41 will lessen the sun/shadow effect on neighboring residents to the east. Ms. Benac stated that the proposed zoning and Development Plan are in compliance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the standards of the Zoning Code, and the guiding principles set forth by the CRA. Mr. Harshman stated that the Robert Schiffman, President, and Stanley Tarkow, Vice President and General Counsel, Wynnton Group, Inc., are present in the audience. City Attorney Taylor stated that Commissioners are required by law to disclose any input or contact with others concerning the Renaissance of Sarasota project which occurred prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Patterson declared ex parte communications, stating that citizens have expressed generalized concerns to her about the Renaissance of Sarasota project as well as other projects in the area having a potential negative effect on traffic; that other citizens have expressed positive feelings referencing the potential benefits to the City from the project. Commissioner Cardamone declared ex parte communications, stating that all the Commissioners have received letters and general statements from citizens supporting or expressing concerns about the project; that no conversations specifically addressing the rezoning or street vacation issues are recalled. Mayor Pillot, Vice Mayor Dupree, and Commissioners Merrill stated that situations similar to those declared by Commissioners Cardamone and Patterson have been experienced. Mayor Pillot stated that 17 individuals have signed up to speak; that the Commission cannot abrogate the quasi-judicial public hearing process; that each speaker will be provided five minutes to speak followed by a five-minute rebuttal by the petitioner, potentially lengthy discussion and then action by the Commission; therefore, for the benefit of those waiting to address the Commission regarding the Ringling Causeway Bridge litigation, conclusion of this item is not anticipated prior to 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission has taken action to limit citizens' input on the Ringling Causeway Bridge issue; and suggested the position of the audience be communicated by having each side of the issue stand and be recognized. In response to a question raised by Mayor Pillot, City Attorney Taylor and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that no legal or procedural problems would exist if such a polling were conducted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the suggested polling would be acceptable; however, some of the people may have been waiting to hear the Staff presentation and the presentations of the four speakers before taking a position on the issue. Commissioner Patterson stated that individuals have expressed substantial rage - at having taken the efforts to bring supporters to the meeting who now will not be able to speak to the Commission; that the informal polling was suggested to provide some satisfaction to the people remaining in the audience. Hearing no objections from the Commission, Mayor Pillot requested a show of hands of those in support of the Commission's position against a high-level bridge and then requested a show of hands of those in support of a high-level bridge. Mayor Pillot stated that an equal number of hands was essentially shown for each side. The Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission. Richard Ulrich, Judd, Ulrich & Dean, 2940 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota (34239) representing the 41 Gulf Stream Corridor Consortium, stated that traffic concurrency is the major issue with respect to the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that the Consortium is concerned about the reports prepared; that the traffic study report prepared by Tindale-Oliver does not coincide with the Dames & Moore report prepared when location of the central library was being considered at the subject site; that the Dames & Moore report applied a 3 percent annual growth rate to the 1996 annual p.m. peak hour traffic volumes whereas the Tindale Oliver report uses a 1.75 percent annual growth rate; that thousands of dollars have been expended on the two reports; that traffic concurrency with respect to the Renaissance of Sarasota project, the Hyatt expansion project, and the ultimate development of the JRT site is of major concern; that the Commission is implored to listen to the traffic expert who will be speaking subsequently and to other speakers. Harriet Oxman, 888 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), submitted for the record 187 signatures to a petition which read as follows: BOOK 43 Page 16438 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16439 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. We the undersigned residents of The Condominium on the Bay petition the Planning Board and the City Commissioners of the City of Sarasota as follows: 1. The Central City Land use classification proposed in the Sarasota City Plan 1998 Edition shall not be adopted until an Environmental Impact/Traffic Study has been completed to determine the cumulative traffic likely to be generated by the planned and projected developments along the Route 41 corridor/Bayfront area. 2. In the interim no projects shall be approved for development by waiving the traffic concurrency regulations. Ms. Oxman stated that the signers of the petition represent over 500 voting citizens who pay almost $2 million in taxes to the City of Sarasota; that the signers do not oppose the proposed development, but request a change in the central City land use classification be delayed until an environmental impact traffic study is completed; that traffic gridlock is not new to the area; that the proposed left turn lanes and signage will not control traffic density; that planned developments in the area include 500 apartments at the Renaissance Towers, a 100-room hotel, shops and offices at the Renaissance of Sarasota, 250 residences at Sarasota Bay Club, 200 additional rooms and a convention center at the Hyatt Hotel, and 300 units at the impending Ritz Carlton Hotel and condominium complex planned for the JRT site; that the major developments referenced are in addition to the existing small buildings on U.S. 41, which could become high-rise office buildings in the future; that each of the units will have at least one vehicle and possibly two; that Sarasota should not become another traffic congested Fort Lauderdale; that an objective study assessing the implications of increased traffic resulting from all the projects planned for development should be completed before land use classifications are changed; that the City Commission is responsible for the safety and welfare of the citizens of Sarasota. Randy Alley, Parrish, Florida (34219), traffic engineer representing the 41 Gulf Stream Corridor stated that Tindale- Oliver reports for the Hyatt expansion and the Renaissance of Sarasota have been reviewed; that the Hyatt expansion is referenced because the report on the Renaissance of Sarasota reflects the background and projected traffic of the Hyatt expansion; that the City should be congratulated for the decision to have one consultant review both reports and give a comprehensive review of the impacts the projects have on each other; however problems exist in the Renaissance of Sarasota report with the redistribution of proposed project trips based on signage; that approximately 70 percent of the proposed generated trips associated with the Hyatt expansion is rerouted along Cocoanut Avenue and 6th Street based on signage; that similar signage prohibiting left turns from the exit of Publix on Bee Ridge Road and Cattlemen Road was ineffective and removed after 65 violations were observed during a one-hour period; that compliance with signage is necessary in order to effectively redirect traffic; that a study should be conducted to determine signage compliance prior to redistributing 70 percent of the inbound and outbound trips from the site; that the 70 percent figure is not substantiated in the report; that the three lanes proposed for construction at the U.S.41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection would converge into two; that the three-lane to two- lane conversion at the intersection of Bee Ridge at McIntosh Roads, even with a traffic signal and good visibility, has caused many accidents; that the report relies upon the addition of a third lane to bring the intersection up to the minimum level of service required to comply with the City's adopted level of service standards; that the project trips generated on Fruitville Road by both the Hyatt and Renaissance of Sarasota projects do not meet the City's minimum level of service standard; that Cocoanut Avenue should have the two left turn lanes which was not recommended in the report but recognized as necessary by the PBLP; that a minimum of 35 percent of the project trips are generated and distributed to the northeast section of the project; however, the report does not recommend improvements to that area; that the improvement at Fruitville Road and U.S. 41 providing for a left turn storage lane requires removal of the right turn lane into the Sarasota Quay which will slow traffic in the through lane; that the level of service on U.S. 41 will improve marginally by the proposed improvements; however the City is accepting the minimum level of service without allowing for any future growth. Philip Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236) Chairman of the Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedeatrian Committee stated that no group in the County is more desirous of seeing a reduction in vehicular traffic and an increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic than the Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee; that the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area proposed for the Comprehensive Plan and update referenced in the Development Agreement is of concerni that adoption of a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area and the proposed measures to alleviate concurrency substitution, e.g. Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) initiatives, are not under the control of the City; that employee incentives such as time off, preferential parking, flex time, van pools, or satellite parking lots, which may alleviate traffic, do not exist. Mr. Dasher cited a letter from Jay Goodwill, Transit Director, Sarasota County Area Transit, as follows: BOOK 43 Page 16440 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16441 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Without a financial commitment by the City many of the transit improvements detailed in the TCA report may not be feasible. It is unrealistic to expect Sarasota County Government to increase its financial support of a SCAT bus system and provide specific transit improvements detailed in the TCA plan. In summary, the SCAT bus system is very supportive of the City's plans to rely on public transportation as a major component to meet transportation needs of the downtown area. We are, however, very concerned that your draft study does not adequately address the funding of the transit related TDM measures. Mr. Dasher stated that approving the project as presented would be a fatal mistake; that concurrency will not exist until elements such as satellite lots are created; that an increase of 1,650 units in planned developments will generate over 3,000 vehicles; that an increased number of employees as well as two convention centers accommodating 1,000 people will also increase traffic; that the left-turn lane improvements at Fruitville Road and U.S. 41 will not mitigate the impacts; that traffic compounded at a 3 percent annual growth rate in 5 years is a tremendous amount of vehicles; that the claim has been made the lack of density on the subject site will promote urban sprawl; that urban sprawl results because housing in the $150,000 range has not been constructed in the City and developments proposed on low-volume streets in the outer areas can easily pass traffic concurrency. Fred Raymes, 888 Boulevard of the Arts (34236) stated that Bayfront residents have increased concerns with the growing congestion; that four major developments are planned for the Bayfront along U.S. 41; that the approval process considers each development independently is flawed; that the environmental impact of the traffic should be evaluated based on the projects planned and others likely to be constructed along U.S. 41; that the central City designation in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update is of particular concern; that changing the area's classification with implied higher density development is unacceptable until a total projected traffic environmental study is completed; that concurrency should not be waived for any pending development; that the short-sighted traffic solutions proposed by the Engineering Department cause dismay; that the quality of life in the City is the motivating factor; that the proposed development is not opposed; however, traffic concurrency should be addressed as an ongoing process not by bandaiding the problems with short-sighted solutions. Nancy Taaca, 504 Cummings Street (34242) was no longer present in the City Commission Chambers. Glenda Mock, 1701 North Tamiami Trail (34234), Executive Director, North Trail Association, stated that the North Trail Association is in full support of the Renaissance of Sarasota project which will be an asset to the City of Sarasota and the North Trail, will become the City's most desired area, and will enhance the City's tax base; that the proposal was presented extremely well; that the City should be proud to accept the proposed development. Mary Ouillin, 2304 Ringling Boulevard #213 (34237) stated that as a long time resident of the City of Sarasota many changes have been experienced; that had the library been constructed at the "Mission Harbor" site, neither a concurrency nor a parking problem would exist in the Downtown area; that the Mission Harbor area was once an Indian midden; however, an archeological study revealing any historical significance of the property has never been performed; that the Commission is requested to require that the Developer conduct an archeological study; that knowledge of historically significant areas in Sarasota is important for future generations. Ms. Quillin continued that traffic congestion leaving the VWPAH was observed as a former resident of 4th Street and Cocoanut Avenue; that during special events Downtown, vehicles are parked throughout neighborhoods and traffic heavily impacts the area; that 6th Street should be extended through to Lemon Avenue; that Tenth Street and 6th Street should be made traffic thoroughfares; that the Renaissance of Sarasota project should retain a 6th Street address; that access from the site to U.S. 41 should not be allowed until improvements are made; that 10th Street and Lemon Avenue should be utilized to provide access to Fruitville Road and to Interstate 75; that the Commission has difficult decisions to make; that a development boom is occurring; that proper decisions by the Commission are necessary. Maryanne Shorin, 838 North Tamiami Trail (34236), Michael Judson, 838 North Tamiami Trail (34236) and Bobbi Hicks, 838 North Tamiami Trail (34236) Board Members, Players Theater, Inc. Mr. Judson read the following statement : On November 6, 1996, 1.5 years ago, The Players participated in the first charette run by Charles Seeman. At the charette, and consistently since then, The Players have supported mixed-use development of the former Mission Harbor site, particularly those plans that have a commitment to residential usage. On July 24, 1997, 8 months ago, the City ranked Wynnton's RFP number one. Not only did Wynnton meet the spirit of the charette they also promised, given appropriate permitting, to construct a pedestrian crossing over Route 41 and to donate $1 million to communities groups and projects, among other groups The Players was BOOK 43 Page 16442 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16443 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. specifically mentioned. On November 19, 1997, four months ago, the City and Wynnton entered into a contract to develop the Renaissance. The Players is part of the contract. On page 20 in Section 6.09 of the contract it reads in part "If The Players determines instead to renovate the existing theater, Developer agrees to contribute $500,000 toward such renovations. I The section also says "The Developer agrees that the proposed agreement with The Players will include shared parking arrangements of allowing use by Players patrons. H We have a simple objective, to get a written agreement between The Players and Wynnton that reflects those two items in the contract with the City. As of today, there is no agreement between Wynnton and The Players. Over the past 8 months there have been a total of 4 meetings with various representatives of the Wynnton Group. There have been a total of 8 letters, 5 generated by The Players and 3 by Wynnton, the last of which was received at 3:30 today. On February 6, 1998, Wynnton sent us an outline of a letter of understanding. We replied on March 4 with several of our concerns. Today, April 6, we have received a reply that does not address the points we raised and in two major areas, the gift and shared parking, actually takes a position more aggressive than their initial letter of February 6. The Players seek an agreement based on Section 6.09 the gift and the parking. After this initial agreement, the way will be paved for other areas of cooperation and additional agreements about a broad range of mutual interests. But The Players need to start from a simple strong foundation, a basic agreement incorporating the terms of Section 6.09. The Players want this project to move forward. The development of this property is important to the City and to The Players. We also feel it is important that Wynnton meet the terms of the contract with the City. We would like to ask the Commissioners to set a definite date when an agreement is due between Wynnton and The Players, possibly to coincide with some other contractual date. And finally, we feel that Wynnton's intentions are very honorable, they are good intentions in that they intend to make Renaissance a showplace for Sarasota, but we feel it is necessary to ask you for help in setting a definite date for the conclusion of our negotiations. Once again, The Players seek a simple straightforward agreement based on a contract with the City. Ms. Hicks stated that a discussion was held with Mr. Schiffman approximately 1.5 hours ago; that a meeting between Players Theater Inc., and the Wynnton Group, Inc. was scheduled for April 17, 1998; that the Commission will be informed of the outcome of the meeting, which is believed to result in a signed agreement. Ms. Shorin stated that an effort is being made to protect the City's community theater which has been in Sarasota for 68 years and is an important part of the fabric of life; that based on discussions with Wynnton Group, Inc., hopefully a signed agreement will result either at the April 17 meeting or shortly thereafter. Ronald Streibich, 2503 Davis Boulevard (34237) was no longer present in the City Commission Chambers. J.C. Ebach, 988 Boulevard of the Arts, #1109 (34236) stated that the Renaissance of Sarasota project is supported; that based on his experience as a developer, property values are enhanced by development in surrounding areas; that cities, engineering departments, city councils and commissions rise to the occasion and deal effectively with problems such as traffic flow as development projects move forward; that the various presenters and speakers have shown that sufficient roadways exist and the City will ultimately solve any traffic congestion problems; that the quality of the Renaissance of Sarasota project and the developers is indisputable; that property values will increase because of the fine improvements planned. Arland Christ-Janer. 4372 Camino Madera (34238), Founding Chairman and General Roland Heiser, 4104 Las Palmas Drive (34238), Chairman, representing Gateway 2000 Executive Committee. General Heiser stated that the Gateway 2000 Executive Committee membership consists of the Executive Director of the Downtown Association, the leadership of the North Trail Association, the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Homeowners Association, the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association and the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation; that the Committee has a very broad base of talent; that the Committee's position is that the Renaissance of Sarasota project is consistent with the goals and objectives established 12 years ago, will contribute to making the North Tamiami Trail area a showplace and a thriving area for the community and is believed to be part of the dream for the community; that any of the four proposals received for the area would have created the same problems being discussed; that the Gateway 2000 Executive Committee is pleased to support and endorse the Renaissance of Sarasota project. Dr. Chris-Janer stated that everyone is seeking a solution to the problems to assure the continuation of a desirable undertaking by the Wynnton Group, Inc.; that the problems should be approached from the standpoint of how to accomplish the project; that most BOOK 43 Page 16444 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16445 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. of the traffic problems will be solved by planning; that a creative solution will evolve; that reports by Staff and many commentators are supportive, although some commentators have indicated a concern about traffic; that with general support, solutions to the traffic problems will be developed; that his vested interest in plans for the area is as a future resident of the Sarasota Bay Club. Daniel Lobeck, 37 Sunset Drive, #31 (34236) also appearing on behalf of his wife, Joy Lobeck, and representing The Growth- restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO) stated that his appearance is not the fruition of a conspiracy nor an offer of a solution but rather is a surrender to excessive development and guaranteed traffic gridlock on U.S. 41, Fruitville Road and the surrounding areas; that traffic will be forced into neighborhoods, disrupting the neighborhoods the Commissioners have sworn to protect; that health problems will be created as a result of excessive traffic pollution; that harm and danger will be created by the inability of emergency vehicles to reach people in a timely manner; that national studies prove a direct connection between traffic congestion in municipal areas and a high rate of heart attacks; that the City's lack of restraint by always conceding to Developer's requests and subsidizing projects at the public's expense is a concern. Mr. Lobeck distributed and referred to a memorandum from an engineer at the Hyatt of Sarasota Hotel and stated that the only cost estimates to his knowledge for traffic concurrency projects are based on the engineer's memorandum; that the engineer acknowledges the cost estimates are only preliminary calculations; that the City acknowledges the impact fees from the project will be insufficient and an additional $400,000 will be required for streetscaping, drainage and other improvements for which funding sources are unknown; that in addition, a $1.3 million subsidy is proposed from the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) which was believed to benefit the taxpayers and not to provide special privileges for developers; that the traffic engineer's report was paid for by the Developer and is imperfect; that the report assumes that 70 percent of all Hyatt traffic will be rerouted from U.S. 41 to Cocoanut Avenue and 6th Street and all westbound traffic on Fruitville Road will be rerouted by signage; that the traffic report has an error in the background traffic; that the 1.75 percent increase rate was established by eliminating the year 1994 which had a higher increase than other years. Mr. Lobeck stated that the Renaissance of Sarasota project is illegal and contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan which ensures development permits will not be issued which would degrade the level of service (LOS) conditions on roads below the adopted standards of U.S. 41 at a LOS of "D" and Fruitville Road at a LOS of "C"; that Section 163.317710, Florida Statutes, allows the City's Comprehensive Plan to have stricter standards than the minimum allowed by State law; that the Renaissance of Sarasota project is in violation of the Sarasota Community Redevelopment Plan having twice as much density and twice the height determined acceptable by the Commission 10 years ago; that approving the Renaissance of Sarasota project and other massive developments proposed in the City will guarantee gridlock on U.S. 41 and be the height of hypocrisy for a City with a goal of maintaining small-town living and feeling; that a traffic gridlock will be created by approving expansion of the Hyatt of Sarasota, a project on the John Ringling Towers property, and the other projects planned for the North Tamiami Trail; that a city choked in traffic congestion will be the Commission's legacy; that the Commission admits being aware of the pending traffic gridlock by exempting the entire area from any constraints on traffic analysis and creating a traffic concurrency exception area; that he is outraged. Jason Mellica, 1391 6th Street (34235) botanist and artist. stated that a 30-foot greenbelt area should be placed around the Renaissance of Sarasota property with a bicycle trail for pedestrians and bicyclists; that a greenbelt area would assist in alleviating pollution created by an increase in vehicular traffic; that many people living in the area use bicycles or walk; that a sidewalk and trees should surround the property. Mayor Pillot recognized David Mills, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, who just arrived and welcomed him to the meeting. Joseph Hyland, 910 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that the library proposed for the same location might have brought in 5,000 people daily; that traffic problems can be solved; that traffic will improve when the Ringling Causeway Bridge is replaced and is no longer a drawbridge; that people are always against and attempting to stop progress; that Sarasota is an old City and the North Tamiami Trail area is old and dilapidated; that the old Sarasota will die on its own if no progress is made; that progress is needed for future generations; that the developers will improve the City, add to the tax coffers, increase property values and increase employment; that people should be optimistic and build a new modernized, improved, exciting cosmopolitan City; that money is available and an opportunity would be missed if the Wynnton Group, Inc., is not allowed to develop the property; that the Commission has done a wonderful job listening to the speakers. Ulla Searing DuPont, 888 Boulevard of the Arts (34236) was no longer present in the City Commission Chambers. Mayor Pillot recognized Lynn Huston, News Anchor of Channel 40, who just arrived and thanked him for coming. BOOK 43 Page 16446 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16447 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Eunice Connors, 1111 North Gulf Stream Avenue (34236) representing the Route 41 Corridor, stated that her attempt is not to stop the project or progress; however, a traffic study is requested to advise how access and egress from U.S. 41 is planned; that a major problem currently exists even before adding the projected 2,000 daily vehicles from the planned developments and as many as 4,000 vehicles during a convention; that a full traffic study detailing how the additional traffic will be handled is desired. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Mr. Harshman, Attorney Tarkow, and Ms. Benac, came forward for Petitioners' rebuttal and stated that the traffic study referenced numerous times is the City's traffic study commissioned prior to Wynnton Group, Inc. entering into the Disposition Agreement; that the traffic study is addressed to the City and is a traffic study which the Developer cannot directly rely on because the study is not addressed to the Developer; that the Developer has not paid for the traffic study as indicated by Mr. Lobeck but has an obligation, insisted upon by Commissioner Cardamone, to reimburse the City for the $26,000 cost of the traffic study at closing, provided closing occurs. Attorney Tarkow continued that Michael Judson accurately quoted from the Disposition Agreement, which requires the Developer to make a $500,000 contribution of property improvements to Players Theater, Inc. pursuant to an agreement to be negotiated; that hopefully the many issues which exist with Players Theater, Inc. will be resolved; that Players Theater, Inc. has requested no restrictions be placed on the $500,000 contribution from the Developer which is contrary to the Disposition Agreement requiring the contribution be used for improvements to the property; that cash donations made for renovations to the JRT disappeared into administrative or other unknown places; that Wynnton Group, Inc. wants to avoid a similar situation; that the Developer is not backing away from the financial commitments made to fund community efforts, but expects Players Theater, Inc. will recognize the Developer's concerns; that the Commission is urged not to set a date by which an agreement must be reached with Players Theater, Inc. Ms. Benac stated that the City's expert should be relied upon regarding the traffic issue; that Mr. Mohammed has done an impressive job in presenting all of the facts; that a request for a traffic concurrency exemption area is not being requested at this time; that the proposal before the Commission is a Development Agreement which brings the Developers into compliance with the City's concurrency requirements; that, based on a finding by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) the Development Agreement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the Sarasota 2040 Plan, and the Rosemary District Plan; that the redevelopment plan referenced by Mr. Lobeck is the 1986 plan which the City's Planning Staff advises was not adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; that the 1986 plan is an old plan with many recommendations and improvements specifically spelled out therein which have been followed; that concerning limitations on development of the site, some recommendations in the 1986 plan were outdated and no obligation exists to comply with the outdated recommendations; that the PBLP recommendation on proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052 stipulates a requirement for the Developer to provide utility easements; that letters from GTE, FP&L and Comcast Cable were not in the record at the time of PBLP consideration; that letters from the utilities companies have since been submitted into the record indicating utility easements are not needed; therefore, the stipulation is no longer necessary. Mayor Pillot stated that three items are before the Commission; and asked if each item is to be addressed separately and which items are quasi judicial. City Attorney Taylor stated that the rezoning and Development Agreement are quasi judicial, that the street vacation is not quasi judicial. City Attorney Taylor submitted for the record written comments by Edmond Canwood which were received from a member of the audience, concerning a professional view of transportation in Sarasota County and some related matters and asked that the comments be made part of the record. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that in response to the inquiry of the possibility of the project site being an archeological site, the County has conducted an environmental impact assessment and no archeological impacts exist; that the site was once fully developed and extensive water and sewer work underground was done by the Cityi that any archeological impacts existing would have been discovered during previous construction. Mayor Pillot asked for clarification regarding the quasi judicial status of the proposed Development Agreement. City Attorney Taylor stated that for consistency with past actions, consideration of the Development Agreement is part of the quasi judicial proceeding. Commissioner Cardamone requested comment from Mr. Mohammed regarding the difference in the traffic studies. BOOK 43 Page 16448 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16449 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that traffic studies normally use a traffic growth rate factor for all of Sarasota County, which was developed from traffic counters placed on U.S. 41 south of Vamo Road; that traffic in that area increased by an average of 3 percent over a period of years, which is the figure generally used in the absence of an in-depth study; that for the Renaissance of Sarasota project, the traffic consultant was requested to examine specifically the traffic counts from 1985 through 1996 on U.S. 41 north of Gulf Stream Avenue; that the traffic analysis revealed a 1.75 percent growth rate, which is a more accurate figure for projecting future traffic in the area of the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that a 1.75 percent growth rate is similar to the results of studies conducted by Sarasota Memorial Hospital on the traffic growth on U.S. 41 in the hospital area; that Mr. Lobeck incorrectly stated that the increase in traific for 1994 was eliminated in determining the traffic growth rate; that eliminating the 1994 traffic growth rate would have resulted in a growth rate factor of 1.2 percent rather than the 1.75 percent growth rate factor actually used; that the 1994 growth rate is believed faulty; however, the 1994 figure was included, resulting in the more conservative growth rate factor of 1.75 percent. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if Mr. Mohammed believes a comprehensive traffic study is needed showing the traffic impact on the area with the impending developments planned over the next several years? Mr. Mohammed stated that the traffic study prepared for Renaissance of Sarasota project is the most comprehensive study which could be performed. Commissioner Patterson asked the difference between the traffic study prepared and the study requested and referenced in the petition as an environmental impact traffic study? Mr. Mohammed stated that an environmental impact traffic study is an unknown title; that a traffic impact study is what has been produced. Commissioner Patterson asked if the traffic impact study produced would be submitted if a comprehensive traffic study of the area was requested? Mr. Mohammed stated yes; that the traffic impact study prepared is very in-depth and detailed. Commissioner Patterson asked if a traffic study prepared for the Hyatt expansion would include areas further west? Mr. Mohammed stated yes; that a Hyatt expansion study would include the level of service in the area around Boulevard of the Arts. Commissioner Patterson asked if a traffic study on the Hyatt expansion would be completed and combined with the current traffic study prior to approval of the proposed Hyatt expansion? Mr. Mohammed stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that widening Cocoanut Avenue was specifically recommended by the PBLP as well as Mr. Alley, the traffic engineer who spoke to the Commission as part of the public hearing; and asked the reason Mr. Mohammed is not supportive of the recommendation. Mr. Mohammed referred to a computerized graphic displayed; and stated only 69 vehicles turning left per hour would use a left turn lane; that with two driveways entering the project off Cocoanut Avenue as planned, only 35 vehicles will be turning into each driveway per hour; that based on the low volume of traffic, a vehicle turning left off Cocoanut Avenue would have little opposing traffic and ample time to turn left without delaying traffic; that until increased traffic volumes create a need for a left turn lane, which might not be for 15 years, the street should not be widened and $1 million expended unnecessarily. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Mr. Mohammed is willing to speak with some of the neighbors and explain the details and process used in completing a comprehensive traffic study? Mr. Mohammed stated that he would be pleased to meet with neighbors at any time to make presentations, answer questions, address concerns, and work together in finding common solutions. Commissioner Patterson requested that Mr. Mohammed plan to attend a meeting scheduled to address the concerns of the residents at 888 The Condominium on the Bay. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A, D, F, H, J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments All documents made part of the record at the March 4, 1998 PBLP meeting as well as the minutes of that meeting Development Plan filed with Petition Nos. 98-DPR-B and 98-CO-02 for conditional rezoning BOOK 43 Page 16450 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16451 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Petition 98-SV-04 requesting street vacation submitted by the Petitioner Proposed Development Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Wynnton Group, Inc. designated as 98-DA-01 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4051 by title only. City Attorney Taylor stated that Mr. Mohammed should respond on the record to the technical question raised by one of the speakers concerning the effect of signage. Mr. Mohammed stated that the figures in the traffic study report may have been misinterpreted; that Randy Alley inaccurately referenced that 70 percent of the Hyatt traffic was routed through 6th Street and Cocoanut Avenue by use of signage; that the 70 percent figure references the portion of traffic coming from and traveling to the east; that approximately 40 percent of the traffic generated by the Hyatt will be traveling east to access U.S. 301, Interstate 75, etc.; that 70 percent of the 40 percent figure would be routed to 6th Street and Cocoanut Avenue; that in addition to signage, the Hyatt has committed to changing brochures and maps and having employees provide directions to the Hyatt via 6th Street and Cocoanut Avenue; that U.S. 41 is congested; that motorists will adhere to the signage since a less-congested route is being provided. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 98-4051, conditionally rezoning the subject property from the RMF-3,-4, -5 Zone Districts to the C-CBD Zone District and to approve the Development Plan 98-DPR-B permitting construction of a mixed-use project known as Renaissance of Sarasota. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Renaissance of Sarasota project is consistent with the development proposed and recommended as a result of the charette in which many neighborhood groups participated prior to the CRA's selecting Wynnton Group, Inc., as the Developer. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052 on first reading. City Attorney Taylor stated that the following language will be added to Section 4 of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052 between first and second readings to address the issue raised by Attorney Connolly regarding the fire hydrant: : (A) The conditions set forth in this section (A) shall be met as a condition precedent to adoption of this ordinance on second reading. (B) The conditions sét forth in this section (B) shall be met as a condition precedent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase I of the project. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052 on first reading with Section 4 revised as stated by City Attorney Taylor. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Cardamone, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that the PBLP has recommended the following two changes which were incorporated but highlighted in the Development Agreement: PBLP #1. Add Improvement 4 to Paragraph 6, widening Cocoanut Avenue from 6th Street to the northernmost entrance to accommodate a third left turn lane into the project for northbound traffic. PBLP #2. Change from April 1, 2001 to January 1, 2001, the earliest date the Developer is allowed to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the first residential dwelling unit in Phase II and change the corresponding date for construction of the road improvements required to meet concurrency for Phase II. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Administration recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreement with PBLP #2 included and PBLP #1 excluded. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve proposed Development Agreement No. 98-DA-01 between the City and the Wynnton Group, Inc. including PBLP #2, changing the construction date from April 1, 2001, to January 1, 2001, and excluding PBLP #1, incorporating additional improvements on Cocoanut Avenue. BOOK 43 Page 16452 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16453 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that he objects to the lane expansion at the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection, which would violate the Commission's vision of a city of urban amenities with small town living and feeling; that the Bayfront is a pedestrian area; that past emphasis has been to retain the Bayfront as an amenity for the community and avoid making a major highway in the area; that the proposed lane expansion will create an intersection similar to that at Stickney Point Road and U.S. 41; that other options to meet concurrency without expanding the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection to three lanes may exist but have not been incorporated; that inclusion of the concurrency exception area provisions imply Commission support for such a measure, which he does not support at this time; that for the two reasons outlined, he will not support the motion. Commissioner Patterson stated that she also has concerns regarding adoption of a concurrency exception area; that ultimately, the Commission may not support the measure; that an alternative mechanism to meet concurrency may be discovered in the future; and asked the Commission's prerogatives regarding the lane expansion at the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection if the Development Agreement is approved as presented. Attorney Fournier came forward and stated that the Florida Statutes and local ordinances address amendments to the Development Agreement; that explicit authorization for amendment of the Development Agreement exists if, for example, a further study were commissioned with the direction of studying possible alternatives; that as with the original adoption, two public hearings with notification to affected property owners within 250 feet would be required to amend the Development Agreement. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Developer could require the specific improvement set forth in the Development Agreement be constructed? Attorney Fournier stated that mutual consent of the parties is required for an amendment to the Development Agreement; however the Developer is on record at the PBLP public hearing stating that City consideration of other alternatives and a potential substitution for the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection improvement would be acceptable. Attorney Tarkow came forward and stated that the Developer so stipulates before the City Commission. Commissioner Patterson asked if the stipulation should be incorporated into the Development Agreement? Attorney Fournier stated that the record reflects the Developer has consented in advance to a viable substitution for the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection improvement referenced; therefore, incorporating the stipulation into the Development Agreement is not necessary. Commissioner Merrill stated that specific improvements are listed under Paragraph 6, Construction of Transportation Concurrency Project; that review of the minutes would be required if a question is raised in 3 or 4 years and the stipulation is not incorporated in the Development Agreement. Attorney Tarkow stated the Developer is agreeable to including the stipulation in the Development Agreement but approval of the Development Agreement should not be delayed to incorporate the language. Attorney Fournier stated that a provision will be added to the Development Agreement specitying the Developer has consented in advance should a future amendment be made to modify the lane expansion at the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection. Commissioner Dupree asked for clarification of Paragraph 20, Termination. Attorney Fournier stated that the Florida Statutes allow for Development Agreements to have an effective period of 10 years; that Paragraph 20 provides that the duration of the Development Agreement is for 10 years or performance of all the obligations, whichever comes first. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the position in opposition to three-laning the intersection at U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue is supported; that the proposed improvement is recognized as a solution which hopefully can be substituted. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to include the addition of language in the Development Agreement providing that the improvements mentioned in Paragraph 6 may be amended at the City's discretion provided concurrency can still be met. Attorney Fournier stated that his understanding was the Developer's consent was limited to the specific improvement to add a third northbound to westbound turn lane on U.S. 41 and the Gulf Stream Avenue intersection. Attorney Tarkow stated that is correct; that the transportation improvements scheduled immediately surrounding the Renaissance of Sarasota, e.g., the widening of 6th Street for which land is being dedicated, improvements to U.S. 41, and others should be retained. Commissioner Merrill, as the maker of the motion, and Commissioner Patterson, as the seconder, moved to amend the main BOOK 43 Page 16454 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16455 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. motion to include the addition of language under Paragraph 6 to reference the Developer's advance consent to the deletion and substitution of an alternative mechanism for the proposed lane expansion at the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection at the City's discretion, providing concurrency can still be met. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to amend. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the main motion as to approve proposed Development Agreement No. 98-DA-01 between the City and Wynnton Group, Inc., including PBLP #2, to change the construction date from April 1, 2001, to January 1, 2001, excluding PBLP #1, to incorporate additional improvements on Cocoanut Avenue, and incorporating language to reference the Developer's advance consent to the deletion and substitution of an alternative mechanism for the proposed lane expansion at the U.S. 41/Gulf Stream Avenue intersection at the City's discretion. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the main motion as restated. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 26. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE WYNNTON GROUP, INC. A GEORGIA CORPORATION SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF AN ACCEPTABLE SCHEDULE OR TIMETABLE FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 6.08 AND 6.09 OF THE "DISPOSITION AGREEMENT" REGARDING COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS - AMENDED IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT AND A DISCUSSION ITEM ON THE PEDESTRIAL OVERPASS WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE APRIL 20, 1998, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM X-2) #5 (1020) through (1634) Robert Fournier, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the genesis of the proposed Implementation Agreement is the Agreement for Disposition and Development of Property (Disposition Agreement, formerly called the Redevelopment Agreement) into which the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) entered with the Wynnton Group, Inc. (developer), in the fall of 1997; that the Disposition Agreement provided that the City would execute an agreement with the developer in substantially the same form as an Exhibit to the Disposition Agreement; that the title of Implementation Agreement is to distinguish the agreement from a statutorily defined development agreement; that the proposed Implementation Agreement implements the provisions of the Disposition Agreement and is in substantially the same form as the Exhibit to the Disposition Agreement; that slight changes have been made, are summarized in the Agenda material, and result in the following additions to the Exhibit to the Disposition Agreement: Paragraph 2: Dedication of Land for Public Purposes City shall not be obligated to accept any streets or sidewalks which developer offers to dedicate for public use unless same are constructed in accordance with all applicable City standards. Further, in the event that the dedication of a public street or right-of-way on or through the project site is accepted by City, the right of the public to utilize such street or right-of-way shall not be restricted by developer in any manner, either by the construction of gated entrances or otherwise. Paragraph 3: Additional Covenants of City the document containing the written restriction described in this paragraph shall not be recorded in the Public Records of Sarasota County until the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential dwelling unit in Phase I of the Project. Attorney Fournier stated that originally the written restrictions were to be recorded immediately upon closing; that the condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy (c/o) was added; that presumably other c/o's will be issued subsequent to the first c/o. Commissioner Patterson stated that the presumption of additional c/o's is substantial; that the written restrictions must be recorded as soon as a c/o is issued for the first residential dwelling unit on the first floor; that no additional residential dwelling units may be built; however, the City will be obligated to the written restrictions, specifically the restrictions on the view corridors. Attorney Fournier stated that the point is valid; that a time certain had to be identified for recording; that issuance of a c/o is better than an immediate recording requirement. Commissioner Patterson stated that the concern was raised by the Commission when the various agreements were being considered; that the written restrictions on the view corridors add enormous value to the property; that the Renaissance of Sarasota project was chosen due to the many up-scale, residential dwelling units, adding to the economy of the downtown and North Tamiami Trail area; that her desire is not to give up the view corridors with only the certainty of construction of one residential dwelling unit; that considerable concessions have been made; that the balance of the project could be very different even if only one tower is constructed in accordance with the proposed plans. BOOK 43 Page 16456 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16457 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Attorney Fournier stated that the Exhibit to the Disposition Agreement provided for recording immediately, prior to construction of the project; that conditioning recording on the issuance of the first c/o was considered an improvement; that an effort could be made to modify the condition, i.e., to the end of Phase I or a percentage completion of Phase I, if the Commission desires; that the thought was additional c/o's would naturally follow if the first c/o is issued. Stanley Tarkow, Vice President and General Counsel to the developer, came before the Commission and stated that the developer's obligation is to construct not less than 125 residential dwelling units in Phase I; that the promise of the availability of the view corridor must be made to every condominium buyer in the development; that restrictions on the view corridors will be imposed on a building-by-by-building basis; that if the development is not built to the extent required, the developer will be in breach of contract; that the CRA can take any available action; that the restrictions concerning the view corridors were bargained for and are part of the contract. Commissioner Patterson stated that no interest exists to take the view corridors awayi however, more assurance than one residential dwelling unit is desired before the view corridors are given away in perpetuity. Attorney Fournier stated that a provision could be added that the written restrictions will become null and void automatically or revoked if c/o's have not been issued on a specific number of residential dwelling units by a certain date. Commissioner Patterson stated that the proposal is acceptable; that the developer must consider what will work in the sales program. Commissioner Merrill stated that the developer is mandated to build 125 residential dwelling units; that once started, the building would be finished even if the developer went bankrupt after the building shell is built. Commissioner Patterson asked the result if the units are not built? Commissioner Merrill stated that the developer would be in violation of the contract. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City would not own the property and not have a lien on the property. I City Attorney Taylor stated that a consequence could be added; that the written restrictions could be terminated if Phase I is not completed within a certain period of time. Commissioner Patterson stated that the anticipation is the project will not fail; that an obligation exists to consider the consequences; that whoever inherits the land also inherits the view corridors. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a c/o will not be issued to an individual residential dwelling unit if the building is not wired, plumbed and completed. Commissioner Merrill stated that partial c/o's can be issued. Commissioner Patterson stated that the issue is a legal issue; that a single residential dwelling unit could be built in anticipation of the project's imminent failure solely for the purpose of implementing the written restrictions of the view corridors. Mayor Pillot stated that negotiating legal language at the Commission table is not preferred; that the developer and the City's legal representatives should negotiate an acceptable provision and return with a recommendation. Commissioner Patterson stated that the issue may be a non-issue; that if sO, her concern will be alleviated. Commissioner Merrill stated that the only question is the availability of partial c/o's. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Chief Building Official has informed him that individual residential dwelling units in a building are not issued a c/o. Commissioner Patterson stated that the language in the Implementation Agreement will have to be changed. Attorney Fournier stated that the language will have to be changed from "residential dwelling unit" to "building. - 1 On motion of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Implementation Agreement subject to the inclusion of an acceptable schedule or timetable for the developer to meet its obligations and the correction of the language from "residential dwelling unit" to "building. Motion died for lack of a second. Attorney Fournier stated that the developer is prepared to present a schedule for making the $1 million for general community improvements available. BOOK 43 Page 16458 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16459 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Attorney Tarkow stated that the funding will be completed either directly to the intended recipients or to the community foundation by way of an escrow agreement in cash or an irrevocable letter of credit not later than the time the developer is required to pull the first building permit, i.e., December 31, 1998. Mayor Pillot stated that the schedule is acceptable if agreeable to the City Attorney's Office. City Attorney Taylor stated that second readings are required on the proposed ordinances adopted earlier in the meeting; that he suggests language changes be made to the Implementation Agreement and returned to the Commission at the April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting. Attorney Tarkow stated that closing is scheduled on the property for April 30, 1998; that the Implementation Agreement is required for closing; that the stipulation will not be waived; and asked if enough time is available for adoption of the Implementation Agreement? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that a second reading is not required for the Implementation Agreement. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the amended Implementation Agreement will be brought back to the April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting along with second reading of the ordinances passed on first reading earlier in the meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a document with discussion of the pedestrian overpass bridge was distributed at a late hour prior to the meeting; and asked if discussion on the pedestrian overpass can be scheduled at the April 20, 1998, regular Commission meeting? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated yes. 27. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE LITIGATION - RESCHEDULED TO A SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 21, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. (AGENDA ITEM IX) #5 (1634) through (2220) Mayor Pillot stated that the time is now 11:30 p.m.i that a motion is necessary to extend the meeting if desired; that the City Attorney has been requested to estimate the length of the status report being presented by Attorney David Levin; that the status report would be followed by a minimum of 20 minutes of public speaking concerning the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement and Commission discussion; that the weight and importance of the matter as well as the lateness of the hour with the resulting fatigue preclude his voting on an issue of such significance; and asked the wishes of the Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that answers to a number of questions are desired; that her concerns are the lateness of the hour and the fact that the Commission voted to limit input on the issue and may now adjourn before hearing the speakers; that the status report could be presented so the Commission can consider the issues. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.. Mayor Pillot stated that his support is not offered to voting on a matter of such significance due to the anticipated fatigue level at 12:30 a.m.; that adjourning at this time after many people stayed would be unpleasant; that his support is offered to calling a special Commission meeting as soon as possible at which time the speakers' limitation would be removed and the entire meeting devoted to the issue of the Ringling Causeway Bridge, which will affect the City for the next half century; that apologies are offered those who stayed; that the length of time required for the Agenda item concerning the Renaissance of Sarasota project could not be predicted and was surprising; however, the time was not misused. Commissioner Merrill as the maker of the motion with the approval of Commissioner Cardamone as the seconder withdrew the motion. Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Dupree. On motion of Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to set a date for a special Commission meeting as soon as possible at an hour not to interfere with work schedules with a single Agenda item concerning the Ringling Causeway Bridge and to remove the limitation on the number of speakers, returning to the normal procedure of allowing public speakers three minutes and scheduling the status report prior to public input. Mayor Pillot stated that apologies are offered to Attorney Levin for rescheduling his status report. Commissioner Merrill stated that a number of speakers may not be City residents; that emphasis should be to given City residents; that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) only allows one minute to speak. On motion of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to allow three minutes speaking time for City residents and one minute speaking time for non-City residents. Motion died for lack of a second. BOOK 43 Page 16460 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16461 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that not taking up this Agenda Item is dismaying; that many people relied on the Commission's reaching a conclusion on the issue and are in the audience to hear the status report; that her support continues to be offered to the idea of having two people speak on each side of the issue; that the issue of the Ringling Causeway Bridge has been discussed for five years; that everything has been heard; that no compelling new evidence will be presented; that her support will be given to a special Commission meeting; however, the time should be spent with the Attorney engaged by the City; that the Attorney has a great deal of information to present to the Commission; that the Commission has many questions for the Attorney; that a limitation to two public speakers per side should be established for the special Commission meeting; that a discussion on limiting speakers would be appreciated prior to a vote on the motion on the table; that no willingness exists to spend an additional 10 hours in debate. Mayor Pillot agreed; but stated that his proposal to remove the speaking limitation was intended as a partial apology to the people who attended this Commission meeting to speak. Commissioner Cardamone stated that many people may have come to listen to the status report rather than to speak as only four people would have been allowed to speak under the modified rules. Commissioner Patterson stated that the apology is in order, which is the reason for her support; however, such a great deal of public input has previously been received that the outcome will probably not change; that her original position has not changed whether or not her vote is to pursue the lawsuit; that the issue is very divisive and very subjective; that the Commission will never know if the City's image of itself has been reflected without the voters' referendum proposed and twice rejected; that her own determination will be made absent support for a referendum; that a referendum is necessary to assure public support in the Euture when either the traffic is tied up due to a bridge malfunction or the Bay is overshadowed by a high bridge; that a referendum would assure the Commission is reflective of the popular image of the correct sacrifice for the City. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion is to set a special Commission meeting with a single subject of thé Ringling Causeway Bridge at the earliest possible date at a time to be as convenient to the public as possible and to remove the restriction on the number of speakers; that speakers on both sides of the issue could be requested to eliminate redundant, repetitive comments; that the motion is intended as a partial apology. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her affirmative vote is reluctantly given. Vice Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously: (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Vice Mayor Dupree passed the gavel to Mayor Pillot. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to extend the meeting to set a date for the special Commission meeting and to receive Citizens' Input. Motion carried unanimously: (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that after discussion, a consensus has been reached to hold a special Commission meeting for the status report on the Ringling Causeway Bridge on Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at 6:00 p.m.; that the status report will be presented, followed by public speakers and Commission discussion and possible action; and asked the meeting be widely publicized. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an effort will also be made to televise the meeting. 28. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM XII) #5 (2356) through (2775) Arthur L. Tepper, 27 Fletcher Avenue (34237), representing the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation, stated that the Commission is being approached in a spirit of good faith; that the purpose of his speaking is to serve oral notice, particularly to the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk, that his services have been retained by the Sarasota Alliance for Historical Preservation, a non-profit organization to consider the ramifications of the March 25, 1998, special Commission meeting at which time the subject of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) was discussed; that notice had been given of a Commission meeting on March 25, 1998; however, the issue of demolition of the JRT was not on the agenda and not included in the notice, which is required by the Government in the Sunshine Law (Sunshine Law) of Florida Statutes; that the business before the Commission was disposed of rapidly; that without proper notice, the issue of the demolition of the JRT was considered; that a demolition permit was issued within one day following the meeting; that several days thereafter, also in violation of law, an undated certificate was issued by the Manager, Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, indicating the JRT was unsafe and a hazard to health; that his client has authorized his reporting to the Commission in good faith that papers will be served on April 7 or 8, 1998, seeking injunctive and declaratory, relief against the City and seeking to invalidate the demolition permit to force compliance with the City's historic preservation ordinance and BOOK 43 Page 16462 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. BOOK 43 Page 16463 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. the State's Sunshine Law; that his attendance is not for the purpose of intimidating anyone; that the question of a Sunshine Law violation is taken seriously; that the penalties can involve civil fines and second-degree misdemeanor criminal violations if public officials are found to have violated the Sunshine Law as is anticipated to be shown; that the question is if any alternatives are available so the lawsuit is unnecessary; that the lawsuit will be brought to have the demolition permit rescinded if alternatives are not identified; that a meeting to revisit the issue of the demolition of the JRT is desired; that the demolition of the JRT should be stopped for at least the 45- day period required by Section 15.31, Demolition stay - Florida Master Site File structures, of the Zoning Code; that the 45 days : is from the time an application is filed for demolition until the issuance of a demolition permit; that the 45-day period is particularly critical as the JRT is on the Florida Master Site File list and is specifically protected; that the request is for a moratorium to avoid litigation; that the voices of those in opposition should be heard. Mayor Pillot asked if comment is appropriate. City Attorney Taylor stated not at this time. Commissioner Cardamone asked for additional information about the client. Mr. Tepper stated that his client is the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation, a Sarasota-based, not-for-profit organization, with a mission statement of seeking the preservation of historical sites in Sarasota County. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City and City Officials are being charged with a violation of the Sunshine Law? Mr. Tepper stated that is correct. Mayor Pillot stated that his position was in opposition to the issuance of the demolition permit for the JRT; that his position has been and remains consistent; however, his support would not be offered to a moratorium; that his opinion is the City and City Officials did not violate the Sunshine Law; that his preference is to preserve the JRT; however, his fellow Commissioners are supported in not asking the Administration for'a a moratorium. Kafi Benz, Box 1669, Tallavast (34270), stated that the Commission has discussed expansion of the Historic Preservation Board; that discussion in the Community is also desired; that certain board member qualification standards must be maintained to assure designation as a Certified Local Government (CLG) Historic Preservation Board; that expansion to include people active in the historic preservation community is suggested. Mayor Pillot stated that the membership of the Historic Preservation Board is being reviewed. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Ms. Benz is a member of the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation? Ms. Benz stated no; that she was previously a member, was on the Board of Directors for approximately 10 years, and was a member of the Alliance's JRT Task Force. Paul Thorpe, 1818 Main Street (34236), Executive Director of the Downtown Association, stated that the Zenith National Insurance Corporation has officially designated Sarasota as its Southeast Regional Headquarters; that a public celebration attended by approximately 600 people was held at Five Points Park; that banners saying "The Zenith" were unfurled on the former Riscorp building in downtown. 29. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XV) #5 (2775) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the regular meeting of April 6, 1998, at 11:54 p.m. 1 C PU : STA GÉNE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: Bil E Rele BILLY ECREBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 43 Page 16464 04/06/98 3:00 P.M. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLEI NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson Nora Sarasota City Commi ssion MAILING. ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON 707 Freeling Drive WHICHIS SERVE IS A UNIT OF: B CITY D COUNTY D OTHERI LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City. of Sarasota DATE ON WHICHVOTE OCCURRED MYF POSITION IS: April 6, 1998 R ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or Committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112-3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. Thei form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CE FORME 8B 10-86 PAGE 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO NFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: Yous should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on April 6, 1998 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain, or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Agenda Item III-1, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Termination Agreement between the City of Sarasota, Main Street Depot, Inc., and Great American Concessions, Inc., Sarasota Bank, and Mertz Enterprises of Sarasota, Inc., for the buyout of the Main Street Depot lease in the amount of $171,000. My husband' S law firm represents the owner of the property. April 20, 1998 Phoue Blson Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 8112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CEF FORM 8B 10-86 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC LASTI NAME-FIRSTI NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THEE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON 707 Freeling Drive WHICHI SERVE IS A UNIT OF: B CITY D COUNTY D OTHERI LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICHVOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: April 6, 1998 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or Committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use iti in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112-3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of aj principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. Ap person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict ofi interest. CE FORM 8B. 10-86 PAGE 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: Yous should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes oft the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on April 6, 1998 (a). A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain, or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Agenda Item III-2, Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1066, appropriating $171,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to fund the buyout of the Main Street Depot Lease in accordance with the Termination Agreement; etc. My husband', S law firm represents the owner of the property. April 20, 1998 Hoe Alnen Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 8112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE 2