MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone, and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order AT 6:05 P.M. in accordance with Article III, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Sarasota. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY #1 (0000) thru (0060) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Order of the Day: 1. Add under Board Appointments, Item No. IX-1, Appointment of Commissioners to serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Committee. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1993; THE STATUTORY CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1993; THE STATUTORY CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 12, 1993; THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 15, 1993; THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1993 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1) #1 (0060) thru (0075) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins,it was moved to approve the minutes of all five of the Commission meetings as indicated. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9208 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9209 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. 3. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1993 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1993 CODE AMENDMENT RE HOUSES OF WORSHIP IN COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE DISTRICTS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; PETITION NO. 93-SE-06 APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS) : ORDINANCE NO. 92-3624 PRESENTATION BY LARRY RABINOWITZ REQUESTED TO TAKE PLACE AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING PETITION NO. 92-SV-03 SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS - = SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON DATE TO BE DETERMINED; PLANNING BOARD REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0060) thru (0690) Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, Berta Lefkovich, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman, and Ron Annis Planning Board/Local Planning Agency Vice Chairman, came to the Commission table. Ms. Lefkovich presented the following items from the Planning Board's Regular Meeting of March 3, 1993, and Special Meeting of March 10, 1993: A. Code Amendment - Houses of Worship in Commercial Shopping Center Zone Districts Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed code amendment to permit houses of worship in all commercial shopping center zone districts and that it be set for public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he supports the Planning Board's recommendation to set this matter for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set this matter for public hearing. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Petition No. 93-SE-06 Permit request for drive-thru banking facility at Sarasota Bank at 1234 North Palm Avenue Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board recommended that the Commission approve Petition No. 93-SE-06 with the following stipulations: That the application satisfy the Public Art requirement prior to issuance of a building permit; that all Code requirements with regard to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), etc., be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit; and conditioning the site plan layout to the resolution. Mr. Sollenberger recommended approval of the Planning Boards' recommendation. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Petition No. 93-SE-06 with the stipulations of the Planning Board. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. C. Ordinance No. 92-3624 Tree Protection Ordinance Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board recommends to the City Commission that Larry Rabinowitz give the City Commission a presentation pertinent to the ordinance and that a professional consultant be hired. Mr. Annis stated that the current ordinance is inadequate in regard to the preservation of existing landscape and trees on sites being developed; that development in itself offers the exemption to remove almost anything; that the current ordinance is perhaps more restrictive than is being considered with regard to individual homeowners and probably should be less restrictive. Mr. Annis stated that it became apparent with the presentations of Mr. Rabinowitz and Mr. Reasoner that the present ordinance has many shortcomings; that the general consensus of varying views is that many technical areas need to be addressed as well as some conceptual areas; that the drafted ordinance is too narrow and focused; that it would be beneficial to incorporate preservation of certain exotic species; that the proposed ordinance should be handled more technically; and that the ordinance needs help from someone with a good botanical background. Mr. Annis continued that the Planning Board has tried to mold the ordinance in a less restrictive manner with regard to homeowners without wholly exempting them; that the ordinance would intend to have greater impact in terms of development; that the question is not so much with regard to the concept of the ordinance, but rather with the specific types of trees and their botanical natures, the sizes and point system of the trees, and the manner in which they grow in this area. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like for the Commission to receive a presentation by Mr. Rabinowitz prior to hiring a consultant and organizing an ad hoc committee. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to request a presentation by Mr. Rabinowitz Book 35 Page 9210 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9211 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. and Mr. Reasoner at the Regular Commission meeting of April 19, 1993, and to take action subsequent to the presentation. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. D. Petition No. 92-SV-03 -= Request for vacation of a portion of 16th Street, lying approximately 200 feet east of Orange Avenue and extending to Goodrich Avenue Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board recommended approval of Petition No. 92-SV-03 subject to the following stipulations: A The petitioner dedicating the necessary utility easements; the petitioner constructing a public access turn-round at the west end of the proposed vacated right-of-way designed and constructed per City Code; and that the petitioner remove the encroachments within the area where the access turn-around is to be constructed. Mr. Sollenberger recommended that this matter be set for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petition No. 92-SV-03 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is growing increasingly uneasy with the pattern of vacating parts of streets throughout the City; that the public may have to pay to retrieve these streets for some unforeseeable purpose in the future; and that she has voiced this concern in the past. Motion carried (5 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. E. John Ringling Towers Zoning Code Amendment - Incentives for the preservation of historic hotels Ms. Lefkovich stated that, in an effort to save the Towers, the City of Sarasota has met with the owner, First Sunset Development Corporation and the John Ringling Center Foundation; that the goal is to achieve a solution which will result in preservation and restoration of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) and the adjacent Bickel House. Ms. Lefkovich continued that the Planning Board recommends that the City Commission adopt Zoning Code Proposed Amendments, Sections 15-24 and 15-29, with changes summarized by staff as: The proposed amendment would not allow an increase in the density but would allow an increase in the height, which would mean that for the JRT an increase in height from 75 to 180 feet for any new residential structures. On the JRT site, this increase in height would allow Huntington Bank to fully utilize the existing density they have on a portion of their eleven (11) acre site and in exchange the bank would "give" the JRT and two (2) acres to the JRT Center Foundation who plans to restore the JRT. The Planning Board voted on March 10, 1993, to recommend that the height limit be increased from 75 to 180 feet provided the density is limited to the density of multi-family units. In the case of the JRT this means a limit of 25 units per acre. In addition, the Planning Board wants to guarantee the restoration of the JRT by either requiring the restoration of the JRT or that money sufficient to restore the JRT be placed in escrow before any concession for height is permitted. Without this amendment, the JRT site could still be developed at 50 units per acre in buildings 75 feet high. Mr. Sollenberger recommended that this matter be set for public hearing; that there appears to be a conflict on the proposed hearing date of April 26, 1993. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he would propose an alternative date for the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set the proposed ordinance for public hearing with the date to be determined. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the Planning Board report. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9212 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9213 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION. BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1993 JOHN RINGLING TOWERS, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM III-2-A) #1 (0690) thru (0900) Jane Robinson, Planning & Development Director, and Mr. Bill Merrill, Historic Preservation Board Acting Chairman, came to the Commission table. A. John Ringling Towers, Zoning Code Amendment Incentives for the preservation of historic hotels Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) discussed the John Ringling Tower (JRT) Code amendments; that a number of concerns and revisions were considered; that after thorough discussion the HPB recommended its approval as revised; that, however, their recommendation is not the same as has just been presented by the Planning Board. Mr. Merrill stated that the primary differences in the HPB proposed Zoning Code amendment and that of the Planning Board's, are: That the Planning Board is limiting the height only to a multi-family structure as opposed to any of the residential buildings; and that the Planning Board is requiring that the historic structure be renovated prior to any construction on site for the remaining residential units, or money to be placed in escrow; and that the HPB does not arrive at the same conclusion; that the HPB agreed with the proposed amendment as it was originally written by staff, along with their additional revisions; that that original amendment allowed for the construction to proceed; and that paragraph three (3) was removed stating that, ".. ..no building permit for construction of new hotel structures shall be issued until the HPB has issued a certificate of approval for its construction." City Attorney Taylor stated that he and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson recommend that the Commission structure the public hearing process for this matter in order to maintain the flexibility to consider all of the positions taken in this matter. There was a consensus of the Commission of agreement with City Attorney Taylor's proposal to maintain a flexible public hearing structure in order to consider all positions on this matter. Mr. Merrill requested that the HPB be notified of the date set for the public hearing. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1, ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS III-A-1, -2, -3, 4, -5, AND -6) #1 (0900) thru (0920) 1. Approval Re: Revised Budget Calendar 2. Approval Re: Request to appeal to the Circuit Court for exemption from ad valorem tax for Ed Smith Sports Stadium 3. Approval Re: Memorandum of Understanding between Sarasota County Government, the Sarasota County School District and the City of Sarasota for shared video/audio production services - Department of Public Safety Captain Pillifant 4. Approval Re: Annual Reports of City Boards - Planning and Development Director Robinson 5. Approval Re: Right-of-way adjoining Senior Friendship Center leasehold - City Engineer Daughters 6. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3675, pertaining to Major Collector Streets, Revision to Section 30-54, Sarasota City Code City Engineer Daughters On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 in its entirety. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2, ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-646) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-647) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-648) = ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-649) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-650) = ADOPTED; ITEM NO 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3603) - ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3677) - FAILED; AND ITEM 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3681) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEMS III-B-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7 AND -8) #1 (0920) thru (1100) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Item No. 7 be pulled for discussion. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-646, appropriating $8,091.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Book 35 Page 9214 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9215 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Trust Fund (forfeitures) to fund the purchase of 29 ballistic vests - Police Chief Jolly 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-647, appropriating $8,000.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to fund the Bethesda Outreach Ministries 1993 Youth Explosion on May 31, 1993 = Public Safety Director Lewis 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-648, appropriating $5,873.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to fund the purchase of 4 mobile radios to be mounted on our motorcycles Police Chief Jolly 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-649, amending Resolution No. 87R-44 adopted by the City Commission on May 18, 1987 which established a Voluntary Deferred Compensation Program administered by the International City Manager's Association for employees, department heads and certain charter officials; to include duly elected members of the City Commission; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-650, amending Resolution No. 87R-45 adopted by the City Commission on May 18, 1987 which established a Voluntary Deferred Compensation Program administered by the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company for employees, department heads and certain charter officials; to include duly elected members of the City Commission; etc (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3603, amending Article V of the Zoning Code pertaining to the Concurrency Management Regulations by establishing a method to evaluate concurrency as to transportation for vacant structures, as set forth herein; setting forth requirements for structures which are demolished; making findings as to need; defining terms; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) 8. Adoption Re: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3681, providing for the designation of a historic district to be known as the "Sarasota/Hillviewy Art Colony" pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; said district to be located south of Hillview Street, east of Orange Avenue, north of Hyde Park Street, and west of Osprey Avenue; said district being comprised of the five structures located at 1656 and 1666 Hillview Street, as more particularly described herein; providing for the classification of the structures within said district as contributing or noncontributing; setting forth criteria for the review of new construction within said district; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 93-HDD-1, Mikki Hartig) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 6, and No. 8. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 6 and No. 8. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. Adoption Re: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3677, amending Article VIII, Division 22, of the Zoning Code pertaining to the theater and arts district (TAD); amending the minimum off-street parking require- ments for offices of architects, professional engineers, landscape architects, and planners as set forth herein; setting forth findings as to intent and purpose; pro- viding for the severability of the parts hereof; repeal- ing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she wishes to vote against Item No. 7; that this sets up the offices of architects, engineers, landscape architects and planners within the Theater and Arts District that are 3,000 square feet or under as totally exempt from parking requirements; that these are offices like any other and do not particularly add to the ambiance of the district; and that she feels that this is an error. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3677. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of (Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) Mayor Pillot, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 93-3677. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 93R-651, PERTAINING TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION 92-SE-07 TO ALLOW VARIOUS MARINE ORIENTED USES WITHIN THE BASIN ADJACENT TO THE SARASOTA OUAY AND HYATT HOTEL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; APPROVING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXCEPT FOR A DINNER BOAT WHICH IS DENIED; MODIFYING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REINSTATE A SCUBA EXCURSION BOAT OPERATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE Book 35 Page 9216 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9217. 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. TO THE HYATT HOTEL; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO SARASOTA OUAY, THE HYATT HOTEL, AND LESSEES: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (1100) thru (1720) City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed resolution has been revised regarding to the private matters between the commercial interests of the Hyatt Hotel and the Sarasota Quay versus the interests of the condominium residents across the basin; that it is his understanding that, through negotiations between those competing interests, the parties are in agreement on the policing of activities, including the complaint and enforcement process; that the resolution provides for the City Commission granting a special exception for the specific uses enumerated therein at the specific locations delineated in the documentation; and that, basically, the conditions enforced by the City relating to this particular special exception is specifically to ensure that parking is provided as required before those uses begin operation, other than the Hyatt dive boat, which is already in operation; and that certain special exceptions granted within the basin relating to Donzi Marine, in connection with the Sarasota Quay and a charter boat known as the Xanadu, are withdrawn. Attorney Taylor continued that the document states that all other matters are private between the parties involved and will be enforced between them. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the rules are somewhat unavoidably vague such as ". . .no loud noises of any type"; that this can be a matter of interpretation and sometimes difficult to stop; that she is concerned with the City's responsibility to enforce this rule if the residents deem the Quay's enforcement of such rules a failure; and asked how this could work. Attorney Taylor stated that Section 11 of the resolution provides that the rules and regulations agreed between The Quay and the residents' associations are not the obligation of the City; that the administration of the City felt it inappropriate for the City to be responsible for enforcing the minute details of the regulations agreed upon between the parties; and that the City would not respond to a complaint in violation of those particular rules. Attorney Taylor continued that the parking lot cannot be sold by the owner; that such transaction would be prohibited since it is directly tied to the approved uses. Mr. John Brown, Attorney, with the firm of Brown, Clark and Walters; and Paul Strader, Management Professional for The Quay, came to the Commission table. Mr. Brown stated that it is felt that the enforcement mechanism would adequately address the problem because the major issues determined for potential problems need to be remedied immediately; that it was agreed upon that that mechanism would be used to cure those immediate problems; that The Quay has an interest in maintaining a degree of professionalism in the operation of The Quay; and that they would diligently enforce the rules to such a degree that repeat problems would not exist. Attorney Taylor stated that, in addition to the enforcement mechanism, these issues are lease conditional in order that a continuing violation provides a mechanism for terminating the lease, and the offender having to leave the dock area. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Proposed Resolution No. 93R-651. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 93R-651 by title only. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her husband, as an attorney, represents the water taxi currently located at The Quay; that this ordinance is not particular to that water taxi and asked if it is acceptable for her to vote on this matter. Attorney Taylor stated that it is acceptable for Vice Mayor Patterson to vote on this matter. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (1720) thru (1900) Mr. Stephen Long, 1914 Oak Street, came to the Commission table and stated that he wishes to speak about noise disturbances in his neighborhood; that he feels there is a situation that is quite common in Sarasota's older neighborhoods where there are apartments managed by absentee landlords; that there is a particular property that has had numerous noise disturbance complaints filed with the police department; that the landlords' desire to collect rent overrides his desire to evict tenants. Mr. Long continued that he is asking the Commission to consider an ordinance designed to enforce the rights of neighbors for tenants not to disturb their lifestyle with noise, drinking, and violent types of behavior; that he is asking that the City pressure landlords to evict someone who is disruptive to neighbors. City Manager Sollenberger requested that this matter be referred to administration for an alternative approach in resolving this Book 35 Page 9218 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9219 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. matter; that the administration will report back to the Commission regarding any action taken. 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 be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 92-3548, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 2, OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RSF-3 ZONE DISTRICT:; REDUCING THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RSF-3 ZONE DISTRICT WHEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED AT THE REDUCED LOT WIDTH: AMENDING ARTICLE II, ZONING CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ÇOMMISSION TO GRANT VARIANCES TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FROM SEVENTY FEET TO FIFTY FEET AS SET FORTH HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1900) thru (2070) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came to the Commission table and stated that this study evolved through the City's Work Plan and Comprehensive Plan; that it basically allows the infill of small lots to be developed in areas of town that are already developed in a small lot pattern; that the Planning Board worked diligently and thoroughly on this plan for nearly two years. Ms. Robinson continued that the areas eligible for this provision are basically in the north area of town because that is the oldest area of town; that if there are areas in a block where less than 50% of the lots are developed with a 50 feet width, the recommendation of the Planning Board would be that this matter be brought to the City Commission for a variance, and that the neighbors need the opportunity to be involved in a public hearing process; that this would be recommended for review by the Commission as a variance procedure rather than a special exception which relates only to use. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 92-3548 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that administration's recommendation is to approve Ordinance No. 92-3548. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 92-3648 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3671, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-5 ZONE DISTRICT TO CRT ZONE DISTRICT ON REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 1 THROUGH 7 INCLUSIVE, SUB OF LOT 9, BLOCK Z, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 204, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND LOTS 8 THROUGH 10, BLOCK Z, PLAT OF SARASOTA AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 257, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; ALSO KNOW AS 1576 8TH STREET: AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION 93-CO-01, DEVITO) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2070) thru (2300) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came to the Commission table and stated that this is a proposal to allow an adult congregate living facility of 54 units; that the Planning Staff and Planning Board both recommend approval of this petition. Petitioner, Joseph A. DeVito, Attorney, representing St. Martha's Housing, II, Inc., and representing St. Martha's Housing, Inc., came to the Commission table. Mr. DeVito stated that the overall site plan of the existing project shows the zoning changes necessary due to a number of reasons such as the economies of scale for Housing and Urban Development (HUD); that the church sponsored application was successful in resulting in an award from HUD for an additional $2.5 million dollars to add 52 units on the adjoining site; that requesting a zoning change to CRT which would allow 35 units per acre density will maximize the grant. Mr. DeVito continued that this request is to subdivide the property which would result in a change in density; and that the zoning change for the entire parcel will maximize the acreage and the density so that each separate corporation will own the two parcels. Mr. DeVito stated further that there is no question as to the purpose of the project; that an additional 52 units will be added Book 35 Page 9220 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9221 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. to the existing housing project; that this is being provided for lower and middle income and handicapped individuals. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3671 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger recommend approval of this ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3671 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3676, GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION FOR THE FILING OF A FINAL SITE & DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE OBTAINING OF A BUILDING PERMIT PERTAINING TO PETITION 90-V FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR; PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-4 TO WFR-B ZONE DISTRICT, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THAT PARCEL OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL OPPOSITE 13TH, 14TH AND 15TH STREETS WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1201 AND 1301 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF PETITION 90-V: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 90-CO-04, SABA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2300) thru (2845) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came to the Commission table and stated that this is the third request made by the Petitioner; that the request is based on their speculation to add a conference facility to this hotel; that more time is needed to negotiate that proposal. Mr. Charles Gethler, Petitioner, came to the Commission table and stated that this is the first request for a routine administrative extension for one year of the approved preliminary site plan; that the reason for the extension is due to discussions with County and City administrations regarding the possibility of constructing a convention center on the site; that an ad hoc committee for the Convention Center task force was formed; that the binding of letter of interpretation created a delay until May. City Attorney Taylor stated that the condition placed on the pulling of the building permit which would have tolled the running of the time on the site and development plan approval was a condition that could not take place unless and until the binding letter was issued; that, therefore, the building permit could not be pulled in order to toll the running of the time; that granting the approval at that point was not sensible because there was no way that the building permit could be pulled; that that was a condition precedent to their being able to save the site plan; that it appears that due diligence has taken place on the part of the property owner. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. Mr. Philip H. Des Marais, 1100 Imperial Drive, representing. Bay's Bluff Condominium residents, came to the Commission table and stated that he is the treasurer of the Bay's Bluff Condominium Association Board; that two years ago when this ordinance was proposed many residents discussed it and there are some people who still adamantly oppose it; that with the help of previous Commissioner Kerry Kirschner, it was thought that a good ordinance was adopted; that there is concern whether or not the 19 conditions attached to the ordinance at that time will still be in place. City Manager Sollenberger stated that that is correct; that this matter is simply an extension of that which has already been granted; and that there are no changes whatsoever. Mr. Des Marais continued that there appears to be a technicality in the notice received regarding tonight's meeting; that the description of the parcel of land reads, "...that parcel of land... .opposite 13th, 14th and 15th streets..."; that it is quite clear that the parcel of land approved for this project does not face on 15th Street; that it actually ends at 14th Street. Mr. Des Marais stated that with respect to the diagram on the back of the notice that he received, the property line between the Gethler property and their property shows a rectangle that was deeded to Bay's Bluff residents at the time of the negotiations two years ago; and that he just wished to make note of that. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the 1990 ordinance that granted the rezoning, long before Franklin Manor was purchased, contained the same wording as this proposed ordinance. city Attorney Taylor stated that the detailed legal description can be researched to verify the correctness of the submitted description. Mayor Pillot asked if it would be correct to say that, the present proposal could not include any property that is not currently owned Book 35 Page 9222 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9223 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. by the petitioner; that the petitioner clearly does not own Franklin Manor or the carpet company; and that the contemplation would be only to the property owned by the petitioner. Mr. Taylor agreed. There was no one else to speak and the public hearing was Closed. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3676 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger recommended approval of the extension and stated that this is a customary procedure in such cases. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3676 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3678, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 2, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND DIVISION 3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RMF) OF THE ZONING CODE; DELETING FROM THE RSF-4 AND RMF DISTRICTS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THEREIN FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND INSTITUTIONAL USES: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH AMENDMENTS (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (2845) thru #2 (0320) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came to the Commission table and stated that this proposal was a useful tool when the zoning code was new in 1974; that it basically serves as a parking pressure relief valve; that it was designed to accommodate those areas in the City that were already developed but had no available parking; that for several years the central business district had no parking requirement. Ms. Robinson continued that this provision becomes a problem in the eastern and southern areas of downtown such as Tuttle Avenue and the hospital core area; that it is taken into consideration that a parking lot is not a residential use; and that the approach would be to review the areas considered for expansion through the planning process and, if appropriate, to rezone the property; that she has two amendments to the administration's recommendation: To exempt the requirement for multi-family zone property directly contiguous to the CDB zone without an intervening street; to allow pending applicants and all others who would apply for this special exception prior to second reading and review those special exceptions based on the current review process. Commissioner Merrill asked Ms. Robinson to check on the matter of tax assessments when a special exception for a parking lot is granted. Mayor Pillot asked if this removes from the Commissions' option the opportunity to grant a special exception for parking. Ms. Robinson stated that this is in connection to "nearby" office or commercial use; that the concern of late has been an owner wishing to have a parking lot several blocks south and across U.S. 41 from the principal use; that due to the word, "nearby" that may be allowable. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees with reference to residential single family lots; that she does not with multi-family lots in the downtown area where zoning areas are mixed and large portions of the land are devoted to parking lot uses any way; and that the Commission can grant a rezoning almost as easily as a special exception and the Commission's flexibility still exists. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she feels there are too many unknowns in the residential multi-family district to accept this without hesitancy; and that multi-family districts contiguous to CDBG zoning is perhaps a responsible compromise. Vice Mayor Patterson stated further that she is also concerned about the property on St. Armands that the commercial owners are currently parking cars on; that they are being considered for purchase to solve some of the present parking difficulties on St. Armands; and that the multi-family part of this proposed ordinance concerns her. Mr. Peter Dailey and Mr. George Eissler, 1226 Fruitville Road, representing Dailey Design Group, came to the Commission table. Mr. Dailey stated that they support Ms. Robinson's statement regarding the allowance of petitions that are in process to be reviewed under the old ordinance; that they are representing two groups that have property near the hospital core that wish to have parking, in support of medical office complexes; that one petition has been filed and the other will be filed tomorrow; that they wish Book 35 Page 9224 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9225 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. to ask that those two petitions be allowed to proceed under the old ordinance. Mr. Dailey continued that the two specific areas are located are at Dr. Silverstein's office on Prospect Street and Dr. Kaufman's office on Arlington Street; that the Commission has reviewed Dr. Silverstein's petition but has not reviewed Dr. Kaufman's petition. Mr. Eissler stated that the requests in these petitions are for a rezoning for an RSF-4 with a special exception for parking; that Dr. Silverstein will stipulate in the rezoning efforts the landscape as shown in the diagram in order to mitigate any residential neighborhood impacts; that a vacation will also be requested to enable a green space exclusive of parking in order to enhance the RSF district; and that the traffic impact will also be minimized with this development. Mayor Pillot asked if the speakers' requests fall outside of this new ordinance due to one petition having already been filed and the second one to be filed tomorrow. City Attorney Taylor stated that any petition filed prior to an effective date of an ordinance, unless specifically provided for otherwise, would be processed through the system under the old ordinance; and would be reviewed under existing rules. Mr. Dailey stated that his concern would be the terminology of a completed application; that in both cases there is no completed traffic study; and that the results may not be completed prior to the April 15, 1993, meeting. Mr. Taylor stated that the traffic study is part of the processi that the completed traffic study cannot be tendered at the time of filing; that completion of the application through the traffic study is part of the process and cannot be expected to be complete at the time the application is filed and that this should not be a problem. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Taylor if the petitioners have filed both applications prior to April 19, 1993, their petition process will be considered under the existing rules rather than the new ordinance. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she understands the property is in an IMA; that the Commission is being asked to specifically exempt those petitions that are in process; that she is uncertain about these particular petitions; that she would prefer that the Commission be certain that if these petitions are exempted by the Commission that the Commission will not be applying an automatic upzoning or granting a special exception for parking. Mr. Taylor stated that petitions should clearly state whether the application was made prior to the effective date of this proposed ordinance. Mayor Pillot summarized that, absent language in the ordinance, these petitioners, or others already in progress, are assured, without any guarantees of the outcome of the vote on their requests, that their requests will be considered under existing regulations and not new ones. Mr. Steve Long, 1914 Oak Street, came to the Commission table and stated that Ms. Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, has addressed his problem. There was no one else to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3678 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3678 as stated by Planning Director Robinson, and so amended, which would exempt the multi-family adjacent to the CDBG zone, and allow pending applicants. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3678 on first reading, with amendments exempting the multi-family RMF zone adjacent to the CDBD zone; and allow exemption for pending applications. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3679, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 22, OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE THEATER AND ARTS DISTRICT (TAD): DELETING THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO OPERATE AN OPEN AIR FACILITY WITHIN THE TAD: PROVIDING THAT OPEN AIR FACILITIES SHALL BE A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE IN THE TAD; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #2 (0320) thru (0385) Ms. Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, came to the Commission table and stated that this amendment is to delete the special exception requirement for open air facilities in the TAD zone district; that staff feels that an acceptable amount of control will remain because there are criteria controlling Book 35 Page 9226 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9227 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. buffering and seating, etc.; that, the TAD area south of Third Street contains very little residential properties; and that there should be no problem with outdoor eating activities. Ms. Robinson continued that an area north of Third Street that is eligible for designation as a TAD area would require a site review process through public hearing; and that the staff recommendation is to provide easier approvals for open air dining in the TAD district. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3679 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger recommend passage of the proposed ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3679 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 93-3680, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 12, OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE COMMERCIAL, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (C-CBD); DELETING THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO OPERATE AN OPEN AIR DINING FACILITY UPON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE C-CBD ZONE: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #2 (0385) thru (0430) Ms. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came to the Commission table and stated that this is another step creating slight hesitation in the process for allowing open air facilities; that this is a requirement that open air facilities in the C-CBD zone district obtain approval from the Planning Department and subsequently the Zoning Department; that possibly the Planning Department step can be eliminated. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3680 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger recommended adoption of this ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3680 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3688, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA AS PETITIONED BY RONALD H. MARVIN AND GLORIA A. MARVIN; SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND WITH FRONTAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET LYING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BEE RIDGE ROAD JUST EAST OF SCHOOL AVENUE; SAID PARCEL IS KNOWN AS THE SPARKLE CAR WASH WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 2215 BEE RIDGE ROAD: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCLUDE SAID REAL PROPERTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-ANNEX-02, MARVIN) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-7) #2 (0430) thru (0500) Mr. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, came to the Commission table and stated that the owners, Ronald an Gloria Marvin, have a pre-annexation agreement with the City which was signed on January 14, 1991; that the owners are currently receiving sewer and water through a service agreement; that this ordinance is to annex this property into the City. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3688 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger recommended the passage of this ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3688 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9228 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. BQok 35 Page 9229 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. 16. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3689, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA AS PETITIONED BY RICK ROCKAFELLOW FOR YORKRIDGE PROPERTIES, INC.. SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND WITH FRONTAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET LYING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BEE RIDGE ROAD JUST EAST OF SCHOOL AVENUE; SAID PARCEL IS KNOWN AS THE CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 2239 BEE RIDGE ROAD: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: MAKING FINDINGS; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCLUDE SAID REAL PROPERTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-ANNEX-03, ROCKAFELLOW, /DEMPSEY) - = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-8) #2 (0496) thru (0555) Mr. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, came to the Commission table and stated that the pre-annexation agreement with the applicants was signed on June 2, 1992; and that the petitioners are currently receiving sewer and water. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was Closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3689 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger recommended adoption of this ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3689 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 17. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3690, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA AS PETITIONED BY MARK SCOTT SCIME FOR CHARLES GAMSON AND SUSAN GAMSON, SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOODRICH AVENUE AND MYRTLE STREET, A WITH STREET FRONTAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MYRTLE STREET OF APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET; SAID PARÇEL IS KNOWN AS THE SCRAP-ALL RECYCLING CENTER; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS: REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCLUDE SAID REAL PROPERTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-ANNEX-04 GAMSON) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-9) #2 (0555) thru (0700) Mr. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, came to the Commission table and stated that this property has a pre-annexation agreement with the City signed on May 14, 1992; that it is currently receiving water and sewer services. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3690 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger recommended passage of this ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3690 on first reading. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission chambers at 7:50 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there are some properties contiguous to the City boundaries that have been receiving water and sewer service for some years in the Bay Road area; that the Commission had requested administration to propose a policy and deadline for requiring annexation into the City if the water and sewer continued to be provided; and that she would like a response regarding this matter. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Mr. Molnar has been working on this project; that the administration will report to the Commission subsequent to conferring with the City attorney's office as to the status of this matter. 18. CITIZENS' INPUT ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION REGARDING WATER SPORT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AT BIRD KEY PARK (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0700) thru (0995) Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission chambers at 7:55 p.mo Ms. Laurel Robertson, 2317 Sunnyside Place, representing Island Style Wind and Watersports, came to the Commission table and stated that she has already spoken with several Commissioners regarding her proposal; that she has been teaching windsurfing in Sarasota since 1980; that she now operates her own business. Book 35 Page 9230 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9231 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Ms. Robertson continued that most of her teaching takes place at the park on John Ringling Causeway, known as Bird Key Park; that, although it is not allowable to collect money for lessons or rentals in the public park, it has become an accepted practice; that she would like to see it changed to an acceptable and legal practice. Ms. Robertson stated further that she has been variously advised on the necessary procedures for permitting such activity; that she is only proposing to continue what she has been doing for the past five years without any difference or greater impact; that the only difference would be the Commission's approval and acceptance. Ms. Robertson also stated that she does not understand why she must send her customers to a store on St. Armands Circle to collect the fee for her lessons in order to avoid collecting money in a public park. Ms. Robertson stated she would have no more than a dozen boards at any given time, and perhaps a couple of kayaks; that this activity will be no different from past activities; and that she would like to have the Commission's support. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports Ms. Robertson's proposal; that it adds color to the causeway and creates interest; and that he sees no harm in the transactions taking place there. Vice Mayor Patterson stated her only concern is the possibility of an increased number of concession type windsurfing services; that, however, the sails add color and delight to residents or passers by; that this matter needs to be addressed with some reason; and that special exceptions or special use permits would probably be more appropriate in order for the City to maintain greater control; that the neighboring association boards should be consulted regarding this matter. City Manager Sollenberger asked that this matter be referred to the administration for review and to report back to the Commission. There was a consensus of agreement to refer this matter to administration as requested by Mr. Sollenberger. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3672, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1375 FRUITVILLE ROAD, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE LIVERY STABLE/INN, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-HD-05, WHIT RYLEE) REMOVED FROM TABLE AND PASSED ON FIRST READING BY PRIOR MOTION (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3673, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1365 FRUITVILLE ROAD, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE s.T. HUMBER HOUSE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-HD-06, WHIT RYLEE) REMOVED FROM TABLE AND REOUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION WITHDRAWN (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (0995) thru (1245) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to remove proposed Ordinance Nos. 93-3672 and 93-3673 from the table. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Ms. Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, came to the Commission table and stated that the Historic Preservation Board designated both of these sites; and that a certain time frame is of issue here. Mr. Robert Steuber, architect for the owner, Mr. Famiglio, and Mr. Whit Rylee, preservation consultant for Mr. Famiglio, came to the Commission table. Mr. Steuber stated that they are prepared to offer a determination to the Commission on proceeding in this matter; that the plans for rehabilitation of the Livery Stable/Inn structure (Ordinance No. 93-3672) will be ready for filing within 20 days of this date; that it will be restored in a "shell" type of approach because there presently is no use for the property in terms of a tenant; that there is some interest by a printing company for using the facility for retail purposes. Mr. Steuber continued that with regard to the structure referred to as the Humber House (Ordinance No. 93-3673), it is wished to withdraw the request for historical designation; that they will be submitting for a demolition permit on the structure. Mr. Steuber continued that the necessary paper work for restoration on the Livery Stable/Inn will be filed within 20 days in order to bring the structure up to Code requirements; and that the Humber House will be removed from historic designation and filed for demolition. Mr. Rylee stated that the owner has expended a considerable amount of money in the property next door; that the owner feels that he has made a commitment to the City to have the entire site matters Book 35 Page 9232 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9.233 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. resolved in a specific amount of time; that the owner cannot justify spending money to restore both buildings; that he feels passionate regarding the preservation of the Livery Stable/Inn due to its historical significance, but that it may not be economically feasible for restoration; and that even though the Humber House may be easier to restore, restoration of both properties is not possible at this time. Mayor Pillot asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if, due to the withdrawal of the pending historic designation request on the Humber House, if no action is needed and that this matter will revert back to the zoning and code enforcement personnel; and if the request for historic designation for the Livery Stable/Inn still stands. Mr. Robinson stated that was correct; that there is a pending motion on the floor to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 93-3672; that on March 1, 1993, on motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance 93-3672, which was tabled and now has been removed from the table. city Manager Sollenberger recommended passage of the motion to designate the Livery Stable/Inn on first reading. Mr. Robertson stated that the title of proposed Ordinance 93-3672 has already been read. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: UPDATE OF THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AESTHETIC ELEMENT SENIOR PLANNER/GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR GESTNER PRESENTATION RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (0995) thru #3 (0820) Vice Mayor Patterson left the Commission chambers at 8:10 p.m. Ms. Deborah Gestner, Senior Planner and Grants Administrator, and City Engineer Dennis Daughters, came to the Commission table. Ms. Gestner stated that she is giving an update of the Main Street Improvement Project, specifically in reference to the art objects in the median areas as well as the fountains; that the graphic depicted on the screen is an artistic rendition of approximately one year ago of how the intersection will appear at Gulf Stream Avenue and looking towards the Bayfront; that the proposed drawings have a basic aquatic theme such as marine life; that the entire federal grant was based upon creating a tourist attraction area and that the grant monies applied for had to be under that category; that the fish spitting into the fountain area is one category; that the fountain area is the second category; that the historic interpretative display area is the third; and that the fourth is the veterans' area. Ms. Gestner continued that the status of the art objects at this time is to clarify the opportunity for working on the looks of the area; that the presentations made to the Public Art Committee (PAC) and the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) indicated that the proposal would include something like the fish in the grant application in order to make it clear that artists would be bidding on the project with the contract; that the City Commission will make the final choice on the artistic design which does not have to be decided tonight; that when the bids are awarded there will be a cash allowance for the art itself which is yet to be determined; and that it will be approximately 8 months before work will begin in this area. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission chambers at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Daughters stated that the fountain water will be recirculated as in any normal swimming pool; that it would initially be potable water; that when recycled water is made available by the City there is a possibility that it would tie in at that time; that the loss of water will be similar to that lost in any type of fountain. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would prefer that reuse water be used with all of the elements to the fullest; that when this project is constructed the plumbing should be arranged so that that connection could be made; that this is important for resource conservation as well as the fact that potable water costs far more on the City's monthly water bill than reuse water; that it is important to make certain that when the reuse water is available to the area that the fountains will be plumbed to use the reuse water as its resource. Mr. David Gjertson, of Design Studios West, came to the Commission table and stated that there is a little chance of overspray that would get people wet due to the fountains mechanical wind detector, the overall design, and the proximity of the shooting water. Commissioner Merrill stated that he has received comments regarding the brick pattern and the design of the inlays at the Bayfront, which has numerous cuts; that that same pattern appears to be continued up to the fountains; and asked if that particular pattern is difficult to work with. Mr. Gjertson stated that the module and a number of things have been changed to improve the system; that the dimensions in the concrete area that the pattern is laid between has been changed; Book 35 Page 9234 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9235 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. that the design has been simplified; that efforts are being made to avoid cutting brick against concrete; and that brick will be cut against brick instead. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is concerned about the walk being level and having cracks; that the design should deter such hazards; that he is also concerned about the durability of the walkway and the possibility of the tipping effect as seen in the St. Petersburg area; and that no "trip and fall" hazards should exist. Mr. Gjertson that he has reviewed similar installations that were installed ten years ago and that they still appear very flat and even; that the key is a properly impacted base; that he feels many mistakes made on such installations are due to the lack of adequate excavation of the deleterious materials that will settle over time; that they will try to ensure removing sufficient amounts of the material; and that the specifications have been tightened up considerably. Mr. Daughters stated that it is tough to ensure that in twenty years there will be no "trip and fall" questions; that the design proposed is over and above the industry standard; that the base of this design is very stable; and that due to eventual earth movement over time there is certainly a potential for some displacement, but with the amount of base material and the requirements for the compaction the movement will be limited. Commissioner Merrill asked if the brick pavers will be acceptable to the community standards in thirty years. Mr. Daughters stated that in his opinion they would be acceptable in thirty years. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Gjertson to comment on the relative merits/demerits of embossed concrete versus the blocks. Mr. Gjertson stated that the concrete pavers, compared to a bomanite system that has a brick-like pattern, costs about the same and sometimes actually exceeds the cost of pavers; that the problems inherent in concrete is the difficulty in removing it when work is required underneath; that the color can never again be matched exactly; and that the pattern is very difficult to match. Mr. Gjertson continued that a straight concrete system with contraction joints and that has color is somewhat less expensive and probably gives the same type of wear as a paver system; that, however, mechanical devices such as jack hammers, are required for removal of the material for repairs. Mr. Gjertson stated that just a plain concrete with no color is quite a bit less expensive; that that is the alternate that was chosen; that it was made interesting with score patterns and with medallions approximately 30 feet on center. Commissioner Cardamone asked regarding the placement, durability and replacement costs of the paving pattern extending across U.S. 41. Mr. Gjertson stated that the paving pattern is much simpler in the system crossing U.S. 41 and is substantially sturdier; that the materials can be recycled in that they can be removed and replaced according to changes in the road. Ms. Gestner stated that there is a list of alternative deductions that will be present during the bid awards; that the list will provide items prioritized for removal from the plans if the bids are too high; and that the first item slated as an alternative deduction in order to save costs is the paving across U.S. 41. Commissioner Merrill stated that he strongly opposes the cobblestone look and prefers the simpler, less elaborate designs; that the lighting at the Bayfront has been criticized and asked what changes have been made in the lighting on the Main Street project. Ms. Gestner stated that it was opted to eliminate the tall lights in the median area and install smaller bollards. Mr. Gjertson stated that these pedestrian lights project downward rather than upward as the lights at the Bayfront; that the photometrics are better in that the lights are more directed and will be aimed at the sidewalks. Ms. Gestner stated that Main Street itself will have the old fashioned light standards as seen in Selby Five Points Park. Mr. Gjertson stated that the lights themselves are constructed of high pressure sodium which is whiter, warmer, and has an orange tint; that the photometrics are actually better than before due to the characteristics of the lighting. Mayor Pillot asked if the reduced lighting would create any CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) problems. Ms. Gestner stated that CPTED reviewed the plans and responded that they were the best plans ever reviewed; and that CPTED has written such memos for the file. Mr. Carl Abbott, 2846 Riverside Drive, representing himself, came to the Commission table and stated that he has been a resident of Sarasota for approximately 30 years; that he took part in a Book 35 Page 9236 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9237 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Saturday charette in which the project site was previewed; that he has a number of concerns. Mr. Abbott continued that he feels that what is being proposed is extremely busy, extremely over complex, and that some of the path is visually dangerous and very hard to walk on; that he agrees totally with Commissioner Merrill that there are many ways to achieve a handsome and dignified paving with concrete and trims of brick, etc.; that this feels like an extension of the Bayfront which is far, far too busy, ornate and complex. Mr. Abbott stated further that he understands a tourist attraction theme but there are also concerns for residents as well; that those citizens living here need to be proud of their city which is not a place just for entertainment and that the City should have dignity. Mr. Abbott also stated that another concern is that the beauty of the Bayfront, such as the glitter of water and the movement of boats should not be minimized but should be in view; that he does not feel that numerous art objects are needed to lead one to the Bayfront because they tend to visually stop one from seeing the water; that he thinks fountains and other objects are far too much; and that the landscape plantings should not obliterate the bay as well. Mr. Abbott stated that, in spite of his presence at a number of presentations, there is still much unknown about the way the project will appear in the end; that it is very hard to follow in the documents that he has seen; that he has a great fear and concern that the Bayfront situation will be repeated with unexpected things appearing; and that this should not just be a tourist attraction. Mr. Abbott continued that this project will set a precedence for the downtown area all the way up to the old Maas Brothers site; that the funds grant has created enormous time restraint pressures that need to be considered; that there is a point where taking a gift or grant can actually hurt; that it should be a win-win situation; that the City is vulnerable to getting hurt very badly should it feel that the money offered by the government must be taken rather than losing it. Ms. Creilly Pollack, 1001 Bayou Place, representing taxpayers, came to the Commission table and stated that she has been in the field of designing for approximately 40 years; that she has worked with major architectural and engineering firms in New York, Sarasota and other parts of the country; that she has designed hospitals, shopping centers, etc.; that she has owned property and lived in Sarasota since 1974. Ms. Pollack stated that she is talking as a taxpayer; that she is quite upset about the look of the Bayfront and she does not want to pay for it; that she has designed fountains and she knows that they mean maintenance; that she does not wish to pay for fountains that she does not like; that the towers at the Bayfront and the planters are symbols of depression art; that she would also hate to see the lighting fixtures at the Bayfront to remain. Ms. Pollack stated that, as a designer, she would present samples of the fabrics and a mock-up of the pavers rather than a rendition; that the Bayfront was supposed to be $2 million dollars and is now over $3 million; that the taxpayers are going to pay for that; that it is not a matter of taste but rather of design criteria which should be applied to our town; and know precisely what will take place before committing to a $1.5 million grant which will also cost the City $1.5 million in taxes. Ms. Pollack also stated that the basis of the grant is for a tourist attraction; that the Bayfront is beautiful in itself; that removal of the south access road from the Marina blocked off Gulfstream Avenue, yet the object has been to attract people to the area; that the access road will have to be rebuilt in the future. Ms. Pollack stated that the mechanical devices for the fountains cost money and that the Commission should seriously consider this along with the esthetics; that the fountains are not needed; that they are a distraction, will cost money, and will not please the citizens. Mr. Rick Chalker, 3877 Gatewood Drive, Downtown Association President, came to the Commission table and stated that the Downtown Association has presented the Main Street drawings and plans in the community in an attempt to inform the community of the progress of the project; that there may be some things that the City Commission does not like; that the Downtown Association feels that this is a great project overall; that one of the City visions has been to punch the downtown through to the Bayfront; that if the glitz is not acceptable then it should be eliminated; that the main point is to complete the job in a manner most pleasing to as many people as possible; that a total consensus will never be gained. Mr. Chalker continued that the Downtown Association has tried to keep in touch with the downtown residents in the area along Gulfstream; that the Association approached the City administration and Design Studios West regarding the complaints from residents along Gulfstream regarding the lighting at the Bayfront; that the Association has worked with the city to minimize the lighting impact; that what is now being proposed for lighting is excellent. Mr. Chalker stated further that he agrees with comments about the foliage blocking the view; that this is one of the items that needs Book 35 Page 9238 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9239 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. addressing; that the funding has been conditional to creating a tourist attraction of some sort; that this Commission needs to decide what tourist attraction is to be placed in this area; that modifications can still be made at this point without jeopardizing the funding; that the Downtown Association is in favor of what will occur but the final outcome is up to the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the bids for this project will be received on Thursday; that the bid award will be presented to the Commission after that time; that the Commission will have an opportunity to make certain changes as described by the City Engineer; that if the Commission prefers to consider some other type of design or abstract it can be decided. Mr. Sollenberger continued that once the government gives the funds there is a very tight time schedule that must be complied with; that construction must begin within 120 days of the acceptance of the grant; that work must be started sometime in May; that the Commission does not seem to have the luxury of redesigning the project; that the Commission reviewed this rather thoroughly last summer; that there is still an opportunity to make some modifications with regard to sidewalk issues and whatever art entity will spit the water to the fountain; that the Commission needs to proceed and move ahead. 21. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3684, TO PROVIDE AN AMENDED DEFINITION OF "POLICE OFFICER;" TO PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR DIRECT TRANSFER OF DISTRIBUTIONS OUALIFYING FOR ROLLOVER TREATMENT; TO PROVIDE FOR EARLIER ELIGIBILITY FOR COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS: ETC. NO ACTION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) AND NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3685, TO PROVIDE AN AMENDED DEFINITION OF FIREFIGHTERA" TO PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR DIRECT TRANSFER OF DISTRIBUTIONS QUALIFYING FOR ROLLOVER TREATMENT TO PROVIDE FOR EARLIER ELIGIBILITY FOR COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS: ETC. NO ACTION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (0820) thru (2325) Mr. David Stershic, Firefighters' Pension Board Chairman, and Mr. John Schultz, Police Officers' Pension Board Chairman, came to the Commission table. Mayor Pillot stated that the objective on these two matters is to decide whether or not to set them for public hearing; and that if the decision is to set for public hearing there is no commitment by the Commission of the decision to be made at the time of the public hearing. Mayor Pillot asked what the wish is of the Commission. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is willing to set the ordinances for public hearing, but that he has a lot of questions. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Ordinance Nos. 93-3684 and 93-3685 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she will vote against this both now and at the public hearing; that she has devoted considerable time reviewing the actuarial tables presented; that unless something new comes to her she cannot approve this; that there is a savings proposed in the actuarial tables for the first five years which are the result of a somewhat less conservative calculation of the funds, but largely the result of assuming the retirement of the people already targeted for elimination of their positions in the police and fire consolidation; that this is the second time that the same dollars are being saved. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that the savings are reduced to very little after the 5th year; that it starts costing the City by the 10th year about one half a million dollars per year; that by the 20th year the cost is in the range of $3 to $4 million; that by the 24th year there are between $5 and $6 million dollars in cost; that in dollars that have been calculated, based on today's dollars, which is a very complex actuarial format, there is an expenditure of over $20 million dollars. Vice Mayor Patterson stated further that the Commission may wish to proceed in setting this for public hearing, but she asks that they examine what is being set for public hearing because the manner in which the two ordinances are written, the COLA is meant to provide fairness for retirees in staying even with the cost of living; that that in itself is arguable as to fairness or the logic of it being granted by businesses; that she submits that most businesses don't; that the way this COLA is set up it does not wait a year for the COLA increase; that the structure could provide for two COLA's before being retired for a year; and that she has verified this with the Pension Department. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she would at least suggest that the responsible thing to do is to set for public hearing an ordinance that grants a COLA to people only if they have been retired for a year or, as general fund employees who retire early at age 60, that if the required age is turned prior to a year of retirement that that is pro-rated until it essentially becomes the same thing; and that this ordinance goes totally over and above what is expected from a COLA increase. Book 35 Page 9240 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9241 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that, secondly, in the Fire Department's ordinance this applies only to new retirees; that in the Police Department's ordinance this picks up people who are retired who are already retired and not yet age 55; that, again, does not seem totally logical. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she wishes to amend the motion already on the table to take both ordinances to what would appear more logical where at least you are granting only a COLA to people who are now retiring; that this reflects what a COLA is intended to do, which is a cost of living increase to keep up with the cost of living in the world and not sort of a bonus for retiring. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion to amend, as he understands it is to make the Police proposed ordinance the same as the Fire proposed ordinance with respect to anyone already retired who has not already obtained the age of 55. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that was correct; that part two is that the COLA ordinances be adjusted to reflect either that portion of a COLA that people would have acquired in February or that they be required to be retired a year prior to receiving their first COLA increase. Commissioner Merrill seconded the motion to amend. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that the intent is only to grant what COLA someone would normally expect in any arrangement where a COLA is granted, which is to keep people even with the cost of living. Mr. Stershic stated that Vice Mayor Patterson is correct in her statement regarding the COLA in that it is currently pro-rated; that the problem with that is when a firefighter nearing retirement would not enjoy even a pro-rated portion of a COLA sooner than beyond a year after retirement; that both the Police and Firefighter Pension Boards felt that if the ordinance was rewritten to allow for the COLA increase immediately, in some cases there would be an error and some people would enjoy more than just a simple one time COLA at one year after retirement. Mr. Stershic also stated that the Boards felt at the time that it would be much better to err in favor of the employee rather than having to wait longer than a year to receive a COLA at all, because it was extremely inexpensive to do sO. Mayor Pillot asked if there is pro-rating in the ordinance. Mr. Stershic stated that there is no pro-rating in the ordinance; that he does agree with Vice Mayor Patterson; that two COLA'S are possible in very rare cases; and that, conversely, it is possible for a retiree to not receive a COLA after a term longer than a year after turning the age of 55. Mayor Pillot stated that what he meant by pro-rating is that the COLA is applied only to the months of retirement pension and not applied prior to retirement. Mr. Stershic stated that was correct. Mayor Pillot summarized the amendment to the motion by stating that the first part is to remove the application in the police proposal for any current retirees that have not reached age 55; that, due to the second part of the motion's complexity, that Vice Mayor Patterson should repeat it. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the second part of her amendment to the motion is to determine a method of calculating the COLA that would be achieved by the person retiring to either duplicate the way this is handled in the General Employees Pension Fund, which is by pro-rating at a particular month, that portion of the year that has elapsed between retirement and that month, and that person would get that until the following year (that one could receive an increase as early as a week after retirement but it would be a pro-rated increase because the person had only been retired for a week) ;-or, failing, you don't have to stick to a particular month; it could be whenever that person turned 51 to avoid the concerns that there were when this was originally put into place that somebody could be retired for more than a year and not earn a COLA. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that either way is correct; that the - intent is simply to reflect a year's worth of retirement for a year's worth of COLA. : Mayor Pillot stated that the first part of the motion is easily understood and the Commission could be prepared to vote on it; that he asks if Vice Mayor Patterson would consider postponing the second part of the motion until the time of the public hearing in order for the Commission to review it in writing in advance so that a more educated vote can be cast; that he feels confused with this matter even though he served on both pension boards at the time; that he would ask Vice Mayor Patterson if she would delay the second part of her motion and bring it up again after the Commission has had an opportunity to review the exactness of it in writing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she does not know whether it matters one way or the other because her strong instinct is that the cost of this in future years, which is really her concern for the City, is going to be more than she can palatably vote for; that, however, she is also concerned that there are three people that feel the short term savings and perhaps the pleasure of giving an additional benefit to employees, which she would like to be able to do also, is enough that they would go for it regardless of whether this is here or not; that it does not really matter as long as people are aware of this problem; and that it is a very clear legal option that this not be granted at that time; that she is not Book 35 Page 9242 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9243 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. trying to create a federal case here; that she is just trying to share something with her fellow Commissioners that she has no other means other than a public forum to do sO. Commissioner Merrill stated that, as the seconder, his thoughts are of what basis there is to set something for public hearing; that he is not going to vote for it the way it is written; that he agrees with almost all of the points made by Vice Mayor Patterson; that he is willing to allow the Police Officers' and Firefighters' Pension Board representatives to come forward with full presentations to convince the Commission; that he is trying to decide whether or not he is willing to vote for setting it for public hearing, and not trying to add changes to it; that anything is still subject to change at the next meeting when a vote is finally made; and that he feels the Commission owes it to the unions to perhaps vote for this as a short term incentive to encourage the retirement but not make it a permanent benefit; that he recommends setting the matter for public hearing and discussing all matters at that meeting. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that, with the consent of the Mayor and the seconder, Commissioner Merrill, she asks permission to limit her motion to the first part. Mayor Pillot stated that, before the seconder answers, he believed the parliamentarian once instructed the Commission that when the Chairperson repeats the motion it must be voted upon. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that was correct. Mayor Pillot stated that he did repeat the motion. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that, for the convenience of the Commission, she will vote against her own motion. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion to amend has been discussed and repeated and asked if that could be voted on now. Commissioner Atkins stated that he wished to reassure Vice Mayor Patterson that he truly appreciates her for her ability to crunch the numbers; and that he has not made a decision on this situation either. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the amendment to the motion. Motion carried (3-2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Mayor Pillot stated that there now is an amended motion; that he could have voted for the original motion; that he cannot vote for the amended motion; that he does not know if there are three people willing to put something for public hearing that is so complex, and has not been reviewed in writing, and that can directly and significantly affect these ordinances. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mayor Pillot can vote in the next meeting to change this. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that that is true; that the reverse can be taken and the matter can be returned to scratch. Commissioner Merrill asked if this matter could just be set for public hearing. Mayor Pillot stated that now the Commission is setting something for public hearing that, in his opinion, is not acceptable to do; that he is not willing to vote to set something for public hearing that he does not understand; that he served on both pension boards that deliberated and wrote this and that he still does not understand the complexity of the Vice Mayor's amendment and that he is unwilling to vote for something he does not understand because he considers that an irresponsible act of an elected official; that if the other four Commissioners understand it, then he will respect their votes for it; that, however, he is going to vote "no" now to set this matter for public hearing with that complexity. Mr. Stershic stated that what Vice Mayor Patterson has requested in her amendment could be done; that going out on a limb as chairman of the pension board, he would say that the ordinance could be formulated; that the concern of the pension boards would be that an employee not be penalized when they retire by having to wait longer than a year; that the second point is that if the motion passes with the amendment, the question arises as to who shall bear the cost of restructuring the ordinance; and asked if it would be the Commission's intent that this matter be returned to the Pension Board to bear the cost of restructuring that ordinance or would the Commission direct the City Attorney to formulate verbiage which would.accommodate the amendment. Chairman Schultz stated that a lot of thought went into this matter along with discussions with the actuary who is present for any questions; that if the cost is a concern with the present formulation of the ordinance that perhaps Mr. Nichols can give his estimate regarding cost savings. Mayor Pillot stated that it may well be that what the Vice Mayor has proposed he would end up liking and respecting; that his concern is not the merits of what she said but rather the fact that there is an amendment to a motion that took probably 75 or 80 words to verbalize; that an oral presentation of the length and complexity to be voted upon without having the opportunity to read and think about it; that he considers that to be irresponsible. Book 35 Page 9244 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9245 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill moved to amend the amendment to delete the amendment. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that that cannot be done once it has been voted upon; that since Commissioner Merrill is on the prevailing side he can make a motion to reconsider. Commissioner Merrill moved to reconsider. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Merrill stated that all he is trying to do is get this matter set for public hearing; that it is not going to be decided tonight. Commissioner Merrill asked if Mayor Pillot could just figure out a way just to get this matter set for public hearing. Mayor Pillot stated that all it takes is two people to vote with him to vote down the amended motion on the table and have a new motion. Commissioner Merrill suggested voting on the whole motion to see if it will be set for public hearing. Mayor Pillot stated that, without objection from the Commission, he will arbitrarily call for the vote on the main motion as amended and asked if anyone needed any further clarification of an impossible item. Motion failed (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, no. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of (Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) Mayor Pillot, it was moved to set Proposed Ordinance Nos. 93-3684 and 93-3685 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson called for the vote. Motion failed (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Mr. Stershic stated that Commissioner Merrill is correct in that the Pension Boards are not asking for approval of any ordinance tonight; that they are asking that it be set for public hearing at which time all of the facts can be heard and then a decision made whether or not to approve the ordinances; that Commissioner Merrill was also correct that a lot of time and research has been given to the research; that these ordinance changes have been worked on for years; that they finally developed a unique win-win situation in which the Commission had the opportunity to provide a benefit for employees and at the same time, while the reserve funds were being amortized out of the pension funds, return a tremendous savings to the City. Mr. Stershic stated that another benefit of these ordinances is that they allow the City to resolve the problem of having too many employees in the Public Safety Department; that the problem that this poses is that there are not too many employees at the bottom, but rather there are too many employees at the top; that there are too many managers and not too many people out in patrol cars and not too many people on fire apparatus and rescue units; that if these ordinance are set for public hearing and subsequently passed by the Commission, the Commissioners will see approximately a 2 to 1 trade off; that for each employee who retires on the top they can save two jobs on the bottom. Mr. Stershic continued that, in addition, the State of Florida provides for funds to be returned to the pension funds to enhance high risk employees' pensions; that high risk employees such as police. a officers and firefighters are under a lot of stress every day on the job; that they have approximately 3.3 times the number of fatalities as the average worker has and approximately 4 times the number of injuries on the job; that cities lose approximately nine times the hours a year as they do for other employees; that for these reasons the State pays pension fund rebates to enhance firefighters' and police officers' pensions; that he would urge each Commissioner to reconsider the position just taken on the vote and at least set these ordinances for public hearing so that they can come before the Commission and jointly review the figures with all Commissioners present and answer all the questions; and asked the Commission to please allow this matter to be set for public hearing. Mr. Schultz stated that they have actively and successfully managed the Pension funds and made money; that there is no way of knowing where it will stand in 15 years; that they are aggressively postured at the moment and it is hoped that they will be successful in the future as well; that the cost may not be there if the returns offset it. On motion of (Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) Mayor Pillot it was moved to set proposed Ordinance Nos. 93-3684 and 93-3685 for public hearing. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Pillot asked if the status now is to take no action at this point. Book 35 Page 9246 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9247 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Robinson stated that was correct unless a Commissioner wishes to request that more information be provided to the Commission prior to making a decision for setting for public hearing. Mayor Pillot asked if the current status is that the Commission is simply turning their backs on what is on the agenda tonight. Mr. Robinson stated that the Commission is moving on without taking any action. Mayor Pillot stated that that says it nicer. Commissioner Cardamone stated that that was a lot better. Commissioner Cardamone asked if it is possible to make a recommendation to the Pension Boards to return to the Commission with something more in keeping with the finances of the City. Mayor Pillot stated that anything can be recommended. Commissioner Merrill stated that his interest is to review an early retirement encouragement rather than an increase in long term benefits; that he could vote for something along those lines. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the real savings of this is as an early retirement incentive which could be equally achieved by placing this benefit into effect with the amendments that she stipulated, for a two year period of time; that most of the benefits would be accrued without the long term cost; that that would not entirely preclude the Pension Boards in returning to the Commission in two years and requesting precisely the same thing; that the financial position may be entirely different at that time; that she sees many decisions made based on the savings of money; that this is too long term of a cost in the way that it is put together. Mr. Stershic stated that what Vice Mayor Patterson is asking could be accomplished; that he would prefer that it be set for public hearing, approve the ordinance and allow the reduction in the COLA age to 51, accommodate the amendment, ensuring that no one is penalized longer than a year and then, when a possible cost is realized, that at that time an agreement can be entered into with the employees by asking them to help offset that cost; that that is accomplishing the same thing but allowing to err on the side of the employee and then asking the City to ask the employee to contribute at some point in the future when there is a possible cost to the City. Mr. Stershic stated that this is at best an investment; that if the fund continues to do as well with the investments then it may totally write out any increased amount of contribution by the City whatsoever. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that if the City does poorly the cost will be much earlier and far in excess of what is predicted in the actuarial tables; that she does not believe that in the history of the city that a benefit has ever been given that has been taken away and that she could not buy into that. Mr. Stershic stated that if there is no consideration of these ordinances then there is no consideration for a change of the valuation method, and the cost to the City immediately begins to rise in future years; that the amount could be dramatic and immediate. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she was not delighted with the change in calculation basically being presented as conditional on approval of an additional benefit; that she is not thoroughly convinced that that total authority lies with the Pension Boards; that she will not vote for it the way it is; that it would have to change a lot before it will get her vote. On motion of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to refer this matter to administration for further study. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Patterson moved that the meeting move forward. 22. BOARD APPOINTMENTS VICE MAYOR PATTERSON AND COMMISSIONER : MERRILL APPOINTED AS THE COMMISSIONIS REPRESI ENTATIVES IN THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE APPOINTED AS THE COMMISSION'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SARASOTA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM IX) #3 (2325) thru (2410) Mayor Pillot stated that former Mayor Gurney was a representative to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and The Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Committee; that he asks the Commission to endorse the appointment of Vice Mayor Patterson to be a representative, along with Commissioner Merrill, to the MPO; and appoint Commissioner Cardamone as the Commission's representative on The Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Committee. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Vice Mayor Patterson was placed on the National Estuary Committee during a recent City Commission meeting; that Vice Mayor Patterson will be stepping down and Commissioner Cardamone would be taking over that position. Book 35 Page 9248 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9249 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that there is agreement between the parties named and a consensus of the Commission in support of these appointments. 23. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = CITY MANAGER TO REPORT BACK TO COMMISSION REGARDING STATUS OF FIRE SERVICE AT PINE CRAFT = CITY MANAGER TO FOLLOW UP WITH COUNTY BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO STUDY PROPOSING A WATERFRONT BIKE TRAIL = CITY MANAGER TO ADVISE COMMISSION OF ASSIGNMENT UPDATE REGARDING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN NORTH CITY AREA PROCLAMATION OF CASUAL DRESS DAYS FOR APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 1993, CONFIRMED (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (2410) thru (end) Vice Mayor Patterson: A. stated that a long time ago the Commission asked about and has never received a final analysis regarding the fire service at Pine Craft; that the City was basically taking over for much less than the cost of delivering fire service to the rest of the city; that it would also be for less than it would cost them to acquire services from the County; that she has been waiting for a response because every month that passes is an additional month of bargain services that are given away by the City; and that she would like some closure in this matter. Commissioner Merrill: A. stated that there was a newspaper article regarding bicycling being unsafe in Sarasota; that the County Advisory Board is elected as the City's advisory board in this matter; that he is wondering if the Commission would like to ask the County's Bicycle Advisory Committee to study the creation of a bike trail from New College down Bayshore Boulevard or U.S. 41, to Franklin Manor, the Civic Center, the Bayfront, out to Lido, and down Orange Avenue and out to Siesta Key; that this would be sort of a waterfront bike trail. Commissioner Merrill continued that he would request that the City Manager return to the Commission regarding this matter. There was a consensus of agreement by the Commission to refer the follow up on the bicycle trail study to the City Manager. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the new federal job incentive program should be explored for the possibility of gaining federal dollars. Commissioner Cardamone: A. stated that she wished to thank Mayor Pillot for taking his time and asking questions during the Main Street Project Aesthetics presentation; that it was very important that the Commission be re-enlightened as to the exact pieces of art which need to be taken into consideration when the contract is reviewed as well as the public perception may be of more artwork on the Bayfront and the end of Main Street. Commissioner Atkins: A. stated that with the recent rain over the week-end a panic is recreated for those residents where drainage becomes primary in their lives; that he would like an update on the status of processing the issuance of bonds to remedy the problem immediately; and that the question of how to write the papers can be handled at a later time. City Manager Sollenberger stated that this matter has been assigned out and that he will check his assignment dates and advise Commissioner Atkins. Mayor Pillot: A. stated that on April 9, 1992, Mayor Gurney set forth a proclamation for Casual Dress Days for the months of April through September inclusive; that energy can be conserved if staff have the opportunity to dress lighter; that he has discussed this with the City Manager who has no objection to it; and that he asks that this be reaffirmed for 1993. There was a consensus of agreement to reaffirm the proclamation of Casual Dress Days for the months of April through September, 1993. 24. OTHER MATTERS, /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS = (AGENDA ITEM XI) Mr. Sollenberger: A. stated that the County administrative staff has advised that a report will be made on regionalized wastewater treatment systems for the County; that that report shall be made to the County Commission on Thursday, April 8, 1993, and the City of Sarasota's wastewater treatment plant will be shown as a possibility of being a player within the regionalized system. City Attorney Taylor: Book 35 Page 9250 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9251 04/05/93 6:00 P.M. A. stated that Mr. Dasher, an interested party to the Quay special exception procedures, failed to make the meeting on time tonight and was very distressed over the fact the Commission had taken action; that Mr. Dasher felt there was little agreement between the associations and the Quay. Mr. Taylor continued that he has a letter from the attorney representing all of the associations stating they were in agreement; that he asked Mr. Dasher three times if he would care to sign up to address the Commission under citizens input; that he just wished to advise the Commission in case they received further contact regarding this. Mayor Pillot stated that he also spoke with Mr. Dasher prior to tonight's meeting; that Mr. Dasher expressed concerns regarding the need for a revocable special exception; that he pointed out to Mr. Dasher that that had been discussed at the Commission table in another context; that he subsequently asked the City Attorney to discuss this with representatives of The Quay to see if they would agree with that. Mayor Pillot continued that his understanding with the City attorney is that that could not be done under the current provisions of the City Code unless the party agrees to it; that the City Attorney did have that conversation with Mr. Brown and there was no willingness to agree with that; that the Commission, therefore, has no option except to pass it under the current code; that having processed that through the attorney for The Quay and the City Attorney it was determined that simply was not an option available to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she wished to be on record that she does not like the special exception abilities; that she has worked against special exceptions for many years as a neighborhood advocate; that she would prefer special permitting that can be altered or withdrawn; that she has spoken with Attorney Taylor regarding this and that the Commission must get on with language for a special permit. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she agreed. Mayor Pillot stated that he agreed also. Attorney Taylor stated that a draft will be distributed regarding this by the end of this week; that a second question for consideration by the Commission is to place a moratorium in the interim since the ordinance process can be a lengthy and involved one. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that this matter and further discussion be placed on the agenda for the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger agreed that this would be done. 25. ADJOURN - MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. (AGENDA ITEM XII) Mayor Pillot adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 5074 Pl Gene Pillot, Mayor ATTEST: 1907 BCly E Rebensen Billy E.dlobinson, City Auditor and Clerk Book 35 Page 9252 04/05/93 6:00 P.M.