MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, Gene Pillot, and, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Jerome Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:04 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: ADOPTED MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1061, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF ROSS EMERSON WINDOM, SARASOTA'S FIRST CITY MANAGER AND LONG-TIME RESIDENT OF SARASOTA, WHOSE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CITY GOVERNMENT AND TO THE COMMUNITY ARE APPRECIATED #1 (0046) through (0195) Mayor Dupree stated that City of Sarasota Memorial Resolution No. 98R-1061, recognizing the March 7, 1998, passing of Ross Emerson Windom, Sarasota's first City Manager and long-time resident of Sarasota, was formally adopted on March 16, 1998; that two of the Commissioners were out of the Country at the time; therefore, the presentation to the family was postponed. Mayor Dupree requested that Commissioner and former Mayor Pillot make the presentation to the family. Commissioner Pillot summarized the contributions made to the City by the late Colonel Ross Windom whose leadership skills and distinguished knowledge of local government assisted in the transformation of Sarasota from a town into a city. The following family members came forward and were presented with a copy of the memorial resolution appropriately framed on a plaque: : Robert E. Windom, MD, son; Lelia Windom, daughter-in-law; and Hugh Windom, MD, grandson. Dr. Windom stated that being hired by the City Commission in 1945 as the first City Manager of Sarasota was the highlight of his father's life; that the position was originally declined since the City's financial status had been reviewed and his father, who was fiscally conservative, felt the City could not afford the $11,000 salary offered; that a personal visit to Ohio by two of the City Commissioners resulted in a lower salary being negotiated and his BOOK 44 Page 16470 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16471 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. father's accepting the position; thus, the Windom family moved to and has remained in Sarasota. 2. PRESENTATION RE: SARASOTA SISTER CITIES DELEGATION'S RECENT VISIT TO TEL MOND ISRAEL #1 (0198) through (0502) Hope Byrnes, President, Sarasota Sister Cities Association, came before the Commission and reported on the activities enjoyed by a 23-member group, including herself, then Mayor Pillot and Commissioner Patterson, as well as the trip coordinators Linda Rosenbluth and Steve Briggs, all of whom funded their own expenses during the official Sarasota Delegation trip to the newest Sister City of Tel Mond, Isreal, in March 1998. Ms. Byrnes stated that while in Tel Mond, the delegation visited private homes, attended Shabbot services, and toured the Schoenbaum library and historical museum; that at city hall the entire delegation was involved in discussions on education, business, youth, sports, and culture and the formal Sister City signing ceremony; that the Tel Mond representatives were extremely interested in Sarasota. Ms. Byrnes continued that starting primarily as an agriculture village, Tel Mond in many ways is now a bedroom community just north of Tel Aviv; that many citizens work in high tech industries in Tel Aviv; that involvement of the youth in caring for Tel Mond's elder citizens was especially noted; that the reliance of 400 elder persons on a community center similar to the Senior Friendship Center in Sarasota appeared to be most successful. Ms. Byrnes further stated that the delegation also visited many of the traditional sites sacred to all religions represented in Israel, had a private memorial service at the Holocaust Museum, planted trees on the slopes surrounding Jerusalem, visited the desert and then Massada, and floated on the Dead Sea; that the delegation spent a night in a kibbutz near Lebanon where distant gunfire was heard, drove up the Golan Heights, and participated in an archeological dig in Bethsaide; that while in Jerusalem, a private visit with Mayor Olmert and a tour of the council chambers and the Knesset were enjoyed. Ms. Byrnes stated further that prior to visiting Tel Mond, she, then-Mayor Pillot, Linda Rosenbluth and spouses, attended the Israeli International Sister Cities and Municipalities Conference, where presentations were given by Israel President Weizman, Prime Minister Netanyahu, the mayors of both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, whose timely comment "Keep in mind, youth are a nation's most important commodity" will be remembered. Ms. Byrnes stated further that in remembrance of the trip, the delegation members were presented with an oil lamp, representing the eternal life of Israel, as a gift from the Sarasota Jewish Community Center; and presented a similar oil lamp from the Roman period 1st - 3rd century C.E. to Mayor Dupree. Mayor Dupree stated that the oil lamp will be prominently displayed in the Sister Cities display case at City Hall; and thanked Ms. Byrnes for a thorough report. Commissioner Pillot stated that he was honored to sign the Sister City agreement with Tel Mond on behalf of the City of Sarasota; that the mayor of Tel Mond is planning to visit Sarasota sometime after Tel Mond's November 1998 election. The Commission recognized Robert and Linda Rosenbluth, Steve Briggs, and Paul Byrnes who were present in the audience. 3. PRESENTATION RE: ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY MESSAGE #1 (0400) through (0415) Mayor Dupree stated that the Annual State of the City Message to be presented by former Mayor Pillot has been rescheduled to the May 6, 1998, regular City Commission meeting. The Commission recessed at 6:20 p.m. and reconvened at 6:30 p.m. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0525) through (0574) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. III A-2, A-3 and A-4 should read Award of Contract, not Award of Purchase Order Contract. B. Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. III B-2 and B-3, proposed Resolution No. 98R-1068, concerning Water Tower Park, and Resolution No. 98R-1069, concerning 35th Street Park, which originally referenced park closings one-half hour before dusk were revised to reflect specific times for the park closings. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes, Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree yes. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 6, 1998 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0574) through (0628) BOOK 44 Page 16472 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16473 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of April 6, 1998. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS : REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 4, 1998 - SET PROPOSED ADULT USE ORDINANCE NO. 97-4015 FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH PBLP CHANGES INCORPORATED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0628) through (0814) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development and Robert Lindsay, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Lindsay presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of March 4, 1998. Proposed Adult Use Ordinance No. 97-4015 Mr. Lindsay stated that the PBLP incorporated the following two changes and found proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan: 1. Increase permit fees 2. Include Blue Video, 2700 block of North Tamiami Trail, as a grandfathered business entity Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Lindsay stated that Vice Mayor Patterson's question previously asked at a Commission meeting as to the comfort level of the PBLP with the proposed major changes to the Sarasota City Plan was posed to the members at a recent PBLP meeting; that the members indicated the details of the proposed changes were understood and felt the major issues had been adequately reviewed to make recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Lindsay continued that the draft document and matrixes prepared by Staff were reviewed at the April 14, 1998, PBLP meeting; that final review of the draft document by the PBLP is anticipated on May 6, 1998. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting proposed Adult Use Ordinance No. 97-4015 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 for public hearing with the two changes recommended by the PBLP incorporated. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association has raised concerns about the proposed grandfathering of the Blue Video, business entity; and asked if the Commission will have the option of retaining or omitting the changes when a decision is made if the proposed ordinance is advertised with the two changes recommended by the PBLP referenced? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1998, RELATIVE TO FORT ARMISTEAD = ADMINISTRATION TO: 1) EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL OF AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) AND THE APPROPRIATE PETITION APPLICATION FORMS TO INCLUDE A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, 2) PLACE THE LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER, NATIONAL REGISTER AND FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE INFORMATION INTO AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE, AND 3) PURSUE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT THROUGH THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN UPDATE PROCESS (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0814) through (2143) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Daniel Delahaye, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, David Baber, Director, Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources, and William Burger, Archeological Consultant for Sarasota County, came before the Commission. Mr. Delahaye presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's regular meeting of March 10, 1998: Fort Armistead Mr. Delahaye stated that in response to a request by the City Commission, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed and is of the opinion the City does not currently have adequate protection in place for archeological sites; that the Board recommends a process be put in place immediately to include site plan review of archeological resources and sites by the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources. Mr. Burger referred to various slides displayed on the overhead projector, including a Follett 185'7 Sketch Map, U.S. Coast and BOOK 44 Page 16474 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16475 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Geodetic Survey Map of 1883, and current maps of the Indian Beach area, to explain the significance and location of Fort Armistead. Mr. Burger stated that Fort Armistead was established on November 13, 1840, by the First Infantry under the command of Major Greenleaf Dearborn and was occupied until May 5, 1841; that the post, named after the new Commander of the Army in Florida, Brevet Brigadier General Walker Keith Armistead, served as the new southern district headquarters in the efforts to remove the remaining Seminoles in south Florida; that a blockhouse and guard house were constructed; that 2,000 bricks shipped from Fort Brooke, today known as Tampa, were used to build a bake house; that barns and warehouses were later added to what was mostly a tent city which, by April of 1841, housed nearly 600 military troops and an undetermined but large number of civilian workers; that operations at the post required the help of many contracted civilians, including carpenters, fishermen, boat pilots, wagon drivers, and teamsters; that prior to boarding steamships for their removal west, groups of pacified Seminoles also camped at the fort; that it is unknown for certain at this time, but research indicates the fort probably did not have a palisade. Mr. Burger continued that increasing numbers of men fell ill to fevers and other sicknesses while stationed at Fort Armistead; that military records list the names of 10 soldiers who died at the fort; that the bodies of the soldiers could have been buried on-site or transported to Fort Brooke, which had two cemeteries; that the bodies of civilians or Seminoles who may have died while at Fort Armistead more likely would have been buried on site; however, burials at the fort have not been confirmed. Mr. Burger continued that while the 1989 investigations performed at Indian Beach by the Archaeological and Historical Conservatory recovered artifacts dating to the mid-19th century, the work was limited in scope and did not determine the exact location of Fort Armistead; that the additional more comprehensive Conservatory work performed on the McCloud property in 1991, which involved the excavation of 65 shovel tests separated in 40 to 80 foot intervals, failed to recover any materials from the Fort Armistead era but did identify prehistoric areas of scientific significance, e.g., various Indian shell mounds dating from at least 500 AD, both on site and along the shoreline of Indian Beach; that the 1991 report included recommendations as to how impacts to the resources could be mitigated, i.e., performing additional archaeological work and monitoring and by avoiding sub surface disturbance in specified areas. Mr. Burger referred to and explained in detail the various sites outlined on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Map of 1883; and stated that based on the 1989 research conducted in the Indian Beach area and looking at the 1883 survey, he is of the tentative opinion the central area of the post at Fort Armistead was likely somewhat further north of the McCloud property, in the area of the Washington Tract. Mr. Burger stated that an appropriately designed and sufficiently funded systematic archaeological field survey complemented by intensive archival research might provide for the exact location of various components of Fort Armistead to be determined; that grant funding is available from the State's division of Historical Resources, e.g., through the Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid Program which provides for 50/50 matching grants; however, the success of such an effort, which would be interesting, educational, and valuable, would depend on participation by the majority of the property owners in the Indian Beach area. Mr. Burger continued that the Fort Ammistead/MeCloud property/0ld Oaks Subdivision issue has made evident the City's need to develop a comprehensive historic preservation ordinance to protect significant archaeological resources; that County Ordinance No. 95-050, which is in effect and working, could be used as a model in drafting protective measures for the City of Sarasota. Commissioner Cardamone asked if efforts have been made to determine if the neighborhood has an interest in participating in the recommended field survey? Mr. Burger stated that owners of a small property on Bayshore Circle, who had contacted the Department of Historical Resources on a related matter and when asked, were amenable to having shovel tests performed at a future date; that other property owners have not been asked but may be willing to participate in a field surveyi that a program of public education could go far in allaying fears and concerns that resources identified as a result of the field survey would cause loss of property use by the owner; that, for example, if soldier remains were discovered, Federal funds would be available for the removal and reburial of the remains to an alternative site; that identification of archaeological resources does not necessitate preservation in perpetuity or prevent owners from proceeding with plans for the property. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a presentation made by a speaker at a previous City Commission meeting gave the impression archaeological resources, i.e., the bricks referenced, were more prevalent in the Indian Beach area than has been reported this evening. Mr. Burger stated that the Archaeological and Historical Conservatory investigations found a number of mid-century relics along the shoreline in the general area of Indian Beach; however, the bricks, which were a precious commodity, would most likely have been scavenged and recycled. BOOK 44 Page 16476 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16477 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. McCloud voluntarily funded the study performed in 1991, which was not mandated by the City's ordinance; that the property was subsequently platted into approximately 12 lots referred to as the Old Oaks Subdivision; and asked if an ordinance similar to the County's ordinance would have required work in addition to that which was performed or precluded construction on the lots? Mr. Baber stated that the County's ordinance would have required the survey to identify potential resources; that County Staff would have worked with the developer to avoid the resources or to minimize impact during development; that, in the worst case scenario, digs could have been limited or mitigation required to remove material that would be fully impacted by the development. Mr. Burger stated that the 1991 report which was funded by Mr. McCloud recommended mitigative test excavations be taken at specified areas; that building could have proceeded after the testing had been performed and samples taken. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if Mr. McCloud performed the test excavations? Mr. Burger stated no. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the County ordinance would have required the test excavation be performed? Mr. Burger stated that in a comparable situation in the County, the property owner would have most likely been required to perform the test excavations. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the County ordinance applies to platted property? Mr. Baber stated that the County's ordinance would not apply to property platted prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what would have differed in the final result, achieved through polite persuasion by City Staff, had an ordinance similar to the County's ordinance been in effect in 1991 before the property was platted? Mr. Burger stated that the review would depend on the type of application submitted, rezoning and special exception petitions, earthmoving permits, etc.; that a similar site in the County would have been subjected to an additional level of review because of the site's historical and archaeological significance; that the County maintains a list of significant sites as an attachment to the Historic Preservation Chapter of Apoxee; that the site of Fort Armistead, in the general vicinity of Indian Beach, inclusive of the McCloud property, is of national significance. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if Mr. McCloud, as the developer, would have been required to fund an additional level of testing? Mr. Burger stated yes, most likely; however, the recommendations made in the 1991 report were not made stipulations of City approval as could have been done in the County. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the extent of the financial burden to which a developer platting 12 lots would be subject? Mr. Burger stated that the cost for archaeological work would be dependent on the market; that consultant costs vary. Commissioner Merrill asked if local consultants are included on the County's list of consultants? Mr. Burger stated yes; that one firm is located in Sarasota and another in St. Petersburg; that the University of South Florida in Tampa also offers consulting services; that he has a contract with Sarasota County Government for consulting services; therefore, does not perform independent consulting work in Sarasota County. Commissioner Merrill asked if the County's list of significant sites includes sites located in the City? Mr. Burger stated no; that the list only contains sites located in unincorporated Sarasota County. Commissioner Merrill asked if other sites of significance have been identified in the City of Sarasota? Mr. Burger stated that prehistoric sites have been identified in the Indian Beach area. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the majority of prehistoric resources have been identified on platted properties. Mr. Baber stated that the County ordinance provides for review of building permits when development is proposed on a site contained on the County's list of significant sites; therefore, could apply to platted property. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the County would require a property owner to fund an archaeological study before building on a platted lot? Mr. Burger stated that the requirements would depend on the particular site; that in many instances, impacts to archaeological resources can easily be avoided; that, for example, the tree houses at the Landings subdivision were designed to mitigate impacts to an underlying prehistoric archaeological site, thus the site is impacted only at the location of the pillars that support the structures. BOOK 44 Page 16478 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16479 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Ms. Robinson stated that the City has a list of 30 sites of significance, three of which have been reviewed and for which archaeological reports were produced; that a local consultant, Marion Almy, prepared at least one of the consultant's report for Sarabande condominium project. Commissioner Merrill asked if the majority of the sites on the City's list are located in developed and platted areas? Ms. Robinson stated yes; however, the Master Site File prepared in 1982 should be updated. Mr. Burger stated that the County also addresses areas of sensitivity, e.g., sites which are likely to contain presently unknown archaeological resources based on predictive models; that information is uncovered in various ways; that an archivist recently found a 1917 newspaper article referencing the discovery of human remains when Main Street was being widened at Five Points. Mayor Dupree asked what would be required from the property owners to perform the field study recommended? Mr. Burger stated that consent from the property owner for the shovel testing, etc., would be required, preferably in writing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends taking the following actions relative to protection of archeological resources: 1. Amend the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the appropriate petition application forms to include a review of development activity for impacts on historical and archaeological resources; that in addition, look into the feasibility of conducting a City wide archaeological probability mapi that such a map would be included in the GIS database. 2. Place the Local Historic Register, National Register and Florida Master Site File information into an electronic database to facilitate access by the Sarasota County Historical Resources Department and the City's Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department; that the data base could eventually be incorporated with the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). 3. Pursue a more comprehensive approach to cultural resource management through the Sarasota City Plan update process. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendations. Commissioner Merrill stated that the majority of significant sites in the City may be located in developed areas but time passes and the sites could be redeveloped; that an overly restrictive ordinance is not desired and associated expenses require clarification; however, the City should have protection in place for identified sites of historical significance. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the following included under #1 of the Administration's recommendation: a review of development activity for impacts on historical and archaeological resources. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that requiring a developer who is subdividing land, similar to the McCloud property, to perform additional archaeological work could be supported; however, concern is raised if the referenced phrase indicates a property owner who plans to add a garage to an existing structure or to build on a single-platted lot will be subject to the same requirement. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the phrase is general in nature with the intent being to consider more specific issues during the amendment process. Commissioner Cardamone stated that referring the issue to the Administration for a more concise recommendation may be appropriate. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion by revising #1 to replace the word lamend" with the phrase "Examine the potential of amending. II Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated that motion as to approve the Administration's recommendation amended as follows: 1. Examine the potential of amending the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the appropriate petition application forms to include a review of development activity for impacts on historical and archaeological resources; that in addition, look into the feasibility of conducting a City wide archaeological probability mapi that such a map would be included in the GIS database. BOOK 44 Page 16480 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16481 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. 2. Place the Local Historic Register, National Register and Florida Master Site File information into an electronic database to facilitate access by the Sarasota County Historical Resources Department and the City's Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department; that the data base could eventually be incorporated with the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). 3. Pursue a more comprehensive approach to cultural resource management through the Sarasota City Plan update process. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the main motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEMS NOS. 1, 3, AND 4 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 2 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (2160) through (2254) Commissioner Merrill requested that Item No. 2 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Renewal to the Agreement for Hydrogeological/Engineering Services between the City of Sarasota and Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Tampa, Florida, (RFP #97-36) to provide usual and customary consulting services relative to providing hydrogeological/engineering services for the City of Sarasota Water Sewer Systems for an additional one-year period 3. Approval Re: Award of Contract to H20 Utility Services, Inc., Holiday, Florida, (Bid #98-43), in the amount of $78,475.00, for the city wide replacement of Water Meters Project, Phase III 4. Approval Re: Award of Contract to Central Florida Contractors, Inc., South Pasadina, Florida, (Bid #98-40), in the amount of $173,430.05, for. the construction of municipal sidewalks throughout the City on an as needed basis for the City of Sarasota On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda Nos. 1, 3, and 4. Motion carried (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 2. Approval Re: Award of Contract to Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., Murdock, Florida, (Bid #98-44), in the amount of $433,611.92, for the resurfacing of various city streets as specified with Type III asphaltic concrete mix, together with all necessary adjustment of existing structures, traffic control, sweeping, cleanup and placement to Alkyd/Maleic Thermoplastic traffic strips and marking for the City of Sarasota Commissioner Merrill stated that School Avenue between Hillview and Arlington Streets and Prospect Street between Shade Avenue and Jefferson Avenue, on which major utility work was recently performed, are not included on the Street Resurfacing List provided; and àsked if resurfacing of those streets will be funded as part of the utility project? William Hallisey, Acting Director of Public Works, came forward and stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO. 1 (RESOLUTION NO.. 98R-1067) AND ITEM NO. 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1068) - RESCHEDULED AS A NEW BUSINESS ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA; ITEM NO. 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1069) - ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-4017) - ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 5 (ORDINANCE No. 98-4051) - ADOPTED: ITEM NO. 6 98-4052) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (2310) through (2995) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Item Nos. 1, 2, and 3 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-4017, 98-4051, and 98-4052 by title only. 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4017, to conditionally rezone from RMF-4 Zone District to Government (G) Zone District and to approve Site and Development Plan 97-PSD-15 to permit construction of a parking lot in a Government (G) Zone District in conjunction with the Sarasota County Administration Building on the following described property: Lots 9 and 10, Block H, Sub of Blocks G and H, Plat of Sarasota, as recorded in Plat Book A, page 57, Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida with a street address of 1703 and 1709 Morrill Street; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition Nos. 97-CO-08 and 97- PSD-15, George Palermo Architect, Inc., as agent for the Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County) BOOK 44 Page 16482 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16483 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4051, to conditionally rezone from the RMF-3, RMF-4, and RMF-5 Zone Districts to the C-CBD Zone District and to approve Development Plan 98-DPR-B to permit construction of a mixed use project known as the Renaissance of Sarasota and to allow residential, hotel, office and commercial uses on the following described property located on North Tamiami Trail between Sixth Street on the south, Ninth Street on the north, and Cocoanut Avenue on the east, with a street address of 750 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida; more particularly described herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) (Petition Nos. 98-CO-02 and 98-DPR-B, Petitioner, Wynnton Group, Inc.) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4052, to conditionally vacate that portion of Eight Street bounded on the east by Cocoanut Avenue and on the west by North Tamiami Trail; to conditionally vacate that portion of Seventh Street between North Tamiami Trail on the west and Cocoanut Avenue on the east; to conditionally vacate that certain alley running in a north to south direction adjacent to and westwardly of the west line of Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, Block D, Plat of Broadway Place, all as more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 98-SV- 04, Petitioner, Wynnton Group, Inc.) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 4, 5, and 6. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1067, appropriating $98,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to fund a one time grant to the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC) to cover administrative expenses and staff salaries for the GNCRC; etc. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that approving grant funds to cover administrative expenses and staff salaries for the GNCRC consistently has not been supported; that Item No. 1 was removed so a dissenting vote could be cast. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1067 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2) : Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 2. Adoption Re: : Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1068, closing North Water Tower Park during certain designated hours, seven days a week; making certain findings providing for the reading of this resolution by title only, etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: : Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1069, closing 35th Street Park during certain designated hours, seven days a week; making certain findings providing for the reading of this resolution by title only, etc. (Title Only) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the following closing times, as proposed, are earlier than the closing times currently in effect at the subject parks or at other City parks: April 1 to October 31 9:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. November 1 to March 31 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board recommends the change; however, a change in park closings is not an item which should have been brought to the Commission for approval under Consent Agenda No. 2; that the proposed resolutions should have been scheduled elsewhere on the Agenda, properly noticed, and an opportunity provided for the Commission to discuss the issue and receive public input. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association raised concerns with drug and prostitution activity in proximity to or within the neighborhood parks. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that North Water Tower Park is utilized by many people who do no reside in the immediate area; that extended discussion by the Commission is not appropriate under Consent Agenda No. 2. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to schedule proposed Resolution Nos. 98R- 1068 and 98R-1069 under New Business on the Agenda for the May 4, 1998, regular City Commission meeting. Commissioner Merrill stated that park closings has been a debated issue in the past; that Arlington Park closes at 11 p.m.i that residents enjoy taking dogs for walks in the evening; that closing parks with relation to a period of time after dark is reasonable; however, the City has received one letter, presumably from the BOOK 44 Page 16484 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16485 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. president of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; that an opportunity for public input from neighborhood residents should be provided before the Commission considers changing the park closing times at North Water Tower and 35th Street Parks. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the extent of public input received by the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board? Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed resolutions were initiated by the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; however, neighborhood representatives did not appear in a public sense before the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board. Commissioner Pillot stated that input from the Sarasota Sky Pilots Disc Golf Club members, who utilize North Water Tower Park routinely, should be requested. Mayor Dupree stated that the consensus of the Bayou Oaks neighborhood is not known; therefore, rescheduling the item under New Business on a future Agenda is supported. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Mayor Dupree requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: SOUTHEAST SARASOTA TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN - APPROVED AS AMENDED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (3050) through #2 (2083) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, Shannon Snyder, President, Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Association, Sharon Jones and Joe Moraca, Co-Chairmen, Southeast Sarasota Traffic Calming Committee, came before the Commission. Mr. Snyder stated that neighborhood meetings to discuss the Southeast Sarasota Traffic Calming project have taken place over the past year; that the assistance provided by City Staff while working on the project is appreciated. Ms. Jones stated that the Southeast Sarasota Traffic Calming project is planned over several phases beginning on East Avenue; that a meeting is scheduled on May 7, 1998, to discuss final plans for the project. Mr. Moraca stated that the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Traffic Calming project is part of a larger plan to revitalize the neighborhood; that future projects include a bike path, a pedestrian walkover for Southside School, streetscaping on Siesta Drive and U.S. 41; that a new fence on Waldemere Street to prevent parking in the basketball and tennis courts has been installed by the County and non-native trees are being removed from Arlington Park; that a neighborhood work day in Arlington Park is planned and a Friends of Arlington Park organization will be formed; that a continuing working relationship with the Commission and City departments in efforts to revitalize the neighborhood is anticipated. Mr. Mohammed stated that in May 1997, the City Commission established a neighborhood Task Force to study various issues in Southeast Sarasota; that the Task Force divided into three committees: the Code Enforcement Committee, the Crime Prevention Committee, and the Traffic Calming Committee; that the Traffic Calming Committee convened specifically to develop a comprehensive area wide plan to solve problems of traffic intrusion; that a master plan has been developed to reduce high volumes, traffic speeding, and cut-through traffic, and to create a unique street ambiance in the Southeast Sarasota neighborhood; that an open house for public comment and approval of the project was held on February 19, 1998; that the efforts of the Southeast Sarasota Task Force should serve as an example to other neighborhood groups. Mr. Mohammed continued that a master plan for implementation in four phases has been developed; that the project area is bounded by Bahia Vista Street on the north, just south of Siesta Drive on the south, U.S. 41 on the west, and the eastern City limits on the east; that traffic data, including 24-hour volume and speed counts collected on the neighborhood streets, was used to prepare the plan; that a copy of the data collected will be provided to the Commission. Mr. Mohammed gave a computer-generated slide presentation to explain the following traffic calming measures proposed in the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Master Plan: Phase I East Avenue Beautification Extend sidewalks on East Avenue Speed Tables Traffic Circle BOOK 44 Page 16486 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16487 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Modify existing neck outs, add speed tables Phase II Hyde Park Street Beautification Three Raised Traffic Circles Phase III Shade Avenue Beautification Raised Traffic Circle Phase IV Bicycle Path Pedestrian Bridge Mr. Mohammed stated that the beautification projects include decorative lighting, tree plantings, and special paving patterns such as stamped asphalt or bricks at primary street crosswalks. Mr. Mohammed referred to the graphic for Phase I and stated that East Avenue will serve as a buffer between the commercial areas on U.S. 41 and the residential areas east of East Avenue; that the right-of-way on East Avenue south of Waldemere Street and north of Hyde Park Street is insufficient to provide sidewalks; that redevelopment on East Avenue may allow for the acquisition of additional right-of-way to provide sidewalks in the future; that the proposed closure of Sunnyside Court, west of East Avenue which was originally included has been removed from Phase I because petitions against the closure were received from residents. Commissioner Cardamone requested clarification regarding the decorative raised traffic circle proposed at Hyde Park Street in front of Arlington Park in Phase II. Mr. Snyder stated that the traffic circle is proposed at a three way intersection at the entrance to Arlington Park, which in conjunction with the lighted fountain recently installed in the middle of the park by the County, will create a grand entrance into the neighborhood. Mr. Mohammed referred to the computer-generated graphic for Phase IV and stated that installation of the bicycle path proposed, using existing right-of-way on School Avenue running from Datura Street to Southgate Mall, will result in a recreational path throughout the neighborhood; that amenities, i.e., benches, will be provided adjacent to the 8 foot wide concrete path. Ms. Jones stated that the goal of the bicycle path is to help define and bring the boundaries of the neighborhood together. Mr. Mohammed stated that the majority of traffic calming measures proposed came from neighborhood representatives; that the total cost of Phase I, which will be funded through the Traffic Calming, Sidewalk, and Streets and Highway Maintenance Programs, is $284,000. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the difference between traffic calming and traffic abatement. Mr. Mohammed stated that traffic abatement discourages people from speeding and reduces traffic volumes whereas traffic calming reduces the negative impact of vehicles in residential neighborhoods; that planting trees and installing sidewalks reduces the speed of vehicles while creating an environment which improves the quality of life. Commissioner Pillot asked if a decrease in the volume of vehicles is also expected with the traffic calming measures proposed? Mr. Mohammed stated that the primary intent of the Southeast Sarasota Traffic Calming project is to reduce the speed of vehicles; however, both a reduction in speed and volume is anticipated on East Avenue. Commissioner Pillot stated that absent implementation of a total City plan and, as vehicular traffic is reduced neighborhood by neighborhood, all streets in the City will be negatively impacted. Mr. Mohammed stated that a redistribution of traffic throughout the neighborhoods is expected; that high volumes of traffic on certain streets cause negative impacts on surrounding residential areas; that, for example, the installation of speed humps on Shade Avenue reduced traffic volumes from 10,000 to 5,000 vehicles daily; that the redistribution of the other 5,000 vehicles to numerous other streets caused no noticeable impacts. Commissioner Pillot stated that the efforts made by Staff and neighborhood residents have been tremendous, and the progress made is superb; that the ultimate effects of the proposed traffic calming measures on the remainder of the City are unforeseen and discomforting absent implementation of a total Citywide plan; however, based on the recommendation of Mr. Mohammed and Staff, he will support the project. Mr. Mohammed stated that creating a balance between traffic calming and movement of through traffic on major streets was a goal established and met in developing the Southeast Sarasota Traffic Calming Plan; that reducing traffic on major thoroughfares to sustain a suitable level of mobility will be addressed in the next phase. BOOK 44 Page 16488 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16489 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked why no traffic calming or abatement measures are proposed on Arlington Street? Mr. Mohammed stated that the two speed tables proposed on Arlington Street between East and Shade Avenues in Phase I were inadvertently omitted from the materials distributed to the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the traffic circle on Temple Street is sufficient for use by fire and garbage trucks? Mr. Mohammed stated yes; that the largest sized fire and garbage trucks were tested. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is pleased the proposed closure of Sunnyside Court has been removed from Phase I; that Grove and Webber Streets, on which traffic calming measures have not been proposed and residents from which were not represented on the Committee, could suffer significant impacts from a closure of Sunnyside Court. Mr. Moraca stated that a recent accident and the volume of late night traffic bypassing speed traps and sobriety tests on the U.S. 41 resulted in consideration of closing Sunnyside Court; however, the proposed closure was proven to be unpopular with the neighbors directly affected. Mr. Snyder stated that further discussion with the neighbors is desired regarding the street closure of Sunnyside Court; that a dirt road leading from the Cabana Inn provides a major access into the neighborhood; that the activities engaged in by patrons and/or residents of the Cabana Inn, e.g., drag racing, are detrimental to the neighborhood; that installing a temporary street closure, e.g., using a sign and concrete barricades, should be considered so the potential impacts on directly affected residents can be determined. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the explanation of the special circumstances is appreciated; however, residents of most streets in the City would support closing the street they live on and most surrounding residents would be dissatisfied with the impact; that the County Charter Review Board will have a measure on the fall ballot banning speed humps Countywide; that the ban is believed to include only unincorporated Sarasota County and not the City. City Attorney Taylor stated that the County Charter referendum would not apply in the City limits without City Commission participation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that City residents, however, will be eligible to vote on the County's referendum. Commissioner Merrill asked if other measures have been considered to provide for sidewalks along the portion of East Avenue south of Waldemere Street and north of Hyde Park Street, i.e., the possibility of making East Avenue a one-way street pending redevelopment? Mr. Mohammed stated that the Committee examined various alternatives including conversion of that portion of East Avenue to a one-way street; that establishing a one-way street is feasible when another parallel street within a reasonable distance can be utilized for travel in the opposite direction; however, such is not the case near East Avenue, thus hardship to the residents would be caused. Mr. Moraca stated that reaching a Committee consensus was difficult on various issues raised; that U.S. 41 could provide for travel north; that although consensus of the Committee was against recommending that East Avenue between Hyde Park and Waldemere Streets be made a one-way street, safety in the area is a major concern and a resolution to provide for safe pedestrian passage is desired. Commissioner Merrill stated that a specific plan to address East Avenue should be developed and presented when Phase II is brought before the Commission; that acquisition of property by the City may be a feasible solution; that although East Avenue serves as a separation between residential and commercial uses, some components of East Avenue are purely residential. Mr. Mohammed stated that Staff is working with the commercial property owners on East Avenue, north of Prospect Street, and with the Committee in developing a beautification plan including landscape medians and angled parking for East Avenue between Hyde Park and Waldemere Streets; that the commercial property owners have expressed a willingness to participate financially; that a consensus of the residential and commercial property owners will be incorporated into the final master plan presented to the Commission;. Commissioner Pillot stated that the referendum proposed by the County's Charter Review Board will ask voters whether or not speed humps, not traffic calming measures, should be prohibited in the County; that existing speed humps are referenced on the Phase I street mapi however, the proposed traffic calming measures do not include additional speed humps. Mr. Mohammed stated that a policy decision was previously made to install only asphalt stamped speed tables similar to those on Orange Avenue versus speed humps. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a solution to address the volume of continual traffic generated by Sarasota High School, BOOK 44 Page 16490 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16491 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Midtown Plaza, the Midtown medical facilities, and banquets held at Michael's on East, which use East Avenue to reach a traffic signal at Hillview or Arlington Streets should be considered; that discussions with the Best Western motel and East Manor nursing home could result in the use of property to provide for a sidewalk on East Avenue between Hyde Park and Waldemere Streets. Mr. Snyder stated that the Task Force has taken a partnership approach and included the business entities in the neighborhood meetings; that solutions similar to the angle parking, etc., implemented on Hillview Street are being reviewed and considered for Prospect Street and East Avenue north of Prospect Street to reduce the vehicular speed; that redevelopment on East Avenue between Waldemere and Prospect Streets is anticipated in the near future, which could provide the opportunity for installation of sidewalks. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that installation of a traffic signal at the Prospect Street/U.S. 41 intersection could alleviate the volume of traffic using East Avenue to access traffic signals on Hillview and Waldemere Streets. Mr. Mohammed stated that traffic signals generally attract traffic; that prior to installation of the traffic signal at U.S. 41, the traffic volume on Waldemere Street was 700 vehicles per day (vpd); that after the installation of the traffic signal, traffic volume increased to 3,500 vpd, which was subsequently reduced to 1,500 vpd by prohibiting through travel across U.S. 41. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that, initially, speed tables comprised of bricks were prohibitively expensive; that the stamped asphalt speed tables are substantially less expensive than brick speed tables, and are gentler and less annoying to drive over and more consistent with the vision of Sarasota than speed humps; that consideration should be given to replacing existing speed humps with asphalt speed tables Citywide. Mayor Dupree asked if any Commissioner had an objection to the Citywide replacement of speed humps. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objection, Commission consensus has been reached for Staff to develop a plan for Citywide replacement of existing speed humps with asphalt speed tables Mayor Dupree asked for clarification regarding the type of decorative lighting proposed for the beautification projects. Mr. Mohammed stated that the decorative lighting would be similar to lighting on Osprey Avenue and the standard City lighting being installed on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that the number of light fixtures would be dependent on budget, necessity, and the advice of the Public Works Department. Mayor Dupree asked the type of trees planned for the East Avenue Streetscape? Mr. Mohammed stated that the beautification of East Avenue will be completed in Phase I; that the specific type of trees have yet to be determined but will be discussed between the neighborhood and the Public Works Department. Mayor Dupree asked if a time schedule has been prepared for each of the phases? Mr. Mohammed stated that numerous departments are involved in the project, which makes determination of a completion date difficult; however, the traffic calming measures should be completed within a few months. Ms. Jones stated that the Committee anticipates commencement of Phase I in the summer and completion in December. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that residents on Osprey Avenue have complained about the brightness of the street lights. City Manager Sollenberger stated that an effort to resolve the lighting problem on Osprey Avenue is being made. Ms. Jones stated that the proposed lighting on East Avenue will be spaced further apart and will compliment the area. Mr. Snyder distributed copies of the Southeast News, a newspaper of Southeast Sarasota's Neighborhood Communities, to the Commission; and stated that regular publication of the paper is anticipated to keep the neighborhood informed of planned activities and actions. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: John Dent, Jr. Dent & Cook, PA, 3305 Orange Avenue (34236) representing William Rotunda, ownerof the Sunnyside Motel, stated that the Sunnyside Motel is located on the corner of U.S. 41 and Sunnyside Court; that Mr. Rotunda was not opposed to the closure of Sunnyside Court, but was concerned about tenant access to the motel's rear units. Richard Martin, 2347 Arlington Street (34239) Board Member. Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Association, stated that although all individual desires were not attained, e.g., closing all the neighborhood streets to through traffic and turning East Avenue into a one-way street to provide right-of-way, sufficient for a pedestrian sidewalk and a bicycle lane, the Southeast Sarasota Traffic Calming Master Plan as presented is fully supported; that BOOK 44 Page 16492 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16493 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. the Plan addresses major concerns and further defines a sense of neighborhood; that comments and concerns raised about speed humps are recognized and speed tables are preferred in the future; however, the speed humps installed on Shade Avenue have contributed to the development of the neighborhood; that residents are walking, bicycling, pushing strollers and enjoying the neighborhood; that the proposed traffic calming measures not only calm traffic but also contribute toward the redevelopment of the neighborhood. Tom Cannon, 2187 Sunnyside Lane (34239) was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan as presented and authorizing implementation. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Commissioner Cardamone requested that a copy of the current traffic counts be forwarded to the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that although not indicated on the hard copies of the Master Plan provided to the Commission, two speed tables are included on Arlington Street and the closure of Sunnyside Court is excluded. Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct; referred to the computer- generated diagram for Phase I and read the following traffic calming measures into the record: East Avenue: : Median at the intersection of Prospect Street and East Avenue Three speed tables between Bahia Vista Street and Sunnyside Lane Streetscape changes School Avenue: Traffic Circle at the corner of Temple Street Two speed tables at the intersections of Sunnyside Lane and Sunnyside Place Waldemere Street: Two additional speed tables Hawthorne Street: Two speed tables Arlington Street: Two speed tables Hyde Park Street: Changes to the existing neck outs Bougainvillea Street: One speed table Rose Street One speed table Goldenrod Street One speed table Mr. Mohammed stated that closure of Sunnyside Court is no longer included on the Master Plan. Commissioner Merrill stated that the comments by Mr. Martin were appreciated; that the traffic calming measures on Shade Avenue, the first major street to receive traffic abatement, have been successful in slowing and reducing cut-through traffic; that numerous complaints have been received regarding the installation of speed humps on Shade Avenue, east of Tamiami Trail, versus the installation of brick speed tables on Orange Avenue. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to include replacing the speed humps on Shade Avenue with speed tables as part of the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Traffic Calming project. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the proposed changes to the neck outs on Hyde Park Street. Mr. Mohammed stated that the width of the street where the existing neck outs are located is too narrow; that near-miss collisions currently occur when two vehicles traveling in opposite directions access the space simultaneously; therefore, the area will be widened to provide sufficient space for two vehicles to pass safely. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the intent of the amendment to the motion is for the replacement of the speed humps on Shade Avenue to occur in Phase I? Commissioner Merrill stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that replacing the speed humps on Shade Avenue will provide a basis for establishing the cost of replacing the speed humps Citywide. BOOK 44 Page 16494 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16495 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to amend. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the main motion as to approve and authorize implementation of Phase I of the Southeast Sarasota Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan as stated by Assistant City Engineer Mohammed with the speed humps on Shade Avenue to be replaced with speed tables. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4043, AMENDING CHAPTER 33 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE IMPOUNDMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES USED TO FACILITATE PROSTITUTION OR DRUG RELATED CRIMES; TO CREATE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AMENDING THE PROCEDURES RELATING TO NOTICE AND HEARING; CLARIFYING AN OWNER'S DEFENSE TO IMPOUNDMENT PROVIDING FOR AN APPEAL; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) # 2 (2083) through (2681) Mark Singer, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4043 amends Chapter 33 of the Sarasota City Code and is necessary to promote a more efficient use of limited resources and to clarify various provisions of Section 33-271 providing for the impoundment of motor vehicles used to facilitate prostitution and drug related crimes; that since enactment of Section 33-271 in 1997, approximately 75 vehicles have been impounded and administrative fines imposed resulting in numerous hearings being held before the Code Enforcement Special Master; that approximately 70% of all hearings have resulted in the failure of the owner or a representative of the owner to appear; that the amendments proposed relate to notice, hearings, defenses, and appeal; that upon adoption of the proposed ordinance a hearing will only be required upon written request. Attorney Singer continued that a number of unclaimed vehicles have been impounded and remain in the possession of Tri-City Towing; that recovering the $500 administrative fine in addition to towing fees and storage costs is a problem; that the proposed ordinance provides for the establishment of a lien if the administrative civil penalty and towing, storage, and hearing costs are not paid. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the City is able to sell an impounded vehicle? Attorney Singer stated that the City does not own the vehicles nor are the vehicles in the City's possession; that the vehicles are in the possession of Tri-city Towing; that the requirements of a towing company when towing vehicles at the request of law enforcement is addressed in the Florida Statutes; that conversion of the vehicle to the benefit of the City conflicts with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; that the City could enact a local regulation which does not conflict with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; however, the intent of the proposed ordinance is not to obtain title and ownership of the impounded vehicles. Commissioner Patterson stated that to her knowledge the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act provides for the taking of title of property involved in drug related crimes. Attorney Singer stated that is correct; however, the proposed ordinance is an alternative to utilizing the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. Commissioner Patterson stated that use of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act rather than the proposed ordinance would appear to be in the best interest of the City in drug-related cases. Attorney Singer stated that either the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act or the proposed ordinance could be used; that the Florida State Statutes provide that an innocent owner does not lose the right to the vehicle; that the innocent owner defense provision can be omitted under local regulations to discourage people from unknowingly loaning vehicles to others who may use the vehicle to purchase narcotics. Commissioner Patterson asked if the provisions also apply to vehicles used to facilitate prostitution? Attorney Singer stated that the ordinance does apply to prostitution; however, no prostitution-related seizures have occurred; that the manner in which ordinances are used in the field are tactical decisions and based on law enforcement judgment; that further information on enforcement strategies could be presented at second reading of the ordinance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a time limit for declaring abandonment of an impounded vehicle should be established and the City or towing agency allowed to advertise the sale of the vehicle following proper notification to the owner. Attorney Singer stated that a State Statute addresses the towing companies' responsibilities relating to the sale of the vehicle at an auction; that a certified letter is sent to the registered owner and after a specified period of time, the City releases interest in the vehicle notifying the towing company that the City no longer wants the vehicle held; that the towing company then has BOOK 44 Page 16496 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16497 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. the vehicle auctioned, retains the cost involved for towing and storage, and deposits the remainder of the auction proceeds with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Commissioner Patterson asked if the City would be able to recover costs expended? Attorney Singer stated that the City would not recover the $500 administrative fine, which can only be protected by recording a lien. Commissioner Patterson asked if law enforcement and Special Master costs are the only expenses to the City? Attorney Singer stated yes. Mayor Dupree referred to page 3, paragraph (e) 3 of proposed Ordinance 98-4043 which read as follows: Upon timely receipt of an owner's written request for a preliminary hearing, the City shall schedule a hearing to be held within two business days following the date of receipt of the request . Mayor Dupree asked if consideration is given to people who cannot read or write? Attorney Singer stated no. Mayor Dupree stated that people who cannot read or write would not understand a notice to appear. Attorney Singer stated that the police department will be asked to provide the Commission with a procedure to be employed in such an instance. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4043 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4043 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4043 on first reading. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4056, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1616 OAK STREET HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE LYNN L. AND MILDRED SILVERTOOTH HOUSE AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 98-HD-02, PETITIONER MIKKI HARTIG REPRESENTING MICHAEL HANNON, PROPERTY OWNER) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) # (2681) through (3088) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Ordinance No. 98-4056 approves a request for the historic designation of the structure known as the Lynn L. and Mildred Silvertooth House, located at 1616 Oak Street, and in the Office, Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District; that the Historic Preservation Board and the Department of Historical Resources recommend approval of the proposed ordinance designating the structure as a structure of historical significance based on the following criteria contained in Ordinance No. 86-3019, Section 15-14: (a) exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of the City of Sarasota; and (d) embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style or period, or a method of construction. Mikki Hartig, Historical and Architectural Research Services, representing Michael Hannon, property owner, came before the Commission. Ms. Hartig gave a slide presentation of various photographs to reference the location and to explain the characteristics of the Lynn L. and Mildred Silvertooth House. Ms. Hartig stated that the Silvertooth structure, constructed in 1924, is the second house on Oak Street from Orange Avenue, faces north, and is a one story masonry Craftsman Style Bungalow; that construction is of stucco over hollow clay tile with a clay tile foundation; that the main block of the house has a rectangular plan; that a front-facing gable roof covers the main block; that the three bay, nearly full-width front porch has a separate front- facing gable roof located directly in front of and below the overhang of the gable end of the main roof on the main facade; that the house retains all of its original exterior architectural integrity and is qualified for historic designation. Ms. Hartig continued that the house was the home of Lynn L. Silvertooth and Mildred Gill Silvertooth, who met in Sarasota in 1919, and purchased the house in 1924, and lived in the house until 1945; that the Rymon family owned the house from 1945 to 1997; that the house is representative of the economic boom of the BOOK 44 Page 16498 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16499 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. 1920s and an excellent, well-preserved example of a Craftsman Style Bungalow from the 1920s. Commissioner Merrill asked if the owner lives on site. Ms. Hartig stated no; that the house has been repainted and other repairs performed since the house was sold in 1997; that the property is zoned OPB and a variance petition for office use is pending. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification regarding the variance petition. Ms. Hartig stated that a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet is required in the OPB Zone District; that approximately 10 years ago, the City rezoned the Silvertooth house and the two houses on each side, all with lot sizes less than 10,000 square feet, to the OPB Zone District; that the house located to the right of the subject site is believed to have a variance and has been used as a psychologist's office over the past 7 to 10 years; that the house to the left will be used as an office/residence; that the Women's Exchange parking lot extends directly in front of the three houses; that historic designation of the Silvertooth house will minimize the chances of an office building from being erected at the site. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the three houses are under single ownership? Ms. Hartig stated that the three houses are individually owned; that the two houses adjacent to the Silvertooth house are already designated as historic structures. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) All documents made part of the record at the Historic Preservation meeting of March 24, 1998 as well as the minutes of that meeting City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4056 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4056 on first reading. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Pillot, yes; Cardamone,yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND WYNNTON GROUP, INC. A GEORGIA CORPORATION - APPROVED; ADMINIS STRATION AND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO PRESERVE GRANDFATHERING OF THE PLAYERS' PARKING REQUIREMENTS (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (3088) through #3 (1521) Robert Fournier, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the Agreement for Disposition and Development of Property (Disposition Agreement, formerly entitled the Redevelopment Agreement) entered into on November 19, 1997 by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the Wynnton Group, Inc. (Developer) included a draft document as Exhibit I entitled Development Agreement, which was defined as an agreement between the Developer and the City, I . to be negotiated, executed and delivered, governing the development of the Project Site and the rights and obligations of the Developer and the City to each other and regarding the Project," Section 1.01(20), Disposition Agreement. Attorney Fournier continued that the term "development agreement " as used in the Zoning Code denotes an agreement which is narrower in scope, addressing only concurrency related issues; therefore, Exhibit I to the Disposition Agreement has been separated into two agreements: 1) the Development Agreement, approved by the City Commission on April 6, 1998, which addresses concurrency issues and 2) the Implementation Agreement which addresses other non- concurrency related issues pertaining to the development of the project site. Attorney Fournier referred to the significant portions of the Implementation Agreement which are summarized as follows: 1. Paragraph 2 obliges the City to accept land on the project site that the Developer may dedicate for public purposes provided the streets and sidewalks are constructed to City standards and public access to these areas is unrestricted. 2. Paragraph 3 (a) obliges the City to do the following: Construct streetscape improvements on 6th Street from U.S. 41 to Orange Avenue and on Cocoanut Avenue from 10th Street to the new library site commencing within 6 months of the issuance of a building permit for Phase 1; BOOK 44 Page 16500 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16501 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Vigorously pursue code entorcement in the Rosemary District; Exercise its power of eminent domain under specified conditions if necessary for the successful development of the project; and = Use all reasonable efforts to cause a general clean up and landscaping of McCown Towers. 3. Paragraph 3(b) obliges the City upon the Developer's written request to encumber City-owned property on the west side of the North Tamiami Trail by a restriction to be recorded in the public records, such restriction providing for view corridors by limiting the height of new construction to 45 feet and providing a minimum separation distance between buildings of 100 feet; however, an exemption is made for the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) and/or a successor hall and one other either existing or new performing arts structure which may be constructed up to a height of 90 feet. 4. Paragraph 3( (c) obliges the City to grant the Developer an easement for the foundation of a pedestrian overpass across U.S. 41 at a location determined appropriate by the parties. 5. Paragraph 4 obliges the City to do (or in some instances, not to do) the following: = Not require the Developer to pay for any improvements to the North Tamiami Trail; Not require the Developer to make a contribution for public art; Provide the Developer with $284,325 in impact fee credits; Not apply an increase in water and sewer impact fees to the project for 7.5 years; Assist the Developer in acquiring permits required from other agencies, excluding financial assistance. 6. Paragraph 5 requires the Developer to commit to a specific schedule for the payment of up. to $1 million in community improvements as required by the Disposition Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that the Commission considered the Implementation Agreement at the April 6, 1998, regular Commission meeting, at which time the only unresolved issue was the schedule for community contributions; that the Developer has agreed to make monetary contributions of up to $1 million through the establishment of an escrow account or accounts no later than the time the building permit is pulled for the first residential tower, which must 'be no later than December 1998 under the terms of the Disposition Agreement; that the Implementation Agreement also provides that the Developer and the Players Theatre, Inc. (the Players), can agree to a direct contribution to the Players in lieu of the same contribution to the escrow account; that his understanding is no serious concern exists regarding the Developer's monetary obligation to the Players; however, some concern exists regarding the ability to reach a shared parking agreement, which is not addressed in the Implementation Agreement; that the primary purpose of the Implementation Agreement is to obtain the consent and ratification of the City Commission to certain items such as the view corridors, the easement for the pedestrian overpass, and other obligations requiring the consent of the City Commission to which the CRA has agreed in the Disposition Agreement; that the Implementation Agreement neither advances nor impedes the ability of the Developer and the Players to reach a shared parking agreement; that the Developer has an obligation under the Disposition Agreement to execute a shared parking agreement with the Players; however, the Disposition Agreement does not specify the particulars of the obligation beyond the general obligation; that for example, the number of parking spaces for the Players' use is not specified in the Disposition Agreement; that a reasonable starting point is the number of parking spaces required under the Zoning Code; that a parking deficiency likely exists at the Players presently; that the Players is in a Residential-Multiple Family (RMF)-4 Zone District which requires one parking space for every three seats plus 25 parking spaces for the cast and crew; that the Players has 500 seats, requiring 192 parking spaces, but currently has only 82 parking spaces on site sO is presently non-conforming with the requirements of the Zoning Code; that no additional seats will be added with a renovation of the Players; however, parking spaces will be lost when the lobby is éxpanded; that the Players is using 125 parking spaces on the property currently owned by Sarasota County on which the Renaissance of Sarasota Project will be developed. Attorney Fournier further stated that the Developer has reasonably taken the position that the Implementation Agreement should be approved prior to closing on the property; that the Implementation Agreement can go forward in the absence of a shared parking agreement; that the Developer has an obligation to reach a shared parking agreement with the Players; that the Developer has been reluctant to agree to a specified number of parking spaces but will acknowledge the obligation to set aside some parking spaces. BOOK 44 Page 16502 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16503 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the streets have been vacated and the property rezoned; that the City has agreed to specific obligations to provide transportation concurrency; however, only a vague agreement exists concerning a shared parking agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that the Disposition Agreement is vague with respect to detail but not the basic obligation; that the Implementation Agreement does not abrogate the obligation; that the ability to insist upon a shared parking agreement exists under the Disposition Agreement. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Disposition Agreement does not indicate that a shared parking agreement must meet the Players' requirements; that the Developer could offer only a limited number of parking spaces. Attorney Fournier stated that such a position would be unreasonable; that the Disposition Agreement contemplates the Players' renovations; that the $500,000 Developer's monetary contribution is for renovations to the Players and is set forth in the same section as the obligation for a shared parking agreement; that construing the Disposition Agreement to assure enough parking will be provided by the Developer to enable the Players' construction to proceed is reasonable. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Zoning Code would prohibit the Players from beautifying the facility. Attorney Fournier stated no; that the Zoning Code would prohibit expansion of the facility which would result in the loss of additional parking spaces; that the Zoning Code does not require the Players to provide more parking spaces; although the Players may desire more parking spaces; that the Players currently has an informal agreement with the Unity Church, which could be formalized under the shared parking provisions of the Zoning Code; that the on-site parking spaces may not be sufficient but is grandfathered in under the provisions of the Zoning Code; that as long as the Players does not expand or add additional seating, no requirement will be imposed to add additional parking spaces. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the specifics of the obligation to reach a shared parking agreement are unknown. Attorney Fournier stated that the general obligation was created in the Disposition Agreement; that the Implementation Agreement is not an amendment to the Disposition Agreement but rather is a separate agreement with one different party. Mayor Dupree stated that the Developer agreed to contribute $500,000 to the Players; and asked why agreement to the details has taken such a long period? Attorney Fournier stated that the Developer agreed to contribute $500,000 for the Players' renovation or relocation costs; that the Disposition Agreement required the Developer's $500,000 monetary contribution but did not specify a schedule; that the Administration detérmined a schedule for the monetary contribution could be negotiated in the Implementation Agreement, which has been accomplished; that the proposed schedule is reasonable. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a portion of the $500,000 could be used for additional parking if a satisfactory shared parking agreement cannot be reached. Attorney Fournier stated yes, if both parties agree; that an amendment to the Disposition Agreement requiring the consent of the original parties would be required. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the result if the Developer does not agree? Attorney Fournier stated that the obligation to enter into a shared parking agreement can be enforced; that the Disposition Agreement would have to be construed to specify the number of parking spaces; that a reasonable starting point would be the number of parking spacing required under the Zoning Code to allow the Players' renovations to proceed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City's lack of leverage at this time is not pleasing. Attorney Fournier stated that the implication is not the City is without leverage; that the parties' obligation to reach a shared parking agreement is valid and enforceable; that the interests of all parties is to reach an agreement; that considerable discussion has occurred; that the Players would not wish to negotiate a shared parking agreement with the Developer and find the number of parking spaces insufficient to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that shared parking means making parking spaces available at certain hours for use by the Players; that the implication is sufficient parking will be created sO parking spaces will be available. The following people came before the Commission: Bobbi Hicks, 605 South Gulf Steam Avenue (34236), Maryanne Shorin. 226 Golden Gate Point (34236) and Michael Judson, 2138 Mcclellan Parkway (34239) representing the Players Theater BOOK 44 Page 16504 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16505 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Judson stated that apologies are offered for taking the Commission's time; that the Commission was told at the April 6, 1998, regular Commission meeting of the Players' concern about the lack of agreement concerning shared parking or the monetary contribution; that telephone calls and a letter have been exchanged with the Developer; however, the Players continues of the opinion that enough action is not occurring; that the Developer and his representatives are honorable; however, a complete agreement on all issues has not yet been reached; that the issue of the monetary contribution seems to be resolved; although a final document has not yet been signed; that a shared parking agreement continues as a difficult issue; that the Developer scored highest among the respondents to the Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop the property on the criteria of shared parking with the Players and also community linkages; that communicating, to the Commission that all issues have not been resolved is difficult in view of the high scores the Developer achieved in the RFP on those two criteria; that the Developer's last proposal received in a letter dated April 17, 1998, indicated the Developer would control access to the shared parking; that the Developer has known the Players is a theater since development discussion began; that shared parking in the evenings and on weekends is necessary; that the Developer has been told since the beginning that the Players is using 125 parking spaces on the Sarasota County property on which the Renaissance of Sarasota project will be developed. Mr. Judson further stated that the Players' current lobby does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; that expansion will bring the lobby up to existing standards but will also result in a loss of parking spaces; that the desire is to replace all the lost parking spaces, including the 125 parking spaces on current Sarasota County property and those lost through lobby expansion; that the monetary contribution should not be linked to the shared parking agreementi that the monetary contributions to other community organizations are not made with conditions; that conditions not originally imposed should not be accepted. Ms. Hicks stated that her concern is parking; that the presented renderings on the Renaissance of Sarasota project indicated a large number of extra parking spaces; that the Players is not asking for anything free and wants to be a good neighbor; that the Renaissance of Sarasota project will be wonderful; that the requirements of the Zoning Code are established, will apply to the Players upon renovation, and could be the basis for a shared parking agreement; that the Players will have 60 parking spaces if 82 exist now and 22 are lost through lobby expansion; that an additional 132 parking spaces could be allotted for shared parking if 192 parking spaces are required under the Zoning Code; that the Commission's assistance is being requested to assure the Players' renovation can proceed. Ms. Shorin stated that the Commission is requested to consider three points: 1) imposing a deadline for an agreement between the Developer and the Players, 2) allowing the Players access to parking on the weekends and evenings, and 3) directing an adequate number of parking spaces be provided to meet the requirements of the Players and the Zoning Code; that the Commission's time is appreciated. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Commission is being requested to consider solely the Implementation Agreement? Attorney Fournier stated yes. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Commission has the right to make demands with regard to parking for the Players in the Implementation Agreement? Attorney Fournier stated no. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission is supportive of the Players' position; that speakers have positively represented the Players; however, the issue is irrelevant to the Implementation Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that a shared parking agreement is a related side issue but is not relevant to the Implementation Agreement. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Renaissance of Sarasota project will go forward without Commission approval of the Implementation Agreement? Attorney Fournier stated that the Developer has indicated an unwillingness to close on the property if the Implementation Agreement is not approved. Commissioner Pillot stated that the closing deadline is April 30, 1998; that this Commission meeting is the last regular Commission meeting prior to the closing deadline; that full support is offered the Players; that his willingness is to do anything legally and ethically possible to assist the Players; however, the issue is not before the Commission at this time. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Mayor Dupree asked the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving the proposed Implementation Agreement for the Mayor's signature and attestation by the City Auditor and Clerk. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the proposed Implementation Agreement subject to the inclusion of an acceptable schedule for BOOK 44 Page 16506 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16507 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. the Developer to meet its obligations regarding community contributions under the Disposition Agreement. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Attorney Fournier is congratulated for the clear and concise written presentation included in the Agenda material; that continued discussion concerning the shared parking agreement would be appreciated. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Developer could also came before the Commission? Mayor Dupree stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the Developer is requested to come before the Commission. Stanley Tarkow, General Counsel for the Developer, came before the Commission. Attorney Fournier returned to the table and stated that the CRA has an enforceable obligation created in the Disposition Agreement, which clearly obliges the Developer to execute a shared parking agreement; that the existence of the obligation is undisputed; however, the number of shared parking spaces is unspecified; that the Developer has an understandable reluctance to commit at such an early stage of the project; that a starting point should be determined. Attorney Tarkow stated that a letter has been received from the Players in which concerns were raised concerning potential loss parking spaces from possible future City action on 9th Street, expansion of the Players' facility and lack of continued availability of parking on property of the Unity Church and Sarasota County; that the Developer cannot solve all the Players' problems; that the Players will have to take some action, either to accept a lesser number of parking spaces than currently available, build on their own property or acquire other property for parking; that the Disposition Agreement creates an obligation to enter into a shared parking agreement with the Players; that the Developer will fulfill that obligation but does not know at this time the possible availability of long-term parking arrangements; that the project on the north side of the property has not been designed and probably will not be designed with finality for a number of yearsi that project development will begin on the south side of the property; that forcing a specific number of parking spaces on the Developer is to force an artificial condition which the Developer is not prepared to accept; that the Developer is prepare to enter into a dialog with the Players and has already volunteered to accelerate the community contributions to an earlier date than originally envisioned, including acceleration of a portion of the monetary contribution to the Players and an earlier date to fund the balance; that the Developer has spent $10,000 producing an expansion program for the Players, for which the Developer does not anticipate reimbursement or credit towards the Developer's monetary contribution obligation; that the Developer is trying to fulfill its obligations as best as possible and will proceed in good faith. Commissioner Merrill asked what the Developer understood as comprising the shared parking agreement? Attorney Tarkow responded that the Developer understood that the Players would have access on a non-exclusive basis to parking on the development site without consideration as to the number of parking spaces or the location; that an obligation was created to consider the reasonable needs of the Players consistent with the economics of the project. Commissioner Merrill asked the result if the project's economics dictate that parking spaces cannot be afforded? Attorney Tarkow responded that the Developer cannot afford to spend $2 million for parking for which the Developer has no use and which is dedicated to another partyi that $2 million is the approximate cost of 175 parking spaces in a structured parking facility. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Developer could spend $1.5 million? Attorney Tarkow responded that consideration was not given to spending $1.5 million for parking for the Players at the time the RFP was submitted; that a proposal was submitted to obtain the award as the developer of the project. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Developer must have had a philosophy in submitting the RFP to the City; that the Developer was considered a good neighbor by the willingness to commit to a shared parking agreement; that his thought was the Developer would share parking with the Players, meaning whatever parking spaces were available could be used. Attorney Tarkow stated that the Developer may not be saying anything different; that the Developer has no reluctance to commit to the Players on a non-exclusive basis available parking spaces to the extent that the Players' use of the parking spaces does not impinge on the same use for the benefit of the project; that available times must be determined; that weekends and evenings are the principle times the Players will have a large demand for off- site parking, which is understood but does not mean the Developer must build 125, 175 or 225 parking spaces for use at any time; that such a requirement was never contemplated. BOOK 44 Page 16508 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16509 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that his belief was parking on the project site could be used by the Players; that someone going to the Players could park in an available parking space. Attorney Tarkow stated that his belief is the Developer has no objection to patrons of the Players parking in available parking spaces at the project. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that residences will be created at the project; that residents expect to have a parking space and not to compete for a primary and secondary parking space; that a different expectation may exist for guest parking spaces; that residential numbered and assigned parking spaces are not shared. Attorney Tarkow stated that is correct; however, the Developer would give up the project's ancillary uses which formed the basis of the bargain if only enough parking spaces are created for residents, making the project uneconomical. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the project will have office space which lends itself to shared parking and also retail space which has many overlapping needs with organizations such as the Players; that any spaces built by the Developer for office and retail would be available on a Firat-come/irat-serve basis to patrons of the Players, necessitating additional parking or patrons of the retail shops will not find available parking spaces on Saturday afternoons. Attorney Tarkow stated that an answer is not known; that the Zoning Code requirements are also not known; that his understanding is a parking credit of up to 25 percent is available in the Zoning Code for non-conflicting uses; that the application of that provision in the City is not known; that the Developer will be reviewing the Zoning Code requirements. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Zoning Code's parking requirements will probably be less than the actual parking required to serve the project's patrons. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Developer's inability to make commitments concerning parking at this early stage is readily understood; that representatives of the Players indicated that lobby expansion will result in the loss of 22 parking spaces; that the indication is the Players will be grandfathered in at the number of parking spaces currently available; and asked if a commitment could be given to the Players for enough parking spaces, i.e., 22 parking spaces, to satisfy the City's requirement? Attorney Tarkow stated that consideration will be given; however, a commitment cannot be made at this time; that the north portion of the project has not been designed; that 250 residential units are permitted under the Zoning Code; that a rental project will likely have 250 residential units; however, a condominium project may only have 50 to 60 percent of the allowable 250 residential units; that the parking requirements vary depending on the type of project; that the ancillary uses, including parking, will be developed based on architectural judgment once the principle use is determined; that the size of the parking structure and the number of floors in addition to the requirements of the Zoning Code will determine the number of parking spaces. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Developer's expectation has been that parking spaces will be available for the use of Players' patrons, assuming no encroachment on residential parking spaces; and asked if the Commission can make an exception for the Players and take official action to allow the grandfathering provision to continue, considering the circumstances and the expectation that 22 parking spaces will generally be available at the project? City Attorney Taylor stated that the application of the Zoning Code is a function of the building official in the first instance; that the question could be researched. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Administration and the City Attorney's Office is requested to investigate the possibility of the Commission's taking official action in this regard and to report back as to the legality and advisability. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification concerning the Players' comment concerning parking on 9th Street. Attorney Fournier stated that the Players calculated 38 parking spaces on 9th Street and was concerned the City may eliminate parking on 9th Street in the future; that the second concern was a loading zone on 9th Street may take some parking spaces. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City's possible action on 9th Street which is of concern to the Players is part of the Renaissance of Sarasota project? Attorney Fournier stated no. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a change in parking on 9th Street is not the responsibility of the Developer. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that parking on 9th Street should not affect discussion on the project; that additionally, the possible loss of parking at the Unity Church should not impact the project. Attorney Fournier stated that the possibility of a shared parking agreement with the Unity Church is another alternative the Players may wish to explore; that the Players may desire to formalize its oral agreement with the Unity Church. BOOK 44 Page 16510 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16511 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the concern is the replacement of current Players' parking on Sarasota County property; that the property is zoned residential; that parking should not be allowed; however, the concern was part of the Commission's initial consideration in evaluating the projects. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her understanding was patrons of the Players would be allowed to park at the project; that the expectation was the availability of parking would be friendly and cooperative; that her view was not of designated parking spaces for the Players on Friday and Saturday nights. Attorney Fournier stated that the understanding is a reasonable construction of the Disposition Agreement. Commissioner Cardamone stated that any possible misunderstanding with the Players is regretted; that her expectation was not designated parking spaces; however, her expectation is parking will be made available when the Players has performances; that parking spaces for use by offices would be available to patrons of the Players after normal business hours; and asked if the north portion of the property can be used until developed? Attorney Tarkow stated that a commitment has been made to the Players that the property can be used on a rent-free basis until developed; that the normal legal protections, i.e., insurance and indemnification, will be required; that the right is reserved to disrupt the use temporarily if site development work is necessary. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her feeling is the issue of the shared parking agreement will be resolved. Mayor Dupree stated that the discussion is out of order; however, Vice Mayor Patterson had already been recognized. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the non-conforming nature of the Players' parking. Timothy Litchet, Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the Zoning Code prohibits renovation of conforming uses with non-conforming parking which will result in the loss of additional parking; that parking spaces lost as part of renovation must be replaced, a variance obtained, or the Zoning Code amended; that the addition of seating would require bringing the non-conforming parking into conformance with requirements of the Zoning Code. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Zoning Code would not represent a problem if the 22 parking spaces can be replaced; although accommodating the patrons may be a problem. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Mayor Dupree stated that attention should be refocused to the Agenda subject. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the discussion is related to the City's agreements with the Developer; that the shared parking agreement was brought to the Commission by citizens during consideration of an Agenda item; that parking has been a concern of the Commission; and asked why the discussion is out of order? Mayor Dupree stated that the issue is not on the Agenda; that the presentation by the representatives of the Players did not concern the vote on the Implementation Agreement. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the issue is related and pertinent. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Administration will report on the possible actions to assure the grandfathering provision enjoyed by the Players is not lost. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the Administration and the City Attorney's Office will investigate possible actions and report back. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: NUMBERED OR DESIGNATED SEATS FOR AT-LARGE SEATS ON THE CITY COMMISSION - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (1521) through (2360) Robert Fournier, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that at the May 19, 1997, regular Commission meeting, the Commission directed the City Attorney's Office to study and return a legal opinion regarding separate designation of at-large Commission seats, which would require a change to the City Charter; that the issue is whether the designated or numbered seat requirement could be legally reimposed for the two at-large Commission seats; that designated seats would require candidates declare for a specific seat in the at-large election; that presently all candidates run in a field; that the two candidates obtaining the greatest number of votes, subject to certain majority stipulations, are elected. Attorney Fournier stated that his comments were previously requested when the majority vote requirement was considered and are indicated in a November 5, 1993, memorandum to City Attorney Taylor included in the Agenda material; that his expressed reluctance in 1993 was adopting both majority vote and designated seat requirements, primarily due to an insufficient evidentiary basis to show that City African-American voters would have the equal participation guarantees required under the Voting Rights BOOK 44 Page 16512 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16513 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Act; that two additional elections have been conducted in District 1 since 1993, which has generated valuable pertinent evidence; that the probative value of four elections is more than twice the value of the two elections immediately prior to 1993; that two elections arguably do not create a pattern of voter behavior on which to predict reliably future behavior; however, a pattern of voter behavior can be predicted on the basis of four elections; that African-American voters in District 1, although not a majority of voters in the district, can reliably be predicted to comprise a majority of actual voters achieving the equal opportunity required by the Voting Rights Act; that maintaining the nondesignated seat provision for the at-large Commission seats is not as necessary as in 1984 or 1993. Attorney Fournier stated that another consideration in 1993 was the opportunity for - 'single-shot" voting, which is not available with designated seats but is of less value today due to developments in the case law; that the presence of a designated seat requirement is considered by the courts as an enhancing factor, meaning the opportunity for an election system to produce a discriminatory result is enhanced; that a more readily understood definition is an election system having a disparate impact, i.e., impacting minority group voters differently and in an adverse manner from other voters; that the existence of a disparate impact could violate the Voting Rights Act; that as noted in his 1993 memorandum, the designated seat requirement can result in what the courts have called "head-to-head"* elections between a black and a white candidate for a single seat presenting the opportunity for racial considerations which might not otherwise arise; that the City's record under the former election system when the City had designated seat requirements reveals that such "head-to-head" elections did occur; however, a wide degree of cross-over voting also occurred which supports the argument that white voters in Sarasota respond to black candidates in the same way as other candidates and that attributes other than the candidates' race were the deciding factors. Attorney Fournier further stated that the courts acknowledge the possibility of loss of election "on account of race;" meaning that under some circumstances, the possibility exists.of a candidate's losing an election due to race; that minority candidates can lose elections for the same reasons as other candidates since race- neutral factors are also at work; that under the case law, race- neutral factors can now be introduced into ewidence, increasing the probability of successfully defending a change to a designated seat requirement. Attorney Fournier continued that his conclusion is a change to a designated seat requirement could be viably defended; that the record should clearly establish the Commission's motives for changing to a designated seat requirement to protect against any possible allegations of racially discriminatory motives; that an ordinance amending the City Charter would be required to adopt a designated seat requirement; that the next at-large election will be held in the year 2001; that a proposed ordinance could be developed and presented to the Commission with a request to set the proposed ordinance for public hearing if desired. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a referendum will also be required to change the City Charter. Attorney Fournier agreed and stated that an ordinance would present language for a referendum. Commissioner Merrill stated that the designated seat requirements could be adopted or not, as desired by the Commission; and asked the merits of designated versus nondesignated seats. Attorney Fournier stated that the most frequently mentioned merit of designated seats is the opportunity to choose which incumbent a candidate wishes to challenge; that a designated seat requirement is the only way to provide selection; that designated seats have been credited with increasing campaign debate, which is a valid observation, and creating a more stimulating political environment as the issues between two candidates are clearly defined; that the theory is the differences in opinion can be more readily and easily contrasted with two people on opposite sides of an issue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that numerous people can run for a single designated seat. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct; that his consideration was the run-off election. Commissioner Merrill stated that one benefit of nondesignated seats is incumbents are forced to run for re-election; that getting candidates to run is the greatest obstacle in local elections as incumbents typically have an advantage; that often incumbents can intimidate opposition, resulting in uncontested elections; that a candidate must win over a specific individual with designated seats; that the question is whether a candidate would run if required to select a designated seat. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the answer is yes; that she brought the idea of designated seats to the Commission table after her election as her experience was running in a field with multiple candidates was very difficult. Attorney Fournier stated that one merit advanced for nondesignated seats is the encouragement for minority candidates to run; that the theory is a minority candidate is not in a run-off with a white opponent. BOOK 44 Page 16514 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16515 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that the argument could be advanced for any candidate regardless of race. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue is not racial; that more people will be prone to enter a race if "single-shot " voting is encouraged to support a specific candidate; that a larger number of candidates results in a more exciting race. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her view is the opposite occurs, i.e., fewer people enter the race; that people did not run during her second campaign so a particular candidate would not be unseated; that the option of running against a specific incumbent was not available. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City had five at-large Commission seats prior to the 1985 change in the City's election system. Attorney Fournier stated that no underlying residential districts existed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the five seats were designated. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the possibility was only one of several incumbents would be challenged. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the terms were for three years, with alternating term expiration dates. Mayor Dupree stated that adopting designated seat requirements would be reverting to the previous election system; that his philosophy is not to fix something that is not broken; that the current election system has made possible cross-voting of black, white and Hispanic voters; that the necessity for a designated seat requirement is not perceived. Attorney Fournier stated that a certainty did not exist in 1984 that District 1 would or could elect a minority representative due to the demographics of the district; that the concern at the time was at-large representation mixed with district representation; that the adopted election system provided that each City voter could vote for two at-large Commissioners and one district Commissioner, i.e., a majority of the Commission; that the designated seat requirement was eliminated for the two at-large Commission seats; that in theory, a minority candidate could be elected at-large for a nondesignated seat with less white votes than for a designated seat; that the subsequent experience in District 1 is the majority of voters are African-American, providing a ready opportunity to elect a minority candidate; that for clarification, the law does not require a change in the City's election system. Mayor Dupree stated that a great deal of the opportunity to elect a minority candidate depends on who is running for office. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office is not advocating a particular election system; that the Commission directed the City Attorney's Office to report on the legality of changing to a designated seat requirement, which is the basis for the presentation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that public hearings would be held to decide if a referendum should be held; that the Community should have the discussion; that candidates for the district seats currently run for a specific seat; however, candidates for the at- large seats currently run for either of the two at-large seats. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to call for public hearings and discussion with the public and a possible referendum to adopt a designated seat requirement for consideration at the City election in March 1999. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Cardamone stated that interestingly, an overwhelming Commission majority vote approved the request for the legal research; that Attorney Fournier did an excellent job in presenting the material. 15. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4053, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 4, GENERAL EMPLOYEES I OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, AMENDING SECTION 24-103, PENSION BENEFITS, TO INCREASE THE BENEFIT ACCRUAL RATE FROM 2.0% TO 2.18% FOR SERVICE AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1997 AND TO AMEND MAXIMUM PENSION: AMENDING SECTION 24-107, DISABILITY BENEFITS; DELETING SECTION 24-108, COMMENCEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS: AMENDING SECTION 24-109, CLAIMS PROCEDURES AMENDING SECTION 24-110, EXEMPTIONS FROM EXECUTION NONAESIGNABILITYI EXECUTIONS REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. APPROVED TO SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4053 FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF A PROPOSAL TO PROTECT THE CITY IN THE EVENT OF A MARKET DOWNTURN OF 30 PERCENT (AGENDA ITEM NO. VIII-1) #3 (2350) through #4 (0411) Michael Taylor, Chairman, General Employees' Pension Board, and Scott Christiansen, Attorney for the General Employees' Pension Board came before the Commission. BOOK 44 Page 16516 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16517 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 amends the General Employees' Pension Plan; that approval is requested to set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 for public hearing. Attorney Christiansen referred to proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 amending the General Employees' Pension Plan and stated that the major changes are to: Increase the accrual rate for normal retirement for service after October 1, 1997, from 2.0 percent to 2.18 percent. - Provide for an offset for disability payments so that the total monthly amount received by the retiree for Social Security Disability, Worker's Compensation benefits and disability payments do not exceed 100 percent of the member's salary. Prohibit a member from filing for a disability pension if he or she has already reached normal retirement eligibility. - Amend the section on maximum pension. Delete the section on commencement and distribution of benefits. Delete the section on "Claims procedures" and adds a statement that the Board shall establish administrative rules instead. Allow the City to withhold a pension refund from a non = vested employee if the employee owes money to the City. Attorney Christiansen stated that the proposed ordinance contains a proposed change in a benefit; that the other changes update the pension plan to meet the Federal requirements or provide clarification. Mayor Dupree stated that the Commission earlier received individual briefings on proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053. Attorney Christiansen stated that is correct; that the proposed ordinance provides for an increase in the < normal retirement benefit by increasing the multiplier used in determining the retirement benefit which is based on age and length of service; that the proposed ordinance increases the multiplier from 2 to 2.18 percent of salary for each year of service beginning October 1, 1997; that the multiplier will not be increased for years of service prior to October 1, 1997; that the funding requirements will be provided from a reserve in the General Employees' I Pension Plan; that benefit improvements are normally funded over a period of time and are amortized; that an investment performance in previous years and the City's 8 percent required contribution has resulted in accumulated reserves in the General Employees' Pension Plan of over $2 million as of September 30, 1997; that according to actuarial assumptions, an additional $1.2 million will be accumulated by the end of 1998; that the $3.2 million in reserves will fully fund the proposed benefit improvement; that the funds for the benefit improvement will be fully paid not just for the first year but also for every year thereafter by utilizing the $3.2 million in reservesi that continued reserve accumulation is expected if the stock market continues to increase and the City continues to contribute the 8 percent; that according to the actuary, up to a 30 percent decline in pension plan assets will not affect the City's required contribution floor of 8 percent. Attorney Christiansen continued that the increase in the multiplier of .18 percent reflects the City's commitment to the employees; that the last improvements to the General Employees' Pension Plan were made 10 or 11 years ago and funded by a 1 percent increase in the members' contribution; that applying the current 2 percent multiplier, an employee with 20 years of service retiring at 65 would receive 40 percent of salary; that an increase to 2.18 percent is recommended to assist dedicated long- term employees in retirement; that the Commission is requested to set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 for public hearing. Mr. Taylor stated that a letter was received from representatives of Local #173, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the union representing General Employees, supporting the proposed increase; that the Board has a primary fiscal responsibility, for the pension fund and is also concerned about employee benefit improvements; that the proposed benefit is an opportunity to improve employee benefits at no cost to the City. Commissioner Merrill stated that no cost to the City will be associated with the proposed benefit increase as long as the stock market continues to rise; and asked if the stock market has ever dropped more than 30 percent and the impact if such a drop takes place? Attorney Christiansen stated that the stock market in the past has dropped 30 percent; that if 30 percent of the value of the assets were lost, the City would still fund the pension plan at a rate equal to 8 percent Commissioner Merrill asked if the General Employees' Pension Plan would be impacted if the market dropped more than 30 percent? Attorney Christiansen stated yes. BOOK 44 Page 16518 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16519 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that no cost will be borne by the City while the stock market continues to rise; that the City has guaranteed a defined benefit program; that a downturn of the market would result in the City's suffering a loss; that the reason for offering the increased benefit must be understood; that being unable to retire on 40 percent of a salary is not sufficient reason; that a decision should be based on whether or not the City has a competitive benefit package; that the benefit package should be increased if not competitive and not just because funds exist at the present time; that City benefits and wages are compared to the industry annually; that an informed decision is based on the need to attract a good work force through competitive benefits; that the Commission should be provided with comparative information to make an informed logical decision. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City of Bradenton, the City of Venice, Manatee County and Sarasota County belong to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and do not maintain a separate retirement system; that no employee contribution is required under the FRS. Attorney Christiansen stated that the multiplier for the FRS is approximately 1.65 percent with no contribution from employees and is funded at approximately 17 percent of payroll. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if retirees in the FRS also pay social security? Attorney Christiansen stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that many of the cities participating in the FRS desire to withdraw from the program; that comparative information should be provided to allow an informed decision; that the City has a minimum but not a maximum obligation; that the City's contribution will increase if the pension plan requires funding at 15 percent of payroll while employees' contribution will not increase nor will benefits decrease which is inequitable; that a maximum City contribution should be established; that a pension is in addition to Social Security and personal savings; that equity between general employees and public safety employees should be considered; that a benefit change to be funded by a profit of investments was approved for the police; that the multiplier for the police is 3 percent with an opportunity to retire at an earlier age; that generosity to employees after years of favorable market returns should be considered; that the proposed ordinance should be set for public hearing; that comparative information should be provided to the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the FRS under which he retired became non-contributory in the 1970s and includes an automatic annual 3 percent increase or greater based on the Cost-of-Living (COL) Index; that employers such as Sarasota Memorial Hospital are withdrawing from the FRS because of the high 17 percent cost; that the FRS is good for the employee but not for the employer. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the police were concerned about retiring at age 50 and not receiving the COL adjustment; and asked for clarification about the City's built-in increment. Attorney Christiansen stated that the COL adjustment varies from 0 to 4 percent depending on the COL Index. Commissioner Pillot stated that FRS has a minimum increase of 3 percent each year. Attorney Christiansen stated that the FRS has a flat 3 percent built-in increment. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the 3 percent increase is in addition to the COL Index. Commissioner Pillot stated that his retirement with the FRS was effective July 1, 1983; that his recollection is that State legislative action guaranteed a 3 percent increase or a COL Index each year effective in July whichever is greater; that the amount of the increase should be verified. Commissioner Cardamone stated that additional information regarding other organizations, particularly those not part of the FRS and operating separate pension plans, would be helpful. The following people came before the Commission: Lou Ann Palmer, 4160 Fruitville Road, #75 (34236), Member, General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees. stated that she serves on the Board as a representative of the City and is the only non-City employee member; that during her service on the Commission, action was taken to increase the benefit from 1.68 to 2 percent funded by an increase from 5 to 6 percent in employee contributions; that the City's contribution is 8 percent; that the City's participation was previously more than 8 percent and was reduced when investment performance increased; that the fiduciary responsibility is to the pension plan members as well as to the City; that the Board members are concerned with serving the pension plan members; that additional funds based on the City's contributions and investment performance are set aside for benefit improvements; that an improvement to 2.5 percent was initially proposed but found to be actuarially unsound in perpetuity; therefore, the 2.18 percent multiplier was presented at the annual members' meeting; that the questions raised by the Commission are understood and legitimate; that the City should invest in BOOK 44 Page 16520 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16521 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. employees just as investments are made in capital improvements to the City; that the Commission and public should be aware of the morale aspect of hard-working employees, serving the public and performing jobs which reflect on the Commission and the entire City; that the proposed ordinance should be set for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification regarding the retroactive period of the proposed increase. Ms. Palmer stated that the increase would be retroactive only to earnings beginning in October 1, 1997; that the increase would not apply to current retirees but only to employees retiring after the approval of the ordinance and will apply to disability and death benefits. Richard Sanger, 3716 Heatherlake Circle (34235), stated that as a former City employee whose department was consolidated with Sarasota County, he chose to remain in the City's retirement plan; that consideration should be given to City employees who were consolidated with Sarasota County but remained in the City's pension plan; that as a contributor and participant in the pension plan nearing retirement, benefit improvements are desired; that many employees do not make additional provisions for retirement, placing trust in and depending upon employers and pension plans; that many employees are not knowledgeable enough to invest; that lower income employees do not have the discretionary income to invest; that the Commission is encouraged to set the proposed ordinance for public hearing. Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed ordinance will be supported if data reveals the City's pension plan is less desirable than that of competitive employers; that Mr. Sanger decided to stay in the City's pension plan rather than to participate in Sarasota County's pension plan; that mention of the pension plan's having no cost should be avoided when the matter is presented at public hearing; that the City eliminated free retiree medical coverage for employees hired after October 1, 1993, during a down cycle in the stock market; that layoffs would follow and reductions required in retirement pay if the stock market declines 30 percent; that younger employees are better able to perform the physical job requirements of police officer and firefighter; that a normal 55 year old cannot perform the physical tasks as well as a 30 year old; that many of the City's general employees are knowledgeable, experienced and very capable after 30 years of employment; that a legitimate and logical reason exists for the difference in the pension plans for police and general employees; that the proposed increase in benefits should be investigated during budget considerations and employee benefits planning processes; that the issue is presented as smart politics as politicians have difficulty saying no to spending money when excess funds are available; that the Commission should address the matter from the point of view of an employer and remember the lessons learned from previous economic down cycles. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that safeguards could be developed to protect against a market decline. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the original motion to provide for presentation to the Commission of a proposal to protect the City in the event of a market downturn of 30 percent prior to setting proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 for public hearing. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the proposed amendment provides an opportunity for reducing the benefit should the market drop to a certain level. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that is the intent of the amendment. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the amendment. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as amended as to provide for presentation to the Commission of a proposal to protect the City in the event of a market downturn of 30 percent prior to setting proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 for public hearing. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Commissioner Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 11:05 p.m. 16. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT RE: BAHIA VISTA STREET - LOCKWOOD RIDGE FLOOD PLAIN RECLAMATIONI REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) # 4 (0410) through (2233) Richard Winters, Engineering Technician V, came before the Commission and stated that on March 24, 1998, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners took action on several issues to relieve flooding in the Phillippi Creek Basin, primarily in the Bellevue Terrace, Oak Shores and Pinecraft areas; that the Bahia Vista- Lockwood Ridge Floodplain Reclamation Project, involving residents within the City and County, was presented and approved by the County Commission, subject to City concurrence. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the report is being presented prior to settlement of outstanding issues between the County and the City on the Interlocal Agreement for Consolidation of Stormwater Management. BOOK 44 Page 16522 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16523 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Mr. Winters stated that the County is proceeding with various projects and requested a report be made to the City. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that concurrence with action taken by the County Commission is being requested; that the Administration recommends the Commission receive the report as an update but delay any action inferring agreement or consent with the proposal. J. P. Marchand, Deputy Director of Transportation, and Sandra Newell, Stormwater Manager, for Sarasota County, came before the Commission. Mr. Marchand stated that the County is attempting to improve efforts to involve and inform the City regarding various projects in the Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU). Mr. Marchand gave a computer-generated presentation identifying the various areas at which water levels in the Phillippi Creek are measured, showing various photographs, charts, and graphs to explain the extent and effects of flooding, and referencing the following water levels measured at the Bahia Vista Street bridge recorded during major storm events: DATE ABOVE SEA LEVEL June 1992 16.97 feet November 1997 17.03 feet December 13, 1997 15 feet March 1998 14.6 feet Mr. Marchand stated that the three storm events during the winter of 97/98 have caused significant flooding in various areas of the City and County; that, previously, computer modeling was used to analyze projects; that actual data now exists on which the status of projects can be evaluated and solutions to problems developed; that projects completed to date have made significant improvements in the upstream areas; that many of the upstream areas which had experienced flooding in 1992 were not affected or experienced less extensive flooding during the 97/98 storm events; however, areas farther downstream, which the computer modeling indicated as requiring only minor improvements, continue to experience flooding. Commissioner Patterson stated that some residents claimed more severe flooding in November 1997 than in June 1992. Mr. Marchand stated that in certain locations, the flooding was worse in 1997 than in 1992; that flooding also occurred in 1962 when water levels were higher downstream than upstream. Mr. Marchand referred to various computer-generated graphics to explain: 1) the water surface profile between the mouth of the Creek and the weir controlling water at the Celery Fields project, 2) the restrictions which exist along Phillippi Creek, including steep areas at the Celery Fields weir, the Bahia Vista east and west bridges, between the bridges on Proctor Road and Bee Ridge Road and near the mouth of Phillippi Creek downstream from U.S. 41, as well as low house elevations upstream from Proctor Road, in the Tuttle Avenue area, and in the Lockwood Ridge-Bahia Vista Street area, and 3) sedimentation within Phillippi Creek, e.g., between the two Bahia Vista Street bridges. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the sediment has not been removed? Mr. Marchand stated that sediment removal is a component of the proposed project; that the sediment accumulation may not have been as severe in past years; that sediment removal in Phillippi Creek requires obtaining permits, which is difficult, and will produce minimum improvement of flooding in the area; however, sediment removal will serve as an interim measure while awaiting permits to build the proposed levee project or to perform significant dredging along Phillippi Creek; that sediment and vegetation accumulated at the railroad bridge between the two bridges on Bahia Vista Street will be removed; that a large amount of sediment has accumulated upstream of the bridge on Bee Ridge Road; that several areas can be improved by removing restrictions at the mouth of Phillippi Creek downstream from U.S. 41; that the County has authorized emergency procedures to contract the work without the normal lengthy procurement processes. Mr. Marchand continued that a flooded home mitigation program has been prepared and City Commission input is desired; that the flooded home mitigation program addresses the problem of homes with no alternatives to flooding problems; that the flooded home mitigation program has been reviewed and is supported by the stormwater advisory committee. Mr. Marchand referred to a computer-generated flood-proofing chart displayed on the overhead projector indicating by area the number of homes involved and stated that no system improvement could be found for approximately 63 homes; that the following causes and contributors to the flooding problems were identified as follows: Unauthorized construction Building in high risk areas Adjacent development Inadequacy of system Inadequate standards. Mr. Marchand stated that examples of available options are : BOOK 44 Page 16524 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16525 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Performing site mitigation, which may include a berm or wall around the structure Raising the structure Floodproofing the home Eliminating lower floors Mr. Marchand continued that potential funding sources to address the problems are: 1) stormwater assessments which require addressing legal issues and may be an inappropriate funding source, 2) a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program which provides 75 percent matching funds with a 25 percent local govermient/nomeownet: split contribution, and 3) insurance premium savings based upon flood insurance premium discounts estimated at approximately $700,000 per year; that policy questions are being reviewed by the County; that City Commission input would be appreciated on the following policy questions: Did construction conform to the regulations and how that would be addressed in terms of policy? Was the home constructed in a high risk area? Is FEMA funding available? Should a participation limit be placed on each home? Mr. Marchand stated that the objective of the flooded home mitigation program is to eliminate exposure of repeated damage to homes while recognizing a lack of public justification for expending public funds in some cases; that policies and procedures will be developed for consideration by the City and the County. Mr. Marchand continued that a Lockwood Ridge e-Bahia Vista Improvement Project has also been developed with the following recommendations made to the County Commission: 1) Approve the concept of a new project to be added to the Phillippi Basin Master Plan for the purpose of providing flood protection for homes located north of Bahia Vista Street in the vicinity of Lockwood Ridge Road. 2) Request the concurrence of the City of Sarasota in adding the project to the Phillippi Basin Master Plan and the Capital Improvement Program. 3) Subject to concurrence of the City of Sarasota, authorize the addition of the project to the proposed Capital Improvement Program for final approval in September, 1998. 4) Subject to concurrence of the City of Sarasota, authorize Staff to begin negotiations for the acquisition of properties along the bank of Phillippi Creek as required for construction of a levee and to engage engineering services required for the project's design. 5) Authorize Staff to develop a finance plan that would permit the purchase during the current year of the homes along Phillippi Creek for which further delay will result in an increased hardship to the property owners. Mr. Marchand displayed computer-generated graphics on the overhead projector detailing flooding in the area of Lockwood Ridge Road and Bahia Vista Street in 1962, 1992, and 1997, current conditions, existing improvements and proposed improvements; and stated that the area suffering the worst flooding in the November 13, 1997, storm was along Phillippi Creek in the Bellevue Terrace and Oak Shores subdivisions; that flooding was reported in approximately 97 homes on the north side of Phillippi Creek, slightly over half of which are located in the City limits; that damage was estimated at approximately $25,000 per home or approximately $2.5 million; that the following options and associated costs to improve the area are under consideration: OPTIONS COST I. Purchase homes $9.7 million II. Raise or site mitigation $4.3 million III. Levee $6.2 million Mr. Marchand stated that evacuation, flooded streets, lost time from work, property damage to yards and swimming pools, and creek pollution are problems associated with Option II. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to extend the meeting to the end of the presentation for this Agenda item. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a decision is necessary on Road Impact Fees, Agenda Item VIII-4 or if the matter can be postponed until the May 4, 1998, regular Commission meeting? City Manager Sollenberger stated that Agenda Item VIII-4 as well as Agenda Item VIII-2 concerning proposed Ordinance No. 98-4044 amending jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Special Master and clarifying certain Code Enforcement provisions of the Sarasota City Code can be postponed to the May 4, 1998, regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that one item of discussion is desired under Remarks of Commissioners. BOOK 44 Page 16526 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16527 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that, with the approval of the seconder, the motion will be revised to include extending the meeting also for the one item of discussion under Remarks of Commissioner. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to extend the meeting to the end of the presentation for this Agenda item and for the one item of discussion under Remarks of Commissioner. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. Mr. Marchand stated that the estimated cost for Option III, which requires the purchase of some homes, is $6.2 million; that home purchase was not pursued previously due to negative reaction in some neighborhoods; that Option III is feasible, reasonable and an appropriate means to address other outstanding issues including the issue of reimbursement being raised concerning the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County. Commissioner Merrill asked if the two lakes to the north could be utilized for overflow drainage from Phillippi Creek? Mr. Marchand stated that the County Commission also raised the possibility of using the lakes for drainage; however, the problem is created by water backing up from Phillippi Creek and not water falling on the area; that excavation may be considered to store some water but will not support the magnitude of water backing up from Phillippi Creek. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that most of the proposed levee is located in the unincorporated area of Sarasota County. Mr. Marchand stated that the project to construct a levee involves the purchase and demolition of 31 homes on the northwest side of Phillippi Creek, along Greer Drive and Gerhardt Street, the majority of which are in the County; that a berm with flood compensation and the excavation of material for additional flood storage and improved conveyance would replace the homes; that water previously stored cannot be allowed to run on s houses further downstream; that installation of pumps to remove stormwater from behind the levee during a storm event would be required. Commissioner Patterson stated that the benefit to other homes which have been flooded in the area is unclear. Mr. Marchand stated that water flowing into the area from surrounding areas would be captured and piped into Phillippi Creek; that the water collected in the existing system would be moved to a low area and pumped over the levee into Phillippi Creek; that water could rise on one side of the levee without flowing backwards and causing flooding; that the Main B Canal, located west of Gerhardt Street, and the drainage ditch along Lockwood Ridge Road both flow into Phillippi Creek contributing to the flooding problem. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a large retention pond for drainage could be built in the County's undeveloped area. Mr. Marchand stated that two storage areas of approximately 30 and 40 acres are proposed; that 100-acre parcels are no longer available in the area; that the preliminary design work has been done for one storage area; that original modeling showed that the two storage areas combined would not have a significant impact on flooding in the area; that the two areas combined are only about one-third of the size of the Celery Fields project which has only a minor impact. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if water from other areas is collecting in the Phillippi Creek Basin? Mr. Marchand stated yes; that water is flowing into the area from surrounding properties; that most water flows into the ditches or lakes and into Phillippi Creek; that the water would be rerouted around the area or through the area in sealed pipes into Phillippi Creek; that the levee would prevent water from flowing into the lower area as the water in Phillippi Creek rises; that rain water on the lower area would be collected and pumped over the berm; that houses along Phillippi Creek on Greer Drive and Gerhardt Street would be purchased and replaced with the levee; that an area along Phillippi Creek would be excavated for floodplain compensation, water conveyance and amenities for the area; that Phillippi Creek would overflow into the houses without the levee holding the water back; that the problem created by the back-up of Phillippi Creek would be prevented by the levee. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the effects during a 20-inch storm event, when the berm is filled to capacity, are not clear. Mr. Marchand stated that storage of water which previously flooded one house is necessary to prevent flooding of another house; that material from high bank and vacant areas in the affected area would be excavated to provide additional storage; that a similar approach could be taken in the Pinecraft Park area; that the excavations would require permitting and a demonstration of no adverse impacts to additional houses. Mr. Marchand continued that 97 houses are affected by flooding, 31 of which would be purchased to build the levee and the remainder of which would be protected against flooding by construction of the levee; that a public meeting with residents who experience flooding in the Pinecraft, Bellevue Terrace and Oak Shores areas was held on January 28, 1998; that 25 of the 31 property owners in the proposed purchase area responded to a questionnaire; that 20 of the property owners have agreed to the purchase concept; that 6 BOOK 44 Page 16528 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16529 04/20/98 6:00 P.M. property owners do not want to sell; that 5 property owners have not responded. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she was contacted today by Kathy Spencer who resides at 3444 Gerhart Street, a house which has not experienced flooding; that Ms. Spencer indicated as many as three adjacent houses do not experience flooding and requested consideration be given to allowing those houses to remain. Mr. Marchand stated that positioning the levee along the creek versus along the street could be considered if the three houses have already been raised or elevated; that the intent is to work with the property owners. Mayor Dupree stated that pumping and removing stormwater from behind the levee and into the creek during a storm event has been proposed; and asked what will prevent the water from overflowing in areas adjacent to the project? Mr. Marchand stated that the surrounding areas, which currently have higher ground elevations, will not be negatively affected; that the water will be captured in a levee at a higher elevation and pumped through pipes into the creek; that the water will go back through the pipe into the higher elevated area when the creek fills; that retrofitting the pipe with a flat valve could be considered; however, the ground elevation in the area is higher than the creek elevation sO the water will travel downhill toward the creek. Mr. Marchand continued that piping to bypass the affected area is not a necessity; that the water could be allowed to flow into the ditch, be brought over to the sump, and larger pumps installed to remove the water, but the County has recommended installation of the piping because purchase of the sized pumps required to prevent flooding in the affected area would not be economically feasible. Commissioner Merrill stated that the reluctance of property owners to sell their houses may increase as the time between major storm events increases. Mr. Marchand stated that many of the property owners who experienced flooding during the last storm event have not moved back into their homes; that subject to the City Commission's concurrence with the proposal, the Board of Cqunty Commissioners authorized County Staff to initiate negotiations with property owners in the affected area. Mr. Schneider stated that the County is proposing the project be funded through the Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) by assessing all residents of the Phillippi Creek Basin; that City Administration is recommending the Commission delay concurrence with the proposal until the Interlocal Agreement and Phillippi Creek equity issues are settled, which hopefully can be resolved at the joint City/County meeting scheduled on May 1, 1998. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the County report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. 17. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: - CONSENSUS TO SCHEDULE ONLY ONE REGULAR COMMISSION IN AUGUST (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (2233) through (2300) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: : A. asked the desires of the Commission concerning the schedule for meetings in August 1998. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the final public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for August 10, 1998; that the Commission meetings to consider the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) have not yet been scheduled but will be about the same time frame. Mayor Dupree stated that his vacation is frequently scheduled in August. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her preference is not to hold the second regular Commission meeting; however, she will yield if Staff objects. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff does not object. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objections, only one regular Commission meeting will be scheduled in August 1998. 18. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2300) There being no further business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the regular meeting of April 20, 1998, at 12:01 a.m. TA L Bphie JEROME DUPREE, MAYOR G5 J Bille & terlse BILLYEC ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK - BOOK 44 Page 16530 04/20/98 6:00 P.M.