Book 34 Page 8574 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gurney, Vice Mayor Pillot, Commissioners Atkins, Merrill, and Patterson, City Manager Sollenberger, City Attorney Taylor, and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gurney The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY, 1992 GINNY SANCHO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT #1 (0001) through (0160) Community Development Director Hadsell introduced Ginny Sancho, Community Development Senior Clerk, as Employee of the Month for July, 1992. Mr. Hadsell stated that Ginny's responsibilities do not usually require her to become involved in the lives of people, but when six families recently found themselves relocated, she volunteered her time, efforts and money to provide necessities for Spanish speaking families in need. Mr. Hadsell stated further that Ginny always does as much as she can for her customers and that she has taken the City's slogan of "Serving With Excellence And Pride" to a new level. Mayor Gurney presented Ms. Sancho with a plaque in appreciation for her unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 20 PRESENTATION RE: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO CONNIE MAULTSBY, RECOGNIZED AS PRESIDENT BUSH'S 854TH DAILY POINT OF LIGHT FOR THE NATION #1 (0160) through (0360) Mayor Gurney introduced Connie Maultsby and asked her to speak regarding her organization and the award presented to her by President Bush as the 854th Daily Point of Light for the Nation. Ms. Maultsby came before the Commission and stated that she was born in the Newtown Community of Sarasota, and has been very active all of her life; that she felt a conviction to be with and promote children as strong leaders in their communities; that these young people represent our future and support is needed for them; that the organization she works with, Junior Kapps of Sarasota, will continue to help young people; and that she is thankful to be here. Mayor Gurney presented an Appreciation Certificate to Ms. Maultsby and the Junior Kapps of Sarasota for their dedicated service to the community and the manner in which they have carried out their duties and responsibilities. 3. MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 92-596, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF MICHAEL J. BRUMER, A FORMER CITY OF SARASOTA EMPLOYEE ADOPTED #1 (0360) through (0460) Mayor Gurney read Memorial Resolution No. 92R-596 which recognized the passing of Mr. Michael J. Brumer, who served the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department of the City of Sarasota as a Plans Examiner from July 6, 1983, through April 12, 1989; and that he was highly respected for his competence, dedication and expertise. The City Commission paused in honor of Mr. Brumer. A copy of the Resolution, appropriately framed, will be delivered to the bereaved family. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 92R-596. Motion carried (5-0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY #1 (0460) through (0490) city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that there are changes to the Order of the Day: A. Please remove, at the request of Mr. Conboy, from SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS, ITEM NO. V-1, request for a permit to operate a horse and buggy at the Sarasota Quay. B. Please add to NEW BUSINESS, ITEM NO. VIII-1, Approval Re: Acquisition of the Central Gardens Apartments located at 1402 7th Street - Community Development Director Hadsell. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 5. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED SPECIAL CITY COMMIS- SION BUDGET MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1992, ADJOURNED TO JUNE 24, 1992; APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION Book 34 Page 8575 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8576 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. MEETING OF JULY 16, 1992; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 20, 1992; MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22, 1992 - - APPROVED - AGENDA ITEMS I-1, 2, 3, AND 4 #1 (0489) through (0500) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins it was moved to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Special City Commission Budget meeting of June 23, 1992, adjourned to June 24, 1992; the minutes of the Special City Commission meeting of July 16, 1992; the minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting of July 20, 1992; and the minutes of the Special City Commission meeting of July 22, 1992. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: REGULAR PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING OF JULY 1, 1992 - SET PETITION 92-8V- 02 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; SET PETITION NO. 92-SV-04 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; CITY MANAGER TO REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON WORK PLAN AMENDMENTS; PLANNING BOARD TO REPORT TO COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 ON BEER AND WINE LICENSURE; PLANNING BOARD REPORT ACCEPTED - AGENDA ITEM II-1 #1 (0500) through (0796) Planning and Development Deputy Director Taylor, and Planning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Almy came to the Commission table and reported on the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of July 1, 1992. A. Petition No. 92-SV-02 Street Vacation for USF Fine Arts Center at Caples. Ms. Almy stated that the Planning Board voted to recommend Commission approval of Petition 92-SV-02, Street Vacation for the University of South Florida (USF) Fine Arts Center at Caples. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson it was moved to set this matter for public hearing. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. B. Petition No. 92-SV-04 - Street Vacation of that portion of Lime Street lying between Hawthorne and Waldemere Streets Chairman Almy stated that the Planning Board voted to recommend Commission Approval of Petition No. 92-SV-04 Street Vacation request on a portion of Lime Street between Hawthorne and Waldemere Streets. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to set this matter for public hearing. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. C. Amend Work Program to add a study of older areas within the City which were affected by the 1974 Zone Code. Chairman Almy stated that the next item regards a subdivision study; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency voted to recommend that the City Commission amend the Planning Department's work program in the fall by adding a study to evaluate other older areas within the City that were developed as small lot subdivisions but rezoned to promote large lot development districts. Chairman Almy stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency also recommends to the City Commission that the City Planning Board review residential single family zoning throughout the City to see if it is appropriately zoned and that it be done during the next comprehensive plan update. Mr. Taylor stated that this last matter will be brought back to the Commission for discussion circa October. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that he received a request from a citizen recently concerning the City ordinance involving beer and wine licensure; that he felt this ordinance was having an unintended effect on a business located on Osprey Avenue and that relief is promptly needed; that the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages states they have no problem issuing the license provided that the City of Sarasota has no problem with the zoning matters; that he requests a report by the Planning Board for the September 21st meeting, and concurrently, that the City Attorney be requested to review the ordinance and recommend appropriate amendments at the same time so that unintended hardships can be avoided for legiti- mate businesses. City Manager Sollenberger concurred that this can be accomplished by the meeting of September 21, 1992. Commissioner Merrill stated that on pages five and six of the Planning Board minutes that there was a discussion regarding traffic standards for neighborhood streets that did not affect concurrence and that he liked the direction they were headed. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson it was moved that the City Manager report back to the Commission at the first meeting of October on how this could be put into the work plan sooner than after the Vision Plan. Motion carried (5 to 0): : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Book 34 Page 8577 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8578 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to request that the Planning Board report at the Commission meeting of September 21, 1992, on the matter of the beer and wine licensure; that at the same meeting the City Attorney bring a proposed draft of amendments that would be appropriate to the purpose; and that, if the City Commission agrees that they may vote that night, to set it for public hearing at the appropriate future date. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that the intent of his motion would be to ask the Planning Board, the Administration, and the City Attorney to recommend to the Commission a general change that would be equitable to the businesses but would not undo the original purpose of protecting against misuse and abuse of the ordinance. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the Planning Board. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 70 BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: REGULAR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETINGS OF JULY 14 AND AUGUST 11, 1992 -= REPORTS RECEIVED; HISTORIC DESIGNATION PETITIONS 92-HD-10, 92-HD-11, 92-HD-12, AND 92-HD-13 SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION FORM LETTER TABLED UNTIL HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ELEMENT ADOPTED IN CITY CODE: HISTORIC DESIGNATION PETITIONS 92-HD-14 AND 92-HD-15 SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; EXHIBITION HALLREPORT GIVEN AND NO ACTION TAKEN: ADMINISTRATION RECOMMEN- DATION APPROVED TO REQUEST ORDINANCE BE PREPARED TO DELETE STORE FRONT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVA- TION BOARD; AGENDA ITEM VII-7 MOVED FORWARD FOR CONCURRENT DISCUSSION - AGENDA ITEM II-2 #1 (0796) through (0865) A. Petitions 92-HD-10 (1845 Wisteria Street) i 92-HD-11 (1896 Hibiscus Street); 92-HD-12 (1750 Hawthorne Street) ; and 92-HD-13 (1641-1647 Loma Linda). Planning and Development Deputy Director Taylor came before the Commission and stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommended approval of all four Historic Preservation Petitions at its regular meeting of July 14, 1992. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved that all four named petitions be set for public hearing for historic designation. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. B. Demolition Form Letter Recommendation that staff be directed to draft a form letter to be sent to all private parties who apply for a demolition permit informing them of the benefits and incentives for preserving their structure rather than demolishing it. Deputy Planning Director Taylor came before the Commission and stated that the last action of the Historic Preservation Board Regular Meeting of July 1, 1992 was for the City Commission to consider a Historic Preservation Board request that staff be directed to send a letter to all private parties who apply for demolition permits, informing them of the benefits and incentives for preserving structures rather than demolishing them. Mayor Gurney requested that companion Agenda ITEM VII-7 be brought forward at this time to be discussed concurrently and there was a consensus to do so. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REOUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE A RESPONSE TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REQUEST FOR NINETY DAY POSTPONEMENTS OF DEMOLITIONS TABLED UNTIL HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ELEMENT ADOPTED IN CITY CODE: AGENDA ITEM VII-9 MOVED FORWARD FOR CONCURRENT DISCUSSION - AGENDA ITEM VII-7 #1 (0865) through (1079) Building, Housing, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Director Hewes came to the Commission table and stated that this is a matter that would declare a moratorium on all demolitions in certain neighborhoods until there is a new historic element in the Code; that there are efforts to initiate a program that will demolish houses that become vacant, vandalized, and illegally occupied; that many of these houses have been in some historic neighborhoods; that he feels the present demolition program has become very effective; that most of the houses have no historical significance; and that ceasing the demolition program in these areas would be a mistake and he would be against it. City Manager Sollenberger stated that there was a recommendation to refer this matter to the Administration, however, Mr. Hewes has articulated the position of the Administration that a 90 day or 6 month moratorium on demolitions is not supported by the administration on hazardous structures. Mr. Sollenberger stated further that the concept of the letter is good, but that any communication to the public concerning preserva- tion opportunities should await adoption of a historic preservation element so that the information given to the public is consistent Book 34 Page 8579 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8580 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. with the policies of the Commission, as administered by Administra- tion. Mr. Sollenberger noted that the Historic Preservation Ordinance will be taken up about November 10th. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to table both of these issues (demolition form letter and 90 day postponement of demolitions) until such time as they are reported back in the Historical Preservation element. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. D. Petitions 92-HD-14 (4521 Bayshore Road) and 92-HD-15 (1872 Hibiscus Street) #1 (1079) through (1192) Mr. Taylor stated that at the August 11, 1992; that both petitions were unanimously recommended for approval. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson it was moved that Petitions 92-HD-14 and 92-HD-15 be set for public hearing. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. E. Exhibition Hall Report Mr. Taylor stated that Historic Preservation Board commented on the need for pursuing funding of the restoration of the Exhibition Hall and suggested that the City Commission make every effort to ensure funding of the full restoration; and that there was no action needed. F. Petition 92-HD-7 (1141 S. Osprey Avenue) Alice Ross House Mr. Taylor stated that with regard to the Alice Ross Home at 1141 South Osprey Avenue, on the Agenda as ITEM VII-9, that the Board reaffirmed their prior recommendation to designate this structure as historical. G. Request Re: Design Assistance Team Review Process Mr. Taylor stated that with regard to the Design Assistance Team Review project, the members of the Historic Preservation Board were under the impression that they should be reviewing the Store Front Projects; that they would like clarification as to being part of that process or not. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his recommendation would be to amend the ordinance to delete that responsibility from the Historic Preservation Board. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to accept the two (July 14 and August 11) reports given. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mayor Gurney, without objection from the Commission, moved Agenda ITEM VII-9 up for discussion. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 92-3588, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1141 SOUTH OSPREY AVENUE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE ALICE ROSS HOME, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ORDINANCE DENIED - - AGENDA ITEM VII-9 #1 (1192) through (1380) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this matter had been on the July 20th agenda for second reading; that a motion was made to deny it; that that motion was tabled; and that now a motion was needed to remove. the matter from the table. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson it was moved to remove Petition 92-HD-7 from the table. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Vice-Mayor Pillot called the question on the motion to deny Ordinance No. 92-3588. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the motion. Motion failed (5 to 0): Atkins, no; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, no; Gurney, no. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that there was a recommendation from the Administration to adopt Ordinance No. 92-3588 which does approve the historic petition. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson it was moved to approve the Administration recommendation and the approval of Ordinance 92-3588. Motion failed: (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, no. Book 34 Page 8581 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8582 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. 9. BOARD ACTIONS: : REPORT RE: PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRON- MENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 1992 - MATTER REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION. - AGENDA ITEM II-3 #1 (1380) through (1825) Public Works Administration Manager Mountain, and Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board Chairman Herbert Quinn came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain stated that Administra- tion had requested the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board (PREPB) to review the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Rule 16N-22.026, which establishes Manatee Protection Zones in Sarasota County. Mr. Quinn stated that in reviewing the DNR Rule, the PREPB felt that there was a need for the City to retain the designation of the area off of City Island as a "water sports area;" that if the City did not retain that designation then within one year from the Rule's effective date of January 1, 1992, that area would revert back to a "slow speed" zone Manatee Protection Area; and that the PREPB unanimously felt that there was a need for a "water sports" area where the Ski-A-Rees and similar organizations may maintain an area for their practice; that there are several recommendations. Mr. Quinn read a resolution passed by the Board and stated that the Board strongly felt that the City should take action to preserve this area. Mr. Mountain stated that the request is to refer to Administration because there are several agencies involved; and that subsequently the matter may be brought back before the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to refer this matter to Administration. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to accept the report of the PREPB. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 = ITEMS 1 THROUGH 15, 17 AND 18 APPROVED: ITEM 16 SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING = AGENDA ITEMS III-A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, AND 18 #1 (1825) through #2 (0269) Mayor Gurney requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the purpose for Consent Agendas, and to give a synopsis of each item under the Consent Agenda. Mr. Robinson replied that items under Consent Agenda No. 1 are considered routine matters; that if a Commissioner desired to do so, he/she could request that an item be removed for discussion before voting; that Consent Agenda No. 2, consisted of resolutions and ordinances that required a roll call vote. Mr. Robinson proceeded to give a synopsis of each item. Commissioner Atkins requested that Consent Agenda Item No. 2 be removed for discussion. Commissioner Patterson requested that Consent Agenda Item No. 16 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Lease Agreement between the City and Sarasota County for location of communications equipment 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract awarded to Gateway Ma- rine, Inc., for barge hauling to two inshore artificial fishing reefs 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a construction contract awarded to Sky Construction, Sarasota, for Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Replacement 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract awarded to Kissinger Campo and Associates Corporation for engineer- ing services to provide bridge inspections on certain bridges owned and maintained by the City 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract awarded to Gator Asphalt Company, Bradenton, for Pavement Milling/Resurfacing 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute an agreement with Nutri-Source, Inc., Orlando, for sale of compost 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to negotiate and execute a contract with Ardaman & Associates, Inc., to provide soil and material testing for City projects 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate a contract with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc., to provide design, permitting and construction management assistance for a three (3) million gallon cylindrical concrete potable water Ground Storage Tank 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract awarded to Central Book 34 Page 8583 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page. 8584 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Florida Contractors, Inc., Ocala, for the Municipal Sidewalk Project 11. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Warranty Deed on the Orange Avenue Improvement Project, Right-of-Way Acquisition 12. Approval Re: Applications from Herbert Jenkins for $10,000 and from Clinton Jones for $10,000 for deferred payment loans under the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way Storefront Improvement Program 13. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 92-3534, amending Chapter 29.5, Sarasota City Code, pertaining to site improvements which are required to be reviewed by the city, Engineer for compliance with applicable codes; amending the exemption from such review for minor additions or alterations to existing developed property; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) 14. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing, proposed Ordinance No. 92-3560, adopting by reference The Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition, The Standard Mechanical Code, 1991 Edition, The Standard Plumbing Code, 1991 Edition, The Standard Gas Code, 1991 Edition, The Standard Housing Code, 1991 Edition, and The Standard Fire Prevention Code, 1991 Edition; adopting by reference City of Sarasota Amendments to each of the aforementioned Standard Codes of the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.; adopting by reference The National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) 101, Life Safety Code (1991 Edition) and the City of Sarasota Amendments there- to; requiring that construction be in conformity with each Standard Code and local amendments thereto; pro- viding for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. (Title Only) 15. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 92-3563, amending Chapter 2 of the Sarasota City Code, Administration, Article VI, Finance, purchasing and sales, by repealing Division 4, Lost, Captured or Stolen Property; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. 17. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 92-3615, amending the City Code Chapter 21, Offenses, by repealing therefrom Article XI, Convenience Stores; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 18. Approval Re: Refer to the Planning Board and the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board and set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 92- 3624, establishing regulations for the protection of certain trees within the city of Sarasota as set forth herein; making certain findings in regard to the benefi- cial aspects of certain trees; defining terms; making it unlawful to cut down, remove, or in any other manner destroy certain trees except when a permit has been granted; setting forth the procedures for the issuance of a permit allowing for the removal, replacement or relocation of certain trees; establishing a permit fee; providing for exemptions from said fee; providing for the revocation of permits issued in the event of a violation of the terms hereof; making it unlawful to plant certain trees as specified herein; setting forth the requirements for a site landscaping plan in conjunction with a permit application; requiring the protection of trees during construction and development; establishing an appeals procedure; stating a penalty for violations equal to a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or both; authorizing the Code Enforcement Special Master to enforce the terms of this Ordinance as an alternative means of enforcement; stating exemptions; providing for emergency tree removal; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, all items, with the exception of Nos. 2 and 16. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the Sarasota County School Board for school crossing guard services at Booker High School Commissioner Atkins stated that he did not believe that high school kids need a crossing guard. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the city provides the crossing guard but the School Board reimburses the City for those costs; that the service has been requested to be continued. Deputy Police Chief/Major Jolly came to the Commission table and stated that the School Board has expressed a concern for pedestrian traffic and high school students crossing Orange Avenue; that they have requested two school crossing guards be assigned there; and the School Board agreed to reimburse the City for the costs. Major Book 34 Page 8585 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8586 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Jolly stated that the School Board is now requesting a formal interlocal agreement to that effect, retroactive to include the last school year and to run through June 30, 1994; and that part of the interlocal agreement is that the School Board will reimburse the City for all costs associated with this. Commissioners Atkins and Merrill concurred that even though they disagree with the need, that if the School Board feels it needs the service and are willing to pay for it, it may do sO. Vice-Mayor Pillot questioned the City's liability. City Attorney Taylor stated that there is always a liability potential on the part of the City if an employee is negligent. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that there is a clause in the agreement which invokes the benefits of the waiver of sovereign immunity statute and states that each party is liable for its own negligent actions; and that there is no indemnification in the interlocal agreement. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 2. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mayor Gurney stated that he would like to raise this issue again in the next joint meeting with the School Board on September 14, 1992. Vice-Mayor Pillot asked that the two newly elected School Board members be invited to the City Commission joint meeting with the School Board. There was a consensus by the Commission and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson was requested to do sO. 16. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing, proposed Ordinance No. 92-3609, amending Article VI of the Zoning Code pertaining to Parking and Storage of major recreational equipment; providing that such equipment may be parked or stored in rear or side yards, but not in a required front yard or on the front yard side of the line or extension of the line of any building or structure facing the front yard; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Patterson stated that the Coalition of City Neighbor- hood Associations sent a letter requesting that the Commission address, along with this ordinance, the parking of cars on front yard lawns. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to set for public hearing and that the Administration be asked to address this issue (car parking in front yards) at the time of public hearing. Commissioner Atkins stated this will create a problem for many people; and that he feels that the total community should have ordinances enforced universally. Commissioner Merrill stated that this matter needs a lot of thought and he would prefer not tying up this ordinance because of this issue; that he would like to ask the Administration to return to the Commission with recommendations regarding cars in front yards. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that he has concerns about the ordinance in general and his motion to support it would be to set the matter for public hearing after further consideration. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to amend the motion to delete the car parking in front yards from this particular motion. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the main motion. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to ask the City staff to consider what might be done to address that problem (parking of cars in front yards) or whether it is feasible at all in the community, such as Sarasota, where neighborhoods have such a variety of interests. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 92-3619, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1992, AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993: SAID BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, ENTERPRISE FUNDS, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: PROVIDING FOR CURRENT EXPENSES AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, EACH BEING SPECIFICAL- LY IDENTIFIED HEREIN; ASSESSING AND LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1992: SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS TO BE LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES COLLECTED: IDENTIFYING THE BUDGETS AND AMOUNT OF THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES WHICH ARE APPROPRI- ATED FOR THE PURPOSES ENUMERATED HEREIN: APPROPRIATING MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES AND SURPLUS REVENUES FOR THE PURPOSES Book 34 Page 8587 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8588 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. STATED; INSTRUCTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO KEEP ACCOUNTS 8O AS TO ASSURE THE PROPER UTILIZATION OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR OTHER EXPENSES AND EXPENDITURES: PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A RESERVATION OF FUND BALANCE FOR ENCUMBRANCES AND THE REAPPOR- TIONING OF FUNDS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1992-93; PROVIDING THAT A NET SURPLUS, AFTER REAPPORTIONING OF FUNDS, SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATION FOR THE ENSUING FISCAL YEAR; APPROPRIATING ALL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR USES AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE LAW: APPROPRIAT- ING ALL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES NOT OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED IN THIS ORDINANCE AND SURPLUS REVENUES FROM EACH REVENUE SOURCE FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA UP TO AND INCLUDING THE TOTAL AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED HEREBY OR AS MAY BE SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION: RESTRICTING THE USE OF DEBT SERVICE TAXES ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH APPROPRIATED INSTRUCTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PROCEED TO COLLECT ALL REVENUES DUE THE CITY OF SARASOTA, INCLUDING AD VALOREM TAXES LEVIED HEREBY AND INITIALLY COLLECTED BY THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PAY OUT MONIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSES STATED; REQUIRING PAYMENTS ON WARRANT OF THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK, COUNTERSIGNED BY THE CITY MANAGER, WHEN REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; APPROPRIATING FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND ANY BALANCE REMAINING AT THE END OF ANY FISCAL YEAR AS FUNDING UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR THE READING OF THIS ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING = AGENDA ITEM IV-1 #2 (0269) through (1290) Mayor Gurney requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time, the petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Vice-Mayor Pillot left the Commission table at 7:10 p.m. Finance Director Mitchell came before the Commission and stated that the Truth in Millage Bill requires that the proposed millage rate for ad valorem taxes be measured in terms of the roll-back rate; that the roll-back rate is the millage rate necessary to yield the same ad valorem tax revenue as the current year; that the roll-back rate is 5.329 mills; that the proposed millage rate in tonight's budget is 5.270 mills for the operating budget; that this is a decrease of 1.107% from the roll-back rate. Mr. Mitchell stated further that Proposed Ordinance No. 92-3619 adopts a budget and a Capital Improvement Plan for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993; that it establishes an ad valorem tax millage to be levied and assessed from the operating budget and the debt service budgets; that there is no increase in the operating millage of 5.270 mills or in the current debt service millage of 1.248 mills. City Manager Sollenberger stated that there was one item regarding the establishment of a Department of Public Safety, effective October 1, 1992; that there have been discussions by the Commission in regarding consolidation of the Fire Department with the County; and that the Commission expressed a stronger interest in the formation of a City Department of Public Safety. Mr. Sollenberger stated further that a report has been distributed showing how that may be accomplished; that the purpose was to eliminate duplications in the area of support and administration overhead without affecting street level operations; that the significant issue is the table of organization; and that the ordinance that adopts the budget would permit the City Manager to implement this Department of Public safety. Mr. Sollenberger stated further that he will be asking for approval for the Department of Public Safety at the Commission's second hearing on the budget; and that a workshop is scheduled before second hearing in order to review details of the proposal. Mr. Sollenberger continued that a Department of Public Safety does not preclude future consolidation of Fire Services with the County; that that matter needs to be thoroughly examined so that a final determination can be made regarding levels of service and cost impacts; that he would like to move forward with the Department of Public Safety and that is why he is proposing its implementation as of October 1, 1992; and that this is timely with the announced retirement of the Fire Chief. Vice-Mayor Pillot returned to the Commission table at 7:14 p.m. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he is asking that the adoption of the budget, including the Department of Public Safety, occur at the Commission's second public hearing on the subject on September 21, 1992, and any vote tonight on the motion would be subject to final action on the 21st. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is concerned that a "yes" vote on this budget, as presented tonight, represents support for a concept that has not been fully explored by the Commission. Book 34 Page 8589 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8590 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would rather be criticized for moving ahead quickly that be unwilling to move forward on this cost cutting issue; that he is willing to make the vote tonight and make the final vote later; that he is proud that the Administration has moved as quickly as it has. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that his understanding is that if the Commission passes the proposed Ordinance tonight on first reading that none of it, including Section No. 11, is adopted until the second reading on September 21st. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that was correct. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the newspaper copy editorial was in error regarding the implementation date; that the Commission did not meet in August; and having reviewed the motion as well as the individual expressions of the Commissioners, that he wished to deliver this on a timely basis; that he is not asking the Commis- sion to adopt this matter this evening; that more discussion is needed prior to approval; and that his intention is to expedite this if it meets with the Commission's approval. Commissioner Atkins stated that the matter did not meet with his approval in June and he continues to have problems with it; that he does not believe that what he seeks from the Police and Fire Departments will be impacted in a positive way; that the Commission should start focusing on problem solving instead of saving money; that he feels the Public Safety Department creates another level of bureaucracy that will create more problems; that he is looking for firemen to respond in a timely manner; that he would like to see a greater impact on the needs of addressing some of the public safety in his community. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Mr. Joseph Berilacqua, 1336 Oak Park Avenue, representing the Bobby Jones Golf Course Association, came before the Commission and stated that the City is being unfair to golfers in the City by raising the membership fees 258; that they will not open member- ships at the golf course to City residents; that he feels this is discriminating against City residents who pay taxes and cannot afford to play golf on a city course; that if the City would cut its maintenance costs by 10% there would be a savings of $79,000; that Bobby Jones is run by two managers whose annual salaries exceed $100,000; that these jobs could be consolidated for even greater savings. Mr. Berilacqua stated that if the City added 300 new memberships, an additional $180,000 would be added to the fund for a total of approximately $411,000 paid to the City from October 1 through October 15; and that the total of savings would add up to approxi- mately $545,000. Mr. Harold Grabb, 2874 Davis Boulevard, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he is against the 25% increase; that he feels that all of the senior citizens are probably against it also; that in the last five years from 1986 through 1991 the increase in a family membership has been $453.40; that with the new increase it will be $200 more. Mr. Grabb stated further that in 1990-91 Bobby Jones made a profit of $181,000 before their debt service; that in the proposed 1991-92 a profit of $202,000 is expected with a debt service of $197,000; that in 1981- 82 the course made $260,000 with a debt service of $39,000; that no matter what the dues of the fee holders are raised to it is not going to help the deficit; that the interest is what is killing it; that the course made $1,600,000 in the last ten years; and he thinks was used to pay interest. There was no one else to speak and the public hearing was closed. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 92-3619 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot 3. it was moved to approve Ordinance No. 92-3619 on first reading. 3 Commissioner Merrill stated that with regard to the two gentlemen's comments on Bobby Jones' that he agrees with their comments; that the matter was well discussed during the previous meeting; that the hi vote was a divided one; and that he does not think that there is anyone here prepared to change the vote tonight; and rather than repeating all of the previous arguments that he will still vote for this matter. Mayor Gurney stated that the only way true equity could be established would be by sunsetting the memberships all together; and that he feels the Commission did the best that could be done when they voted on the previous changes. Commissioner Patterson stated that she will vote against the budget because she does not see any other option at the moment; that, although, given further information she may well vote for it the second time around; that her concern is that it includes a mandate for a consolidation of the police and fire departments which, from the information given her so far, adds two administrative posi- tions; that she cannot vote yes for something that she has not had a chance to properly digest and endorse; that without this item she would have voted for the budget; that the public that has thanked her for not having a tax increase this year should be made aware that this budget has almost a million dollar deficit; and that the Book 34 Page 8591 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8592 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. time will come wherein tax increase will have to absorb that expense unless some serious cost savings can be achieved. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that the deficit does not mean that the City is going into the red; that the budget calls for spending, in this coming year, approximately, $1 million dollars more than the revenues for this fiscal year; that the money comes from a reserve of approximately $4 million dollars; and that the City is spending more this year than it is taking in, and therefore taking it out of the "savings account," so that the budget is balanced as required, by reducing reserves. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 92-3605, INCREASING CHARGES FROM EMERGENCY RESCUE OR TRANSFER SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA FIRE DEPARTMENT: AMENDING RATES FOR NON- TRANSPORT SERVICE; REPEALING ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING AGENDA ITEM IV-2 #2 (1290) through (1403) Finance Director Mitchell came before the Commission and stated that Ordinance No. 92-3605 raises the fees for emergency rescue service for advanced life support from the current fee of $190 to the proposed fee of $225; for basic life support, from the current fee of $135 to the proposed fee of $160; and the current fee for treated but not transported from $35 to $45. Mr. Mitchell stated that it has been over two years since these ambulance fees have been increased; that based upon a survey by the Fire Department, these fees are in line and have been considered in the proposed budget just passed on first reading. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was Closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 92-3605 by title only. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 92-3605 on first reading. Vice-Mayor Pillot praised the ambulance service and stated that the superb expertise of the Firefighters and the human quality in which they perform makes it a tremendous bargain for the people of this City. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, noj Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 92-3607, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE V, DIVISION 5 RELATING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIFYING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST VIOLATORS BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTERS; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - APPROVED ON FIRST READING = AGENDA ITEM IV-3 #2 (1403) through (1501) Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 92-3607 by title only. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve on first reading Ordinance No. 92-3607. Building, Housing, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Director Hewes came before the Commission and stated that in this ordinance the guidance of a prior study was followed; that in that study, set rates were specified for six particular inspections; that a rate will be added for each inspection after six inspections have been made; that it will be included in the Ordinance for second reading; that the amount is $20 per inspection after six inspections have been made. Vice-Mayor Pillot asked if where it now states six are $342, that every inspection over six would be an additional $20 beyond the $342. Mr. Hewes stated that was correct. Mayor Gurney asked if that change should be reflected in the motion ànd it was agreed; and the maker of the motion agreed that the motion reflects that change. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 14. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE No. 92-3592, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-2 ZONE DISTRICT TO MCI ZONE DISTRICT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, AND FROM CG ZONE DISTRICT TO MCI ZONE DISTRICT THE EASTERLY 250 FEET M.O.L. OF LOT 15, ALL IN BLOCK A, RIVERSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1, PAGE 13, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (PETITION NO. 92-CO- 04 AND 92-F, LAWSON REPRESENTING RINGLING SCHOOL OF ART AND Book 34 Page 8593 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8594 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. DESIGN) (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING - AGENDA ITEM IV-4 #2 (1501) through (2015) Planning and Development Deputy Director Taylor and Mr. Donald M. Lawson, AIA, representing Petitioner, came before the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that the site is located on the east side of Bradenton Road and north of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that the site plan is reflective of the entire area to be rezoned; that the Planning staff has recommended in favor of the re-zoning and the site plan; that the site plan is only for Phase I at this time; that the Planning Department will have to return to the Commission for additional approvals for the Phase II of the site plan. Mr. Taylor stated further that the Planning Board recommended approval of this rezoning and site plan subject to the tree protection ordinance being returned to them in the form of a public hearing; that a number of the students at the Ringling School of Art expressed concern regarding a number of trees that may be removed; that the Petitioner did not have at that time a detailed survey of the trees; and that the Planning Board would like to see that and would like to hold a public hearing giving the students an opportunity to comment. Mr. Taylor continued that the Planning Board also found that they would like to discuss with the Petitioner the number of curb cuts in the site plan and also the traffic circulation pattern within the parking lot, but recommended approval of the rezoning and the site plan so that the Petitioner can move forward with their grant application. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is being asked to approve the site plan subject to conditions that the tree matter will be re-examined based upon new submittals by the petitioner, and, secondly, the traffic circulation, which needs to be refined. Mr. Lawson stated that it may be that the curb cuts and the traffic flow within the parking lots may not be changed; that the Planning Board wanted an opportunity to discuss that further with the Petitioner when the petition came back for approval of the tree consistency finding; but if it did require changes perhaps the Commission could ask that that matter be brought back to them as well; that he is only referring to the site plan portion. Mr. Lawson stated further that if the property were already rezoned to the proper zoning the site plan would not have to be approved by the Commission and would only have to be approved by the Planning Board. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that Section 6 specifically states that the final site and development plan must be approved by the City Commission. Attorney Taylor stated that was correct and that all the conditions are included; and that in approving this matter it will return to the Planning Board and return again to the City Commission for final approval. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission. Berta Lefkovich, 4805 Rilma Avenue, representing herself, came before the Commission and stated that she is Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board, that she would like to know why there is preliminary work already taking place on this property; that there has been some heavy duty work cleaning up the area, along with heavy equipment. There was no one else to speak and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Donald Lawson came before the Commission and stated that with regard to work taking place at the site, it pertained to the removal of wood cottages that had fallen in disrepair; that the cottages had structural damage; that the school was having problems with break ins and fires; and the school felt that for the safety of the students that the structures should be removed; that a demolition permit was obtained; and that the matter was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board which requested that one cottage be kept. Mr. Lawson noted that efforts are being made to integrate that cottage into the project. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 92-3592 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve Ordinance No. 92-3592. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 15. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 92-3674, EXTENDING THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PETITION NO. 91-T FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF SAID APPROVAL, PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO TAD ZONE DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR MEASURED FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 91-T THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 2 AND 4, BLOCK 26, PLAT OF SARASOTA, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 30, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; A/K/A 400 N. TAMIAMI TRAIL: AS MORE PARTICU- LARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE Book 34 Page 8595 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8596 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF PETITION 91-T: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (Title Only) - - PASSED ON FIRST READING - AGENDA ITEM #2 (2015) through (2238) Planning and Development Deputy Director Taylor came before the Commission and stated that this property is located at 400 N. Tamiami Trail and that it is an enclosure of part of an existing motel; that the work has not been initiated yet and they would like to extend the approval of the Preliminary Site and Development Plan (PS&D) ; that it was recommended for approval by the Planning Department, Planning Board, and City Commission about one year ago. Petitioner John Nugent came before the Commission and stated that he has not commenced the work yet because he has not been able to obtain the financing. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 92-3674 by title only. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 92- 3674. Commissioner Patterson stated that she voted against the intensity the first time around and she has not changed her mind. Commissioner Merrill stated that this would extend what a Commis- sion has done before and he will vote in favor of it; that, however, if it returns next year to the Commission he will vote to adhere to the conditional issues involved. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 16. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 92-3675, PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING FROM CRT ZONE DISTRICT TO OPB AND RMF-3 ZONE DISTRICTS, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING BETWEEN MOUND STREET AND ALDERMAN STREET WEST OF OSPREY AVENUE TO HUDSON BAYOU, LYING WITHIN HUDSON BAYOU ADDITION, PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 56, AND HUDSON BAYOU ADDITION REPLAT, PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 58, AS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF THE FINAL APPROVAL FOR SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN PETITION 90-H: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 92-3675 DENIED; ORDINANCE TO BE DRAFTED TO EXTEND APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND REZONING FOR 18 MONTHS - = AGENDA ITEM IV-6 #2 (2238) through #3 (1700) Planning and Development Deputy Director Taylor came before the Commission and stated that this property is located on the north side of Mound Street, also known as U.S. 41 and the west side of Osprey Avenue, generally speaking; that this petition received an extension one year ago and that it has now been two years since the Planning staff, Planning Board, and City Commission approved this project; that if the Commission acts on this ordinance the property will be rezoned back under the conditional rezoning ordinance which allows a one year rezoning and a one time, one year extension. Mr. Taylor stated that the re-zoning would revert the property from CRT which is Commercial/Residentidential/Transition zoning, back to the original zoning which is OPB (orfice/Professionssional/Business), and RMF-3 (Residential Multi-Family); Vice-Mayor Pillot asked if this property is south of the dry cleaning establishment on Osprey Avenue and if the purpose was for an ACLF. Mr. Taylor agreed and stated that the purpose was for a retirement center of about one hundred units. Vice-Mayor Pillot asked if the rezoning would be eliminate if the Commission voted for the Ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that was correct, and that the senior citizen residence was the specific project. Vice-Mayor Pillot asked if the vote was "no" on the ordinance, if the Commission would be continuing the CRT zoning and Mr. Taylor agreed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance provides for one extension for up to one year, based upon a finding of the City Commission that under the circumstances given they believe that the one year time extension is warranted; that after that one year extension expires, which means the ordinance has been on the books for two years, and no building permit has been pulled for the project, then the City Auditor and Clerk has no discretion and must re-advertise the matter for re-zoning back to its original zone category. Attorney Taylor continued that the Code stops at that point and does not address circumstantial changes appropriateness; and that the City Commission has the right to grant additional extensions. Commissioner Merrill stated that he has no problem approving or re- approving the site plan as prepared; that he will support it because he believes that was the intent of previous Commissions. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that this is a worthwhile project and it was well presented; that it is one of potential worth to the senior Book 34 Page 8597 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8598 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. citizens of the community; and that less bureaucracy is in the best interest of the public. Commissioner Patterson asked if this property were rezoned, if a Comprehensive Plan amendment would have to be re-drafted which would be a lengthy and costly procedure; and that if this issue was controversial she might have some concerns; that she has not seen development in that particular area that would change the findings. Mr. Taylor stated that with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, this site is still on the future land use map and eligible for CRT Zoning should it be rezoned back, and a Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be necessary; that he would suggest that this would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan to rezone it back and still would be eligible for a rezoning without an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should they petition at a later date for it to be rezoned back to CRT. Petitioners William C. Strode, Esq., and Mr. Gilbert Waters, Petitioner, came before the Commission. Mr. Strode stated that when the City rezoned this property two years ago to the CRT zone district, it was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the land use and housing elements are also consistent; that it is their position that the rezoning of this property back to its original zone would be inconsistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and would violate State law as well. Mr. Strode stated further that Mr. Waters undertook this project with extensive discussions with City officials in 1987 and it has been continuously pursued since that time; that the City Commission has previously determined that this is a good project, a good use of private capital developed into an affordable housing project for seniors; that this is a very worthwhile project; and that it should continue to receive the Commission's support. Mr. Strode continued that Mr. Waters feels he can have everything in place and have a building permit issued within 18 months; that Mr. Waters has agreed to provide additional property for collater- al; and that he suggests that the existing zoning be allowed and that the zoning and site plan approval stay as is; and that the City Auditor and Clerk be asked to schedule this matter for reconsideration in 18 months if a building permit has not been issued. Mr. Waters stated that he has been diligently working for three years in order to obtain the financing for this project; that the economics have failed around the project; that the project is on land that is fully paid for and all the permits are in place; that the plans are also in place; that the feasibility has undergone some minor modifications; that there is no real financing for new projects in today's confused economic conditions; that it is inconceivable that the momentum can be stopped and then successful- ly started; and asked that the Commission not place any more stumbling blocks because he is almost there. Mayor Gurney stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the zoning previously granted CRT is the appropriate one for this particular site. Attorney Taylor stated that as a high intensity level use, this meets the Comprehensive Plan, and what they're saying is the plan also provides that any number of less intense uses could also be appropriate for the site; that, considering the manner in which the ordinance has been drawn up that the condition- al zoning process provides for removal of those conditions, except for the issuance of the building permit which then breaths permanent life into the site plan approval, and ultimately the construction of the project; that he would not feel comfortable stating that the process could be changed and say that at a later point in time the Commission could determine that the conditional nature of the rezoning is inappropriate and remove it without having provided for that in the enabling legislation. Commissioner Merrill stated that his question is what are the unusual circumstances here; that conditional re-zoning provides information for the Commission; that if it is shown that the property is continuing to be marketed; that the Commission will lose latitude if it destroys the concept of conditionality and simply make everything rezonings. Attorney Strode stated that the intent of the conditional rezoning was what you get and not how long it takes; that the conditional re-zoning required that the site plan be approved at the same time, that the specifics of the number of units, etc., are indicated; that the conditional rezoning ordinance made people honest as to what would be placed there and not something totally different; that under the old zone plan just categories with many different uses were given; that if this property is sold, the exact project must go in. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Bonnie Wagoner, 1714 Devonshire Lane, representing self, came before the Commission and stated that she would like to see Mr. Waters be able to proceed with his project; that he has tried very hard to find financing; and that there is very little bank construction money available; and that it would be an asset to the neighborhood; that she has known Mr. Waters for years and he has always done good projects; and that he is an honorable and decent man; that she would like to see him get the zoning. Book 34 Page 8599 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8600 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. There was no one else to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 92-3675 by title onlyo On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot, it was moved to deny Proposed Ordinance 92-3675. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the request of the Petitioner to extend the necessary permission to proceed for a period of 18 months. Commissioner Patterson stated that historically this has been done in increments of 12 months and changing it to 18 months sets an unusual precedent. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an ordinance will have to be drawn up for the next meeting to extend this. Mr. Waters stated that he feels he is very close and would be comfortable with 12 months in the context of the conversations tonight. Commissioner Merrill recommended that the motion be amended with the words, "due to the recession, I in order to exemplify that this is an unusual condition. Vice-Mayor Pillot and Commissioner Atkins accepted this as part of the motion. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to read 12 months instead of 18 months. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, no. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the main motion: Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mr. Strode stated that an ordinance will be brought back to the Commission which will extend the zoning for 18 months and will also extend the development agreement for 18 months, and that the recession language will also be included. Mayor Gurney called for a recess at 8:40 and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 17. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2, ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 92R-595) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION 92R-597) ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION 92R-599) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 92R- 595) ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 92R-600) ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 92R-601) - - ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (RESOLUTION NO. 92R-603) ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (RESOLUTION 92R-604) ADOPTED AGENDA ITEMS III.B-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 #3 (1700) through (1969) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No's 92R- 595, 92R-597, 92R-599, 92R-600, 92R-601, 92R-603, 92R-604 by title only. Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 7 be removed for discussion. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 92R-595, appropri- ating $5,000 from the Unappropriated Balance of the General Fund to provide funds to continue the Lot Mowing Program for the balance of the 1991-92 Fiscal Year; etc. (Title Only) - Finance Director Mitchell 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 92R-597, accepting abatement of Nuisance and Cost Reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other a offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each Abatement Report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 92R-599, endorsing the Membership Reapportionment of the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning organization 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 92R-600, adopting the revised Position Classification/compensation Plan; authorizing employees for whom collective bargaining is not required, except as provided herein, an increase in the base rate of pay as provided herein, effective September 30, 1992, authorizing the City Manager to continue to administer the Classification/Compensation Plan requirements; and providing additional compensation for longevity; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 92R-601, fixing the salaries of the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk, effective September 30, 1992, determining which officers shall give bond and the amounts thereof; providing additional compensation for longevity; etc. (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 92R-603, appropri- ating $8,060 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to pay for training at the Southern Police Institute Command Officers School for two lieutenants of the Sarasota Police Department; etc. (Title Only) Book 34 Page 8601 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8602 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 6. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 7. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 92R-604, authoriz- ing the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Highway Beautification Grant for specified improvements to the Bird Key Park; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Patterson stated that she wished to congratulate the staff for obtaining the FDOT Highway Beautification Grant; and that she is very pleased. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to Consent Agenda No. 2, Item 7. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 18. PRESENTATION RE: BUILDING ADDITION TO THE SARASOTA GARDEN CLUB PATRICK M. PILLOT, ARCHITECT LEASE APPROVED SUBJECT TO RECEIVING A LETTER OF INTENT I AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT - AGENDA ITEM V-2 #3 (1969) through (2295) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Sarasota Garden Club is proposing an addition to the building, and under the terms of the lease, any addition or substantial modifications requires the approval of the City Commission; that staff has reviewed the work proposed by Mr. Patrick Pillot, Architect, and recommends the approval of the modifications; that the provision has been added that the building be brought into compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act; and that he is requesting approval. Mr. Sollenberger noted that rather than making it "subject to" the Americans With Disability Act (ADA), to simply ask for a commitment from the Garden Club that they will bring the building into compliance with the Act; and that they file a letter with the City of their intent to do so within the time required by the law and that will satisfy the City's concerns. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that he will abstain from voting since Patrick Pillot, Architect, is his son who is participating in this project. Vice-Mayor Pillot left the Commission table at 8:59 p.m. Patrick Pillot, Architect, came before the Commission and stated that he is the architect representing the Sarasota Garden Club; that this is an approximately 750 square foot addition to the Garden Club; that the addition will be divided into three areas; that the main area will be a research/library facility; that the other smaller areas will be separate storage areas. Mr. Pillot continued that they intend to have not only their new construction comply with ADA, but will also bring the building up to those 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT RE: STATUS OF REPLACEMENT OF ROOF ON THE SARASOTA CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU - MR. MARTHALER TO REOUEST FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY = AGENDA ITEM VII-1 #4 (0666) through (1065) City Manager Sollenberger stated that there is a request from the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau is to acquire an additional $28,800 from the City on an extended loan basis to pay for the roof replacement; that he cannot recommend to loan any more money even though it gets paid back because it is a long term pay back and the City has some short term problems; that it comes out of the General Fund; and that he recommends that the Convention and Visitors' Bureau be asked to contact the County for loan funds since the City has already provided approximately $100,000. Mr. Larry Marthaler, Executive Director of the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau, came to the Commission table and stated that he appeared before the Commission earlier this year seeking a $130,000 loan for a renovation of a City owned building at 655 North Tamiami Trail that is occupied by the Bureau; that that loan was approved; that since that time it was found that the blue ceramic tiles being removed were not useable; and that to purchase near matching roof tiles for the remaining one half of the roof would cost $28,800. Mr. Marthaler stated further that it is requested that the City adjust the promissory note that was originally prepared by increasing it from $130,000 to $160,000, to be paid back according- - ly and in keeping with the original note. & On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner x Patterson, it was moved to approve the city Manager's recommenda- tion as presented. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, no. A 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS APPROVAL RE: AMENDMENT TO CONCESSION LICENSE, PRESTIGE FOOD SERVICE = APPROVED = AGENDA ITEM VII-2 #4 (1065) through (1300) Deputy City Manager Peter Schneider stated that the National Golf Foundation (NGF) Study suggested that it would be appropriate to restructure the terms of the agreement with the food an beverage concessionaire at Bolbby Jones; that that has been done; that the recommendation is as follows: 1) Amend terms for one year; 2) incorporate Business Plan into agreement; 3) reduce the monthly rent to $1,000; 4) eliminate the 5% CIP requirement; 5) reduce the security deposit to $8,000; and 6) that the Business Plan goals are to be binding. Book 34 Page 8605 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8606 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Mr. Schneider stated further that the next recommendation was to fully develop an amendment to the agreementi and that the goals would be further specified in the agreement; that if they are not met it would be a condition for default. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommenda- tion. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT RE: BUILDING MODIFICATIONS AT FIRE STATION NO. 4, LOCATED ON BRADENTON ROAD -= MODIFICATIONS TO STATION 4 APPROVED TO ACCOMMODATE LADDER TRUCK - AGENDA ITEM VII-3 #4 (1300) through (2393) City Manager Sollenberger stated that at the Budget Meeting of July 1, 1992, the Administration was directed by the Commission to identify a funding source to build a structure to house a ladder truck at the fire station on Old Bradenton Road; that the Fire Chief suggests that the fire response boundary be pulled back to King Way which would reduce the response area of that station and allow it to operate with the engine and the rescue rather than having to assign the ladder truck there. Mr. Sollenberger continued that, in order to avoid decreasing the level of service to the district, that this would be comparable to the response from St. Armand's; that if the Commission wishes to consider this alternative, it is his suggestion that this be evaluated for approximately one year; that the $90,000 from LOST be set aside to be available to fund the construction of the building if it were decided that was the appropriate thing to do; that, otherwise, the money could possibly be used for meeting other needs of the district. Fire Chief Fields and Deputy Fire Chief Halas came to the Commis- sion table. Fire Chief Fields stated that a right-sizing program was proposed regarding the amount of apparatus that the Fire Department would keep in service as part of the budget and right sizing process; that to comply with that, a decision had to be made as to response area and equipment to be left in service; that the right-sizing program showed that the north end of the City would have one engine company and advanced life support rescue unit assigned to it. Chief Fields continued that it was determined that taking a truck out of service would reduce the level of service; that, however, it would not present an eminent threat to public safety; that the question then arose as to the options for retaining the amount of equipment in the north end of the City. Chief Fields continued that four options were submitted; that option number one was to go to the right-sizing plan and retain just one engine company and ambulance at the north end of the City, and the response area stays the same; that option number two was to have an ambulance and an engine in the north end of the City and reduce the geographical boundaries of Station 4, and increase the geographical boundaries of Station 1; that this would have reverted back to the response areas of approximately three years ago; that option number three was to enlarge the station and move an aerial ladder truck there; and that option number four was to leave things status quo with two engines and an ambulance, which would not fit into the right-sizing proposal and personnel; that the current number of Firefighters would have to be retained. Vice-Mayor Pillot commended Chief Fields letter to Mr. Sollenberger; and stated that the question he has is whether or not it is necessary to increase the size of the building at Station 4 to accommodate a ladder truck in order to provide equitable equipment. Chief Fields stated that the placement of a ladder truck in Station 4 was to retain three pieces of emergency apparatus available for response to maintain that level of service currently there; that to make judgement as to whether a ladder truck must be in a certain : station area because of the heights of structures is not the sole determining factor; that the guidelines that must be operated under are that certain numbers of engines and aerial apparatus have to be dispatched on all alarms of fire incidence; that the determining factors as set by the ISO rates is that it is required that on reports of incidents and structures, a minimum of two engines and one aerial ladder truck must be dispatched, and the height is not the determining factor. Commissioner Atkins stated that the ISO requirements are not the most important point here; that this would reduce the level of service in a community; that the $90,000 needs to be used in a place where the ladder truck is needed; and that it also addresses the needs of the future of the City as it relates to the north end and the development of the North Trail, the airport, and King Way areas; that using the $90,000 now may reduce a higher expenditure in the future; and that the right decision was made before in addressing the needs of Station 4; that he feels that everyone's safety should be addressed first. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot it was moved to expand Station 4 to accommodate a ladder truck so that everylody in that district will be properly addressed as it relates to their health, safety and welfare. Motion carried (4 to 1) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Book 34 Page 8607 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8608 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. 23. UNFINISHED BUSINESS APPROVAL RE: (1) BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION AND RELATED APPROVALS FOR THE RINGLING COMMONS PROJECT; AND (2) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALES CENTER FOR THE RINGLING COMMONS PROJECT OF FIRST SUNSET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HUNTINGTON MORTGAGE COMPANY) APPROVED - AGENDA ITEM VII-4 #4 (2393) through #5 (0645) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this is a consideration for a 90 day extension for the building permits for the Ringling Commons Project; that litigation has been cleared up that once clouded the property; that he recommends the extension for 90 days; that First Sunset Development and John Ringling Towers Centre Foundation, Inc. should be required by the City Commission to submit milestones at the next extension date for the accomplishment of the project; that an extension of the sales center permits is also requested; and that everything should be done on a 90 day basis. George Dietz, Attorney for First Sunset, Bruce Franklin, Agent for first Sunset, Don Smally, JRTC Foundation, Inc. Board member, and Jim Clark, Esquire, came before the Commission. Attorney Dietz stated that there has been a final resolution of the litigation affecting the title to the property; that meetings have been held regarding the restoration of John Ringling Towers and Bickel House; that a short term lease is being proposed; that there has been coordination with a number of city staff directed towards the ultimate procedures to be followed by both the Foundation as well as First Sunset in processing applications for rezoning or development permit; that progress is being made; and that, hopefully, documentation will be executed in the very near future. Mr. Clark stated that these are complex agreements; that the challenge is to create a flexibility for the development that occurs on the back parcel and at the same time preserving their interest in the Bickel House and Ringling Towers; that this involves parking, and access to the property; that it is not an easy process; and that they may have signed agreements within 30 days. Mr. Clark stated further that with regard to the increments on the fundraising, that subject to changes, in June of 1993 they will have 1.5 million dollars; that the following May of 1994, subject to extension until that December, the balance of 3 million dollars, of which 2 million would be in cash and 1 million in in-kind contributions. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is concerned with what will happen to the property and its density that has been given it by the Commission if the 1.5 million dollars is not raised within the short time frame of six months. Mr. Franklin stated that there is no interest on the part of First Sunset or John Ringling Centre Foundation, to do anything without consultation with the City; that everything is to be determined after consultation with the City Attorney and city Staff prior to bringing it to the City Commission for their input in order that their concerns are effectively addressed; that the specific mechanism for accomplishing the transferring of density has yet to be decided. City Attorney Taylor stated that the letter of credit was renewed and the special permit, which it secures performance of, has been done on an annual basis; that the letter of credit was done on that basis too; and that there would be no objections to it coinciding exactly with the approvals that are being given; that this returns for renewal every 90 days anyway. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommenda- tions set forth in Agenda Item VII-4, pages 1 and 2. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 24. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ADOPTION RE: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-605, PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE JOHN RINGLING CENTRE FOUNDATION, INC. TO OUALIFY AS AN ELIGIBLE SPONSOR sO THAT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS MAY RECEIVE A PARTIAL STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE REHABILITATION OF THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS AND BICKEL HOME; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; DECLARING THAT REHABILITATION OF THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS AND BICKEL HOME IS CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL PLANS AND REGULATIONS; CLARIFYING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION IN ADOPTING THIS RESOLUTION: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED AGENDA ITEM VII-5 #5 (0645) through (0690) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 92R-605 by title only. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 92R-605. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 25. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - APPROVAL RE: REFER THE ALLEGATIONS OF MR. HARVEY HORNE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE RISK MANAGER FOR REVIEW AND PROCESSING AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY = APPROVED AGENDA ITEM VII-6 #5 (0690) through (0705) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot, it was moved to give the authority to proceed. Motion carried (5 Book 34 Page 8609 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8610 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 26. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - - APPROVAL RE: (1) ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE WESTRA BID: AND (2) AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED TO KELLY BROTHERS, INC. FOR BAYSHORE PROTECTION (CENTENNIAL PARK AND VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL SITE) STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED = - AGENDA ITEM VII-8 #5 (0705) THROUGH (1138) City Engineering Director Daughters came before the Commission and stated that in July, bids were received for the construction of the Bayfront Protection Project which was awarded to Westra Construc- tion; that, subsequently, Westra has informed the City that the contract documents cannot be signed due to complications in the material pricing; that they are defaulting on the contract which allows the Commission to award the contract to the next low bidder or re-advertise and begin again; that this also allows the City to charge the contractor the difference between the original bid and the amount for which a contract is subsequently executed. Mr. Daughters continued that Westra is requesting that the penalty for this default be in the amount of $5,000, rather than the difference in the bid price which is in the range of $125,000; that it is the Engineering Department's recommendation that the Commission recover the difference between the Westra bid and the subsequently awarded contract, and demand a forfeiture of the bid bond which is 5% of their original bid which is $22,403 as liquidated damages for that amount; and, further, to recommend the contract to the next low bidder. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Mr. Jeff McWhorter, 4114 19th Avenue, West, Bradenton, representing Westra Construction Corporation, came before the Commission and stated that this project was awarded six days after the bid which he felt was unusually quick; and that the material that was priced within one week after the bid was deficient; and that, therefore, bid specifications could not be met. Mr. McWhorter stated further that his company has never defaulted on a bid before. City Attorney Taylor stated that from a legal perspective the city's measure of damage in this case is $124,592; that is what would be sought if litigation pursued over the cost to shift this project to the second lowest bidder; that Westra has come forward with the $5,000 offer for administrative costs; that the staff has reviewed this and understands there are certain considerable circumstances here; and that rather than make a claim for $125,000 which would lead to complicated litigation, it is recommended that the $22,403 be accepted as the compromise. Commissioner Merrill stated that he will vote against this because the City has not really had these costs; that $22,000 seems like a high penalty for this mistake. Motion carried (4 to 1) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 27. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: ACQUISITION OF THE CENTRAL GARDENS APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 1402 7TH STREET - APPROVED - AGENDA ITEM VIII-1 #5 (1138) through (1295) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice-Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve Administration's recommendation. Community Development Director Hadsell came before the Commission and stated that $61,000 is the total acquisition cost; that $500 to $1,000 is anticipated for closing costs; that it could be approxi- mately $2,000 per building which would equal approximately $24,000 for the 12 buildings on site; that there may be some maintenance costs; that even though he does not anticipate that amount, he wanted to come before the Commission with this request only one time; that the total amount requested is $100,000; and that any unused funds will be returned to the TIF account. On motion of Vice-Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to authorize the costs as estimated by Mr. Hadsell and give the City Manager the authority to exceed that, based on actual costs, but not to exceed the $100,000. Motion carried (4 to 1) : Atkins, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the main motion. Motion carried (5 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 28. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = AGENDA ITEM X #5 (1295) through #6 (0850) Commissioner Atkins thanked the Commission for the vote on the expansion of Fire Station No. 4. He further stated that the City of Sarasota has a tremendous cocaine problem that is constantly jeopardizing the lives of citizens; that he expects the Commission to make some decisions regarding the problems and not continue to expect the Police Department to do everything that needs to be done. Commissioner Atkins referenced an article in the newspaper that stated City cars were seen in drug dealing areas. Book 34 Page 8611 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8612 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City's substance abuse policy handles any employees involved in substance abuse and they could be subject to dismissal if involved in substance abuse. Commissioner Merrill discussed the Main Street Improvement Plan with regard to the trees on Main Street; that none of the listed trees will provide significant shade because they are more bush like; that other communities use oak trees which provide shade and grows above the storefront areas. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson it was moved to request that the project planners return with a proposed plan in which 70% (or best effort) of the sidewalks be covered with shade with either canopy or trees. Commissioner Patterson proposed that the motion be clarified to mean as the trees reach maturity. city Engineer Daughters stated that a plan would have to be completed very soon since the grant will be awarded soon; that the plans are very far along. Commissioner Merrill stated that it could be a matter of simply changing out some of the vegetation; that this is not a request to change the main plain, but rather a plan of how to achieve the objective with the existing sidewalk plans as they are done. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Commissioner Patterson requested information on the plans regarding the timing of the light at Osprey Avenue and Siesta Drive and would like to see this matter addressed as soon as possible; that this was part of the hospital agreement with the City in terms of mitigating traffic; that there was signage recommended at the same place that would direct traffic towards U.S. 41 as opposed to Osprey Avenue; Commissioner Patterson stated further that it is difficult when traveling on Osprey Avenue, to know ahead of time which lane to choose for major intersections, such as Ringling Boulevard or Main Street, that drivers have to guess because the arrows on the pavement are covered; and asked if the Engineering Department could review the markings of some of the intersections; including some simple signage improvements. Commissioner Patterson continued that she felt that the fountain at Lemon Avenue needs improvements; that it should be properly done or used as a planter; that she would like the Commission's support in this matter and that she feels some improvements can be made to the appearance of Lemon Avenue Plaza overall. Mayor Gurney stated that he is not pleased with the condition of the Lemon Avenue Plaza and asked about the status of negotiations with the lessee in this area. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there has not been very much progress in pursuing negotiations with the lessee. Commissioner Patterson stated that with regard to the staff addressing drainage problems, that there are a number of areas that need to be addressed; that she would like to see direction to staff to review low lying areas and suggest what might be done to correct some of the flooding problems. Commissioner Atkins stated that he continues to wait for plans addressing the flooding problems in the area of King Way, Goodrich, Palmadelia, Leon, Nobel and Orange Avenues; that a number of houses have had repeated flood problems over the past 20 years. Mayor Gurney stated that he has had discussions with Mr. J. P. Marshand, Manager, Stormwater Environment Utility of Sarasota County, regarding priority flooding items; that Mr. Marchand indicated that some items of City concern may be resolved relative- ly inexpensively. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he would review all of the City's interests and priorities and seek Mr. Marchand's - participation. Vice-Mayor Pillot recommended that a realistic master plan be drawn up regarding all the drainage projects. Vice-Mayor Pillot stated that several traffic abatement issues have been approved; that he would like a report regarding traffic abatement matters that have been brought before the Commission. With the consensus of the Commission, Mr. Sollenberger was requested to present an update on traffic abatement issues to the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a proposed schedule of workshops for the next 12 months is forthcoming; that there are many topics; and that the drainage matters are high on the list. Commissioner Merrill agreed that a thorough analysis is preferred prior to serious decision making; that public input could be encouraged regarding drainage matters in the interim. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved that the City Administration develop a plan for drainage improvements and report back to the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there is a master plan for drainage improvements which addresses storm drainage but does not address some of the environmental problems associated with storm drainage; Book 34 Page 8613 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8614 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. that there are some deficiencies; that the master Plan was prepared in 1987; that since that time the City and County have joined together to form the Stormwater Drainage Utility; and that his suggestion is to address these concerns with the County. Mr. Sollenberger stated further that there are several drainage projects scheduled for construction some time this year and that he would like to see the Plan be developed by the County Storm Water Drainage Utility that reflects what the City wants. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the downtown area fared well during the recent flooding; that this was due to the drainage improvements that were constructed from the 1985 bond issue, the recently completed drainage improvements at Gulfstream, in conjunction with the Bayfront Project, the construction of the State Street parking lot which accommodated drainage needs in that area, and the First Florida Bank Building Construction as part of the TIF funds which paid for storm water drainage over to Fruitville Road, and that due to these numerous improvements many flooding problems have been alleviated. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (5 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mayor Gurney stated that he has been reviewing how other jurisdic- tions are handling the news rack sites; that the City does have a problem with this; that he will be meeting with staff regarding this; and that making them all one color may be one of the solutions. Mayor Gurney stated that he has heard complaints that the traffic lights are not coordinated on Fruitville Road from Interstate 75 into town and requested that City Engineer Daughters advise the Commission when the traffic light coordination will occur. Mr. Daughters stated that Mr. Sollenberger has written a strong letter to the Department of Transportation requesting that information and that a response has not yet been received. Mayor Gurney complimented all the people that have worked to redecorate and modernize the Chambers; that Cheryl Carter, of the City Auditor and Clerk's Office, did a wonderful job of carving out the carpet for the David logo backdrop; and that he is proud of the Chambers now and proud to show it to people. 29. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM XII #6 (0850) through (0868) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of September 8, 1992 was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Jack Gurney, Mayor ATTÉST: * 7 13illy E Robenson Billy ECrobinson, City Auditor and Clerk Book 34 Page 8615 9/08/92 6:00 P.M. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Pillot, Gene City Commission, City of Sarasota MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: P.O. 1058 X CITY : COUNTY I OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: -X ELECTIVE a3 APPOINTIVE September 8, 1992 WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local offiçer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal fother than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CE FORMI XB 10-86 PAGE 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and filei it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the. minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Gene Pillot hereby disclose that on September 8 19. 92 - (a) A measure came SKWISIXGRE before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or X inured to the special gain of my son, Patrick M. Pillot XWMOHFFAIPAEASK (see below) (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: I have abstained from voting on Agenda Item V-2: Presentation by Patrick M. Pillot, A.I.A. I am Patrick Pillot's father, and it is my understanding that, in accordance with F.S. 112.3143(3)(a), I am required to abstain, publicly state the reason, and file this information for record. bhs 8/992 heh Daté Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE 2