MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, city Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER, 1994 MYRA K. LIOCE, CHEMIST, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT #1 (0086) through (0182) Douglas Taylor, Environmental Resources Manager, came before the Commission and introduced Myra K. Lioce, Chemist in the Utilities Division of the Department of Public Works, as the September 1994 Employee of the Month. Mr. Taylor stated that Ms. Lioce has worked for the City for eight years, beginning as an apprentice operator at the wastewater treatment plant; that Ms. Lioce's on-the-job experience and a number of continuing education courses assisted in her attaining an advanced level of certification from the State of Florida as a wastewater treatment plant operator; that Ms. Lioce has improved the laboratory's performance in quality-control monitoring through a program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mayor Patterson presented Ms. Lioce with a plaque and certificate for "Employee of the Month" and congratulated her on behalf of the City Commission for her outstanding efforts on behalf of the City. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0183) through (0200) city Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: A. Move forward Scheduled Presentation - Agenda Item V-2, Presentation Re: Sarasota Memorial Hospital Facility Plan, to be the next item addressed on the Agenda. Book 37 Page 11026 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11027 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated there was consensus of the Commission to approve the Change to the Orders of the Day. 3. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION: PRESENTATION RE: SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER FACILITY PLAN - REPORT GIVEN (AGENDA ITEM V-2) #2 (0202) through (0869) Rick Carlisle, Vice President, Facilities Development, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, and Andrew H. Dorr, AIA, CCS, of Anshen & Allen, came before the Commission. Mr. Carlisle and stated that an update on the progress on the Master Facility Plan (MFP) for Sarasota Memorial Hospital is being presented to the Commission; that the strategic planning update created over the last several years is now complete and will be used as a basis in the development of the MFP which covers not only the main downtown hospital campus but also the outreach locations; that Mr. Dorr is the Project Director with local representation from Bruce Franklin, Principal, Land Resource Strategies, Inc.,i that the MFP will be updated in two phases; that Phase One is the initial phase and examines the main downtown campus on a broad basis, not addressing specific details such as square footage allocations, but rather what should be done with the campus to change from an inpatient health-care setting to outpatient services; that Phase Two provides detailed planning of the main campus, outreach locations, other campuses currently owned by the Hospital Board, and other locations around the community; that during the last two months, Phase One has been initiated with a series of interviews with the medical and professional hospital staff as well as the Hospital Board Members, and detailed questionnaires seeking input as to necessary present and future medical services have been completed; that Anshen & Allen combined the information received from these efforts with their health-care knowledge and developed a planning model which analyzes the population growth in the region as a whole and the trends in health care for the future; that the purpose of the planning model is to serve as a basis for the future options presented in the MFP; and stated that Mr. Dorr would continue with the formal presentation. Slides were displayed on the overhead projector. Mr. Dorr stated that many changes are occurring in health care today; that in July, the Sarasota Hospital Board of Trustees passed a new strategic vision entitled "Perspective 2000" which shows managed care and capitation as coming into health care in a much stronger way in Florida and, specifically, in Sarasota County; that a change in health care is occurring and every visit which was once a profit generator is now a profit reducer; that this trend mandates the use of different types of facilities to deliver health that strategic items include the formation of alliances, also care; "centers of excellence", which focus on clinical referred to as clinical services, and the centers, the packaging of primary where they are accessible to locating of services in the community last decade of the patient; that the trend for the pushing and the everything together in a major center must now be reversed that the centers taken apart and placed in accessible locations; they trends have a major impact on physicians and the way new of needed in the system, and the practice, the types physicians health-care staffing and mode of operation of the which organization; a that the trend is to put operations in facilities provide particular service at less cost; that presently outpatient are treated on the ninth and tenth floors rehabilitation Memorial patients Hospital but, in the future, changes must be of Sarasota the cannot afford to treat these very deserving made since Hospital that a series of general patients in this most expensive setting; modeling and planning assumptions which drive the population-based assistance of the facility projections have been created with the 2005 at Hospital's planning and marketing staff; that by the year least 50 percent of the population will be fully capitated. Commissioner Pillot asked for a definition of the term "capitated"? Mr. Dorr stated that the word "capitated" means a single payment month for medical coverage; that the medical coverage includes per of all types of care, ranging from home care to a compendium and in between; that risk is shifted to long-term care everything so the provider must implement a the provider in accepting payment the system to cover any eventuality in servicing patients. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the term "capitated" is still unclear. Mr. Dorr stated that "capitated" means a fixed payment or a quaranteed capped rate for a specific contractual period, i.e., month per member or whatever amount is needed by a $200 per organization; that the payment is split among, everyone: particular the hospitals, the other service providers, the the physicians, etc.; that the rate will grow by 19 insurance carrier, capitated incentivizes percent per year over the next decade; that the system wellness and prevention rather than allowing diseases to progress to an acute state before treatment. Commission Cardamone asked for an explanation of the 19 percent growth rate per year in capitated citizens? Mr. Dorr stated that presently 6 percent of the population is fully next capitated and 50 percent will be fully capitated within the will ten years due to the 19 percent annual growth rate; that there initiatives health-care providers to attract people be major by for savings in into capitated programs; that the greatest potential Book 37 Page 11028 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11029 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. this system is from inpatient care and the second from specialist care; that medical systems are oversubscribed today and patients are subjected to unnecessary multiple tests which must be eliminated from the system; that studies of the demographics and makeup of Sarasota County has generated a model indicating a drop in hospital utilization will reduce the need for inpatient beds at Sarasota Memorial Hospital; that, for example, the current 671 average used beds will plummet to 374 beds over the next decade due to the fact that people stay healthy and out of the hospital or have fewer days of hospitalization and shorter lengths of stay; that this trend will produce additional excess square footage in the current facilities for use in other parts of the system; that, currently a task group is attempting to quantify the space needed and to ascertain the correct uses based on the model to determine if additional space to meet other strategic needs is required. Commissioner Cardamone asked the maximum number of beds currently in use at Sarasota Memorial Hospital? Mr. Dorr stated that the Hospital has 952 licensed beds of which approximately 720 are currently used in the peak months; that this figure will drop to 375 = 400 depending on the number of singles and privates, etc., a drop of approximately 50 percent. Mayor Patterson referenced the slide on marketing and management and asked for an explanation of the term "loose and tight"? Mr. Dorr stated that, in this context, "loose and tight" refers to the ability of managed health-care companies to penetrate the market and aggressively manage their affairs; that if Sarasota Memorial Hospital functions as a tightly-managed organization, it will do well in the coming decades; that the trends in inpatient services are geared towards fewer inpatient days and an increase in the acuity of the patient resulting in a sicker patient with longer, but fewer, stays; that the increasing movement is towards outpatient care, away from the main medical center and towards a patient-center mode of care which can take many forms; that in diagnostic and treatment services, such as surgery, patient convenience is paramount; that there is a need to consolidate the specialty outpatient services in an accessible area; that equipment duplication should be minimized; that currently there is significant congestion within the internal workings of the buildings indicating that segregation of inpatient and outpatient traffic is necessary; that mobile technologies are coming of age allowing various medical equipment to be put in trailers and transported from site to site; that facilities may be designed so the patient is unaware they are entering the mobile technology center since the center is fashioned to allow docking to the main building; that the premise behind mobile technology centers is to stay for as long as necessary to treat the patients and then go to the next facility; that use of mobile technology centers allows several members in the same system to share the equipment costs which can be millions of dollars. Commissioner Cardamone asked the meaning of "segregation of impatient/putpatient traffic"? Mr. Dorr stated that inpatient/putpatient traffic refers to people moving inside buildings and through corridors; that most surgical cases start at 7 a.m. at which time most people are brought from their beds to the operating rooms tying up elevators; that simultaneously, other people are attempting to see a physician before going to work and often will have to wait 20 minutes for an elevator which becomes a source of frustration; that a different location or way of moving people through the institution will prevent this situation; that support services which occupy the first floor of the hospital, the most valuable real estate to do outpatient care, must be relocated to less costly settings; that relocation of support services and other alternatives will be studied in Phase Two of the MFP; that certain administrative services and other departments occupying valuable hospital space should be moved offsite to a less expensive building; that after presentation of the program assumptions to the hospital leadership and medical staff this week, a program document will be drafted which can be used to test early concepts; that work has been done with five advisory groups, including the neighborhood group, the employee group, and the physician group; that a range of options will be presented to these groups during the second week in December; that through participation and discussion with the groups, one or two alternatives which would benefit the organization may be developed and implemented. Commissioner Cardamone asked the repercussions in moving the outpatient services away from the main facility and using mobile units since this will result in structures and space being left empty on the campus which will not be healthy for the surrounding business and residential areas? Mr. Carlisle stated that some of the present facilities are almost 50 years old and considerable expense will be involved to keep them in operation; that many of the structures will come down and not be rebuilt resulting in a loss of square footage in the facility; that the conversion from semi-private to private rooms is a big initiative throughout the country which involves altering the semi-private room to accommodate only one bed; that this conversion will require additional space but is a recommended change due to the increase in demand for private rooms; that Sarasota Memorial Hospital has been developed over the years as an inpatient hospital; that in accordance with the changes occurring around the country, the Hospital is behind the times in the development of Book 37 Page 11030 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11031 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. outpatient services which could be corrected in the future with the availability of additional square footage. Commissioner Cardamone stated that as the Hospital grows, the need for the campus is reduced which arouses worry and interest at the same time. Mr. Carlisle stated that a short-term-Ded concept is being used in California for certain medical procedures which require less than 72 hours in the hospital and are classified differently than inpatient hospital care; that in the future, implementation of this short-term-bed concept will constitute an addition of approximately 150 beds in the Hospital. Mr. Dorr stated that five or six initiatives exist for "centers of excellence" to improve programs such as the women's, children's, and cardiology programs, utilizing some of the residual space gained from downsizing of inpatient beds. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 1994 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1) #1 (0875) through (0886) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the minutes of the Regular City Commission meeting of October 3, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3839, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE RMF ZONE DISTRICTS; INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT IN THE RMF-7 ZONE FROM 140 FEET PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 20 FEET FOR INTERIOR PARKING WITHIN THE STRUCTURE TO 160 FEET PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 20 FEET FOR INTERIOR PARKING WITHIN THE STRUCTURE; MAKING FINDINGS AS TO THE NEED FOR SAID AMENDMENT: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0892) through (2559) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Tangerine Development Company has initiated this Zoning Code amendment which would increase the maximum height of structures in the RMF-7 Zone Districts by 20 feet; that the amendment allows heights up to 180 feet, representing a maximum permitted height of 160 feet plus 20 feet for interior parking within the structure, without a Special Exception for residential uses in the RMF-7 district only and has no impact on the RMF-4, RMF-5, and RMF-6 zone districts; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Board Agency, at its meeting on September 7, 1994, found the proposed Code amendment consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends approval of Ordinance No. 95-3839; that all the RMF-7 Zone Districts are in the downtown areas as noted on the downtown Sarasota zoning map on the overhead transparency; that only two parcels in this RMF-7 Zone District along Gulf Stream Avenue are currently vacant; that prior to approving development on these sites, preliminary Site and Development Plan approval by the Planning Board is required which involves an advertised public hearing and an evaluation of the Site and Development Plan by the Planning Board. Commissioner Pillot asked the exact amount of real estate affected if the proposed ordinance passes? Mr. Taylor stated that all the property in the RMF-7 Zone Districts is affected, however, only two parcels are presently vacant; that one parcel is approximately one and a half acres, and the other parcel is about a half acre; that the smaller of the two parcels will probably not be allowed this maximum height due to a section of the Zoning Code which requires a setback as height goes up over 35 feet. Commissioner Pillot stated that the likelihood of the following situation occurring is highly improbable, but, if an existing building along Gulf Stream Avenue were to be torn down and replaced, would the owner(s) be eligible for the 180-foot requirement since they are located in the RMF-7 Zone District? Mr. Taylor stated yes, they would be eligible. Commissioner Cardamone asked the ramifications to zone districts other than RMF-7? Mr. Taylor stated that the original proposal affected RMF-4, RMF-5, and RMF-6, however, the city Commission directed the City Attorney to modify that section of the proposed ordinance so the other districts would not be allowed to exceed a height of 160 feet. Mayor Patterson stated there is no increase in density implied by this increase in height. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Book 37 Page 11032 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11033 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Planning Board recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance to the city Commission and the Administration joins in supporting the recommendation to pass Ordinance No. 95-3839 on first reading. Michael Furen, Attorney, representing the petitioner, the Tangerine Development Company, Richard Gillett, AIA, architectural consultant for Tangerine Development Company, and Pamela A. McCullough, Vice President, Tangerine Development Company, came before the Commission. Attorney Furen stated that the proposed Palm Avenue Project is the genesis of this request to amend the Zoning Code; that the prior efforts of the petitioner to obtain a variance from the height in the RMF-7 Zone District led to the Board of Adjustments expressing their belief that issues of height are properly determined by the Commission which resulted in the initiation of the Code amendment; that the Code amendment is essential to encourage redevelopment of the remaining RMF-7 sites within the City in a manner that is agreeable to the community; that Mr. Gillett will describe the process that led to the determination that a slight increase in the permitted heights within the RMF-7 Zone District is required; that the Code currently permits heights up to 160 feet with interior parking and, therefore, a 20 foot increase beyond that which is already allowed is being sought; that the increase is approximately 12 1/2 percent, a very diminutive increase in order to achieve some unique architectural styles and attributes. Mr. Gillett presented an elevation diagram of the building, depicting both the 160-foot and 180-foot heights and stated that the same elements which reduce the bulk of the building and make it more appealing also enhance the character. Mayor Patterson asked if the building on the left of the diagram represented the 160-foot height limitation, and the building on the right, the 180-foot height limitation, and if the view is from Gulf Stream Avenue? Mr. Gillett stated that is correct. Mr. Gillett stated that the drawing of the 160-foot building represents a floor height of 9 feet 4 inches, leaving a ceiling height of 8 feet 10 inches which is unacceptable in today's luxury market; that there are four units per floor and each unit is 2,700 to 3,000 square feet; that the shorter ceiling height is not the "state-of-the-art" type of space potential buyers are seeking; that the 180-foot building has 10-foot ceilings allowing for arched entrances which meet the street in a better way and for better approaches from both the Palm Avenue side and the pool/recreation amenities; that looking at the drawing from a "bird's-eye view," there is little impact due to the height. Attorney Furen stated that the point of the schematic is to show how extremely difficult it is to distinguish the height difference between the two buildings with the naked eye. Mr. Gillett presented a character sketch of the building and stated that, although not the final design, the sketch indicates some of the rooftop features incorporated into the building and also the lush vegetation and amenity features; that great emphasis is put on the building's character as it meets the ground, as well as the entrances, the gate, and the rooftop features. Attorney Furen stated that Mr. Gillett's charge was to design a building of significant height and, at the same time, decrease the effective impact of the building in terms of bulk and mass; that the building has various indentations and undulations which result in the loss of significant available usable space; that the purpose of this petition is to assist in achieving this unique architectural design. Ms. McCullough stated that Mrs. Dorothy P. Warnell, who unofficially represents approximately 13 individuals at the Embassy House, sent a letter to the Planning Board opposing the proposed height increase; that Mrs. Warnell has since changed her position and has given permission to be quoted as saying that "she and the group of people at the Embassy House she represents are in favor of the height increase." Attorney Furen stated that he also has a memorandum to the City Commission from the entire row of merchants along south Palm Avenue endorsing the petitioner's request to amend the Zoning Code. Mayor Patterson asked the heights of the surrounding buildings? Attorney Furen stated that he looked at some of the City's old files and the figure in the sketch representing the Watergate building is within 5 1/2 inches of what is reflected in the old files; that a notation regarding One Sarasota Tower, a commercial building, read "the bottom of roof, slab and elevator penthouse is at plus 187 feet 4 inches" and grade is shown to be 4 feet which makes the height of the building 183 feet above grade. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Mr. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street, stated that his objection is not to the Tangerine Development Company but to applying amendments to the Zoning Code to specific projects; that Code amendments should be done with a clear understanding of the effect on the entire City and not just one space; that the Zoning Code is in the process of being reviewed and, yet, the City is in a hurry Book 37 Page 11034 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11035 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. to make this major modification to the Zoning Code without adequate consideration of the effects of this Code change; that an example is lot coverage and the number of floors in a building; that the maximum height referenced in the RMF districts is 11 stories and the lot coverage decreases from the second story up stopping at 11 but the Code does not say if a greater compression is required; that this type of language makes it difficult to interpret the Code; that currently the Code is not specific enough to address problems and, yet, changes are being made with the attitude that it is not going to make a difference to the remainder of the Code; that the purpose of reviewing the Zoning Code is to make it consistent and reasonable; that the process currently followed denies the citizens of the City adequate chance to participate in Zoning Code changes; that amendments are not advertised in the same manner as regular zoning matters; that the public, with the exception of highly visible requests such as the one by Tangerine Development Company, is not properly noticed or made aware that the Code is being changed; that when petitions are made to change the Code, the Administration should thoroughly explain the present Code, why it is written, and what the effects will be on the Code if the modification is approved; that Tangerine Development Company's petition to amend the Code began in August of 1994 and within approximately two months the request is before the Commission for approval; that the normal process to amend the Code takes much longer since the request must go through the City Administration, beginning with the City Auditor and Clerk's office, through the Planning Department, and other City departments; that the average administrative time necessary for these departments to review and process the proposed amendment is much longer than two months and, yet, this particular request went through in approximately two months; that proposed changes to the Zoning Code require more careful evaluation instead of rushing them through; that staff did not have sufficient time to examine the proposed change for possible problems in the future. Robert E. Barnhart, Chairman, Bayfront Property Owners Committee, stated that the Bayfront Property Owners Committee was formed to provide input when the Bayfront Improvement Project got underway; that the Committee is composed primarily of representatives from the condominiums on Gulf Stream Avenue; that on August 16, 1994, the Tangerine Development Company invited the Committee to attend a meeting at which Tangerine Development Company presented their plans for the Palm Avenue Project and supplied a general description of the building and how the surrounding buildings could be impacted in terms of distance to the property lines; that increasing the height and amending the Zoning Code were addressed specifically; that, in general, the presentation was favorably received by the people who represented the condominiums and there was no objection to the increase in height. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director, Downtown Association. stated that he represents 240 business people in the downtown community, including Palm Avenue; that the Association is excited about the Palm Avenue Project; that the City has attempted to make the downtown area a place where people want to come and live as is indicated by the money spent in the downtown area and along Main Street; that the Tangerine Development Company's project will encourage people to live in Sarasota which will be an economical plus for the downtown central business core; that the members of the Downtown Association support the Tangerine Bay Project. Kerry Kirschner, 770 S. Palm Avenue, stated that the issue is not a density change but a design element change; that heretofore the highest residential building in the community was Plymouth Harbor; that the Commission would agree the ground-level aspects are more important to the community than what the migrating birds are viewing at 20 feet above the existing height limitation; that this amendment is not a major change in the Plan but more of a design element change and one the City Commission should be commended for considering favorably; that the Commission should also be applauded for moving forward to improve the depleting tax base in the City of Sarasota. Robert siff, representing Bay Plaza, stated that the Tangerine Development Company's Project was reviewed quite carefully by the Bay Plaza Board and found to be an asset to the community; that the Project is an exceedingly well thought out undertaking in which density is not increased but actually decreased; that the members of the Bay Plaza Board encourage the Commission to approve the proposed change to Zoning Code. Dan Lobeck, representing the Growth Environmental Organization (GEO). stated that this request is not for consideration of a Site and Development Plan for this particular project but rather a request to change the Zoning Code; that passage of the ordinance will affect all RMF-7 Districts which now exist or are added in appropriate Impact Management Areas in the future; that possibly the Tangerine Development Company approached the residents of the adjoining condominiums in such a way as to infer this was a Site and Development Plan for this particular building rather than a change in the Zoning Code as a whole; that 15 percent is a major increase in building height for bayfront condominiums when taking into consideration the heights of the other buildings in that area, i.e., One Watergate at 162 feet, Bay Plaza at 138 feet, Dolphin Towers at 133 feet, Essex House at 104 feet, Embassy House at 158 feet, etc.; that the reason a height limitation is put into the Zoning Code is the sensitivity to the importance of scale in the Sarasota community; that the City's Vision Plan contains the phrase, "maintain existing scale and height limitations in the downtown core" and yet the Project at hand is at the edge of the downtown core; that in speaking to the Planning Board, Jane Book 37 Page 11036 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11037 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, talked about the sense of community consensus that emanated from the Vision Plan process to maintain scale; that the Tangerine Development Company has the option to shave off a few units from the 65 permitted on this site and still maintain their design features rather than developing at maximum density; that builders do not always build to the absolute density limits because of constraints such as height; that the increase in height should be allowed by Special Exception and not by changing the Code; that this particular proposal on this site may be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding developments, however, this is not a request for a change in the Zoning Code to allow additional height by Special Exception but a request for a change in the Zoning Code to allow this height by absolute legal right and becomes something which cannot legally be denied in other RMF-7 Districts now or in the future; that the amendment is a broad policy decision and not merely a Site and Development Plan conclusion for this particular parcel; that the John Ringling Towers' site was discussed at the Planning Board meeting in that the 180-foot height was allowed, but this situation was part of a specific quid pro quo in that the additional height of up to 180 feet was allowed in return for preserving the existing historic structure; that nothing will be gained in return for granting the additional 20 feet on this project; that the attractive building in this Project would still be attained if the increase in height is allowed by Special Exception rather than a Code change; that the Project can be built within the height limitation if density is reduced; that a 160-foot height is sufficient to allow Tangerine Development Company to erect an attractive building and still remain within the height limits; that opening the door for higher buildings in many areas throughout the city is not consistent with the desires of most citizens in this community to maintain Sarasota as a special place, with special scale, and special qualities; that the Commission is urged to defeat this ordinance in its currently proposed manner. Brian O'Connell, representing Hodgell Gallery, Palm Avenue, stated that he supports the proposed change in the Zoning Code to allow for heights up to 180 feet; that Tangerine Development Company has done beautiful work in the past and the proposed design of the Palm Avenue Project will be a wonderful asset to the Sarasota community. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Mayor Patterson invited the petitioner to come to the table for rebuttal. Attorney Furen stated that there was a massive notification to City residents who had any reasonable chance of being impacted by this proposed code amendment. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that approximately 900 people were notified of the proposed change to Zoning Code; that the proposed ordinance was advertised in the newspaper; that every condominium owner, from Embassy House to Bay Plaza, was noticed, as well as everyone within 500 feet of those condominiums and every condominium association on Golden Gate Point, Sunset Drive, Watergate, 888 and 988 Marina Suites. Mayor Patterson stated that the record should reflect the notification procedures followed dispute Mr. Babb's allegations that the public did not get adequate notice of the proposed Zoning Code change. Attorney Furen stated that this is also his intent and, additionally, the record should reflect that there was a news segment on Channel 40, both the 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. news, indicating pendency of this Code amendment. Commissioner Pillot stated that consideration should be given to the potential impact to the City and the total numbers of areas to which the proposed amendment will apply; that Mr. Babb raised the question as to why the Commission is amending the Code now as opposed to waiting until the entire Zoning Code is reviewed; that a reasonable explanation and rational purpose for bringing this amendment to the City Commission now had been previously provided and requested Attorney Furen to address this question. Attorney Furen stated that the Commission is being petitioned now since there are no assurances as to when the City's program for an overall Zoning Code review and ultimate revision will be completed; that RFP's are pending toward that work but when this task might be accomplished is a guess; that the Tangerine Development Company does not have the luxury of simply waiting for the City to determine that timeframe. Commissioner Pillot stated that it is his understanding that the uncertainty of when the total Code revision will be completed could jeopardize this project very severely. Attorney Furen stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3839 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3839 on first reading. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City is being rewarded for all the hard work put into the Bayfront; that the demand for residential housing has been created, but along with it comes the pressures to increase densities since people believe the market is Book 37 Page 11038 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-1 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. strong in this area; that he strongly supports the idea of Tangerine Development Company's project because the Company has a strong, positive track record in the community, but the issue is not this project but the height increase; that there is a danger of incrementalism if this Commission adds 20 feet, and in LwO years, another Commission approves 20 feet, etc., and the line continues to be increased; that a great deal of thought went into the 160- foot height limitation SO, although development of the site is welcomed, the line should be held at 160 feet. Mayor Patterson stated that she takes exception to the inference that the Commission responds to particular developers by twisting the Zoning Code to meet the needs of an individual project; that the issue is changing a 1974 Zoning Code in a City with relatively few opportunities to develop its remaining properties in a positive manner for the City's tax base and for the people already residing and working in the City; that Tangerine Development Company's project is a positive one and limitations to ceiling heights of a Code written in 1974 are not consistent with the needs of people in today's real estate market; that the proposed amendment is a matter of aesthetics and does not increase density by even one unit; that the people who have the most stake in that area feel positively about the project. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3834, REGULATING DOGS; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; DEFINING TERMS; REQUIRING DOGS BE ON A LEASH, EXCEPT WHEN SWIMMING AT BAYFRONT AND ISLAND PARK; REQUIRING THAT FECAL MATTER BE REMOVED FROM BAYFRONT AND ISLAND PARK; SPECIFYING THAT A DOG UNDER REASONABLE CONTROL AT A PLACE OTHER THAN THE BAYFRONT AND ISLAND PARK SHALL BE NO FURTHER THAN 100 FEET FROM THE OWNER; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF i REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2569) through (3183) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance requires dogs not be allowed to run without restraints within Bayfront and Island Park at any time; that the proposed ordinance deals with the existing Sarasota City Code as it is consist with respect to leash length and changes the distance of voice control from 300 to 100 feet. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Ordinance No. 94-3834 is modified as requested by the Commission and the Administration recommends its adoption. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Mr. Herbert Quinn, 5113 Estates Circle, stated that it is disappointing the recommendations made by the Ad Hoc Committee were glossed over and certain segments of the recommendation are not in the proposed ordinance; that it is disheartening to spend hours working on a project to arrive at a solution which satisfies the needs of both pet owners and citizens at large only to find some of the recommendations are not incorporated into the ordinance. Mayor Patterson asked what specific facets of the recommendations were omitted? Mr. Quinn stated that one of the most important points is the pooper-scooper" section of the ordinance which was not considered for the entire City but only Bayfront and Island Parks; that this matter is a Citywide problem and not just connected with the Bayfront and should definitely have been part of the ordinance; that the proposed ordinance specifies use of a leash not longer than 26 feet but also includes provisions for reasonable control at 100 feet; that leashes are normally not a 100 feet long indicating pets are allowed to run free in contradiction of the leash law. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed ordinance is written in two parts; that the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations were sound, but enforcement is still an issue even in Island Park; that the Commission took the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations in total using all facets pertaining to Island Park and slightly modified the laws pertaining to the remainder of the City; that the proposed ordinance provides the Commission the opportunity to examine the enforcement necessary in the Bayfront and Island Park areas. Mr. Quinn stated that the Committee has reviewed ordinances of 15 to 20 cities and a composite of that study went into the recommendations to the Commission; that the recommendations made to the Commission are feasible and in effect throughout a good part of the Country. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission understands that many cities have such an ordinance and Sarasota could also put the recommendations into effect but may not be able to enforce the ordinance; that the question is one of enforcement. Mr. Quinn stated that even in its present form the Commission is questioning how the ordinance can be enforced and no one has arrived at an answer. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Ad Hoc Committee was appointed to make recommendations on this issue as to Bayfront Park; that language had been included in the original draft of the Book 37 Page 11038-2 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-3 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. proposed ordinance with respect to the rest of the City; that the Commission had not appointed a Committee to represent the remainder of the City as to the leash issue, etc., and, therefore, does not consider addressing these issues appropriate at this time. Mr. Schneider stated that the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee was prompted by situations at the Bayfront; that the Committee, upon realizing that the problems were Citywide, made recommendations to the City Commission on that basis; that the Commission then restricted the recommendations to the Bayfront and Island Parks. Vice Mayor Merrill asked, as paralleling the dog issue, if the Committee is still analyzing the matter of restricting drinking in order to reduce the number of people who congregate in certain areas? Mr. Quinn stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that enforcement of the proposed ordinance is a major issue; that last week, Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Bureau, met with a neighborhood group to discuss enforcing drug laws; that Police Chief Jolly told the group that 80 percent of the Bureau's calls do not relate to hard crime but are calls to assist people, i.e., loud stereos, barking dogs, etc.; that the public is not aware of the time the Police Bureau expends on these assistance calls which, although important items, take away time from enforcement of drug laws, fighting hard crime, etc.; that the Commission should be especially careful when placing an additional enforcement requirement on the Police Bureau since the public may not perceive an ordinance of this nature as being equal or even semi-equal in importance to existing crime issues. Mr. Quinn stated that after various discussions, the Committee concluded that problems exist within the park, not only concerning animals but also the homeless people who have taken over sections of the park; that the homeless people staying in the Selby Gardens area have become a public nuisance problem; that this situation typifies the City's law enforcement problem resulting from lack of staffing. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission considers the proposed ordinance as Phase One of this issue; that enforcement of the ordinance would be considerably helped if the dog owners who enjoy using the Park to exercise their dogs assist each other in enforcement; that non-compliance with the proposed ordinance could cause the Commission to repeal the ordinance allowing owners to take their dogs to Bayfront and Island Parks. Mr. Quinn stated that the members of the Ad Hoc Committee who are dog owners have already stated their intentions to police one another and make certain the. area is kept clean. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission took the bulk of the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation, particularly those applying to Island Park; that the Commission appreciates the time and energy spent by the Ad Hoc Committee. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3834 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3834 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3806, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII-5, ZONING CODE, - AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS TO PROPERTIES ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF SARASOTA IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (3185) through (3347) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance will amend the Zoning Code to include all lands annexed into the City pursuant to Section 6-2 of the Code and are classified as areas of special flood hazard and as coastal high-hazard areas on the flood insurance rate map of the United Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the County of Sarasota. Commissioner Pillot asked the difference between properties which may later be annexed and those which are already City property with respect to FEMA regulations and enforcement? Mr. Hewes stated that in the past the City annexed and, with a separate action, adopted what the County already had adopted since the classifications are automatic and established by the federal government. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 94-3806 on first reading. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the Book 37 Page 11038-4 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-5 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3823, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 3, POLICE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; AMENDING SECTION 24-69 (B) OF THE CODE, DEATH IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES, AND SECTION 24-73, TO DELETE TERMINATION OF SPOUSAL BENEFIT UPON REMARRIAGE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (3348) through (3620) Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 7:25 p.m. Billy E. Robinson, secretary/treasurer of the Police Officers' Pension Board, stated that, in accordance with Chapter 94-171 of the Florida Statutes, the proposed ordinance provides that the death benefit paid to the spouse of a police officer who dies in the line of duty shall not cease after the remarriage of the spouse. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3823 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3823 on first reading. Commissioner Cardamone stated that since Ordinance No. 94-3823 is necessary to comply with State legislative action and, therefore, the Commission does not have a choice in approving the proposed ordinance, clarification should be given as to the cost to the City. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Fund's actuary is required to complete actuarial studies; that the actuaries are very conservative and the Plan is based on the premise that the people will not remarry sO there is no cost impact. Mayor Patterson stated that a cost would be involved if the City were to terminate or there was an accounting change and the pension funds were substantially less than actuarially required; that, ultimately, a cost will be involved but none immediately felt by the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked if it was considered conservative to assume that spouses will not remarry? Mayor Patterson stated that the approach is conservative since the Fund's actuary is assuring that there is enough money in the Pension Fund for benefits to continue for the life of the spouse. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City funds a significant portion of the Pension Fund and perhaps the actuary is being too conservative on certain items; that statements are constantly made inferring the Funds are over-funded and notation should be made that the cost of this extra-conservatism is paid by the taxpayers. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3800, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA (1986), ARTICLE II, PENSIONS - DIVISION 2, FIRE / AMENDING SECTION 24-29 (B) TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEATH AND PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES BENEFIT FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH BENEFIT SHALL NOT CEASE UPON REMARRIAGE AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 94-171, FLORIDA STATUTES; AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF AVERAGE COMPENSATION AND SALARY IN SECTION 24-21 TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; : REE PEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA NO. IV-5) #1 (3621) through (3747) Billy E. Robinson, ecretary/Treasurer of the Firefighters' Pension Board, stated that, in accordance with Chapter 94-171 of the Florida Statutes, the proposed ordinance provides that the spousal benefit does not terminate upon remarriage if a firefighter dies during the performance of his or her duties. Commissioner Pillot stated that the wording of Ordinance No. 94- 3800 should be changed for clarification's sake; that the proposed ordinance reads .that such benefit shall not cease upon remarriage as required by Chapter 94-171, Florida Statutes"; that the proposed ordinance reads as through the Statute requires the Book 37 Page 11038-6 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-7 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. ceasing and, therefore, should be changed to read "...to provide, consistent with Chapter 94-171, Florida Statutes, that such benefits shall not cease. "; that this rewording leaves no question as to the ordinance's intent. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3800 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3800 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION: PRESENTATION RE: RESOURCE CENTER ON LEON AVENUE AND 23RD STREET ADMINISTRATION TO PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS CRIME IN THE LEON AVENUE AREA AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #1 (3778) through #2 (2047) Dorothy Clark, President, Leon Avenue Neighborhood Association (LNA), and Mimi McAdoo, representing the Community Housing Corporation (CHC), came before the Commission and requested the City fund a Resource Center in the vacant building on Leon Avenue and 23rd Street. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:33 p.m. Mrs. Clark stated that the Leon Avenue neighborhood has serious crime and drug problems; that a petition is being submitted to the Commission on behalf of the Leon Avenue Neighborhood Association requesting the City maintain a neighborhood Police Resource Center located at 23rd Street and Leon Avenue to assist in the elimination of illegal activities which occur on a 24-hour basis; that the City should lease for six months the vacant house on the corner of 23rd Street and Leon Avenue for use as a Police Resource Center; that the money to fund this Resource Center could come from the Weed and Seed Program and money confiscated from drug dealers; that off-duty police officers could be used on a rotating basis to staff the Resource Center. Mrs. Clark read a letter from Jesse Hubbard, a Leon Avenue resident, which expressed his support for a six-month, temporary police station with 24-hour police attendance to assist the residents in their efforts to improve and upgrade the neighborhood. Mrs. Clark stated that she has been ill and unable to meet with many other people in the neighborhood who wish to sign the petition but these signatures will be available by the next Commission meeting. Ms. McAdoo stated that the CHC is attempting to build affordable houses throughout the downtown area and rehabilitate and upgrade a number of areas which will be advantageous to the City; that Mrs. Clark and her neighbors are working very hard to clean up the neighborhood but cannot do it alone; that she attended a few meetings of the LNA was impressed with the sincerity and diligence of the community to clean up their neighborhood; that when police assistance is requested, the people are told that although the police understand the problem, they cannot come; that the Leon Avenue area should be a priority, at least temporarily, to assist the residents in cleaning up the crime in their neighborhood and the residents will then maintain the area; that if these problems were in any other neighborhood and a complaint made, the police would be there and take care of the problem; that beginning at dusk, the number of people, the debris, and the shocking behavior exhibited in the Leon Avenue area is alarming; that the public is invited by the Police Department to ride with them to witness the even more appalling events which transpire in the later hours; that the condition of this neighborhood is deplorable and the City should be ashamed and should not allow the situation to persist; that the residents of this neighborhood with the City's assistance are trying very hard to address these problems sO crime can be brought to an end in this area. Commissioner Pillot stated that the cost of off-duty police officers on a 24-hour basis for a trial period of six months would be over $116,000, excluding benefits; that the cost to lease the house is relatively minor compared to the cost of staffing but with this added expenditure, the total amount necessary to fund this venture is approximately $125,000, excluding the cost of applicable benefits such as social security, retirement, etc.; that although the request of the LNA is valid based on need and justification, the City does not have the money available to fund the $125,000 which was not previously budgeted. Ms. McAdoo stated that she understands the Commission's viewpoint from a budgetary standpoint, but, the CHC is investing a great deal of money in new houses in the neighborhood; that St. Augustine Quarters has been bulldozed, the debris carried away, and the empty lots are now ready for new houses which will give the neighborhood a new look. Mayor Patterson stated that the City has expended $300,000 and has given the CHC 100 percent financing for $75,000 and may approve a request for approximately $100,000 to extend a road necessary for Book 37 Page 11038-8 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-9 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. construction of additional houses; that the Commission, therefore, considers this to be a joint City/CHC investment. Mrs. Clark stated that in order to sell these homes the neighborhood must be cleaned up. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that neighborhood representatives in the Central Avenue area spoke about staffing a center in their neighborhood themselves; that perhaps the same could be done in the Leon Avenue area. Mrs. Clark stated that Leon Avenue is a high risk area; that the Commissioners should ride through the neighborhood at night to witness events; that she witnessed drugs being sold on her way to the Commission meeting tonight and if these same drug dealers were conducting business on another street, they would be arrested immediately. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that it may be possible for volunteers to staff the substation; that his street has a volunteer neighborhood watch sO if drug dealers came to his neighborhood, the police are alerted. Mrs. Clark stated that volunteers cannot be asked to serve in such a high crime area until the area is Cleaned up; that once the neighborhood is Cleaned up, the residents guarantee that they will keep it clean. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that shootings occur in the Central Avenue area and it is not safe; that the Commission is going through the effort and expense to clean up these areas; that volunteers are not asked to enforce the laws but merely to be witnesses and eyes and training will be provided. Mrs. Clark stated that currently residents do call the police whenever they witness suspicious activity, but many. times the police do not respond; that the police were called twice during a recent LNA meeting, once concerning a young white male who looked suspicious, and again for a drug sale which was taking place, but no police officer arrived; that, supposedly, the police received wrong directions and were at the wrong street. Mayor Patterson stated that she expects commentary from Police Chief Jolly regarding the allegations that residents are informed that the police understand the problem but do not have the staff to send someone out; that if she witnessed a drug deal and called the police, they would come, and, substation or not, the residents of Leon Avenue have the right to receive the same assistance. Mrs. Clark stated that a neighbor called the police station on Saturday morning concerning six males who were outside selling drugs; that the woman identified herself as part of the LNA but, instead of dispatching a police officer, the woman on the other end of the line spent valuable time with unnecessary questions such as the neighbor's last name, etc. Mayor Patterson stated that a decision cannot be made at this meeting regarding the issue of funding the substation but more police work is necessary in the Leon Avenue area whether or not a substation is approved. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Brian Bishop, representing the Community Housing Corporation, stated that any resident of the City should have the same expectation of safety walking down Orange Avenue as they do on 23rd Street, but, unfortunately, the reality is that this is not always the case; that he supports funding a Resource Center in the Leon Avenue area; that the City has spent a great deal of money but the issue of safety is paramount; that building homes in an area where it is not safe to step out on the street in front of the house does not encourage families with children to move into the neighborhood; that ridding an area of crime is costly but must be done. Jack Conway, 528 El Vernona Avenue, stated that he wanted to thank the City for the wonderful job the Public Works Department did in cleaning up the lots, sidewalks, streets, etc., in the area; that he endorses the efforts of the LNA in confronting this question; that a transition period always occurs with new construction, and the "turf" is staked out; that completion of 10 to 15 houses will have a very positive affect on the neighborhood; that construction will begin by the end of the month, and anything done to focus attention on this problem is very helpful; that the abandoned Spiegel Apartments on 5th Street are being rehabilitated and the previous problem with floaters in the neighborhood is now eliminated; that the eight apartments will be finished and rented by December 15, 1994, and the Alliance for Historical Preservation is to present a plaque to be placed on the building; that the rehabilitation of the 5th Street area proves what can be done when a neighborhood is stabilized and should serve as an example to the Leon Avenue neighborhood which is the next big challenge; that anything the City does to help is deeply appreciated. Jesse Johnson, 1598 29th Street, stated that the drug problem in the Leon Avenue area should have been eliminated a long time ago but all everyone ever does is talk about the problem; that if the police would do their job, additional funds would not be needed; that there are sufficient police officers already no arrests are made; this problem has existed for over 10 years and the drug dealers, as well as the areas where drugs are sold, are known to the police; that the police should be making arrests and putting Book 37 Page 11038-10 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-11 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. the drug dealers in jail. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Johnson obviously feels there is ample police coverage but the police officers are not doing their jobs; that Police Chief Jolly has explained that the police officers' hands are tied in many ways; that he accompanied a police officer in an unmarked car and was approached by a drug dealer but nothing could be done since he and the police officer did not actually see the person doing the deal; that the police may know the drug dealers but the Courts make it very difficult for the police to make an arrest; that people should convey their frustrations to either the State legislators or the judges; that police officers should be given the ability to fight crime; that the question is not if the police officers are doing their job but rather why they are not allowed to do their job. Mr. Johnson stated that when the police constantly pass through the same area and know who the people are selling drugs, they should be able to arrest those individuals; that he has come before the Commission for ten years and still does not see any busts transpiring, and people selling drugs remain in the neighborhood; that the police sit in their cars in the middle of the known "hot spots" but make no arrests. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that there is a crime problem in the Leon Avenue area, as well as several other neighborhoods; that during the past several months, the Sarasota Area Burglary and Robbery Enforcement (SABRE) unit has been assigned to the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way corridor, including Leon Avenue; that the process of eliminating crime is a long one, cleaning up one block at a time, but the efforts have been effective; that one Community Resource Team (CRT) composed of. twO officers is assigned to the substation located in the public housing complex at 18th Street and Orange Avenue; that over the past several months, the front portion of the public housing complex located at 18th Street and Orange Avenue has been under rehabilitation necessitating the relocation of the substation to the rear of the complex; that this relocation hampers police since the substation and the CRT is now less accessible to the residents of Leon Avenue; that the rehabilitative work on the public housing complex will be completed by Thanksgiving and the substation will be restored to its original site on Orange Avenue, immediately across from what was formerly Augustine Quarters; that the CRT and the SABRE unit will be directed to spend more time on Leon Avenue; that the substation located on Orange Avenue, which is provided at no cost to the City, can be used effectively to work on the problems associated with Leon Avenue. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the police have been charged with knowing where the drug dealers are located, driving by them, and doing nothing. Vice Mayor Merrill asked why people are of this opinion? Police Chief Jolly stated that, unfortunately, a misunderstanding as to what the police can do exists on the part of the general public; that people frequently ask "Why do you let the drug dealers stand on the corner and why don't you arrest them?"; that, in fact, police officers do arrest drug dealers as evidenced by the fact that the Sarasota police force has the highest narcotics arrest rate per officer in the entire two County area; that Sarasota's police officers compare favorably in narcotic arrests to any other agency in the entire State; that making an arrest requires "probable cause", making a search requires "probable cause", and simply stopping someone to investigate requires "reasonable suspicion", all of which have legal definitions; that reasonable suspicion" means an experienced police officer believes that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime; however, this does not give the officer the right to make an arrest but simply gives the authority to stop a person and detain them briefly to determine if a crime is in fact being committed; that the laws of search and seizure require probable cause which is legally defined as "what a reasonable police officer would believe is factual evidence that a crime is or has been committed by an individual, I in other words, proof a crime is being committed or has been committed must be established to make an arrest or conduct a search and seizure. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if police officers are overly cautious about searches and seizures? Police Chief Jolly stated that police officers are definitely not overly cautious about searches and seizures; that, in fact, officers are aggressive in enforcing the law which is the reason Sarasota's police force has the highest per officer narcotic arrest rate in the area. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a meeting was held with Police Chief Jolly and a very active member of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association who felt the police were not doing their job; that the neighborhood had recently experienced drug problems; that the neighbors had observed cars coming to homes, wrote down license tag numbers, and called the police but the police did not come; that Police Chief Jolly gave a reasonable explanation of the efforts and difficulties police officers incur but the individual did not leave feeling anything more would be done in the future; that the public is convinced police officers and narcotic units try to solve the problems of crime, but, since their hands are tied, offer no solutions to the neighborhood's problems; that Laurel Park, like so many other neighborhoods, would like a substation; that these Book 37 Page 11038-12 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-13 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. residents feel they are entitled to the same service as neighborhoods which have substations since they also pay taxes; that a plan should be developed to stop drugs; that many people examine the issue of legalizing and, thus, decriminalizing drugs, which makes drug dealers more aggressive since penalties are reduced; that most people living in the suburbs do not see the problems in City neighborhoods which are driven by the drug business; that the public must be more aggressive with the State legislators; that laws are passed which reduce the penalty for drug trafficking or increase the allowable number of drug offenses before a jail sentence is imposed; that passage of such laws make police officers' jobs more difficult; that guidance must be given on handling these high crime drug-ridden neighborhoods; that substations may not be the solution because if police officers are in the substation, they are not out patrolling, and if they are out patrolling, the substation is not needed. Commissioner Atkins stated that ridding a neighborhood of drugs and crime is one of the most expensive and frustrating problems a city has to address; that frustration is felt throughout the entire community because these communities are sO closely related; that substations only appear to work in public housing; that the Leon Avenue neighborhood has been seeking relief for at least six years and, because of the fine presentation for a temporary substation and the investment of the City, the CHC and the banking institution working on the housing project, the neighborhood is finally attaining its goal; that if the City is driven by economics, the economics of this situation has to be corrected since otherwise the neighborhood will have empty houses; that no one desires to live in a crime and drug-ridden area in a brand new house costing $65,000 to $70,000; that he has great expectations for the Police Department and the City regarding the economics of this situation and, therefore, a plan should be devised immediately to provide relief in the Leon Avenue area; that the closing of the substation on Orange Avenue had no effect on the problems on Leon Avenue; that a proactive plan of policing is necessary to relieve the neighborhood until an infrastructure can be built sO the neighborhood can save itself; that six months is probably not enough time to accomplish this, but six months is enough time to eradicate the surface of the problem; that cleaning up Leon Avenue is going to take continual work and require commitment on the part of residents and the apartment owners in the area; that the neighborhood has a particular problem not inherent in any other drug spot since half of the drug dealers also live on Leon Avenue which is unusual; that parents must be prepared for their sons and daughters to go to jail; that allowing lands to lie dormant with houses sitting on them waiting to be bought at $50,000 five years from now is not practical; that the LNA is to be applauded for their efforts thus far but the time has come to make a real commitment and do whatever is necessary to give this area relief. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the situation in the Leon Avenue neighborhood is unlike any situation elsewhere in the City; that these people live under very dangerous conditions; that there is no quality of life in this neighborhood from sunset to sunrise and the neighborhood is not safe; that an area such as this poses problems to the police since it is not just one crack house impacting the neighborhood, but a drug business that goes on all day and all night; that there is no reason why anyone should have to live in the City under conditions such as those found on Leon Avenue; that during a visit to Mrs. Clark's house, she observed where someone attempted to steal the air conditioner at 3:00 a.m. while Mrs. Clark's grandson was asleep right beside it; that a used air conditioner may be worth $25 which will be used to buy crack; that she totally supports Augustine Quarters and the CHC, but if help is not given to rid the neighborhood of this dangerous lifestyle, these programs will not succeed; that the avoidance costs are considerable but so are the long-term savings and the City is going to have to invest some of these savings into cleaning up the Leon Avenue neighborhood; that there is no reason why anyone should live like this. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that no one should have to live as the people do on Leon Avenue but the dilemma is other neighborhoods also find it unacceptable that drug dealers are moving into their neighborhoods; that allowing a neighbor to live under these conditions is wrong but allowing a neighborhood to slip into this condition is equally wrong; that an approach must be found that works and if substations are the answer, then a substation program must be developed; that substations are popular with the public because substations are visible and prove to the public their politicians care and are doing something about the crime problem; that the Commission does care but whether substations are the most efficient form of law enforcement is questionable; that the direction in which law enforcement appears to be going is disheartening since people only feel obligated to obey the law if a law enforcement officer is standing nearby; that law enforcement agencies are becoming babysitters and people are losing the ability to voluntarily comply with the laws; that the promise of going to jail encouraged people to be lawabiding and deterred people from committing crimes; that in today's times, a "living-jail" arrangement exists and criminals are on the streets and the police officers stand watch; that Police Chief Jolly should implement a plan which will work in the Leon Avenue and the entire City. Mayor Patterson stated that substations as a piece of real estate staffed by people 24 hours a day are not the answer; that the police must circulate in the problem neighborhoods; that the City's approach of bulldozing an area, such as Augustine Quarters, to relieve crime problems in the neighborhood merely shifts the problem to another area; that obtaining the resources to pay for additional staff is a problem; that Florida legislators talk about eradicating crime and, yet, will not grant legislative relief to Book 37 Page 11038-14 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-15 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. force the County, whose police forces are paid by City residents' tax dollars, to come into the City and assist with this problem; that County tax dollars fund a police substation on Siesta Key and obviously, more appropriate use for the tax dollars would be to fund a police substation to assist the City on Leon Avenue; that Police Chief Jolly should develop a plan to combat crime, taking into consideration the City's investment in these areas; that the area must be cleaned up in order to make it a success because getting responsible people to live in the area will help the problem since the area will become a better neighborhood and will have less crime; that the police should make arrests whether or not convictions are possible to make it clear this City is not willing to tolerate crime even if it entails making useless investments in arresting criminals just to have them return from the Courts without a conviction. Commissioner Pillot stated that clarification of Mayor Patterson's comment regarding the Siesta Key substation is necessary for the people in areas which direly need a substation; that the City Commission did not put the substation on Siesta Keyi that the tax dollars levied by the Board of County Commissioners under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff are used for the substation on Siesta Key; that although the presence of a building with blue and white paint and a sign has merit, it is still the officer on the street making a legitimate arrest or inquiry or search and seizure that deters crime and drugs; that a staffing shortage exists in the Police Department; that he recommended acquiring additional money through millage to hire additional police during budget deliberations but the majority of the Commission did not agree; that now, several months later, the Commission is speaking of the necessity of obtaining additional staff but total agreement on how to do sO is not present; that dollars should be spent to hire the equivalent of two full-time police officers, 24 hours per day, for a year; that these officers should be used by the Administration where the greatest need exists. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission should address the LNA's original request to consider a vacant building located in the "hot spots" of the community; that Police Chief Jolly should discuss the possibility of using Weed and Seed Grant and Law Enforcement Trust Fund (L.E.T.F.) dollars to fund the substation. Police Chief Jolly stated that the usage of weed-and-seed dollars was predetermined by the drug-free communities of Sarasota and Manatee Counties at the time the grant was given; that the Justice Department controls the Weed and Seed Grant and establishes the parameters for spending those dollars; that half must go towards weeding, i.e., law enforcement efforts, which has to go through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and has to be directed toward violent crimes; that a violent crime task force begins on November 1, 1994, to cover the weed-and-seed neighborhoods of Manatee and Sarasota Counties; that currently the task force consists of approximately 18 full-time agents, deputy sheriffs and police officers from the Bradenton Police Department, the Manatee Sheriff's Office, the Sarasota Sheriff's Office, the Sarasota Police Department, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Department of Agriculture which is responsible for food stamp frauds, the Secret Service, and additional agencies interested in coming onboard; that this unit's thrust is not on drug enforcement but rather on violent crimes including finding violent fugitives and doing stakeouts on pattern violent crimes; that if violent crimes are to be prevented, the known violent criminal must be taken off the street and put behind bars; that the other half of weed-and-seed dollars are divided among six weed-and-seed neighborhoods; that each year $22,500 is given to each neighborhood but this amount must be matched locally and each neighborhood works diligently to find matching dollars; that the City does not have much, if any, flexibility on determining how those dollars are used since each weed-and-seed neighborhood makes that determination; that Newtown and Gillespie Park are two of the six weed-and-seed neighborhoods. Mayor Patterson stated that the actual problem is staffing and not the renovation of a piece of real estate. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that two comments have been made: 1) people do not get an officer when they call for assistance which indicates a shortage of officers, and 2) plenty of police officers are in the area but the officers do not make arrests; that the approach that the police are aware of who the criminals are and can make the arrests would not indicate a staffing shortage; that the scenario of having "living jails" where the criminals are not put in jail but police officers are put on every corner to watch them would require additional staffing; that the situation boils down to economics and whether money can be obtained from the Sheriff's program or from raising taxes in the City; that residents of areas without a high crime rate will move into the County where they will not have to pay the high City taxes which do not benefit their neighborhoods; that walking the line between helping one neighborhood and, simultaneously, not hurting another is difficult; that the City is doing everything possible within its resources to assist in crime prevention but the City will look for ways to put more officers on the street; that the Police Department should assure all possible officers are on the street and their activities are essential for fighting crime; that there will be major implications if taxes have to be increased to fund hiring additional officers. Mayor Patterson asked if Weed and Seed Grant dollars can be used for staffing? Police Chief Jolly stated that weed-and-seed dollars are being used for staffing on the enforcement side and to pay for overtime plus Book 37 Page 11038-16 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-17 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. hiring one additional officer assigned to the task force. Mayor Patterson asked if weed-and-seed dollars can be used for staffing for the request before the Commission tonight? Police Chief Jolly stated they cannot. Commissioner Cardamone asked if L.E.T.F. dollars can be used to assist the Leon Avenue neighborhood? Police Chief Jolly stated that there is approximately $700 in remaining L.E.T.F. dollars; that approximately $800,000 was to be received several months ago but has not yet been received from the federal government; that Congressman Miller has been contacted to assist the City in expediting receipt of these funds. Mayor Patterson asked if those dollars can be used for overtime for temporary police augmentation in a problem like this? Police Chief Jolly stated that L.E.T.F. funds can be used for this program. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Administration should consider providing a facility on a temporary basis in the Leon Avenue area; that this neighborhood should be classified as extremely dangerous for the regular residents of the City who are first residents of the County; that County dollars should be used for problems prevalent in the City and the Sheriff should be requested to provide the City with funds to help obtain a temporary structure, but a permanent solution to the neighborhood problems should also be found; that the County should be reminded that the people residing in the City are also residents of the County. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to request the Administration to prepare a plan for addressing crime in the Leon Avenue area immediately. Commissioner Atkins stated that any money spent should be reimbursed to the General Fund from the L.E.T.F. dollars the City will be receiving shortly. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports Commissioner Atkins' suggestion; that the Administration's recommendations should be back at the table in two weeks' time. Mayor Patterson stated that the substation located on Orange Avenue will be available by Thanksgiving sO spending $15,000 to $20,000 on renovating a house for a substation to be duplicated in five weeks does not make sense. Commissioner Atkins stated that the substation on Orange Avenue is not across the street from Leon Avenue but is near the light at the intersection of 20th and 21st Streets and Orange Avenue; that the concentration of the Leon Avenue problem is three blocks north and a long block west. Mayor Patterson stated that she questions the wisdom of making a major investment to make interior space available for someone to occasionally enter and make phone calls; that in the long term, the renovation would make sense if the neighborhood watch develops. Commissioner Pillot stated that putting the money into a new facility does not make sense but using the dollars to pay a police officer to do a job does make sense. Mayor Patterson stated that she is not in favor of hiring additional police officers; however, she would look favorably upon addressing the immediate need for staffing in the Leon Avenue area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the neighborhood may have found a building which in their opinion is the perfect place for a substation, but Police Chief Jolly may not be in agreement with their selection; that the proposed house located at 23rd Street and Leon Avenue does not have to be the one used for a substation unless the property were to be donated for this purpose. Commissioner Pillot stated that adding personnel tends to increase permanent personnel; however, a solution may be found if Police Chief Jolly researches the potential for retirement in the Police Department at appropriate ranks which may offset, after a period of time, the additional personnel added for a major temporary purpose. Commissioner Cardamone asked if temporary staff could be hired or if another part of the Police Department could release officers who are trained for this duty? Commissioner Pillot asked if two weeks is reasonable to accomplish the request adequately? City Manager Sollenberger stated that there are three weeks until the next Commission meeting which will allow the Administration to return to the Commission with a solid recommendation. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Pillot asked if the money spent out of General Funds can be reimbursed by the L.E.T.F. dollars when received? Police Chief Jolly stated "yes". 11. CITIZENS I INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (2062) through (2393) The following people came before the Commission: Book 37 Page 11038-18 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-19 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Bonnie Wagoner, 1714 Devonshire Lane, stated that she had intended to have the Commission view a portion of a video tape of a previous Commission meeting; that unfortunately the tape was not set at the right spot and cannot be shown. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 8:32 p.m. Mrs. Wagoner stated that at the meeting of September 8, 1994, Commissioner Pillot ordered a study of her property by an independent engineer and the Commission agreed the City was to send a letter to this effect; that, to date, she is still waiting for the letter; that she spent thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to attempt to settle this problem and is still waiting for the letter the City Attorney said would be written; that obviously, the Commissioners do not mean what they say and do not say what they mean; that the City has recklessly, willfully and wantonly flooded her property, ruined her home, ruined her health and added insult to injury by having the Code Enforcement people investigate her; that the City has not paid attention to her complaints, which concern her civil rights, and the conditions created by the City are detrimental to her health and well-being; that no permits were pulled, nor plans drawn, and the City simply came in and built a road with total disregard for her property; that the City recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and with forethought filled in a drainage ditch and elevated the road causing her property to flood continuously; that the City created an unhealthy environment for her; that she is distraught whenever she reads that the City Commission is interested and concerned about seeing a healthy and sanitary area for all the citizens of Sarasota; that to date, she has spent thousands of dollars to attempt to resolve these problems and will file suit this week. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:36 p.m. Commissioner Pillot stated that he wishes to clarify that he did not order a study to be done, nor does he have the authority to order anything to be done in the City; that the possibility exists he made a motion which might have been passed by the Commission, but for the record, obviously, he did not order a study because he has no such authority. Mrs. Wagoner stated that Commissioner Pillot asked her if she would agree to the study and she replied "yes" and the study was ordered. Commissioner Pillot restated that he does not have the authority to order anything to be done in the City; that he has one vote at the table; that he may have made the motion which would have to pass by a majority of the Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot has explained himself accurately. Mrs. Wagoner stated that the Mayor is elected to represent citizens; that Mayor Patterson is a politician, not a bureaucrat, and should start acting as Mrs. Wagoner's representative. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 94-3816, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO ADULT CARE HOMES IN THE RSF ZONE DISTRICTS; REDUCING THE MINIMUM SIZE OF PARCELS; UPON WHICH AN ADULT CARE HOME WITH UP TO TWELVE (12) RESIDENTS MAY BE LOCATED IF THE PARCEL ABUTS A STREET CLASSIFIED AS AN INTERSTATE CONNECTOR; DELETING THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED BETWEEN ADULT CARE HOMES WITH THIRTEEN (13) TO SIXTEEN (16) RESIDENTS WHEN THE PARCEL UPON WHICH THE ADULT CARE HOME IS LOCATED ABUTS A STREET WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS AN INTERSTATE CONNECTOR; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CA-01, BRUCE FRANKLIN, LRS, REPRESENTING ANDY GARCIA; AND PETITION NO. 94- CA-02, JOEL FREEDMAN, BISHOP & ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING DAN OLUICH) = ADOPTED WITH CHANGES RELATED TO PARKING, ACCESS, ADJACENCY AND LANDSCAPING (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (2395) through (3640) Mayor Patterson stated that this item would normally be on the Consent Agenda, however, she requested it be placed under Unfinished Business; that she has concerns with Ordinance No. 94- 3816 which was passed on first reading at the last Commission meeting; that safeguards were built into the proposed ordinance at the request of the City Commission, however, nothing has been done to give the Planning Board the latitude to address parking or access in a larger facility, nor has the number of adjacent ACHS with 12 residents been limited; that the proposed ordinance limits the number of ACHS with 16 residents to two in a row and the same limitation should be included in the proposed ordinance for ACHS with 12 residents; that the proposed ordinance gives the Planning Board discretion to impose a parking standard as a condition to a Special Exception for ACHS with 16 residents and the same should be done for ACHS with 12 residents; that the proposed ordinance requires that ACHS with 16 residents provide a shared driveway for access, however, a shared driveway should not be required but rather the Planning Board should be allowed the discretion to address the issue; that no mention has been made in the proposed ordinance concerning landscape or buffering, therefore, she recommends adding a statement that landscape and buffering requirements may be imposed by the Planning Board in a similar fashion to the requirements for child-care or equivalent facilities at the discretion of the Planning Board. Commissioner Pillot left the Chambers at 8:42 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson distributed a letter from Bruce Franklin, Principal, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., representing petitioner Andy Garcia, which indicated no objection to the Book 37 Page 11038-20 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-21 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. consideration reference by Mayor Patterson as it relates to Petition No. 94-CA-01. Mayor Patterson stated that the landscape requirements are the only proposed change which would affect Petition No. 94-CA-02; that Michael Furen, Attorney, and Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, representing Petitioner Dan Oluich, have indicated to her that there is no objection to the landscape requirements. Mayor Patterson stated that, if the Commission agrees with the changes, the second reading of the proposed ordinance could be postponed until the changes are made by the City Attorney or the Commission could approve the ordinance and mandate the changes be made; that the changes in the Zoning Code resulting from the second petition were addressed in greater detail than those from the first petition; that the impact to neighborhoods from both petitions, however, is potentially the same. Commissioner Pillot returned to the Chambers at 8:47 p.m. On motion of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill) and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to: 1) adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816, 2) add a requirement that no more than two 12-resident ACHS may be located in a row, 3) provide the Planning Board with the ability to address access, landscape standards similar to those provided for daycare facilities, and parking standards, and 4) postpone second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 until the next Commission meeting sO the changes can be made in writing. Commissioner Cardamone asked if specifics are being built into the ordinance which are normally addressed in the site plan? Mayor Paterson stated that the proposed changes relate to ACHS with 12 residents and are already addressed in the ordinance as it relates to ACHS with 16 residents; that the proposed chançes could be addressed in site plans, but it is more clear for these requirements to be included in the ordinance as has been done for ACHS with 16 residents. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that two sections in the Zoning Code are being amended by the proposed ordinance: Section 8-6 (p) which relates to the petition of Mr. Franklin, and Section 8-6 (q) which relates to the petition of Mr. Freedman; and that the changes recommended by Mayor Patterson are to equalize the two sections. Mayor Patterson stated that the two sections should be the same since the Commission is approving a density in the first section which is greater than in the second section; that the proposal is for a change in the Zoning Code affecting Fruitville Road from Beneva Road to the City limits and not specific to an individual petitioner; that a standard should be set since nothing prohibits anyone else from coming before the Planning Board with a similar request. Commissioner Atkins asked if proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 can be approved without waiting for the next Commission meeting? City Attorney Taylor stated that most of the standards currently in the proposed ordinance could simply be extended to smaller ACHs; that the only standard not already included is the landscape standard. Mayor Patterson stated that landscape standards are already included in another section of the Zoning Code. City Attorney Taylor stated that Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, has proposed the following language related to the landscape standard which can be included in the ordinance as being within the discretion of the Planning Board: Landscaped hedges may be required along the side and rear property lines of adjoining properties zoned residential. The hedges will be sO designed, planted and maintained as to be at least 80 percent opaque and between two and six feet above the average ground level. Mayor Patterson stated that the Planning Board should have the discretion to approve an equivalent to the hedge requirement, as has been suggested by Mr. Freedman; that Mr. Oluich has large trees in the back of the property for shade, therefore, a hedge may not grow well; that Mr. Oluich may prefer to install a fence with vines growing instead of planting a hedge; that this is agreeable to her if the Planning Board agrees. Commissioner Pillot stated that Mr. Garcia already has a fence. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if a delay to the next Commission meeting will cause the petitioners problems? Attorney Furen came before the Commission and stated that it would be better if the matter could be resolved tonight because the petitioner is stymied until the ordinance is effective. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to amend the motion by deleting the delay and acting on the proposed ordinance tonight. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 by title only. Book 37 Page 11038-22 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-23 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked if the City Attorney is agreeable to taking action this evening? City Attorney Taylor stated it is agreeable with him; that the language provided by Mr. Taylor as previously read would be acceptable. Mayor Patterson asked about the possibility of including language in the ordinance to address the question of "the equivalent"? City Attorney Taylor stated that the words "or its equivalent" will be included in the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the amendment. Amendment carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the language concerning access and parking is clear? City Attorney Taylor stated that the language related to access reads: "Adult care homes located adjacent to one another shall be required to provide a shared driveway for access." Mayor Patterson stated that the language should read "may" instead of "shall"; that the two driveways to Mr. Garcia's facility access two neighborhood streets. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language would, therefore, read: "The Planning Board may require that adult care homes located adjacent to one another provide a shared driveway for access.' City Attorney Taylor continued that the requirement for parking will read exactly as proposed Section 8-6 (p) (10) except that the number of residents would be changed to 12 or fewer. Vice Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to approve proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 and add under Section 8-6 (p): 1) an item similar to Section 8-6 (q) (3) (iii), and 2) Section 8-6 (q) (iv), relating to access, substituting the word "may" instead of "shall," and 3) Section 8-6 (q) (10), relating to parking, changing from 13 to 16 units to under 12 units for the size of the ACH, and 4) the language related to landscaping as found in the Zoning Code. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language regarding landscaping will be borrowed from other sections in the Zoning Code. Mayor Patterson stated that the appropriate section of the Zoning Code related to landscaping requirements is Section 8-6 (i) (6). Commissioner Cardamone stated the Commission is doing something tonight she vowed she would not do which is to draft an ordinance at the Commission table. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission voted on that motion. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a vote was taken in one form and now the Commission is looking at specifics which are part of the site-plan process and do not belong in the ordinance; that she hopes that the final vote will be taken on the basis of Petition Nos. 94-CA-01 and 94-CA-02; that she has a problem with introducing the idea that someone can apply for a Special Exception for an ACH housing up to 28 people which is surrounded by a single-family neighborhood; that if the ordinance passes tonight, the door is open to have ACHS of up to 28 residents which was not part of the comprehensive planning process; that she is concerned about what is being done tonight. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for clarification of the wording which will be used concerning the landscaping requirements. City Attorney Taylor stated that the only difference is that Section 8-6 (i) (6) of the Zoning Code was written for outdoor play areas of daycare centers, etc.; that those references will be deleted and the language will read as follows: Landscaped hedges, or its equivalent, shall be provided along the side and rear property lines adjoining property zoned residential. Such hedge shall be sO designed, planted or maintained as to be at least eighty (80) percent opaque between two (2) and six (6) feet above the average ground level when viewed horizontally. All requirements of section 6-22 of this Zoning Code shall apply. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes; Merrill, no. Mayor Patterson stated that she understands Commissioner Cardamone's discomfort and shares it; that she apologizes to the Commission for suggesting changes at second reading, however, the proposed ordinance on which a vote had been cast at the last Commission meeting had fewer safeguards for neighborhoods than the proposed ordinance on which a vote has just been cast; that she was trying to apply the same neighborhood safeguards for both petitions. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: HUDSON BAYOU BASIN MASTER PLAN - REE FERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION THE QUESTION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF CREATING A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT FOR THE HUDSON BAYOU BASIN; APPROVED SUBJECT TO IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH A FINANCING PLAN ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (0056) through (2497) Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Book 37 Page 11038-24 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-25 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Plan document distributed with the Agenda packet does not answer the question she raised four weeks ago regarding the restoration of 1,000 feet of the Hudson Bayou. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Cardamone requested an item be agendaed to address a request made by a group of property owners residing along the western portion of the Hudson Bayou who are willing to pay for the bayou to be dredged; that those property owners have asked for City assistance in creating an assessment district to finance the cost of dredging the Hudson Bayou; that in response to Commissioner Cardamone's request, the Administration has scheduled a presentation on the Hudson Bayou Master Plan which addresses ecological and environmental considerations, storm runoff, etc. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan is being presented to the Commission for final approval; that the item related to dredging can be addressed prior to the presentation; that preliminary discussions have been held regarding the dredging project; that a preliminary cost of $300,000 has been estimated; that $300, ,000 is too small of an amount for a bond issue; however, the money could be front-ended by: 1) arranging a loan through a bank, or 2) advancing it out of current City funds. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that this issue has not been fully explored; however, he is confident the City could borrow the funds from a bank for a specified period of time and levy an assessment which would include the interest charges and attorney fees necessary to negotiate a bank loan for the City; that an assessment district similar to the St. Armands Parking Special Assessment District could be developed. Jim Toale, representing the Hudson Bayou Joint Venture, came before the Commission and stated that he represents the group of property owners requesting City assistance to develop an assessment district; that 90 percent of the affected property owners have signed a petition and pledged support; that approximately $2,000 to $3,000 has been raised to cover the soft costs the City may incur; that the owner of Central Park Apartments has pledged support; that a preliminary Joint Venture agreement has been drafted by the Engineering Department in which the following is outlined: 1) the property owners will supply the soft costs, 2) the City will find internal or external funding for the project, and 3) a public hearing will be held to create the special assessment district. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the project will be bid to determine the actual cost associated with dredging the Hudson Bayou; that the cost on which the assessments are based cannot be modified after the assessment district is developed; that this project should be addressed in a manner similar to that for the St. Armands Parking Assessment District. Mayor Patterson asked if an environmental assessment has been performed on the material which will be dredged and if disposal problems will be associated that material? Mr. Toale stated that tests have been performed previously; that current information is necessary; that a silt analysis to show what type of material is present in the Hudson Bayou will be performed; that a silt analysis was included as part of the soft costs. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to refer the proposal of a Hudson Bayou Special Assessment District to the Administration to determine its feasibility. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a neighborhood is willing to fund the clean-up of a problem which they did not cause; that the City should research available grant dollars to assist in the dredging. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Richard Winters, Engineering Technician, and J. P. Marchand, P.E., Manager, Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan was submitted in preliminary form to the City Commission on February 7, 1994, and a Public Workshop was held on June 9, 1994; that the Hudson Bayou Master Plan is completed. Mr. Marchand displayed various slides on the overhead projector and gave a brief overview of the master plan. Mr. Marchand stated that the purpose of the master plan is to identify the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in the Hudson Bayou watershed for purposes of addressing flood and water quality concerns; that the master plan, as recommended, brings the watershed into compliance with the City of Sarasota's stormwater drainage level of service objectives, specifically no structural flooding in the 25-year storm event; that a 30 percent reduction in sediments and heavy metals has been estimated for this priority watershed as a result of the recommended CIP. Mr. Marchand continued that Commission approval of the master plan document is requested; that approval for individual projects will be requested through the City's CIP process later this year; that the required mapping and study data needed to obtain a map revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Sarasota Flood Insurance Rate Maps was prepared for submittal; that Book 37 Page 11038-26 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-27 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. the drainage requirements and existing conditions in the watershed contained in the master plan can be reviewed by and assist new developers in addressing those issues in their designs. Mr. Marchand referenced and reviewed the various CIP projects which the City has already approved. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is concerned that the desiltation may not affect the lead concentrations; that the source of the lead may have come from the older industrial areas; and asked if lead samples have been taken from Outfall #3? Mr. Marchand stated that sampling at the mouth of the Hudson Bayou has been performed by the National Estuary Program (NEP); however, significant research to identify the source of the lead has not been performed; that a water quality monitoring program to identify the source of lead in the Hudson Bayou was proposed in a recent Federal Stormwater Permit application; that the response from the State and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was that an alternative, broader, water quality monitoring program should be proposed. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that lead concentrations scare people and cause deformities in children and fish; that lead has been identified as a reason for initiating the CIP for the Hudson Bayou Basin; that the source should be identified, addressed, and eliminated; that a focus should be placed on availability of funding to eliminate the lead problem. Mr. Marchand stated that the larger desiltation facility is proposed for Outfall #3; however, smaller desiltation facilities are proposed for Outfalls #1 and #2. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the desiltation facilities for Outfalls #1 and #2 have not yet been approved. Mayor Patterson stated the $4 or $5 million proposed for the entire project should include identifying the source of the pollutants; that the 30 flooding properties could be purchased for far less and made into individual desiltation facilities if that is all that will be addressed. Mr. Marchand stated that 40 percent of the estimated cost includes replacing existing infrastructure when it fails with appropriately- sized infrastructure; that a desiltation facility has been recommended in each of the watersheds studied. Commissioner Cardamone stated that NEP has determined that the highest lead content in oysters has been found in Hudson Bayou Basin; that the cause of the lead should be identified and eliminated; that she is concerned with spending the proposed amount of funding to clean up the Hudson Bayou Basin without solving the problem; that funding should be sought to perform the research necessary to identify the source. Mr. Marchand stated that Commission approval for individual projects is not being requested at this time although the concerns are understood. Mayor Patterson stated that approval for a $5 million plan which does not address one of the Commission's biggest concerns is being requested. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he commends the additional research and the conclusions reached regarding rainfalls and the Euclid Canal areas. Mr. Marchand stated adjustments were made based on the public meetings held, the comments received from the Commission, and a survey of flooded properties; that the Euclid Canal did not stay in its banks during the most recent storm event; that street flooding occurred but no houses flooded; that the City's stormwater level of service allows for street and yard flooding but no house flooding in a 25-year storm event. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the problems with the homes along Pelican Drive have been resolved? Mr. Winters stated that the problems identified in that area are being resolved; that a portion of the pipe which carries the stormwater from the Pelican Drive area to the Hudson Bayou Basin is blocked by tree roots; that a contractor has been hired and is currently cutting those tree roots to unclog the pipe; that an open area of the canal near the abandoned Wood Street and a section of the pipe on the Central Park Condominium property must be Cleaned out. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the South Pelican Drive drainage problems will be solved by a combination of alleviating the clogged pipe which is actively being cleaned out, the proposed desiltation, and the Euclid Avenue/Courtland Street culvert? Mr. Winters stated that those projects will alleviate the pressure on the Euclid canal. Mr. Marchand stated that culverts at Euclid Avenue/Courtland Street and under the railroad tracks are proposed for the Euclid canal area. Vice Mayor Merrill asked which projects would be necessary to solve the south Pelican Drive flooding? Mr. Marchand stated that the culverts are necessary to reduce the water coming into the Pelican Avenue area; that the culverts cannot be installed without addressing the new water travelling along the Euclid canal to the Sarasota High School area; that part of the Book 37 Page 11038-28 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-29 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. purpose of the project along the School Board property is to store a portion of the excess water; therefore, the School Board project would have to be completed first. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the $700,000 estimated cost for the desiltation project includes the Euclid Avenue/Courtland Street culvert? Mr. Marchand stated that the desiltation project is part of the solution to the flooding problems in combination with the culvert project which is a separate cost item. Mayor Patterson stated that the desiltation facility at Sarasota High School and the replacement of the Euclid Avenue/Courtland Street culvert have been approved without funding sources if the Commission approved those projects as stated, which she does not recall approving; that she feels uncomfortable beginning work on projects for which people will be assessed serious dollars without identifying, based on the presented concept, the costs to the individual properties located in the various basins; that material without dollar figures was originally presented to the Commission by the County Stormwater Utility representatives; that materials with dollar figures included were subsequently presented at the Commission table which allowed insufficient time for review; that the costs were subsequently reviewed, and the assessments to the Hudson Bayou Basin area properties are fairly high, approximately $130 in addition to the $40 currently being paid. Mr. Winters stated that eliminating flooding structures was identified as a priority of the City Commission in the fiscal year 1993 CIP process; that a list of priorities brought before the Commission included the Noble/Leon Avenue area and the Shade Avenue/Waldemere Street area; that those priorities were approved by the Commission; that engineering analysis and the Hudson Bayou Master Plan have identified the particular projects necessary to alleviate the flooding. Mr. Daughters stated that the word "approved" was aggressive and inaccurately used; that the only item actually approved by the Commission was to proceed with the design concept for the Waldemere to Floyd Streets project; that the other projects will be presented to the Commission in the future for authorization to begin the design phases. Mayor Patterson asked what approving the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan actually implies? Mr. Marchand stated that the Commission previously approved the 1987 Citywide Master Drainage Plan from which projects have not yet been initiated; that approval of this Master Plan will not authorized the individual projects. Mr. Sollenberger stated that accomplishing the objectives of the Hudson Bayou Master Plan will require issuance of debt; that the Interlocal Agreement with the County provides that no debt can be undertaken involving City rate payers without the approval of the City Commission. Mr. Sollenberger continued that changing the Administration's recommendation to "approve the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan subject to implementation through a financing plan acceptable to the City Commission" would address two concerns: 1) approving the conceptual master plan, and 2) stating that prior to implementation a proposed financing plan would meet the approval of the City Commission. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan subject to implementation through a financing plan acceptable to the City Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he will vote against the motion; that the presented concept is a $5 million plan; that these items may not be accomplished for fifty years; that he would not be willing to float a bond issue for $5 million to accomplish the Hudson Bayou Master Plan; that other master plans will be forthcoming, i.e., the Whitaker Bayou Basin Study; that he does not oppose adopting a plan of identified problems which may occur and should be addressed in the future; however, he is concerned with giving the implication that the Commission is approving a $5 million plan for which the neighborhood property owners will have to pay. Commissioner Pillot stated that the revised Administration's recommendation included coming to the Commission with recommended sources of funding before requesting approval to initiate prioritized projects; that a strong, appropriate, defensible case has been made for controlling the flooding; that the City will not be able to accomplish the identified stormwater objectives without asking the appropriate sources to contribute. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that most of the Hudson Bayou Basin area currently has a level of service "C" and does not flood; therefore, some of the residents who will be required to contribute to eliminate the flooding live in areas not currently threatened by flooding. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to the water quality deficiencies listed on pages 5-5 and 5-6 of the document. Commissioner Pillot stated that water cannot be released from the "upstream" areas without designating a retention area; that the "D" level of service areas should be a first priority, however, a source for funding will still be required. Book 37 Page 11038-30 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-31 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Marchand stated that 40 percent of the $5 million plan cost has been estimated for replacement of the pipe systems in the defined outfall areas; that the appropriate replacement size necessary has been defined; that the plan does not recommend developing a plan to replace the pipe; that replacement of the pipe as it fails is recommended. Mayor Patterson stated that her comments may have prompted Mr. Sollenberger to include in his recommendation something that is not necessary; that Vice Mayor Merrill would feel more comfortable approving the document as a master plan with the assumption that the details will be presented individually; that she suggests modifying the motion to approve the master plan, as originally recommended, with the understanding that there is no implication of initiating it in a particular order or in totality. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would not agree to changing the motion in order to adopt a plan without the implication that the City would implement the plan in a priority sense and pay for it; that the Administration's recommendation did not include a time frame in which the plan would be accomplished. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Sollenberger to clarify the Administration's recommendation as it relates to presentation of an individual or entire financing plan. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Commission's concerns appear to be based on the report previously presented to the Commission in which heavily increased annual rates for implementation were indicated; that these increased rates were based on implementing the entire CIP component; that Mr. Marchand has expressed that 40 percent of the entire cost would not be included; that the purpose of the addition to his original recommendation was to express that the entire CIP should not be implemented at one time. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to approve the Hudson Bayou Master Plan subject to implementation through a financing plan acceptable to the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - REPORT GIVEN (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (2518) through (2544) Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 10:04 p.m. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the Main Street project is on schedule; that one official rain day was lost but will be made up; that the landscaping work will begin next week; that the project should be close to completion by the end of the month. 15. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TWO SMALL PARCELS ADJACENT TO ED SMITH SPORTS STADIUM TO SARASOTA COUNTY FOR THE TUTTLE AVENUE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (2544) through (2566) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the County requires the use of two small parcels of City-owned lands adjacent to Ed Smith Sports Complex in connection with the Tuttle Avenue Road Improvement Project; that the impact to the City of transferring these parcels to the County is minimal; that to mitigate the loss of City lands, the County agrees to modify a small stormwater retention pond at the southeast corner to accept the resulting quantity of stormwater from 10th Street into their system. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the quit claim and to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the deed. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 16. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATION WITH THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (2567) through (2628) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this item was previously agendaed for approval but was withdrawn to modify Section 10: Location of Office; that the joint office will be located within the City of Sarasota; that payments for leased space will be paid proportionately from City and the County funds. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: EMPORARY USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALES CENTER AT 341 SOUTH GULF STREAM AVENUE - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (2637) through (2667) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Tangerine Development Company (TDC) is the contract purchaser of the property located at 341 south Gulf Stream Avenue which is proposing to erect a high rise Book 37 Page 11038-32 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-33 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. condominium at this location; that similar permits have been approved for other developments, i.e, L'Elegance; that the building currently located on the site will be utilized as the sales center; that the duration of the Temporary Use Special Permit will be 18 months. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Temporary Use Special Permit at 341 south Gulf Stream Avenue. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED NEW SIGN FOR THE MARINA JACK RESTAURANT = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #3 (2667) through (2821) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the original Marina Jack Restaurant sign blocks a new sidewalk constructed in conjunction with the Bayfront Park project and must be relocated. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 10:10 p.m. Mr. Sollenberger continued that placement of the sign is in accordance with a location recommended by the City Engineer; that final approval of that location would be subject to requirements of the Florida Department of Transportation; that the proposed sign is 25 feet in height, and the existing sign is approximately 17.5 feet in height; that the proposed sign has a width 10 feet less than the existing sign; that the specifications and sketch of the proposed new sign submitted by the Marina Jack Restaurant has been included in the Agenda packet for Commission review. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approved the proposed Marina Jack Restaurant sign. Mayor Patterson stated that her husband's law firm represents Marina Jack, Inc.; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will not vote on this item. Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill. Vice Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4. to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 19. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, AND 7 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #3 (2821) through (2881) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Agreement and Permanent Exclusive Easement between the City of Sarasota and Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Berkes for access to a 40-foot strip of property adjacent to the eastern boundary of Bobby Jones Golf Complex on 17th Street 2. Approval Re: Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Pinecraft Fire Control District for fire and emergency medical services 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to M. L Boyer Construction, Inc., Bradenton, Florida (Bid #94-139) for the construction of New Pass Seawall replacement at Ken Thompson Park 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Grant Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Department of Natural Resources for artificial reef construction 5. Approval Re: Modification to the agreement for the sale of the Augustine Quarters property to the Leon Avenue Redevelopment Company, L.C. 6. Approval Re: Loan of $18,000 to the Community Housing Corporation to permit the acquisition * of the property located at 618 North Orange Avenue 7. Approval Re: Authorization for Mayor to sign and send a letter to U.S. Senators Connie Mack and Bob Graham, and U.S. Congressman Dan Miller supporting Federal Mandate - Accountability and Reform Act (5.993/H.R.4771) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 7 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 20. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-734) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3754) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3821) - ADOPTED; (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #3 (2881) through (2950) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R- 734 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3754 and 94-3821 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-734, accepting abatement of nuisance. and çost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. Book 37. Page 11038-34 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-35 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. 94-3754, amending the City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition, to require, with exceptions, certification of construction documents for one- and two-family residences; to provide for the use of the Standard for Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction, SSTD 10-93, of the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., as an alternative to the requirements of Section 1205 of the Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition; to provide for certification by building contractors that one- and two-family residences are designed and will be constructed to meet the requirements of SSTD 10-93; to provide that all construction documents for one- and two-family residences, submitted by a property owner, who intends to build and occupy the structure designed therein, will meet the requirements of SSTD 10-93; repealing that portion of Chapter 11 Building and Building Regulations, Section 11-2 (a) which adopts Appendix J of the Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition relating to hurricane requirements; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing for a penalty for violations; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3821, to conditionally rezone from RMF-4 Zone District to CRT Zone District and approve Final Site and Development Plan No. 94-0 in order to permit alterations to include two retail stores and a office on the following described property: said property is located on the east side of S. Osprey Avenue just south of Ringling Boulevard with a street address of 229/245 S. Osprey Avenue (Known as the Valencia Apartments); more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1, 2, and 3. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yesi Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 21. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: PLUMBING AND GAS BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS - APPOINTED DOUGLAS PEREGOY TO MASTER PLUMBER SEAT (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #3 (2950) through (3045) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to appoint Douglas Peregoy to the Plumbing and Gas Board of Rules and Appeals to serve in the master plumber seat. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 22. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: PLUMBING AND GAS BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS = REFERRED BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS; LETTER TO BE SENT TO MR. ALLIGOOD (AGENDA ITEM IX-2) #3 (3046) through (3189) Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is concerned that the applicant, Clayburn Alligood, resides in Palmetto; that an effort should be made to obtain a City of Sarasota resident to serve on this advisory board. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Alligood works in the City of Sarasota on Ninth Street. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Cardamone; that the application states Mr. Alligood was contacted and asked to serve on this board; therefore, the original initiation to serve was not his own. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer this item back to the Administration to seek additional applications. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that a letter should be written to Mr. Alligood informing him of the Commission's desire to appoint a City resident; that the decision was not based on his qualifications; that his interest in serving was appreciated and his appliçation will be reconsidered if no City-resident applications are received in the future. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a letter will be sent. 23. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (3198) through (3245) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. asked for the status on removal of the rubble pile located on Ken Thompson Park. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the rubble pile will be removed as part of the project currently being conducted on Ken Thompson Park. B. asked if plans have been initiated to develop a Nuisance Abatement Board? Book 37 Page 11038-36 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 11038-37 10/17/94 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that an ordinance is being drafted. 24. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (3180) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Vora Hes a NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: TA BLE Rebnsen BITLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, ÇOUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling : Xrry : COUNTY 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON W'HICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE : APPOINTIVE October 17, 1994 X WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature ofthe 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. CEFORM XB 1O-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 file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST Nora Patterson I, hereby disclose that on October 17 19. 94:: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A motion was made and adopted to approve a new sign for Marina Jacks Restaurant. My husband is a partner is the lawfirm that represents Marina Jacks, a marina and restaurant located at Bayfront Park. October 21, 1994 Hora Ateson Date 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