BOOK 38 Page 11643 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1995, 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 Mayor Nora Patterson called the meeting to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, FOR FEBRUARY 1995 - PAM YORK, SENIOR PROCUREMENT TECHNICIAN, GENERAL SERVICES/ PURCHASING DEPARTMENT #1 (0025) through #1 (0132) Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission and stated that Pam York, Senior Procurement Technician, General Services/Purchasing Department has been employed with the City since 1984; that Ms. York was selected Employee of the Month for February, 1995, for several reasons, but primarily for her positive attitude and her willingness to assist and train other employees on the newly installed automated purchasing system; that Ms. York's initiative, dedication, and willingnèss to go the extra mile in both learning and teaching are valuable contributions to the success of the new automated purchasing system; that Ms. York is a member of two Total Quality Performance (TQP) teams - the City Sleuths and the Socialites; that the City Sleuths was responsible for the inter-governmental telephone directory and the Central Stores catalog; that Ms. York is best known for her fund raising activities for the Socialites team which has sponsored the City's Annual Christmas Dinner Dance, chartered fishing trips, and various other activities for City employees and their families; that the Socialites' work is done on their own time. Mayor Patterson stated that it is a privilege for her to represent the entire City through the Commission in presenting Ms. York with a plaque and a City watch in appreciation of her unique and positive performance with the City of Sarasota. 2. PRESENTATION RE: DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD AND THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT OF EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING #1 (0133) through #1 (0234) Susan Dann, State Representative of the Government Finance Officers Association; Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance; Christopher Lyons, Deputy Finance Director; David Flatt, Accounting and Payroll Manager; and Judy Wallace, Accounting Supervisor, came before the Commission. Ms. Dann stated that the City of Sarasota has received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1993; that the City has also received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1993; that these awards from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) are the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting, financial reporting and budgeting that the City of Sarasota can receive; that attaining these awards is a significant achievement. Ms. Dann presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Mr. Lyons and stated that in order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets pregram criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications medium; that this is the fourth consecutive year the City has received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. Ms. Dann presented the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Mr. Flatt and Ms. Wallace and stated that in order to be awarded the Certificate of Achievement, a governmental unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) ; that the CAFR's contents must conform to program standards and satisfy generally accepted accounting principles; that this is the thirteenth consecutive year the City has received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting; that Mr. Flatt and Ms. Wallace played major roles in the preparation of the CAFR; that Mr. Mitchell was thanked for all his help in making this report what it is. Mayor Patterson thanked Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Flatt and Ms. Wallace for a job well done. 3. PRESENTATION RE: THE HOME OWNERSHIP FOR POLICE PROGRAM #1 (0235) through #1 (0486) BOOK 38 Page 11644 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11645 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, and Jack Neese, Senior Vice President, Century Bank came before the Commission. Mr. Neese stated that the Home Ownership for Police Program is not a new program, but is new to the state of Florida, particularly the west coast of Florida; that the program finances loans to police officers who purchase homes in designated areas throughout the City; that the areas to receive the benefits of this program were selected by the number of "weighted calls" which were weighted by severity of the reported crimes. Mr. Neese referred to a board display of the City on which the areas eligible for the Home Ownership for Police Program were highlighted and stated that the program is structured to make loans affordable to officers who purchase homes located in specific areas; that the program offers up to 100 percent financing to the police officers; that the closing costs are financed into the loan; that by living in one of the eligible areas, the police officer becomes a neighbor and friend to the community; that Ft. Wayne, Indiana has used this program for 18 months and has seen a drop in crime by 50 to 60 percent; that 12 police officers have already called Century Bank to inquire about the program. Police Chief Jolly stated that from a police perspective, the officers will take a giant step forward in providing community- based policing; that the program encourages officers not only to live within the City limits, but to live and participate in neighborhoods that can use revitalization; that the selected areas were not only based on weighted calls, but by recommendations made by the Community Development Department; that each participant of the program will receive a take-home police vehicle because it is of utmost importance that the police car is visible in the neighborhood; that regulations are being defined to allow for limited private use of the police vehicles which are taken home. Police Chief Jolly continued that the Home Ownership for Police Program is available because Century Bank is committed to providing this program in order to help communities; that Century Bank also paid for the printing of the professionally produced brochures explaining the program to the police officers. Mr. Neese stated that the Chairman of the Board at Century Bank has indicated that the bank will monetarily provide whatever it takes to make this program work. Commissioner Atkins stated that he understands the Home Ownership for Police Program is a City program; and asked if a County deputy sheriff, who already takes a police car home, could participate in this program? Mr. Neese stated that the program has focused on the City's police officers since the boundaries of the program are within the City; however, County deputies may also participate in the program. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that citizens may feel there is favoritism towards certain neighborhoods because of the geographical limits of the areas eligible to participate in the program; that parents near Tuttle Elementary School may have concerns that their neighborhood is not included in the program; that perhaps the boundaries could be reviewed and revised at a later date. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1995 AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1995 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0487) through #1 (0500) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes of the special meeting of February 27, 1995, or the regular meeting of March 6, 1995. Mayor Patterson stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the special City Commission meeting of February 27, 1995, and the regular City Commission meeting of March 6, 1995, were approved by unanimous consent. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, AND 4 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0501) through #1 (0516) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Third Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement regarding the consolidation of the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Services 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Herald Tribune Co. regarding the sign at 12th Street and Tuttle Avenue on the City of Sarasota Sports Complex 3. Approval Re: Award of contract to Cen Tech Utility Corporation, Tampa, Florida, (R.F.P. #95-41) for Verna Well Field Acidizing Project 4. Approval Re: Sarasota Mobile Home Park Density Reduction Program BOOK 38 Page 11646 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11647 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 4 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO. 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-810) - ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 2 (ORDINANCE NO 94-3815) - ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3818) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0517) through #1 (0596) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-810 in its entirety, and proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3815, and 94-3818 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-810, appropriating $12,954 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund six months rent for an off-site location for the Vice Intelligence Narcotics Section 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3815, amending the Zoning Code to add regulations thereto relating to sidewalk cafes; defining terms; requiring a permit for operation; denying permits to persons who have outstanding fines, fees, or taxes owed the Cityi implementing design standards for sidewalk cafe furniture; establishing performance standards; allowing the serving or consumption of alcoholic beverages at a sidewalk cafe if served with a meal; acknowledging the temporary nature of a sidewalk cafe; setting forth a permit revocation procedure; providing for the severability of parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3818, amending Chapter 33, Traffic and Motor Vehicles, Sarasota City Code, Article IV, stopping, standing or parking, Division 1, generally, to add as Section 33-120 regulations pertaining to motor vehicle valet service; defining terms; requiring a permit as a condition to providing valet service; setting forth stan- dards for the review of permit applications; requiring a written agreement for use of private property to store motor vehicles; specifying requirements for use of city- owned land or city-owned parking lots; setting forth a permit revocation procedure; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 3 inclusive. 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. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: REQUEST FOR THE TASK FORCE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE CITY AND COUNTY COMMISSIONS AT A JOINT MEETING - HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE COUNTY AFTER APRIL 14, 1995 (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) AND 8. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: REQUEST BY THE COUNTY TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE USE OF THE CITY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND THE INITIATION OF FURTHER FINANCIAL ANALYSES OF THE BENEFITS TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTY = HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE COUNTY AFTER APRIL 14, 1995 (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #1 (0597) through #1 (0959) Mayor Patterson stated that the City and County jointly appointed a Task Force to review possible scenarios and make recommendations for consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments; that both the Task Force and the Fire Departments have made presentations to civic groups but not to the Commission; that the Commission received a written presentation but not an oral one at which questions could be asked; that a presentation to the joint City and County Commissions in the near future would be beneficial to facilitate the process to include the mechanics of how the consolidation would operate as well as a presentation by the Task Force. Commissioner Cardamone and Vice Mayor Merrill stated that they agreed with Mayor Patterson's suggestion. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County Administrator will be contacted to schedule a joint meeting between the City and County. Mayor Patterson stated that there has been a request from the County Commission to hold a meeting to discuss the use of the City's wastewater treatment facilities and to make further financial analyses of the benefits of the use of the wastewater treatment facilities to the City and County. Commissioner Pillot stated that the joint meeting could also include the wastewater treatment plant discussion. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to direct the City Manager to work with the BOOK 38 Page 11648 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11649 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. County Administrator to arrange a joint meeting after April 14, 1995, between the Board of County Commissioners and the City Commission to discuss the consolidation of the Fire Departments and to discuss the wastewater treatment facilities. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County wants to discuss the use of the City's wastewater treatment facilities and the initiation of further financial analyses of the potential benefits to the City and County; that the projected sewer rates over the next 10 to 15 years cannot be accurately computed due to the large number of variables; that the City should provide an analysis from a rate consultant, but the impacts over the years cannot be calculated into the rates; that the discussion should include the City's intention with respect to treating the County's wastewater effluent in the unincorporated areas; and asked for clarification as to the topics to be discussed at the meeting. Commissioner Pillot stated that the intent of the motion was to respond to Chairman Mills' letter of March 7, 1995, to discuss the use of the wastewater treatment facilities and discuss the initiation of further analyses; that Chairman Mills is not asking for decisions, but only to hold a discussion regarding financial analyses of the benefits to the City and County. Mayor Patterson stated that the Fire Department consolidation is a complex issue; that there could be a discussion about wastewater treatment at this meeting as Commissioner Pillot suggested since the two Commissions seldom meet; however, the main topic of the meeting should be the consolidation of the Fire Departments. 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. 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. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3824, AMENDING ARTICLE XVI OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; EXPANDING THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM TO REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES OR PUBLIC STRUCTURES LOCATED IN THE CITY PROVIDE PUBLIC ART INCIDENT TO DEVELOPMENT AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN OR MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC ART FUND IN LIEU THEREOF; AMENDING THE DUTIES, RESPONBIBILIPIES. AND COMPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE; DEFINING TERMS; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT:; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1995 (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0961) through #1 (2816) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance proposes amendments be made to the City's existing Public Art Ordinance and identifies public property in the City where public art should be located; that suggestions previously made by the City Commission have been included in the proposed ordinance; that the Public Art Committee, at its meeting dated November 30, 1994, recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance; that the Public Art Committee (PAC) reviewed all but one of the following proposed changes recommended by the Administration: 1. Definition Public Structure (Section 16-1) Eliminate the requirement for public art by the public entity for passenger terminals, shelters, and off-street parking facilities from the proposed definition; and 2. Public Art Required (Section 16-2) Restrict the private and public contribution of public art to the Central Business District (CBD) and Theater & Arts District (TAD) zone districts only, exempt property owned by Sarasota County from the application of Ordinance No. 94-3824; that the policy of the County for purchasing public art is already addressed in County Resolution 93-280. Ms. Robinson stated that the City may want to reconsider the wording of the recommended modification to Section 16-2 of the proposed ordinance; that the PAC indicated that the County's public art ordinance lists a project juryi that a City representative could be on the project jury; that the Chairman of the PAC suggested that a similar project jury requirement be defined in the City's ordinance; that the City should have an influence on the public art located in the City whether it is a City project or not; that the current ordinance allows only for review of public art by the private sector in the CBD and TAD districts; that the amendment would allow for review of all public art, proposed by the private or public sector, in the CBD, TAD, and Government (G) zone districts. BOOK 38 Page 11650 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11651 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked if Ms. Robinson is recommending that the following sentence be removed the Administration's recommendation #2: "exempt property owned by Sarasota County from the application of Ordinance No. 94-3824?" Ms. Robinson stated that is her recommendation; however, the revision has not yet been discussed with the City Manager; that the revision would ensure City review of public art proposed by the County. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has not discussed the suggested revision with Ms. Robinson; that the City has not been overly successful in choosing public art; that the County has had a better track record; that the project jury requirement in the County's ordinance appears to be strong; that he is comfortable with the Administration's recommendation #2 as originally presented. Mayor Patterson asked if any public art projects have been completed with the County's project jury requirement? City Manager Sollenberger responded, no; that no new bouildings have been built since the project jury requirement became effective; however, the County will present a public art project for the former GTE Building, the new library, if approved, and the Judicial Center. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to the Public Art or Public works of Art definition under Section 16-1 which stated "the application of skill and skill by artists"; and asked if architects are considered to be artists? Ms. Robinson stated that an architect could be considered an artist; that art could be part of the architecture of a building. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that landscaping is listed under the definition of public art; that every building has landscaping; and asked if landscaping for a building designed by a landscape architect would be considered public art? Ms. Robinson stated that the PAC would make that determination. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the definitions listed in Section 16-1 of the proposed ordinance do not indicate the area must include ornamental gardening; that it simply states landscaping; that the term landscaping is very broad; that he could support an ordinance of this type that included a requirement which was easy to meet; that every building has landscaping; that a broad definition would allow for the Public Art requirement to be met if a landscape architect designed the landscaping; that the ordinance could stipulate that the landscaping must be completed by a landscape artist, i.e., a landscape architect, to qualify as public art; therefore, the Commission, when voting for approval of a site, could be assured the landscaping was completed by an artist. Ms. Robinson stated that the PAC discussed sculpture gardens which could be considered public art; that the standard requirements, i.e., 2-foot hedges and 5-foot buffers would not be considered public art. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to Section 16-9 of the proposed ordinance which provided criteria for approval of public art; and stated that planting a tree would be considered permanent. Ms. Robinson stated that the intent of the ordinance was to be broad. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a consultant was hired to complete the study for public art; that public art in other communities must have been studied. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to Section 16-9 in the ordinance which indicated the criteria for approval of public art and stated that the City may not want to develop criteria when public art standards are always changing, i.e., the City already assumes the work must be quality work and the piece of art must have style in relationship to the site; that the criteria indicates a piece of art must have permanence and last a period of time although nothing is actually permanent. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) criteria has been included; that the City placed a smaller Memory Path sculpture at Selby Five Point park so people could not hide behind it in order to meet the CPTED standards; that developing standards that must be imposed upon people forces a result; that the result of the CPTED criteria on the Memory Path sculpture was not well received. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that the City should not be telling a Board how to determine whether the public would like a piece of art; that the standard of criteria for selection of a piece of art that will be viewed by generations should be that it must be an excellent piece of art. Ms. Robinson stated that the criteria in the proposed ordinance was drafted from other ordinances; that perhaps someone with more experience should address the wording of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that other communities have found that Public Art Ordinances have not met with great success; that it is difficult to mandate excellence; that he has concerns about designating seats from professions to serve on the PAC Board; that BOOK 38 Page 11652 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11653 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) Board does not have mandates as to who can serve on the board; that the people serving on the VWPAH Board are people with a broad understanding of the community; that the City could be creating the problem the PAC has exhibited by mandating that a high percentage of artists be on the PAC, thereby, failing to allow for the public's taste. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if mandating the criteria for selection of artwork or mandating who is allowed to serve on the Board was studied by the consultant? Ms. Robinson stated that a study was not made on the mandates indicated in the ordinance; that the ordinance was written using input from the consultant, reviewing other ordinances, and considering advice from the PAC; that she understands Vice Mayor Merrill prefers that the ordinance be written in a more general format. Mayor Patterson stated that the criteria for members as listed in Section 16-6 of the proposed ordinance are not that strict. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there are five members on the PAC and the majority must be in the arts community; that two members must be art experts and one member must belong to a local arts organization; that the Commission has always been sensitive to the community; therefore, the ordinance should just indicate that the Commission shall appoint members to the PAC; that the Planning Board, the City's most important board, has no restrictions for the board members; that the VWPAH has minimal restrictions for its board members. Mayor Patterson asked if Vice Mayor Merrill is suggesting that all qualifications for board members be removed? Vice Mayor Merrill responded, yes; that the Commission has the wisdom to choose board members; that the restriction that a board member must be a City resident could be left in the ordinance; that historically, the board members have been City residents. Mayor Patterson requested that the PAC Board members present in the audience come forward to address Commission questions. Mark Ormond, Deputy Director for Programs and Collections at the Ringling Museum; Leslie Ahlander, Chairman of the PAC; Dennis Kowal, Vice Chairman of the PAC and a sculptor/artist, came before the Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the ordinance should be kept simple; and asked the following questions: 1. Does there need to be restrictions as to who may serve on the PAC Board? 2. Do standards need to be written which the PAC must follow in establishing what is considered good, public art? 3. Does there need to be a standard requiring quality? 4. Should it be noted in the ordinance that thé purpose is to find public art that appeals to the general public? 5. Should the public art for Sarasota include marine art in order to appeal to the general public? and 6. Can the length of the ordinance be reduced to a more simple and direct approach? Ms. Ahlander stated that Carl Abbott, a local architect, hired by the City as a consultant, originally asked for her input on the public art ordinance; that for the last three years the PAC has attempted to add items and qualifications to the ordinance at the request of the Commission; that each time the ordinance has been brought to the Commission, more qualifications are added; that she is very much in favor of simplifying the ordinance; that several of the definitions in the ordinance are too wordy; that simplifying the ordinance could be accomplished by using the ordinance as it was originally redrafted to address the areas of confusion in the existing ordinance; that there are no standards for art since everyone has their own view as to what art is; that only a general opinion can be used when setting a standard for art; that language from the Dade County program was added to the proposed ordinance to require that the project architect, the end user, and a community representative be represented on the PAC; that those three members would represent the public. Ms. Ahlander continued that as an example, the people living in the neighborhood of the new southside Water Tower liked the artwork the PAC had chosen, but then nothing happened; that the Water Tower project was canceled because of funding problems; that the additional funds necessary could have been raised; that the PAC was never notified the project had been canceled; that the PAC still receives inquiries about the Main Street project; that communication regarding artwork projects in the City is poor and must be remedied. Ms. Ahlander further stated that an example of using landscaping as art, as suggested by Mr. Abbott, would be to plant Gold Trees, symbolic of Sarasota, all along the median strip of Fruitville Road to Interstate 75; that in the spring time the whole length of Fruitville Road would be bright yellow; that landscaping artwork would also help Five Points enormously. BOOK 38 Page 11654 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11655 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City has previously supported artwork that has not been well received by the public; and asked what revisions have been made to the existing public art ordinance to resolve that problem? Ms. Ahlander stated that adding an architect, an end user, and a community representative to assist in the selection would help provide the PAC with input from the public perspective; that additional members of the public could be added to the PAC; that the number of committee members was limited to five to keep the PAC manageable; that the end user and community representative may be individuals who live in the community, but have no background in art. Vice Mayor Merrill asked Ms. Ahlander for her opinion on having no restrictions for PAC board members. Ms. Ahlander stated that the PAC requires some members with an art background; that, for example, a medical board would include at least one doctor. Mr. Ormond stated that the VWPAH has a Director, a professional with experience in the performing arts and who makes all the program decisions at the VWPAH; that the PAC is a very visible public art program with no director; that the City must rely on the appointed PAC to provide professional guidance; that if criteria for the PAC members is eliminated, the various disciplines that are involved in the program would not be presented, thereby eliminating the professional guidance that he thought the Commission wanted. Mr. Kowal stated that the Director of the VWPAH acts in a relatively autonomous fashion compared to the PAC; that in order for the public art program to be effective, there must be less snickering going on at all the hearings regarding what constitutes public art; that there must be less concern over what the public necessarily deems they want or do not want; that if Sarasota does not assume a leadership role in the arts community, which it is not doing at this time, the people of Sarasota will be in a lot of trouble; that there have been questions about whether plants and landscaping should be considered art; that when examining public art programs around the country, the largest failures have taken place because of the loop holes which allows people to plant a tree instead of displaying a painting or a sculpture; that the citizens of Sarasota, as well as other places throughout the country, want serious art pieces; that a good example is the Picasso in Chicago; that the people did not necessarily understand or like the artwork at first, but have grown to appreciate it; that the proposed ordinance attempts to address all the problems and issues people have brought up; that the proposed ordinance should be adopted. Mayor Patterson stated that she was under the impression that the PAC wanted the proposed ordinance adopted in its entirety; however, as Ms. Ahlander addressed Vice Mayor Merrill's questions, it sounded as if the PAC wanted the Commission to refer the ordinance back to the PAC for further revision. Ms. Ahlander stated that the PAC would like action; that this ordinance is addressed approximately every three months, is picked apart and rewritten, presented to the Commission, and is picked apart once again; that this process has been continuing for 3.5 years; that the ordinance could be rewritten for years and years as there is no such thing as a perfect ordinance; that the PAC endorses Commission adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 as drafted. Commissioner Cardamone asked for an opinion by the PAC regarding County facilities being built in the City without the involvement of the PAC? Mr. Kowal stated that the Sarasota County Arts Council (SCAC) at this time does not have an exemplary record in visual arts in the City; that the SCAC does not have a public art committee; that the City should have input into what the County is building within the City; that there is currently no City representative on the SCAC. Mr. Ormond stated that maintaining aesthetic control of art placed in conjunction with public buildings within the City is in the City's best interest. Ms. Ahlander stated that the International Art Critics Association is meeting in Sarasota next year and wants to take a tour of the public art of Sarasota; that both pieces of public art will be shown. 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. 94-3824 by title only. Commissioner Pillot stated that before making a motion, he needs clarification as to the recommendation from the Administration; and asked what the proposed ordinance provides with respect to the art at County public buildings in the City? Ms. Robinson stated that the proposed ordinance provided in the Agenda packet, without the Administration's recommendation, indicates the City will review public art in the CBD and TAD zone districts; that a review of public art in the Governmental zone district, i.e., the County's Judicial Center or the new library, if zoned Governmental, would not be included; that the former GTE BOOK 38 Page 11656 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11657 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. building planned for use as the County's new Administration building is zoned CBD and, therefore, would be subject to the City's review of public art under the proposed ordinance as drafted. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the first page of the proposed ordinance and asked if adding the Governmental (G) zone district to the first preamble would allow for City review of public art at County buildings built in the "G" zone district? Ms. Robinson stated that the inclusion of the "G" zone district as suggested would subject County buildings in the "G" zone district to follow the City's PAC review process. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a cooperative effort between the PAC and the SCAC could be undertaken in such instances? Ms. Robinson stated that would be an appropriate approach since both art committees would be reviewing the public art under those circumstances. Mayor Patterson stated that the City may end up with the final approval on public art for a County building if the "G" zone district is added to the proposed ordinance; that she understood the proposed ordinance to read that the City would also review public art on public land. Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, stated that the existing public art ordinance is part of the Zoning Code and applies only to the CBD and TAD zone districts; that the PAC proposed amending the Zoning Code to require public art Citywide in all zone districts for public and private properties; that the existing public art ordinance provides regulation only for private property owners; that Ms. Robinson is suggesting that the "G" zone district be added to the proposed ordinance for applicability to public property. Mayor Patterson asked if a piece of public art is funded by either private or public funds and placed in the "G" zone district, on property owned by the City, who would have the final approval of the public art? Ms. Schenk stated that the City would have final approval. Mayor Patterson asked if the "G" zoned property is owned by the County, and the "G" zone district is included in the proposed ordinance as suggested by Commissioner Cardamone, who would have final approval of the public art? Ms. Schenk stated that, normally, the City would have final approval because the property would be within the City of Sarasota and therefore, regulated by City ordinances; that drafting an Interlocal Agreement with the County to provide for their input may be desirable. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the City Manager's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends that the proposed ordinance, restricting the area of applicability to the CBD and TAD zone districts, be adopted with two changes: 1. the requirement, under the definition for public structures be eliminated for approval of public art for passenger terminals, shelters or off-street parking facilities; and 2. that Sarasota County be exempted from application of the proposed ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 as recommended and stated by the City Manager. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Cardamone asked Ms. Schenk what would be necessary to require that the PAC have input with the SCAC on public art proposed on County buildings located in the City? Ms. Schenk stated that an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County for joint cooperation between the PAC and SCAC would be necessary to provide a legal, binding document. Mayor Patterson asked Commissioner Cardamone who she would like to have the final approval on artwork in public areas of the City? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the County Commission should have the final approval on a County project; however, the City's PAC should be involved in the final decision and provide input for public art placed at County buildings within the City; that she does not want to rewrite the ordinance at the table. Mayor Patterson stated that, perhaps, the County should not be exempted, but sent a letter stating that the City would revise the public art ordinance if the County would include the City's PAC in the County's process of selecting public art for County buildings located in the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Mayor Patterson is suggesting that the proposed ordinance be passed as drafted and a letter be sent to BOOK 38 Page 11658 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11659 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. the County requesting an Interlocal Agreement for cooperation in approving public art at County buildings located in the City? Mayor Patterson stated that she is suggesting that the proposed ordinance be passed with the Administration's recommendations; and that a letter be sent to the County indicating that the City expects the PAC to have input in the County's public art selection process; that the focus should be on who the Commission feels should have final approval on public art for County projects located within the City. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the County should have final approval based on a recommendation by a joint City/County public art committee. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 as recommended and stated by the City Manager, with the County Commission to be contacted through its Administrator to name to the SCAC a person selected by the City's PAC. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Patterson asked for the number of members on the SCAC? Ms. Robinson stated that the SCAC has five members, plus a project architect, a Sarasota County representative designated by the County Administrator, and two community members who reside in the project area. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance could be written subjecting the County to the proposed ordinance in that the County would make the final decision on public art, but not without the advice of the City's PAC as part of the process; that the Commission may want to table the item with the public hearing open to allow the County to provide input in response to the City's consideration of subjecting the County to the ordinance. Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission is amenable to the compromise suggested by City Attorney Taylor? Commissioners Pillot, Atkins and Cardamone stated yes. Vice Mayor Merrill stated yes, but he will still vote against the proposed ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that she is amenable to everything discussed except for expanding the process for County-owned property. Mayor Patterson reopened the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to continue the public hearing until the regular Commission meeting of April 3, 1995. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3843, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE V, DIVISION 5, RELATING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, TO AMEND THE JURISDICTION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER AND TO CLARIFY VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SUCH DIVISION; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2817) through #1 (2901) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this is basically a housekeeping ordinance. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that after utilizing the Special Master system for two (2) years, it is being recommended that the following technical changes be made which will strengthen the existing code enforcement ordinance: 1. Revise the jurisdiction section to show proper code sections; 2. Allow for notices as well as citations to be reviewed by the Special Master; 3. Clarify that the Special Master can impose additional penalties and costs, in addition to the recommended fine schedule; and 4. Make the schedule of civil penalties consistent with the jurisdiction section. Mr. Litchet continued that there have been no changes made to proposed Ordinance No. 95-3843, since it was introduced at the March 6, 1995, regular Commission meeting. 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. 95-3843 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance 95-3843 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson BOOK 38 Page 11660 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11661 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3849, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING A NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS TO JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF SAID BOARD; STATING THE PURPOSE, POWERS, AND JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD: ESTABLISHING MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING; AUTHORIZED MAYOR PATTERSON TO WRITE THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO EXPAND LEGISLATION TO INCLUDE OTHER NUISANCES AND AMEND IN THE FUTURE TO ALLOW FOR A SPECIAL MASTER (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2902) through #2 (1079) City Manager Sollenberger stated that nuisance abatement is a tool to eradicate conditions in the community which detracts from the quality of life; that there is a cost factor involved with the proposed Nuisance Abatement Program; that a person must be hired to administer the program; that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3849. John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission and stated that the Nuisance Abatement Program will be an excellent tool for the City and the Police Department in enhancing the service provided to the community; that other cities' methods for nuisance abatement were thoroughly researched; that St. Petersburg has received excellent results from their Nuisance Abatement program; that the program includes the addition of a atactive/investigator assigned to the Office of the Police Chief to pursue cases for the Nuisance Abatement Board, and to coordinate those activities with the City Attorney; that the Police Department now spends numerous hours answering calls for service to and about facilities and residences which are in violation; that the establishment of a Nuisance Abatement Board process would be cost effective; that there is a Bill pending in the State Legislature which could put some additional "teeth" into the proposed ordinance and make it even more effective. Commissioner Cardamone asked for details on the Bill. City Attorney Taylor stated that the pending House Bill would allow the proposed ordinance more latitude than the current law provides; that the current ordinance aims at nuisances caused by drug and gang activities, and prostitution; that the pending House Bill would add, as a nuisance, noise violations on properties where local government noise regulation is in effect; that it would also add as a nuisance a violation of a local Code Enforcement Board order; that this would be another mechanism for enforcement; that the House Bill also allows, along with all the other remedies of nuisance abatement, to impose a fine up to $500 per day; that the City Administration should contact the Local Legislative Delegation in support of this House Bill. Commissioner Cardamone asked if there is anything in the proposed ordinance to prohibit the City from taking advantage of the Bill if it passed? City Attorney Taylor stated no. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3849. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), representing the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association is in support of the proposed ordinance; that the ordinance will alleviate some of the noise problems in the neighborhood; that the Nuisance Abatement Board should be fair, but strong, and have a clear understanding of how noise has affected the neighborhood; that the enforcement of noise abatement must be taken seriously. Patty Snyder, 803 Goodrich Avenue, (34236), representing the Greater Gillespie Park Neighborhood Action Team, stated that the Greater Gillespie Park Neighborhood Action Team has targeted the homes in the neighborhood which are causing noise problems; that the landlords of these properties are absentee-landlords who do not have to deal with the noise issue; that the absentee-landlords have been notified that their properties are being used for drug activity and prostitution, but have made no attempt to change things as long as the rent is paid; that these absentee-landlords would not want to live next door to their tenants; that the proposed ordinance would give the neighborhood control over these illegal activities and would give a message to other neighborhoods that Gillespie Park is serious about cleaning up the area. Ms. Snyder continued that the Nuisance Abatement Board should be comprised of people who live in the neighborhoods affected by serious noise problems. Commissioner Atkins stated that drug trafficking and prostitution are Police and Code Enforcement issues; and asked what the proposed ordinance does that the Police and Code Enforcement Departments cannot do? BOOK 38 Page 11662 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11663 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that Section 2-271 of the proposed ordinance indicates the penalties which will be made against a property causing a noise problem; that the State statute is judicially enforced by a neighborhood board who may enter an order that would immediately prohibit the conduct. Commissioner Atkins asked if the proposed ordinance is a requirement under the Weed and Seed program? Ms. Snyder stated that it is not. Commissioner Atkins stated that he does not see the importance of the proposed ordinance based on how stringent the Code Enforcement and Police Departments are. Director Lewis stated that the Code Enforcement Special Master actions are separate from the proposed ordinance; that the proposed ordinance only addresses gangs, drugs and prostitution violations; that currently, the Police can arrest people on the premises of rental property where illegal activities are occurring, but the owners can allow the renters to continue living there and, thus, continue the illegal activity ; that these situations happen over and over again which makes the abatement of the illegal activities difficult; that the proposed ordinance stipulates that after two arrests within six months for the listed illegal crimes, the owner of the property can be brought before the Nuisance Abatement Board and ordered to prohibit the illegal activities on the rental property. City Attorney Taylor stated that the problem experienced is that the Police Department may arrest a person, but that person is back out on the street in a short time; that this situation occurs repeatedly; that the proposed ordinance is aimed at the property itself and the activity which is occurring on the property; that Code Enforcement's main task is to enforce a fine; that a fine has not been written into the proposed ordinance; that the proposed ordinance gives the City the ability to notify landlords that the illegal activities occurring on their properties are prohibited from the first day the tenant(s) are arrested and that if the illegal activities do not cease and desist, it is enforceable by a court order; that the landlords will be subject to penalties by the court if they are in violation of the court order. Mayor Patterson stated that Director Lewis stated that the crimes are limited to drugs and prostitution; that she understood the proposed ordinance would be broader. Director Lewis stated that the illegal activities covered by the proposed ordinance are gangs, drugs, and prostitution; that the implications would broaden if the House Bill is passed. Mayor Patterson requested that a copy of the pending House Bill be forward to her. Commissioner Pillot asked if Director Lewis feels the proposed ordinance supplements and strengthens the combination of the Police and Code Enforcement powers that currently exist? Director Lewis stated that the proposed ordinance would certainly strengthen the police power; but does not address any code enforcement; that the proposed ordinance allows for greater latitude when working with the property owners. Commissioner Pillot asked Director Lewis if he believes the proposed ordinance strengthens as well as supplements the power of policing of the City? Director Lewis stated, absolutely; that as part of the review, he spent several hours with the personnel at the St. Petersburg Police Department who coordinate Nuisance Abatement Board cases; that he observed a hearing on a premise that was a nuisance; that the Nuisance Abatement Board chose to close the commercial facility for one year for violation of the nuisance abatement ordinance. Commissioner Atkins stated that his concern is that the proposed ordinance is not written clearly enough to distinguish the difference between what the Police and Code Enforcement Departments already do; that a Nuisance Abatement Board is basically a jury. Commissioner Atkins asked the following questions: 1. Will the Police Department be responsible for the accusations made against people? 2. Will the neighbors be responsible for reporting nuisance violations? 3. Once the two arrests are filed with the City, does the complainant have the right to have an attorney at the hearing? 4. Will the City attend these hearings with a team of attorneys? 5. What are the requirements for the persons owning the property to use in order to defend themselves? and 6. Is this a court process? BOOK 38 Page 11664 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11665 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Director Lewis stated that a Nuisance Abatement Board hearing is a quasi-judicial process; that the neighbors bring the illegal activities to the attention of the Police Department; that since the proposed ordinance indicates there must two arrests within six months for violation, the Police Department would make the arrests and prepare the necessary papers for the Nuisance Abatement Board; that the property owner would be notified in person or by certified mail; that the property owner is given the opportunity to attend the hearing to present their side of the story. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Director Lewis' memorandum, dated February 28, 1995, indicates that in 1994 there were 23 complaints investigated in St. Petersburg; that seven were handled administratively; that of sixteen complaints brought before the Nuisance Abatement Board, six properties were closed for a period of one year and two properties were put on probation. Commissioner Cardamone continued that it appears the Nuisance Abatement Board has worked well for St. Petersburg; that the Board's action sends a signal to landlords who do not care what occurs on their properties; that the Board forces landlords to take care of their property; that the proposed ordinance is arresting the property, not the individual; that the property could be incarcerated for one year under the proposed ordinance. Dorothy L. Clark, 1521 23rd Street, (34234) and Elois West, 1507 25th Street (34234) representing the Leon Avenue Neighborhood Watch Association. Ms. Clark stated that she is the President of the Leon Avenue Neighborhood Watch Association and Co-Chairman of the Neighborhood Watch of Newtown; that both organizations are in support of the proposed ordinance; that the community's problems have been presented to the Commission at prior meetings; that the neighborhood needs the Nuisance Abatement program; that the Leon Avenue property owners are taxpayers who deserve peace and quiet; that neighbors should not be afraid to go outside at night; that a person riding through the neighborhood would understand the problems the neighborhood encounters everyday; that if the proposed ordinance is passed, she believes many people will begin to participate and form neighborhood watch organizations. Ms. West stated that she lives on the corner of Leon Avenue and 25th Street and supports Ms. Clark's statements; that the problems in the neighborhood are more than just a nuisance; that a person cannot leave their home at night; that she is afraid to even drive through her neighborhood at night; that neighbors cannot sleep at night because of the loud voices and loud music; that the neighborhood needs help to alleviate these noise problems. Commissioner Atkins stated that he understands the neighborhood's concerns, however, the proposed ordinance relates to prostitution, gangs and drug activities; that the proposed ordinance is referring to properties; that the complaints brought forth by Ms. Clark and Ms. West are unrelated to crimes of prostitution, gangs and drug activities; that his concern is that this is another example of increasing the police force without any effect, except on the chosen few. Ms. Clark stated that the budget for the police force was reduced; that the neighborhood lost two resource officers last year; that the few resource officers remaining are not available to cover the whole neighborhood; that hiring one person to be responsible for all the neighborhood complaints would greatly help the resource officers. Ms. Clark continued that a bootlegger from Augustine Quarters lives on the corner of 24th Street and Leon Avenue; that travel is difficult along 24th Street or Leon Avenue because people park in the street waiting to see the bootlegger; that someone can either get cussed out or shot at if a horn is honked; that the neighborhood needs additional help; that the proposed ordinance would provide additional help to the neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Ms. Clark, at a previous Commission meeting, stated that there was a problem at an apartment building near her house; that Ms. Clark wrote to the landlord; that the landlord wrote back agreeing to cooperate with the neighbors, but has now slipped back to his old behavior; that if the proposed ordinance was passed, and this property was arrested two times within six months, the property could be shut down for a year; that the proposed ordinance provides one more tool to help eliminate the problem of gangs and drug activities and prostitution; that it will only take one or two shut-downs of properties for a year for property owners to understand that the City is serious about eliminating gangs and drug activities and prostitution. Mayor Patterson stated that the police budget has not been reduced, but has steadily risen every year; that there are 189 police officers; that the community resource officers were assigned to other duties. Barbara Cherry, 3907 Bay Shore Road (34234), representing the North Trail Association, stated that there are motels on the North Trail which cater to drug pushers and prostitutes; that tourists have stayed at these motels and left with a bad impression of Sarasota; that when the police run out one group of drug pushers or prostitutes, that group is soon replaced by a new group of drug pushers and/or prostitutes; that no one has been able to drive out these drug pushers and prostitutes; that the State Inspector for the Hotel/Motel Association does not even have the authority to BOOK 38 Page 11666 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11667 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. force them out of the hotels/motels; that the proposed ordinance will provide for the authority to force drug pushers and prostitutes out of the City's hotels/motels. Ms. Cherry continued that she attempts to remain aware of who enters the two properties she owns; that as a property owner she is responsible enough to know the tenants will not be a threat to the neighborhood. 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. 95-3849 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance 95-3849, on first reading. Commissioner Atkins asked if the Special Law Enforcement Trust (forfeiture) Funds of the Police Department could provide funding for the proposed Nuisance Abatement Board? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Attorney General's opinions regarding the use of the forfeiture funds would have to be reviewed for a response. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has a concern about relying on the forfeiture funds for a budgetary source as that is not the purpose of the forfeiture funds; that Staff would have to verify if the law would permit the forfeiture funds to be used for funding the Nuisance Abatement Board. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City has met with much success on Special Master hearings for code enforcement; and asked if there is a state law which allows for a Special Master rather than having board members take a vote against drug pushers or prostitutes? City Attorney Taylor stated that a Special Master is provided by law for use in code enforcement; that the pending House Bill does not allow for a Special Master process. Mayor Patterson stated that the State Statutes would have to be changed if the City wanted to use a Special Master instead of a Nuisance Abatement Board. Commissioner Pillot stated that the proposed ordinance clearly providès for a repeal process to the courts; that the Statute should provide for a repeal process as well; that a person who has had their property closed down or treated negatively because of the proposed ordinance, may file a suit, even if it is a frivolous suit; that frivolous suits are defended in the courts; and asked the following: 1. Where does the liability rest for the Nuisance Abatement Board? and 2. Where would defense fall? City Attorney Taylor stated that as with any board of the City, there is a provision in the Sarasota City Code to provide for any potential liability as long as the board member is acting within the scope of their appointment; that the Nuisance Abatement Board would fall under the Sarasota City Code's provision. Commissioner Atkins stated that the proposed ordinance is troublesome to him; that he believes the program will not work as effectively as people hope it will; that the problems at the hotels and motels along the North Trail are different from the community problems mentioned; that the proposed ordinance will not run people off the streets; that the proposed ordinance will not take a car from someone who stops at a stop sign and has the radio playing loud music; that the proposed ordinance will not run the people off of the corners at 22nd, 23rd, 24th Streets and Leon Avenue or Osprey Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that if the citizens of the neighborhoods expected that the proposed ordinance would remove people from the streets, the expectations were wrong; that since the proposed ordinance has some limited potential, he will hesitantly vote for the it. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Commissioner Atkins' advice to the neighbors is well taken; that the proposed ordinance is not an end all to problems; that the proposed ordinance is strictly property based; that the proposed ordinance will not stop people from playing loud music in their cars, blocking driveways or making noise at night; that the proposed ordinance not only affects the neighborhoods, but also affects the commercial areas; that if the number of police calls to the same properties throughout the year are added up, it would show the cost of this Nuisance Abatement Program will pay for itself; that the term used for this is called avoidance cost; that if the proposed ordinance passes tonight, she would like a report on the Nuisance Abatement Program after it has been in place for one year. Mayor Patterson stated that she hopes the proposed ordinance goes beyond the more serious concerns of drug pushers and prostitutes on properties with the additional passing of the pending House Bill; that the Commission could approve a letter written to the Local Legislative Delegation to support the pending House Bill; that the legislators may not address people playing boom boxes on the BOOK 38 Page 11668 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11669 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. street, but could potentially address people playing boom boxes in their home thereby affecting a neighbors' peace and quiet. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she agrees that a letter should be written if this proposed ordinance is passed; that the Florida League of Cities has indicated this House Bill is one to lobby for. Commissioner Atkins stated that he has a concern as it relates to the Nuisance Abatement Board; that the Commission should consider supporting a change to the State Statutes that would allow Special Master decision-making process for the Nuisance Abatement program; that exposing a group of neighborhood citizens to a group of people who are already deviants in society may create some undo problems in the future. Commissioner Atkins continued that supporting a Special Master process should be included in the letter to the Local Legislative Delegation. Commissioner Cardamone asked Director Lewis how the Nuisance Abatement Board in St. Petersburg dealt with those types of problems? Director Lewis stated that the St. Petersburg personnel were not asked about repercussions from the public toward the Nuisance Abatement Board members; that he will contact the coordinator of the Nuisance Abatement Board in St. Petersburg and provide a report to the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to authorize Mayor Patterson to write a letter to the Local Legislative Delegation to support legislation to include other nuisances and to be amended in the future to allow for a Special Master. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 12. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS: REPORT OF THE COALITION FOR FAIR TAXES REGARDING DUAL TAXATION (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (1080) through #2 (1902) Bart Cotten and Jack Gurney, representing the Coalition for Fair Taxes, came before the Commission. Mr. Cotten stated that appreciation is extended to Commissioner Atkins, on behalf of the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association, for ten years of dedicated service on the City Commission. Mr. Cotten distributed to the Commission information regarding the newly organized, Coalition for Fair Taxes and stated that the Coalition is comprised of citizens concerned about the welfare of the City and its decreasing tax base; that the Coalition does not involve any governmental representatives; however, the Coalition does consult with the City and County governmental representatives when necessaryi; that there are no regular meetings, no officers, no directors, no fees and no dues; that the first Coalition meeting was held in October, 1994 and has already expanded to include civic and business organizations in the City. Mr. Gurney stated that Commissioner Atkins will be missed and his service on the City Commission has been appreciated. Mr. Gurney continued that. the Coalition is requesting no action by the Commission, but only wants to inform the Commission of the Coalition's progress; that the Coalition is comprised of a group of Sarasota City residents opposed to payment of County taxes for which services are not rendered; that the Coalition will request that the Sarasota County Commission establish a taxing unit which is being utilized in several other urban areas in Florida; that the taxing unit is called a Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) which would provide a fair assessment for all of Sarasota County's property owners; that the Coalition's Mission Statement is as follows: To achieve a fair assessment for all Sarasota County property owners by establishing an unincorporated area, MSTU to pay for services : such as the Sheriff's road patrol that are provided solely for the benefit of the unincorporated area. Mr. Gurney continued that a list of MSTU ordinances adopted in seven other counties in the state of Florida was included in the material distributed; that all of the MSTU ordinances include law enforcement; that in 1991 consultants for Sarasota County devised a formula which identified and quantified the services delivered only in the unincorporated areas; that an ordinance was developed by Sarasota County, however, it was not adopted; that an attorney with an excellent background in MSTUS is reviewing this ordinance as well as others; that it is hoped that the 1991 County ordinance, which was not adopted, can be revised and brought back to the City Commission for endorsement; that John Mikos, Sarasota County Property Appraiser, provided a breakdown of the 1994 ad valorem taxable value of properties in Sarasota County for each City within the County; that Geoffrey Monge, Sarasota County Sheriff, provided the 1994 budgeted cost of Sheriff's services provided solely in the unincorporated County as $13,477,430, quantified by using the formula the County adopted; that these numbers were then averaged out for each City based on the City's percentage of ad valorem taxes paid; that the 1994 ad valorem taxes paid by municipal property owners for Sheriff's services provided solely in unincorporated Sarasota County is as follows: BOOK 38 Page 11670 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11671 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Town of Longboat Key $13,477,430 X 7.90 percent = $1,064,717 City of Northport $13,477,430 X 2.72 percent = 366,586 City of Sarasota $13,477,430 X 16.09 percent = 2,168,518 City of Venice $13,477,430 X 6.14 percent = 827,514 Mayor Patterson stated that two other counties, Broward and Indian River, which are not listed in the materials distributed, also provide MSTU's. Mr. Gurney stated that information was requested from Indian River County, but was never received; that Broward County is approximately 87 percent municipalities; that the Counties listed in the handout more accurately reflect Sarasota County, that is, 33 percent municipalities and 67 percent unincorporated areas. Mayor Patterson stated that Lee County is in the process of devising a similar ordinance; that the Coalition may want to liaison with Lee County when designing Sarasota County's ordinance; that the Coalition has only spoken to the Sheriff's Department regarding benefits the City receives from ad valorem taxes; that the Coalition may want to meet with Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Bureau or John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, to receive input from the City's point of view regarding this issue. Mr. Gurney stated that he understands it is difficult to quantify the benefit percentages that each City receives from ad valorem taxes paid; that the formula adopted in 1991 was used to quantify the benefits because the County cannot disagree with numbers based on a formula they had adopted. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he fully agrees with the first sentence of the Press Release, dated March 17, 1995, from the Coalition which states the following: The Coalition for Fair Taxes, a group of Sarasota City residents, has been organized to oppose payment of County taxes for which they do not receive services. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that he was involved in the formula adopted in 1991 to identify the services only delivered in the unincorporated areas; that it was a simple formula, but he now believes otherwise; that Cities around the country which have attempted to stand alone, have failed; that in reality, Cities need money from the suburbs to help pay for city services; that once a MSTU is devised, the City will not be able to ask the County for financial help; that currently the City can request the County to furnish, i.e., extra patrolling to an area; that the Health Department and the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) are disproportionately supported by the County. Mr. Gurney stated that an ordinance is always reversible if the County, for example, agrees to provide the City with a proposal for $2.1 million worth of services to offset the money the City is paying the County in ad valorem taxes. 13. CITIZENS INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (1903) through #2 (2068) The following people came before the Commission. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), stated that she had been a candidate in the recent race for City Commission and congratulated Mayor Patterson for her re-election, Dolores Dry on her election as City Commissioner; that the other candidates from District 1 that ran for the City Commission should also be commended for running a good race; that she met many interesting people during the campaign and enjoyed campaigning with the other candidates; that the race was a tremendous experience and a lot of fun; that she thanks City Auditor and Clerk Robinson for all his help during the campaign. Mayor Patterson stated that she attended many candidate forums, and all four candidates from District 1 lead a good campaign. Ed Harding, 136 Golden Gate Point, #2, (34231), had signed up to speak, but was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3836, AMENDING ARTICLE VI OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGE STORES FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; AMENDING SUCH PROVISIONS TO EXEMPT PACKAGE STORES FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LOCATED IN CSC-N, CSC-C AND CSC-R ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLEI ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED INCLUDING ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO PARAGRAPH (a)(4) (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (2069) through #3 (0138) City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Commission, at its March 6, 1995, meeting, tabled the second reading of the proposed ordinance in order to verify if the State required that the sale of alcoholic beverages be separate and distinct and not commingled with other uses; that the City had been contacted by an attorney representing ABC Liquor Stores Inc. indicating that a requirement in the proposed ordinance stipulating that a package liquor store may be part of a larger, more significant business, may violate section 565.04 of the Florida Statutes. BOOK 38 Page 11672 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11673 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated the following two areas were identified as potential conflicts: 1. The City Commission wished to restrict operation of package liquor stores to being part of an overall business providing goods and services in addition to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Section 565,04, Florida Statutes, prohibits a package liquor store from selling any merchandise other than beverages and home bar and party-type supplies and equipment, including party-type foods; and 2. Section 565,04, Florida Statutes, also provides that a package liquor store shall have no openings permitting direct access to any other building or room, except to a private office or storage room of the place of business from which patrons are excluded. City Attorney Taylor continued that adoption of the proposed ordinance as revised is recommended; that the potential conflicts were addressed by including a new paragraph (d) (4) (A) as follows: A. To the extent allowed by Section 565.04, Florida Statutes, the floor area of the premises devoted to the package liquor store sales shall be open to the remainder of the floor area of the business. The package liquor store shall be operated along with a business which provides goods or services to the pubic, other than package sales of alcoholic beverages. City Attorney Taylor further stated that the following language can be included as (d) (4) (E) to address Vice Mayor Merrill's concern with including a minimum distance requirement between exempt package liquor stores eligible under the proposed ordinance: E. A package liquor store exempted by the provisions of this subsection (d) (4) from the distance restrictions of subsection (c) shall maintain a minimum distance of five hundred (500) feet from another package liquor store which meets the conditions of subsection (d) (4). Commissioner Pillot stated that each time the proposed ordinance is amended, it is more restrictive; that he agrees with Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion about placing a minimum distance requirement between other exempt liquor stores. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 as presented, with the addition of Paragraph (d) (4) (E) as cited by City Attorney Taylor. Mayor Patterson stated that, as she understood it, the proposed City ordinance allowed the sale of alcoholic beverages in a restaurant, however, this is apparently not permitted by the State Food and Beverage Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language referenced in the memorandum was in response to a question raised at the last meeting regarding the need to hold another public hearing on the proposed ordinance; that generally, the City does not re-advertise a revised ordinance and hold a second public hearing if the changes made are more restrictive than the original advertised document for which a public hearing before the City Commission was held; that the Commission could send the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency for review, start the process over, or re-advertise the ordinance as revised for a second public hearing; that he recommends adopting the proposed ordinance as revised without initiating any of those processes. City Attorney Taylor continued that he was not aware it was the Commission's desire to require that the package liquor store only be allowed in business with a restaurant/food type business; however, the proposed ordinance can be reworded to reflect that accordingly, if necessary. Mayor Patterson stated that it may not have been the intent of the original proposed ordinance; that she is seeking a resolution of the Florida Statutes involving package liquor stores interacting with restaurant facilities; which was the intent of the Michael's on East proposal. City Attorney Taylor stated that he was informed by the Food and Beverage Commission that every case is handled separately; that the following Statute was referred to him by the attorney representing ABC Liquors Inc.: that the places of business (referring to sale of package goods) shall be devoted exclusively to such sales.. City Attorney Taylor continued that the attorney for ABC Liquor Inc. indicated that the City may have a problem with the Statute; that the proposed ordinance was attempting to make the package BOOK 38 Page 11674 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11675 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. liquor store open and a part of the other use of the premises; that the Statute referred to above also stipulates the following: such places of business shall have no openings permitting direct access to any other building or room except to a private office or storage room... City Attorney Taylor further stated that he dealt with the potential conflicts by conditioning subpart (A) of subparagraph (4) with an "escape sentence" which includes "that our enforcement would be limited to enforcement consistent to what the State would allow." Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to adopt proposed Ordinance 94-3836 as revised, with the addition of Paragraph (d) (4) (E) as follows: A package liquor store exempted by the provisions of this subsection (d) (4) from the distance restrictions of subsection (c) shall maintain a minimum distance of five hundred (500) feet from another package liquor store which meets the conditions of subsection (d) (4). Commissioner Cardamone referred to potential conflict (1) cited by City Attorney Taylor and asked how the proposed ordinance would affect a deli, cooking school, gourmet market under the prohibitions listed in Section 565.04 Florida Statute? City Attorney Taylor stated that the redrafting of the proposed ordinance indicates that the business shall provide goods or services to the public other than package sales of alcoholic beverages; that the redrafting meets the goal the Commission was attempting to obtain to the extent allowed by Section 565.04 Florida Statute; that it may be that the City cannot require a package liquor store to sell something other than package goods. Commissioner Cardamone asked how the City can write an ordinance that is in conflict with Florida Statutes and then say the City cannot enforce the ordinance? Mayor Patterson stated that the original petition did not include an intent to operate a package liquor store, but an intent to operate a deli which sells liquor; that Florida Statutes indicate a deli cannot sell liquor; that Florida Statutes would allow a liquor store to locate next door to the deli, but the two businesses could not be commingled; and asked City Attorney Taylor if that interpretation of the Florida Statutes is correct? City Attorney Taylor stated that he does not know if the proposed ordinance would require an establishment to change some portion of its operation in order to conform to the State's requirements; that the purpose of the revision was to accomplish what may be in conflict with State law; that if the Commission does not want a potential conflict with State law, then the proposed ordinance should not be adopted. Mayor Patterson stated that the potential is that the proposed ordinance is establishing a package liquor store that is limited by the amount of hard liquor that can be sold; that the proposed ordinance does not necessarily relate to a restaurant, deli or a cooking school. Commissioner Pillot stated that the proposed ordinance, except for the phrasing added by City Attorney Taylor, is the same ordinance that was previously passed on first reading; that the proposed ordinance passed on first reading indicated that the Commission is allowing the City to permit this type of business proposed by Michael's on East; that now, in an abundance of caution, City Attorney Taylor has wisely added to the proposed ordinance the stipulation that even though the City says the proprietor may do this, the proprietor will be required to comply with Section 564.04 of the Florida Statutes. City Attorney Taylor stated that was a correct interpretation of the new wording. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Michael Klauber, owner of Michael's on East, is aware of the State law; that the proprietor's intention is to build a cooking school, not a package liquor store; that the cooking school will be an asset to the shopping center and lends an aura, and an air of prestige to the community; that this proprietor may leave and another less responsible proprietor may move into the commercial space, but there is enough protection built into the proposed ordinance to discourage another proprietor from locating a package liquor store at Midtown Plaza; that the restrictions in the proposed ordinance only allow for 1/3 of 2,000 square feet for the sale of liquor; that the proposed ordinance also requires that 50 percent of the floor space be designated for non-alcoholic products; that he supports the proposed deli, cooking school, gourmet market for which the zoning was properly addressed with an ordinance revision; that he knew this proposed ordinance would be controversial; that fortunately it did not alleviate any restrictions from setbacks from schools, or from other package liquor stores; that the neighborhood supports the proposal by Michael's on East; that he is not defending a package liquor store ordinance, but defending a cooking school that will also sell liquor. BOOK 38 Page 11676 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11677 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has a difficult time supporting a package liquor store ordinance, especially when it includes the following language, included in every ordinance: this ordinance . . will serve a valid public purpose and will otherwise serve to promote the public, health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Cardamone continued that Mr. Klauber has indicated the sale of liquor would be at 20 percent; that it may not be necessary for the store to even sell liquor; that the Commission has been remiss in denying the fact that the principal of the Sarasota High School and parents are concerned about another store selling liquor near the high school; that the proposed ordinance is a designer ordinance written for one individual; that a problem could occur if Mr. Klauber sells the business to someone who would want to operate a different type of store; that she has a concern about rewriting an ordinance for a matter which was turned down by the Board of Adjustment; that she has concerns about blocking off a sidewalk by a security gate in order to meet the 500-foot distance requirement from the high school. Commissioner Cardamone referred to page 39 of the minutes from the March 6, 1995, City Commission meeting and cited the following: Mayor Patterson stated that the ordinance has changed substantially since the public hearing was held; that the public hearing should be reopened when the item is brought back before the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she understood that there would be another public hearing regarding this proposed ordinance and asked where the Commission stands according to Mayor Patterson's request for a second public hearing? City Attorney Taylor stated that this item was agendaed under Unfinished Business because it was not advertised as a public hearing; that the Commission has a right to ask for further public input at any time during these deliberative processesi that the Commission has the right to send the ordinance back to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) Agency and start the process of writing the ordinance all over again; however, he does not believe holding another public hearing is necessary since the changes made are more restrictive than originally proposed. Mayor Patterson stated that her concerns began when the PBLP indicated they wished to hold a public hearing before they drafted this proposed ordinance; that the Commission would not be writing a designer ordinance if the PBLP had been allowed to follow the necessary steps required to draft an ordinance before being sent to the Commission; that the proposed ordinance was written to address the Commission's uneasiness in opening a "Pandora's Box" of unintentional consequences by allowing a controversial usage, a liquor store, to be placed in a shopping center, which had previously been restricted; that if liquor stores are to be allowed anywhere, shopping centers seem to be an appropriate place for them; that she supported restricting the ordinance as a caution against opening "Pandora's Box"; that she is not sure the proposed ordinance accomplishes Mr. Klauber's intention. Mayor Patterson continued that the PBLP should re-examine the whole liquor store issue; that she does not believe the Commission has created a big problem for Midtown Plaza or Sarasota High School; however, she is concerned about blocking off a sidewalk in order to meet the distance requirement to schools; that the requirement for distances to schools should be modified to eliminate the use of convoluted solutions such as closing off a sidewalk with a gate. Commissioner Cardamone asked the consequences if Mr. Klauber opens up the proposed establishment and the State does not permit the sale of liquor? City Attorney Taylor stated that the matter would be handled between the owner and the State; that the Commission would not be involved in the outcome of the case which would be a State law violation. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 on second reading as revised. Motion carried. (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked what procedure should be followed when the Commission wants an item set for public hearing when it comes back to the table? Commissioner Pillot stated that a majority vote in favor of calling another public hearing would be necessary. Mayor Patterson requested Commission support to permit the PBLP to hold public hearings at their discretion. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Agenda Item No. XIII-7 requests action on a procedure developed to address that issue. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED OSPREY AVENUE MEDIAN CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET = APPROVED AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (0139) through (2579) BOOK 38 Page 11678 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11679 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission has allocated $300,000 for the Proposed Osprey Avenue Median Concept Plan; that Staff and the landscape architect have met with the affected neighborhood association and a consensus has been reached; that the concept plan has been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board. City Manager Sollenberger continued that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the concept plan and median development and authorize the Administration to proceed with plans and specifications. Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and David Johnston, Landscape Architect, David W. Johnston Associates, came before the Commission. Commissioner Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 9:01 p.m. Mr. Mountain stated that several meetings were held with the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) to develop the median concept plan; that the project included a traffic study for the addition of left turn lanes and included a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) review; that the plan was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board and also by the LPNA. Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill and left the Commission Chambers at 9:02 p.m. Commissioner Atkins asked if the one-way streets in the neighborhood were re-evaluated during the study? Mr. Mountain stated that the one-way streets were evaluated, but that the traffic patterns will remain as they currently are. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the County facilities planned to relocate into the former GTE building may generate more traffic than GTE did; and asked how the neighborhood plans to deal with the one-way streets? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the neighbors could voice their opinions regarding the one-way streets or the issue could be addressed at another meeting during a public hearing. Commissioner Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:03 p.m. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Johnston displayed various areas of the neighborhood included in the Osprey Avenue concept plan. Mr. Johnston referred to a map of the area near Osprey Avenue and Ringling Boulevard and explained the proposed Osprey Avenue Median Concept Plan. Mr. Johnston stated that the traffic count study determined the need for left-turn storage lane facilities; that the longest storage lane was placed near the Ringling Boulevard intersection; that traffic and safety needs were considered in the concept plan; that the median has a concrete traffic separator for safety needs and curbing surrounds the entire median; that fire safety and police vehicles can drive over the curbing if necessary; that the basis of the design is to provide landscape medians as a part of a restoration project. Commissionar Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Johnston continued that the medians will contain shade trees, blooming shrubs and ground covers; that for neighborhood identification, signage is proposed to indicate the Laurel Park neighborhood; that the cross walks at the intersections will be made of brick or pavers. Mr. Johnston referred to the map of the intersection of Morrill Street and Osprey Avenue and stated that the cross walk will provide handicap access; that a pause area will be placed in the middle of the intersection to enable a person to stop or pause before crossing through the other half of the intersection. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the cross walk is approximately, 20 feet to the north of the sidewalks along Morrill Street; that people may tend to cross the street from the sidewalk to avoid walking the extra 20 feet to the cross walk. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:12 p.m. Mr. Johnston stated that the raised median with plantings will encourage most people to walk to the cross walk to cross the street; that cross walk signs will be posted at each intersection and a decorative pattern will be placed in the middle of each intersection. Mr. Johnston referred to the map of the intersection of Oak Street and Osprey Avenue and stated that there is not enough space to allow for median protection because both sides of the street have left-turn vehicular storage areas for access to Oak Street from both directions. Mr. Johnston referred to the map of the intersection of Laurel Street and Osprey Avenue and stated that there is a one-way BOOK 38 Page 11680 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11681 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. direction at one traffic light and a two-way direction at the other traffic light; that the protection median will include shade, palm and blooming trees and accent planting; that the landscaping will be accented near the pedestrian crossing to draw attention to it. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for an explanation of the bicycle facilities? Mr. Johnston stated that the road is not wide enough to construct the standard 8-foot wide bicycle paths. Mayor Patterson asked if the same design was used on Orange Avenue? Mr. Johnston stated that the design is similar, but the Orange Avenue medians include large-scale diameter trunked palm trees and dense vegetation; that the Osprey Avenue concept plan meets the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) standard of safety by placing low-profile ground covers and trees with 7-foot clearance between trunks for visibility. Commissioner Atkins stated that the lamp posts near the sidewalks appear to be between the curb and the sidewalks; and asked if there is a plan as to the placement of the lamp posts? Mr. Johnston stated that the lamp posts will be placed next to the sidewalk to shed light on both the sidewalk and the street. Commissioner Atkins stated that there have been problems in the past with lamp posts placed too close to the curbs, i.e., the lamp posts have often been hit by vehicles. Mr. Johnston stated that the lamp posts will be placed approximately 5-feet from the curb; that as a safety measure, the median will include white lights placed every 55 to 60-feet. Vice Mayor Merrill stated there is no landscaping between the sidewalk and the edge of the curb; and asked if crepe myrtles were considered for areas along the street which do not have shade trees? Mr. Johnston stated that due to the many driveway cuts along the street, small-scale plantings could cause a visual hazard. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that worrying about line of sight using crepe myrtles may be over cautious; that a good reason not to plant crepe myrtles would be if the neighborhood did not want them; that crepe myrtles are prevalent in other communities throughout the United States. Mr. Johnston stated that the. designs presented meet safety standards including the safety standard that a person in a vehicle must be able to view 50 percent of another vehicle at all times; that a vehicle pulling out of a driveway along Osprey Avenue has a narrow view of the street; that landscaping along the side of the street was not a high priority for the neighbors who attended the project meetings. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 9:20 p.m. The following people came before the Commission. Tina Taylor Little, 534 Columbia Court, (34236), representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), stated that as President of the LPNA, she thanks the Commission for allocating funding for the beautification project; that 6 of the 12 LPNA members own property along Osprey Avenue; that 12 meetings in the last 14 months have been held with Mr. Johnston and Mr. Mountain; that over the months the LPNA and the City representatives have worked hard and learned to compromise in order to satisfy the desires of the City and the community; that the concept plan is not perfect, but is workable considering the time and budget constraints; that some of the neighbors have units which will be inconvenienced by ingress and egress conditions, but overall the concept plan is acceptable; that the three words which led the LPNA throughout the process were identify, unify and beautify the neighborhood; that the hard work by Mr. Johnston and Mr. Mountain is appreciated. Mayor Patterson stated that the LPNA's hard work on this project is appreciated. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:28 p.m. Tom Blackshear, 719 Wood Lane, (34237) Vice President of the County Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC), stated that Osprey Avenue area falls within the purview of the CBPAC; that the CBPAC has scheduled a meeting tomorrow night; and requested that any final plans be delayed until the CBPAC's recommendations are submitted for this project. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the concept plan is under consideration tonight; that the construction drawings and bids will not be completed for several months; that a recommendation by the CBPAC can be submitted before the construction drawings are designed if action is taken at their next meeting. Julie Hanlon, 303 South Osprey Avenue, (34236), stated that she is proud of the beautification and development efforts made throughout the City; that the consideration made to include cross walks on BOOK 38 Page 11682 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11683 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Morrill Street is appropriate since children taking the school bus must walk across Osprey Avenue. Jack Conway, Jr. 528 El Vernona Street, (34236), representing the Community Housing Corporation (CHC), stated that CHC property is located in the Laurel Park neighborhood and contains 33 apartments on the first block south of Ringling Boulevard on the east side of Osprey Avenue; that the concept plan would prohibit the capability to cut across traffic to enter the CHC's parking lot and was seen as an inconvenience at first; however, for safety reasons, the tenants should not be cutting across traffic; that the CHC supports the concept plan and is proud that the Laurel Park sign will be placed directly in front of the CHC office space. Martha Hafner, 543 Madison Court, (34236), representing the LPNA, stated that she supports Ms. Little's comments; that the concept plan has met the three words used as a motto during the planning of this project; that the entire City will realize Laurel Park exists once the project is completed; that including a median at the cross walk will alleviate the current difficulties of crossing Osprey Avenue. Edward Haizel, 526 Golden Gate Point, (34236), stated that he owns a 12-unit apartment building on Osprey Avenue; that the proposed plan will benefit the neighborhood in safety and beautification; that he supports the project. Thorning Little, (34236), representing the LPNA, stated that none of the LPNA members are traffic engineers or specialists, but all are concerned citizens interested in their neighborhood; that the original plans presented to the LPNA had aesthetics similar to Oak Street; that the first design from Mr. Johnston looked like Fruitville Road, with long, extended turn lanes at every intersection; that after several meetings, the design was softened; that the traffic study was not completed until three-fourths of the design process was finished; that the traffic study indicated turn lanes were not critical, but highly recommended; that compromise prevailed by choosing a combination of turn lanes and medians; that the turn lanes and medians were placed with consideration to pedestrian safety and traffic flow; that the main focus was on designing the medians, but discussions were held regarding one-way streets, pedestrian circulation, and how medians could divert traffic in and around the neighborhood; that the scope of the project was limited by the traffic study results and engineering design criteria standards; that 4-feet was available for the installation of bike paths, but the much needed turn lanes would have to be eliminated; that budget constraints would not allow for bike paths since the road would need to be widened to allow room for the paths; that responsible bicyclists could ride alongside the traffic lanes; that the LPNA chose to spend the money on landscaping the medians instead of placing plantings between the sidewalk and the curb; that the LPNA is encouraging the neighbors to plant a tree on properties devoid of canopyi that the LPNA will pay for the watering of these new trees for the first year and ultimately fill in the areas with more plantings. Jack Notestien, 543 Columbia Court, representing the LPNA, stated that this project will be seen as a beautiful addition to the main corridor entering downtown Sarasota. Brian McGinnis, 1742 Laurel Street, (34236), stated that he owns an 11-unit apartment building on Osprey Avenue; that the cross walks and lighting designs have addressed safety considerations; that Laurel Street is a gateway to the downtown area; that he supports the proposed improvements. Kay DeFrances, 7326 Captain Kidd Avenue, (34231), and stated that she is pleased that a beautification project is proposed for Osprey Avenue; that she owns an 18-unit apartment complex on Osprey Avenue for which the only entrance and exit is the first driveway north of Brother Geenen Way on the east side of Osprey Avenue; that she is concerned that this project is being used to serve only a few people; that the first notification received to participate in this project was an invitation to attend the final meeting of the planning process; that neither she, nor any of her tenants, received notice of tonight's public hearing; that the tree planting project is a vehicle for traffic abatement; that the concept of three medians, longer than the medians on Orange Avenue, not only affects the traffic flow of the City in general, but denies reasonable access to her apartment complex since a median will obstruct the driveway prohibiting the tenants exiting from turning south; that tenants will be required to travel through blocks of detours to get home; that being told, "you will get used to it" by people who will not have to get used to it is not satisfactory; that Mr. Mountain agreed that U-turns will be made around the south median; that once the streets are narrowed by the medians, there will not be room for drivers to pass around a waiting vehicle; that the recycling vehicles will cause traffic to back up when making pick-ups; that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Way had medians installed as part of a beautification project; that the medians will soon be removed as they are a nuisance; that the Commission should consider whether it is wise and proper to use beautification as a traffic abatement measure; that Osprey Avenue should not be narrowed only to allow for the feel of a private street; that with proper planning, a beautification project can be accomplished without denying access to property and impeding traffic flow for the City. Melody Guthrie, 543 South Osprey Avenue, (34236), representing Melody's Skin & Body Therapy, stated that she lives and owns a BOOK 38 Page 11684 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11685 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. business on Osprey Avenue; that it is dangerous to cross the street because of the speeding automobiles; that accidents often occur because of the current speed of traffic on Osprey Avenue; that the concept plan is not perfect, but is workable. Jane Kennedy, representing LPNA, stated that she joined the LPNA because of what it is trying to accomplish for the neighborhood; that she currently drives down a one-way street on her commute home from work; that medians along Ringling Boulevard prohibit turning down two streets which would shorten her commute home; that the detour around Orange Avenue is the price paid to live in the Laurel Park neighborhood; that she is in favor of the beautification plan. Juliet Reynolds, 1718 1/2 Laurel Street, (34236), representing LPNA, stated that as secretary of the LPNA, she is responsible for the minutes of the meetings; that invitations to participate in the design process were sent out to the neighborhood residents; that a newsletter is published twice a year; that the issue of the newsletter recently published provided information regarding the beautification project and also extended invitations to anyone in the neighborhood interested in attending the meetings; that Mr. Haizel purchased his property on Osprey Avenue in October 1994 and was involved with the LPNA by November 1994; that this type of property owner is welcomed to the community; that appreciation is extended to Mr. Johnston and Mr. Mountain; that she supports the concept plan as proposed. Dennis Kowal, 508 Osprey Avenue South, (34236), stated that he endorses this project; that it is not the neighborhood's fault that absentee-landlords do not hear about the neighborhood activities. John Herschman, 322 South Washington Boulevard, (34236) representing Methuselah/s Antiques, stated that he supports the beautification project; that the south side of town from Ringling Boulevard to U.S. 41 and U.S. 301 needs a beautification project; that the properties on the east and west sides of Osprey Avenue will develop into a very nice neighborhood because of the beautification project. Barry Alexander, 1355 Westway Drive, (34236), stated that he has 40 tenants affected by this project and all 40 tenants support the project. Carol Conrad, 1151 Allendale Avenue, (34237), stated that she has lived in the City for over 20 years and has never owned a car; that bicycling is her mode of transportation; that she was not aware that the LPNA published a newsletter; that the medians on Orange Avenue are risky and the proposed medians on Osprey. Avenue are longer than those on Orange Avenue; that 12-foot traffic lanes are inadequate for on-road bicycle traffic; that lanes should be 14- feet as the former standard required. Devin Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street, (34236), representing LPNA, stated that the LPNA knew this project would be controversial and that some people would be adversely affected; that he opposed portions of the project because of inconveniences of the traffic pattern to his property, but understood the purpose of the project as for the betterment of the whole neighborhood; that his property value will increase after this project is completed; that he supports the project. Kevin Perry, 540 South Osprey Avenue, (34236), stated that access to his property will be adversely affected by the planned medians, but he' supports the project. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to approve the concept plan and median development and to proceed with plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously. (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: COMMENTS REGARDING THE 60 PERCENT PLANS REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APPROVED WITH ADDITIONAL COMMENTS; ADMINISTRATION. TO REPORT ON RETAINING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE AS A FISHING PIER AT THE APRIL 3, 1995, MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (2580) through #4 (1295) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and displayed drawings from the 60 percent Plans Submittal for the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement. Mr. Daughters stated that the 60 percent Plans Submittal was received on February 23, 1995 from Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, the consultant for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) with a request that comments for consideration in the final plans be returned by March 20, 1995; that the consultant was informed that this matter would be brought before the City Commission tonight; and that the Administration would submit the City's comments shortly thereafter. Mr. Daughters continued that the 60 percent Plans Submittal only addresses the two land ends of the bridge replacement project; that the bridge itself is not addressed except for the cross-section and the profile in response to the City's 30 percent comments as follows: BOOK 38 Page 11686 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11687 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Cross Section: Mr. Daughters stated that the FDOT has revised the typical cross- section to include 8-foot sidewalks inside a concrete barrier wall, two 12-foot wide vehicle lanes, 5-foot wide bicycle lanes in each direction and an 18-foot wide concrete median separating the traffic lanes; that on land, the median will be grass. Mr. Daughters referred to a drawing of the concrete barrier wall on the overhead projector; and stated that the barrier wall will be built between the pedestrian/Bicycle lanes and the traffic lanes; that the barrier wall is 2-feet, 8-inches high. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the water can be viewed from a vehicle at the highest point of the bridge? Mr. Daughters stated that it cannot. Mayor Patterson asked if there is an alternative to the concrete barrier? Mr. Daughters stated there is not; that Federal and State requirements dictate the necessity of a barrier between the vehicles and pedestrians. Mayor Patterson asked if the barrier has to be a solid concrete wall? Mr. Daughters stated that concrete walls are the type of barriers used on bridges; that the concrete wall issue could be added to the letter being written to the FDOT; that a determination on an alternative solution would then be made by the FDOT. Mayor Patterson stated that the concrete barrier wall should be addressed in the letter to the FDOT; that a member of the Aesthetics Task Team has indicated an alternative to a concrete barrier wall is available. Profile: Mr. Daughters stated that the project begins at Bird Key Drive on the west and ends at Golden Gate Point/Sunset Drive on the east; that the profile shows a maximum grade of 5.00 percent for a continuous length of 434 feet on the west end and a maximum grade of 4.358 percent for a continuous length of 857 feet on the east end; that this grade difference is due to the Intercoastal Waterway being offset to the west; that of the 5,213 foot long project, approximately 1,850 feet (35 percent) exceeds a 4.00 percent grade and approximately 2,200 feet (42 percent) exceeds a 3.00 percent grade; that the highest elevation of the roadway itself is shown to be 78.06 feet above mean sea level; that the barrier wall, pedestrian handrail and the street lights will be above this elevation. Mr. Daughters reviewed the following comments that were included in the draft letter addressed to Dana L. Lewis, Review Coordinator, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan: Bridge Elements: Mr. Daughters cited the following from a letter received from the FDOT dated February 21, 1995: The Department is still reviewing the alternative proposals for aesthetics and will be getting back to the City in the near future. Due to the City's concerns, the aesthetics treatment alternatives were set aside. until the bridge design features were further defined. The Preliminary Bridge Development Report (BDR) has just been submitted to the Department for review and the alternative proposals for the aesthetics can be more defined once the BDR is approved. The BDR approval should be in approximately 60 days. Mr. Daughters stated that the following two comments have been included in the draft letter: 1. The City presumes it will be allowed to review and comment on the Preliminary BDR prior to approval. 2. The City presumes landscaping and lighting will continue to be part of the aesthetic treatment. Encroachment on City-owned Lands: Mr. Daughters referred to Sheet No. 9 of the 60 percent Plans that showed the proposed bridge structure to aerially encroach on land owned by the city and the proposed bulkhead and walkway to ground- level encroach on lands owned by the City, for which the following comments were included: 3. The City believes that the bridge project, as shown, will require a taking of land from the City and most likely will have an impact on recreational activities. 4. The City believes that FDOT's February 1994 Final Preliminary Engineering Report is erroneous in that it states: "The preferred alternative fully satisfies the Section 4(f) and 6(f) reguirements." The 1994 Report did BOOK 38 Page 11688 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11689 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. not discuss the ground-level encroachment into North Bird Key Park. 5. The City believes that the FDOT should resubmit corrected information to the Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration should be asked to review such a submission and determine if Section 4 (f) has been complied with. Mr. Daughters stated that the encroachment onto City land is an issue; that at the original planning stage, the FDOT requested permission to use a corner of Bird Key Park, which is City-owned, for the project; that the Commission did not authorize the use of this land for the project; that the FDOT received a form of an approval for this land from the Federal Highway Administration; that approval was on the basis that the bridge itself would cross over that land, but not touch down on that land. Mr. Daughters continued that the 60 percent Plans indicates that a new sea wall will have to be built in order to build an access road around and under the bridge; that this new sea wall will encroach upon City-owned lands at ground level. West Approach: Mr. Daughters stated that at the Bird Key end, on the south side, the Plans show a "Temporary 5' wide Sidewalk" immediately next to the exterior wall of the Bird Key subdivision; that the FDOT's intent is to relocate the sidewalk/Dicycle access away from the existing right-of-way line, along the south side of the west approach, once confirmation of drainage design and retention site locations are agreed upon; that the following comments have been included in the draft letter: 6. The City questions the need for a temporary sidewalk as there is currently none, however, the City believes the final pedestrian/Dicycle path should be 10-feet wide, meandering through the area, around the retention ponds, but definitely away from the Bird Key wall. Mr. Daughters stated that there is no need for a temporary sidewalk as there currently is no sidewalk at that location; that the current sidewalk is on the north side of the street. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if a permanent 10-foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path could be built under the bridge and connect with Bird Key on the north side? Mr. Daughters stated that it could; that a 10-foot pedestrian/Bicycle path on the north side has been indicated on the plans. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Daughters is indicating that the pedestrian/Dicycle path should be built from the north side of the street, and under the bridge to connect to the south side of the street? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the difference between the temporary and permanent sidewalks? Mr. Daughters stated that he did not understand why a temporary sidewalk would be built. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that joggers may prefer a sidewalk on the south side of the street to avoid traffic lights; that a person jogging on the bay side would have to cross the intersection at the Ringling Causeway to reach the path extending under the bridge. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the retention ponds will be dry or wet ponds? Mr. Daughters stated that a determination on the retention ponds has not been made. Commissioner Cardamone stated that should be determined; that fences are required around wet ponds; that weeds grow around the fences and destroy the aesthetics of an area. 7. Contrary to FDOT's Plans, the City believes that the open land area remaining, after the removal of the existing bridge and the earthen ramp leading to it, should be leveled, appropriately contoured and landscaped as an attractive extension to North Bird Key Park. 8. The City believes that the existing Palm tress should be relocated on-site rather than removed. 9. The City believes that the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) bus stop at Bird Key Drive (near Station 27+00) should be replaced. Mr. Daughters stated that the bus stop at the southeast corner of Bird Key Drive should be replaced, not removed as indicated on the 60 percent Plans. 10. The City presumes that the surface treatment of the retaining walls of the project will be part of the BOOK 38 Page 11690 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11691 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. aesthetics treatment package forthcoming for Commission review. Mr. Daughters stated that a vertical retaining wall filled with earth will be used as the ramp up to the bridge; that the 60 percent Plans do not include the architectural drawings for the retaining wall; that the retaining walls should be included in the aesthetics treatment package presented for Commission review. Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned with retaining the city's right to review, comment, and request alternatives on the aesthetics package; that a Bridge Too High Committee, comprised of members of the community including one of the architects from the Aesthetic Task Team, has formed to challenge the construction of a fixed high-span bridge; that the chance of success in that effort is not known; that the Commission previously requested that certain elements be considered in the aesthetics package; that many of those requests were addressed and included in the alternative concepts that were presented to the Aesthetic Task Team; that the FDOT should be asked to make a presentation of those alternative concepts before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the draft letter includes a request for the FDOT and their consultants to appear before the Commission at the May 1, 1995, regular City Commission meeting to present their response to the comments submitted on the 60 percent Plans and to present the Bridge Development Report; that a request for presentation on the status and schedule of presenting the aesthetics package before the Commission for review will be added to the letter. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the west approach area between the Bird Key traffic signal and the take-off point over the water; and asked if solid mounds of earth or pilings will be used to support that portion of the bridge? Mr. Daughters stated that the bridge structure is not shown in the 60 percent Plans; however, the FDOT previously told the City that the bridge would be elevated on columns starting at the take-off point; that the only solid ground should be from the retaining wall area to Bird Key Drive. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the area around and under the bridge would serve as a park area to the public? Mr. Daughters stated that the Commission has the opportunity for input on what is desired in the area under the bridge; that the Administration has suggested that the entire area be made a park- like atmosphere. East Approach: Mr. Daughters referred to the Golden Gate end of the bridge on the Plans and explained that the bulkhead-seawall will remain and be used for recreational purposes; that the Tony Saprito Pier, Hart's Landing Bait Shop, the wooden pier on the north side, and the small boat ramp on the south side would also remain; and that the following comments have been included in the draft letter: 11. Similarly as the west approach, the City believes that the east approach open land area remaining, after the removal of the existing bridge and the earthen ramp leading to it, should be leveled, appropriately contoured and landscaped as an attractive extension to Causeway Park. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that comment #11 would eliminate the possibility of leaving part of the existing bridge as a fishing pier; that consideration should be given to retaining a portion of the bridge as a fishing pier at the east approach. Mayor Patterson stated that removal of the entire bridge was previously requested by the Commission and agreed to by FDOT; that subsequently, she received comments from the public that the City may want to consider retaining a portion of the bridge as a fishing pier; that the existing bridge has the potential of serving as a recreational asset in the future if the costs associated with its upkeep would not be too great. Mayor Patterson continued that construction materials for road projects are often stored on whatever land is available; that many of the areas the FDOT may choose to store construction materials, debris, equipment, etc., could be in the direct view of waterfront homeowners for approximately two years. Mayor Patterson requested that the Administration review and develop a reasonable manner in which the right-of-way would be utilized for this type of storage. Mr. Daughters referred to the 60 percent Plan drawings to explain the following comments: 12. The Plans do show a 12-foot wide one-way roadway and a 6-foot wide pedestrian/Bicycle path circulating under the proposed bridge generally in the location of the existing one-way road. The City believes that the pedestrian/Dicycle path should be a minimum of 10-feet wide to be compatible with the City's Waterfront Pedway project and provide for two-way bike traffic. 13. The City believes that the project should include shore protection improvements along the south side to protect the new roadway and ped-path from future erosion. BOOK 38 Page 11692 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11693 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that hardening the shoreline can be environmentally harmful; and asked what method of shore protection would be utilized? Mr. Daughters stated that shore protection similar to the cabled, open concrete blocks at Bird Key Park would be used. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to the drawings and stated that the sidewalk should be extended around the periphery of the old seawall at the water's edge rather than as indicated on the plans. Mr. Daughters stated that Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion will be added to the comments. 14. The City believes that the most westerly 300 feet, more or less, of the pedestrian/bicycle path should be moved closer to the existing right-of-way line on both the north and south sides of the road. Doing so would move pedestrians further from vehicles, align with sidewalks east of the project and preclude the need for relocating the traffic signal pole at the northwest corner of Sunset Drive and State Road (SR) 789. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that sidewalk widths of 6 feet, 8 feet, and 10 feet have been indicated on the plans; that the narrow sidewalks on the portions of the project where the FDOT will incur additional expense for including the sidewalks, i.e., areas where Sarasota Bay will have to be filled or where the new bridge will have to be built-out, are understandable; however, 6-foot and 8-foot wide sidewalks are also indicated on existing land; that 10-foot wide sidewalks should be placed in the areas where the FDOT will not incur any substantially greater expense. Mr. Daughters stated that suggestion was addressed in Comment #12. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the plans indicate two vehicle lanes and one breakdown lane on the mainland portion of the project; however, a 9-foot wide breakdown lane on the left and a 5-foot wide bike lane and a 5-foot wide breakdown lane on the right have been proposed on the roadway over the bridge; that the existing bridge has no breakdown lane; that constraints on both sides of the bike lane make it difficult for bicyclists going 25 mph on a 4 to 5 percent grade to pass other travellers; that the City originally requested 10-foot wide bike lanes and the FDOT responded with 5-foot wide bike lanes; that for safety reasons, the FDOT should be requested to extend the bridge to accommodate 10-foot wide bike lanes; that the 8-foot wide bike lanes on the bridge over New Pass to Longboat Key, which have no constraints, have been determined to be inadequate. Mayor Patterson stated that it is now 10:45 p.m. and a substantial portion of the agenda remains; and asked if the Commission was agreeable to having Vice Mayor Merrill represent the Commission in a subsequent discussion with the Administration regarding input on the bike lanes? There was a consensus of the Commission to have Vice Mayor Merrill represent the Commission with regard to the interests of the bicyclists and pedestrians in a subsequent discussion with the Administration. Mr. Daughters continued that the following comments were included in the draft letter: 15. The City believes that the project should include resurfacing SR 789 (Gulf Stream Avenue) easterly to the intersection of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail). 16. To our request, at 30 percent review, for providing for parking at the east approach, FDOT's consultant responded: "An area 20 foot by 300 foot has been identified, however, cars with trailers generally require a clearance of 30 feet." The City believes that the project should include a substantial area for parking in order to continue the existing uses of Causeway Park. This can easily be obtained if the remaining open land area is leveled. 17. On the 30 percent Plans, the City indicated a desire for the eastern egress of the access road to have a 35-foot radius to preserve existing recreational land. The consultant's response is "The 60-foot radius, that is proposed for the end of the Access Road along the south side of SR 789 should remain to provide a good design for all large RV-type/Bus vehicles which may use this facility. . The City believes that such use will be physically restrained and/or can be legally restricted. The consumption of the valuable recreational land does not merit such a large radius. Mr. Daughters referred to the plans and stated that the configuration of the roadway circulating under the new bridge will make it dangerous and difficult for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles to access Tony Saprito Pier; that the Storm of March 1993 totally demolished the east end of the pier and severely damaged the north shoreline; that both were reconstructed by the City in a short-term manner as it was presumed that the FDOT would have to reconstruct them as part of their bridge project; that the plans currently show reconstruction of the shoreline, but no improvements to the pier; therefore, the following comment was included in the draft letter. BOOK 38 Page 11694 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. AVA - Wut BOOK 38 Page 11695 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. 18. Due to the proposed roadway, the eastern most 80 feet, more or less, of the pier should be removed and reconstructed such that it would be perpendicular to the existing seawall, this creating an angle on the pier of about 120 degrees and making it much more accessible. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the length of the Tony Saprito Pier would be reduced? Mr. Daughters stated that the land end of the pier would be changed; that the length would not be affected. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for clarification on the Commission's position on retaining a portion of the existing bridge as a fishing pier on the east approach? Mayor Patterson stated that the costs associated with the upkeep and maintenance would be necessary to make a decision. Mr. Daughters stated that retaining the bridge could have an impact on the development of the final plans; that the deadline for submission of comments on the 60 percent Plan was today; that the consultant was notified of the City's delay in submission; however, the City's comments must be submitted as soon as possible. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that input from the recreational fishing public should be obtained. Commissioner Pillot stated that Dennis Hart's opinion should be sought. Mayor Patterson stated that the City's opportunity for input on the final plans should not be jeopardized by delaying submission of the comments until the issue on retaining a portion of the bridge is further discussed; that the comments should be submitted to the consultant with the assumption that the City does not want the bridge retained; that a report with Administration recommendations should be agendaed for discussion at the next Commission meeting; that, if necessary, changes to the comments could be made and forwarded to the consultant at that time. Mr. Daughters stated the draft letter, as adjusted by the Commission, will be submitted to the consultant tomorrow; that input from the recreational fishing public will be obtained and recommendations on retaining a portion of the bridge will be provided to the Commission at the next meeting. The following people came before the Commission: Dutchess Tomasello, 777 John Ringling Boulevard #25, (34236), representing Coon Key, distributed for Commission review computer- generated graphics representing views of the existing bridge, a 45-foot bascule bridge, and a 65-foot fixed span bridge from various waterfront areas including Coon Key, Sunset Point, Ken Thompson Park, Bird Key, and the Bayfront; and stated that a 65-foot fixed span bridge will not ruin the scenery from the waterfront views; that the view under the 65-foot fixed span bridge is beautiful; that she views the current bridge opening and closing approximately 24 times each day and looks forward to a fixed span bridge which will alleviate traffic and improve the access to and from her residence; that the 65-foot fixed span bridge will actually provide a better scenic view than is currently experienced from her residence. Richard Storm, 2203 Main Street #104, (34237) and Mark Smith, 5562 Cape Aqua Drive, (34242) representing the Bridge Too High Committee. (BTHC), came before the Commission. Mr. Storm stated that in voting on the excellent recommendations made by Mr. Daughters, he hopes that the Commission will make it clear that such a vote does not imply a change in the Commission's position opposing the high fixed-span bridge. Mr. Smith referred to Mr. Daughters' recommendations to retain bulkheads on both sides of the bridge; and stated that creating covered areas the size of a football field under the bridge is of concern; that problems could arise with the areas being used as campgrounds, etc.; that Mr. Daughters stated that the intent of the FDOT is to retain Hart's Landing; however, Hart's Landing is not indicated on the 60 percent Submittal Plans; that the FDOT's intention should be made clear on the Plans. Marcelle Wolf, 445 McKinley Drive, (34236) representing the Lido Key Residents Association, stated that the Lido Key residents are appreciative of the recent demolition of the Three Crowns Hotel and related buildings. Ms. Wolf continued that the Lido Key Residents Association is in favor of the 65-foot fixed span bridge; that the existing bridge currently opens 24 times a day; that the number of times the bridge opens will increase if a new bascule bridge is built; that a new bridge would be required to open on demand; that Mr. Daughters efforts on the bridge project should be commended. Ms. Wolf further stated that the Aesthetic Task Team on which she served and at which information relating to the bridge issue was presented no longer meets; and requested that the draft letter discussed tonight and future bridge-related items be made available to interested parties who wish to remain informed on the bridge progress. BOOK 38 Page 11696 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11697 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot presented Mrs. Wolf with a copy of the draft letter and agenda materials for this item. Commissioner Cardamone requested comment from Mr. Daughters on Mr. Smith's statement regarding Hart's Landing. Mr. Daughters stated that a letter was received by the FDOT stating that Hart's Landing will be retained as it exists; that a copy of that letter has been provided to the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to: 1) approve comments made by the Engineering Department and authorize the Administration to submit to the FDOT the letter outlined, as modified by the Commission to include modifications resulting from subsequent discussions between Vice Mayor Merrill and the Administration regarding bike lanes, and 2) request FDOT and their consultant to appear before the City Commission at the May 1, 1995, regular meeting to present a response to the City's letter and the Bridge Development Report. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City Commission previously voted unanimously in opposition to the 65-foot fixed span bridge on which comments are being submitted. Commissioner Pillot stated that his position on the issue may have changed. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that she had received photographs of an existing high, fixed-span bridge in another area; that those photographs will be made available in the Commission Office for Commission review. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ACCESS ROADS - POSTPONED TO A FUTURE AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #4 (1296) through (1345) Mayor Patterson stated that the hour is late and members in the audience are waiting for the Commission to address other agenda items. Mayor Patterson asked for comment by City Manager Sollenberger and the other Commissioners on postponing this item to a future agenda. Mr. Sollenberger stated that postponing this item would not create a problem. There was a consensus of the Commission to postpone Agenda Item VII-4 to a future agenda. 18. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3785, AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 1-2 DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS RELATING TO DOCKS AND THE REGULATION THEREOF; AMENDING ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6-23 TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ERECTION OF DOCKS AND STRUCTURES THEREOF AND TO REVISE THE CRITERIA FOR THE GRANT OF A VARIANCE RELATING TO SUCH REQUIREMENTS BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, SECTIONS 8-4, 8-6 TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN DOCKS AS ACCESSORY USES, AND 8-16 AND 8-198 TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN DOCKS BY SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH THEREIN; AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 8-203 RELATING TO THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE MARINE PARK (MP) ZONING DISTRICT AND SECTION 8-204 RELATING TO SIGNS IN SUCH DISTRICT; AMENDING ARTICLE XI, SECTION 11-2 TO EXEMPT SIGNS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO BE AFFIXED TO DOCKS FROM THE SIGN REGULATIONS OF SAID ARTICLE; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS; ETC. APPROVED; COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF DOCKS PER RESIDENCE TO INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE (AGENDA ITEM VIII-5) #4 (1380) through (1540) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission. City Manager. Sollenberger stated that a detailed report on this item has been provided in the Agenda packet and Mr. Litchet is available to answer questions. Mayor Patterson stated that the Board of Adjustment is concerned with the lack of limitations in the dock ordinance; that the number of boats per dock is limited to three, but the number of docks permitted in a specific area is not limited; that the Commission should consider limiting the number of docks permitted from the edge of a property. Mr. Litchet stated that the Board of Adjustment passed a special resolution supporting the position that there should be no more than one boat dock located at each residential propertyi that the issue was also discussed at the joint meeting between the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency and the Board of Adjustment where the consensus was close, but the limitation was not supported. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance has not yet been advertised; therefore, Commission consideration of limiting the number of boat docks could be added to the notice for public hearing. BOOK 38 Page 11698 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. nto Mlinisa BOOK 38 Page 11699 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3785 and consideration of a potential provision limiting one dock per residential property. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 19. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: RELOCATION OF CITY DUMPSTERS FROM RIGHT-OF-WAYS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH HAVING THE DUMPSTERS IN THE AREA BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND EAST AVENUE RELOCATED AND REPORT BACK ON THE NECESSITY OF AN ORDINANCE AT THE NEXT MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (1540) through (1974) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Commission has established as one of its goals the relocation of dumpsters from the public right-of-ways to private property; that the focus of the goal was to address dumpsters in residential neighborhoods; that Staff has formulated a six-step plan that will accomplish this goal Citywide if the Commission authorizes action; that the plan can be revised to address only residential areas if that is the desire of the Commission; that an inventory of existing dumpsters has been taken; that of the 70-plus dumpsters identified, a breakdown shows that 36 dumpsters are in areas that will have an impact on the property owner or business when relocated. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that every street in the Arlington Park neighborhood has dumpsters on the right-of-ways; that various proposals have been brought forth since the issue was raised four years ago; that the focus of the issue was to require that dumpsters in the block between U.S. 41 and East Avenue be relocated onto private property; and asked why it has taken four years for the Administration to make progress on this item? Mr. Schneider stated that the item was addressed during the goal setting session for this year; that a goal of January 1995 was set for the item to be presented to the Commission, but scheduling the item was delayed until the mandatory recycling program was implemented. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Gatsby, President of the Arlington Neighborhood Association, brought up the issue at the Neighborhood Workshop; that City Manager Sollenberger responded that a plan to address relocating the dumpsters would be developed by the summer of 1994; that Mr. Schneider sent a letter to the Association stating that implementation of an ordinance would begin in January 1995; that it is now March and a proposed ordinance has not even been drafted; that the issue is not complex; that he does not understand the problem which has prevented the Administration from addressing this issue for the past four years. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that an ordinance should be drafted to require dumpsters located on public right-of-ways adjacent to residential properties be relocated on private property; that parking requirements and resulting non-conformities could be addressed by the Board of Adjustment; that his goal was not to address this issue on a Citywide basis. Mr. Schneider stated that Staff feels the issue is complicated due to the Zoning Code amendments that would be required for implementation; that difficulty was experienced in dealing with a narrowly focused area for which no criteria was established; that the extent to which the Commission wanted to consider this issue was also not clear. Mayor Patterson stated that she supports the direction of Vice Mayor Merrill in restricting the area addressed. Mr. Schneider stated that an ordinance can be drafted if that is the position of the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone asked why an ordinance is required to have a property owner's dumpster relocated from the public right-of- ways? Mr. Schneider stated that the dumpsters currently located on the public right-of-ways would be relocated to the parking areas on private property, thereby, affecting the parking requirements at some locations. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Merrill; that the dumpsters in the area mentioned look terrible; that the property owner is responsible for providing the space for the dumpster; that the City does not allow anything on the public right-of-ways; that drafting an ordinance. is not necessary; that the Administration should direct the Solid Waste Department to move the 37 dumpsters that can be relocated with no impact to the customer back onto private property during the next garbage pick-up. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration should do whatever is needed to address the issue rapidly. Commissioner Cardamone asked if there was a Commission consensus to proceed without drafting an ordinance. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is not advocating an ordinance if one is not necessary. BOOK 38 Page 11700 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11701 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot asked City Attorney Taylor for a response as to the necessity of drafting an ordinance. City Attorney Taylor stated that an ordinance would only be necessary in those circumstances in which the City needed to show authority for the action being taken; that the general rule is that private rights to public right-of-ways are not obtainable; that the City has the right to demand that the dumpsters be removed from the public right-of-ways; however, the issue has not been reviewed from the standpoint of relocating the dumpsters to private property and whether an ordinance for that purpose is necessaryi that the issue can be addressed with a report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Atkins stated that the dumpsters that can be relocated without any complications should be relocated. 20. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 = RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (1975) through (2000) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission acknowledges the excellent work performed on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1994. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to receive the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1994, with commendation to the Finance Department. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 21. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CONFIRMATION OF COMMISSIONS - ACTIONS AGREED UPON AT THE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP OF FEBRUARY 13, 1995 - DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO DELETE LIME AVENUE FROM ITEM 14 AND TAKE ACTION ON ITEMS 1 THROUGH 14; ITEM 15 DELETED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-6) #4 (2040) through #4 (2345) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger stated that at the February 13, 1995, Transportation Workshop, Staff sought input from the Commission in order to establish priorities for transportation projects; that confirmation of the following Staff action as listed in the Agenda packet is requested: 1. Continue to develop data on Congestion Indicators and Level of Service for collector and arterial streets. 2. Include only the first seven projects on the priority list for Impact Fee Funded Projects. 3. Inform the County that safety problems on Myrtle Street should be corrected before reconstructing the street; that ultimately the four-lane street would be built in three phases; that Phase 1 is to repair safety problems, Phase 2 is to build the two-lane section and Phase 3 is to build the four-lane road if it were needed in the future. The County could utilize $300,000 of road impact fees to design the Myrtle Street project from U.S. 41 to U.S. 301. 4. Continue to request that the County use road impact fees for building bicycle paths within the City. 5. Study Bahia Vista Street to verify that the three lanes VS. four lanes is working efficiently, including studying if bicycle lanes can be built along the current three lane street. 6. Work with the County to re-stripe Bahia Vista Street at U.S. 41 to designate two westbound to southbound left- turn lanes with another lane for straignt-Chrougn traffic or a right-turn. 7. Not make a presentation as to staff's rationale for including Bahia Vista Street and 17th Street projects on the priority list as they were excluded from the list. 8. Request FDOT's consultant to provide the City with the actual impact on businesses of widening U.S. 301 from 12th Street south to Mound Street. 9. Inform FDOT to consider widening U.S. 301 to 12th Street thereby allowing for dispersal of traffic at 17th Street and 12th Street, thence traveling south. 10. Inform FDOT that the City feels they should discontinue studying the railroad alternative for the U.S. 301 Corridor Mobility Study. 11. Inform the City Commission as to progress with FDOT in their study of the U.S. 41/Bay Road/Bee Ridge Road intersection. BOOK 38 Page 11702 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11703 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. 12. Request FDOT to provide detailed information regarding the Little Ringling Bridge project. 13. Inform the City Commission about the advantages of keeping a portion of the existing Ringling Causeway Bridge as a fishing pier. 14. Remove Lime Avenue, Bahia Vista Street and 17th Street from the MPO Priority List. 15. Pursue the process "B" to obtain funding for the Fruitville Road Extension project. Mayor Patterson referred to Item 15 and stated that no public hearing has been held on rerouting the Ringling Causeway Bridge traffic via an extension of Fruitville Road; that a meeting was held between some of the affected condominium Association Presidents and Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Developments; that she heard those Association Presidents were amenable to the proposal; however, she has since received numerous phone calls from residents of the condominiums who are not happy with the proposal; that public input before the Commission should be heard from a notified group of potentially affected condominium dwellers before the Staff is authorized to proceed. Mr. Mohammed stated that the Fruitville Road Extension Project will go through a very comprehensive public hearing process as part of the Comprehensive Amendment processi that public hearings are also required before the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Mayor Patterson stated that she does not support Item 15 at this time. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to Item 6 and asked for clarification of the benefit of two westbound left-turn lanes from Bahia Vista Street onto U.S. 41 south if a timing change on the traffic light is required for east and west traffic? Mr. Daughters stated that the benefits would be identified when the County performs a study to determine what timing and fiscal changes would be necessary. Mr. Mohammed stated that additional left-turn capacity generally provides a benefit. Mayor Patterson referred to Item 14 and asked why Lime Avenue and Bahia Vista Street were included for removal from the MPO priority list? Mr. Daughters stated that he had developed the list of items for Staff action while Mr. Mohammed was out of the County; that Lime Avenue was incorrectly included based on the statements found on page 24 of the Transportation Workshop minutes; that Mr. Mohammed's statement actually referred to the Commission action taken in prior years which was unrelated to the MPO's priority list for funding. Mr. Mohammed stated that removal of Lime Avenue from the MPO's priority list was not requested; however, the Commission clearly requested that Bahia Vista Street be removed. Mr. Daughters stated that Lime Avenue will be deleted from Item 14. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to direct the Administration to take action on Items 1 through 14 with Lime Avenue deleted from Item 14. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to extend the meeting past 11:30 p.m. to complete the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-7) #4 (2391) through (2439) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the Zoning Code does not address specifically how amendments to the Zoning Code are to be processed, including public hearings by the Planning Board; that the Planning Department met with City Attorney Taylor, City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, and Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement and drafted a procedure to deal with how Zoning Code amendments are to be addressed; that the procedures are outlined in the memorandum dated March 7, 1995, contained in the Agenda packet and will result in a Public Hearing at both the Planning Board and City Commission levels on all code amendments. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is for approval of the procedure. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the procedures for immediate implementation by Administrative Regulation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 38 Page 11704 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. AX BOOK 38 Page 11705 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. 23. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON WHETHER GRAFFITI IS CONSIDERED A SIGN AND WITH DETAILS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE GAS TANKS NOTICED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (2440) through (2794) VICE MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that graffiti is out of control in the City; that he hopes the. Administration is working to resolve this problem. Mayor Patterson stated that the graffiti on City signs should be painted over immediately to discourage renewed efforts. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if a determination has been made on whether graffiti is covered under the City's sign ordinance? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will report back on the issue at the next meeting. Commissioner Atkins stated that careful consideration should be given to the graffiti issue as to how it is presented to the public; that a greater problem will develop if the young people perceive graffiti as a badge of honor in defeating the City. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration should contact the property owners who have been subjected to graffiti and request that the graffiti be removed. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that odd objects similar in appearance to the gas tanks used to inflate balloons have been noticed in various areas of the City, i.e., on the right-of-ways outside of Dr. McComb's office on Osprey and Siesta Drive; and asked for an explanation on the purpose of the objects. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the tanks contain gas and are used to pressurize. telephone lines. Mayor Patterson asked if the tanks are permanent fixtures? Mr. Daughters stated that the gas tanks will be investigated to provide the Commission with a detailed report. B. stated that problems have been reported related to vandalism and residents of Lido Key being frightened by people who are frequenting South Lido Park, a County facility, after hours; that the County informed the Lido Key residents that while vehicular traffic at South Lido Park is prohibited after 11:00 p.m., pedestrian traffic is permitted; that the park is located in a remote area of the City; that the residents have requested that the City address the issue with the County. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the County will be contacted to review the situation. C. stated that many complaints on amplified music at the Sarasota Quay have been received; that the music is apparently coming from outside areas or inside areas which have the doors open; that a specific complaint was received regarding an amplified keyboard that played at Nick's Restaurant over the weekend until the early morning hours; that the current City ordinance prohibits open-air dining between 12 Midnight and 6:00 a.m.; that complaints have been received that people are on the balconies at the Sarasota Quay for hours after midnight; that the limits in place should be respected; that the people making the complaints feel that the Police and City Staff are not adequately addressing their concerns. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City has made major efforts in addressing the noise complaints related to the Sarasota Quayi that sound meters, etc., have been purchased and utilized; however, the issue will be further addressed. Mayor Patterson stated that hopefully, the Nuisance Abatement Board will oe able to address these types of issues in the future. City Attorney Taylor stated that passage of the proposed Nuisance Abatement legislation would be necessary to include noise that many of the complaints are coming from one sourcei that the City has had difficulty pureuing cases in the Twelfth Judicial. Court based on complaints from one individual who has filed in excess of 147 complainis about noise, etc.; that complaints from more than one or two people are necessary to properly document a problem with noise at the Sarasota Quay. Mayor Patterson stated that the City ordinance in effect that prohibits open air dining between 12 Midnight and 6:00 p.m. should be enforced to stop people from sitting on the balconies at Sarasota Quay and drinking until 3:00 a.m. BOOK 38 Page 11706 03/20/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11707 3/20/95 6:00 P.M. 24. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2795) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the March 20, 1995, regular meeting at 11:35 p.m. Hous Aiuney NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: B A E Roben ) - BILLY EG ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK