Book 36 Page 10719 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO IVERY F. WILSON, STREET SWEEPER OPERATOR, SOLID WASTE DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WITH 22 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0029) through (0114) Gil Leacock, Director of Public Works, and Ivery F. Wilson, Street Sweeper Operator, came before the Commission. Mr. Leacock stated that Mr. Wilson began his employment with the City of Sarasota 22 years ago as a grounds keeper at the Bobby Jones Golf Complex; that Mr. Wilson transferred to the Public Works Department after 6 years and served 17 additional years with the City; that Mr. Wilson has concluded his career with the City and retired. Mr. Leacock thanked Mr. Wilson on behalf of the City for all his efforts and congratulated him on his retirement. Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented Mr. Wilson with a plaque. Mayor Patterson requested Mrs. Wilson to stand in the audience and be recognized by the Commission. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0115) through (0166) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Board Actions, Item No. II-1, Report Re: Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team B. Add to New Business, Item No. VIII-3, Discussion Re: Sarasota Housing Authority Meeting Procedures, per the request of Mayor Patterson City Attorney Taylor requested that the following item be added to the agenda: C. Add to New Business, Item No. VIII-4, Discussion Re: Bartinikas vs. City of Sarasota Court Ruling and Appeal On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. PRESENTATION RE: VIEWING OF "THE CRUSADERS" VIDEO #1 (0167) through (0560) John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission, and stated that "The Crusaders" is an NBC television program aired nationwide; that several months ago a segment on the activities of the Sarasota Police Department related to the Crime Watch program was filmed in Sarasota; that Paco Rameriz, Linda Holland, Queen Curry, and other Sarasota citizens were featured in the segment; that unfortunately, the program was pre-empted locally on the night the segment aired. A video tape of a segment from the NBC programs entitled "The Crusaders" was shown in the Commission Chambers wherein a local citizen, Paco Rameriz, was featured as a citizen attempting to take back his neighborhood. Director Lewis thanked the Commission for the opportunity to show the video tape; and stated that the Police Department appreciates the help received from the neighborhood watch groups; that as the video tape reflected, citizens working with the Police can make a difference. Mayor Patterson requested that Paco Rameriz come before the Commission to comment on his community efforts. Mr. Rameriz stated that members of his neighborhood watch group walk around the neighborhood and notify the Policé when illegal activities are observed; that the clean up could not have occurred without the help of the Sarasota Police Department; that he encourages people not to be afraid to do something about the crime element that exists in residential neighborhoods throughout the City; that he is not the sole reason for the progress made in his neighborhood; that many people have banned together to make a positive difference. Book 36 Page 10720 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10721 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot requested that the Administration research the possibility of having "The Crusaders" segment broadcast locally. Mayor Patterson stated that the Police need the eyes and ears of concerned citizens, especially those who take a leadership role as Mr. Rameriz has done. Mayor Patterson thanked Mr. Rameriz for his efforts. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0560) through (0595) Commissioner Cardamone stated that a correction to draft page 6 is necessary to properly reflect the Mayor's title as Mayor Patterson. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting of July 5, 1994, with the correction made as stated. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. ÇONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IIIA) #1 (0596) through (0608) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor to be designated as the city's Voting Delegate for the Florida League of Cities Annual Convention. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract for a grant application from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to assist with the preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) due March, 1996. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a purchase order contract to Tampa Contracting Services, Inc., for completion of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements as specified for the Ed Smith Sports Stadium Project and reject other projects due to budgetary limitations. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract for acquisition of 1650 Eighth Street subject to the environmental assessment of the property. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Third Amendment to the professional services contract with Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE), (RFP-#92-49), to provide for additional work in permitting the discharge of process wastewater from the water treatment plant. 6. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3800, amending the death and for firefighters' surviving spouses to provide that such benefit shall not cease upon remarriage as required by Chapter 94-171, Florida Statutes; complying with the Federal Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinance in conflict; etc. (Title Only). On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 6 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yesi Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-751) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-752) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-753) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-756) POSTPONED UNTIL THE AUGUST 1, 1994, MEETING; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3807) ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3811) ADOPTED; AND ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3813) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0609) through (1280) Commissioner Pillot requested that Item No. 7 be removed for a point of clarification. Mayor Patterson requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-752 and 94R-753 in their entirety, proposed Resolution No. 94R-751 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3807 and 94-3811 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-751, authorizing the filing of a grant application for $550,000 of Federal Funds from the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act - (ISTEA) Program; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-752, appropriating $5,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund Law Enforcement Training Courses for members of the Sarasota Police Department 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-753, appropriating $3,300 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund training and professional development for Communication Personnel *. Book 36 Page 10722 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10723 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3807, to conditionally rezone from RMF-1 Zone District 2 RSF-4 Zone District on real property described as follows: Lots 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, Block G, Irvington Heights Unit No. 2 Replat, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 23, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; and Lots 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, and the West 22 feet of Lot 6, a Subdivision of that part of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 East of S.A.L. RR, Sec. 18-36-18, as recorded in Plat Book I, Page 39, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; formerly known as the Augustine Quarters; more particularly described herein; etc. (Petition No. 94-CO-05, Community Housing Corporation, Franklin) (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3811, amending Chapter 33, Traffic and Motor Vehicles, Sarasota City Code, providing authority to traffic engineer to designate certain streets as local streets and establish 25 mph posted speed limits on local streets and residence districts; making findings as to need; defining terms; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. 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. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-756, appropriating $91,500 from the Unreserved General Fund Balance to fund consultants that will provide technical services in the formulation of a proposal to be used in negotiating terms and conditions of a franchise extension for the City's Cable Operator Mayor Patterson stated that she previously discussed this item with City Manager Sollenberger and V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager; that she does not feel that she has the expertise necessary to decide whether $91,500 worth of consulting services are necessary; that $91,500 seems like a lot of money to spend to negotiate the agreement between the City of Sarasota and Comcast Cable. Mayor Patterson continued that this item should have been budgeted previously, since the Administration knew the consulting services would be necessary; that the item should not have been placed on the Consent Agenda without prior budgeting discussions. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission previously approved funding for this contract? Mr. Schneider stated that on March 21, 1994, the Commission authorized the Administration to negotiate a contract with Rice Williams Associates for consulting services; that the estimate for the contract at the time of approval was $55,000. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the League of Cities should be able to provide the City with related data; that he finds it difficult to believe that every community across the state of Florida is required to spend $91,500 to hire a consultant to negotiate a cable contract; that a pattern for this type of contract must be developing; that he suggests having this item agendaed for discussion at a future meeting. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Sarasota County is preparing for similar negotiations? Mr. Schneider stated that the County's cable franchise agreement is one year behind the City; that the City's renewal on the franchise agreement occurs at the end of 1997 whereas the County's renewal occurs at the end of 1998; that an invitation to participate in and share the cost of a joint effort was extended to the County; that the County has not accepted the invitation. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if there would be a problem with extending the City's renewal by one year to piggyback on the County's effort? City Attorney Taylor stated that time frames and requirements are part of the negotiating process prescribed by the new Competition Cable Act of 1992; that the city runs the risk of improperly dealing with the entire process if the outlines set forth are not followed; that the Administration was motivated to seek outside assistance after attending a seminar on the subject and discovering how much the City can gain by having an expert properly negotiate a cable contract. City Attorney Taylor further stated that he doesn't feel a one-year extension is feasible since the process must follow a strict time frame. Commissioner Atkins stated that he attended a Competition Cable Act of 1992 seminar; that unlimited possibilities exist to recoup the $91,500 consulting fee if the City is aware of and properly applies the provisions to an agreement; that the Competition Cable Act of 1992 is complicated and difficult for lay-people to comprehend and apply; that he would encourage Commission consideration of expending $91,500 on consulting services to acquire the necessary expertise. Commissioner Atkins continued that the idea of a bi- county partnership was supported at the Competition Cable Act of 1992 seminar he had attended; that other communities have consolidated their efforts to provide the best benefit possible; that a previous Commission discussed a potential bi-county partnership between the two cable companies in Manatee and Sarasota counties; that the Administration should query the County Book 36 Page 10724 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10725 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Administrator on the subject prior to proceeding with renewal of the franchise agreement with Comcast. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to table the item until the August 1, 1994, meeting. Mayor Patterson stated that there was no motion made which could be tabled. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the item should be postponed until the August 1, 1994, meeting. Commissioner Pillot as maker of the motion and Vice Mayor Merrill as seconder agreed to amend the motion as to postpone the item until the August 1, 1994, meeting. Mayor Patterson stated that local cable rates were published in a newspaper article two weeks ago; that the article stated that the median income of the citizens in an area is one of the factors considered in determining the cable rates which are charged to the local communities; that the City of Sarasota's median income was considered higher than Longboat Key's median income; that the City of Sarasota's median income was considered the second highest overall. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations which govern the rates and the franchise renewal process are extensive and difficult to comprehend; that he, City Attorney Taylor, and Mr. Schneider have attended two conferences on the subject; that Congress decided in 1992 that cable television rates should be regulated which provided a major role for the FCC; that the FCC was so overwhelmed by its own regulatory requirements that one or two extensions were requested from Congress; that the process is complex. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration will approach Sarasota County as suggested. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to postpone consideration of this item until the August 1st meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3813, amending the Zoning Code, Article XIV, Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks, Division 2, Sarasota Mobile Home Park - Rules and Regulations to incorporate therein the provisions of Ordinance No. 90-3416 pertaining to the purchase of mobile homes and density reduction within the park; amending the Mobile Home Park rules and regulations to provide that a lot within the park may only be rented by a person with legal title to the mobile home to be located within the park; changing the rules and regulations to provide a notice of change in land use which shall require that all residents of the Mobile Home Park vacate their lots and remove their mobile homes by September 30, 1999, except for those residents who were residents of the park on July 16, 1994; providing that persons who were residents of the Mobile Home Park on July 16, 1994 may remain after the effective date of the change in land use under the terms and conditions established by the City Commission; specifying that the future land use map of the Sarasota City Plan shall be changed to provide for the recreational use of the Mobile Home Park lands; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Pillot withdrew his request for discussion on Item No. 7 stating that he had intended to vote for the item and his questions could be answered later by the Administration. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3813 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 7. 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. 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. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: 1994-95 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION - APPROVED ALLOCATION OF THE 1994-95 CDBG FUNDS AS RECOMMENDED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1280) through (1342) Don Hadsell, Community Development Director, came before the Commission, and stated that he has prepared and presented the Commission with the Administration's recommendations for the 1994- 95 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; that the projects have been publicly advertised and no written comments regarding the proposals were received; that $738,000 in new Housing Urban Development (HUD) funds and $180,000 in program income will be available for allocation by the City. Book 36 Page 10726 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10727 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hadsell displayed the following Administration's Recommendation of proposed projects on the overhead projector: Affordable Housing Program $280,000 Purchase/Rehab Program 150,000 HOME Rehabilitation Loan Program 50,000 SHIP Rehabilitation Loan Program 20,000 Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program 268,246 Girls Club Pool Renovation 5,000 Administration 144,754 Total $918,000 Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the allocation of 1994-95 CDBG funds as recommended by the Administration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESODUTION NO. 94R-745, APPROVING A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD TO A PUBLIC STREET FROM A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1727 WISCONSIN LANE: IMPOSING CONDITIONS DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1348) through (2333) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that approval of a 20-foot private roadway to provide access from Wisconsin Lane to a proposed single-family residential dwelling has been requested; that a dwelling is proposed on an interior lot which does not abut a public street at present; that Section 6-14 of the Zoning Code requires approval of a private roadway by the City Commission; and that it has recently been ruled that private roadway approvals follow a quasi-Judicial procedure. Mr. Hewes stated that related information, plot plans, etc., have been submitted to the Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that she had visited Wisconsin Lane to familiarize herself with the petition and how it related to the area; and that she had noticed a multi-family structure on the street. Mayor Patterson asked how far to the east of the proposed property is the multi-family structure located? Mr. Hewes stated that the multi-family structure is adjacent to the Taylor property; however, the private roadway is proposed on the property one lot removed from the multi-family structure which faces Osprey Avenue. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that official copies of the following codes of the City of Sarasota are hereby made a part of the record by reference for this public hearing: Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota Sarasota City Code Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota a/k/a Sarasota City Plan Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code, 1991 Edition, with appendices A,E,F,H,J, and M City of Sarasota Local Amendments Janice Taylor, as agent for Clara Taylor, Trustee, owner of property located at 1727 Wisconsin Lane, came before the Commission and stated that she is requesting the private roadway; that this proposal meets all the requirements necessary to divide this parcel into two lots and will have no impact on the surrounding street and traffic concerns since the individuals are currently residents on Wisconsin Lane; that her family has resided in the Wisconsin Lane neighborhood since the late 1800s; that this proposed resolution will allow her daughter and her family to become the fourth and fifth generations to live on the Taylor homestead; that she has known and will continue to remain on friendly terms with her neighbors. Mayor Patterson asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Ms. Taylor. The Commission had no questions. Mayor Patterson requested the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that there is no Staff recommendation. 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 Resolution No. 94R-745 by title only. Commissioner Cardamone asked how the neighborhood was noticed of the impending change and the proposed private roadway? Book 36 Page 10728 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10729 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that notice of the proposed private access roadway and public hearing was sent out to all owners of property within 500 feet of the proposed property; and that a legal notice was published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune. Commissioner Pillot referred to information contained in the agenda packet which stated that Section 6-14 of the Zoning Code directs, "no dwelling shall be erected on a lot or portion thereof which does not abut at least one public street or approved private street for at least 20 feet"; and asked if it is accurate to infer that building a residence on the property will be consistent with all applicable codes and other City regulations if a private street is approved and constructed? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that Section 6-14 is a provision of the Zoning Code which discusses access to a property for fire and police protection; that the Commission is confronted with the following three questions: 1. Has fire protection access been provided? 2. Has police protection access been provided? 3. Has evidence been presented that approval of this private roadway will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood? City Attorney Taylor continued that it is virtually an obligation of the City Commission to grant the approval of the private roadway if no evidence is presented to support a finding to question #3. Commissioner Pillot stated that City Attorney Taylor has just stated that absent data presented to the Commission that would document an adverse effect on the neighboring area, the Commission is essentially obligated to approve the request; that the Commission has been told that the public hearing has been well advertised in the neighborhood; that no one has signed up to speak at the public hearing; therefore, no evidence has been presented to the Commission regarding any adverse impact. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 94R-745 to grant a private roadway at 1727 Wisconsin Lane. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has misgivings about doing this in general terms; however, based on what City Attorney Taylor has advised the Commission, those misgivings do not appear to be well placed; therefore, his motion was made. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot is inferring that if no one comes before the Commission with evidence, there is no evidence. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has been presented with no evidence, written or otherwise. Mayor Patterson asked if comments by Commissioners on their examination of the platting of the street and physical examination of the property is also evidence? Mayor Patterson stated that she has driven down Wisconsin Lane and she has experienced mixed feelings on the proposal; that a multi-family property is located within one house of the proposed property; that the south side of the street has small lots, but the properties on the north side of the street are all large lots; that City Attorney Taylor has stated that compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood can be considered; that she does not find the proposal incompatible with the neighborhood which is a mixture of small lots and large lots; however, no other property on the street has one house behind another. Mayor Patterson requested comment from City Attorney Taylor on whether one could form an opinion as a basis for this type of decision based on an examination as she has discussed? City Attorney Taylor stated that it is permissible for a Commissioner who has investigated a matter to testify as to what was observed; that there is nothing technically wrong with supporting a case with references to a plat and observations of the actual property; however, more than one Commissioner's comments in that regard would be necessary to bring the evidence up to a level of substantial, competent evidence. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that part of the difficulty the Commission is experiencing stems from the decision made not to allow Administration input in the form of a recommendation at quasi-judicial proceedings; that the decision has placed a burden on the Commissioners to prepare documentation; that absent presentation of data, he agrees with Commissioner Pillot that there is no way the Commission could deny this request. Commissioner Cardamone asked what the slice on the plat maps to the rear of the properties at 1657, 1701, 1703, and 1721 referenced? Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has driven down Wisconsin Lane on previous occasions; that some of the properties on the street are not occupied by dwellings; that the 500-foot notice to owners of property concerns her; that neighbors withan interest in Wisconsin Lane may not have been noticed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the size of the Taylor family holdings is quite substantial; that at least two lots to the west of the outlined lot are owned by the Taylor family. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his home is located at 1642 Shoreland Drive; that his address received notice of the public hearing; that there was a broad distribution of the notice. Mayor Patterson requested that Ms. Taylor come before the Commission to address Commissioner Cardamone's concerns. Book 36 Page 10730 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10731 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Ms. Taylor stated that her family owns lots at 1731, 1721, and 1703 Wisconsin Lane; that 1731 belongs to her brother; that she owns 1721; that 1703 has been placed in trust for her by her mother who is 92 years old. Ms. Taylor continued that the two slivers are parcels of land which were part of a verbal trade agreement made by her grandmother in the 1800s to straighten out the rear property line; however, this trade agreement was never legally recorded. Mayor Patterson stated that the wrong property has been outlined on the property map contained in the agenda packets; that the outlined property is 1731; that the proposed property is 1721. Mayor Patterson continued that the properties most impacted by this change are in the same ownership, in family ownership, or small lots located across the street which are approximately 1/8th of the size of this property. Commissioner Cardamone stated that less confusion would have been experienced if the Administration had correctly highlighted the proposed property. Mayor Patterson referred to a comment made by Vice Mayor Merrill regarding Administration recommendations at quasi-judicial proceedings and stated that it was the intent of the Commission to receive information pertaining to why one should consider, pro or con, a particular request; that the Commission does not expect to receive a blank slate from the Administration in regard to quasi- judicial matters such as rezoning requests. Mr. Sollenberger stated that this petition raises an issue with regard to building houses in back of other houses on large lots; that the Zoning Code is lacking in standards; that the Zoning Code should be amended to reflect development concerns sO that appropriate comments and/or recommendations can be made by the Staff. Mayor Patterson stated that this is a subject which will be discussed in conjunction with an item presented by City Attorney Taylor later in the meeting. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-745. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3798, AMENDING CHAPTER 30, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO DELETE THEREFROM CERTAIN DESIGNATED INTERSTATE HIGHWAY CONNECTORS AND CERTAIN DESIGNATED MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS; TO ADD, ALPHABETIZE, AND MODIFY CERTAIN DESIGNATED INTERSTATE HIGHWAY CONNECTORS AND CERTAIN DESIGNATED MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS TO INCLUDE BOTH STREETS NAMES AND ROUTE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS; TO DELETE, ALPHABETIZE AND MODIFY THE NAMES OF CERTAIN MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS; MAKING FINDINGS AS TO NEED; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2343) through (2884) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that this proposed ordinance amends Chapter 30 of the City Code by deleting certain designated interstate highway connectors and certain designated major arterial streets and by adding, alphabetizing, and modifying certain designated interstate highway connectors and certain designated major arterial streets to include street names and route identification numbers; that this proposed ordinance also deletes, alphabetizes, and modifies the names of certain minor arterial streets. Mr. Daughters continued that an example of this "clean- up" would be the deletion of DeSoto Road from U.S. 43 to Bradenton Road and the Airport Connector from DeSoto Road to East City limits and renaming it University Parkway from North Tamiami Trail to East City limits. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3798 on first reading. Commissioner Cardamone asked if some of the designated arterials are sub-standard according to the terms of this ordinance, and if so, how will they be handled? Mr. Daughters stated yes; that no changes are made until a road improvement project on a particular street occurs; that 90-feet is the recommended guideline width on minor arterials; however, the City can establish whatever width is desired; that the City Commission acquired an 84-foot wide right-of-way on Fruitville Road although Fruitville Road is considered a minor collector with a recommended right-of-way width of 90 feet. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the City would request a setback of three feet from the right-of-way line if a person wanted to build on a section of Fruitville Road between U.S. 41 and U.S. 301 so that the City could someday have a 90-foot wide right-of-way? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Fruitville Road is listed as a minor arterial; that Fruitville Road serves as the connector from the islands to Interstate 75 and belongs in the major arterial category; that the City may someday want to expand Fruitville Road further; that it will be difficult to change buildings once they Book 36 Page 10732 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10733 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. are built; that future expansion possibilities should be considered and a current plan should be developed regarding the placement of buildings on Fruitville Road. Mr. Daughters stated that functionally, Fruitville Road does act more as a major arterial than a minor arterial; that there is a well defined process to change the classification of a street; that a study must be conducted and a change to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary. Commissioner Pillot stated that Alderman Street from Osprey Avenue to U.S. 301 has recently been renamed. Mr. Daughters stated that change will be included between first and second reading. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3798 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3798 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3798 on first reading. Commissioner Cardamone asked if all of the minor arterials in the City are listed in the ordinance? Mr. Daughters stated that all minor and major arterioles and all interstate connectors are listed. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the designation of Osprey Avenue between U.S. 41 and Siesta Drive? Mr. Daughters stated that it is a major collector street which does not fall under this ordinance; that there are five classifications: Interstate connector, major and minor arterial, and major and minor collector. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the appropriateness of certain roads could be addressed later this year when the Transportation Plan is presented? Mr. Daughters stated yes; however, the Comprehensive Plan amendment process would be necessary to change Fruitville Road. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3798 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3799, AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE BY REVISING THE FEES FOR REMOVAL OF SOLID WASTE: PROVIDING FOR REPEALING OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (2884) through (3124) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that this proposed ordinance amends Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, Section 16-27, Recycling and Solid Waste, by revising the fee schedules for removal of solid waste effective October 1, 1994, based on direction received from the Commission during the budget workshops. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. Ed Harding, 420 Golden Gate Point, came before the Commission and stated that several years ago the Commission discussed the land fill issue; that today, citizens are still complaining about the smelly sludge located in the Cityi that a study should be performed to determine the feasibility of composting the City's solid waste sO that the City would no longer be forced to rely on the County; that compost would consist of 85% of the City's solid waste; that the compost could be sold to orange grove owners or used as mulch; that the City should seriously consider obtaining a consultant to address composting the City's solid waste; that he is aware of a consultant in Chicago who could assist the City and perform a preliminary study at no cost. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson Closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3805 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3805 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3805, VACATING A PORTION OF HARMONY LANE (50 FEET WIDE) (HARMONY DRIVE PER PLAT) LYING SOUTH OF BLOCK N, BAY VIEW HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 21/22, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LYING NORTH OF BLOCK I, CHEROKEE PARK SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2 PAGE 156, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LYING EAST OF THE NORTHERLY PROJECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK I, SAID CHEROKEE PARK, AS PROJECTED TO INTERSECT THE SOUTH LINE OF Book 36 Page 10734 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10735 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. SAID BLOCK N, BAY VIEW HEIGHTS, AND LYING WEST OF THE NORTHERLY PROJECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 4, SAID BLOCK I, CHEROKEE PARK, AS PROJECTED TO INTERSECT THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK N, BAY VIEW HEIGHTS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (PETITION NO. 94-SV-02, HAMMOND) (TITLE ONLY)- PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #1 (3124) through (3590) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that this proposed ordinance vacates that portion of unimproved Harmony Lane lying between Cardinal Place and Colony Terrace; that the Development Review Committee found this vacation appropriate; that the Engineering Department found that this property was of no benefit to the City or the public; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this proposed street vacation to the City Commission subject to the provision of easements. J.W. Hammond, 2627 Cardinal Place, came before the Commission and stated that he is representing the four owners of the properties adjoining this section of Harmony Lane; that the pictures previously presented to the Commission depict the charm and plantings the property owners have added to the subject property area which formerly consisted of weeds, rats, and debris; that the four home owners have enhanced and maintained the subject property, including the eighty-year-old oak trees, since 1963; that Harmony Lane has never been opened; that no lots are available for sale facing Harmony Lane; that approving the vacation of property would add additional revenue to the City's tax roll; that the City will be relieved of any maintenance and engineering responsibilities on the property; that the subject property will become covered under homeowners' insurance releasing the City from any liability. 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. 94-3805 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3805 on first reading. Mayor Patterson stated that she feels obligated to make a statement; that in the past she has been the most vocal Commissioner in opposition to approving street vacations; that she visited the subject property in an attempt to discover reasons why the City might ever conceivably need this property; that she could not come up with one reason. Mayor Patterson asked if the proposed ordinance includes a reservation on the two easements required for utilities? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. 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. 12. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONSI PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE RAILS TO TRAILS PROGRAM INTO THE SARASOTA CITY VISION PLAN - REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CONSIDERATION (AGENDA ITEM V) #1 (3590) through #2 (1121) Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Rails to Trails Program has been frequently mentioned in the media; that this item is being presented to familiarize the public with the concept of Rails to Trails, provide a brief overview of local efforts, and request inclusion of the Rails to Trails concept in the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan. A video tape distributed by the National Rails to Trails Foundation was shown in the Commission Chambers wherein an explanation of Rails to Trails was given and benefits experienced by communities that have converted abandoned railroad corridors to public trails were exhibited. Bill Wetherington, Sarasota-Manatee Group of the Sierra Club; David and Christine Weber, East Sarasota Neighborhood Association; and Ken Natoli came before the Commission. Mr. Wetherington stated that he had read in the newspaper that the Circus was no longer travelling to Venice because of the condition of the rail corridor; that he felt this corridor needed to be saved before it was abandoned and lost to the adjacent property owners; that he approached the Sarasota-Manatee Group of the Sierra Club for assistance and filed an application in September 1993 to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for acquisition of the entire Sarasota County portion of the Seaboard Coast Line corridor; that the application was prepared under the State of Florida's Preservation 2000 Program; that the application was prepared requesting that all 28 miles of rail corridor in Sarasota County be acquired for conversion into either bicycle and hiking trails or into rails with trails; that the State of Florida modified the application to include only 12 miles of corridor running from Clark Road to the Intercoastal Waterway in Venice; that the application was approved and was placed on the State acquisition list for 1994; however, two things must occur for the Sarasota County Rails to Trails Program to materialize: 1) CSX Transportation, land owner, and Gulf-Seminole, operator of the railroad, have to agree to sell Book 36 Page 10736 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10737 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. the property, and 2) State funding has to be available to purchase the property. Mr. Wetherington continued that local government support of the concept to preserve the corridor would be helpful; that south of Clark Road is not within City limits; however the concept should be viewed by the City, as it develops its Comprehensive and Transportation Plans, as a way to preserve the corridor for long term alternative transportation use. David Weber, 2131 Harvard Street, stated that he is the Vice President of the East Sarasota Neighborhood Association (ESNA) and speaking on behalf of the membership which consists of residents on Fruitville Road to 17th Street to the north, and U.S. 301 to Tuttle Avenue to the east; that the efforts of Mr. Wetherington and the Sierra Club should be applauded; that presently, the Rails to Trails Program is targeted for the South County area; that the ESNA requests City Commission support to include a trail through the City, his neighborhood, and north of the County line in the City's future plan; that the Rails to Trails Program has been a success in other areas of the country; that as much as 90% of the population in the areas use the trails where Rails to Trails are located; that a decrease in crime has been noted in areas where the trails pass through questionable neighborhoods; that the trails provide a safe route of recreation and travel away from highly congested highways; that elected officials should create something new for Sarasota residents, taxpayers, and voters; that superhighways or high speed trains are not necessary at the present time; that the quality of life maintained in Sarasota County is very important to the residents; that he requests Commission support for the Rails to Trails Program in the City of Sarasota. Ken Natoli, 5641 Midnight Pass Road #905, stated that the Rails to Trails Program could provide an opportunity for community activity; that local residents as well as tourists would be attracted to use the trail; that the opportunity for future transportation use would not be taken away by developing a project on an existing railroad corridor; and that he requests that the City take this concept into consideration with future plans. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the right-of-way can be reclaimed as a rail corridor for commuter and/or Amtrak service after being made into a Rails to Trails Progràm? Mr. Wetherington stated that he was not sure; that the application for the corridor south of Clark Road was filed under the Preservation 2000 Program; that members of the community are interested in preserving the remaining corridor in any way possible to avoid having the property turned into a highway if the railroad company abandons it in the future. Mr. Wetherington continued that the program is a new section of the State Statutes; that Rails to Trails have only been developed over the past two or three years, and many things are still unclear; that rails with trails is another concept which works well; that Miami, Florida, developed an elevated rail corridor with a bicycle path underneath; that the important issue is preserving the corridor. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he was personally familiar with the Sparta, Wisconsin, tunnel trail referenced in the video tape; that amenities of the Rails to Trails Program can be a real asset to a community. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the concept could be reviewed as part of the Comprehensive Plan update; that this would indicate the type of future use and identify the appropriate funding source to seek for preservation. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer the concept of Rails to Trails to the Administration for consideration during the Comprehensive Plan update. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there is no intent to pit the supporters of mass transit and the railroads against the bicyclists and supporters of trails; that the trail in Pinellas County and other trails exhibited in the video tape are owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and have been reserved for future mass transit corridors; that he is supportive of mass transit; that the presenters are supportive of mass transit. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that it has not yet been determined whether Preservation 2000 places restrictions on projects; that a source of funding is desired which would allow Sarasota to provide future flexibility similar to the arrangement made with FDOT in Pinellas County. Mr. Wetherington stated that in conjunction with the previous application, a Rails to Trails coordinator explained an option known as rail banking which can be used to acquire a corridor for conversion to a rail/trail; that under the rail banking option, railroad companies state that railroad use on the corridor is not currently necessary but reserve the right to use the rail corridor for future use; that the State, in the interim, is allowed to use the corridor for a trail. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has observed the Rails to Trails Program in Tallahassee; that the trail is fascinating; that many people use the trail for recreational activity. Mr. Wetherington stated that the Pinellas County trail is second only to the beaches as the most used tourist destination in Pinellas county. Commissioner Pillot stated that he will vote for the motion because it states "for consideration"? however, he would never vote to Book 36 Page 10738 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10739 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. initiate a Rails to Trails Program in the City of Sarasota absent the interests and intents of the Board of County Commissioners being known; that specific data from the County should be presented when the Administration reports back to the Commission. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to refer this issue to the Administration for consideration on the next Comprehensive Plan update. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 13. CITIZENS . INPUT: (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (1122) through (1264) Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 8:04 p.m. Ed Harding, 420 Golden Gate Point, came before the Commission and stated that he has been working Dr. Hans Weihler, Director of Research, Gesneriad Research Foundation, on a potential rain forest on the Franklin Manor property; that he feels Dr. Weihler is getting the "soft shoe" routine by the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board; that he delivered a letter to the Commission on June 27th which suggested having a lease developed for Dr. Weihler similar to the leases provided to Mote Marine, the Pelican Man, and the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that Dr. Weihler is working to develop the only rain forest in the United States located out in the open; that a rain forest would be a major attraction for Sarasota; that Dr. Weihler's proposal should be given proper consideration. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:06 p.m. City Manager Sollenberger requested that the Unfinished Business items regarding the proposed St. Armands/Fillmore Drive off-street parking lot be delayed until Mr. Gil Waters, who wishes to speak on the issue, arrives. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to move Unfinished Business, Item No. 4, forward on the Agenda to be addressed at this time. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CENTRAL LIBRARY - AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO 1) RELAY THE CITY COMMISSION'S SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND 2) EXPLORE THE CONCEPT AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (1280) through (1832) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this item was placed on the agenda prior to the July 12th Board of County Commissioners' approval of a concept outlined by John Wesley White, the County Administrator, which incorporates building two libraries: one library downtown and a second slightly larger library near Interstate 75; that the proposed downtown library location is on property facing Selby Five Points park which is currently occupied by a Goodyear franchise, the Emphasis restaurant, and Paradise Cafe; that the proposal includes the following: RISCORP assembling and transferring the trapezoid parcel bounded by Pineapple and Central Avenues and First and Second Streets to the City; RISCORP obtaining an amount equal to the cost for assembling the library site properties by retaining incremental property taxes which will be assessed on the new downtown RISCORP office building; and The City trading the Second Street parking lot and the properties assembled by RISCORP to Sarasota County in exchange for the County-owned Mission Harbor property. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Board of County Commissioners has authorized the County Administrator to work out the details of the concept; and requested similar City Commission authorization to obtain the following details: 1) financial feasibility from the City's point of view, and 2) assurance that adequate parking availability remains for public use, which was not an issue discussed by the County. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the proposal made by RISCORP and the eventual concept presented to the Board of County Commissioners emerged through brainstorming efforts subsequent to conversations held between himself, Mr. White, and RISCORP representatives in regard to making additional property owned by RISCORP available for the potential location of the library on the Lemon Avenue parking site; that the concept includes a public/private proposal between the City and RISCORP for construction of a parking structure; that RISCORP plans to construct a new office building on the former Southeast Bank site; that the proposed parking structure would provide parking for RISCORP employees, assist the City in meeting the parking needs of the Theatre and Arts district in the evenings, and include retail shops on the first floor; that a concept of this type was recommended in the redevelopment plan which was adopted in 1987. : Mr. Sollenberger stated that the property proposed for location of the library was also recommended as a key development site in the redevelopment plan; that the redevelopment plan envisioned the site as more of a mixed use than a public type of building, but the concept is remarkably compatible with the redevelopment plan which was adopted. Book 36 Page 10740 07/18-/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10741 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the 150 City-owned parking spaces in the parking lot between Pineapple and Central Avenues and Second Street and the alley south of Second Street will be lost as a result of the RISCORP proposal; however, discussions with RISCORP indicated that an arrangement could be made to offset that loss through a joint public/private partnership; that he requests the same degree of latitude granted to the County Administrator to flush this concept out and report back to the Commission. Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill and left the Commission Chambers at 8:16 p.m. Ed Harding, 420 Golden Gate Point, came before the Commission to display and explain a sketched drawing of a four-story library building which would provide an additional 50,000 square feet in addition to the 100,000 square feet desired for the library and provide a restaurant on the top floor by concession which would generate revenue for the maintenance of the building. Mr. Harding distributed a copy of the correspondence related to the concept which he sent to John Wesley White, County Administrator. (A copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) . On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize the City Manager to 1) relay to the Board of County Commissioners, through the County Administrator, that the City Commission supports the concept as described at the County Commission meeting of July 12th, and 2) authorize the City Manager to continue gathering necessary data on the concept to report back to the Commission. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:18 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill passed the gavel to Mayor Patterson and Commissioner Pillot restated his motion for the benefit of Mayor Patterson. Commissioner Atkins stated that the City encourages public/private partnerships; that he encourages City participation in the opportunity presented which requires cooperation between one private and two public entities to resolve issues that affect several communities throughout the County. Mayor Patterson stated that she is supportive of this concept; that it could solve problems for the City and place a key piece of property under City control; however, this concept was easier for the Board of County Commissioners to approve because the City will be taking all the risks; that the County is only risking postponement of a library project which already has been substantially postponed whereas the risks for the City will include: 1) the payment for a piece of property whose dollar value and price has not been identified, but will certainly be more than the cost paid by the County for acquisition of the Mission Harbor property, 2) the terms being offered by RISCORP to the redevelopment agency, whose solvency the City guarantees, are totally unknown, and 3) a potential use and buyer for the Mission Harbor property is unknown, and the property could remain under City ownership for an indefinite period of time before the City would recoup all or part of its investment. Mayor Patterson continued that she will vote for the motion to explore the concept; however, it should not be trumpeted as the answer to all of the problems regarding the library and the Mission Harbor property until terms and data are reported back to the Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is highly supportive of the concept; that it will be exciting if the concept can work; however, the concept is full of pitfalls; that the concept has a long way to go before becoming a reality. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is more optimistic than Mayor Patterson and Vice Mayor Merrill; that the city should help make the concept work rather than doubting it; that the city of Sarasota may be taking the greater risk, but will reap the greatest financial advantage if the concept works. Commissioner Pillot stated that he echoes Commissioner Atkins' comments; that the potential of having the library located at Selby Five Points and completing the beauty of that area with an aesthetic, educational, cultural center pleases him; that he was also pleased by the comment made by Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of The Downtown Association, referring to the possibility that affected business may relocate to and spark the rejuvenation of Central Avenue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is very enthused with the concept; that the Commission is proceeding in the proper manner by requesting the Administration to explore the optians; that she agrees with Commissioner Atkins that the concept has potential for all involved, and the City stands to gain the most if the concept works. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to request the City Manger to relay the Commission's support of the concept through the County Administrator to the Board of County Commissioners, and to authorize the City Manager to explore the concept. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE ST. ARMANDS /FILLMORE DRIVE PROPOSED OFF STREET PARKING LOT = APPROVED THE SIX ITEM RECOMMENDATION SET FORTH IN THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT DATED JULY 7, 1994 (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) Book 36 Page 10742 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10743 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. AND 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-755, AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION OF A LOAN IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,000,000 FROM THE FIRST FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL FINANCING COMMISSION; APPROVING THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION OF CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS: APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRST FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL FINANCING COMMISSION; PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAKING OF SUCH LOAN: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) AND 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH SMALLY, WELLFORD & NALVEN FOR THE ST. ARKAND8-PILIMORE DRIVE PROPOSED OFF-STREET PARKING LOT - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (1836) through (2884) City Manager Sollenberger stated that a petition supported by over 60% of the landowners was presented to the Commission last September requesting development of a special assessment district to finance the cost of land acquisition to provide 250 parking spaces on vacant property bisected by Fillmore Drive; that the Commission previously approved the public/private partnership proposal; that the schedule called for construction in 1994 based upon acquisition of the property by the end of 1993; that negotiations with the property owner took longer than anticipated but have recently concluded; that subject to Commission approval, completion of the project can be expected by this time next year. Mr. Sollenberger stated the Administration's Recommendation as follows: 1. Approve the purchase agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the agreement provides for a negotiated value of $2.15 million of which the City would pay $1.575 cash and Dr. Polister would make a donation of the remaining $575,000 value to the City for this project; that the agreement requires from the City a $10,000 non-refundable deposit to be applied at closing; that contingencies of the agreement include: the establishment of the assessment district, vacation of Fillmore Drive, and rezoning of the property to "G" zone. 2. Authorize financing of $1.525 million through the First Florida Governmental Financing Commission to be repaid from assessment district revenues. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, has secured an interest rate of 5.87% through the First Florida Governmental Financing Commission. 3. Allocate the available $130,000 balance from the Adams Drive parking project to the Fillmore Drive parking project. 4. Approve the engineering contract for services and authorize execution by the Mayor. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the value of the contract is $69,000 for total services; that the cost of engineering services proposed for use through the Design, Construction Documentation and Permitting, and Bidding phases is $56,000; that the remaining $13,000 of funding would be consumed during the Construction Observation phase. 5. Authorize Staff to advertise the construction project for bids. 6. Authorize Staff to initiate and set hearings for uniform method of collection, rezoning, street vacation, and assessment district proceedings. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a letter has been received from the St. Armands Residents Association expressing support for this project. The following people came before the Commission: Gil Waters and Martin Rappaport, representing the Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands, Inc.. and Jim MacDonald, and Wendy Taddio, representing the St. Armands Merchants Association (SAMA). Mr. Waters stated that the St. Armands Merchants Association, the Commercial Landowners Association, and the residents of St. Armands all support the project and appreciate the effort made by the Commission and the Administration; that numerous St. Armands Circle traffic and parking studies have been pertormed; that the City has implemented improvements to meet approximately 40% of the parking shortage estimated by the consultants; that the Commission now has the opportunity to meet the balance of the estimated shortage by approving the Fillmore Drive improvement. Mr. Waters continued that the merchants and commercial property owners accept their role of bearing a major share of the expense for the project over the next 20 to 25 years; that he encourages Commission support for approval of the necessary action for this project. Book 36 Page 10744 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10745 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Rappaport stated that the 270,000 square feet of St. Armands devoted to businesses provides more than 2% of all the real estate taxes collected in the city, provides employment for over 1,000 men and women, and pours millions of dollars into the local economy; that St. Armands has been referred to as the melting pot of international tourists who are attracted worldwide by the fabled shopping, dining, and entertainment area which can be attributed to the creative foresight of John Ringling; that one of the major setbacks to any retail or tourist attraction is the lack of adequate parking; that due to the joint efforts of the City and the private sector, and with approval of the proposed parking area presented tonight, this parking handicap on St. Armands can finally be overcome; that the property owners with the support of the merchants have taken a unanimous position in support of a self- imposed tax assessment in order to insure the success of the project; that this project is a "win, win, win" situation for the residents, the merchants and landowners, and the City of Sarasota. Mr. Rappaport, on behalf of the landowners of the St. Armands circle, congratulated the City for recognizing this window of opportunity and extended special appreciation to Mayor Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, Finance Director Gib Mitchell, Assistant City Engineer Asim Mohammed, and many unnamed City officials who each have helped to bring this project to a reality. Ms. Taddio stated that the safety of customers and employees is one of the numerous, important reasons to support the much needed proposed parking facility; that customers and employees will be safer walking to a brightly lit paved area instead of walking through back alleys or sidestreets with overgrown trees and shrubberies; that the only shortfall on St. Armands Circle is the lack of parking; that this proposed parking facility will generate more customers for St. Armands merchants while eliminating an eye- sore property to St. Armands residents and removing the unwanted vehicles presently parking in front of their homes; that this project will increase customers to the area and help bring more quality merchants to St. Armands, generating more tax revenue and jobs; that Commission support for this proposed project is greatly appreciated. Mr. MacDonald stated that the approval of this project coupled with the current revamping of the parking ramp and additional parking spaces obtained from angle parking last year will satisfy the 400+ parking space deficit noted in the various surveys conducted by parking consultants. Mr. Waters stated that the property owners, the merchants, and the residents have formed an ongoing, joint St. Armands Improvement Council to continue working to upgrade the Circle; that with approval of this project, the Council hopes to beautify the triangular land portion of the parking lot with benches, a statue, and a plaque commemorating this historical event. Hadley Carrigan, representing St. Armands Association, stated that the St. Armands Association supports the proposed off-street parking project bisecting Fillmore Drive; that as a resident of St. Armands, he urges the Commission to clearly inform the residents that the special assessment district does not relate to the St. Armands residents in any way; that many residents are concerned they will be taxed. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation as set forth in the City Manager's report dated July 7, 1994. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration's recommendation requests authorization for $1.525 million, and the agenda item requests authorization for $2 million; and asked which amount is being authorized? Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the desired proceeds are $1.525 million; that the City would need to borrow $1.790 to cover the issuance costs and capitalized interest; that $2 million is being requested for authorization to cover any fluctuation in interest rates which may occur between now and the time a rate is locked in. Mayor Patterson asked if a change to the motion . is necessary? Commissioner Pillot stated that approval of the $2 million comes by resolution and requires separate action. Mayor Patterson stated that the City Manager and his Staff devoted incredible hours to this complex concept and deserve the credit for making the proposal a reality. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to approve all six items of the Administration's recommendation on page 3 of the City Manager's report dated July 7, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-755 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve proposed Resolution No. 94R-755. 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. Book 36 Page 10746 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10747 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the contract for professional services with Smally, Wellford, and Nalven regarding the proposed St. Armands/Fillmore Drive off-street parking lot. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he was pleased with the Commission's decision to move this project forward; that the project could not have made it this far without the hard work of Mike Connolly, City Attorney's Office, Gib Mitchell, Finance Director, and members of the Engineering Department. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO SET OUT THE NEW MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #2 (2889) through (3040) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City and the County currently have divided responsibility for maintenance of the Bayfront; that the County has requested the City to assume maintenance responsibility for the Bayfront and Island Park in exchange for current areas maintained by the City and future maintenance responsibilities the City will incur; that this will bring the entire Bayfront maintenance responsibility under one governmental entity which will provide for future management consistency. A display of the maintenance responsibilities set forth in the second amendment to the interlocal agreement was shown on the overhead projector. Mr. Sollenberger explained the following responsibilities: 1993-1994 County City Baytront/Island Park $70,000 Atkins Park $ 6,085 Ben Franklin medians 2,000 Fruitville-Beneva 3,391 Eastwood Park 2,500 Bird Key medians 1,664 $15,640 Pass through: Bayfront Utilities $ 8,000 1994-1995 Baytront/Island Park $ 70,000 Pass through: Atkins Park 6,085 Bayfront Utilities $ 8,000 Fruitville-Beneva 3,391 Bird Key medians 1,664 Eastwood Park** 3,500 Franklin Manor Park 15,000 (Est.) Ben Franklin medians 2,000 $101,640 1995-1996 (and beyond) Atkins Park $ 6,085 Bayfront/Island Park $70,000 Fruitville-Beneva 3,391 (includes utilities) Bird Key medians 1,664 Eastwood Park** 3,500 Franklin Manor Park** 40,000 Ben Franklin medians** 7,400 $62,040 Mr. Sollenberger stated that the $70,000 includes $62,000 for maintenance and $8,000 for utilities; that in effect, the County pays the cost of utilities for FYs 1993/94 and 1994/95; and that he recommends approval of the amendment. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the second amendment to the Parks and Recreation Interlocal Agreement as outlined. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yess Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: PROPOSED LAUREL. PARK NEIGHBOR- HOOD CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT = APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATION'S FOUR POINT PROCESS APPROACH PRESENTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #2 (3048), through (3600) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that on June 20, 1994, the City Commission directed the Administration to provide a recommendation concerning the development of a Conservation District in the Laurel Park/Washington Park area; that representatives from both the Laurel Park and the Washington Park neighborhoods have reviewed and found the Administration's concept acceptable; that the role of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) is to build consensus for the Conservation Zone District and its standards; that the standards will be designed to be consistent with the existing land use patterns; that other details include; a study of the certain types of uses, i.e., garage apartments, and historic issues. Book 36 Page 10748 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10749 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Ms. Robinson stated that the Administration's recommendation is to begin the process with a consensus among the City Staff and the LPNA regarding regulations to be placed in the Conservation District Ordinance; that the following four-step public participation process is recommended: 1. The LPNA holds neighborhood meetings to introduce the first draft of the Conservation Zone District; 2. The LPNA arranges a Charette with the local Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to test the workability of the Conservation District; 3. The City prepares a second draft of the Conservation District Ordinance for the LPNA to present to the Planning Board and the City Commission; and 4. The LPNA initiates a rezoning of Laurel Park. City Manager Sollenberger stated the Administration recommends approval of the course of action outlined by Ms. Robinson. Jack Conway, representing the Community Housing Corporation (CHC), came before the Commission and stated that he supports this concept; that there are certain kinds of districts in the City which can be treated differently; that a Conservation Lone District in the Laurel Park area would be an excellent idea. Mr. Conway stated that he served on the SHIP Advisory Board which was appointed to develop new affordable housing programs for the City and the County; that one of the things the SHIP Advisory Board discussed but left unfinished was the designation of certain kinds of districts in the City and the County that could be treated differently; that support is mounting for the County to consider modification of the County's impact fees and a change in its application; that impact fees frequently serve as a disincentive particularly in commercial development areasi that as various options are explored for the application of impact fees, ideas emerge for a particular designation for the commercial development along Central Avenue and the Newtown area where impact fees operate as a disincentive; that disincentives should be removed and replaced with a designated area which would allow for and encourage economic development; that these ideas are currently being considered in the enterprise zones at the federal level; that the City should consider designing its own approach to create incentives for commercial and job development in the community by removing disincentives and working in concert with the County to achieve specific objectives; that a "thaw" is occurring within the County, and hopefully, the County will realize that the City is part of the County and a we/they approach is not necessary; that the point may have been reached where the City and County can start to put together a program that makes sense for the people in Sarasota. Mr. Conway stated that he supports a Conservation Zone District in Laurel Park; that the Conservation Zone District may not be appropriate in other places in the City, but the City does not have to be uniform; that the City should be in a position to treat neighborhoods differently dependent upon what objectives the City wants to achieve. Tina Little, President of the LPNA, stated that she appreciates the City of Sarasota's openness to a new idea; that there will probably be some ups and downs; that the LPNA is prepared to work with everyone involved to work through any rising issues; that the greater whole is what is most important; that a nut has a shell around it for protection; that a wild splendid orchid grows in the middle of a rain forest, not near the road; that a Conservation Zone District will work if everyone keeps their eyes on the larger whole and works for the greatest good. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Administration's four point recommendation. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Conservation Zone District is an excellent idea; that he has heard there may be some dividedness among the various subdivisions in the Laurel Park neighborhood; that Laurel Park is thought of as one area to the rest of the City; that different rules for different subdivisions will confuse the issue; that the neighborhood will benefit by acting and being viewed as one neighborhood. 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. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: ISLAND PARK REPLACEMENT LIGHTING LAYOUT AND POLE SELECTION (AGENDA ITEM VII-7) #2 (3600) through #3 (0232) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission has allocated $75,000 of Local Option Sales Tax to replace the deteriorated lighting system on Island Park. A standard light pole was mounted for display outside of City Hall, and an area lighting plan for Island Park was displayed on the overhead projector. Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and David W. Johnston, Landscape Architect, came before the Commission. Book 36 Page 10750 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10751 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mountain stated that originally there were 40 lamps on the Island Park site; that installation of 38 lamps is proposed for replacement; that 175 watt metal halide lamps will be used which is an upgrade over the existing lamp wattage; that 112 volts will be provided in the base of 16 of the lamp poles; that the voltage will be controlled by a main panel and made available only for special events. Mr. Mountain continued that extensive underground trenching work will be necessary to replace the entire electrical service; that main line irrigation systems will be installed concurrently for future reuse irrigation of the area; that construction for the underground work is scheduled to commence August 8th and be completed by the end of September; that the installation of the lamps will take longer due to the 12 week delay associated with bidding and ordering the lamps. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that an issue was raised about the bright parking lot lights shining into the homes overlooking the park; that he was concerned similar problems may be experienced with the upgrade wattage of the proposed lamps. Mr. Johnston stated that the issue raised was taken into consideration during selection of specifications for the lamp poles; that the lamp poles will prohibit any upward movement of light; that two refractors will be used to control the light distribution on sidewalks; that the overlooking homes will be able to see lights; however, there will be no hard source reflected at them. Mr. Johnston continued that previous vandalism problems were also taken into consideration when a sturdier, 1/4 inch minimum thickness, cast aluminum pole and fixture was specified. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Island Park Replacement lighting layout and pole selection. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamoné, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: NEW PASS SEAWALL REPLACEMENT CONCEPT PLAN = APPROVED WITHOUT THE TIE-UP PIERS (AGENDA ITEM VII-8) #3 (0240) through (0848) Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, and Bishop and Associates representatives Charles Green, Senior Project Manager, and David Wachtel, President, came before the Commission. Ms. Hay stated that Bishop and Associates originally completed preliminary plans including vertical seawall alternatives and sloped rip-rap revetment alternatives; that the vertical seawall alternatives had a lower cost, allowed the City to maintain the existing area of park land on Ken Thompson Park, and provided a docking area for the artificial reef program; that the rip-rap revetment alternative allowed for wave dissipation and a habitat for plant and animal life; that a meeting to discuss the seawall alternatives was held with members from: Bishop and Associates, the City of Sarasota Purchasing, Planning, and Engineering Departments and the City Manager's office, Sarasota County Parks and Recreation and Natural Resource Departments, Mote Marine Laboratory, the Natural Estuary Program, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; that Bishop and Associates used the result of that meeting to develop their concept plan. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 9:07 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m. A New Pass Seawall site location map and various site plan displays (copies are on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) were shown on the overhead projector. Mr. Green explained the details of the various seawall construction site plans which proposed a sheet pile wall with concrete cap, cutting off the existing steel seawall below the water line, using rip-rap fill between the two seawalls and in four other recessed locations, and included threè dolphins (seawall protectors) for barge tie down. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 9:15 p.m. and returned at 9:17 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this concept is what she had hoped could be developed. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the proposed future rip- rap to be placed at the toe of the seawall? Ms. Hay stated that this will be developed with the County under the artificial reef program project. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she objects to having the materials for the artificial reef program stored on Ken Thompson Park; that concessions have been made in the concept plan to accommodate this storage; that an alternate site should be located; that it takes up a lot of space and looks terrible. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he shares the objection; however, only three locations are available for barge activity: Ken Thompson Park; Payne Terminal which is more highly objectionable, and at the Siesta Key bridge; that he cannot think of a location on the Bay which would not receive objection. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City is donating land when other land is available; that the city has housed the material for a number of years; that storage of the material should be shared by other entities benefitting from the artificial reef program; and asked if the materials are used only for City reef projects? Book 36 Page 10752 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10753 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hay stated that the City and the County have both benefitted from the artificial reef program; that as part of this process the City has been working with the County to re-establish a Ken Thompson Park Master Plan; that the County is proposing to have one segment of Ken Thompson Park sheltered, landscaped, and designated for the artificial reef program; that one of the problems currently experienced is that there is no set location for the reef materials; that other individuals see the materials and dump additional, non-related materials all over Ken Thompson Park. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Cardamone; that the Administration should be directed to find alternative sites for this material; that storing this material on Ken Thompson Park is not consistent with the plans the City has for this park land. Mayor Patterson stated that she is not convinced that the City has the only appropriate land in the County to store this material; however, the artificial reef program has been beneficial to the sport fishing and recreational activities of the community. Commissioner Cardamone stated that 1500 feet of seawall has been designed and will become an estuary for environmental purposes; that tie ups for barges to load and unload rubble should not be included in the conceptual plan; that it is not the responsibility of the City to provide a permanent tie up for barges and be forced to deal with the continual mess created by the materials they unload; that she feels very strongly about this issue. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would support a future vote which stated that the City Commission refuses to allow material storage on Ken Thompson Park any longer; and that the Administration should research having the material loaded and unloaded at the Manatee Port terminal. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the concept plan and authorize the contractor to proceed with the final construction plans minus the tie up piers. Mayor Patterson asked what the status was of obtaining a No Wake zone for the Ken Thompson Park area once the seawall is completed? , Ms. Hay stated that the Engineering Department is working with the County on this issue; that the application process takes one to two years, but has been initiated; that the actual purpose of a No Wake zone is to protect the water and not the landward area; that based on the guideline requirements, the City's chances of obtaining a No Wake zone in this area are questionable. Mayor Patterson stated that there are No Wake zones in heavy residential areas, along canals, and through the entirety of the Bay. Ms. Hay stated that she will contact the Sarasota County Natural Resources Department for the specific guidelines. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to approve the concept plan minus the tie up piers. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested that the Administration report back to the Commission regarding alternative sites for the reef material. 22. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: LIST OF POSSIBLE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX LOST PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR = ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT THE AUGUST 1, 1994, MEETING WITH A REVISED LIST (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (0850) through (1820) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Board of County Commissioners has directed County staff to develop the necessary information to implement an extension of the Infrastructure Surtax; that the County Administrator has requested a listing of possible projects which could be funded under the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T) in the event a five-year extension from FY 2000 to 2004 passes on the November ballot. Mr. Sollenberger continued that funding projected for allocation to the City over the five-year period is estimated at $28,158,000; that it is difficult to estimate costs on projects which would occur in the year 2000, but the following possible L.O.S.T. projects and titles were identified (a detailed copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk): Complete Master Plan for Ken Thompson Park Replacement of existing Public Safety Building Remodel and update Fire Stations Neighborhood Improvement Program Van Wezel Improvements Arlington Park Showers and Locker Rooms Revitalization of the Central Avenue Corridor Neighborhood Replacement of Traffic Signals on Main Street New Lighting Fixtures for Downtown Core Pedestrian Signal Improvements Bayfront Bicycle Pedestrian Path (Phase II) Mr. Sollenberger requested Commission comments, deletions and/or additions on the list of possible L.0.S.T. projects. Commissioner Cardamone stated that $700,000 to replace traffic signals on Main Street seems excessive. Book 36 Page 10754 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10755 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked if the estimated figures will be included in the referendum? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the form provided by the County Administrator requested figures, but the format has not been strictly followed; that the dollars could be deleted; that it is difficult to predict costs on projects which will occur five to ten years in the future. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that these projects are meant as a political statement to help the public justify voting to extend the tax; that he has had positive comments on the sidewalk projects; that he would like a street lighting project added to the Neighborhood Improvement Program. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that standards for upgrading the infrastructure, curbs and gutters, in the neighborhoods should be developed and included; that the infrastructure was originally completed inexpensively in the 1950s and 1960s; that a major project of upgrading is necessary for the City's older neighborhoods to be competitive with the new neighborhoods being developed in the County; that replacement of curbs and gutters are necessary in large areas of District 3; that substantial funding for curbs and gutters should be included under the Neighborhood Improvement Program. Mayor Patterson stated that adding sidewalks on neighborhood streets should also be included. Mayor Patterson stated that replacing the Public Safety building would be multi-million dollar project; that the words "or renovate" should be added to the Public Safety Building item to make it more palatable to the public. Commissioner Cardamone stated that neighborhood street lights should be included as part of the possible L.O.S.T. projects; that street lighting is needed in the City and is very salable. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Neighborhood Improvement Program item is important to the public and should be broken out into separate line item headings; that the Main Street improvements should be incorporated under one heading. Commissioner Pillot stated that these items will be submitted as explanations to the members of the public voting on the referendum; that the Van Wezel improvements are necessary, but the public may think that the improvements should be funded from ticket sales; that including it on this list may serve as a determent; that additional street lighting, curbs and gutters, and neighborhood safety improvements will be popular with the public; that the traffic signals on Main Street may be more palatable if they were listed as "to be replaced as necessary for safety purposes. u Mayor Patterson stated that if the Van Wezel improvements are not included, and the L.0.S.T. extension is passed, the City could not use those funds for the Van Wezel improvements; that if most people think funding for the improvements should come out of ticket sales, maybe it should; that a deletion of the Van Wezel Improvements is a substantial change and would require a Commission consensus. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Van Wezel carries well throughout the City; that he supports leaving the item in the list. Commissioner Pillot stated that he does not stress deleting the item. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not have a problem with leaving the item in the list. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Payne Park situation will arise as the density of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park is reduced; that park improvements could be added to the list. Mayor Patterson stated that park improvements could include Payne Park, Franklin Manor, etc. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would not envision these dollars being spent for park improvements at Payne Park since park improvements are a County responsibility. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Interlocal agreement between the City and the County addresses additional park development as subject to negotiation between the parties; that the responsibility is not necessarily placed with the County to develop new park facilities within the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the agreement places responsibility on the City? Mr. Sollenberger stated no; that the issue is a negotiable item. Mayor Patterson stated that in the past the City and the County have both made contributions toward park projects within the City. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Arlington Park showers and locker rooms should be a County project; that the aquatic complex is primarily used by the Sharks and other swimming organizations; that it is not a general public demand; that he would leave the project on the list but place it as a very low priority. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports Vice Mayor Merrill's comments regarding the expansion of the Neighborhood Improvement Program headings and condensing Main Street Improvement headings; that specific improvements should be identified for the Central Avenue corridor; that the project is continuously dangled in front of the public with no results; that he and the public are tired of waiting for a defined Central Avenue plan. Commissioner Atkins continued that an exciting business corridor is developing in the City of Sarasota which is not receiving the respect it deserves; that an item on U.S. 301 Improvements should be added to address the aesthetic needs of that area between Main and Myrtle Streets. Mr. Sollenberger stated in regard to the request for neighborhood street lighting that the City rents street lights for the majority Book 36 Page 10756 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10757 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. of the community from Florida Power and Light; that the City does not purchase street lights; that the need for tree trimming around existing street lighting has been identified in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) studies; that he would prefer to include an item titled "improved street lighting" which could include tree trimming or additional street lighting. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to have the Administration revise the list as. directed for presentation at the August 1, 1994, Regular Commission meeting. 23. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SARASOTA COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 89-97, AS AMENDED) CITY MANAGER TO SEND A LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMENDING THE REDUCTION IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES, EXPRESSING THAT AN INCREASE IN THE IMPACT FEES FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IS TOTALLY COUNTER TO THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS, REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF A TWO-TIER IMPACT SCHEDULE WITH LOWER IMPACT FEES FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, AND REQUESTING CONSIDERTION OF DECLARING SPECIFIC REDEVELOPMENT AREAS AND DESIGNATING LOWER OR NO IMPACT FEES FOR THOSE AREAS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (1844) through (2334) City Manager Sollenberger stated that a public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners on July 12, 1994; that a second public hearing is scheduled for July 26, 1994; that he requests authorization to prepare a letter from the City Commission commending the Board of County Commissioners for reducing impact fees for single-family residential development, but pointing out that the proposed increase in fees for commercial properties is totally counter to the economic development efforts of the City particularly with respect to development of office buildings and the potential conference center; that adding an increase in impact fees will not be conducive to attracting a hotel to Sarasota in an already difficult to almost non-existent climate for hotel construction. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Sarasota County Economic Development Board has opposed any increase in impact fees, supports the decrease in road impact fees of the proposed County ordinance, and encourages the Board of County Commissioners to fully explore impact fee mitigation techniques and alternative revenue sources such as those discussed in the report by the County Public Facilities Financing Advisory Board; that the Sarasota County Economic Development Board has expressed a stand similar to what he is requesting the Commission authorize him to relay. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of, Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize the Administration to prepare a letter summarizing the Commission's position as outlined. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he supports the reduction in impact fees for single-family residences; that in regard to the increase in commercial impact fees, either the people who are creating the need for the additional services, i.e., roads, pay fees or the general taxpayers subsidize the service; that impact fees are a proven and wise method of funding infrastructure improvements; that that people who create a demand for public services should pay for that demand; that the general public should not have to pay for a new office building's road demand; that the number one economic generator in the Sarasota community is retirement; that in response to people retiring and building homes in Sarasota, fast food resturants and office buildings develop; that there is a close relationship between impact fees and land values; that he supports the philosophy of impact fees; however, he has a problem with the magnitude of the County's proposed increase; that doubling the impact fee will create a burden on the person who purchased a piece of land for a certain value; that these types of changes in impact fees should be spread over a longer period of time so economic hardship is not caused. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City's concerns about economic development are unfounded; that the city was not booming prior to the initiation of impact fees which were already effective in the County; that the City's development patterns experienced little change subsequent to initation of impact fees; that he will support the County's recommendation if they feel commercial impact fees should be increased. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she takes an opposite viewpoint to Vice Mayor Merrill; that redevelopment efforts of the City of Sarasota rely on commercial development; that the following increases are proposed by the County: hotel impact fees increase from $626 per room to $709 per room, motel impact fees increase from $733 per room to $830 per room; that she would encourage the City Commission going on record as strongly opposing things that will impact City of Sarasota redeveloment efforts; that an impact fee increase of this magnitude will impede attraction of a conference center to the City of Sarasota; that this proposed increase is damaging to the redevelopment efforts of the City. Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to add two things to the Commission's recommendation to the County: 1. request consideration of a two-tiered system similar to the urbanized and ruralized schedules effective in Manatee County to lower the impact fee for commercial uses in the urbanized areas Mayor Patterson stated that the impact is less when a land use is placed into an area where roads are already built; that the possiblities of mitigating that impact in terms of new roads is also less; that the County previously argued that this type of Book 36 Page 10758 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10759 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. schedule could not be done; however, other counties have shown that it can be accomplished. 2. request consideration of declaring specific areas that the County is anxious to develop or redevelop, which include areas in the City, as being designated for either lower impact fees or no impact fees. Commissioner Pillot as the maker of the motion and Commissioner Cardamone as seconder agreed to include Mayor Patterson's suggestions as part of the motion. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to make recommendations to the County as outlined by the City Manager with the inclusion of the two considerations discussed. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 24. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: SARASOTA HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING PROCEDURES = CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW AND FORWARD MEMORANDUMS TO THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OVER THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD, THE PROPER PROCEDURE NECESSARY TO TAKE OVER THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD FUNCTION, AND IF PROPER MEETING PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN PRACTICED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD; A JOINT WORKSHOP TO BE SCHEDULED IN SEPTEMBER (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (2334) through (3536) Mayor Patterson stated that it has come to her attention that the Housing Authority Chairman is calling for an excessive number of meetings; that the function of the board is policy. setting not administrative; that on July 6th the Housing Authority voted 6 to 1, with the Chair dissenting, to pursue the acquisition of a $1 million grant; that four of seven members were able to attend a second meeting which was called a few days later with only five hours notice to the public and several board members; that there was no mention of the intention to rescind the 6 to 1 vote in the notice; however, the vote was rescinded 4 to 0; that she is requesting that the Commission endorse requesting the City Auditor and Clerk and/or City Attorney to educate the Housing Authority Board on parliamentary procedure and examine the legality of the vote taken on July 6th and rescinded on July 13th. Mayor Patterson continued that the City Commission/Housing Authority joint workshop scheduled for August 8, 1994, was postponed at the request of one Housing Authority Commissioners to give the Housing Authority Board an opportunity to hold a workshop to discuss goals prior to meeting with the City Commission; however, the issues raised have occurred subsequent to that postponement. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that controversy has surrounded the Housing Authority Board for several years; that the City Commission may have the authority to take back the Housing Authority Board function from the current board; that he would support an approach to that effect; that a big change is necessary concerning the Housing Authority Board; that the city Commission taking over the Housing Authority Board function could be that change. Commissioner Cardamone asked what authority the City Commission has over the Housing Authority Board regarding their behavior and if the Commission has the authority to disband the Housing Authority Board? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City of Sarasota passed a resolution to form the Housing Authority; that the Housing Authority actions are made by the Board of Commissioners appointed to the Housing Authority Board by the Mayor with concurrence of the city Commission; that the statutes provide a process for the removal of Housing Authority Commissioners; that in 1992, he wrote a memorandum in response to the question raised by the then seated City Commission regarding removal of Housing Authority Commissioners; that the City Commission must follow a specified procedure, but the statutes state that a Commissioner of the Housing Authority Board may be removed for inefficiency or neglect of duty or misconduct in office; that the procedure includes giving notice and holding a hearing before the City Commission where the person to be removed has an opportunity to come forward; that a decision will have to based on a sufficient level of investigation which documents events to support a finding of neglect of duty or misconduct in office. City Attorney Taylor continued that he believes behaviors of the Housing Authority Board are the business of the City Commission; that the authority to review, ask questions, and be a part of the process is inherent with the power of the City Commission to appoint and remove Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; that the Housing Authority, by State Law, is required to annually submit to the City Commission an audited financial report and program; that this requirement supports authority for the City Commission to oversee the Housing Authority programs and whether the intent of the statute is being upheld; however, he is not sure where the line of authority is drawn. City Attorney Taylor further stated that the Housing Authority Board has the right to hire an attorney; that he is not sure if the attorney attends the Housing Authority Board meetings; and that the statute states that the Housing Authority may call upon services of the City Attorney to render legal advice. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had planned to attend a Housing Authority Board meeting; that without receiving notice, it was impossible to schedule attendance at one of the four meetings Book 36 Page 10760 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10761 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. held over the past six weeks; that she has been reviewing the minutes of the Housing Authority Board meetings; that several months ago she requested that copies of the Housing Authority Board minutes be forwarded to the Commission on an ongoing basis; that minutes from all meetings are not being forwarded; that the set of minutes received of the July 6th Housing Authority Board meeting were appalling; that no agenda or parliamentary procedure was followed; that the comments are garbled and incoherent among fighting and squabbling; that the sexist comments made by one of the Housing Authority Commissioners to an individual making a presentation was deplorable; that she does not want her name as a City Commissioner associated with the type of behavior reflected in the minutes of the July 6th Housing Authority Board meeting. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the short notice given to the public on the July 13th meeting held by the Housing Authority Board may be in violation of the Sunshine Law; that the Commission should initiate the process of reviewing the behavior of the Housing Authority Board. Mayor Patterson stated that she had to specifically request a copy of the minutes of the July 6th Housing Authority Board meeting; that the minutes have not been received on a timely basis. Mayor Patterson stated that she received the same information as Vice Mayor Merrill regarding the possibility of the City Commission being able to take over the Housing Authority Board function; that she spoke with the District Director in Jacksonville and discovered that such a change requires legislative action which can occur with support of the local legislature; that certain Housing Authorities have been taken back over by their governmental bodies; however, some of those bodies have not been pleased with the: results; that this type of action makes the governmental body responsible for running a substantial number of housing units and dealing with all the inherent problems of tenants arriving on their doorstep to report a leaking bathtub, etc. Mayor Patterson continued that she would like to take the avenue of trying to get the Housing Authority Board to behave in a responsible manner; that she expected more rational behavior by the Housing Authority Board when four new members were appointed to the seven-member board; that a joint meeting with the Housing Authority Board should be called as soon as possible to express the City Commission's position to the Housing Authority Board; that the City Commission does have the possibility of taking over the Housing Authority Board function if the Commission is sufficiently concerned about the Housing Authority Board's conduct. Commissioner Pillot stated that communication is enhanced face to face; that he agrees a joint meeting with the Housing Authority Board would be appropriate; that motions to rescind a previous motion require advance notice to the remainder of the board or a supermajority vote; that it appears proper recession practices may not have been followed with regard to the recession vote taken by the Housing Authority Board; that to the legal extent permissible, the Commission should take action against that recession. Mayor Patterson stated that the Housing Authority Board met, adjourned to tour a housing project, and during that tour, after several Commissioners had left, held a vote to elect the Housing Authority Board Vice Chair; that this is an issue she would like the City Auditor and Clerk to address. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he has requested the minutes of the Housing Authority Board meeting containing the Vice Chair selection. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she feels strongly about the urgency of this matter and suggested scheduling a joint meeting with the Housing Authority Board prior to the regularly scheduled August 1, 1994, Commission meeting; that the Commission takes a great risk in delaying the meeting with the Housing Authority Board; that a joint workshop has been discussed for some time; that she understand scheduling is difficult; however, the minutes reflect that the behavior is getting worse and worse. Mayor Patterson stated that she is unable to commit to an early meeting on August 1, 1994. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the joint workshop with the Public Art Committee scheduled for July 25, 1994 has been postponed; that it is short notice, but he could attempt to schedule a joint workshop with the Housing Authority Board on that date. Mayor Patterson stated that seven days of notice is insufficient time to expect all seven members of the Housing Authority Board to attend a joint workshop. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that giving the Housing Authority Board six weeks notice of the meeting should guarantee attendance by all Housing Authority Board Commissioners. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to authorize the City Auditor and Clerk and City Attorney to review and forward memorandums to the Commission regarding the issues raised during discussion and to schedule a joint meeting between the City Commission and the Housing Authority Board in September. 25. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: BARTINIKAS Vs. CITY OF SARASOTA COURT RULING AND APPEAL - MOTION TO APPEAL FAILED; DIRECTED ADMNISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6-14 (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #3 (3569) through #4 (0479) Book 36 Page 10762 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10763 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that a memorandum on the Bartinikas Vs. City of Sarasota Court Ruling was sent on July 13th to the City Manager with copies to the Commission; that the Circuit Court has decided that the Commission should have applied a quasi-judicial proceeding at the Commission meeting regarding the Bartinikas private roadway petition; that the Commission did not hold a quasi- judicial proceeding, therefore, the requisite evidence was not present to support the decision for denial; that the case should have come back to the City Commission for a public hearing under a quasi-judicial proceeding; however the judge decided to make the decision for the City Commission and ruled in favor of Mr. Bartinikas building a second home on his lot; that the duration for filing an appeal to the judge's ruling expires on July 23, 1994. City Attorney Taylor stated that there is a problem with the private roadway portion of the Zoning Code; that no standards are included for guidance on decisions regarding private roadway petitions; that recently, the provision for a private roadway has been discovered by the public and petitions are being filed more frequently; that he recommends amending Section 6-14 of the Zoning Code to include standards to guide the City Commission and the Administration so that a proper case can be presented to the City Commission in accordance with the quasi-judicial proceeding necessary for private roadway petitions. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City has a good chance of appealing the Bartinikas decision and reversing the judge's ruling because the judge followed improper procedure; however, it would cost the City between $5,000 and $6,000 to have the case come back before the City Commission approximately one year later; that the same Section 6-14 would have to be re-applied to the Bartinikas petition and a judge could rule against the City a second time; that he does not feel comfortable with the outcome of this case if the City were successful with the appeal process; that it would be a more cost effective, less time consuming process to simply change Section 6-14 so future cases similar to the Bartinikas case will not present themselves. City Attorney Taylor asked if the City Commission wanted to explore the possibility of an appeal? Mayor Patterson stated that she had abstained from voting at the Bartinikas hearing because the subject property is one lot removed from her home; that the two neighbors directly next to the subject lot and one of the two neighbor across the street from the subject lot had come before the Commission and stated that approval of the petition would change the character of the neighborhood which is a large-lot neighborhood with no two-home lots on the street; that the neighborhood association had expressed they were not supportive of setting this kind of precedent; that two or three neighbors spoke in favor of the petition. Mayor Patterson continued that it concerned her that the various interested parties had not been notified of the court ruling in favor of Mr. Bartinikas in case they intended to appeal as interested parties. City Attorney Taylor stated that the case was a lawsuit filed against the City of Sarasota by Mr. Bartinikas; that no other neighbors or neighborhoods were parties to the appeal; that the neighbors could participate as friends of the court if the City files an appeal; however, the neighbors do not have standing to file their own appeal on the case. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Bartinikas has listed his property for sale as two lots; that other lots in the area may be large enough to petition for a similar lot division; that she is concerned a precedent will be set and a land use for future comparison will be developed if the ruling is not appealed. City Attorney Taylor stated that changing the Zoning Code will set new standards applicable to private roadway petitions; that a similar land use in the neighborhood could not be used for comparison once the Zoning Code is amended. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City Attorney has advised that an appeal will cost $5,000 and could ultimately result in a similar ruling; that the City Commission did their best by voting no on the petition, but lost the lawsuit in court; that the $5,000 should be spent for higher priority purposes; that he does not support appealing the judge's ruling. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone it was moved to direct the City Attorney to appeal the judge's ruling in the Bartinikas VS. City of Sarasota lawsuit. Mayor Patterson stated that she declares a conflict of interest and will abstain from voting. Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Commissioner Pillot who restated the motion and called for discussion. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports appealing the decision because it is precedent setting; that other requests to sub-divide lots and provide for private roadways could be received prior to an effective date for the change in the Zoning Code; that large lots sub-divided into two lots with one house in back of another are very unattractive and serve as a determent in a neighborhood of large lots and large homes. Commissioner Atkins stated that the City has laid a foundation to lose the case; that this discussion will be part of the record; that he does not support sub-dividing large lots in large-lot neighborhoods; however, the reality of the situation is that the case is a no-win situation and the City should not expend $5,000; that he will vote against the motion. Book 36 Page 10764 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10765 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked which criteria the Commission would have to apply at the rehearing of the Bartinikas petition if an appeal was filed and won and in the interim a new set of criteria was defined and made effective in the Zoning Code? City Attorney Taylor stated that the provisions effective at the time the petition was originally heard would be applicable while litigation is pending. Commissioner Pillot called for a vote on the motion to appeal the Bartinikas case ruling. Motion failed for lack of a majority (2 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill it was moved to direct the Administration to proceed with amending Zoning Code Section 6-14. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Bartinikas VS. City of Sarasota decision was rendered on June 22, 1994; that notification to the Commission was communicated to his Staff and inadvertently included in a memorandum dated June 23, 1994, regarding the Wisconsin Lane propertyi that notification to the Commission on such matters will be properly handled in the future. 26. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: ALTERNATE MEMBERSHIP TO THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AESTHETIC TASK TEAM - APPOINTED AS ALTERNATE MEMBERS : MR. WILLIAM HALSTEAD TO REPRESENT THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND MR. DALE PARKS TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (0490) through (0651) Commissioner Pillot asked how many applicants can be appointed? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that any or all of the applicants can be appointed as alternate members; that the four applicants are candidates for different seats on the Task Team; that Ms. Barbara Papa and Mr. Philip Zimmerly are residents of Sunset Towers and One Watergate, respectively; that the residents of Sunset Towers and One Watergate are currently represented by one regular and one alternate member but want three alternate members in case the others are not available; that Mr. William Halstead represents the local American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Mr. Dale Parks represents the Public Art Committee (PAC). Mayor Patterson asked if the PAC has a seat on the Task Team? Mr. Daughters stated yes, but the Task Team alternate member resigned from the PAC. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve all four alternate members for the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team. Commissioner Cardamone asked what is the role of the alternates? Mr. Daughters stated that the alternates' role is to attend the Task Team meetings if the regular member is unavailable; that some of the alternate members have been attending the Task Team meetings as interested citizens; that only regular members have voting rights unless an alternate member is substituting for the regular member. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Task Team started out small and has been allowed to grow; that there are now more alternate members than regular members. Mayor Patterson stated that this happened with the Task Force established by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to consider the same issue; that the process became very lengthy because alternate members would replace regular members and vote differently than the regular member who had been attending the Task Force meetingsi that if people have expressed a willingness to serve, the appointment of one alternate member is reasonable but three alternate members results in a loss of continuity and does not make a great deal of sense. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there are twelve alternates for the MPO but each serves as alternate for a certain seat which is the same situation for this Task Team; that the architect who was appointed to the Task Team has not been able to attend any of the meetings, but Mr. Halstead has attended all of the meetings. Vice Mayor Merrill asked why the report concerning the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team scheduled for tonight's meeting was cancelled? Mr. Daughters stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and their consultants did not have enough time to prepare a good presentation for the City Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a final presentation was given to the Task Team was last week. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct; however, that presentation was not of the quality the Commission would expect. Mayor Patterson stated that, if approved, there would be four alternate members on the Task Team for the seat representing the condominiums; that she is not concerned about the selection of an alternate member for the AIA seat; however, there should be no more than one alternate member for each designated seat. : Mr. Daughters stated that there would be three alternate members for the Book 36 Page 10766 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10767 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Sunset/Cedar Point area plus one regular member if Ms. Papa and Mr. Zimmerly are approved as alternate members. Mayor Patterson stated that one alternate member is sufficient. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the regular member representing the AIA should be replaced with the alternate member if the regular member is not attending the meeting; and asked if there are rules regarding attendance? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a member can be replaced if a member misses three meetings. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the regular member may not have been able to attend meetings because of an emergency or other valid reason. Mayor Patterson stated that the motion should be amended to delete the two candidates as second and third alternate members for the seat designated for residents of Sunset Towers and One Watergate. Commissioner Pillot as maker of the motion and Vice Mayor Merrill as seconder agreed to change the motion as to appoint only Mr. Halstead and Mr. Parks as alternate members for the Ringling Causeway Bridge Aesthetic Task Team. 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. 27. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE AZURE TIDES AND THE THREE CROWNS TO BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 1ST AGENDA; CODE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS TO BE USED TO ENFORCE MAINTENANCE OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS: CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON WILL SEND A LETTER TO INTERESTED PERSONS CONCERNING THE BARTINIKAS CASE (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0691) through (0948) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that the issue concerning the Three Crowns was supposed to be resolved by July 14th; and asked for an update on the status? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Special Master approved the rehabilitation plans for the building and the construction schedule; that an instrument guaranteeing funds to demolish the building in the event the schedule is not kept is to be posted by the owner; that a report will be provided as to current status. Mayor Patterson stated that she received the jubilant news that renovation of the Azure Tides was proceeding; and requested a memorandum or an item to be placed on the agenda providing an update on the agreement. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like to an item concerning the Azure Tides and the Three Crowns placed on the agenda at the August 1st meeting to inform the interested public watching the Commission Meetings of the status. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the item will be placed on the agenda for the August 1, 1994, meeting. B. stated that the City's computerized signal lights are not performing as the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) representatives assured they would perform; that the importance of the lights is to keep people on the main thoroughfares and off neighborhood cut-through streets; that it is ridiculous for people travelling on Fruitville Road at midnight to hit every stop light when there is no one else on the road; that she would like a response from FDOT. C. distributed copies of a newspaper article concerning the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program and stated that there have been delays in the program which had been moving forward with a great amount of speed over the laist five years; that the newspaper article is an excellent, clear report on what is happening with the program; that this article is a good source of information about the program. D. stated that a memorandum had been received from Gibson Mitchell regarding direct deposit which stated: "In order to participate in the ACH system, the City must inform any affected bank at least 10 banking days prior to an actual deposit, the name and the bank account number of each employee to be depositing money in that bank.' . Commissioner Cardamone asked if this is a one-time notification? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the one-time notification is required by federal regulation; that the city will now be able to provide automatic direct deposit for all employees' paychecks at all banks without paying the $50 to $60 per week charges requested. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that the grass on railroad right-of-ways is never cut; that the appearance of the railroad right-of-way is very bad along Myrtle Avenue to 1st Street. Book 36 Page 10768 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10769 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked if it is the City's job to maintain the property? Commissioner Atkins stated no, it is the railroad's responsibility. Mayor Patterson asked if Code Enforcement can be utilized to get the railroad to maintain the property? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City will go through Code Enforcement to have the issue resolved and asked if the right-of-way is the one continuing through to Leon Avenue? Commissioner Atkins stated yes, that is the area from which he gets the most complaints. Vice Mayor Merrill stated the entire length of the right-of-way, is a problem and asked if the City has the authority to enforce having the right-of-ways maintained? Mr. Sollenberger stated it will be handled. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that she has a survey completed by David and Christine Webber concerning what is available to people wishing to relocate from the Sarasota Mobile Home Park (SMHP); that the Webbers did not find enormous resources but they did find six vacant spaces in Sarasota County to which mobile homes can be moved; that the estimated cost of moving a mobile home is $1,500; that one mobile home park was found with 25 spaces with mobile homes that the owner is willing to donate provided that the occupant is willing to pay the lot rent; that the mobile homes are relatively small but it is possible to move the home and put another home in its place; that she would like the information passed along to the residents of the SMHP and requested that the City Manager send a letter to the Webbers who are the managers of the Friendship Village Mobile Home Park thanking them for their efforts. Mr. Sollenberger stated he will forward the survey to the residents of the SMHP and send a thank you letter to the Webbers. B. requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson send a copy of City Attorney Taylor's memorandum concerning the Bartinikas case to those people who spoke to the Commission on this subject along with a letter stating the action taken by the Commission. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that it will be done. 28. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI): #4 (0948) through (1156) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that complaints have been received about dogs being permitted in the Bayfront Park; that the City Code prohibits dogs and other animals where posted; that the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board recommended signs prohibiting dogs be posted at the Bayfront Park, therefore, Public Works has been directed to post signs. Mayor Patterson stated that the County also prohibits animals in County parks. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that County parks are geared toward single-family neighborhoods; that many residents near the Bayfront Park live in high-rise condominiums and must walk their dogs somewhere and the Bayfront Park area is a pleasant place to walk; that he does not support prohibiting dogs at the Bayfront Park. Mayor Patterson stated that the condominiums have grounds where residents can walk their dogs. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that part of the enjoyment of walking a dog is the surroundings; that people take their dogs for walks all the time in New York City; that many people who go to the park do so to walk their dogs. Mayor Patterson stated that in New York city a "pooper scooper" law is in effect. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a person who does not have a "pooper scooper" with them could be prohibited from walking their dog in the park; that completely prohibiting dogs in the park is an unnecessary regulation. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has heard from a number of people who have found dog droppings in the park, therefore, he supports prohibiting dogs in the park. Mayor Patterson stated that the issue was referred to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board and their recommendation is to prohibit dogs. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that the proposed Adult Entertainment ordinance will substantially affect a number of zone districts in the City, therefore, two public hearings are required; that the second public hearing must be held approximately two weeks after the first; that the first public hearing cannot be held at the August 1st Commission meeting as scheduled since there is not a second Commission meeting in August. Book 36 Page 10770 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10771 07/18/94 6:00 P.M. 29. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1330) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Moro Atluson NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR 14 ATTEST: 13lly & Reler 4 esn BILLY E.ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling Drive X CITY :1 COUNTY 11 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE oCGED MY POSITION IS: July 18, 1994 B GED V ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE a X : dL251994 WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B CITY CLERK This form is for use by any persom ser mg a thecounty, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person, holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for reçording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes, A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. (E FNI XI3 1(-M6 a IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTERESIO 1, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on July, 18 19 94 5 3 a 1u (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X or 31YTIO inured to my special private gain; inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A motion was made to appeal a court ruling reversing a prior City Commission decision (November 1, 1993) to deny a private access roadway to a lot adjacent to a public street. I am a neighbor, one house removed, from the proposed private access road. July 25, 1994 Moue Ratlennon Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY-REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B 10-86 PAGE 2