Book 35 Page 9915 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARDS TO TATE GABBERT, WITH 24 YEARS OF SERVICE; LARRY K. RUSH, WITH 31 YEARS OF SERVICE; KENNETH C. YAHRAUS, WITH 28 YEARS OF SERVICE, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT /FIRE-RESCUE SERVICES BUREAU; AND MICHAEL H. SCHOTT, WITH 27 YEARS OF SERVICE, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT / POLICE SERVICES BUREAU #1 (0036) through (0253) Public Safety Director John P. Lewis and Fire Chief Julius Halas came before the Commission with Mayor Pillot to present the Retirement Awards; Tate Gabbert, Larry Rush, and Ken Yahraus, from the Public Safety Departaent/Pire-lercue Services Bureau; and Michael Schott from the Public Safety Department/Police Services Bureau were called forward by Mayor Pillot. Mayor Pillot stated that it is a privilege and honor for the Commission to recognize these four members of the City's Public Safety Department; that each member has provided at least a quarter of a century of service to the community; that the lives and structures that have been saved as well as the services provided to make the City streets and commnities safer have undoubtedly been enhanced by these men's 110 combined years of fire rescue and law enforcement service. Chief Halas recognized and stated that Battalion Chief Tate Gabbert is retiring after 24 years of service; that he has moved through the ranks and gained national recognition with his expertise in fire prevention, electrical knowledge, fire alarm systems, and fire sprinkler systems. Chief Halas recognized and stated that Captain Larry Rush is retiring after 31 years of service; that he also served a number of years in the Fire Prevention Division; that he has assisted with the inspection program and was instrumental in the early development of public education and the "Learn Not To Burn" Program; that the "Learn Not To Burn" Program is now called "Adopt a School" Program which teaches various school-aged children fire safety behaviors. Chief Halas recognized and stated that Captain Ken Yahraus is retiring after 28 years of service; that he also served a number of years in the Fire Prevention Division; that he helped the Bureau of Fire Rescue develop an inspection program; that Captain Yahraus was instrumental in the facilitation of transferring various fire inspection duties to the Building and Code Enforcement Department. Public Safety Director Lewis recognized and stated that Michael Schott has a highly regarded reputation in law enforcement throughout the state; that he has been a valuable asset to the Police Services Bureau and to the community; that he set up the Police computerized phone system and a computer-aided dispatch system which cuts the response time to citizens with Police or Fire service needs. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES = APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION, SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND SARASOTA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISBIONERS ON NOVEMBER 8, 1993, AND THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1993 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS I-1, AND I-2) #1 (0254) through (0267) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the minutes of the November 8, 1993, Joint Meeting and the November 15, 1993, Regular Commission Meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1993 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 1993 REPORT RECEIVED: SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION 93-SE-15 = APPROVED: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT RESTAURANT, DRIVE-IN AND DRIVE-THRU = AUTHORIZED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITHOUT THE 150 FT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTI SPECIAL EXCEPTION 93-SE-16 = SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0273) through (0810) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Berta Lefkovich, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency came before the Commission. Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Book 35 Page 9916 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9917 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. following actions were taken at the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meetings of November 3, and November 9, 1993. Special Exception Petition 93-SE-15 Ms. Lefkovich stated that Special Exception 93-SE-15 is to permit professional office use on the second floor in the CT Zone District; that the proposed location is 24 N. Boulevard of the Presidents; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's found Special Exception Petition 93-SE-15 consistent with the Sarasota city Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the Planning Staff recommended favorably for the petition; and that the Development Review Committee found that all respective requirements were met. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Special Exception 93-SE-15. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a realtor office creates a high concentration of agents and a high parking demand activity; that the City Code requires one off-street parking space for every 350 square feet of office; that the City, if able, plans to make a substantial investment with the merchants to provide necessary additional public parking on St. Armands Circle; that this petition is inappropriate at this time. Ms. Robinson stated that offices are permitted on St. Armands Circle only on the second floor by Special Exception; that the Zoning Code states that any floor area which existed prior to 1965 is not required to provide additional parking. Commissioner Cardamone asked how many letters are in support of the petition from the neighboring merchants? Ms. Robinson stated that there were 25 letters of support. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the in and out traffic of the requested real estate establishment would be similar to the traffic of the prior use which was a beauty salon. City Attorney Taylor stated that this is a Special Exception and the quasi-judicial proceedings apply; that an in-favor record has been made at the Staff and Planning Board levels; that the City Manager has recommended in favor of it; that this should be set for public hearing to be placed in the record if the Commission thinks there is a significant point to be made regarding the parking issue. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the Motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Proposed Code Amendment Restaurant, Drive-in and Drive- thru Ms. Lefkovich stated it was the consensus of the Planning Board that (1) the proposed definitions for restaurant, drive-in and drive-thru were acceptable; (2) the proposed changes to Commercial, Industrial and Governmental Zone Districts regarding permitted uses for restaurants, drive-ins and drive-thrus were acceptable and (3) the development standards presented were acceptable; however, additional buffering of residential uses from drive-in and drive- thru uses was needed; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommended that the City Commission direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to include the following: redefine definitions for restaurant and drive-thru, and define drive-in; add restaurant, drive-in and drive thru as a permitted use in certain Commercial Zone Districts; and provide development standards for drive-in and drive-thru uses with a 150-foot distance requirement between a drive-in and residential properties; and that Member Almy voted "no" because it was too regulative. Ms. Robinson stated that the Staff felt that 150 feet was too regulatory; that it would cause the existing fast-food chains on the North and South Trail to be non-conforming. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration's recommendation is as presented by the Planning Board without the 150-foot requirement. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the recommendation of the Administration. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. b Special Exception Petition 93-SE-16 Ms. Lefkovich stated that Special Exception 93-SE-16 is to permit a social services facility (Resurrection House) in the CI Zone District; that the proposed location is 501-513 Kumquat Court; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found Special Exception Petition 93-SE-16 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan; that the Planning Board recommended that Resurrection House provide litter receptacles around the boundary of the facility; that they engage in 30 minutes of litter control each day of operation; that they make a good faith effort to cooperate with the local neighborhood establishment; that no overnight transient lodging be permitted; and that the item be set for public hearing. Ms. Robinson stated that the Planning and Development Department found the criteria for special exceptions in Section 3-11 of the Zoning Code was met provided that no transient lodging or overnight sleeping is permitted. Book 35 Page 9918 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9919 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the recording device malfunctioned during the Planning Board hearing on Petition 93-SE-16; that there is no record of the neighborhood and police input or the Board vote; therefore, he recommends setting this special exception for public hearing to maintain a record. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to set Petition 93-SE-16 for public hearing. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to reçeive the report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1993 - AUTHORIZED $4,925 TO DEVELOP MASTER PLAN (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0838) through (1162) Duane Mountain, Manager of Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste, and Herbert Quinn, Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board Chairman came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain stated that the Board recommends that the Franklin Manor Property be developed as a park; that the Board requests that funds be allocated immediately for preliminary planning. Chairman Quinn stated that the Franklin Manor Property has a 20- foot wide cobblestone walk; that there is a seawall and existing angle-parking; and that there are many trees on the property including grapefruit and orange-Dearing trees; and that the concept of the Board is to develop the property as a low-maintenance park. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to authorize $4,925.00 for the development of a master plan. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to authorize $4,925.00 for the development of a Master Plan; however, the amount of public input may cause the price to increase. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that since funding to develop the property as a park is not certain; that the plan should be developed to be implemented in stages. Commissioner Atkins stated that the property should be looked at in more aggressive ways; that other opportunities could cooperatively work with a park. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports cleaning up and opening the space for a park as soon as possible. Mayor Pillot stated it was now 6:30 p.m. and the Commission must proceed to Public Hearings. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to table this item until later in the meeting. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the Main Motion to authorize $4,925.00 for the development of a master plan. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED FLOYD STREET/TEMPLE STREET TRAFFIC ABATEMENT STUDY, PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS AND SIGNAGE FOR THAT PORTION OF FLOYD STREET LOCATED BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND SHADE AVENUE AND THAT PORTION OF TEMPLE STREET BETWEEN FLOYD STREET AND SHADE AVENUE = APPROVED: ADMINISTRATION TO RESEARCH VIOLATIONS OCCURRING AT WALDEMERE STREET AND U.S. 41 (AGENDA ITEM IV -1) #1 (1200) through (2075) Assistant City Engineer Asim Mohammed came before the Commission and stated that this item had been withdrawn from the November 15th Commission meeting because he failed to notify the Floyd Street residents of the previous public hearing; that this traffic abatement study was conducted in response to a petition from the residents of Floyd Street and in coordination with the Shade Avenue Traffic Abatement Study; and that the results of the traffic study have been presented to the residents at several public meetings. Mr. Mohammed stated that Floyd Street was studied between East Avenue and Shade Avenue and that portion of Temple Street between Floyd Street and Shade Avenue; that the traffic count of 1134 cars on Floyd Street exceeds the City standard traffic abatement criterion of 1000 cars per day; that the traffic count on Temple Street was 100; that much of the traffic on Floyd Street comes from Book 35 Page 9920 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9921 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. the Midtown Plaza and the medical complex on East Avenue; that the stop sign at Floyd Street and Temple Street has not substantially affected the traffic volume or speed; that the recommendation is to install three speed humps on Floyd Street and two or three speed humps on Temple Street; and that a closer study will be conducted to determine if two or three speed humps are necessary on Temple Street. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing, and the following people came before the Commission: Richard Bubil, 2335 Waldemere Street, stated that he has lived on Waldemere Street for forty years; that residents of Waldemere Street held their first meeting regarding traffic volume on December 7, 1991; that on June 15, 1992, the Commission denied a request for a cul-de-sac to be placed at Waldemere Street and East Avenue; that the traffic signal erected at Waldemere Street and U.S. 41 has had marginal success; however, in conjunction with the three-way stop signs at School Avenue, some traffic has been alleviated; that a petition signed by 40 residents was presented to the Commission protesting the speed humps to be placed on Hillview Avenue; that Mr. Mohammed agreed to treat the Waldemere Street residents equally if they did not attend that public hearing; that Mr. Mohammed sent a letter to the Waldemere Street residents stating that "speed humps do not divert significant amounts of traffic to adjoining streets"; however, in his analysis the speed humps reduce traffic volume up to 40%. Mr. Bubil asked where the 40% of traffic goes? Mr. Bubil stated that he hopes the traffic does not go to Waldemere Street since the Commission has agreed to install speed humps on Hillview Street; that if speed humps are also installed on Floyd Street and not on Waldemere Street, whatever has been gained on Waldemere Street will be destroyed. Mr. Bubil stated that Mr. Mohammed sent a letter to the Waldemere Street residents stating that a traffic study to evaluate the effectiveness of the modifications would be conducted addressing their concerns; that the results of the study would be presented to the residents in the early part of November 1993 which has not been done; that Mayor Pillot sent a letter stating that Waldemere Street will not be side-tracked; that the Waldemere Street residents request the Commission delay their decision on this petition until Mr. Mohammed conducts the Waldemere Street study to assure that Waldemere Street residents receive fair and equal treatment. There was no one else signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. Assistant Engineer Mohammed came to the table at the request the Commission and stated that he has worked with Mr. Bubil and assured him that the remaining problems on Waldemere Street will be addressed; that the best time to conduct the traffic count is in mid-December; that a meeting will be scheduled with the residents in January to discuss the outcome of the traffic study; that the traffic counters will start tomorrow and continue for one week. Mayor Pillot requested that the Administration research to determine if violations are occurring at the Waldemere Street and U.S. 41 traffic signal which was erected to stop Waldemere Street traffic from directly crossing U.S. 41. Mr. Mohammed stated that he has been working with Sergeant Ingram, of the Police Services Bureau, to monitor the traffic signal; that he has requested that Sarasota Memorial Hospital Administration place an article in their newsletter regarding this intersection. Mayor Pillot requested the Administration to contact Sarasota Memorial Hospital President Covert as a follow up. Commissioner Merrill stated that the public safety issue should be addressed and the number of emergency calls using Waldemere Street should be included in the follow-up study; that the "neck down" method may be an option. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports installing the speed humps on Floyd Street with the unqualified commitment to the residents on Waldemere Street to follow-up and look at other options of traffic abatement. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve installation of speed humps and signage on Floyd and Temple Streets. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports speed humps only if they are essentially necessaryi that the speed humps should be installed only if they are deemed essential. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Bubil is justified in his comments; that he will support this petition with the understanding that Waldemere Street will be addressed; and that a long-range solution to traffic abatement is necessary. Commissioner Merrill stated that a workshop is necessary to discuss traffic abatement; that City neighborhoods need to be kept as nice places to live. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE INSTAL- LATION OF BEACH PROTECTION DEVICES ON LOTS 24 AND 25, SAID Book 35 Page 9922 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9923 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. LOTS EXTENDED WESTERLY TO SARASOTA PASS AND EASTERLY TO BAYOU LOUISE, BLOCK 38, REVISED PLAT OF SIESTA BUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 38, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 3750 BAYOU LOUISE LANE, SARASOTA, FLORIDA = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV -2) AND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF BEACH PROTECTION DEVICES ON LOTS 21, 22, AND 23, BLOCK 38, REVISED PLAT OF SIESTA SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 38, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY FLORIDA, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 3730 BAYOU LOUISE LANE, SARASOTA, FLORIDA = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV -3) #1 (2078) through #2 (2400) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Zoning Code $6-23 states that at a public hearing the burden of proof is on the permittee to prove that requested beach protection devices are necessaryi that a report has been received from Mr. Carlos R. Carrero, of the Sarasota County Pollution Control Division which supports the requested rock revetments; however, the report does not state clearly that the rock revetments will not adversely effect the nearby properties. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he contacted the County and received a return message from Mr. J. Kent Kimes, Manager of Pollution Control stating that the County recommends extended shoreline protection; however, these projects may cause increased erosion on unprotected lots. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:05 p.mo Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Inlet Management Plan recommendation states the following in support of revetments: "The County and the City should adopt a management policy to support maintenance, improvements and extensions of shore protection in this region by property owners. This is the most cost-effective method to prevent further erosion and stabilize inlet migration in this region." a There was consensus of the Commission to open Public Hearings 2 and 3 regarding rock revetments together. Mayor Pillot stated for clarification that the County's recommendation was to permit a rock revetment starting at the existing rock revetment on lot 26 and extending along the shoreline in straight alignment to eventually connect with the existing rock revetment on lot 16; that lots 17 through 25 inclusive (9 lots) are unprotected; that lots 17, 18, 19, and 20 are not part of the Commission's action tonight. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she made a site visit to the property; that a map indicating the lots in sequence along Big Sarasota Pass is imperative for the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:12 p.m. Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that lots 26, 25, and 24 are owned by petitioner Don Kirchman; that there is an existing rock revetment covering lot 26; that lot 23, 22, and 21 are owned by petitioner Garey Higdon; that the owner of lot 20 has not applied for a rock revetment. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had observed that the revetments contained rocks, rubble, and cement blocks; and that one property also had a rock revetment and groins. Mr. Hewes stated that work was started on the rock revetment on the McCarver/Moser property (lots 17, 18, 19 and 20) without a permit; that there is debate as to whether the revetment was repaired or rebuilt; that the issue is being brought to the Board of Adjustment; that the owners want to save a portion of the property as a beach area. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her husband represents McCarver/Moser; that she may not be able to vote on the northerly properties (lots 17, 18, 19, and 20) if they come before the Commission because her husband has a financial interest. Larry Lippert, Civil Engineer of HG & LL, Inc. representing the petitioners, came before the Commission and stated that lots 24 and 25 owned by Mr. Kirchman will connect a revetment to an existing revetment and seawall on the northwest corner of Mr. Kirchman's lot 26 and extend northward; that the revetment will start landward of the mean high water; that the toe will be set below elevation zero to anchor it well; that layered rocks between 100 to 3000 pounds will be used; that the slope will be 1 to 1 or 1% to 1; that the height will be no more than five feet above mean low water elevation per the City's request; that a wing is proposed to protect the corner of lot 24. Mr. Lippert also stated that a similar wing is also proposed for lot 21 on Mr. Higdon's property; that the same standard cross section will be continued for lots 23 through 21. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Lippert if both of his clients were willing to accept the recommendations noted in the County's memorandum dated November 16th. Mr. Lippert stated that the recommended 2 to 1 slope may not be practical due to the narrow strip of land. Book 35 Page 9924 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9925 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hewes stated that 1 to 1 is the standard; however, he recommends 1% to 1 to provide extra safety. Mr. Lippert stated they would accept the 15 to 1 stipulation. Mayor Pillot asked if the technical aspects of the points of view of the County, the petitioner's expert, and the City are in concert? Mr. Hewes stated yes. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and the following people came before the Commission: Marion Storm, 3332 Gulfmead Drive, asked if it is customary for the Building Department to give building permits after the fact? Mr. Hewes stated that a triple fee is charged in these instances. Mrs. Storm stated that rocks were brought onto the McCarver/Moser property at night. Mrs. Storm stated that she is speaking on behalf of Mr. Dino Oliva who is a resident at 3701 Bayou Louise Lane and whose statements included the following: that residents were forced to put up seawalls to salvage their property when permits were issued to dredge and fill the mangrove island which is now Bird Key; that property owners were victims of someone else's actions of which they had no knowledge or control; that the petitioner was totally aware of the problems of flooding on his property because he installed a crushed sea shell driveway on the far east side of the property which was washed out by high tide on two occasions; that the owner knew the land was not buildable, but proceeded; that he removed all the vegetation including five mangroves which had previously helped keep down erosion, and then started to build; that this building site needs a lift station for sewage and is not readily accessible for fire protection; that sand was hauled in to replace soil beneath and around the pilings and footings on the west side of the building which was eroded by the monthly high tide; that one month later mother nature removed the sand again, but the builder still continued; that now, a permit is being requested to place rocks on this property to protect the house. Mr. Oliva asks if there has been an environmental impact study conducted to determine the possible effects of such action? How far out and how much of the grass plants will be destroyed? What will be the impact be on the ecology? Ms. Storm continued with Mr. Oliva's statements that when man tries to change mother nature it causes havoc; that the owner took a risk and he lost; that the errors already made should not be compounded by adding another mistake. Mrs. Storm stated that residents of the Bay Island/Siesta Association appeared before Mr. Hewes in an effort to prevent the building of this house; that the former City Manager Ken Thompson told the previous property owners that he would not approve building permits for those lots because they were not buildable. Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane, stated that rocks have been placed on Mr. Higdon's property; and that he had previously come before the Commission along with Mrs. Storm in an effort to prevent the building of Mr. Higdon's house. Mr. Thorpe presented a video of the properties to the Commission taken at low tide today and pointed out various spots of erosion. Mr. Thorpe stated that he does not feel that rock revetments will save the properties; that the Building Department should view a Duke University video regarding rock revetments entitled "Our Beaches are Moving" before this petition is approved. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a lift station is required for the property? Public Works Director Gilbert Leacock responded that the lift station will be private and will not be treated as an internal function. Pat Ball, representing Ball Construction and the owners at 3710 Bayou Louise Lane, stated that Mr. Everett McCarver and Mr. Roland Moser are the owners of lots 16 southerly to lot 20, north of Mr. Higdon's property; that he was contracted to remodel their existing house; that he is currently building a guest house and a pool for them; and that he repaired their existing rock revetment. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Ball read the following statement from the owners McCarver/Moser) into the record: We are the owners of the property located at 3710 Bayou Louise Lane. We are aware of the application that our neighbor, Mr. Garey Higdon, and his neighbor to the south have made to the City for permission to install a rock revetment along the waters of the Pass adjacent to their property to protect their shoreline. Our position regarding these applications is neutral; we neither object to nor support them. However, we do wish to raise a point. The natural shoreline along all of the Pass on the Siesta Key side has undergone man-made changes and has been hardened by seawalls, rocks, groins, and other structures over many years. Property owners have done Book 35 Page 9926 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9927 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. this to protect the shoreline which many old-timers attribute to the alteration of channels and currents caused by other developments. There has been an unfortunate loss of much of the white sandy beaches along these waters. We have a small portion of white sandy beach along our property, and we would like to keep it if at all possible. However, we are aware that it may not be possible to do this; therefore, we may well be required to install a revetment along the rest of our property with, of course, the proper permits and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. In the event of future erosion of our beach, we would appreciate the Commission's consideration and understanding if this occurs. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Chambers at 7:48 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what has been put on the property which was not there before the dispute regarding the rock revetment? Mr. Ball stated that there was an existing stretch of rocks along the property's beach; that there were groins perpendicular to the beach; that state and federal permits were obtained for removal of the mangrove trees, as well as an additional rock revetment horizontally across the property; that a City permit would have been obtained if the additional rock revetment was to be constructed; however, only the existing rock revetment was repaired; that Mr. Hewes feels that the rock revetment was rebuilt, not repaired; and that there is a problem with semantics. Mayor Pillot stated that the appropriate venue for this disparity is to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ball stated that the option is being considered. Commissioner Cardamone asked how many loads of rocks were transported onto the property and if the loads were brought in after dark as previously stated? Mr. Ball stated that there is a parking problem on the property; that the road is very narrow; that the first load was brought in at approximately 7:00 p.m. due to equipment failure; that two or three loads were transported subsequently in tandems of approximately 15 yards per load; that the amount of existing rock was increased by approximately 20%. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had pictures of the rock revetment prior to the addition of the new rocks. Mr. Ball stated that he would be happy to go over the pictures; and that he has very good arguments to substantiate the appearance of more rocks. Ed Freeman, 1637 Oak Street #16, stated that he formerly worked for the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, and the National Marine Fishery Service; that hardening shorelines increases erosion system-wide; that it increases wave energy and destroys any existing beach; that progressive areas such as Costa Rica and South Carolina have forbidden shoreline hardening; that he urges the Commission to take a stand against the "New Jerseyfication" of Sarasota, and stop the shoreline hardening. There was no one else signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lippert returned to the Commission table and stated that there is no building construction on Mr. Kirchman's lot; that Mr. Higdon has started construction on his homesite as shown in the video; that he urges the Commission to focus on what is proposed, which is an extension of a rock revetment along lots 21 through 25; that lots 16 through 20 are not part of either petition. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the revetments subject to the recommendations made by the County including the modification of the 1% to 1 slope. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he is concerned with the petitioner proving that there will not be an adverse impact on adjacent properties; that he did not speak with Mr. Kimes regarding the statement "the project may cause increased erosion on unprotected lots"; that Mr. Lippert should be asked to make a statement on the adverse impact on adjacent properties. Attorney Taylor stated that Zoning Code S 6-23 which addresses seawalls, groins and beach protective devices located on passes reads as follows: shall be erected only by special permit of the City Commission, upon it being proved by the permittee at a public hearing held for such purpose that such beach protection works are necessary to prevent such erosion, are properly designed to prevent erosion of the property on which they are to be erected, and will not adversely affect adjacent and nearby properties. Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission needs to make these three findings in order to support the granting of the permit. Mayor Pillot stated that he is concerned with the demonstration of the third element. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Lippert is hired by the owners to convince the Commission to accept the petition; that his verbal opinion as proof could be biased; that the County was asked for a verdict which was not fully received; that the memorandum is very open-ended. Book 35 Page 9928 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9929 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that he intended to support the protection of the homes which were rightfully or wrongly permitted to be built; however, the Commission is bound by an ordinance; that the County expert's comment that it may adversely affect adjacent properties negates the evidence that there would be no adverse effect. Commissioner Merrill stated that shoreline hardening is not an exact science; that anyone who states shoreline hardening will not cause erosion somewhere will not be able to back it up. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that, despite opposition of her neighborhood for approval of this petition; that the rest of the area has already gained the very privilege they are opposing for these lots; and that clarification of the impact is necessary. Mayor Pillot asked Attorney Taylor if the Commission has the legal right to vote on this? Attorney Taylor stated that the City turned to the County for an expert opinion on a question and it was not directly addressed; that the City Commission may find that there has been qualified testimony by Mr. Ball based on his construction experience; that the Commission is not precluded from a statement from the owner's engineer as expert advice; that the property owner is not required to bring a disinterested third party to provide proof; that petitioners hire experts who render opinions on the petitioner's behalf as part of the adversarial system. Mr. Lippert returned to the Commission table and stated that in most cases adjacency means adjacent and not extended adjacency; that the adjacent property to Mr. Kirchman is his own and is already hardened. Mr. Lippert stated for the record that there would be no negative impacts to the south of Mr. Kirchman's property. Mr. Lippert continued that Mr. Higdon's lots are being addressed jointly with Mr. Kirchman's lots; that from viewing the video and the aerial photo, Mr. Higdon's rocks will abut an old enhanced existing groin. Mr. Lippert stated for the record that the rock revetment would improve the protection on the petitioned lots; however, the existing groin on the non-petitioned lot to the north and the subsequent water action around the groin do more damage to both sides because there is a promontory point which goes out into the mean high water as opposed to the proposed rocks behind the mean high water. Mr. Lippert further stated that Mr. Higdon would have no impact on Mr. Kirchman because his lots have a rock revetment, and Mr. Higdon's rock revetment would have no impact to the north lot because of the existing groin. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Lippert to definitively answer in layman's terms the question of the code regarding adverse effect on adjacent and nearby properties. Mr. Lippert stated that he cannot address the term "nearby" because it is an undefined term; that the proposed revetment will not cause any more impact to the McCarver/Moser property than the existing groin. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Ball to clarify an earlier statement that the McCarver/Moser property owners would construct a rock revetment if necessary, although they prefer not to? Mr. Ball stated yes. Mayor Pillot stated that this mitigates there being an adverse effect. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission has the option to continue the deliberation to another meeting until clarification is received from the County on their position. On motion of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to deny the petition. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to re-agenda this issue at the next Regular Commission meeting and have Administration provide written clarification of the County's position and include maps extending 100 to 200 yards in both directions. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Mr. Lippert stated that the County has provided the additional data being requested in its memorandum dated November 3 1993, dealing specifically with Mr. Kirchman's property; that the memorandum contained the following statement: The construction of a proposed rock revetment on Lot 24 may affect Lot 23 if it is not protected. Any adverse effect on lot 23 may be mitigated by constructing the "return" end of the north side of the proposed revetment in a tapered shape, that is, forming a round curve from about 20 feet south of the north property line and into the property. Mr. Lippert stated that this approach will not work if it is applied to Lot 21 because of the existing groin. Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson. On motion of Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the rock revetment on the Kirchman property. Book 35 Page 9930 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9931 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. On motion of Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the rock revetment on the Higdon property subject to State approval. Mayor Pillot stated that he made the motion in the belief that approval of one is no different from the approval of the other. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City rightfully or wrongfully permitted the house; that Mr. Higdon is in danger of losing his home and should not be used to make an example of whether the City should have permitted the house or not. Attorney Taylor stated that there was no ordinance in the City of Sarasota or law in the state of Florida at the time that the building was permitted that could have been applied to prevent the building of the house. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the entire beach is hardened except for a small area; that the house which the City allowed to be built is being seriously impacted, and the Commission has no choice but to attempt to protect it. Vice Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3743, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE "SIESTA KEY FISH MARKET" PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; SAID DISTRICT TO BE LOCATED AT 221, 226, AND 231 GARDEN LANE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE STRUCTURES WITHIN SAID DISTRICT AS CONTRIBUTING OR NON- CONTRIBUTING: SETTING FORTH CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN SAID DISTRICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-HDD-02, MIKKI HARTIG) = PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH APPLICANT TO FURNISH A SURVEY OF SITE BEFORE SECOND READING (AGENDA ITEM IV -4) #2 (2460) through #3 (1973) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the Planning Staff recommended in favor of the ordinance; that the necessary criteria has been met based on the report submitted by Historic Preservation Consultant Mikki Hartig. Commissioner Cardamone asked what the ramifications to the property are if it is deemed historical? Attorney Taylor stated that the current use of the property in a residential neighborhood makes it non-conforming; that anything that is historically designated is eligible for other uses through the Special Exception process; that the Special Exception process has recently become a more adversarial system making it more difficult to deny the Special Exception. Mikki Hartig, representing petitioners Elvin and Gloria Wilson, came before the Commission and stated that the title of the property is still held in the name of Elvin and Gloria Wilson and is under lease to Guy Asbury with an option to buy; that she requests to exercise the right of rebuttal after citizen's input. Ms. Hartig stated that the public hearing is for the Historic Designation only and not for the issues regarding the use of the property. Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission can request that the input be restricted to the issue of Historic Designation? Attorney Taylor stated yes. Ms. Hartig stated that Ida Blount, who founded the Siesta Fish Market with her husband Lonnie in 1932 and who was aware of this petition and anxiously awaiting the outcome, passed away last Tuesday; that the Siesta Key Fish Market Historic District is located on Garden Lane on Siesta Key and the property fronts on Hanson Bayou; that there are six buildings, the docks, and a pond located within the district. Commissioner Atkins asked if part of the district is located outside of the City limits? Ms. Hartig stated that the house was built in 1980 and is located at 226 Garden Lane; that a portion of that land is located outside of the City limits; however, the house and the docks are entirely in City limits. Ms. Hartig stated that there are four docks located on the Bayou; that one is on lot 16; that one is on the straight end parallel to Garden Lane; that the Blounts have obtained an easement for one dock; and that there is another dock at 246 Garden Lane which is a residential structure with a non-permitted dock built on the back that Walt's Fish Market uses to bring commercial fish into the restaurant. Ms. Hartig displayed slides of the structures, the docks and the property of the Siesta Key Fish Market Historic District on the overhead projector and stated that the significance of the Historic District need not rest solely on its architectural significance but on the group as a whole and as it relates to the historic association. Book 35 Page 9932 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9933 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hartig stated that through the 1930's and 1940's the market was a popular stop for picnics, oyster roasts, family and social gatherings; that during the 40's and 50's the Market served as a wholesaler; that the Blounts remained property owners until 1955; that there was a short-term owner until 1956 when the Wilson's purchased the Market; that the Wilson's retained the same operation as established by the Blounts in 1932. Ms. Hartig stated that the Market is significant because it is the oldest commercial fishing operation still in existence in all of Sarasota County; that it is the oldest commercial enterprising continuous operation on all of Siesta Key; that it is the only fish market on all of Siesta Key and it is the only legal fishing operation in the entire City of Sarasota; and that the docks are the only legal fish landing between Blackburn Point and Cortez Road. Ms. Hartig requested that the Commission designate the Siesta Key Fish Market Historic District for official recognition of its uniqueness as one of the last vestiges of a once vital and important, but now virtually vanished, way of life in a city that owes its heritage and very foundation to its identity as a seaside community. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 9:00 p.m. The following people came before the Commission: Bernard Friedland, P.O. Box 3947, stated that he is a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce National Defense Executive Reserve; that he feels that the Siesta Fish Market is a unique establishment; that it represents a historic designation for the City of Sarasota and the point by which the City can attract further future interest as well as potential general interest; that with sufficient petitioning it could be considered as a National Historic Point; that it is in the best interest of the City of Sarasota to approve this designation. Rosie Turner, 5900 Midnight Pass Road, stated that she chairs the Siesta Key Chamber of Commerce Christmas parade; that Guy Asbury put a boat in the parade; that there was applause all the way from the Siesta Key public beach to the point where the parade disassembled; that citizens are proud to have the fish market on Siesta Key. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Chambers at 9:02 p.m. Boyce Bostian, 7710 Pledger Lane, stated that he is the son of the founders of the Siesta Key Fish Market, Ida Blount and Lonnie Blount; that he is 71 years old and helped build the fish market; that his recently deceased mother supported and was anxiously awaiting approval of the historic designation as a monument to his father. Marion Storm, 3332 Gulfmead Drive, stated that she does not support the fish market because of the non-conforming use of the fish market as a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Walt Cannon, Vice President and representing Bay Island/Siesta Association, stated that he walks by the fish market regularly and is a customer; that on October 29th the Bay Island/Siesta Association had a public meeting on the concerns of the residents regarding the future use of the fish market; that of the 40 voting residents present, 22 voted in favor of, 8 opposed, and 10 abstained from voting regarding the continuation of the fish market operation; that the opinion of the majority of the Board of the Bay Island/Siesta Association is to wait and see what Mr. Asbury's plans for the fish market are before giving it historic designation. Margaret Warson, 2714 Valencia Drive, stated that she is a long-time resident of the area; that the historic designation is appropriate for the Siesta Key Fish Market; that if it is non-conforming now, was it non-conforming when it was established or has it become non- conforming because of development built up around it? Ms. Warson stated that the development occurred around the fish market with full knowledge of its existence; that much of the older heritage and history of Sarasota has been lost; that she pleads for the designation of the Siesta Key Fish Market as a historic part of the City of Sarasota. Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane, stated that he resides approximately 100 yards from the fish market on the corner of Higel Avenue and Garden Lane; and that there are 18 boats tied up in this area. Mr. Thorpe asked how the historic designation affects the docks on the other three properties on Garden Lane and what happens to the boats docked at the other docks? Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, stated that only two boat docks are being historically designated; that other alleged violations would be referred to Code Enforcement. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she did refer the alleged violations of Mr. Wallin's docks to Code Enforcement; that Code Enforcement had stated that the docks had been grandfathered into the non-conforming use list. Mr. Thorpe stated that the residents are not concerned that the historic fish market remains a fish market; however, Mr. Asbury has stated at meetings that he wants to expand his business and possibly Book 35 Page 9934 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9935 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. seek a beer and wine license which is unacceptable; that the residents are concerned with the rest of the boats that come in and out of the area. Mayor Pillot stated that those issues will be addressed when they come to the table; that the issue currently before the Commission is the Siesta Key Fish Market Historic District designation. Elvin Wilson, 221 Garden Lane, stated that he would appreciate this district being considered for historical designation and read the following letter: "The Siesta Key Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to helping preserve the natural wonders and charms of our island. It is with this in mind that our Executive Board of Directors is urging you to consider the historical designation of the Siesta Key Fish Market on Garden Lane. We treasure our immediate landmark because they add to the charm of our distant photographer subject of interest and most important, according to Janet Matthews, well-known local historian, a functioning and useful historical site. We strongly support the continued existence and use of the Siesta Key Fish Market. Sincerely yours, Diane Spencer" Pat Ball, 1859 Lincoln Drive, stated the he is the former Historic Preservation Board Chairman and currently serves as a member of the Board; that he helped develop the provision which allows the designation of districts with experts who deemed this type of site appropriate for designation; that the Historic Preservation Board voted unanimously for the designation of the Siesta Key Fish Market Historic District. Commissioner Merrill stated that continuity of use is one criterion for Federal Historical Designations. Commissioner Merrill asked if Mr. Ball sees this historic designation as a way to preserve the continuity of use or as a way to change the use? Mr. Ball stated that the ability to land fish at this location and retail the fish out is important; that the historic designation will help to preserve the continuity of use because the fish market could be closed down in the future without it. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is concerned with losing the continuity of use; that historical designation may deny the current uses by encouraging the opportunity for so-called higher and better use of the land. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the majority of fish that are landed there are wholesaled out. Mr. Ball stated that the wholesaling of fish is also important; that preserving past culture is a nationwide effort; that the buildings and the uses are addressed as a whole and cannot be separated. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that most structures that come before the Commission are restored; that there has been substantial change to these physical buildings which have not been restored. Mr. Ball stated that Gettysburg is no longer a battle field; that any changes made to the site have to come before the Historic Preservation Board if the site is historically designated; that the Board can influence how the site is repaired. Jack O'Neil, 4581 Higel Avenue, stated that he is representing the Siesta Key Association; that the Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the historical designation of the Siesta Key Fish Market district. Tim Kantor, 1721 Siesta Drive, stated that he is speaking for himself and his sister Elaine Schroder; that he moved to Shell Road in 1937; that there were 500 residents on Siesta Key at that time; that there was a fish camp on Midnight Pass Road; that there was a gas station, and a sundry store and the Beach club in Siesta Village; that the only other business aside from a hotel on Robert's Point Road was the Siesta Key Fish Market; that the Siesta Key Fish Market conformed to the environment; that he feels that the 20,000+ residents, the high rises, and the condominiums are non-conforming; not the fish market. Walt Wallin, representing Walt's Fish Market, stated that he and his brother Tom own Walt's Fish Market; that they purchased the property adjacent to the Siesta Fish Market from the Blounts approximately 11 years ago; that the property was purchased with the intent to unload fish at the dock; that he wants the area to remain a fish area; that if the Siesta Key Fish Market was the only fish dock in Sarasota, the fishermen would not have the right to a free market; that he supports the historic designation of the Siesta Key Fish Market; that he and his brother would like their property to be included in the area. Berta Lefkovich, stated that the historic designation does not provide the property owners the right to a Special Exception; that the owners must apply for a Special Exception, come before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency, whether the Special Exception is approved or disapproved by the Planning Board it must go before the City Commission; that restaurants, bars, lingerie shops, and blue video stores would never be allowed in that residential area; that the fish market was there first, before the houses were built; that residents knew how a fish market operates when they purchased their property. Book 35 Page 9936 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9937 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. There was no one else signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-37-43 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger that the Administration recommends the Ordinance be passed on first reading with the stipulation that the applicant furnish a survey of the site showing the buildings and the docks to be historically designated before the second reading. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that the petitioner, Mr. Guy Asbury, come and speak to the Commission regarding his plans for the property. Ms. Hartig and Mr. Asbury came before the Commission. Ms. Hartig stated that the Wilsons remain the owner of record of the market property; that the Wilsons want the historic designation, and they want the property to remain a fish market; that Mr. Asbury has purchased the 226 Garden Lane property and has an option to purchase the fish market. Guy Asbury, stated that he purchased the property seven months ago because he likes the business and the area; that the property has been tidied up since that time; that he has replaced the roof on the smoker with a tin roof to be consistent with the historical nature of the market; that he intends to keep the fish market as a fish market and make a living; that he intends to increase the volume of sales; that the wholesale fish market is more profitable; that "band the nets" may affect the operation of the fish market; that there have been picnic tables on the site in the past; that he wants to add more picnic tables; that his intent is to keep it "Williamsburg". Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she had attended a meeting where Mr. Asbury had stated that he would like to light up his sign, get a beer and wine license, and run a restaurant in the back. Mr. Asbury stated that he had said that he wanted to have more picnic tables in a square in the back; that beer has been sold there in the past; that he is not trying to do anything except continue the operation as it has been; that he doesn't want to sell beer. City Attorney Taylor asked Mr. Asbury if he is the property owner of lot 16 and if he has any objection to the historical designation. Mr. Asbury stated that he owns lots 16 and 17; that he has no objection to the historical designation; that he is completely for the designation. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance 93-3743 on first reading with the stipulation that before the second reading a survey be presented to the City Administration. Commissioner Merrill stated that he can support the historic designation since the owner clearly stated that he intends to continue the current use. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she may have supported the designation if the Commission had not asked the Administration to develop an ordinance to grandfather all non-conforming uses in for an additional five years; that she received opposition to this designation from neighbors immediately next to the properties; that their concerns were the upkeep of the property and the number of police calls; that 20 years ago the Commission voted to give the fish market 20 more years of life; that residents purchasing property in the last 20 years did not anticipate the fish market existing forever as a commercial operation; that the five year window of opportunity should be used to wait and see what happens. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone requested that the Administration present the Commission with an answer to Mr. Thorpe's concerns regarding the boats and boat dock uses. Vice Mayor Patterson requested the Administration to furnish Commissioner Cardamone with the correspondence she had received regarding this issue. The Commission recessed from 9:52 p.m. until 10:06 p.m. There was consensus of the Commission to proceed with the agenda items as recommended by the City Auditor and Clerk to allow citizens who had signed up to speak. 8. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATION RE: NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (2212) through (2771) Robert A. Levy, Vice President, Sarasota North Action Group (S.N.A.G.) came before the Commission to make a presentation. Mr. Levy stated that this presentation is on behalf of the property owners in the area bordering Fruitville Road, Tenth Street, Cocoanut and Lemon Avenues known as the North Central Avenue Corridor; that many businesses have moved out and property owners have lost their investments as a result of the illegal activity taking place in this area; that the City of Sarasota and the taxpayers are also victims because property values have dropped by more than two-thirds which causes a great loss of revenue to the City; that the drug dealers and prostitutes litter the street with beer bottles, soda cans, food Book 35 Page 9938 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9939 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. wrappings and other trash while selling their merchandise, not to mention the violent attacks on passersby; that absentee landlords neglect their rental properties and let them decay; that law enforcement can do little to discourage the loiterers because of their "Constitutional Rights" although the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens are neglected or cannot be enforced. Mr. Levy stated that the support of the City is necessary for individuals to build residences and for business people to conduct business in this area; that the City could ease or bend the zoning and building codes; that there are over 10 acres of vacant land that the City could purchase that could be rehabilitated; that the Commercial zoned properties could be changed to Commercial/ Residential without restrictions; that a change of zoning to increase the density would make it more attractive for developers; that rehabilitation in this area would create jobs, help alleviate the hardships of the unemployed, and generate additional revenue to the City; that the influx of several hundred taxpayers would help convert this area into a viable and safer neighborhood; that the City Commission adopted a resolution to rehabilitate the downtown area of which this area is a part; that the decayed and blighted structures in the Rehab Zone are the major cause of the plight of the downtown area; that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) monies were collected for the purpose of rehabilitating the downtown area; that the TIF monies have been spent in other areas of the Rehab Zone for the past six or seven years; that the City has purchased only two properties in the North Central Avenue corridor for approximately $150,000 which represents less than 1% of the money spent on other parts of the Rehab Zone; that residents and business people have suffered substantially during the past seven years; that many have lost their entire investments only to be neglected and forgotten by the City; that it is requested that all available TIF money be spent in this area. Mr. Levy stated that he built a project eight years ago and had a problem renting the units; that he erected an eight-foot high wall to cover the ugly sites behind his property and was able to rent his units; that the removal of blighted sites in the area can make a great impact on the area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she attended the Sarasota North Action Group (S.N.A.G.) meeting last Thursday and pledged her support to them; that the entire City can benefit from improving this area; and that that portion of the City is under heavy scrutiny and study by the Vision Plan. 9. CITIZENS' INPUT = APPROVED FREE PARKING AT CITY-OWNED DOWNTOWN AREA PARKING LOTS THROUGH THE HOLIDAY SEASON AND DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO CONTACT RISCORP REGARDING USE OF THE FORMER SOUTHEAST BANK PARKING LOT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (2774) through #4 (0827) The following citizens came before the Commission: Roy Smith, representing S.N.A.G., stated that he is the President of Sarasota North Action Group; that he congratulates Mr. Levy on his presentation; that all the north Sarasota groups are working in one direction; that SNAG's current plans have been reviewed with and supported by CDOVA (Creative Development of Visual Arts) and The Downtown Association. Mr. Smith stated that an article in the October 22, 1989, Sarasota Herald Tribune played up the fact that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) money was funnelled out of the North Central Corridor; that at that time Mayor Roehr promised the citizens that they would be assisted. Mr. Smith read a letter from Robert Windom, M.D. of 1562 South Drive, which included: that he was a resident of Sarasota since 1945 and a property owner at 741 Central Avenue since 1985; that he is concerned with the status of buildings and the general quality of life that exists between Fruitville Road and Tenth Street; that the degree of progress to improve the area has been inversely proportional to the amount of money and effort spent by the City for improvements in other neighboring downtown areas; that one of the five appendages of Five Points Park is severely handicapped; that all five streets at Five Points Park were essentially equal at early formation; that the lack of attention over the years has allowed Central Avenue to deteriorate in relation to its counterparts which compose the City's downtown core; that he is pleased with the increasing interest to improve Central Avenue by concerned citizens who own or live in the immediate neighborhood, yet businesses have suffered because of the adverse neighborhood conditions; that several tenants at his property have left because their customers were fearful to bring their cars to the area with the aura of crime prevailing; that he urges the City leaders to focus attention on Central Avenue with the hope that adequate funding and public attention will be devoted to saving a valued appendage that will be essential in making our downtown area whole and fostering the historic part of the heritage from which each one of us benefits. Jencie Davis, representing S.N.A.G., stated that she has lived at 1420 Fifth Street for the past 51 years; that visitors coming to her home are approached by drug dealers and prostitutes; that she is afraid to leave home at night; that she appreciates the help of the Commission and the presentation given by Mr. Levy; that she hopes the support of the Commission continues. Betsy Kelley, 930 North Tamiami Trail #507, stated that she has lived in Sarasota for 14 years; that she currently resides at Jefferson Center; that friends from her former residence on Beneva Road will not visit her because she lives in such a slum area; that she read in the newspaper that the City was granted TIF money in 1986 because North Sarasota is a slum area; that drug dealers Book 35 Page 9940 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9941 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. approached her on Fifth Street when she was driving to Ms. Davis' house; that the drug dealers said that they were Ms. Davis' friends; that Jack Conway's Community Housing has announced the building of six houses on Sixth Street; that if more residences were in the neighborhood drug dealers and prostitutes wouldn't be; that she requests the Commission to direct future TIF monies to this area. Joseph Penix, representing the Penix Family Trust, that his family operates A-1 Plumbing, Plumbing Supply Outlet, and A-1 Pump; that the businesses had been operated out of a building at 645 Central Avenue for 17 years and then relocated; that the businesses must now move back to that location; that Mr. Levy's property is next to his property; that one of his employees pays $350.00 per month to live in one of the slum homes behind Mr. Levy's wall; that if the slums were leveled and two police officers were assigned 24 hours a day to the area for one year the problem could be solved; that developers would generate new buildings, new businesses, and new income for the City. Greg Penix, representing. Plumbing Supply Outlet, Inc., stated that his business has operated at 645 Central Avenue for approximately 20 years; that his customers prefer not to shop at his business because of the drugs and prostitutes in the area; that he hopes something can be done to clean-up Central Area; that the City of Sarasota should not be represented in this manner. Julia Aires, 2444 Goldenrod Street, stated that she is addressing the proposed Cellular One Tower at Southside Elementary School issue. Mayor Pillot stated that the request for the tower has been withdrawn. Ms. Aries stated that she has a grandson attending Southside Elementary School; that she is aware of the potential hazards of certain types of towers and power lines; that the issue was originally on the Sarasota County School Board's September agenda, but was postponed to a joint workshop between the Sarasota City Commission, the Sarasota County Commission, and the Sarasota County School Board; that the item was not to be placed on the School Board's agenda until after the scheduled hearing at tonight's City Commission meeting; that she tried to obtain additional information regarding the Cellular One Tower; that a representative from Cellular One contacted her; that she told him that she was concerned that the neighborhood and the Southside School parents of the students be advised about the tower; that only the residents within 500 feet of the school were notified and not the students' parents; that Mr. Speilman announced that a meeting would be held on December 1 at Southside School to answer question on the tower; that a fact sheet including well documented studies on similar towers was prepared by concerned individuals and was passed out to the students' parents; that Mr. Speilman became angry and canceled the meeting; that she is concerned that Cellular One is not willing to answer questions and hear another point of view. Ms. Aires presented the Commission with the fact sheet and a related article. Paul Thorpe, representing the Downtown Merchants, stated that the Downtown Association has been working closely with SNAG and CDOVA; that whatever is good for north Sarasota is good for downtown Sarasota and their efforts are supported 100%. Mr. Thorpe stated that the no parking and hourly parking signs have been taken down on Main Street because of the construction of the new sidewalks; that people and construction workers are parking all day long; that parking time limits cannot be enforced at this time; that RISCORP has posted "24-hour 7 day a week Tow Away Zone" signs on the formerly vacant Southeast Bank parking lot; that the downtown merchants are asking for some assistance and relief on the downtown parking situation for the holiday season; that 25% of the retailers business is done in December; that it is requested to have free parking in all the City-owned parking lots in downtown Sarasota until after Christmas. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he can support the request; that the current circumstances make it difficult for the merchants; that the budget projected a surplus at the end of the fiscal year; that the City can absorb the loss in revenue caused by allowing the 2.5 weeks of free parking. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that to make it equitable, it would have to be a Christmas gift to the citizens who purchased permits. Commissioner Atkins stated that he has no sympathy for the employers who park on Main Street; that free parking should be offered to the shoppers; that RISCORP should be approached by the City Manager and the Downtown Association regarding using their parking lot for the next 2-3 weeks. City Manager Sollenberger recommended that the City-owned parking lots downtown be opened all day as free parking for the remainder of the holiday season. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation and to direct Administration to contact RISCORP. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mikki Hartig, 3708 Flores, stated that she had at a previous meeting suggested during Citizens' Input that the City review and increase Book 35 Page 9942 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9943 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. demolition permits by $100.00; that the memorandum from Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, Housing, and Code Enforcement, does not reflect what was suggested because all demolitions appear to be included; that the $100.00 increase was to be only for owner- initiated buildings of 50 years or older; that the additional $100.00 would be used at the Historic Preservation Board's discretion as a hardship fund; that the funds would be used in the event that the homeowner was unable to pay the $400.00 Historic Designation application fee; that the agenda item later in this meeting does not reflect her request. Mayor Pillot stated that it may be inappropriate to address this item out of sequence. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Ms. Hartig should be shown the same courtesy that has been shown to the other citizens wishing to speak by rearranging the agenda items. There was consensus of the Commission to address Agenda Item VIII-2 at this time. 10. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: LOWERING OF THE FEE FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION PETITIONS BY RAISING THE FEE FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS = DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO EXAMINE A PLAN TO OFFER RELIEF TO PROPERTY OWNERS WHO CAN DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND WANT TO PETITION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION (AGENDA ITEM VI) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the suggestion is to offer relief to those property owners who cannot afford the $400.00 application fee; that she disagrees with the Administration's opinion that the $100.00 increase would deter owner-initiated demolition; that some mechanism for relief is necessary to have Historic Designation Petitions received from non-wealthy homeowners. Ms. Hartig stated that not all of the 67 buildings that have been demolished in 1992-93 were owner initiated or over 50 years of age. Mr. Hewes stated that there were eight of the 67 that were city initiated. Mayor Pillot stated that the $400.00 application fee is an estimate; that the $400.00 mark is a starting point with actual out-of-pocket expenses to be considered; that he is not interested in changing the out-of-pocket recovery portion because of budget circumstances. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to direct the Administration to examine a plan to offer relief to property owners who can demonstrate financial hardship and want to petition for historic designation. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. 11. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson read the following letter into the record from Mary Quillin, President of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association regarding the Downtown Vision-Small Area Plan also known as Downtown North: "Dear Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting and would request that my letter be read into the record, responding to the agenda item # V-1. The Downtown North has for years been asking the City to develop a Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown North Residential and Business districts. This past summer we participated in the County 20/20 Foresight, (DNNA Presentation attached for your review). We have been asking for months for a workshop for our area, but have been put off for various reasons by staff. Many have various and differing ideas as to how our area can or should be redeveloped, a workshop can be the best forum for all to express their ideas. We were very interested that Mr. Seibert presented to you and would hope he would be interested in participating in a workshop for the Downtown north. We would also like to be invited members of the R/UDAT team. The workshop should be in cooperation with the city and the facilitators should be parties that are neutral and with open minds. We have been to the City and asked for such a meeting and have been put off. Now we need your help and ask that we be afforded an equal playing field for all to present their ideas, stopping rumors and pitting neighbors against neighbors. We hope you agree with our suggestion of a workshop for the Downtown North and will direct staff to work with us. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Mary Quillin President" 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CASA SANTA MARTA - 801 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #4 (0830) through (0900) Book 35 Page 9944 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9945 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that this item is before the Commission for final approval in accordance with the ordinance requirement. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the site and development plan. Commissioner Atkins stated that he had concerns regarding the play space for St. Martha 's School. Mr. Hewes stated that a small portion of the play area will be lost. Commissioner Cardamone was away from the Commission table when Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 0): : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: LIDO BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT; AND THE NEW PASS AND BIG SARASOTA PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLANS = AUTHORIZED STAFF TO MEET WITH THE TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY STAFF TO RESOLVE THE THREE NEW PASS ISSUES = AUTHORIZED THE LOBBYING EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE GRANT FOR THE LIDO BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT - APPROVED THE TWO INLET MANAGEMENT PLANS DELETING ANY PROPOSED DREDGING FROM BIG SARASOTA PASS (AGENDA ITEM VII-7) #4 (0920) through #5 (1079) City Engineer Dennis Daughters came before the Commission and stated that the Commission had a workshop on November 29th regarding the Lido Beach Nourishment Project and the two Inlet Management Plans; that the presentation was made by Coastal Planning & Engineering (CPE) i and that the response to the questions and concerns raised at the workshop have been addressed in a four-page memo to the Commission as follows: Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 11:08 p.m. 1. What action items are indirectly controlled by the City Commission and what are indirectly affected by Commission action? There are three actions items: (1) approve the draft inlet management plans for New Pass and Big Sarasota Pass; (2) request the Beaches & Shores Grant for 75% funding; and (3) authorize the City funds for Lido Beach Nourishment Project. The other actions are required by the Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with Sarasota County Government involvement. 2. For what time period is our Long Range Beach Management Plan? The City's plan is a 50-year plan; however, the permit from FDEP is for a five-year period but allows multiple nourishment plans. 3. When was New Pass Channel dredged and when will it next be dredged? New Pass Channel was originally dredged in 1926 and most recently in late 1990-early 1991. 4. Why can't we get all our sand from the USACE's dredging of New Pass Channel? USACE will dredge approximately 277,000 cubic yards (yds) which they have been dredging every four years; that the interlocal agreement with the Town of Longboat Key states that the sand will be shared on a 50%-50% basis until the total sand sharing ratio equals the agreed upon 65*-35% ratio; that on this basis the City would get 138,500 yd; therefore, the City would need to augment the USACE's sand with 212,000 yds every four years; that if the sand share agreement was renegotiated to reflect 85%-15% sharing as recommended by the Inlet Management Plan, the City would need to augment about 120,000 yds; that the USACE dredging is not assured; that the City should plan for the full 350,000 yd3 necessary in the Long Range Beach Management Plan and have the potential of using either sand source site (New Pass or Big Sarasota Pass) partially or alternatively; that a firm handle on when the USACE is dredging and the volume that will be placed on Lido Key is necessary if the City wishes to pursue the New Pass shoal instead of the Big Sarasota Pass shoal as the initial augmented sand source; that beçause of the mean grain size of sand, approximately 300,000 yds of the New Pass shoal sand will be necessary in addition to the USACE's sand; that modification of permits would also be necessary. 5. Can we look for an "off-shore" source of sand? The cost for such studies could be approximately $150,000; the State indicated that they would not fund such studies; therefore, it would probably be a local cost. 6. How long will it take for nature to fill the dredged areas at Big Sarasota Pass? Book 35 Page 9946 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. s Book 35 Page 9947 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. It is estimated to take 8 to 12 years if the entire permitted 335,000 yds was dredged; it would take three to four years if the 120,000 yds mentioned was dredged. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Chambers at 11:12 p.m. 7. Where is Sand Dollar Island compared to our sand source in Big Sarasota Pass? Mr. Daughters showed an overhead slide locating the sand source and stated that it is a much wider, but shallower shoal than it was in 1976. 8. How long is Longboat Key's existing groin at New Pass and what is the proposed extension? The groin is currently 435 feet long; Longboat Key's 1993 Groin Improvements Report recommended repairing and extending the groin 125 feet for a total length of 560 feet; that Rick Spadoni (CPE) and Lonnie Ryder (FDEP) both stated that an extension up to 200 feet would not have impacts on Lido Key; however, the Inlet Management alternative of a 900- foot extension may cause erosion of North Lido Beach. Mayor Pillot asked if the renegotiation of an 85%-15% sharing with the Town of Longboat Key is realistic? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that there was a dispute three years ago over the percentage of sand; that at that time, the FDEP gave direction to resolve the local disputes or the project would be jeopardized; that FDEP's direction could also apply to this situation and could be an encouragement to the renegotiations with the Town of Longboat Key. Mr. Daughters stated that the Longboat Key Director of Public Works and their consultant participated in the Staff Inlet Management Plan workshops; that he feels confident that a renegotiated sharing will take place; that the sharing may not reach 85%-15%; however, it will be closer to that ratio and greater than the current 65%-35% ratio. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to continue the Regular City Commission Meeting past 11:30 p.m. and through the completion of the Agenda. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mr. Daughter stated that the recommendations of the Administration are as follows: 1. Approve the two "draft" Inlet Management Plans (New Pass and Big Sarasota Pass) as prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2. Authorize City staff to meet with the Town of Longboat Key staff to work to resolve the three New Pass issues, viz: Channel re-alignment, groin extension and a revised sand sharing ratio. 3. Authorize lobbying efforts to obtain an FDEP Beaches and Shore Grant for Lido Beach Nourishment Project. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the length of the Venice jetties? Mr. Daughters stated that he did not have that information. The following citizens came before the Commission: David Link, 13926 Pebblebrook; Houston, TX, stated that the Venice jetties are approximately 200 yards long; that Sarasota has a geological problem concerning beach erosion, not an engineering problem; that he has a Ph.D. in Geology from Northwestern University in Evanstown, Illinois; that he has 30 years of academic and professional experience dealing with clastic sedimentology which means he likes to play with mud, sand, and the rocks derived from them; that he is an expert in this field; that he teaches classes around the world in clastic sedimentology and on how to map sand bodies in the sub-surface. Dr. Link stated that there is a general transport of sand from north to south along the western Florida coast; that anything done to disturb the transport will disrupt the beach; that the sand on beaches is only in temporary residence at a particular location; that, on occasion, disturbances related to conditions such as storms will occur that cause the sand to go to the north; that the slope under the water, as well as on the beach itself, is increased when the sand transport from north to south is interrupted because more wave energy reaches the beach, which increases erosion; that the problem for Lido Key is New Pass and the problem for Venice is the jetties; that if the Commission views a film entitled "Beach: A River of Sand" which should be available at the University of Florida, the proposed Inlet Management Plan will never be considered. Dr. Link stated that any sand that is dredged should be placed immediately to the south of the dredged site; that any sand dredged from Big Sarasota Pass should be placed on the north end of Siesta Key; that any sand that is dredged from New Pass should be placed on the north end of Lido Beach; that groins and revetments which inhibit the movement of sand will erode Lido Beach and Siesta Key; that the sand which belongs on Venice Beach is on the north side of Book 35 Page 9948 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9949 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. the jetty; that the problem for Longboat Key is not Big Sarasota Pass but is further north, probably Tampa Bay. Dr. Link stated that the sea level is rising and problems will occur; that problems will occur faster if the recommended engineering solutions are applied; that the New Jersey Coast property owners who built their houses on the beach are now completely surrounded by rocks, concrete blocks, and are isolated from the mainland; that a major highway is being threatened in the Florida Panhandle region because of groins and jetties; that Galveston Island in Texas has groins and a huge seawall to protect the island from hurricanes; however, the seawall caused 200-300 feet of beach to erode. Dr. Link stated that the system becomes starved when sand is dredged and not naturally placed to the south; that the offshore current causes erosion because it picks up whatever sand is handy to transport a sufficient load. Dr. Link stated that he understands that Longboat Key just placed sand on its beach; that if this is true, it is the reason the renourishment effort failed; that renourishment) is a system and the entire slope must be considered including the off-shore portion; that an increased slope on the beach alone increases erosion. Dr. Link stated that the Inlet Management Plan is a bad idea; that millions of dollars will be spent on the additional problems which will be created. Mayor Pillot asked how Dr. Link was aware of the City's situation and how he came to address the Commission this evening? Dr. Link stated that his mother lives on Siesta Key; that he read an article in the Pelican Newspaper which struck him as a Midnight Pass waiting to happen all over again; that he and his brother, who is also a geologist, went before the County Commission ten years ago to recommend allowing Midnight Pass to close; that Midnight Pass was not necessary from a hydrological standpoint; that Big Sarasota Pass can be maintained longer because an exchange from tidal waters coming from the Gulf into the Bay and vice versa is necessary; that his visit to the City Commission is serendipitous. Mayor Pillot stated that he is concerned with losing infrastructure on Lido Key; however, there may not be any natural solution to the salvation of Lido Beach. Dr. Link stated that the process can be delayed but the process cannot be eliminated; that nourishment should occur, but not with the approach presented; that since he is not very familiar with Florida geology, he is not sure if his suggestions will apply, but that the geological problems are evident from the aerial photograph; that sand from any Florida inland beach ridges (old raised beaches from previously higher stands of sea level) may be the appropriate sized granules to assist in the City's nourishment program; that the problem in Venice can be solved by utilizing the sand north of the jetty. Mayor Pillot asked Dr. Link what he would do to preserve the infrastructure on Lido Key if he were the City Manager and all five Commissioners? Dr. Link stated that he would take the sand at the extreme south end of Longboat Key in front of the jetty and start renourishing Lido Beach immediately; Mayor Pillot stated that the Town of Longboat Key would not agree to that. Dr. Link stated that the sand in front of the jetty is already out of Longboat Key's beach system; that Longboat Key is cutting off the sand supply to Lido; that the presence of the New Pass channel and Longboat's jetty create the problem for Lido Beach. Commissioner Merrill asked about "borrowing" sand from the Gulf? Dr. Link stated that there is a trivial source out in the Gulf which is coming in; that anything removed from that source increases the slope of the beach of the foreshore; that when the slope of the foreshore is increased, the wave energy does not dissipate onto the shore; that a three-foot wave actually hits bottom at a depth of about 20 feet; that the fair weather wave base is 35 feet, which is many miles off-shore in Sarasota; that winter and summer beaches have different slopes because winter storms create higher wave energy; that the sand goes into storage offshore in the winter and works its way back onto the beaches in the summer. Commissioner Merrill asked Dr. Link's opinion on the engineers' decisions and how can it be that they make such mistakes? Dr. Link stated that the engineering profession fails to understand the geology of what occurs in the natural system; that in his opinion, there is a substantial amount of professional jealously between geologists and engineers. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if taking the Longboat Key sand at the jetty would affect or erode the Longboat Key beach area? Dr. Link stated that by taking the sand in storage at the south end of Longboat Key, the groin is bypassed; that the City will be facilitating in the transfer of the sand to the very north end of Lido Key where the sand wants to be; however, the sand will not stay where it is put because it will continue its natural travel southward; that sand removed from Sand Dollar Island will not affect Lido; however, if the sand is not placed immediately to the south, it will adversely affect Siesta Key Beach; that if the sand is Book 35 Page 9950 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9951 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. removed and placed on the northern tip of Siesta Key, it will create a.natural effect. Dr. Link stated that the City of Santa Barbara, California, installed a marina and a huge curved jetty on the upstream side of the marina to create a breakwater; that substantial beach erosion occurred on the downstream side in Ventura; that wave tank studies and other studies showed that the sand was trying to work its way around the breakwater; that the sand couldn't get around the breakwater and started to fill in the marina; that Santa Barbara initiated a continuous dredging operation to dredge the sand around the breakwater and place it on the beach further to the south so that the sand could continue its natural path; that this solution has greatly abated the problem of the Ventura beaches. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Dr. Link encourages keeping the existing groin on Longboat Key at its current length or extending it? Dr. Link stated that he would remove it. Dr. Link stated that an 858-15% sand sharing should be eliminated; that sand dredged from New Pass should be placed on Lido Key; that the offshore also needs to be contoured so that the steepness of the beach is not the only area increased; that New Pass should continue to be dredged this way; that eventually an equilibrium will be established; however, every time something is taken out of the natural system, the equilibrium is removed and problems are created; that Big Sarasota Pass sand should only be used for Siesta Key Beach; that he is not a lobbyist; that he has presented information to the Commission so that they can make a more informed decision. William Loyd, representing the Siesta Key Association and Save Our Sand Coalition, stated that he is President of the Siesta Key Association and is Co-Chairman of the Save Our Sand Coalition; that based on the Staff responses included in the Agenda packet to the questions raised by the Commission at the November 29, 1993, workshop, the Commission should not approve the Inlet Management Plans for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with their current reliance on dredging the Big Sarasota Pass shoal; that the possibility that an offshore source analysis may cost $150,000 is not sufficient for the Commission to proceed with such an important policy decision without an offshore source analysis; that the engineers stated at the November 29th workshop that they are not sure why the Big Sarasota Pass shoal and the beaches on Siesta Key are accreding; that given the lack of information before the Commission about the feasibility of alternate sand sources for renourishing Lido Beach, it clearly would not be wise to endorse the dredging of Big Sarasota Pass when the result could be an environmental and economic disaster for both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of Siesta Key; that the potential liability for damage to Siesta Key and the cost of future mitigation measures once the Big Sarasota Pass shoal has been dredged can dwarf the cost of analyzing and using alternative sand sources at this point; that the public interest of providing timely assistance for Lido Beach may not be served by a dredging proposal that may become mired with permit challenges and litigation; that it is requested that the Staff and consultants be directed to analyze the use of alternate sand sources in place of the Big Sarasota Pass shoal and come back to the Commission with a detailed study, strategy, and budget before attempting to dredge the Big Sarasota Pass shoal which protects Siesta Key. Jim Olsen, 75 South Tuttle Avenue, presented the Commission with 900 petitions signed by City of Sarasota residents opposing the borrow areas of Big Sarasota Pass and stated that he has another 300 petitions at home. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to authorize the Staff to meet with the Town of Longboat Key staff to work to resolve the three New Pass issues, to authorize the lobbying efforts to obtain the grant for the Lido Beach renourishment project, and to approve the two Inlet Management Plans prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Administration still recommends dredging Big Sarasota Pass after hearing the information presented? Mr. Sollenberger stated that a substantial amount of resources have been invested into the two Inlet Management studies which have been conducted over several years; that a videotape of this meeting could be shown to Coastal Planning & Engineering for their comments. Commissioner Cardamone stated that what Dr. Link has stated makes total sense; that she has lived in Sarasota for 50 years and has watched the beaches come and go, and the shoals and channels change; that she understands the importance of and supports dredging the New Pass channel; however, she has concerns with the recommendations that involve bringing sand back to Lido Beach from Big Sarasota Pass. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that cooperation of the State legislature is required to obtain the Beaches & Shores Grant; that the funding may not be obtained because of the political issue with Siesta Key; that she understands that USACE's policy is to take channel dredged sand and relocate it to the south; that this project can be attacked with a new approach; that the City's plans should not be stopped, but substantially revamped. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone it was moved to authorize the Staff to meet with the Town of Longboat Key staff to resolve the three New Pass issues, to authorize the lobbying efforts to obtain the grant for the Lido Beach renourishment project, and to approve the two Inlet Management Book 35 Page 9952 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9953 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Plans prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. deleting any proposed dredging from the Big Sarasota Pass shoal. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned with supporting the groin issue and urges caution while giving the Administration authorization; however, she will support the motion. Commissioner Cardamone asked Mr. Sollenberger for a response on the motion. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the situation is difficult with the Big Sarasota Pass issues as well as the Longboat Key issue; that the problem with Longboat goes back to the dredging which took place in 1990-91; that the interlocal agreement for sand sharing appears to have been too generous to Longboat Key; that the interlocal agreement allows for reconstruction of the groin if the City's engineers are convinced that there will be no detrimental effect on Lido Beach; that the Town of Longboat Key has asked the County to relocate the pass southerly which has caused a delay on the planned dredging of New Pass; that there has been no constituency speaking out on behalf of Lido Beach; that he cannot refute what has been said about Big Sarasota Pass because he has no expertise in this area; however, several hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on consultants, who do have expertise in the area, to bring recommendations to the Commission; that the Administration's recommendation remains the same; that "half a loaf is better than no loaf." Mr. Sollenberger stated that this motion may make the citizens of Siesta Key happy; however, there will be difficulty with the citizens of Longboat Key. Mayor Pillot stated that it is not his responsibility to make the citizens on Siesta Key happy; that it is his responsibility to cast the most learned and proper vote he can for the City of Sarasota; that if doing so makes people on Siesta Key unhappy and displeased with him, while he regrets it, he accepts and understand that as part of the job. Mayor Pillot continued that he cannot be part of the risk of losing the infrastructure on Lido Keyi that even at 100%, the quantity of sand available at New Pass, which Dr. Link pointed out should come to the City, still will not be enough sand to renourish Lido Beach; that the Commission is in a position whereby there is wrongness to any decision made; that he is convinced that Dr. Link is correct that any sand taken from the Big Sarasota Pass shoal will eventually be lost again; that he finds it difficult to think that the City's need which could be as little as 1% to 2% of the sand taken 1600 feet from the shore (the majority to be taken by Venice) would result in a loss to the Siesta Beach; that he thinks that the City must take the minimum amount necessary to supplement the maximum amount obtained from New Pass to nourish Lido Beach as soon as possible to preserve the infrastructure; that he cannot support the motion that deletes dredging Big Sarasota Pass to which he sees no alternative. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mayor Pillot is correct in stating that there is no right answer; that the City residents will be deprived if the Commission takes a moral stand against dredging Big Sarasota Pass, and then Venice takes 1.7 million cubic yards out of it; therefore, he would like to amend his motion. On motion of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to amend the motion to state that if the Venice dredging proceeds, then the City will proceed with dredging Big Sarasota Pass. Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson and seconded the motion. Mayor Pillot stated that he seconded the motion because if Venice is going to destroy the pass by taking 15 times as much sand as the City proposes to take, then the Commission has an obligation to the City citizens to take the proposed portion. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has struggled to come up with a justifiable compromise which has been virtually impossible since Dr. Link presented his pertinent information; that she is opposed to fooling with mother nature and Big Sarasota Pass which has never been touched as reflected in the workshop minutes. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the blocked area shown on the aerial photograph which is so close to Sand Dollar Island and more out toward the mouth of the channel was looked at rather than the closest sand which has shoaled up off of the southwesterly corner of Lido? Mr. Daughters stated that the engineers stated that using this area could cause erosion on south Lido Beach. Vice Mayor Patterson asked why the metal in the New Pass shoal is a problem? Mr. Daughters stated that magnetometer readings were registered in the smaller portion of New Pass; that the FDEP states that dredging cannot occur within 250 feet of such readings. Vice Mayor Patterson asked about taking sand from the area to the east on New Pass which is more thickly shoaled? Mr. Daughters stated that taking this sand may induce a greater rate of erosion on the southern tip of Longboat Key; that the intent is to stay far enough away from the shoreline so that a steep slope is not created. Vice Mayor Patterson asked when it will be known if the Venice dredging will take place at Big Sarasota Pass? Mr. Sollenberger and Mr. Daughters stated that they did not have that information. Dr. Link came back to the Commission table and stated that a temporary solution may be to obtain sand from the north end Lido Beach area where there is a lack of structures; that some erosion will be experienced by creating an increased slope; however, the infrastructure will then be protected; that the intention would be Book 35 Page 9954 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9955 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. to have the removed sand replaced with sand coming from further upstream; that by facilitating sand for the immediately endangered section of Lido in this manner, the City is only giving mother nature a little help. Mayor Pillot stated that there are some environmental concerns regarding that area because it is a public beach; that the area is pristine; and that turtle nests and other natural conditions could be disturbed. Commissioner Merrill asked where the dire need of sand is on Lido Beach? Mr. Sollenberger stated in front of the Holiday Inn; that in a recent storm the sea oats and the snow fence were destroyed; that the problem is incipient. Vice Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the Amendment. Amendment failed (5 to 0): Atkins, noi Cardamone, noi Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, no. Vice Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the Main Motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, noo Vice Mayor Patterson returned the gavel to Mayor Pillot. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins it was moved to adjourn. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, no. 14. NEW BUSINESS = DISCUSSION RE: MAIN STREET/V.S.41 = AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO HAVE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DAVID JOHNSTON DEVELOP A PLAN WHICH WOULD SHOW LEFT-TURN MEDIANS ON U.8. 41 AT MAIN STREET sO THE EFFECT ON PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT CAN BE EVALUATED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #5 (1082) through (1498) Commissioner Cardamone stated that she feels the Commission needs to have a full understanding of the exact design of the Main Street/Gulf Stream Avenue/U.S. 41 intersection because there seems to be some confusion as to the traffic flow, turn lanes or lack of turn lanes, signalization, and the intent of use of this intersection. Dennis Daughters, City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the project the City Commission approved does not include left-turn pockets from U.S. 41 onto Main Street or onto the Main Street Extension and Marina Jack. Mayor Pillot stated that he feels left-turn pockets are needed at both locations and he supports left-turn lanes in both directions. Commissioner Merrill stated that he does not support left-turn lanes in either direction because Ringling Boulevard can be used to get to Marina Jack from the south and from the north by using Gulf Stream Avenue; that when the project was sold to the public, it was to have less asphalt on the bayfront; that a compromise was reached on the north esplanade to leave it as a large parking lot; that he feels everyone will be disappointed by losing the landscaping (in the medians) and having a long stretch of asphalt. Mr. Daughters stated that it appears that if left-turn pockets are installed on U.S. 41, existing oak trees would have to be removed and could not be replaced because the median would not be wide enough. Commissioner Cardamone asked how wide the median had to be to put a shrub in it? Mr. Daughters stated the width of the median would depend upon the diameter of the trees; that the City is discussing this issue with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regarding North Tamiami Trail; that the current regulation is that if a tree is 4 inches in diameter or larger, the tree must be 4 feet away from a curb line; therefore, a median would have to be at least 8 feet wide; that the median would not be 8 feet wide if a left-turn pocket is included. Commissioner Cardamone asked how wide the medians are now, without a left-turn pocket? Mr. Daughters stated that the medians are now between 12 to 14 feet wide. Vice Mayor Patterson asked exactly what oak trees would be removed (to accommodate left-turn pockets)? Mr. Daughters stated that his opinion is that the majority of the oak trees from Main Street to Gulf Stream Avenue and from Main Street to Ringling Boulevard would have to be removed. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to add a southbound left-turn lane (on U.S. 41) to go into downtown. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she did not believe there would be a huge demand for traffic wanting to turn onto Main Street. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would prefer for the Commission to authorize the Administration to have landscape architect David Johnston develop a plan which would show left-turn medians so that the Commission can see what the impacts will be in order to make a good, solid decision; that the effect of left-turn lanes on pedestrian movement should be evaluated; that one of the major reasons for the existing plan is to create a pedestrian linkage. Book 35 Page 9956 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9957 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like to see how Gulf Stream Avenue plays into the intersection at U.S. 41 because she wants to see how someone coming from St. Armands Key will get onto Main Street. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that someone coming from St. Armands Key would use Gulf Stream Avenue to get to Main Street as is done now. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to approve a southbound left-turn lane (on U.S. 41 at Main Street). Motion failed (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, no. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to follow the recommendation of the city Manager (to authorize the Administration to have landscape architect David Johnston develop a plan which would show left-turn medians so the effect of left-turn lanes on pedestrian movement can be evaluated in order for the Commission to look at the impacts). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adjourn the meeting after completing the items pertaining to the water tank. City Attorney Taylor stated that he assumed the intent of the motion is that this meeting would be continued because, if not, the City would have a problem with the reuse contract at Oak Ford Golf Club, which is in RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation) receivership; that approval of the buyout of RTC must be approved and is in the City's best interest. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to adjourn the meeting after discussing the water tower issue. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. NEW BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE OAK FORD GOLF CLUB TO INDIAN CREEK VENTURES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. AS REQUIRED BY THE RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND EL JOBEAN PHILHARMONIC GROUP, INC. APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #5 (1539) through (1549) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve (the transfer of ownership of the Oak Ford Golf Club to Indian Creek Ventures as required by the contract of December 23, 1991, subject to the new owner providing an acknowledgement and acceptance of the prior users obligations, warranties, and representations as required by the Water Supply Contract). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: REJECTION OF BIDS (BID #93-106) FOR DECORATIVE PAINTING OF ARTWORK ONTO SOUTH ELEVATED WATER TANK (TO BE CONSTRUCTED) = THIRD-PARTY BIDS REJECTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #5 (1560) through (1649) Gilbert Leacock, Director of Public Works, and Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission. Mr. Leacock stated that it is recommended that the City reject all bids for the decorative artwork. Mr. Gerkin stated that in May the Commission directed the Administration to seek bids for the construction of the south elevated water storage tank with pricing options for the decorative artwork; that the project was advertised for bids with the decorative painting listed as an alternate proposal; that the decorative painting was also advertized as a separate project in order to allow painting contractors the opportunity to bid the job directly without having to bid to the general contractor. Mr. Gerkin stated that only two bids were received from painting contractors and the low bid was submitted by Butera Waterproofing in the amount of $23,584; however, the bidder did not provide a bid bond nor attend the pre-bid conference or visit the work site as required; that upon reviewing the project requirements, Butera Waterproofing requested withdrawing their bid on the basis they did not have the proper equipment to complete the work as specified. Mr. Gerkin stated that the second bid in the amount of $118,500 was higher than the alternate proposals submitted by the tank construction contractor for decorative artwork in the amount of $48,500; therefore, it is recommended that both bids from the third-party painting contractors be rejected. Mr. Gerkin continued that if the Commission desires to proceed with the artwork, the artwork should be included with the construction contract at an additional cost of $48,599. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to reject the third-party bids as described. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO C.B.I. NO-CON, INC.. IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,700.00 (BID #93-100), FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK = Book 35 Page 9958 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9959 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,700 TO C.B.I. NA-CON, INC. (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #5 (1650) through (1795) Gilbert Leacock, Director of Public Works, and Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission. Mr. Leacock stated that the Commission needed to consider the award of the contract for the construction of the water tower. Mr. Gerkin stated that it is recommended that construction of a 300,000 gallon elevated water storage tank be awarded to the low bidder, C.B.I. Na-Con, Inc., in the amount of $766,700; that the contractor has agreed to comply with the Minority Business Utilization Plan with completion of the work in approximately 300 days. Mr. Gerkin continued that if the Commission elects to proceed with the decorative artwork, funding in the amount $48,500 would be arranged by deferring the Capital Improvement Projects listed in the Water Utilities budget, which would bring the contract to $815,200. Mayor Pillot asked whether the $766,700 would be paid by Sarasota Memorial Hospital? Mr. Gerkin stated yeso On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve construction of the water tank with the funding for the artwork to come from either the General Fund or the Utilities Department. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City has spent millions of dollars to make the bayfront more attractive; that he feels $48,000 to make a structure that will stand 100 feet on the horizon more attractive is well worth it. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she strongly objects to spending this amount of money ($48,500) to decorate a water tower in this period of budget restraints and constraints. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees completely with Commissioner Merrill; that the Commission knew the artwork would not be free; that this Commission has voted to spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on totally decorative measures and this water tower will be more prominent to the neighborhood in which it will be located as well as to the people driving by the water tower, and more representative of the taste of the City in its prominence than a lot of landscaping the City has done. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to delete the decorative artwork. Vice Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the amendment to the motion to delete the decorative artwork from the motion to award the contract as recommended by the Administration. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. Vice Mayor Patterson passed the gavel back to Mayor Pillot. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to award the construction contract in the amount of $766,700 to C.B.I. Na-Con, Inc. Motion carried unanimously: (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yeso 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE COVENANTS DOCUMENT, CONCERNING SOUTH ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #5 (1796) through (1839) Gilbert Leacock, Director of Public Works, and Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission. Mr. Leacock stated that this item arises out of the responsibility of Sarasota Memorial Hospital to provide the City with a clear title to the property on which the water tower will be located; that it was determined that Dillard's Department Store has a number of easements running generally through the Southgate Plaza property, including across the land the City is going to be provided; that Dillard's has agreed to relinquish the easements if the city will execute the Covenants Agreement specifying the four following items: : A The City agrees to build a water tower on the property. A The City agrees to maintain the property and water tower in good order. > The City agrees to landscape and properly secure the property and water tower. The Covenants Agreement will run with the land for 25 years. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve said Covenants Agreement. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he supports approval of said Covenants Agreement. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to approve the Covenants Agreement. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT Book 35 Page 9960 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. se i Book 35 Page 9961 12/06/93 6:00 P.M. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER TOWER IN THE SOUTHGATE PLAZA PARKING LOT = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #5 (1840) through (1945) Gilbert Leacock, Director of Public Works, and Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission. Mr. Leacock stated that the final item dealing with the water tower is a Parking Easement whereby the City grants back to Southgate Plaza the ability to park on a portion of the land not occupied by construction; that there are a number of provisions in the Parking Easement as follows: The construction window is specified to begin no later than January 15, 1994 and conclude March 1, 1995; thereafter, the easement for parking purposes will be granted. Southgate Plaza may improve the parcel for open-air, uncovered parking but may not provide anything that is of a permanent nature, such as roofing or decking; that if ad valorem taxes are charged on any improvements made on this portion of the property (open-air parking), Southgate Plaza will bear the payment of the taxes. The City reserves vehicular access of at least 24 feet in width in order to have a wide enough alley to get vehicles and equipment into the location without being encumbered by any temporary or permanent parking layout Southgate Plaza might present. Mr. Leacock stated that there are a number of exclusive privileges (in the Parking Easement Agreement) which deal with routine and extraordinary maintenance and specify certain requirements of notice the City is required to give to Southgate Plaza so as not to interfere with the Christmas and New Year's season; that in the use of the land, if the City damages the land for any reason, the City will be required to restore the land to its original condition before the City took over the land; that the City is held harmless for any accidents or injuries regarding the use of the parcel that will be granted for parking to Southgate Plaza. Mayor Pillot asked whether the Administration agreed with the recommendation of the Parking Easement Agreement? City Manager Sollenberger answered yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Parking Easement Agreement. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether the Commission wanted to set a time to continue this meeting before the meeting on December 20? It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the remainder of the agenda items to the Commission meeting on December 20, 1993. 18. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #5 (1971) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of December 6, 1993 adjourned at 1:00 a.m. 06 - GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: 3illy E Ralenaon BILLY -ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 35 Page 9962 12/06/93 - 6:00 P.M.