MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and Michael A. Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: City Attorney Richard J. Taylor PRESIDING: Vice Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: : EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST 2001, DIANE J. VANDERWEST, SENIOR SECRETARY, POLICE DEPARTMENT # (0000) through (0205) Vice Mayor Mason requested that Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police, and Alan Woodle, Captain, Planning and Inspections Unit, Professional Standards Division, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), join him before the Commission to make the presentation, and Diane Vanderwest, Senior Secretary, Planning and Inspections Unit, Professional Standards Division, Sarasota Police Department, (SPD), Employee of the Month for August 2001, come forward. Chief Jolly stated that Ms. Vanderwest has been with the SPD for 15 years; that Ms. Vanderwest has served in a variety of capacities in the SPD, was recently transferred into her current and most challenging position, and immediately began assisting with the creation of the Accreditation Status Board and assembling the files required for accreditation; that Ms. Vanderwest coordinated with the different SPD Sections to upgrade the General Orders and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for consistency with the accreditation standards; that Ms. Vanderwest completes these tasks without complaint, has taken on additional tasks not assigned, was personally responsible for distributing over 30 new General Orders and SOPS which required significant effort and time, and revised the 15-page index for the written directive BOOK 50 Page 21758a 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21758b 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK manual for distribution to all SPD Staff members; that Ms. Vanderwest also provides clerical support for the recruiting and background investigator and to the Internal Affairs Unit and the Division Commander as necessary, prepares the monthly staffing report, schedules applicant review oral boards, recently organized the notebooks required for the applicant review oral boards, types minutes for various meetings, handles mail distribution, and maintains various equipment and supplies; that Ms. Vanderwest performs her assigned tasks with a willing attitude, is highly respected, cooperates with all SPD Staff members, serves with excellence and pride, and received the 2000 SPD Civilian Employee of the Year Award for her outstanding efforts. Captain Woodle stated that Ms. Vanderwest is an example of one of the many hardworking employees in the SPD; that congratulations are extended. Ms. Vanderwest stated that gratitude is extended to Chief Jolly, Captain Woodle, and Betty Jackson, Sergeant, Planning and Inspections Unit, Professional Standards Division, SPD; that the recognition is an honor. Vice Mayor Mason presented Ms. Vanderwest with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the August 2001 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 2. PRESENTATION RE: ADDY AWARD, "HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SAFE PLACES FOR PEOPLE" #1(0205) through (0350) Vice Mayor Mason requested that Tomara Kafka, Communications Specialist, Department of Neighborhoods join her before the Commission and stated that the City recently received a Local Silver Addy Award (Addy Award) for the "Healthy Neighborhoods are Safe Places for People" illustration and referral list which provides City residents with the telephone numbers of City Staff to call for common problems or to report certain required repairs; that the illustration and referral list was the center spread for the first edition of the City's newsletter which was mailed to more than 46,000 residents and businesses in the City during the fall of 2000; that the Addy Award recognizes excellence in advertising and the highest creative standards in the industry. BOOK 50 Page 21758c 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21759 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Ms. Kafka stated that a Citywide newsletter was completed in the fall of 2000; that the newsletter was mailed to residents of the City; that the newsletter included a "Healthy Neighborhoods are Safe Places for People" illustration and referral list of important City telephone numbers; that by providing the public with a useful tool, two of the City's goals were accomplished with the illustration and referral list as follows: Safe Place for People and Healthy Neighborhoods Ms. Kafka continued that the newsletter was well received by the public and Staff; that the goal is to refine and update the newsletter annually; that the Department of Building, Zone and Code Enforcement would like to do a similar newsletter; that gratitude is extended to John Barron, Advertising and Design Services, and Alan McAnulty, Illustrator, Marketing by Design, who assisted in the creation of the newsletter; that assisting the City in earning the Addy Award was a pleasure. Vice Mayor Mason requested that the members of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) present in the Chambers come before the Commission for recognition: Reverend Donald Roberts, Chair, Richard Ulrich, Vice Chair, and Members Danny Bilyeu, George Dietz, Keith Fitzgerald, Bruce Franklin, Mary Anne Servian, Pamela Truitt, and Lonnie Ward, Jr. Vice Mayor Mason stated gratitude is extended to the CRC members for the work in reviewing the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) ; that the goals established for the CRC by the Commission were a challenge; that the time and effort extended by the CRC to meet the goals is appreciated. 3. SELECTION RE: MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (IF NECESSARY) SELECTED CAROLYN MASON AS MAYOR AND MARY QUILLIN AS VICE MAYOR #1 (0350) through (0415) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the resignation of former Mayor Albert Hogle necessitates the selection of a new Mayor and requested nominations for selection as Mayor. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to nominate Carolyn Mason as Mayor of the City of Sarasota. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson announced the appointment of Carolyn Mason to the position of Mayor of the City of Sarasota. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to nominate Mary Quillin as Vice Mayor of the City of Sarasota. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Mason announced the appointment of Mary Quillin to the position of Vice Mayor of the City of Sarasota. The Commission recessed at 6:15 p.m. and reconvened at 6:25 p.m. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0415) through (0480) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add under Consent Agenda No.1, Item No. III A-5, Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of Sarasota the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Contract Agreement and Amendment No. 1, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger B. Remove under Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. III B-12, authorizing a salary increase for the City Manager effective October 3, 2001, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger C. Remove under Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings, Item No. IV A-3, Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4329, amending Chapter 24, Article II, Division 2, Section 24-43(c) of the Code of Sarasota, due to collective bargaining, per the request of Stephen E. Marsh, Assistant County Attorney, Sarasota County. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Quillin, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. BOOK 50 Page 21760 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21761 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. 5. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF AUGUST 18 AND AUGUST 27, 2001, AND THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2001 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1, 2, AND 3) #1 (0480) through (0510) Vice Mayor Mason asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Vice Mayor Mason stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the August 18 and August 27, 2001, Special Commission meetings and the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 6. BOARD ACTIONS RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY' S REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 2001 RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-1) # (0510) through (0635) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, came before the Commission and presented the following items from the August 1, 2001, Regular meeting of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) : A. Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22 Salvation Army Complex Ms. Robinson stated that the new Salvation Army will be located between Ninth and Tenth Streets and between Lemon and Central Avenues; that Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 are to vacate two alleys for which the City has easements within the approximately 3.73-acre site bounded on the north by Tenth Street, on the east by Lemon Avenue; on the south by Ninth Street, and on the west by Central Avenue; that at its August 1, 2001, Regular meeting, the PBLP voted unanimously to find the street vacations consistent with the standards set forth for review in Section IV-1306, Zoning Code (1998), and in the public interest and recommended Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of a utility easement in favor of Florida Power & Light (FPL) to maintain and repair existing gas facilities. 2. Execution of a utility easement in favor of FPL, Comcast Cablevision of West Florida, Inc., TECO/Peoples Gas, and Verizon to maintain and repair existing facilities. Ms. Robinson continued that Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 concerns an amendment to a previously approved major conditional use for the Salvation Army facility located at 1400 Tenth Street; that the proposed amendment provides construction shall be in conformity with Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22; that at its August 1, 2001, Regular meeting, the PBLP voted unanimously to find Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (1998), and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommended Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22 and [Major] Conditional Use Application NO. 01-CU-14 is contingent upon final approval of Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 by the City Commission. 2. The site plan and all related development and construction plans shall be in compliance with those labeled Salvation Army, received by the Planning Department on 23 July 2001. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall grant a six-foot-wide easement in favor of the City of Sarasota for public access along the north side of Ninth Street between Central and Lemon Avenues. Mayor Mason asked if action should be taken at this time? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 will be considered under New Business Item No. VII-2; that Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 will be considered as a public hearing under Agenda Item No. IV-A-4; that the Commission can take action at that time. B. Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-11 Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-13 Drive-through facility for a Pizza Hut Restaurant located in the Town and Country Shopping Center Ms. Robinson stated that Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-11 concerns a request to operate a drive-througn facility in association with a Pizza Hut Restaurant on North BOOK 50 Page 21762 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21763 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Beneva Road in the Town and Country Shopping Center; that the construction shall proceed in conformity with Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-13; that at its August 1, 2001, Regular meeting, the PBLP voted unanimously to find Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-11 and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-13 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Tree Protection Ordinance, and the Standards for Review set forth in Sections IV-906 and IV-506, Zoning Code (1998), and recommended Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Pizza Hut project shall be constructed in conformity with Site Plan Application No.] 01-SP-13 date stamped July 21, 2001. (a) The Applicant shall install appropriate signage, roadway markings, etc., as determined by the City Engineer to restrict right turns for vehicles exiting the drive- through facility and to encourage Project traffic exiting to northbound Beneva Road or eastbound Circus Boulevard to use the signalized intersection of Beneva Road and Circus Boulevard. (b) .the Applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management or Transportation Systems Management Plan for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Project (c) Applicant shall install bicycle racks within 100 feet of the Building. (d) Applicant shall participate to the extent of its prorata share with SCAT on the installation of the new or the improvement to existing bus shelters in the vicinity of the Project. (e) Applicant shall contact the Sarasota County Transportation Department in writing prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project, with a copy to the City Engineer requesting that the four-laning of Lockwood Ridge Road be expedited. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall provide the Planning and Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Departments with cross access easements to the Town and County Shopping Center. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Major Conditional Use Application 01-CU-11 and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-13 will be considered for Commission action under Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 2. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to receive the report of the August 1, 2001, Regular meeting of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE! S REGULAR MEETINGS OF MAY 8, 2001, AND AUGUST 23, 2001 AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ARTIST RAY KING FOR AN ARTWORK FOR THE CITY HALL ATRIUM NOT TO EXCEED $35,000, WITH FUNDING OF $20,000 FROM THE PUBLIC ART FUND AND $15,000 FROM THE MILLENNIUM ACCOUNT FUND; REFERRED REFLECTING POOL TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER STUDY OF COST; APPROVED LEASE AGREEMENT BEWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARASOTA SEASON OF SCULPTURE; RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0635) through (1125) Pamela Sumner, Chair, Public Art Committee, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Ms. Sumner presented the following items from the May 8 and August 23, 2001, Regular meetings of the Public Art Committee: A. "Luma Cloud" by Ray King City Hall Atrium Art Ms. Sumner stated that after extensive discussion at the June 18, 2001, Public Art Committee Meeting, the artist Ray King agreed to submit a revised proposal for the City Hall Atrium Art; that the proposed artwork is entitled "Luma Cloud"; that the sculpture is composed of stainless steel and glass; that the cost for the proposal for public art for the City Hall Atrium is $35,000, which would be funded by $20,000 from the Public Art Fund and $15,000 from the Millennium Account Fund; that installation would commence in February 2002; that the artist would fabricate the sculpture in the studio and require a week at City Hall for installation. Ms. Sumner referred to computer-generated slides of the sculpture and stated that the inspiration of the art is the Sarasota seascape of clouds and water; that the proposed artwork is a cloud-like form which has soft edges and will hover over the water of a reflecting pool in the City Hall Atrium; that the BOOK 50 Page 21764 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21765 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. artwork is approximately 7.5 feet by 7.5 feet by 15.5 feet long and consists of 201 stainless steel cables and 1,800 pieces of glass suspended by a webbed grid structure from the ceiling; that the see-through glass curtain artwork will be located in the City Hall Atrium; that the precision placement of the cables and glass provides a variety of interesting geometric patterns which shift and change as the viewer moves around the structure; that the glass pieces are 1.5-inch squares with each measuring 0.5-inch thick; that the material is dichromatic safety glass, threaded onto cables, and fixed in place; that the glass refracts light through a color shift from turquoise to a deeper blue with gold reflections; that the artwork will be suspended above a black reflecting pool to increase the visual drama and add density and movement to the artwork. Ms. Sumner stated that at its August 23, 2001, Regular meeting, the Public Art Committee voted unanimously to approve the August 22, 2001, proposal by artist Ray King for public art for the City Hall Atrium with a total cost of $35,000, which would be funded by $20,000 from the Public Art Fund and $15,000 from the Millennium Account Fund. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to accept the proposal of artist Ray King for the artwork for the City Hall Atrium. City Manager Sollenberger asked if the intent of the motion is for the City to enter into a contract with the artist? Vice Mayor Quillin, as the maker of the motion, with the approval of Commissioner. Palmer as the seconder, restated the motion as to authorize the Administration to execute a contract for the fabrication and installation of artwork as proposed by artist Ray King for the City Hall Atrium with payment not to exceed $35,000, with funding of $20,000 from the Public Art Fund and $15,000 from the Millennium Account Fund. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. B. City Hall Reflecting Pool Ms. Sumner stated that at the June 18, 2001, meeting, the Public Art Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Commission a shallow reflecting pool be designed and constructed in the City Hall Atrium to complement the proposed artwork; that the shallow pool is not included in the Public Art Committee budget but is recommended. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the budget for the reflecting pool at $35,250 has increased by approximately 50 percent since the last discussion, which is disturbing; that the recommendation is to refer the issue of the reflecting pool back to the Administration; that the proposal for the reflecting pool should be value engineered; that for example, the lighting fixtures could be constructed more economically; that Jon F. Swift, Inc., which did the City Hall remodeling, could review the proposal and provide a recommendation for presentation to the Commission; that instead of an estimate, a firm cost should be established by the contractor and brought before the Commission; that value engineering could bring the cost of. the reflecting pool back to the cost established earlier. Commissioner Quillin stated that the price of installing a full size pool in a home is approximately $17,000; that the cost for the City Hall Atrium reflecting pool is astonishing; that a recommendation and estimate from City businesses should be obtained; that lighting costs can be reduced; that referral back to Staff is supported. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to refer the reflecting pool cost estimate back to Administration for further study of a specific cost and possible funding sources and the development of a firm proposal for presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Martin stated that the reflecting pool is an integral part of the artwork; that installation of the artwork will not occur until February 2002; that installation of the reflecting pool could be scheduled at the same time. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. BOOK 50 Page 21766 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21767 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. C. Sarasota Season of Sculpture Lease Agreement Ms. Sumner stated that at its May 8, 2001, Regular meeting, the Public Art Committee met with representatives of the Sarasota Season of Sculpture; that the proposed new lease agreement for the upcoming Season of Sculpture exhibition scheduled for October 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003, is essentially the same contract as the previous contract for November 2000 through March 2001; that the Season of Sculpture exhibition will run from November 1, 2002, to April 30, 2003; that the exhibition may be expanded up to a total number of 26 pieces of sculpture; that the physical area and layout are the same as included with the previous lease agreement with the possibility of expansion into the peninsula portion of Bayfront Park; that the Public Art Committee recommends approving the lease agreement with the Sarasota Season of Sculpture. Mr. Burg stated that new standards for use were developed for Bayfront Park, particularly the peninsula area which has new landscaping, subsequent to the prior lease agreement and distributed a document entitled Insert to Lease Agreement between Sarasota Season of Sculpture, Inc., and the City with additional language proposed for the lease agreement as follows: Installation of sculptures in the "Peninsula Area" of the leasehold will be restricted to those that can be installed from the perimeter sidewalk without using cranes, heavy equipment, or the like. Mr. Burg stated that the additional language is to specify the standards for the peninsula area of Bayfront Park; that the Director of Public Works and representatives of the Sarasota Season of Sculpture are in agreement with the proposed language. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving the lease agreement as amended between the City and the Sarasota Season of Sculpture. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve the lease agreement as amended between the City ànd the Sarasota Season of Sculpture, Inc. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Sarasota Sister Cities Association (SSCA) will be conducting cultural exchanges during the period of the lease agreement and may be interested in the Sarasota Season of Sculpture exhibition; that information should be provided to SSCA. Ms. Sumner stated that some members of the Public Art Committee participated in the original design of the John Ringling Causeway replacement bridge; that authorization was received from the Public Art Committee to send a letter of concern regarding the design of the bridge to the Commission; that the Public Art Committee would like the letter dated August 27, 2001, which should have been received by the Commission included in the record. Commissioner Palmer stated that a tentative meeting has been scheduled for 2 p.m., September 18, 2001, with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and PCL Civil Contractors, Inc. (PCL), to discuss the design of the John Ringling Causeway replacement bridge; that the meeting has not been yet been confirmed by the Commission; that many are concerned about the John Ringling Causeway replacement bridge. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends receiving the reports of the May 8 and August 23, 2001, Regular meetings of the Public Art Committee. On motion of Commissloner Quillin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to receive the reports of the May 8 and August 23, 2001, Regular meetings of the Public Art Committee. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. 8. BOARD ACTIONS RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 10, 2001 SET HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPLICATION NO. 01-HD-07 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-3) #1 (1125) through (1211) Thorning Little, Chair of the Historic Preservation Board, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Little presented the following item from the July 10, 2001 Regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Board: BOOK 50 Page 21768 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21769 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. A. Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-07 547 North Shore Drive The Brody-Murrell House Mr. Little stated that at its July 10, 2001, Regular meeting, the Historic Preservation Board held a public hearing to consider Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-07 and unanimously recommends historic designation of the structure located at 547 North Shore Drive, known as the Brody-Murrell House, which meets the following criteria listed under Section IV-806(A) of the Zoning Code (1998): 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of the Mediterranean Revival Style of Architecture as demonstrated by its asymmetrical plan, stucco exterior, and barrel clay tile roof, and popularized during the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s; and 5. Represents the work of the architectural firm of Clas, Sheperd and Clas, many of whose works have been historically designated at the local and national levels such as the Charles Ringling Building, Charles Ringling's Home, Hester Ringling Lancaster's Home, and the Earle House on North Shore Road. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to set Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-07 for public hearing and to receive the report of the July 10, 2001, Regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Board. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. 9. BOARD ACTIONS RE: : CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE (CRC) RECEIVED REPORT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION OF THE CRC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY CHARTER (AGENDA ITEM II-4) # 1(1211) through (1840) Reverend Donald Roberts, Chair, and Richard Ulrich, Vice Chair of the Charter Review Committee (CRC), came before the Commission. Reverend Roberts stated that holding the position of President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Goodwill Industries, Inc. (Goodwill), has been a privilege; that gratitude is expressed on behalf of the employees of Goodwill to Mayor Mason for the work accomplished for Goodwill, in the community, and now as Mayor. Mayor Mason stated that the compliment is appreciated. Reverend Roberts referred to the August 30, 2001, CRC Report concerning the findings of the CRC included in the Agenda backup material; and asked the manner in which the Commission wishes to proceed? Commissioner Martin stated that a summary of the proposed amendments to the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) recommended by the CRC would be appreciated. Commissioner Palmer stated that the proposed amendments outlined in the CRC Report have been reviewed but should be presented to the public for information. Reverend Roberts recognized with appreciation Danny Bilyeu, George Dietz, Keith Fitzgerald, Bruce Franklin, Al Leach, Mary Anne Servian, Pamela Truitt, and Lonnie Ward, Jr., as members of the CRC present in the audience; and stated that the CRC members are collegial, possess good sense, and are polite; that CRC listened attentively to the following groups and individuals as a foundation for the CRC Report: Coalition for Sarasota's Future Citizens seeking inclusion of mondiscrimination language Professional City Manager's Association Florida League of Cities representatives Individual citizens City Manager Sollenberger City Auditor and Clerk Robinson City Attorney Taylor Robert Fournier, City Attorney's Office Elected Officials Reverend Roberts stated that a broad spectrum of individuals and groups presented an internal as well as an external perspective concerning the issues; that the suggestions and comments of government officials and citizens were considered in identifying potential changes to the City Charter; that three major issues were identified through the CRC meetings as follows: BOOK 50 Page 21770 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21771 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. A. Form of Governance Reverend Roberts stated that the Commission initially requested the CRC consider the form of governance, which the CRC discussed in detail; that the Commission subsequently re-instructed the CRC to refrain from further discussing the form of governance as current events had overcome the CRC's initial charge; that the CRC was in the process of preparing a recommendation for an elected-mayor, commission-manager form of government; however, a specific recommendation was not finalized prior to the Commission's directive to discontinue consideration of the form of governance. B. Citizen Recommendations for City Charter improvements Nondiscrimination Language Reverend Roberts stated that a significant number of citizens recommended to the CRC the inclusion in the City Charter of nondiscrimination language, which does not currently exist in the City Charter; and referred to the following language recommended for inclusion in the City Charter: Article 1, Establishment of Municipality, City Charter: Sec. 5. Nondiscrimination Discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, veterans status and sexual orientation, in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodation, shall be prohibited in the city. C. Elected Officials and Staff Recommendations for City Charter Improvements Reverend Roberts referred to the CRC Report indicating several changes recommended for the general improvement of the City Charter in response to suggestions by Elected Officials and Staff as follows: Article IV, Powers and Duties of City Commission, City Charter: Sec. 19. Written Contracts The City Commission shall approve all written contracts of the City except for specific contractual matters declared by ordinance of the City Commission to be exempt from the requirements of the this article. An exempting ordinance shall specify the policy to be followed to approve and execute a contract exempt from the provision of this article. Article VI, City Auditor and Clerk, City Charter: Sec. 7. Annual Budget The City Auditor and Clerk may prepare an annual budget to submit to the City Commission for the ensuing fiscal year. When preparing a proposed budget, the City Auditor and Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and coordinate with the budget activities of the City Manager, including the requirement that a balanced budget be submitted annually to the City Commission. Article IX, Elections Sec. 5(b), At-large seats, Change the phrase "valid votes cast" to "valid ballots cast" Article X, Charter Amendments Sec. 1. Proposal of amendments. A. Add the heading Alternative Methods to Initiate Amendment: (2) Add the sentence - In the event such written petition proposes an amendment to more than one section of the Charter, the petition shall contain a clear and concise summary of the material components of the proposal. Add: B. Action by the City Commission: In the event a proposed charter amendment is initiated by the city commission in accordance with section 1.A.(1) above or in the event a petition containing the required number of signatures has been certified and submitted in accordance with section 1.A. (2) above; then within thirty (30) days thereafter, the city commission shall adopt an ordinance: (1) providing for the date of the referendum to be held on the proposed charter amendment, (2) providing for the language to appear on the ballot at the referendum and (3) providing for the effective date of the amendment in the event BOOK 50 Page 21772 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21773 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. the same is approved by the voters. Such ordinance shall also schedule the referendum for a date which is no earlier than ninety (90) days following its adoption and not later than the next general election to be held in the city. Sec. 2. Referendum on Charter amendments. (a) Change the word "statement" to "summary" (b) Change the phrase "the same" to "each article proposed to be amended shall first be published in blackline format (i.e. with proposed deletions stricken through and proposed additions underscored) " Add the phrase "more than sixty (60) days" after the phrase "not less than thirty (30) days" Sec. 3. Adopting of amendment. Change the phrase "such amendment" to "the enabling ordinance required by Sec. 1.B of this Article,' Reverend Roberts continued that the CRC considered the suggestions and comments of citizens, elected officials, Staff, and individual members of the CRC; that the form of governance was deliberated without conclusion; that citizens request for nondiscrimination language was considered and supported; that adopting the recommendations of the CRC will create a more fluid and clear City Charter; that the Commission has the responsibility to determine the appropriate amendments which should be made to the City Charter. Mr. Ulrich stated that Reverend Roberts served well as Chair of the CRC; that the petition for a strong mayor submitted by the Coalition for Sarasota's Future (petition) was deliberated in depth; that the proposed strong-mayor form of governance was defeated by a CRC vote of 7 to 1; that the Commission should be aware the CRC did not veto the petition unanimously or by consent; that the CRC did not have adequate time to fully deliberate and provide a recommendation to the Commission concerning the form of governance; that the CRC would likely have endorsed an elected-mayor, commission-manager form of governance if allowed to complete deliberations; that citizens have indicated a strong desire for an elected mayor; however, a recommendation for the duties and responsibilities of an elected mayor was not determined by the CRC. Commissioner Palmer stated that many CRC meetings were personally viewed; that the deliberations concerning the form of governance were of interest; that the CRC deliberations indicated an elected-mayor, commission-manager form of governance is preferable to the existing commission-manager form of governance; that the CRC indicated a preference for an elected-mayor form of governance while retaining the full powers of a city manager. Mr. Ulrich stated that deliberations concerning the form of governance were not completed; that a recommendation was not finalized; that the city manager should have powers; however, an elected mayor should also have some powers; that the CRC hesitated to recommend a strong mayor form of governance; that accountability was a primary issue involved in the desire of the Coalition for Sarasota's Future for a strong mayor; that the delineation of powers between an elected mayor and a city manager should be discussed further. Commissioner Palmer stated that the CRC indicated the preference for a commission-manager form of governance rather than an elected strong mayor. Mr. Ulrich stated that the CRC would likely have endorsed an elected-mayor, commission-manager form of governance with greater accountability if the deliberations were completed. Reverend Roberts stated that adequate time was not available to fully deliberate and offer a final recommendation concerning the preferable form of governance. Commissioner Palmer stated that the CRC was not able to finalize a recommendation concerning the preferable form of governancei however, personal discussions with CRC members as well as the CRC's deliberations indicated a preference for an elected-mayor, commission-manager form of governance. Mr. Ulrich stated that the CRC would.have likely recommended an elected-mayor, commission-manager form of governance if deliberations concerning the form of governance were completed. Commissioner Martin stated that deliberating the form of governance was difficult; that the CRC completed the City Charter review well. BOOK 50 Page 21774 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21775 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to accept the Charter Review Committee (CRC) Report. Commissioner Palmer stated that the efforts of the CRC are appreciated; that an alternative form of governance was initially expected for inclusion on a referendum with the petition for a strong mayor; that the City Attorney's Office recommended not continuing the CRC's deliberations concerning the form of governance as a Fomm-of-governance question was determined inappropriate for the referendum on which the petition concerning the strong mayor will appear; that a workshop should be scheduled to deliberate further the recommendations of the CRC for City Charter changes. Commissioner Palmer, as the seconder of the motion, with the approval of Vice Mayor Quillin, as the maker, amended the motion to direct Staff to schedule a workshop for further deliberation of the CRÇ recommendations for City Charter amendments. Commissioner Martin stated that a workshop to deliberate further the CRC recommendations for the City Charter amendments should be scheduled as soon as possible. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a workshop to deliberate further the CRC recommendations for City Charter amendments will be scheduled in the near future. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the next Regular Commission meeting is September 17, 2001; however, September 17, 2001, is the beginning of a Jewish holiday; that a Sarasota Sister Cities Association (SSCA) presentation will be made the afternoon of September 17, 2001; therefore, September 17, 2001, is probably not a good date for the workshop. Commissioner Martin asked if the City Charter amendments determined by the Commission for inclusion on the referendum will be drafted by the City Attorney's Office and the process for including the City Charter amendments on the ballot? Attorney Connolly stated that the City Charter amendments which will be included on the referendum will be developed; that an ordinance must be adopted including the specific summary and language for the ballot; that any proposed ordinance will require a public hearing and second reading; that the City Attorney's Office can be instructed to place an item on the Agenda to set a proposed ordinance for public hearing to allow the Commission an opportunity to offer comments and suggestions for the summary and ballot language. Commissioner Palmer stated that the CRC indicated items concerning the City Charter were not reviewed due to lack of time. Reverend Roberts stated that the CRC considered and approved or defeated every item identified for consideration as a City Charter amendment. Commissioner Palmer asked if every item identified by the CRC for a possible City Charter amendment was considered? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Commission is responsible for determining the City Charter amendments which should be included on the referendum; that scheduling a workshop is desired. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to receive the Charter Review Committee (CRC) Report and direct Staff to schedule a workshop for further deliberation of the CRC recommendations for City Charter amendments. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (1840) through (1910) 1. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4331, amending the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 21, Offenses, Article I, in general, by adding thereto Section 21-7, Water Restrictions and Usage; amending the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 2, Administration, Article V, Boards, Commissions and Committees, Division V, Code Enforcement Special Master, Section 2-309, Jurisdiction, by providing the Code Enforcement Special Master jurisdiction to entertain actions asserting a violation of Section 21-7; repealing ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof; etc. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to Agreement for Engineering Services between the City of BOOK 50 Page 21776 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21777 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Sarasota and Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., for the Lido Beach Renourishment Project 3. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Renewal to Agreement for Consulting Engineering Services between the City of Sarasota and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., (RFP No. 99-44H) for consulting engineering services relative to the City's Water and Sewer Engineer of Record for an additional one-year period 4. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the six month extension of contract between the City of Sarasota and Clarke Advertising for public relation services for Citizen Action Implementation 5. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of Sarasota, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Contract Agreement No. 1 On motion of Commission Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. 11. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1395) ADOPTED, ; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1403) = ADOPTED ; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1406) - ADOPTED ; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1407) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1408) = ADOPTED; ; ITEM 6 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1410) = ADOPTED : ITEM 7 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1411) = ADOPTED, ; ITEM 8 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1412) - ADOPTED; ITEM 9 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1413) - ADOPTED, ; ITEM 10 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1414) ADOPTED; ITEM 11 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1416) = ADOPTED; ; ITEM 13 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4321) ADOPTED ITEM 14 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4322) ADOPTED; : ITEM 15 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4323) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 16 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4330) = REFERRED BACK TO STAFF (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1910) through (2675) Commissioner Martin requested that Item No. 5 be removed for discussion. Commissioner Quillin requested that Item No. 16 be removed for discussion. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1395, appropriating $1,893,196 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to eradicate the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall negative fund balance of $616,808 as of September 30, 2000, and to eliminate the estimated loss of $1,276,388 for the 2000-2001 fiscal year, etc. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1403, approving Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-11 and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-13 to allow a drive- through facility as an accessory use to a new restaurant a/k/a Pizza Hut on property located at 501 North Beneva road in the Commercial Shopping Center-Regional (CRC-R) Zone District, as more particularly described herein; said major conditional use is required to be constructed in accordance with Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-13 (Title Only) (Applicant Spring Engineering, Inc., as agent for Town and Country Associates, Ltd., and Pizza Hut of America, Inc., as owner and lessee) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1406, appropriating $50,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to fund the Special Election on March 12, 2002, on the powerful elected mayor referendum, etc. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution- No. 01R-1407, approving the joint application with Sarasota County, Florida for creation of an Enterprise Zone; providing for the establishment of an area for consideration as an Enterprise Zone; defining the area that exhibits extreme and unacceptable levels of poverty, unemployment, physical deterioration and economic disinvestment; finding the means of rehabilitation, conservation or redevelopment of said area; finding that it is necessary for the private sector to invest its own resources that build or rebuild the economic vitality of said area (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1410, appropriating $12,690 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to provide funds to send two supervisory officers to the 32nd Command Development Course sponsored by the Southern Police Institute, etc. 7. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1411, adopting a schedule to process an administrative City-initiated text amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan [a/k/a Sarasota City Plan (1998)] to add certain land uses as "Planned Primary Uses" within the Metropolitan Regional BOOK 50 Page 21778 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21779 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Classification Category 1, Airport Activities; authorizing the Planning Department Staff to process an application for same to be filed by the property owner's authorized agent subject to conditions more fully set forth herein (Title Only) 8. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1412, authorizing the salaries of the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk, effective October 3, 2001, determining amounts of surety bonds to be given; providing additional compensation for longevity (Title Only) 9. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1413, the revised Position Classification/compensation plan; authorizing employees, for whom collective bargaining is not required, except as provided herein, an increase in the base rate of pay as provided herein, effective October 3, 2001, authorizing the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk to continue to administer the Classification/Compensation Plan requirements; providing additional compensation for longevity (Title Only) 10. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1414, appropriating $12,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to fund the Special Municipal Election due to the resignation of Commissioner Albert F. Hogle, etc. 11. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1416, appropriating $25,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to reimburse General Star Management Company for the deductible provision resulting from the Robert Ellis claim against the City, etc. 13. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4321, providing for the designation of the structures located at 1660 Seventh Street, historically known as the Brazil/Clark House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; more particularly described herein (Title Only) (Applicant Mikki Hartig, as agent for Joan Bowers, as owner) 14. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4322, providing for the designation of the structures located at 1325 Cocoanut Avenue, historically known as the Mabel Nabona Woodhull House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; more particularly described herein (Title Only) (Applicant Mikki Hartig, as agent for Robert W. Gelinas and Maria Gelinas, as owners) 15. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4323, providing for the designation of the structure located at 1958 Adams Lane, historically known as the Appleby Family Home, as a structure of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; more particularly described herein (Title Only) (Applicant Mikki Hartig, as agent for Elle Leonard, as owner) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 01R-1403, 01R-1407, 01R-1411, 01R-1412, and 01R-1413 and Ordinance Nos. 01-4321, 01-4322, and 01-4323, by title only and proposed Resolution Nos. 01R-1395, 01R-1406, 01R-1410, 01R-1414, and 01R-1416 in their entirety. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15. Vice Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1408, providing for participation in a Water Planning Alliance for the purpose of planning, on a regional basis, for the preservation and management of water resources; setting forth principles applicable to the formation and operation of the Water Planning Alliance; making findings (Title Only) Commissioner Martin stated that Item No. 5 pertains to the City participation in a Water Planning Alliance; that a representative should be appointed to the Water Planning Alliance during Agenda Item VIII, Board Appointments. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1408 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 5. BOOK 50 Page 21780 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21781 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Martin, yes. 16. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330, providing the terms and conditions for the erecting, constructing, maintaining and operating of facilities in, on, across, above or in any manner whatsoever using the City's public rights of wayi providing assurances that the City's public rights of way are used in the public interest; providing for conformance with applicable law; providing for municipal ownership of a telecommunications system; repealing all ordinances inconsistent herewith; providing a savings clause; providing for severability (Title Only) Commissioner Quillin referred to letters dated August 31, 2001, from Verizon and Comcast Cablevision (Comcast) to the Commission and an August 24, 2001, memorandum from Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson regarding proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 included in the Agenda backup material and stated that lengthy correspondence has been forwarded for review to the City's Special Legal Counsel, who has been on vacation and therefore could not provide an opinion prior to the current meeting; that the changes in the State Statutes governing a local government's regulations of rights-of- way specifically with telecommunications companies are confusing; that a response from the City's Special Legal Counsel regarding the issues raised by Verizon and Comcast should be provided; that valid points were raised but require clarification. Commissioner Palmer stated that the deadline to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 is October 1, 2001; and asked if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 can be considered for passage on second reading at the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting which is the last Regular Commission meeting prior to October 1, 2001? Attorney Connolly stated that the ability to complete the review of the lengthy materials by the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting is not known; that after October 1, 2001, no regulation will be in effect concerning the ability of a utility company to use the City rights-of-way; that passage of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 before October 1, 2001, is critical; that the notice provided to all the utility companies was above and beyond statutory requirements; that the public hearing was held at the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that the City's Special Legal Counsel came from Miami for the public hearing at the City's expense and was prepared to. answer the questions of Comcast and Verizon; that the complexity of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 is the reason Special Legal Counsel was hired; that the City's Special Legal Counsel drafted Ordinance No. 98-4054 adopted in 1998 concerning franchise regulations as well as Ordinance No. 01-4316 adopted in June 2001 concerning the Chapter 202, Florida Statutes, Communications Services Tax Simplification Law; that the advice of the City's Special Legal Counsel should be accepted as no reason to do otherwise has been provided; that all materials provided to Staff are being forwarded to the City's Special Legal Counsel; that the instruction to the City's Special Legal Counsel is to review the material and contact Staff with questions or concerns which will be presented to the Commission if necessary and appropriate. Commissioner Martin stated that the two issues are: 1) if the City's Special Legal Counsel has enough time to review the materials prior to the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, and 2) if October 1, 2001, is an important date. Attorney Connolly stated that October 1, 2001, is an important date. Commissioner Martin asked if a modifying ordinance would be required if the City's Special Legal Counsel reviews the comments of Comcast and Verizon, finds merit, and recommends change. Attorney Connolly stated yes; that a modifying ordinance would be brought before the Commission. Commissioner Quillin stated that due to the complexity of the ordinance, clarification is necessary prior to passage on second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330; that enough time exists for a response from the City's Special Legal Counsel; that second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 could be scheduled for the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that the validity of the issues raised by Comcast and Verizon is the question; that the opinion of the City's Special Legal Counsel should be considered prior to voting at second reading; that a special meeting can be called to consider proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 if necessary. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to refer Consent Agenda 2, Item No. 16, back to Staff and schedule proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 for BOOK 50 Page 21782 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21783 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. second reading at the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that delaying the vote is a concerni that second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 should be scheduled for the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that reliance should not be placed on scheduling a special meeting. Commissioner Martin stated that second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 should be scheduled for the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to refer Consent Agenda 2, Item No. 16, back to Staff and schedule proposed Ordinance No. 01-4330 for second reading at the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Affected Persons and other interested persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 12. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1401, AMENDING THE ONE PERCENT (18) LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX 10-YEAR EXTENSION EXPENDITURE PROJECT DETAIL LIST AS. AUTHORIZED BY SARASOTA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 97-083; ADDING NEW PROJECTS; REALLOCATING FUNDING BETWEEN PROJECTS; REALLOCATING FUNDING BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED ; MAYOR MASON AND VICE MAYOR QUILLIN EACH TO APPOINT TWO NEW MEMBERS TO THE CITIZENS TAX OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) #1 (2690) through (3455) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides of the Infrastructure Sales Surtax Ten-Year Extension Expenditure Project Detail List (Project List) of the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) extension, also called the penny sales tax, included in the Agenda backup material, and stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1401 is to amend the Project List, which was originally submitted to citizens as part of the November 4, 1997, referendum to approve the L.O.S.T. extension; that Sarasota County Ordinance No. 97-083 concerning the procedural requirements for the L.0.S.T. extension, was adopted on July 22, 1997, by the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC), and requires each municipality in Sarasota County to establish a Citizens Tax Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee) to ensure the appropriate procedural requirements are followed for changing the Project List or reallocating L.0.S.T. extension revenues and to conduct an annual review of L.0.S.T. extension expenditures; that at the January 28, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, Ordinance No. 98-4037 was adopted, establishing the City's Oversight Committee, and provided a procedure for modifying the Project List or allocation of L.O.S.T. extension revenues; that' the current proposed changes to the Project List conform to the procedures established by Ordinance No. 98-4037; that the members of the Oversight Committee were invited to the current public hearing as requested at the January 26, 2001, annual Oversight Committee meeting; that the next annual Oversight Committee meeting is scheduled for December 6, 2001; that four vacancies currently exist on the Oversight Committee; that the Commission should appoint new members to Oversight Committee as soon as possible as Members Ryan Crosby and Devin Rutkowski resigned and Commissioners Palmer and Martin were Oversight Committee members prior to election to the Commission and were required to resign from the Oversight Committee. Mr. Mitchell continued that the City's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) will be amended by proposed Ordinance No. 01-4328, which is to adopt a fiscal year (FY) 2001/02 budgêt and is scheduled for a public hearing as Item No. IV-A-2 on the Agenda; that the allocation of L.O.S.T. extension revenues was revised in the proposed amendments to the CIP; that the Project List includes the original 40 projects approved by voters as part of the November 4, 1997, referendum; that the majority of the changes to the Project List were previously approved by the Commission at several public hearings; that Project No. AA, Van Wezel Additional Contingency, was approved during a public hearing held at the April 5, 1999, Regular Commission meeting; that the $12.5 million Project No. 3, Van Wezel Debt Service, the $500,000 Project No. 4, Cohen Way Infrastructure Assistance, and the $1 million Project No. 5, Newtown Community Capital BOOK 50 Page 21784 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21785 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Improvements, consist of the amounts originally approved by the November 4, 1997, referendum but were approved for a funding reallocation at the September 7, 1999, Regular Commission meeting; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1401 concerns a request to reallocate funding for several existing projects and approval of the addition of several new projects to the Project List; that the first proposed change is to reduce Project No. 7, Contingency Reserve for Community Projects, from $5,741,743 to $1,241,743; that Project No. 7 will be reduced to fund $2 million - for new Project No. CC, Pedestrian Sleeves; that the another proposed change is to reallocate funding for Project No. 16, Main Street Streetscape from Orange Avenue to School Avenue, between FYs 2001/02 through 2008/09 from a previous funding designation between FYs 2004/05 through 2006/07; that the City recently bonded to initiate Project No. 16 during FY 2001/02; that the reallocated amounts represent payments for the debt service on the bond. Mr. Mitchell further stated that Project No. 23, Curb and Gutter Placement, will receive $200,000 of funding for FY 2001/02 from the Environmental Land Management Survey (ELMS) Gas Tax revenues, which will be repaid during FY 2008/09; that Project No. 24, Central Avenue (Debt Service), was changed to reflect the actual debt service payments for a bond acquired in 1998; that an additional $100,000 for Project No. 25, Street Trees, was reallocated for FY 2000/01 and will be reallocated for FY 2001/02 with a corresponding reductions in funding of $125,000 for FY 2005/06 and $75,000 for FY 2006/07; that the $6.5 million Project No. 26, Resurface Streets, was advanced $3.05 million from ELMS Gas Tax and $400,000 from Gas Tax revenues to prefund construction; that the $3.45 million borrowed will be repaid during FY 2008/09; that the $1 million Project No. 39, Expansion of Reuse Transmission System, will be funded $500,000 during FYs 2003/04 and 2005/06 instead of FYs 2005/06 and 2006/07 as originally scheduled; that $3,869,535, will be added for new projects due to increased projections of L.0.S.T. extension revenues; that the following new projects will be added: Project Funding Number Project Amount A New Sidewalks $192,000 B Residential Traffic Calming $400,000 C Saprito Pier $350,000 D Federal Building $162,096 E Unpaved Rights-of-Way $470,000 F Luke Wood Park $20,000 G Police Vehicles $1,500,000 H Main Street Streetscape, Bond $694,439 Debt Service I Additional funding for Project $53,500 No. 14, Shade Avenue J Additional funding for Project $27,500 No. 13, Jefferson Avenue Total: $3,869,535 Mr. Mitchell stated further that the City is reçeiving significantly more L.O.S.T. extension revenues than previously estimated; that the City's projections for the L.O.S.T. extension revenues have been revised; that the new projects were funded as directed by the Commission. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1401 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 01R-1401. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1401. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the January 26, 2001, annual Oversight Committee meeting was viewed; that the meeting dates of the actions taken by the Commission to amend the Project List should be specifically indicated for the benefit of Oversight Committee members; that the charts concerning the actions of the Commission to amend the Project List provided to Oversight Committee members were not clear. BOOK 50 Page 21786 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21787 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mitchell stated that the annual report and presentation provided at the January 26, 2001, annual Oversight Committee meeting indicated the meeting dates and specific actions taken by the Commission to amend the Project List; that only the changes to the Project List adopted in Resolution No. 01R-1401 will be presented at the December 6, 2001, annual Oversight Committee meeting. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Project List does not currently but should indicate the exact dates of each revision for the benefit of the Oversight Committee and the public. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Project List will be revised to include the dates a particular project was revised. Commissioner Palmer recognized Oversight Committee members John Browning and Janet Whitman-Bradley present in the audience and stated that the participation and efforts of the Oversight Committee members to annually review the changes to the Project List for the benefit of the public are appreciated; that Mayor Mason and Vice Mayor Quillin should each be allowed to appoint two members to fill the current vacancies on the Oversight Committee. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that she has already provided the name of one member to be appointed to the Oversight Committee to the City Auditor and Clerk. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the consensus of the Commission is to allow Mayor Mason and Vice Mayor Quillin each to appoint two new members to the Oversight Committee. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a list of Oversight Committee members will be provided to the Commission after the four new appointees are received. 13. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC EARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4328, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2001, AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2002; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-2) #1 (3455) through #2 (0205) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4328 is to adopt the proposed fiscal year (FY) 2001/02 budget; that the current public hearing is the first of two required public hearings; that a second public hearing will be held at the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, to consider proposed Ordinance No. 01-4328; that the proposed budget for the General Fund does not require an increase in the current operating millage rate of 2.4926 mills; that the State Truth In Millage (TRIM) Bill requires municipalities to measure the proposed operating millage for ad valorem taxes in terms of the rollback rate, which represents the required millage rate to yield the ad valorem tax revenues generated during the previous fiscal year budget; that the preliminary certification of the City's taxable value is $4,211,560,131, which represents an 11.7 percent increase above the City's taxable value for FY 2000/01; that the required rollback rate for FY 2001/02 is 2.3060 mills; that the proposed operating millage of 2.4926 mills represents an 8.09 increase from the rollback rate; that the proposed operating millage rate of 2.4926 mills is projected to yield $9,238,383 in ad valorem tax revenue for the General Fund during FY 2001/02, which represents an increase of $861,359 from FY 2000/01; that the proposed debt service millage rate is 0.6787 mills, which represents an 11.7 percent decrease from the FY 2000/01 debt service millage rate of 0.7688 mills; that the total millage rate required to finance the proposed FY 2001/02 budget is 3.1713 mills, which represents a decrease of 0.0901 mills or 2.76 percent from the FY 2000/01 millage rate of 3.2614 mills; that the impact of the proposed millage rate to the average owner-occupied taxable home valued at $122,215 including the Homestead Exemption is a decrease of $11.10 in ad valorem taxes. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Martin Rappaport, 1241 Tree Bay Lane (34242), Executive Director, St. Armands Commercial Landowners Association, read from a prepared statement indicating that the City recently improved the median on the South Boulevard of the Presidents on St. Armands Circle to install a statue of John Ringling; that the reconfiguration of the median has benefited the public tremendously; that pedestrian safety was increased by over 50 percent due to the reduction in pedestrian exposure to vehicular traffic on St. Armands Circle; that the visual impact of the new median neck-out and John Ringling Statue slows vehicular traffic significantly; that two pedestrians were struck by vehicles at St. Armands Circle during 2000 and 2001; that the injuries to the pedestrians were life-threatening; that pedestrian safety at BOOK 50 Page 21788 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21789 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. St. Armands Circle is a serious concern; that similar median neck-outs should be installed on St. Armands Circle; that Public Works Department Staff indicated the cost to install a median neck-out is approximately $75,000; that St. Armands Circle is the largest tourist district in the County; that thousands of pedestrians are attracted to St. Armands Circle daily; that the pedestrian traffic on St. Armands Circle increases significantly each yeari that the Ritz-Carlton hotels and condominiums will be opened during 2001 on Lido Key and near the Bayfront; that traffic between the Ritz-Carlton hotels and condominiums will result in increased traffic on St. Armands Circle; that pedestrian exposure to vehicular traffic on St. Armands Circle is expected to increase similarly; that the City should install the additional median neck-outs as soon as possible to increase pedestrian safety on St. Armands Circle; that funding for the additional median neck-outs should be included in the proposed FY 2001/02 budget if possible. Richard Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34233), congratulated Mayor Mason for appointment as Mayor and stated that funding. for a skateboard park is not included in the proposed FY 2001/02 budget; that the City should plan to budget $100,000 for the construction of skateboard park in the FY 2002/03 budget; that a skateboard park is desperately needed in Sarasota. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4328 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4328 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4328 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call. vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Quillin, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes. 14. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4334, TO VACATE THAT CERTAIN 15-FOOT-WIDE ALLEY COMMENCING AT NINTH STREET AND EXTENDING NORTHWARD FOR APPROXIMATELY 141 FEET LYING BETWEEN LOT 5 AND LOTS 10, 11 AND 12, JOHN MAY'S SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3 AND 5, BLOCK Y, PLAT OF SARASOTA AND THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 381 AT PAGE 415 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND TENTH STREET EXTENDING GENERALLY EASTWARD ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TENTH STREET FOR APPROXIMATELY 296 FEET, ALL AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 01-SV-03 AND 01-SV-04, APPLICANT CHARLES D. BAILEY, JR., OF WILLIAMS, PARKER, HARRISON, DIETZ & GETZEN, AS AGENT FOR THE SALVATION ARMY AS OWNER) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-4) #2 (0205) through (0635) Charles Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz and Gietzen, as agent for the Salvation Army, as owner, and Bert Tanner, Major, Salvation Army, came before the Commission Attorney Bailey stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4334 concerns Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 to close and vacate two alleys for which the City has easements within the approximately 3.73-acre site bound on the north by Tenth Street, on the east by Lemon Avenue, on the south by Ninth Street, and on the west by Central Avenue; that the Salvation Army recently acquired an additional parcel of property located at the northwest intersection of Ninth Street and Central Avenue; that the intent is to utilize the additional property to provide parking spacei that the Salvation. Army previously received approval to vacate two other alleys on the property; that the new parcel of property has an alley which is the subject of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-03 for a vacation of a 15-foot-wide alley commencing at Ninth Street and extending north approximately 141 feet; that Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-04 is to vacate a portion of a reciprocal easement commencing at the southeast corner of the intersection of Central Avenue and Tenth Street and extending approximately 296 feet to the east adjacent to the south right-of-way boundary of Tenth Street; that Staff previously recommended the vacation of the alleys and supports approval of Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04; that Staff's efforts to facilitate the processing of Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 are appreciated. BOOK 50 Page 21790 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21791 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Attorney Bailey continued that the conditions imposed by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) reflect a concern to ensure the proper utility easements are allowed on the property; however, the majority of the affected utilities indicated no easements will be required; that Florida Power and Light (FPL) indicated an easement will be required for Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-04; that the required FPL easement will be provided; that a FPL utility pole is located in the alley proposed for vacation by Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-03 but is located in the right-of-way which will be dedicated to the Cityi therefore, an easement for FPL will not be required for Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-03. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, referred to displayed computer-generated slides indicating the location of the alleys on the Salvation Army property, and stated that the Salvation Army previously received approval to vacate two other alleys on the property but only recently acquired the remaining property of the City block bounded by Central Avenue to the west, Tenth Street to the north, Lemon Avenue to the east, and Ninth Street to the south; that two alleys are located on the recently acquired property; that street vacations are not usually supported by Staff or the Commission; however, Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 concern an alley and reciprocal easement located entirely within the property of the Salvation Army and do not serve any public purpose; that the Salvation Army is an important community asset; that Staff concluded the public interest would best be served if Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 are approved; that as part of Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22, the Salvation Army will be required to dedicate a 4.5-foot-wide section of right-of-way to the City; that the FPL utility pole is located in the portion of right-of- way which will be dedicated to the City and does not require a utility easement; that at the August 1, 2001, PBLP meeting, the PLBP held a public hearing to consider Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14, and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22; that the PBLP voted unanimously to find Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 consistent with the Standards for Review set forth in Section IV-1306, Zoning Code (1998), and in the public interest and to recommend Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of a utility easement in favor of FPL to maintain and repair any existing gas facilities 2. Execution of a utility easement in favor of FPL, Comcast Cablevision of West Florida, Inc., TECO/Peoples Gas, and Verizon to maintain, and repair any existing facilities or written evidence the utility companies have no existing facilities in the area to be vacated Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and the following people came before the Commission: Bert Tanner, 6270 Aventura Drive (34241), Major, Salvation Army and Charles Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz and Gietzen, as agent for the Salvation Army. Major Tanner stated that the proposed Salvation Army complex will be an important community asset and will house over 350 people at a particular time; that the housing will be provided in an unobtrusive manner to the community; that the community will be proud of the proposed project. Attorney Bailey stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1402 is scheduled on the Agenda as New Business Item No. VII-2, which is a request for approval of Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 01R-1402; and asked if proposed Resolution No. 01R-1402 can be considered as part of the current public hearing? Commissioner Palmer stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1402 should be considered as originally scheduled on the Agenda and not as part of the current public hearing. Vice Mayor Quillin concurred. Commissioner Martin concurred and asked the construction schedule of the proposed project? Major Tanner stated that construction of the project will require approximately one year and should commence during October 2001; that the project design is complete; that the Salvation Army is currently in the process of applying for the appropriate permits. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. BOOK 50 Page 21792 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21793 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4334 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4334 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4334 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that for the public's information, the Commission and PBLP consider street vacations with apprehension; however, the Salvation Army and Staff provided the appropriate justification to merit approval of Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04; that the majority of requests for the vacation of streets are usually not supported. Commissioner Martin concurred. 15. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4336, TO UPDATE AND MODIFY PROJECTS RELATED TO LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA (A/K/A THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN [19981); STATING FINDINGS OF FACT; : ADOPTING BY REFERENCE AN UPDATED SCHEDULE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS BY REFERENCE INTO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998); REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, ; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING; REFERRED THE PAVING OF 15TH STREET NEAR LOCKWOOD RIDGE ROAD TO THE ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-5) #2 (0635) through (0835) David Smith, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4336 concerns an update and modification of the projects proposed in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition. (City's Comprehensive Plan) ; that Chapter 163, Intergovermmental Programs, Florida Statutes, requires the City to review and revise the CIP annually as necessary to include corrections, updates, and modifications concerning costs, revenue sources, or dates of construction of any facility or project described in the CIP; that - the City is required to adopt any revisions to the CIP by ordinance; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4336 concerns an update to Illustration CI-7, Schedule of Level of Service Projects Excerpted from the Capital Improvements Program, which is included in the Agenda backup material as Exhibit A; that Illustration CI-7 identifies the capital improvements projects which provide or maintain infrastructure and services for which minimum adopted level-of-service (LOS) standards have been established by the City's Comprehensive Plan but does not repeat the entire CIP; that all revisions to the CIP were indicated in Ordinance No. 01-4328 to adopt the proposed fiscal year (FY) 2001/02 budget which was passed on first reading previously in the meeting; that Illustration CI-7 indicates the CIP projects which maintain certain LOS standards; that the Planning and Finance Departments cooperated to develop Illustrate CI-7. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. Thère was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4336 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4336 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4336 on first reading. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a significant portion of 15th Street near Lockwood Ridge Road is not paved; that the proposed CIP does not indicate funding to pave 15th Street near Lockwood Ridge Road during FY 2001/02 or anytime in near future; that providing funding to pave 15th Street is an important personal priority; that the Administration was previously requested to examine the potential to pave 15th Street, which is utilized frequently by vehicles traveling to Ed Smith Stadium and other local facilities; that a major stormwater retention pond is also located adjacent to the unpaved section of 15th Street; that the City recently received a petition to pave 15th Street; that the BOOK 50 Page 21794 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21795 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. paving of 15th Street should be conducted during FY 2001/02 if possible. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4336 on first reading and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Martin, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to refer the paving of 15th Street near Lockwood Ridge Road to the Administration. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that 15th Street should be paved as soon as possible. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that the number of unpaved streets in the City is significant; that the City's streets should be paved. 16. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4355, REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 01-ZTA-03, AMENDING THE METHOD FOR THE CALCULATION OF HEIGHT FOR SINGLE- -FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THEIR ACCESSORI STRUCTURES AND AMENDING REGULATIONS REGARDING THE REPAIR OR RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY USES AND NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-03, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) PASSED ON FIRST READING INCLUDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION I-105, TRANSITIONAL RULES, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ZONING CODE (1998), AND SECTIONS V-103, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, SUBPARAGRAPH E, ARTICLE V, VESTED RIGHTS AND NONCONFORMITIES, AND V-105, NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SUBPARAGRAPH D, ARTICLE V, VESTED RIGHTS AND NONCONFORMITIES, ZONING CODE (1998), WITH A PROVISION TO ALLOW THE DIRECTOR OF BUILDING, ZONING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT TO EXTEND AN APPLICATION BEYOND THE SIX-MONTH TRANSITION PERIOD IF A LETTER FROM THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY IS RECEIVED INDICATING AN APPLICANT IS PROCEEDING WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED STATE PERMITS (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-6) #2 (0835) through #3 (0425) Mark Hess, Chief Planner, Planning Department, Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Mr. Hess stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 concerns Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 to amend the method for the calculation of height for single-family dwellings and accessory structures and the regulations regarding the repair or restoration of nonconforming structures, nonconforming accessory uses, and nonconforming accessory structures; that the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), was updated in 1998; that the updates included the adoption of the following Action Strategies (A.S.) which support the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355: A.S. 4.3, Land Development Regulations, Neighborhood Chapter: The City will include measures that enhance neighborhood compatibility in the Land Development Regulations. A.S. 1.4, In-Fill Development in Residential Neignborhoods, Housing Chapter: The City will encourage in-fill development in existing residential neighborhoods to be architecturally compatible, including the consideration of neighborhood scale and exterior materials. A.S. 6.2, Neighborhood Compatibility, Housing Chapter: The City will encourage new in-fill development in City neighborhoods to be functionally and visually compatible with their surrounding neighborhoods. A.S. 2.1, Components of the Land Development Regulations, Future Land Use Chapter: The land development regulations, and any subsequent revisions made thereto, shall continue to address: Coastal hazard areasi Areas of special flood hazard; Compatibility (e.g. - intensity, density, and scale of development. A.S. 2.7, Regulations for In-Fill and Redevelopment, Future Land Use Chapter: Recognizing that the City is nearly built-out, consider the creation of new land development regulations that focus on compatible in-fill and redevelopment needs that enhance neighborhood character. As on example, investigate the need for developing standards for new or redeveloped housing in established neighborhoods that would include a relationship between the BOOK 50 Page 21796 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21797 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. house, lot size, and the scale of adjacent residential development. A.S. 2.11, Barrier Islands, Future Land Use Chapter: Recognizing the fragile nature of barrier islands and their evacuation needs, create new land development regulations that address the density, intensity, and scale of development. Mr. Hess continued that the primary concern is the replacement of smaller homes with megahouses which do not conform to the existing character of a neighborhood; that during 1998, the Commission and PBLP considered several items regarding the regulation of impervious surfaces; that a draft proposal was provided to the PBLP to regulate the maximum allowed square footage of houses in the City; however, action was never taken on the draft proposal; that the Commission recently indicated renewed support to regulate the size of houses; that at the July 5, 2001, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) meeting, the PLBP held a public hearing and voted 3 to 0, with one abstention and one absence, to find Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Standards for Review set forth in Section IV-1206, Zoning Code (1998), and recommended adoption to the Commission with the following revision: The replacement value for a home that is destroyed up to 75 percent based on the market value of the house as determined by a state-certified property appraiser. Mr. Hess further stated that Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-03 was initiated by Staff to: amend the definition of "height for single-family dwellings and their accessory structures" to measure the height from the natural grade, applicable Citywide, inclusive of flood prone areas; - revise the threshold for repair or rebuilding of nonconforming structures, nonconforming accessory uses, and nonconforming accessory structures from 50 percent of the structure's assessed value to 75 percent of the structure's market value; and require the processing of building permit applications completed prior to the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 under the regulations in effect on the date the application was completed. Mr. Hess referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of a hypothetical three-story megahouse included in the Agenda backup material and stated further that Staff is proposing additional amendments to proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355; that the amendments concern noncontorming structures; that the requirement to measure from the natural grade will reduce the allowed height of single-family homes in flood zones as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); that the first floor of a typical three-story megahouse located in a flood zone consists of a garage or storage space located 12 feet above the minimum flood-plane elevation specified by FEMA; that the hypothetical megahouse measures 34.6 feet from the minimum flood-plane elevation level to the midpoint of the sloped roof; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 only allows the construction of a home 35 feet above the natural grade; that the total height of the hypothetical megahouse is 46.6 feet; that if a megahouse is destroyed to more than 75 percent of the market value, the owner would be required to reconstruct according to the regulations in proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355; that in the event a major disaster occurred which destroyed many homes in a flood zone, the majority of current megahouses could be reconstructed as originally designed if damaged less than 75 percent of the structure's market value; that the previous repair threshold was 50 percent of the assessed value instead of 75 percent of the market value of a structure. Mr. Hess stated further that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 includes a transition provision; that individuals would be allowed to continue the construction of a noncontorming structure if the appropriate permit applications were completed prior to the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355; that the regulations established by proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 would also apply to applications to remodel existing homes. Mr. Hess referred an the August 28, 2001, memorandum to the Commission concerning revisions to proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 included in the Agenda backup material and continued that the following language to Section 5 of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is recommended to revise Section I-105, Transitional Rules, Article I, General Provisions, Zoning Code (1998): If such application is submitted in proper form with all fees paid, even though permits required by other regulatory BOOK 50 Page 21798 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21799 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. agencies have not yet been obtained, the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement may deem such application complete, provided all other necessary permits have been obtained within six (6) months of the adoption of Ordinance No. 01-4355. Mr. Hess further stated that the proposed amendment allows additional time to individuals currently seeking the required State permits for residences located in flood zones; that the second amendment concerns the reconstruction of homes if the occurrence of a major disaster such as a hurricane results in the destruction of many homes; that the following language to Sections 3 and 4 of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is recommended to revise Sections V-103, Noncontorming structures, Subparagraph E, Article V, Vested Rights and Noncontormities, and V-105, Nonconforming Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, Subparagraph D, Article V, Vested Rights and Nonconformities, Zoning Code (1998): The Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, may calculate the above-described 75 percent threshold based upon assessed value instead of market value in the event the Applicant does not submit an appraisal performed by a state certified property appraiser. In such event, assessed value shall be determined by reference to the official property tax assessment rolls for the year the structure, accessory use or accessory structure is destroyed or damaged. Mr. Hess stated further that the second proposed amendment allows property owners to utilize the assessed value of a structure if the market value cannot be determined such as in the event of a major disaster. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the assessed value of a home which is destroyed by a major disaster will be utilized instead of the insured value? Mr. Hess stated no; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 concerns allowing property owners to rebuild nonconforming structures; that the proposed amendment allows property owners to utilize the assessed value if desired or if an appraisal of the market value cannot be obtained. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that insurance companies will also provide an appraisal of the market value of an insured structure and will probably not utilize the assessed value; that the assessed value can only be increased by 3 percent annually if including the Homestead Exemption in the event of a major loss and is therefore not preferred. Mr. Hess stated that the Zoning Code (1998) currently requires Staff to utilize 50 percent of the assessed value of a structure for determining the repair threshold; that the PBLP indicated a preference to utilize the market value instead of the assessed value of a structure; that the requirement will be to obtain the structure's market value from a state-certified property appraiser; however, Staff indicated property owners may not be able to obtain an appraisal from a state-certified property appraiser if a large number of homes are destroyed; that utilizing the assessed value is an option and not a requirement; that the concern is to ensure a reliable value for a structure is provided. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that insurance companies will not insure homes beyond the market value; that the replacement value is usually indicated in any. contract to provide home insurance; that a structure's value as determined by an insurance company should also be indicated as appropriate for determining the repair threshold. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that the majority of insurance policies provide for a replacement value if a home is destroyed by a major disaster; and asked if the property owner has an option and may choose to utilize the assessed value if desired? Attorney Schenk stated yes; that the option to utilize the assessed value is not limited to the event of a major disaster; that property owners will be allowed to utilize the assessed value for any reason; that a property owner may not desire to pay the costs of obtaining an appraisal from a state-certified property appraiser; that Staff indicated support for utilizing an appraisal of a structure's market value if obtained from a state-certified property appraiser; that utilizing the value provided by an insurance company may not be desired. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that her condominium is insured for a certain replacement value regardless of the market value; that the insurance company provides the appraisal and would not utilize an external appraisal even if provided by a state-certified property appraiser. BOOK 50 Page 21800 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21801 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that utilizing an appraisal provided by a state-certified property appraiser is acceptable; that the appraisal of a structure's market value will only be utilized to determine if a property owner will be allowed to rebuild a nonconforming structure; that state-certified property appraisers will provide the most accurate estimate of a structure's market value; that the City's interest is not funds paid by an insurance company to rebuild an insured structure but rather the structure's value to determine if rebuilding a noncontorming structure will be allowed; that the appraisal provided by the insurance company may be acceptable; however, a dispute may arise between a property owner and an insurance company concerning the replacement value of the home or funds which should be provided for reconstruction; that becoming a party to legal dispute is not desired; that utilizing a state-certified property appraiser to provide an appraisal of a structure's market value is a simple process which is utilized frequently. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a home was personally lost to a fire; that the insurance company provided an accurate and quick estimate of the market value of her home; that the concern is a major disaster resulting in the destruction of many structures; that the City should have as many options as possible to obtain a market value for a structure; that an insurance company will not pay beyond the market value for the reconstruction of a structure. Mr. Litchet stated that the option to utilize the market value as determined by an insurance property could be developed; however, the concern is a dispute may arise between the property owner and an insurance companyi that the property owner may not desire to utilize the appraisal provided by the insurance company. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the concern is only to provide as many options as possible for determining the repair threshold after the occurrence of a major disaster. Commissioner Martin asked if the assessed value could be utilized to determine if a structure should be reconstructed even if insured for reconstruction at the full market value? Mr. Litchet stated that the City's concern will only be if a structure can be rebuilt according to the current applicable standards of the Zoning Code (1998); that FEMA also requires 50 percent of a structure's assessed value to determine the repair threshold; that utilizing a repair threshold of 75 percent of a structure's market value is less than the FEMA requirement. Mr. Hess stated that the proposed regulations concern the reconstruction of a nonconforming structure; that the City would allow the reconstruction of the structure without the nonconforming uses. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and the following people came before the Commission: Arthur Bienvenue, 3505 South Polk Drive (34236), deferred from speaking. Mary Anne Servian, 326 Arthur Drive (34236) representing the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Associations (CCNA) and the St. Armands Residents Association, read from a prepared statement indicating that the CCNA unanimously supports the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 to eliminate the FEMA bonus currently allowed residential structures located in flood zones; that the maximum height of single-family dwellings in flood zones will be 35 feet if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted; that representatives from many neighborhood associations are present to provide support for the adoption of proposed Ordinance No 01-4355; that the proposed six-month implementation delay was proposed only immediately prior to the current meeting and has not been reviewed by the CCNA; that eliminating the FEMA bonus will require the construction of new homes and the remodeling of existing homes to correspond with the character of the neighborhood; that Zoning Code (1998) currently allows the construction of homes 54 feet in height; that megahouses are being constructed immediately next to single-story historical homes; that owners of megahouses have indicated owners of single-story homes are not economically useful to the neighborhood and should relocate; that the City should allow homeowners to maintain their current residences. I John Browning, 1376 Harbor Drive (34239), read from a prepared statement indicating that the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported and represents an appropriate initial effort to regulate the construction of megahouses; that further regulations are required concerning the allowable amount of impervious surface for a residential structure; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 will require architects and property owners to consider the construction of a home which corresponds with the character of the existing homes in an established neighborhood; that homes should not be constructed to the BOOK 50 Page 21802 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21803 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. boundaries of a property; that 50-foot-tall megahouses are not desired in the City's neighborhoods; that some megahouses occupy an entire property; that any of the City's existing single- and two-story homes in flood zones contain aesthetically pleasing greenspace and landscaping which should be promoted; that the City's neighborhoods located in flood zones should not become concrete and masonry jungles. Mr. Browning displayed and referred to photographs of existing large homes in the City's neighborhoods and continued that the indication is not to prohibit the construction of all types of new large homes in the City's neighborhoods; that many large homes are only one or two stories in height, contain aesthetically pleasing landscaping and greenspace, and complement the character of an established neighborhood; that the concern is the construction of megahouses over three stories which exceed 35 feet in height, dwarf existing homes, and do not contain significant greenspace or landscaping; that credible evidence has not been provided to warrant denial of restrictions on the construction of megahouses; that property values will not decrease due to the proposed regulations; that the Town of Longboat Key previously adopted similar restrictions and continues to experience a significant increase in property values; that the desire is to provide stability to the character of existing neighborhoods; that the construction of megahouses is not limited to properties on the barrier islands but applies to all City properties; that allowing the construction of megahouses encourages the sale and destruction of many historical single- or two-story homes; that the City should develop and adopt further regulations concerning the construction and remodeling of megahouses; that the existing character of the City's established neighborhoods must be protected. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the photographs of the megahouses into the record. Craig Noren, 602 North Jefferson Avenue (34237), representing the Park East Neighborhood Association, stated that the Park East Neighborhood is located in the Whitaker Bayou Drainage Basin; that he lives adjacent to a flood control structure, the capacity of which could be exceeded if a significant amount of rain occurs; that the flood control structure fills quickly due to the significant amount of impervious surfaces created by megahouses in the Park East Neighborhood, which has very small property lots; that many properties are only 70 feet in width; that the majority of side yards are only six to nine feet in width for smaller homes; that the safety of neighborhood residents is : a significant. concern; that the largest homes in the. City are being constructed in areas with the greatest potential for flooding and destruction; that another concern is the access provided to emergency vehicles; that megahouses constructed to the boundaries of a property reduce the space required for emergency vehicles for neighboring properties; that the FEMA bonus allows the construction of homes up to 54 feet in height; that the standard ladders utilized by emergency vehicles reach only 32 feet in height; that the life or death of an individual could be decided by the height of a building; that the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported. Steve Anderson, 5951 Saddle Oak Trail (34241), read from a prepared statement indicating that the primary concern is the vested rights of property owners; that the concern to preserve the existing character of established neighborhoods is understood; however, the City does not contain any additional space to construct new neighborhoods; therefore, individuals desiring to construct a new home in the City must purchase property in an established neighborhood; that a significant number of small lots are located - in the City; that property owners desire to utilize a property to the fullest extent; that many lots in the City have a high value; that. the desire is not to utilize only a small portion of an expensive waterfront lot; that the desire is to gain the maximum market value for a property; that larger homes increase the value of a property which will rèsult in increased ad valorem tax. revenues for the City; that the vested rights of property owners should not be severely restricted; that the regulations should be revised to apply only to neighborhoods or homes of historical value; that the FEMA regulations should be utilized and not exceeded; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 would implement regulations stricter than currently required by FEMA; that the intent of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is to reduce the construction of large, multi-story homes; that the result may instead be the construction of large-multi-story homes with flat roofs, which are not aésthetically pleasing; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 will implement severe restrictions on the vested rights of property ownersi that the proposed six-month transition period is insufficient to acquire the appropriate State permits for residential structures in flood zones; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 requires further evaluation by Staff and citizens and should not be passed at the current meeting. BOOK 50 Page 21804 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21805 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if Mr. Anderson lives in the City? Mr. Anderson stated no; that the desire is to purchase property and establish a residence in the City in the near future. Bill Korp, 765 Tyler Drive (34246), stated that he and his wife moved to the City one month ago but desired to purchase property in the City several years ago; that the property is located on St. Armands Key; that the City's intent to regulate the construction of new homes in flood-prone areas was personally known several years ago; that the draft proposal to regulate impervious surfaces was reviewed prior to purchasing property on St. Armands Key; that the City indicated the certain land development regulations of the Town of Longboat Key concerning megahouses may be adopted; that the County also indicated an intent to regulate the construction of megahouses; that an architect was hired to design a large home which complied with the City's current and potential regulations; that the property was purchased during 2000; that he should have but did not join the St. Armands Residents Association and was unaware of the proposed regulations until July 2001; that a structural engineer was hired to obtain a letter of compliance with the Zoning Code (1998) for the home which had been designed; that a letter of compliance with the Zoning Code (1998) is required to obtain the appropriate State permits; that Staff indicated proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 was pending and may negatively affect the construction of his home; that the proposed six-month transition period should be extended to nine months; that significant time is required to obtain the required State permits; that applications are currently pending to obtain the required State permits; that an application is also pending to acquire a City building permit. Mr. Korp continued that the desire is to construct a large home which is sensitive to the character of the surrounding neighborhood; that many waterfront areas in the State were viewed to determine the type of large homes appropriate for a 50-foot-wide lot; that as a result, the home will be constructed with a 12-foot berm instead of a garage and storage space in the FEMA flood zone; that the size of the house will bé reduced as a result of the berm, which will be aesthetically landscaped ànd will reduce the perception as a large home; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 will severely restrict the ability to construct the designed home; that the desire is not to construct a nonconforming structure; however, the personal home was painstakingly designed and planned for over a year and a half and will be constructed; that sufficient time should be allowed to acquire the required permits if an application is pending with either the City or the State; that six months is not sufficient; that the designed home will correspond to the existing character of St. Armands Keyi that a 15-foot setback is required for all lots in flood-prone areas; that the setback requirement applies to small lots as well; therefore, 40 percent of his property cannot be utilized for a structure. Don Farr, 3301 Bay Shore Road (34234) representing the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association (IB/SSA), stated that the construction of mégahouses in established neighborhoods is a significant concern for the IB/SSA; that during the previous two years, the issue of megahouses has been the primary topic of discussion at IB/SSA meetings, which were well attended by neighborhood residents; that the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood is an older neighborhood in the City and possesses a significant historical character; that: unfortunately, many smaller historical homes have been demolished to construct megahouses which do not correspond to the neighborhood character; that neighbors of a newly constructed megahouse are frustrated by the significant disparity between the character and size of homes neighboring the new megahouse; that the frustration frequently results in a decision to relocate; that as a result, the neighbor's property is purchased and another megahouse is constructed, resulting in a. domino effect; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 will reduce the construction of megahouses in City neighborhoods and will slow the domino effect; however, additional, more comprehensive regulations are required to halt the. domino effect; that the elimination of the FEMA bonus is supported; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported and should be adopted. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), stated that the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported; that the position of the CCNA is supported; that the CCNA constitutes a group of dedicated citizens committed to the preservation of the character of the City's neighborhoods and has advocated further regulations concerning megahouses for a significant period of time. Charles Githler, 374 South Shore Drive (34234), stated that the renovated Commission Chambers were not previously viewed and are aesthetically pleasing; that the Staff's intent to regulate megahouses is applauded; that many megahouses do not complement BOOK 50 Page 21806 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21807 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. the existing character of the City's established neighborhoods; however, Staff's recommendations discriminate against the construction of new homes and the remodeling of existing homes; that significant public input has not been obtained; that many affected residents are unaware of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355, which will negatively impact a significant number of homes in the Cityi that many homes will be considered nonconforming structures; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is ambiguous concerning the exact location of the natural grade; that the majority of waterfront homes in the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood exceed 35 feet in height to comply with current FEMA regulations; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 may also negatively affect the City's economic position compared to other similar communities in the State; that the City of Naples, Florida, recently considered similar regulations concerning megahouses; that the proposed regulations were tabled due to the perceived negative impact on property values and the local economyi that the current FEMA regulations already discourage property owners from constructing megahouses; that the cost to construct a large, three-story home is expensive and requires the installation of large subaqueous pilings to support the foundation of the home. Mr. Githler continued that an inflation factor for the required minimum flood-plane elevation must also be considered; that FEMA has steadily increased the minimum flood-plane elevation during recent years; that the prediction is the minimum flood-plane elevation will be increased in future years as well; that the amount of livable space may be reduced to one floor in future years if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted and the FEMA bonus is eliminated; that the value of waterfront properties will also be decreased if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted; that individuals constructing megahouses are typically wealthy executives who should be encouraged to live and work in the City and make a significant contribution to the local economyi that the construction of megahouses should be supported in certain neighborhoods; that further public input should be received prior to adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355; that real estate values are the sole factor currently maintaining a positive national economyi that citizens' positive perceptions of the value of their homes must be maintained; that the local eçonomy may be negatively affected if property values decrease; that the opportunity to address the Commission is appreciated. Charles Hegener, 637 40th Street (34234), representing the IB/SSA, stated that the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported; that the positions of the IB/SSA and the CCNA are supported; that significant public support exists for the regulation of the construction of megahouses in the City; that limiting the scale of homes in the City's neighborhoods will not reduce property values; that an example is Orient; New York, which consists of an exclusive neighborhood of historic small homes; that the land development regulations of Orient, New York, are very strict; that nevertheless, property values are very high; that proposed- Ordinance No. 01-4355 is a positive step towards preserving the character of many of the City's established neighborhoods; that the Bayfront is a vital community asset; that the Bayfront's shoreline should be preserved from development such as the large docks and other intrusive structures which are typically constructed for a megahouse; that the restoration of existing homes. and shoreline habitat should be encouraged; that approximately eight homes were constructed in the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood prior to 1920; that only one of the homes remain; that even larger megahouses are constructed each year in many areas of the City; that the public supports the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 and additional regulations concerning megahouses. Charles Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz and Gietzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34239), representing Audrey. Bailey, 1533 Blue Heron Drive (34239), stated that he was unaware of the proposed regulations until arriving for the current meetingi that his mother has lived in a waterfront residence in the City since 1958; that a tall two- story megahouse was recently constructed near his mother's residence to comply with FEMA requirements; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 would prohibit his mother from constructing a new home similar to her neighbor's home; that many City residents are not aware of the proposed regulations and would be negatively affected if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted; that the intent of the proposed regulations is supported; that smaller historic homes which comply with the character of an established neighborhood are personally preferred to a megahouse; however, the vested rights of property owners should be proteçted; that the construction of a new home is significantly affected by FEMA regulations, which do not allow the construction of livable space in the flood plane; that FEMA continues to raise the minimum flood-plane elevation; that a home with two stories of livable space is usually not massive but is larger than three stories in flood BOOK 50 Page 21808 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21809 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. zones due to FEMA regulations; that FEMA's increase in the minimum flood-plane elevation is not justifiable; that his mother's home is at the natural grade and has never been flooded; that the livable space of new homes must be constructed at 12 feet above sea level. Attorney Bailey continued that the legal notice published to advertise the public hearing to consider proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 does not accurately describe the intent of the proposed regulations; that many residents will be negatively affected if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted; that the legal notice for proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 only indicates the method for calculating the height for. single-story dwellings will be amended and does not indicate the adverse impact on many property owners, who will be prohibited from constructing a second story on a replacement structure; that the support of certain neighborhood associations should not be perceived as support from a definite majority of City residents; that many City residents oppose the proposed regulations but are unaware of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355; that further public input should be received prior to considering approval or denial of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355. Kafi Benz, P.O. Box 2900 (34230), representing the IB/SSA, stated that the issue of regulating the construction of megahouses was previously raised during examination of the City's historic preservation efforts; that historic designation provides a distinct advantage for residential homes; that all homes located in the flood zone could be eligible for historic designation as an individual structure or a contributing element to an historic neighborhood; that the character of the City's neighborhoods must be preserved; that historically designated homes can be enlarged to 100 percent of the home's original square footage; that the City's current regulations only allow a 50-percent enlargement of non-historically-designated homes; that many homes have been expanded in the City; that many historic homes in the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood have been expanded in the flood zone without negatively altering the character of the neighborhood; that historically-designated homes are allowed many building exemptions not afforded other homes; that the renovation and expansion- of an historic home increases property values in a neighborhood; that a decision to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 should not be affected by the complaints or threats of a few individuals; that the character of the City's neighborhoods should be preserved; that eliminating the FEMA bonus is supported; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 represents an important and positive step towards preserving the City's established neighborhoods and should be adopted. Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street (34242), stated that he has practiced land use development law for approximately 35 years in the City and is only representing himself concerning proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355; that a significant number of homes located on the most valuable property in the City will become nonconforming structures if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted; that the effect of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 will be to designate the top story of many homes as noncontorming; that many new homes were constructed as multi- story structures to comply with FEMA regulations concerning the minimum flood-plane elevation for constructing livable space; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 should not be adopted. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 on first reading including the proposed amendments to Section I-105, Transitional Rules, Article I, General Provisions, Zoning Code (1998), and Sections V-103, Noncontorming structures, Subparagraph E, Article V, Vested Rights and Nonconformities, and V-105, Nonconforming Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, Subparagraph D, Article V, Vested Rights and Nonconformities, Zoning Code (1998). On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 on first reading including proposed amendments to Section I-105, Transitional Rules, Article I, General Provisions, Zoning Code (1998), and Sections V-103, Noncontorming structures, Subparagraph E, Article V, Vested Rights and Nonconformities, and V-105, Nonconforming Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, Subparagraph D, Article V, Vested Rights and Nonconformities, Zoning Code (1998). Commissioner Martin stated that a few citizens indicated concern regarding the construction of structures which are presently BOOK 50 Page 21810 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21811 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. permitted but may not be allowed if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted; and asked if the construction of a presently permitted but potentially nonconforming structure will be allowed if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted? Mr. Hess stated yes. Commissioner Martin stated that other citizens indicated concern for the proposed six-month transition period; that the indication was six months may not be sufficient to obtain the required State permits; and asked the reason a six-month transition period was proposed? Mr. Hess stated that six months is a reasonable amount of time to obtain the required State permits. Attorney Schenk stated that Section I-105, Transitional Rules, Article I, General Provisions, Zoning Code (1998), establishes a six-month transition period to obtain a building permit for any development application affected by a change to an applicable City code; that the six-month transition period as established in the Zoning Code (1998) was incorporated in and would apply from the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 for individuals who filed a completed building permit application with the City and a completed application for the appropriate State permits; that the City building and State permits must be obtained within the six-month transition period; that the application would be allowed to proceed according to the regulations in effect at the time filed with the City. Commissioner Martin asked if applicants wait longer than six months to receive an appropriate State permit? Mr. Litchet stated no. Commissioner Palmer stated that applicants should be allowed to proceed if completed permit applications are filed with the State and the City; that additional time should be provided if required; that many applicants have already spent significant funds to obtain the required permits. Mr. Litchet stated that a six-month transition period is sufficient; that many building projects require State approval or permits; that the State approves most permit applications within six months unless a complicated or major issue requires further examination or clarification; that for more traditional permits, the State will provide an initial response to the application within 30 days; that the applicant is then required to provide any required clarifications or further information as soon as possible; that the process is similar to obtaining a City building permit; that applicants who demonstrate a diligent effort will receive the required State permits within six months; that the six-month transition period has always been sufficient for the processing of development applications due to previous modifications to the City codes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the indication is Staff has not experienced any complications to obtain a State permit; however, most citizens do not possess the resources or contacts of Staff and may experience significant delays in obtaining a State permit; and asked if Staff knows of any citizens who experienced a significant delay in obtaining a State permit? Mr. Litchet stated that the Staff is not aware of any citizens who experienced greater than a six-month delay in obtaining a State permit required to receive a City permit. Commissioner Palmer stated that an applicant could potentially require more than six months to obtain the required State permits; and asked if a provision could be included in proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 to allow an applicant additional time to obtain a State permit if required? Attorney Schenk stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is currently drafted to allow only a six-month transition period; that all applications which are not completed within the six- month transition period will be terminated; that a provision could be developed allowing the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement to extend an application beyond the six- month transition period if a letter from the appropriate State agency is received indicating an applicant is proceeding with due diligence to obtain the required State permits; that the language could be specified upon second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355, if passed at the current meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that the inclusion of a due diligence clause in proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported; that only a few applications will be affected; that the vested rights of citizens should be protècted. Vice Mayor Quillin, as the maker of the motion, with the approval of Commissioner Martin, as the seconder, amended the motion to include a provision to allow the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement to extend an application beyond the six- BOOK 50 Page 21812 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21813 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. month transition period if a letter from the appropriate State agency is received indicating an applicant is proceeding with due diligence to obtain the required State permits. Mr. Litchet stated that the City could potentially receive many development applications prior to final adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 on second reading at the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Martin stated that the FEMA height bonus is another concern; and asked if allowing the FEMA height bonus was originally a decision of the City? Mr. Hess stated yes; that the City was allowed to chose whether or not to allow the FEMA height bonus; that other communities chose not to allow the height bonus at the time proposed by FEMA. Commissioner Palmer asked the potential for the filing of a lawsuit against the City alleging violations of Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, also called the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted? Attorney Schenk stated that the Bert J. Harris Act applies to all ordinances adopted by the City after May 11, 1995; that claimants are required to submit a property appraisal to the City documenting a loss in the fair market value of real property due to an ordinance adopted by the City; that the claim must be filed within one year after the loss of value occurs; that the City is allowed a six-month period to provide relief to the claimant; that many relief options are available to the City; that the allowed uses of the claimant's property could be changed to increase the fair market value; that the criteria for determining a reduction in the fair market value of a property is based upon the establishment of an inordinate burden upon the property owner as a result of a City ordinance; that the State Appellate Courts have not established a precedent which defines an inordinate burden upon property owners; that the potential for the filing of a lawsuit against the City alleging a violation of the Bert J. Harris Act if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 cannot be determined at this time; that the potential also exists for the filing of a lawsuit against the City alleging a violation of the Bert J. Harris Act due to the City's planned revisions to the Zoning Code (1998), the adoption of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020), the future adoption of a final version of the City of Sarasota SmartCode, Draft, January 2001 (SmartCode), or any other future City regulations which may negatively affect a private property. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concern of citizens to preserve vested property rights is understood; however, sufficient time has been allowed to. consider proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355; that the Commission has indicated support for implementing further regulations concerning the construction of megahouses for many year's; that Mr. Korp indicated knowledge of the City's intent to implement further development restrictions; that alleging ignorance of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 will not be supported as a reason to delay consideration or adoption; that citizens have been discussing the regulation of megahouses for many years; that many proposals to regulate the further construction of megahouses were presented to the PLBP during recent years and were personally supported; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 does not contain any regulations which have not been widely considered and debated by citizens; that several articles and editorials concerning the regulation of megahouses have been published in local newspapersi that adopting proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported; that further regulations are required to ensure additional megahouses which do not correspond to the existing character of an established neighborhood are not constructed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that many communities in Scotland, United Kingdom, have very strict development regulations concerning the construction of new homes without a decrease in property values; that the primary concern is the preservation of the historical character of the City's neighborhoods; that many neighborhood residents are complaining about the construction of megahouses; that megahouses are frequently constructed to the boundaries of a property; that the resulting amount of impervious surfaces causes significant stormwater runoff, flooding, and damage to neighboring properties; that property values will not decrease if proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is adopted; that property values in the City have increased tremendously in recent years, especially in the City's established neighborhoods; that property values in the City's established neighborhoods increased significantly due to the existing character, types of housing, and other amenities in the neighborhood; that further regulations are required concerning the construction of new megahouses in the City's established neighborhoods; that the character of the City's neighborhoods BOOK 50 Page 21814 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21815 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. must be protected and preserved; that the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 is supported; that citizens are encouraged to work with the City to preserve the character of the City's established neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restate the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4355 on first reading including proposed amendments to Section I-105, Transitional Rules, Article I, General Provisions, Zoning Code (1998), and Sections V-103, Nonconforming structures, Subparagraph E, Article V, Vested Rights and Nonconformities, and V-105, Nonconforming Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, Subparagraph D, Article V, Vested Rights and Nonconformities, Zoning Code (1998), with a provision to allow the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement to extend an application beyond the six-month transition period if a letter from the appropriate State agency is received which indicates an applicant is proceeding with due diligence to obtain the required State permits. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. 17. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (0430) through (1013) The following people came before the Commission: Stan Zimmerman, 2469 Novus Street (34237), stated that the Charter Review Committee (CRC) Report was never discussed in an open meeting; that the CRC members never voted on the CRC Report, nor was public comment allowed; that the CRC Report is a representation of the author's findings rather than the entire CRC; that an explanation for the 7-to-1 veto against the Coalition for Sarasota's Future proposal for an elected strong mayor was not provided to the Commission; that the Commission instructed the CRC to review the form of governance; that the CRC rejected the elected strong-mayor proposal as a form of governance almost immediately; that the CRC did not vote on several items outlined in the August 30, 2001, CRC Report included in the Agenda backup material; that no explanations have been made to the Commission concerning the findings regarding the elected strong-mayor; that the suggestions and comments of citizens were neglected; that amendments concerning penalties for a Commissioner found not upholding the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) were suggested which include an investigative arm, prosecutorial arm, and a method of punishment if a Commissioner is found guilty after all Federal due process requirements are followed; that the inclusion of nondiscrimination language eliminates preference to veterans' for government employment; that the CRC Report is lacking; that the Commission is requested to fairly and thoroughly review the CRC Report which has not been reviewed or voted upon by the CRC members. Charles Griggs, 4708 Pine Harrier Drive (34231), distributed and read from a letter including quotes from Commissioners, Staff, and PCL Civil Contractors, Inc., (PCL), representatives indicating the John Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement (replacement bridge) will be built using the Figg Engineers, Inc., (Figg), design developed from the John Ringling Causeway Bridge design charettes (charettes) and stated that a position was previously held on the charette committee for the design of the replacement bridge; that the replacement bridge designed by Figg is not the replacement bridge being constructed by PCL. Mr. Griggs referred to an August 23, 2001, Pelican Press article indicating the PCL replacement bridge is fraudulent; and stated that the lighting of the replacement bridge was a major issue discussed during the design charettes; that the PCL Project Director indicated on August 30, 2001, in the Pelican Press the replacement bridge is not a Figg design; that Figg has indicated several inconsistencies in the PCL replacement bridge design proposal including support columns which are three times larger than the original Figg design; that the support columns will give the illusion of a wall across Sarasota Bay if viewed from certain angles; that the Director of Engineering/City Engineer indicated PCL has not submitted the requested design drawings which have not been reviewed by the Commission or Staff. Mr. Griggs stated further that the replacement bridge will have a major design impact on the landscape of the City; that the discussions with PCL concerning the width of the replacement bridge are intended to distract the Commission and the City from the more pertinent design issues; that the driver and pedestrian view from the replacement bridge is temporary and transitory; that the view of the replacement bridge from the Intracoastal Waterway and surrounding properties is a permanent and lasting BOOK 50 Page 21816 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21817 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. memory; that the PCL replacement bridge, if constructed, will be an embarrassment to the City. Mr. Griggs further stated that the City has been repeatedly promised a world-class, signature bridge; that the Commission has the fiduciary and moral responsibility to ensure the appropriate replacement bridge is constructed; that the City has spent almost $1 million on legal fees and charettes to ensure an appropriate replacement bridge is constructed; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and PCL have lied to the City and the Commission; that the PCL replacement bridge design 1 should be thoroughly reviewed by the Commission, Staff, and Figg to evaluate and determine inaccuracies; that the City and the Commission have fought too long and too hard to surrender. Vice Mayor Mason stated that Robert Richardson, 635 South Orange Avenue (34236) signed up to address the Commission but was not able to stay; that a letter from Mr. Richardson requesting the Commission include the elected strong-mayor referendum on the November 6, 2001, ballot electing a new District Two Commissioner was provided to the City Auditor and Clerk to enter into the record. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was. moved to enter the September, 4, 2001, letter from Robert Richardson, citizen, into the record. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. Charles Senf, 3346 Pelican Drive (34237), read from a prepared statement indicating that the CRC meeting during which the decision to recommend the inclusion of nondiscrimination language in the City Charter was made was personally attended; that a proposed amendment to the City Charter was personally drafted and sent to the City Auditor and Clerk via electronic mail for distribution to the CRC members; that the CRC members did not acknowledge the proposed amendment or the supporting materials provided; that the proposed amendment was drafted as follows: Employees of the City of Sarasota shall be deemed "civil service employees" and all employees of the City shall be afforded fair and equal treatment under the personnel rules and regulations regardless their affiliation with or membership in any union or association. Direct employees of the City Attorney and persons employed by the City under written employment contracts shall be exempt from this requirement. Mr. Senf continued that the rationale behind the proposed amendment is due to the significant differences in the treatment of City employees; that the distinction between General Employees and Civil Servants has contributed to low morale and concomitant inefficiencies; that the distinctions unfairly discriminate between classes of employees who serve the City equally well despite the significantly different work capacities; that General Employees for the City have a lesser economic status, are a minority, and require the assistance of the Commission. Mr. Senf stated further that a majority vote of the Civil Service/Seneral Personnel Board is sufficient to re-instate a Civil Servant employee; however, not even a unanimous vote of the Civil Service/General Personnel Board is sufficient to re-instate a General Employee without a long and expensive legal battle. Mr. Senf further stated that the Run/Walk/Swim Program which was intended to enhance the well-being of Civil Servants was denied to General Employees for many years; that Civil Service employees are offered physicals at no cost whereas General Employees are not; that General Employees have tried on many occasions to secure equity including unionization efforts which met with limited success; that the morale of General Employees is lessened by the limited ability to effect positive change; that the new Personnel Rules and Regulations still include the General Employee and Civil Servant distinction; that the new Personnel Rules and Regulations were created without meaningful employee input or participation; that the Quality Circles employed for years in the City were not included in the process of developing the new Personnel Rules and Regulations; that the current references to permanent employees in the City Charter are being eliminated further diminishing the voice of General Employees. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED ONE-ACRE CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED WITHIN ARLINGTON PARK = APPROVED BRINGING BACK THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED WITH A SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED AREAS TO THE COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM AT A REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING TO BOOK 50 Page 21818 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21819 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BE DETERMINED AFTER APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) #3 (1014) through (1515) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration supports the Conservation Easement concept for a one acre parcel of city-owned property located in Arlington Park; however, the Commission should be aware the document included in the Agenda backup material is a draft; that the City Attorney's Office should submit a final Conservation Easement to the Commission which will be voted upon at a later date; that the Conservation Easement provides for perpetual maintenance of Arlington Park by the City as the Grantor; that the Conservation Easement is a mitigation effort required by the County for road-building projects; that the County operates Arlington Park under an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County; that under the draft Conservation Easement, the City would assume the responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of Arlington Park if the Interlocal Agreement were terminated; that the Administration recommends approving the Conservation Easement concept and directing Staff and the City Attorney's Office to develop a final Conservation Easement. Duane Mountain, Capital Projects Manager, Public Works Department, and Brooke Elias, Environmental Specialist III, Sarasota County Resource Management, came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain stated that a brief presentation has been prepared for the Commission if desired; that answering Commission questions is also welcomed. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification of the possible perpetual maintenance of Arlington Park for which the City may become responsible in the Euture? Mr. Mountain stated that Staff is concerned about the maintenance of Arlington Park; that the County Parks and Recreation Department maintains certain areas of Arlington Park; that the Conservation Easement area falls within an area maintained by the County Public Works Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU) ; that a Conservation Easement more permanent than the draft Conservation Easement should be developed to ensure the perpetual maintenance of Arlington Park remains the County's responsibility. Ms. Elias stated that the terminology of the Environmental Resource Permit which will be issued by Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) will indicate the Grantee is responsible for the perpetual maintenance of Arlington Park; that the County will maintain Arlington Park in perpetuity if the Interlocal Agreement is invalidated; that the County requires a letter of authorization and approval from the City as the Grantor to complete the permit package and application; that the County's desire is to assure the City is aware of the permit process. Commissioner Martin asked the reason the Commission has been provided with a draft rather than a final proposed Conservation Easement? Attorney Connolly stated that the City Attorney's Office was only provided with a draft Conservation Easement to review; that the word "draft" has been stamped and the word "sample" has been handwritten on the Conservation Easement in several places; that the City Attorney's Office assumed the draft Conservation Easement was distributed by the County for the City to review as a sample of the forthcoming final Conservation Easement; and asked if the draft Conservation Easement is a sample sent to the County by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ? Ms. Elias stated yes; that the Conservation Easement process is being delayed by the permit process; that the regulatory agencies will allow a period of time to determine the final language of the Conservation Easement between the landholder and the State; that the draft Conservation Easement is typical of the type DEP uses; that previous experience with other municipalities indicates DEP is willing to consider modifications and changes to the draft Conservation Easement. Mayor Mason stated that approving the Conservation Easement is not a concern; however, personal preference is to wait and review the final Conservation Easement upon which a vote will be taken. Ms. Elias stated that delays have been encountered in developing the Conservation Easement; that the concerns of Staff and citizens have been resolved; that the Conservation Easement is pro-active and a good example of mutually beneficial intergovernmental cooperation; that the County cannot move forward with the mitigation process without the SWFWMD permit; BOOK 50 Page 21820 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21821 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. that the City must authorize and approve the County's continual work on the restoration site. Commissioner Palmer stated that a final Conservation Easement must be presented to the Commission at a later date even if the concept is approved; that a Conservation Easement is personally supported; that the actual language of a final Conservation Easement should be received; and asked if a final proposed Conservation Easement resolving the concerns of the Administration can be presented to the Commission during the September 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting? Ms. Elias stated that contact names of the State's legal department can be provided sO the permit process can proceed. Attorney Connolly asked if the City Attorney's Office should be responsible for preparing a deed to donate City property? Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the information should be prepared by the County; that the City has not been provided with surveys of the area; that the County is requesting the City deed parcels of City property to the County to allow completion of the permit process. Ms. Elias stated that the County can provide signed and sealed land surveys, maps, and drawings to the City at any time. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the County should be responsible for providing the City with a deed for the City Attorney's Office to review. Ms. Elias asked if the reference is to the Conservation Easement? Vice Mayor Quillin stated yes. Ms. Elias stated that the County will provide to the City the most up-to-date information from DEP. Attorney Connolly stated that the Commission is requesting the final proposed Conservation Easement upon which the Commission will be voting; and quoted from the draft Conservation Easement in the Agenda backup material as follows: The Grantor on behalf of itself and its successors or assigns hereby agrees to bear all costs and liability relating to the operation and maintenance... Attorney Connolly continued that the Grantor as indicated in the draft Conservation Easement refers to the Cityi that the City should not bear all costs and liabilities of Arlington Park; therefore, the Conservation Easement presented to the Commission should include the proper provisions for County responsibility for perpetual maintenance of Arlington Park. Ms. Elias stated that only the City as property owner can grant the Conservation Easement to the State. Attorney Connolly stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the County should provide the final Conservation Easement to the City for review and signature; that specific land surveys should also be provided to the City. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved that the Conservation Easement to include a survey of the proposed areas will be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and, if approved by the Administration, will be brought back to the Commission for final approval as a Consent Agenda Item. Commissioner Martin stated that the Conservation Easement is supported; that the effort to develop the Conservation Easement has been lengthy; that the tenacity of Ms. Elias is appreciated; that the Conservation Easement is a good example of intergovermmental relations and will be an excellent improvement for Arlington Park. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Conservation Easement will be significant; that bureaucratic work is lengthy and difficult. Ms. Elias stated that the Commission's effort is appreciated. Commissioner Palmer concurred. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion that the Conservation Easement with a survey of the proposed areas will be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and, if approved by the Administration, brought back to the Commission for final BOOK 50 Page 21822 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21823 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. approval as a Consent Agenda Item. Motion carried unanimously: (4 to 0) : Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO BE PRESENTED AT THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 AGREED THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER WILL ATTEND THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2001, LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING WITH THE MAYOR AS SPORESPERSON FOR THE CITY (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) #3 (1516) through (1718) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission should determine the spokesperson for the September 21, 2001, Legislative Delegation meeting; that former Mayor Albert Hogle was previously designated to represent the City and present the City's legislative priorities; that the City Manager has ordinarily been the spokesperson during previous Legislative Delegation meetings; however, the spokesperson for the September 21, 2001, Legislative Delegation meeting should be available for contact after the conclusion of Legislative Delegation meeting; that he will be taking a leave of absence at the end of September 2001 and should therefore not be the spokesperson. City Manager Sollenberger continued that the August 28, 2001, letter to Nancy Detert, District 7, State House of epresentatives, in the Agenda backup material indicates three legislative priorities and thanks the Legislative Delegation for the Enterprise Zone in the City; that the first legislative priority concerns the Ad Valorem Taxation of Municipal Property but should be rewritten to indicate the concern is the result of a decision of the State Supreme Court rather than the State Legislature; that the City should inform the Legislative Delegation of the need for a Constitutional amendment as the Supreme Court decision requires taxation of a public facility which is a severe imposition on the City; that support from the Legislative Delegation for a Constitutional amendment to negate the Supreme Court's decision is desired; that the second legislative priority concerns the Swimming Pool Safety Act which conflicts with the Zoning Code (1998) and does not include specific standards; that without specific standards, the Swimming Pool Safety Act is open to local interpretation which is a risk to all municipalities; that the State should provide specific standards on all mandated acts; that the third legislative priority concerns Red Light Running; that the three legislative priorities are submitted by the Administration for consideration by the Commission; that the Commission may add to or delete from the three legislative priorities. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Legislative Delegation meeting is September 21, 2001; and asked the reason the City Manager should not remain the spokesperson for the City as his leave of absence does not begin until October 1, 2001? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Legislative Delegation should be able to connect faces and names of spokespeople for continuity; that attending the Legislative Delegation meeting has been a pleasure in previous years and will be sO again this year if the Commission desires; that the personal recommendation is to provide continuity to the Legislative Delegation by appointing a spokesperson who will be available after October 1, 2001. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Mayor generally attends the Legislative Delegation meeting with the City Manager. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Mayor has attended the Legislative Delegation meeting in previous years; that the Mayor and an Administrator should attend Legislative Delegation meetings together every year; that the Mayor should be the spokesperson for the City; that personal attendance at the September 21, 2001, Legislative Delegation meeting will be a pleasure if the Commission desires. Commissioner Palmer stated that former Mayor Albert Hogle was previously appointed to attend the September 21, 2001, Legislative Delegation meeting; that newly seated Mayor Mason should assume the appointment of the former Mayor; that the preference is for the Mayor and City Manager to attend the September 21, 2001, Legislative Delegation meeting with the Mayor as spokesperson for the City. City Manager Sollenberger concurred; and stated that previous Legislative Delegation meetings have been enjoyable; that the Mayor should be the spokesperson for the September 21, 2001, Legislative Delegation meeting. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, she will be the spokesperson for the City during the September 21, 2001, Legislative Delegation meeting which will also be attended by the City Manager. BOOK 50 Page 21824 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21825 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION FOR THE LEMON AVENUE MALL = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) #3 (1691) through (2692) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission previously directed the Administration to meet with representatives of the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), to prepare the Lease and Concession Agreement between the City and the Downtown Assoclation for the Lemon Avenue Mall (Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement), ; that the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement was prepared, is included in the Agenda backup material, and represents a partnership between the City and the Downtown Association recognizing the value of returning activity to the Lemon Avenue Mall; that the August 28, 2001, letter to the Commission included in the Agenda backup material indicates the key points of the lease agreement; that concerns previously expressed by the Commission have been resolved. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a concern is the Abandonment or Suspension of Use clause, paragraph 28, Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement, which indicates as follows: 28. Abandonment or Suspension of Use: Should TENANT voluntarily abandon the leasehold, or should TENANT suspend its activities or discontinue its use of leasehold for any reason whatsoever for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement. If TENANT fails to provide a sub-tenant operating the retail food outlet within the leasehold pursuant to all terms and conditions of this Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days or more, such failure shall constitute an abandonment or suspension of use which shall be grounds for termination of this Agreement pursuant to the default provisions below. Vice Mayor Quillin continued that the 30-day period for which abandonment or suspension of use of the leasehold must occur prior to termination of the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement is lengthy and should be shortened. Mr. Schneider stated that the initial time period for abandonment or suspension of use was 60 days which was requested by the Downtown Association; that the City Attorney's Office recommended a 30-day time period as the tenant is provided a three-day, notice-to-cure period; that an additional 30-day time period is provided to the tenant if the default is not cured. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a three-day, notice-to-cure period is provided for non-payment. Attorney Connolly stated that is correct; that a three-day notice-to-cure period is typical of a residential lease agreement. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Department of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement generally provides a 15-day, notice-to-cure period for violations; that the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement indicates providing the tenant 30 days to cure a default after the date the notice to cure is received; that a notice to cure sent certified mail can require significant time for receipt; that the City could be waiting for 60 to 90 days to terminate the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement. Attorney Connolly stated that as currently drafted, the City could wait a minimum of 65 days to officially terminate the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement; that the Commission can choose to. amend the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement; that the language drafted is typical of lease agreements; that the City Manager will provide written notice by certified mail with return receipt requested if the Downtown Association abandons the leasehold area for a period of 30 consecutive days; that the notice to cure will require approximately five days to be receipt by the Downtown Association; that the Downtown Association will have 30 days after the receipt of the notice to cure the default. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the tenant is the Downtown Association or the sublet tenant? Attorney Connolly stated that the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement is with the Downtown Association; that the Abandonment or Suspension of Use Clause protects the City in the event the Downtown Association does not obtain a sublet tenant and the leasehold area remains vacant for a period of 30 consecutive days; that the Abandonment or Suspension of Use clause provides the City the ability to terminate the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement and retake possession of the property. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that another concern is the Default clause, paragraph 30, Lemon Avenue Mall Lease Agreement, which indicates as follows: BOOK 50 Page 21826 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21827 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. 30. Default: TENANT acknowledges that the conditions, covenants and requirements on its part to be kept, as set forth herein, are material inducements to CITY entering into this agreement. Should TENANT fail to perform any of the conditions, covenants, and requirements on its part to be kept, the City Manager shall give written notice thereof to TENANT, specifying those acts or things which must occur in order to cure said default. TENANT shall have such period of time as the City Manager shall specify, in the written notice, within which to cure the default. The time allowed to cure a default shall be at least 30 days from the date of the notice, unless the default is failure to pay money. If the default is failure to pay money, the minimum time allowed to cure the default shall be three (3) business days. Should the default remain upon expiration of the time granted to cure the same, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement, by written notice of termination, said notice specifying the time and date of termination. In the event of such default, which has not been cured, CITY may take possession of the Leasehold, City's furniture, Fixtures and Equipment as well as Tenant's Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment and shall have the right to remove all persons therefrom. Vice Mayor Quillin continued that the time period to cure a default should be less than 30 days; that the concern is as much for protection of the Downtown Association as well as the City from the sublet tenant. Attorney Connolly stated that the Default Clause can be amended. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of the Downtown Association, came before the Commission and stated that the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement is acceptable to the Downtown Association; that the lease being developed between the Downtown Association and the sublet tenant is more strict than the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement between the City and the Downtown Association; that the leasehold has been vacant for two years; that the Downtown Association desires to obtain the leasehold area to sublet to a tenant who will promote vitality Downtown and will well represent the City; that serving a notice to cure is not anticipated; that dealing with the sublet tenant is the responsibility of the Downtown Association. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that language should be incorporated in the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement to support the Downtown Association to prevent a violation of a City lease. Mr. Thorpe stated that significant time has been spent with the Deputy City Manager and the City Attorney's Office developing the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement; that concessions have been made by all parties; that the Downtown Association has been accommodating to the demands of the City. Mr. Schneider stated that the Downtown Association will have sufficient time to eliminate a problem sublet tenant and procure a new sublet tenant without defaulting on the City's lease with the existing proposed Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement. Vice Mayor Quillin disagreed; and asked if a new inventory of the original kitchen equipment has been completed as Exhibit A, Leasehold Kitchen Equipment Inventory (Exhibit A), included in the Agenda backup material is not current? Attorney Connolly stated that following the drafting of the current Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement proposal, the Downtown Association requested two changes be made; that the Downtown Association completed an inventory of the original kitchen equipment; that the Department of General Services subsequently verified the inventory; that a new inventory list has been prepared containing one-half to two-thirds of the previous inventory and will be substituted for the existing Exhibit A prior to execution of the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement; that approval of the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement will be contingent upon approval of the new Exhibit A prepared by the City Attorney's Office; that the second change requested by the Downtown Association concerns the Hours of Operation clause, paragraph 9, Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement, which indicates as follows: 9. Hours of Operation: TENANT may keep the retail food outlet located within the leasehold open to the public during the hours of 6:00 a.m. through 12:00 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays as well as on days preceding a legal holiday. Otherwise, TENANT may keep the retail food outlet located within the leasehold open to the public during the hours of 6:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. These shall constitute the maximum hours of operation. TENANT covenants to open the retail food outlet located upon the leasehold a minimum of six (6) days per week, excluding legal holidays. TENANT may, if it desires, close the BOOK 50 Page 21828 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21829 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. retail food outlet located upon the leasehold on a legal holiday or holidays as well as one other day during that calendar week. Attorney Connolly continued that the Downtown Association has requested the sublet tenant be allowed to keep the leasehold open until midnight on the Fourth of July and Memorial Dayi that the change will be made to the final Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement prior to execution if the Commission agrees. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that allowing the leasehold to remain open until midnight on the Fourth of July and Memorial Day will require Special Event permits which is indicated in the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement. Attorney Connolly stated that Special Event permits can be obtained by the tenant if the Commission desires. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the Fourth of July and Memorial Day are considered Special Events? Mr. Thorpe stated that the Downtown Association intends the Fourth of July and Memorial Day will be Special Events. Mr. Schneider stated that activity occurring beyond the leasehold would require a Special Event permit; that a Special Event permit will not be necessary if the sublet tenant remains open until midnight on the leasehold. Commissioner Palmer stated that allowing the leasehold to remain open until midnight on the Fourth of July and Memorial Day is acceptable; that the Downtown Association initially requested an easement of Ordinance No. 97-4019 concerning noise for the leasehold which is not indicated in the proposed Lemon Avenue Lease Agreementi and asked if the Downtown Association intends to obtain permits for Special Events? Mr. Thorpe stated yes; that specifications are included in the lease agreement being developed for the sublet tenant indicating amplified music will be prohibited on the leasehold; that a waiver of Ordinance No. 97-4019 concerning noise will be requested for Special Events. Commissioner Martin stated that a concern is the appropriateness of the sublet tenant; that a fast food restaurant is not considered an appropriate sublet tenant; and asked if design changes are proposed for the leasehold and if the leasehold will be policed? Mr. Thorpe stated that the basic design of the leasehold is not being changed; that installing a canopy from the south end of the leasehold to the property line on Main Street is being considered; that installing an awning in the center of the leasehold area to provide shelter during inclement weather is also being considered; that planters and small fencing may be installed as a perimeter barrier; that the Downtown Association will provide funding for an appropriate perimeter barrier; that the bathrooms will be upgraded; that the Downtown Association will maintain the outer building of the leasehold as well as trim the trees around the perimeter of the leasehold. Commissioner Martin asked if any changes are expected for the Farmers' Market? Mr. Thorpe stated that the Farmers' Market will not be changed; that the leasehold will offer open bathrooms to Farmers' Market customers. Commissioner Martin asked if the area will remain as the Farmers' Market? Mr. Thorpe stated yes; that the sublet tenant may offer coffee tables, etc., during the Farmers' Market; that the area currently occupied by the Farmers' Market will remain; that the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) indicated constructing a perimeter barrier surrounding the leasehold will significantly contribute to the policing of the area; that the City will be proud of the leasehold under the control of the Downtown Association. Commissioner Martin stated that the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement indicates revenue received by the Downtown Association will be utilized for the improvement of the leasehold; and asked the reason the Downtown Association is limiting the use of the revenue? Mr. Thorpe stated that kiosks will be installed in the Downtown area as well as other improvements with the excess revenue. BOOK 50 Page 21830 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21831 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that the Director of Downtown Development has served as a City liaison in developing the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement and should continue to serve as a Liaison between the Downtown Association and the Commission. Mr. Thorpe stated that Karen Hartman, Director of Downtown Development, works with the Downtown Association on a daily basis; that the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement indicates questions concerning the leasehold should be directed through the City Manager; that the Downtown Association has a close working relationship with the Director of Downtown Development. Commissioner Martin stated that great confidence is held in the ability of the Director of Downtown Development. Vice Mayor Quillin referred to the Use of Leasehold clause, paragraph 6, Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement, as follows: CITY shall be responsible for any trash pickup after the Farmers' Market. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the clause should also indicate the City will be responsible for any trash pickup after Special Events. Mr. Thorpe stated that the trash pickup for Special Events is generally included in Special Event permits. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that garbage cans have been overflowing in the past due to the lack of designation of responsibility for trash pickup after Special Events. Mr. Thorpe stated that other Special Events may have neglected to include Public Works in the designation of responsibility for trash pickupi that the Downtown Association leases the garbage cans which are utilized on the street. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that trash pickup should be covered for any Special Event. Mr. Schneider stated that the sponsor of the Special Event is responsible for assigning responsibility for trash pickup after Special Events. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 clause, paragraph 29, Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement, is pleasing and indicates as follows: 29. Downtown Master Plan 2020: TENANT and CITY covenant to work together so as to assure that TENANT's use of the Leasehold will be, at all times, consistent with the Downtown Master Plan 2020. In the event CITY and TENANT are unable to agree upon a use of the Leasehold which is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan 2020, such failure to agree shall constitute an event of default supporting termination of this Agreement pursuant to the default provisions below. TENANT and CITY agree that, should improvements to the area surrounding the Leasehold commence during the term of this Agreement, CITY shall not be held liable for any interruption to TENANT's business or that of any sub-lessee of TENANT. Commissioner Palmer continued that any improvements at the leasehold will not be impeded by the tenant or sublet tenant. Mr. Thorpe stated that the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) is beneficial to the Downtown Association; that the Downtown Association has been waiting for implementation of a Downtown Master Plan for almost 20 years. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will. be beneficial to the entire City; that the efforts and perseverance of the Downtown Association and Staff are appreciated; that the Commission's efforts are appreciated as well; that a qualified sublet tenant should be open for business expeditiously. Mayor Mason concurred; and stated that the efforts to secure the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement are a wonderful example of teamwork. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Commission is thanked for the efforts to secure the Lemon Avenue Lease Agreement. Mr. Schneider stated that the Administration recommends approving the Lease and Concession Agreement between the City and the Downtown Association for the Lemon Avenue Mall with the amendments indicated by the City Attorney's Office. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve the Lease and Concession BOOK 50 Page 21832 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21833 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Agreement between the City and the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc., for the Lemon Avenue Mall with the amendments indicated by the City Attorney's Office. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. 21. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1397, SETTING FORTH THE INVESTMENT POLICY APPLICABLE TO ALL FUNDS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA EXCEPT FOR PENSION FUNDS, BOND PROCEEDS, AND 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS HELD BY A THIRD-PARTY CUSTODIAN; ESTABLISHING INVESTMENTS NOT LISTED AS PROHIBITED / CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS, SECURITIES DISPOSITION, / SALE OF SECURITIES, AUDITS, AND AUDITOR GENERAL REVIEW; AFFIRMING AUTHORITY TO INVEST SURPLUS FUNDS; PROVIDING CRITERIA FOR THE PURCHASE OF SECURITIES; STATING CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT; PROVIDING FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (2693) through (2996) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Resolution No. 01R-1397 is to bring City policy concerning financial investments up to date with current legislation. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, and Mark Hostetler, Cash/Investments Manager, Finance Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Florida Legislature recently adopted Senate Bill (SB) 372, the Investment of Public Funds Act (Investment Act), which became effective October 1, 2000; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1397 adopts a new City investment policy to comply with the new State Investment Act, which establishes guidelines for the investment of public funds by local government; that the City's present investment guidelines were adopted in 1995 and should be updated to comply with the new State Investment Act; that the State is authorized to withhold revenue from all governmental entities which do not have compliant investment policies; that the new State Investment Act also requires external auditors to examine the investment policies of governments and to report the findings to the State Auditor General. Mr. Mitchell. continued that the Finance Department has had an investment policy since 1985; that the 1985 investment policy was rescinded in 1995 and a new investment policy conforming to current legislation was approved by the Commission; that the most significant change with the creation of the 1995 investment policy was the creation of the Investment Committee; that a new investment policy was established in 1998 to allow the City to invest in the Florida League of Cities Investment Trust; that the new 2001 investment policy is similar to the 1995 investment policy; that the new 2001 investment policy indicates investments not included in the policy are prohibited, continuing education for the Finance Director and the Cash/Investments Manager is required on an annual basis, and the Investment Committee will present an annual report to the Commission; that an investment report has not been presented to the Commission for over 20 yearsi that the new 2001 investment policy also provides for a system of internal controls and assigns the responsibility for making investment decisions. Mr. Mitchell stated further that the authority of the Investment Committee is expanded in the new policy; that the Investment Committee formally approved the new 2001 investment policy on August 7, 2001; that Staff recommends adopting Resolution No. 01R-1397. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff's recommendation is supported. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1397 by title only. On motion on Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Quillin, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 01R-1397. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Quillin, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R- 1402, APPROVING MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION NO. 01- CU-14 AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 01-SP-22 TO ALLOW A SOCIAL SERVICE FACILITY IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON A APPROXIMATELY 3.73 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 1400 TENTH STREET, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SAID MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 01-SP-22; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION BOOK 50 Page 21834 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21835 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. NOS. 01-CU-14 AND 01-SP-22, APPLICANT CHARLES D. BAILEY, JR., OF WILLIAMS, / PARKER, HARRISON, DIETZ & GETZEN, AS AGENT FOR THE SALVATION ARMY, AS OWNER) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (3001) through (3104) City Manager Sollenberger referred to proposed Resolution No. 01R-1402 to approve Major Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 and Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22, allowing a Social Service facility in the Commercial-Intensive (CI) Zone District, which is recommended for Commission approval by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency PBLP) subject to the following conditions as revised by the Engineering Department: 1. Approval of Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-22 and [Major] Conditional Use Application No. 01-CU-14 is contingent upon final approval of related files [Street Vacation Application Nos.] 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 by the City Commission. 2. Except as modified herein, the site plan and all related development and construction plans shall be in compliance with those labeled Salvation Army, received by the Planning Department on 23 July 2001. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with applicable codes and development approvals by the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall grant a 4.5-foot-wide easement in favor of the City of Sarasota for public access along the north side of Ninth Street between Central and Lemon Avenues. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the discussion regarding Agenda Item No. IV A-4 concerning Ordinance No. 01-4334 which approved Street Vacation Application Nos. 01-SV-03 and 01-SV-04 is pertinent; that additional Staff presentation will not be provided at this time unless desired by the Commission. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1402 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Quillin, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1402. Mayor Mason requested the City Auditor and Clerk proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Mason, yes. 23. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: CITY COMMISSION REPRESENTATION ON BOARDS AND COMMITTEES HELD BY FORMER MAYOR/COMRITSSIONER HOGLE APPOINTMENTS MADE (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (3105) through #4 (0117) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that former Mayor Albert Hogle served as the City's representative to the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the ManaSota League of Cities, the Sarasota County Juvenile Justice Committee, and as the Liaison to the Firefighters' Pension Board of Trustees, the General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees, and the Police Officers' Pension Board of Trustees; that a Commissioner should be appointed to represent the City on the indicated boards and committees. Mayor Mason stated that the consensus of the Commission is for the following representation on external boards and committees: Council of Governments Mayor Mason Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization Commissioner Palmer in addition to Vice Mayor Quillin who currently serves and Commissioner Martin as alternate ManaSota League of Cities Commissioner Palmer and Commissioner Martin as alternate Liaison to the Pension Boards Commissioner Palmer Sarasota County Juvenile Justice Committee Commissioner Martin Water Planning Alliance Vice Mayor Quillin and Commissioner Martin as alternate Children and Youth Services Advisory Committee (CAYSAC) Commissioner Martin BOOK 50 Page 21836 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21837 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that background information on the meeting times of the boards represented would be appreciated. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Water Planning Alliance has not met to date; that Commissioner Martin will be informed of the future meeting times of the Water Planning Alliance; that she is also the contact for residents on notices sent to the Sarasota Mobile Home Park (SMHP). Commissioner Palmer stated that previously the City was involved with the Tampa Regional Planning Council; that the involvement ceased at the time the City became involved with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; and asked the reason the City is no longer involved with any Regional Planning Council? City Manager Sollenberger stated that involvement with the Tampa Regional Planning Council was terminated prior to his acceptance of the City Manager position in 1986; that involvement with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council was terminated during a period of financial difficulty in the early 1990s; that the Commission at the time determined the City could be represented without paying dues which guarantees a seat on the Southwest Planning Council Board; that the exact amount of the membership dues are not recalled. Commissioner Palmer stated that the current membership dues should be determined; that a report concerning involvement on a Regional Planning Council should be made to the Commission; that the City is the only municipality in the County which is not a member of a Regional Planning Council. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that previous Regional Planning Council workshops have been attended; that removing the City from the Southwest Regional Planning Council is recalled; that the membership dues at the time were several thousand dollars. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City can still participate on a Regional Planning Council; that a seat on a board cannot be guaranteed without paying membership dues. Commissioner Palmer asked if any Regional Planning Council workshops are attended by a City representative? Vice Mayor Quillin stated no. Commissioner Palmer stated that the City's lack of involvement on a Regional Planning Council is a concern. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that many issues discussed at Regional Planning Council workshops are also discussed by the MPO. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Regional Planning Councils have participated with reviews of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) which has been advantageous to the City. 24. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (0118) through (0119) There were no Commission Board or Committee reports. 25. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - SCHEDULED A 2 P.M., SEPTEMBER 17, 2001, WORKSHOP (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (0122) through (0640) VICE MAYOR QUILLIN: A. stated that the visit with the Sarasota Sister Cities Association (SSCA) to Dunfermline, Scotland, was valuable; that the SSCA would like to provide a report concerning the trip to the Commission; and asked if SSCA could provide a report at a 2 p.m., September 17, 2001, workshop? Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, a 2 p.m., September 17, 2001, workshop will be scheduled. COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that a tentative 2 p.m., September 18, 2001, workshop concerning the plans for the John Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement (replacement bridge) has been scheduled subject to the Commission's approval; that requests were received to allow public participation. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and PCL Civil Contractors, Inc. (PCL), have been contacted to make a presentation at a Commission workshop; that the workshop will be an open meeting; however, public input BOOK 50 Page 21838 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21839 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. would not be permitted at the workshop according to the Commission's Rules of Procedure. Commissioner Palmer asked if FDOT and PCL would be concerned if public input were allowed? Mr. Schneider stated that allowing public input could result in a long meeting; that FDOT and PCL intend to make a presentation to provide information concerning the replacement bridge which is available to date. Commissioner Palmer stated that FDOT and PCL could be asked if allowing public input is a concern; that FDOT and PCL will provide a report concerning the design of the replacement bridge and if the design is in accordance with the design submitted by Eugene Figg, P.E., President and Chief Executive Officer, the Figg Engineering Group (FEG). Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the replacement bridge process has not been pleasing; that the court agreed the City has home rule powers; however, the City has been instructed not to ask questions; that being told certain items such as lighting cannot be discussed is a concern; that no concrete information or visual representation has been presented to the Commission concerning the replacement bridge design; that PCL has indicated the high cost of the replacement bridge is due to the design developed by Mr. Figg; that correspondence has been received from Mr. Figg indicating the design is not his design; that the purpose of holding a workshop to receive information concerning the bridge design is not understood; and asked the action the Commission can take if the replacement bridge design plans presented are not in accordance with the design developed by Mr. Figg? Mr. Schneider stated that FDOT and PCL will be presenting the design plans for the replacement bridge during the scheduled workshop. City Manager Sollenberger stated that determining if the replacement bridge design is in accordance with the design charettes (charettes) and the design developed by Mr. Figg is difficult without Mr. Figg's consultation; that representatives of FDOT and PCL should meet with Mr. Figg and the Commission or a City representative to determine if the replacement bridge is being constructed as promised; that a separate workshop can be scheduled for public input if the Commission desires; that the Commission has been overwhelmed by public input previously during meetings in which the Commission took action and the public was allowed input; that the Commission should have an appropriate length of time to fully absorb and understand the findings of the upcoming workshop with FDOT and PCL prior to providing answers to questions from the public; that Mr. Figg can be invited to the upcoming workshop with FDOT and PCL to provide an opinion concerning the PCL replacement bridge design; that the design developed by Mr. Figg is constructed on-site while PCL constructs bridge segments off-site and transports the segments to the new bridge location; that the differing construction styles could alter the replacement bridge design. Mayor Mason stated that she will be out of town September 18, 2001, which is the suggested date for the workshop. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that scheduling a workshop is desired; that a concern is raising the issue of the replacement bridge again without adequate information; that the workshop with FDOT and PCL should be between the Commission and the presenters; that the public is being informed Mr. Figg's design will not be constructed; that the purpose of the court case concerning the replacement bridge was to prohibit FDOT from constructing a bridge not desired by the City- Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, a workshop will be scheduled with FDOT and PCL to discuss the replacement bridge design. Commissioner Palmer asked if the workshop can be held without the Mayor's attendance? Mayor Mason stated that the workshop can be held in her absence; that the workshop will be viewed at a later date on videotape. Commissioner Palmer stated that the public is currently concerned about the replacement bridge; that the replacement bridge controversy has been the subject of significant public and media outcry; that a significant number of telephone calls have been personally received concerning the replacement bridge controversy; that the Commission and the public should be apprised of the replacement bridge which will be constructed regardless of the City's standing in determining the design of the replacement bridge at this time; that the public requires and deserves an accurate representation of the replacement bridge design prior to the actual construction; that the presenters necessary, including Mr. Figg, to fully and accurately represent to the Commission and BOOK 50 Page 21840 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 21841 09/04/01 6:00 P.M. the City the design of the replacement bridge should be invited to present at the workshop. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, a workshop will be scheduled on September 18, 2001, for presentation and discussion of the replacement bridge design; that the workshop will be held without public input. Commissioner Martin stated that FDOT and PCL will present at the September 18, 2001, Commission workshop without Mr. Figg. Commissioner Palmer stated that Mr. Figg is welcome to present to the Commission with representatives of FDOT and PCL. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Mr. Figg will be invited to the September 18, 2001, Commission workshopi; that a letter has been received previously from Mr. Figg indicating the PCL replacement bridge designs are fraudulent; that Mr. Figg will certify the City is not receiving a bridge in accordance with his design. Commissioner Martin stated that the public has been helpful in revealing the discrepancies of the replacement bridge design; that FDOT and PCL misrepresented replacement bridge design drawings to the Commission which was communicated to the Commission by the public; that the public is credited and respected for the vigilant protection of the replacement bridge; that the public should be allowed input regarding the findings of the September 18, 2001, Commission workshop. Mayor Mason stated that the findings of the September 18, 2001, Commission workshop will be discussed and public input will be received at a later date; that the Commission and the public require an appropriate length of time to absorb and understand the findings of the September 18, 2001, Commission workshop; that the public is not being shut out. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that public input is available during the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meetings; that the public should offer input concerning the replacement bridge during the September 24, 2001, MPO meeting rather than at a Regular Commission meeting; that the MPO is the only entity with the ability to require FDOT and PCL be forthcoming about the replacement bridge design. Mayor Mason stated that requesting public input concerning the replacement bridge design be expressed at the September 24, 2001, MPO meeting is inappropriate; that the Commission may take action after the September 18, 2001, Commission workshop prior to the September 24, 2001, MPO meeting. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Figg will likely require a consultant's fee to make a presentation concerning the replacement bridge design to the Commission; that the Administration can negotiate a consultant's fee if Mr. Figg's presence is desired at the September 18, 2001, Commission workshop. Commissioner Martin stated that paying a high consultant's fee is a concern. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a $9,000 consultant's fee is not supported. Commissioner Palmer stated that the replacement bridge is not being stopped; that the purpose of the September 18, 2001, Commission workshop is to receive an accurate representation of the replacement bridge which will be constructed. 26. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (0635) There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the. Regular meeting of September 4, 2001, at 11:40 p.m. Cadia G.M a A ah CAROLYN J. MASON, MAYOR ATTEST: OTA illy E- Robenoon BILBY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 50 Page 21842 09/04/01 6:00 P.M.