MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 5, 1995 AS NATIONAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT DAY #1 (0039) through (0142) Dan Lestz, Records Manager, joined Mayor Patterson before the Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that the Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA) is an international organization of 11,000 professionals in the records and information management industry; that the Sarasota Bay Chapter of ARMA was chartered in 1973 and is made up of members from Bradenton south to Fort Myers, Florida; that Dan Lestz is the Sarasota Bay Chapter president whose main objective is to promote and advance the improvement of Records and Information Management through education and research; that in May 1995, the City's Central Records Department, a division of the Office of the City Auditor & Clerk, was selected by the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to receive the Fifth Annual Records Management Award for Exceptional Municipal programs for the best Manual Records System with Computer Assistance in a City with a population of 2,501 to 100,000. Mayor Patterson read in its entirety the City of Sarasota Proclamation which declared April 5th as "National Records Management Day" and recognized the significant and important role that records management professionals render in maintaining appropriate business, civic, and government records. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 6:08 p.m. Mayor Patterson thanked Mr. Lestz for his contributions and presented him with the Proclamation. BOOK 38 Page 11708 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11709 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. 2. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 9-15, 1995 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMXUNICATORS WEEK #1 (0143) through (0213) Kenda Vessel, Operations Supervisor, Communications Division, Public Safety Department, joined Mayor Patterson before the Commission. Mayor Patterson read the City of Sarasota Proclamation in its entirety which declared April 9-15, 1995, "National Public Safety Telecommunications Week", a week of special importance and worthy of the recognition of the citizens of the City of Sarasota. 3. ADOPTION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 95R-811, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF LEO M. ROGERS, AN OUTSTANDING CITIZEN OF THE COMMUNITY - ADOPTED #1 (0231) through (0357) Mayor Patterson requested that Deane Allyn, Executive Director of the Sarasota Opera Association, join her before the Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that the City of Sarasota Memorial Resolution No. 95R-811 recognizes the March 10, 1995, passing of Leo M. Rogers, a patron of the arts, philanthropist, and friend of the City of Sarasota, whose death is a distinct loss to the community. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 6:11 p.m. Mayor Patterson read Memorial Resolution No. 95R-811 in its entirety, expressed the Commission's condolences, and presented the Memorial Resolution plaque to Ms. Allyn. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 95R-811. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Ms. Allyn stated that Mr. Rogers had adopted the city of Sarasota as his home and enjoyed his time here. Ms. Allyn thanked the Commission and accepted the memorial resolution on behalf of Mr. Rogers' widow and the Sarasota Opera Association. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE SVAVOYYORY CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 15, 1995, AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1995- APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0357) through (0379) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Patterson stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the statutory City Commission meeting of March 15, 1995, and the regular City Commission meeting of March 20, 1995, were approved by unanimous consent. 5. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0383) through (0403) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add under New Business, Item No. VIII-7, a request by the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc., for termination of the Three Party Agreement between First Sunset Development, the John Ringling Centre foundation and the City of Sarasota, per the request of Vice Mayor Merrill. B. Add under New Business, Item No. VIII-8, a grant proposal for the homeless, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1 AND 3 = APPROVED; ITEM NO. 2 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0403) through (0487) Mayor Patterson requested that Item No. 2 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Restated Service Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Browning-Ferris Industries of Florida, Inc. 3. Approval Re: Authorize for sale the city owned properties located on the Northeast corner of 12th Street and U.S. 301 (comprised of two separate parcels) to be combined and sold as a signal parcel On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 and 3. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 38 Page 11710 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11711 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. 2. Approval Re: Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County regarding a centralized communication service for the dispatch of fire suppression equipment, personnel and emergency medical services Mayor Patterson stated that approving the Interlocal Agreement for an entire fiscal year seems unfortunate; and asked for the progress made with the County in consolidating the communication service? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Public Safety communications consolidation is anticipated during the 1995/96 Fiscal Year; that implementation is planned for January 1996; however, some issues still need to be resolved. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Interlocal Agreement includes a provision for termination, for any reason, upon 90 days written notice of cancellation by either party. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3843) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3849) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0487) through (0524) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3843 and 95-3849 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3843, amending Chapter 2, Article V, Division 5, relating to Code Enforcement, to amend the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Special Master and to clarify various provisions of such division; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3849, amending the Sarasota City Code by establishing a Nuisance Abatement Board; setting forth findings to justify the creation of said Board; stating the purpose, powers, and jurisdiction of the Board; establishing membership requirements and restrictions; providing for the severability of parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Atkins, and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Items No. 1 and 2. Mayor Patterson requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE ACCESS ROADS = REFERRED TO THE PBLP FOR RECOMMENDATION ON THE ISSUE OF PRIVATE ACCESS ROADS TO CURRENTLY PLATTED FLAG LOTS (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (0524) through (1085) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that this item results from an application filed by Jerome Bartinikas for approval of a private access road to property on which he intended to create two buildable lots, one behind the other; that after the City Commission's decision to deny the application was overturned in court, the Administration was directed to provide alternatives for approval of private access roads; that Staff conducted an extensive review of several Zoning Codes including the State's "Model Land Development Code" to identify criteria which could be used to approve private access roads; that the Administration has interpreted the Commission's concern to be focused on flag lots or "L" shaped parcels with a narrow access road extending back behind the primary parcel fronting on the main road. Mr. Taylor continued that the following alternatives have been identified for Commission consideration: 1. Draft additional criteria for the approval of private access roads and make the approval an Administrative determination by the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement; Mr. Taylor stated that objective standards, such as adequate access for public safety and utilities are currently part of the City's Zoning Code requirements; that additional criteria would add subjective standards for private access roads such as compatibility with the established land-use pattern, the effect on living conditions, the effect on traffic and public safety and the effect on property values; that subjective standards which are difficult to verify and subject to broad interpretation are not recommended. 2. Prohibit flag lots. Mr. Taylor continued that adoption of alternatives 1 or 2 will affect the City's ability to accommodate in-fill development or redevelopment in older, established areas; that development of flag lots is occurring in the established areas of the City and also on BOOK 38 Page 11712 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11713 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. the waterfront properties where the property owners have found it advantageous in the market to separate and sell parcels; that private access roads are necessary to gain access to those divided parcels; that access roads and easements allow a developer to use flag lots in calculating the density for a project; that flag lots also allow maximum utilization of narrow or odd shaped parcels. 3. Retain the current process for addressing private access roads; 4. Do not change the Zoning Code, at this time and review this issue with the comprehensive update of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) . This alternative would allow individuals to continue requesting private access roads under the existing criteria which would require a quasi judicial public hearing before the City Commission. Mr. Taylor distributed to the Commission three examples of flag lots found in the vicinity of Bahia Vista Street and Orange Avenue; and stated that additional examples of subdivisions with private access roads and flag lots within the City have been provided in the Agenda packets; that a detail survey on the number of private access roads and flag lots throughout the City has not been conducted. Commissioner Atkins stated that the issue should be addressed with the LDRS Update. Commissioner Pillot asked City Manager Sollenberger for the Administration's preference on the four alternatives. Mr. Sollenberger stated that addressing the issue during the LDRS Update would be preferable; that the loss of a Senior Planner has affected the City's opportunity to address the LDRS Update; that continual updates to the Zoning Code will detract from the Planning Department's ability to complete the LDRS Update as scheduled. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to have the issue of private access roads addressed during the LDRS Update. Mayor Patterson stated that she takes exception to the motion; that the Commission's previously denied an application to provide a private access road to a flag lot which was opposed by the surrounding neighbors; that the Commission's decision was challenged in court and, since the City's Zoning Code relating to private access roads was inadequate, the Commission's decision was overturned; that waiting to address this issue during the LDRs Update could subject the City to additional lawsuits. Mayor Patterson continued that she does not believe the Commission's intent was to render existing, platted flag lots as illegal and unbuildable; that private access roads to flag lots could be limited to the lowest density zoning if the City is concerned with further urban in-fill development; that flag lots may not be as objectionable in areas where the city Commission has previously determined small lots are appropriate; that another property that could be divided into multiple lots exists in the vicinity of the Bartinikas property; that the constituents she represents are waiting for the City to address this issue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Bartinikas application involved a private access road to a flag lot on a large piece of property in an affluent neighborhood which have no existing houses behind each other or any existing flag lots; that the denying that private access road seemed appropriate, but was also the first denied by the Commission; that a private easement was subsequently approved for a property in the Hudson Bayou area; and that the maps provided indicate numerous flag lots throughout the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked if an application for a public access road has been filed for the property referenced by Mayor Patterson? Mayor Patterson stated that an application has not been filed; however, the issue needs to be addressed before that occurs; that applications filed prior to the effective date of legislation are not subject to subsequently approved legislation; that private access roads previously approved by the Commission have been to platted lots; that denying access to platted lots would affect property values and is a differênt issue which could be addressed; that although she sympathizes with the Administration's lack of Staff in the Planning Department, this issue should not be postponed for two years while the LDRS Update is completed; that, perhaps, the issue could be postponed until a replacement Senior Planner is hired. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a moratorium could be placed on requests for private access roads during the LDRs Update? City Attorney Taylor stated that a moratorium would apply Citywide; that making progress toward a resolution to a problem over a specified, reasonable period of time is a guiding principle applied to moratoriums; that moratoriums are subject to challenge; that justifiying a moratorium on private access roads would be difficult when the city has many other uses being addressed during the LDRS Update. Mayor Patterson stated that private access roads are part of the planning process; that the issue could be referred to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for a recommendation on flag lots that are not currenlty platted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would support a motion to refer the issue to the PBLP for comment; that, in addition, a BOOK 38 Page 11714 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11715 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. procedure should be developed to assist the Commission in dealing with requests that are made while the LDRS Update is being completed. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to have the issue addressed during the LDRs Update. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to refer to the PBLP for a recommendation the issue of private access roads to flag lots which are not currently platted. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3824, AMENDING ARTICLE XVI OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; EXPANDING THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM TO REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLX IMPROVED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES OR PUBLIC STRUCTURES LOCATED IN THE CITY PROVIDE PUBLIC ART INCIDENT TO DEVELOPMENT AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN OR MAKE A CONTRIBUTION. TO THE PUBLIC ART FUND IN LIEU THEREOF; AMENDING THE DUTIES, RESPON- SIBILITIES, AND COMPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE: DEFINING TERMS; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - APPROVED WITH APPLICABILITY RESTRICTED TO THE TAD, CBD, AND G ZONE DISTRICT WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA; LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED PROVIDING THE COUNTY COMMISSION WITH FINAL APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART ON COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1138) through (2216) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 is an amendment to the City's existing Public Art Ordinance adopted in 1989, and identifies locations for public art on public property; that subsequent to the March 20, 1995, public hearing, the City Attorney revised Section 16-1 of the proposed ordinance to eliminate from the definition the requirement for public art by a public entity for passenger terminals, shelters, and off-street parking facilities; that the following issues raised by the Commission at the March 20 meeting remain unresolved: 1. Adding the Governmental (G) Zone District to the Administration's recommendation to restrict application of the ordinance to the Theater and Arts District (TAD) and Central Business District (CBD). 2. Providing for the City's Public Art Committee (PAC) to review public art for County projects on public property located within the City. 3. Deleting the requirements for specific qualifications of PAC members. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Leslie Ahlander, Dennis Kowal, Dale Parks, Kate O'Connell, and Mark Ormond, representing the PAC, came before the Commission. Ms. Ahlander stated that the PAC supports passage of the proposed ordinance with the understanding that changes can be made in the future if necessary. Mr. Parks stated that he is concerned with the Commission's intent to make changes to Section 16-6 regarding qualifications of board members; that professionals trained in the visual arts are willing to volunteer time on the PAC for the betterment of the City; that having a PAC with members unfamiliar with technical drawings, reading of blueprints, construction methods relating to installation of public art, etc., would not be beneficial to the City. Commissioner Pillot stated that people have varying opinions regarding public art; that the layman's point of view should also be represented on the PAC. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there was not a consensus of the Commission to make changes regarding the qualifications of PAC members; that the current composition of the PAC should be retained; that she does not support changing the qualifications for PAC members. Ms. Ahlander stated that the PAC needs professional members who understand structure, wind velocity, etc., and who can read a blueprint; that the proposed ordinance requires that the project architect, the end user, and a community representative from the area in which the structure is located be added to the PAC for purposes of selecting a particular work of art as public art for a BOOK 38 Page 11716 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11717 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. commercial or public structure; that these members would represent the public's interest on each project. Mr. Kowal stated that approaching the realm of public art from an educational point of view by professionals would be more successful and beneficial to the community. Ms. O'Connell stated that the Commission, who represents their constituency, makes the final decision of the public art; that three additional members representing the public will be added to the PAC for each project; that, currently, PAC members represent expertise from different arts backgrounds and technical fields; that the Commission should utilize the PAC as a reference board that advises based on technical natures, i.e., whether a project will work or if the artist is capable of achieving the proposed rendering, etc.; that adding a non-expertise member as a sixth member on the PAC could be considered; however, Section 16-6 should not be changed to delete all qualification requirements for PAC members. Mr. Ormond stated that Staff recommendations 1 and 2 should be supported; that the PAC qualifications should be retained; that successful professionals in the arts also play the role of the layperson and take that view into consideration when making decisions. Stephen Cork, 4962 Candlebush Circle (34241) representing Sarasota County, stated that he is the Director of General Services for Sarasota County and serves as the Staff representative on the Sarasota County Public Arts Council (SCAC); that he is available to answer any questions regarding the Sarasota County Public Arts Program. Commissioner Pillot asked if the following statement included in the March 28, 1995, memorandum from Jane Robinson is accurate: The County staff has been contacted and agreed that advice from the PAC could be included in their decision- making process, but the final decision would remain with the County. Mr. Cork stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson stated that the County's ordinance specifies that if the County builds a structure on G zoned property a certain amount of the budget will be contributed to the public art required as part of the project and including the County under the City's ordinance may be redundant. City Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance, as drafted, requires public art for any public structure located within the City and is not zone sensitive; that the Administration has recommended a revision to restrict the applicability of the ordinance to the TAD and CBD Zone Districts. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the proposed ordinance as drafted would also apply to hospital buildings, public schools, and other public buildings that have not been discussed. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is as follows: 1. Restrict the private and public contribution of public art to the Central Business District (CBD) and Theater & Arts District (TAD) Zone Districts only; and 2. Accept the arrangement made with the County to provide that PAC comments be permitted in the County's final decision-making process on public art at properties within the City. Mayor Patterson asked for the Administration's recommendation regarding the G Zone District. Ms. Robinson stated that the G Zone District is found throughout the City; that the Administration recommends that the application to G zoned properties be limited to the downtown community redevelopment area. Mayor Patterson stated that including the G Zone District and clarifying that the County has final approval on County projects would be the best way to proceed if the Commission wants the final determination on public art for County projects to be made by the County Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language, "with the advice and input from the City's PAC" should also be included in a motion to that effect. Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. Cork if anything contrary to the County's interests was identified during his review of the proposed ordinance? Mr. Cork responded, no. Commissioner Pillot asked if the statement cited earlier would be acceptable to the County as an adjunct to the proposed ordinance? Mr. Cork stated that the County will provide an opportunity for the City's PAC to make comments as to the public art considered for County projects within the City; that the comments by the PAC would BOOK 38 Page 11718 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11719 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. be heard and considered, but a final decision would be made by the County. Commissioner Pillot stated that the PAC and the County representative both support the ordinance as drafted with the inclusion of the statement regarding PAC input to the County and retaining Section 16-6 unchanged. Ms. Robinson stated that the Commission may want to obtain comment from the PAC regarding the Administration's recommendation to restrict the application of the proposed ordinance to the TAD and CBD Zone Districts. Mayor Patterson requested that Ms. Ahlander come before the Commission and state the position of the PAC. Ms. Ahlander stated that whether or not to apply the ordinance Citywide is a Commission decision; however, the PAC understood that the proposed ordinance would be applicable in the downtown redevelopment area; that either form of the proposed ordinance is acceptable. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the phrase, "All members of the PAC shall be citizens with knowledge of and appreciation of the visual arts" was included in Commissioner Pillot's reference to the retaining Section 16-6 unchanged in the proposed ordinance? Commissioner Pillot responded, yes. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill), it was moved to amend the motion to restrict application of the ordinance to the TAD and CBD Zone Districts and to the G zoned properties in the downtown community redevelopment area. Vice Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the amendment to the motion. Amendment carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the main motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 on first reading as amended to include applicability to the TAD, CBD, and G Zone Districts within the redevelopment district, except on County-owned properties for which language will be added so that final approval of the public art projects will be rendered by the County Commission. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: FINAL PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUTHSIDE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED USE OF GAS TAX FUNDS TO REPLACE THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT HILLVIEW STREET AND OSPREY AVENUE WITH A MAST ARM TYPE (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2217) through #2 (0751) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer; Rick Carlisle, Vice President, and Pamela Hower, Urban Planner, representing Sarasota Memorial Hospital; and Ken Natoli, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., Registered Landscape Architect, came before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Streetscape Improvement to the Southside Village Neighborhood is a collaborative effort between the City of Sarasota, Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) , and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) through an Intermodal urface-Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant; that the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and SMH requires a public hearing and Commission action prior to proceeding with the construction plans. Mr. Mohammed stated that at the December 19, 1994, City Commission meeting, the concept plan for the Southside Village Streetscape Project was approved with the' caveat that the plans proceed as quickly as possible; that the 90% plans have been submitted to the FDOT for review; that upon Commission approval, the final plans will be submitted to the FDOT on April 12, 1995. Mr. Mohammed distributed an information handout of Major Changes, Southside Village Funding, and a Revised Completion Schedule to the Commission. Mr. Mohammed referred to various Landscape Plans of the Southside Village Streetscape displayed on the overhead projector and explained in detail the following changes to the plan approved since conceptual approval was received by the Commission in December: Intersection of Hillyiew/Osprey: Change from span wire to Mast Arm Signal ($110,000) Mr. Mohammed stated that the FDOT plans to replace the existing span wire traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Hillview Street with a mast type arm; that in the interest of BOOK 38 Page 11720 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11721 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. maintaining uniformity, the Administration recommends that the existing span wire signal at the intersection of Hillview Street and Osprey Avenue be changed to a mast arm type; that City Gas Tax funds have been identified as a funding source for the replacement. Replacement of A.C. water main and installation of reuse lines ($271,000) Mr. Mohammed stated that the water mains on Hillview Street and Osprey Avenue are located under the existing sidewalk and are to be relocated in conjunction with the project; that $201,000 has been estimated for the City Water Utilities Department to design and construct replacement of the water main throughout the limits of the project area; that reuse lines for future use will also be installed in the project area; that the reuse lines installed will be used for irrigation connected to the potable water supply until the remaining portion of the connecting reuse line is installed over the next five years; that the estimated cost for reuse line installation on the project is $70,000. Retain off-site parking as per originally approved site plans Mr. Mohammed stated that concerns were raised from Hillview Street merchants whose on-site parking may be affected by the proposed streetscape since some private parking areas have been modified, i.e., the City Flower Shop; that having vehicles backing out into the street is a violation of the City Code and is something both the merchants and the City wants to avoid; that after meeting with the potentially affected parties, a determination was made to allow merchants to retain the number and configuration of parking spaces as depicted in the originally approved site plans. Install Four Way Stop signs at intersection of Hillview Street/Laurent Place Reduce speed to 15 mph on Hillview Street and Osprey Avenue Mr. Mohammed stated that the installation of the four way stop signs will eliminate the need for separate left-turn lanes at the intersection and provide for additional parking spaces; that the posted speed limit in the project area is currently 20 mph on Hillview Street and 30 mph on Osprey Avenue; that the Administration recommends reducing the speed limits on Osprey Avenue and Hillview Street within the project area to 15 mph; that a change to the City Code would be necessary for this to occur; that the change would enhance safety, slow traffic down in the pedestrian environment, and provide greater opportunities for landscaping the medians. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the number of parking spaces gained by installing four way stop signs. Mr. Natoli stated that there would be an additional five spaces. No trees on west side of Osprey Avenue Mr. Mohammed stated that the FDOT decided not to allow trees on the west side of Osprey Avenue since the proposed area for installation is not owned by the City; that Federal regulations prohibit expenditure of funds on privately owned land; that the Federal process for acquisition of land is very lengthy and cumbersome and, if implemented, will substantially affect the schedule for the project; that the Administration plans to request an easement from the abutting property owners to install the trees after the, project is completed. Mayor Patterson asked if project funding will be reserved for the installation of the trees? Mr. Mohammed stated that funding is anticipated to come from the City's budget. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification on: 1) the need to replace the water main, and 2) the age of the piping on Hillview Street and Osprey Avenue. William Hallisey, Facilities Operations Manager, Utilities Division, came before the Commission and stated that the existing utility system on Hillview Street is an old system in need of upgrade; that the City would have incurred approximately 60% of the utility cost whether or not the streetscape improvements were taking place; however, the utility system on Osprey Avenue is adequately sized and would not have been replaced; however, replacing the utility system on Osprey Avenue while the opportunity is available is in the best interest of the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked if it is necessary to install reuse lines for irrigation since the Florida Yard Program guildelines will be followed? Mr. Natoli stated that an irrigation system is planned for the medians; that supplemental irrigation for the initial planting and over the long range will be beneficial to the survival of the Florida Yard Program plants; that the plants will be located in small areas with concrete surrounding them, which is not a natural environment for native plants. Mayor Patterson stated that the City's policy is to install reuse lines when a street is torn up with the intent that reuse water may be provided to homeowners in the future. BOOK 38 Page 11722 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11723 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the merchants had any objection to the change proposed to the off-site parking? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that he had personally relayed the Administration's recommendation to two of the three affected merchants; that reverting to the permitted parking configuration was acceptable to those two merchants; that the third merchant, Dr. Alfred Hernandez, could not be contacted. Mr. Mohammed stated that he had spoken Mrs. Hernandez, wife and office manager of Dr. Hernandez, who felt that their parking is in accordance with the original site plan; and, therefore, did not percieve a problem. Commissioner Pillot asked for the specific areas at which the speed limit would be reduced to 15 mph. Mr. Mohammed stated that the speed limit would be reduced from Morton's Market to U.S. 41 on Hillview Street and between Hyde Park and Arlington Streets on Osprey Avenue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that extending the reduced speed limit on Osprey Avenue to Waldemere Street should be considered to provide additional safety to the heavy pedestrian traffic in the Sarasota Palms Hospital area. Ms. Hower displayed on the overhead projector and explained in detail the Revised Completion Schedule for Southside Village Streetscape which included the following: April 12, 1995 Submit 100% plans to Dames & Moore (FDOT consultant) for review May 10, 1995 D&M review comments due on 100% drawings May 17, 1995 Final submission of plan to D&M May 19, 1995 D&M submits plans to FDOT/Bartow (all plans in District 1 are due) March 24, 1995 City Water Utilities begins design for relocation and replacement plan Late May 1995 City water relocation and replacement plans are bid out Mid Sept 1995 Contractor begins City water utility relocation and replacement plan. Duration 60- 90 days Late Nov. 1995 Water utility replacement and relocation construction completed. Ms. Hower stated that completing the water utilities relocation and replacement project in conjunction with the streetscape project was originally anticipated; however, water utilities are a separate area of FDOT, and Dames & Moore had not been contracted to review the utility plans; that the six months of lead time required by Dames & Moore to review the utility plans would substantially delay the Southside Village project and the funding schedule; therefore, the two projects will be completed separately; that the water utilities relocation and replacement will be constructed by the City. Mayor Patterson asked if the streets would be torn up during the season? Ms. Hower stated that the water utilities project should be completed prior to Thanksgiving; that the streetscape project is scheduled to begin after Easter. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the merchants will be inconvenienced twice; that a torn up street greatly impacts retail sales. Mayor Patterson referred to the schedule which indicated the following: April 8, 1995 Streetscape construction begins. Duration 120 days October 1996 Streetscape construction ends. Mayor Patterson stated that the duration of the streetscape project is only 120 days; and asked why the two projects couldn't be performed simultaneously and completed prior to Christmas? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City's utility project could be postponed to begin April 8, 1996, completed rapidly, and followed by the streetscape project for 120 days. Mr. Mohammed stated that coordinating the work of various contractors simultaneously is difficult; that having one project following the other would create difficulties if the first contractor is delayed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the convenience of the construction schedule is not the priority of the Commission; that the Commission is more interested in the impact to the merchants by tearing up the street twice. BOOK 38 Page 11724 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11725 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that the City and SMH representatives reviewed various alternatives to develop a construction schedule that would least impact the merchants, satisfy the FDOT and Federal regulations, and meet the budget; that the schedule provided is the best product available based on professional knowledge and experience in dealing with project scheduling. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Staff may have the experience in coordinating work projects, but they don't have the experience of being a merchant, who will ultimately benefit from the improvements, but who will also suffer harshly from the street being torn up, twice; that she does not support the proposed schedule. Mayor Patterson asked if the FDOT informed the City that utilities relocation by a City contractor and improvements by a FDOT contractor could not be performed simultaneously? Mr. Mohammed stated that the City was informed that the FDOT's contractor could not perform the utilities relocation within the existing funding schedule for the project. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there seems to be a possibility to enforce the time frame and have the two projects completed simultaneously. Mayor Patterson asked whether this could be accomplished? Ms. Hower stated that it could be, but proceeding in that manner would be dangerous; that the FDOT's contractor will be working under Federal guidelines; that many conflicts could arise in attempting to coordinate a City project and a Federal project; that the FDOT did not recommend the project proceed in that manner. Mr. Mohammed stated that in dealing with utility projects, many times unexpected problems surface that can delay a project; that the street improvement and utility projects associated with the Municipal Auditorium is a good example; that problems found underground by the utilities contractor were the cause of delay in the project that in turn delayed the streetscape contractor who filed for damages, etc. Mr. Sollenberger stated that City utility lines are being placed on Tuttle Avenue while the County is performing the reconstruction of Tuttle Avenue; that the County is administering the utilities contract for the City through one contractor to avoid the conflicts that can occur when two contractors attempt to work in the same location; that the same principle has been followed on various other City street projects to avoid conflicts and settlements such as those that resulted when the City attempted a major pipeline construction project as the County was improving 17th Street. Mr. Natoli distributed a handout of the Landscape Schedule and Bid Tabulation Quote, and utilized the overhead projector to display and explain in detail the scope of the project, Landscape Plans, and elements of the final plans. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Natoli stated that the FDOT comments from the 90% plans review have been addressed; that the comments from the Streetscape Design Team, Southside Village Merchants Association, and Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) have been addressed as best as possible; that the existing parking spaces available have been increase by 43 spaces for a total parking contiguration of 178 spaces; that the parking surrounding Morton's Market has been changed from 90% angle to 60% angle parking; that the green space has been increased as requested; that the major planting scheme on Osprey Avenue includes Live Oak trees, Black Olives, and Chinese Fan Palms; that Crepe Myrtles have been included to highlight the entrances to the project area; that Indian Hawthorne, Coontie, Evergreen Giant Liriope, and Shore Junipers will be utilized as the predominant shrubs; that Florida Yard Program plants, i.e., Needle Palms and Wild Petunias, will be used as accent plants. Mr. Natoli continued that the median on Hillview Street east of Osprey Avenue has been realigned to meet the concerns of the FDOT; that aerial lights along Osprey Avenue near Morton's Market have been included to provide safe lighting for traffic; that a concern was raised by the City on whether streetsweeper activities would be impacted by the 45% angle cuts in the sidewalk on Osprey Avenue and in the median on Hillview Street; that the 45% angle cut outs were eliminated on Hillview Street, but could not be eliminated on Osprey Avenue due to the widths of the sidewalks and limited areas available for tree planting; that the drainage is away from the curb; that debris in the area should adequately be washed away by rain; that access for the streetsweeper was not an issue of concern to the merchants. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:46 p.m. Mayor Patterson recognized Michael Covert, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sarasota Memorial Hospital, who was present in the audience. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Eddie Morton, 1924 South Osprey Avenue (34239), representing Morton's Market, stated that Commissioner Cardamone's concern for the retailers is appreciated; that completing the entire project before November 1995 would be great, but that can't feasibly be BOOK 38 Page 11726 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11727 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. accomplished; therefore, he requests that the project be completed in two, separate phases as scheduled; that completing the utility relocation prior to Thanksgiving, opening the streets during season, and then beginning the streetscape after Easter is acceptable. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration could contact the FDOT to determine whether the entire project could be completed prior to Thanksgiving; and asked Mr. Morton for the latest date the project could be completed without impacting the merchants? Mr. Morton responded, November 15; and stated that difficulties have been experienced in meeting FDOT deadlines; that attempting to complete the entire project at once is not worth taking the chance that construction would continue past Thanksgiving; that December sales are crucial to a retailer; that having construction occur during December is worse than having construction occur twice. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), was sworn by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson; and stated that he thinks the streetscape project proposed is great; however, Osprey Avenue is a minor collector; that if the speed limit on Osprey Avenue can be reduced to 15 mph, the speed limit on the residential portion of Bahia Vista Street should also be reduced. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the final plans and joint agreement have been presented to the SMH Board for approval? Mr. Carlisle stated that the presentation to the SMH Board is scheduled for May 10, 1995. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the final construction drawings and authorize replacement of the traffic signal utilizing Gas Tax funds. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3855 TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-2 ZONE DISTRICT TO CRT ZONE DISTRICT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY: LOTS 15, 16, 17, BLOCK D, CORRECTED PLAT OF GOLF COURSE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 5 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 2075 FRUITVILLE ROAD: APPROVING PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 94-PSD-0 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE STORY, APPROXIMATELY 5000 SOUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USE AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CO-09 AND 94-PSED-0, STEVEN REES, ESOUIRE, AS AGENT FOR RICHARD J. REYNOLDS) - FOUND PETITIONS 94-CO-09 AND 94-PSD-0 CONSISTENT WITH THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN AND TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE; PASSED ON FIRST READING STIPULATING THAT THE REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE WITHIN 30 DAYS AND THE ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK AT SECOND READING ON THE POTENTIAL OF AN INGRESB/EGRESS ON FRUITVILLE ROAD (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #2 (0752) through #3 (0602) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that this is a request to conditionally rezone the parcel located at the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and East Avenue, with a street address of 2075 Fruitville Road, from Residential Multiple Family (RMF-2) Zone District to Commercial, Residential Transition (CRT) Zone District; that in conjunction with the conditional rezoning, Preliminary Site and Development Plan 94-PSD-Q has been filed to permit construction of a one-story, 5,000 square-foot building on the site; that the Development Review Committee (DRC) made a finding that all code requirements had been met; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's (PBLP) motion to find the proposed rezoning to CRT and the PS&D consistent with the Sarasota City Plan failed by a 2-1 vote because three affirmative votes are required for a finding of consistency; therefore, a finding of consistency on the rezoning petition and the PS&D with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance would be required of the City Commission prior to voting on the ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that only three members were present at the PBLP meeting; and asked if the Petitioner was given the opportunity to postpone the hearing until a full board was present? Ms. Robinson stated that the opportunity was available; however, the Petitioner did not request to exercise that option. Mayor Patterson asked City Manager Sollenberger for the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission's finding should be based on the substantial, competent evidence presented at the public hearing. Steven Rees, Esquire, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsberg P.A. representing Richard J. Reynolds, Petitioneri David Johnston, Landscape Architect; and Richard Bass, State-certified General Appraiser, came before the Commission and were sworn by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Attorney Rees stated that he did not have prior knowledge that only three PBLP members would be present at the February 8, 1995, public BOOK 38 Page 11728 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11729 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. hearing; that Mr. Reynolds was not present to authorize that the item be delayed; that the Planning Staff Report and analysis as to consistency with the Sarasota City Plan and concurrency with applicable code requirements as well as a determination of compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance gave no indication that the petitioner should not proceed with the presentation. Attorney Rees stated that testimony as to compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance will be given by Mr. Johnston; that Mr. Bass will provide opinion testimony on compliance with the intent and purpose of the CRT Zone District, consistency with the Sarasota City Plan, and discussion on the petitioner's present inability to utilize the property as currently zoned. Mr. Johnston presented for the record a letter dated March 15, 1995, from David W. Johnston Associates, Landscape Architects, to Steven D. Rees, Esquire, regarding compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance. Mr. Johnston stated that a 42-inch Laurel Oak located on the property was the subject of much discussion at the PBLP public hearing; that Attorney Rees had requested that he inspect the Laurel Oak on the subject property to determine whether the tree could or should be saved and retained on site; that his inspection identified that automobile traffic over the years has eroded the soil and compacted the root system of the tree which is extensive on top of the ground and extends far onto the property; that paving, using brick pavers, or other semi-permeable surface to provide for ingress/egress to the site would prohibit sufficient air and water from reaching the roots and further compliçate the existing problems of the tree; that Laurel Oaks survive 40 to 60 years; that at 42 to 48" in diameter, the tree is at its mature state and has a limited life span; that a vast number of the limbs exhibit bleeding of sap due to "included bark" wounds; that this situation occurs when a tree grows to such an extent that the tissues of one limb compete for space with tissues of an adjoining limb, resulting in the inclusion of bark caught between the two, woody tissued limbs which are unable to grow together and cause the tree to split apart; that evidence of this condition in the subject tree can be viewed by the sap weeping at the "V" joints along the trunk; that, in his professional opinion, the tree has a limited life span, will not withstand development of the property, and should be removed and replaced with additional trees such as Live Oak, which survive 200 to 300 years, as mitigation. Attorney Rees asked Mr. Johnston if he is familiar with the City of Sarasota Tree Protection Ordinance? Mr. Johnston responded, yes. Attorney Rees asked Mr. Johnston if he felt the criteria required to justify the removal of the tree have been examined and satisfied? Mr. Johnston responded, yes. Attorney Rees stated that the question was raised during the PBLP public hearing as to whether reducing one of the required 20 parking spaces in order to save the tree would be acceptable to the petitioner; that Mr. Johnston has testified that the tree is not recommended for preservation; therefore, the PS&D indicates a parking space at the location where the tree is currently located; that the Engineering Department has recommended that the driveway to provide ingress/egress be as far from the intersection at East Avenue and Fruitville Road as the depth of the property would permit; that in order to accommodate the appropriate aisle width for ingress/egress at the driveway entrance as well as to meet the requirements for aisle width for two-way traffic upon the site, the petitioner has no other means of locating the driveway than as indicated on the site plan; that the independent inspection and testimony provided by Mr. Johnston supports the initial determination made by Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, that it would not be realistic to move the entrance to accommodate the tree. The PS&D was displayed on the Commission table for reference. Mr. Bass presented for the record a copy of his letter and summary of issues and findings; and stated that for the purposes of this review he has studied and read the following documents: Original File 88-66, an assignment with the City of Sarasota to review, modify, and quantify criteria for the CRT Zone District relative to a relationship between non- residential development and residential units. Staff Report on Petition No. 94-CO-09 & 94-PSD-Q Transcript of PBLP public hearing held February 8, 1995 PS&D, HEDJ Engineering Inc., Number 94-52 City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan City of Sarasota Zoning Code, CRT Zone District, Section 8-134, Section 4-10, City Code Section 35 Site inspection of the subject property as of March 30, 1995 Mr. Bass stated that six issues were raised at the PBLP meeting to which he made the following findings: Is the subject rezoning petition consistent with, further the goals, objectives, and polices of the City of Sarasota's Comprehensive Plan? BOOK 38 Page 11730 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11731 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Is the subject rezoning petition consistent with the Intent and Purpose of the CRT Zone District? Mr. Bass stated that the Staff Report, pages 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, indicates compliance and consistency of the petition with the Sarasota City Plan and the required criteria for the CRT zoning; that the subject petition fulfills the vision of the CRT Zone District; that 5,000 square-feet of non-residential development would be permitted while preserving three dwelling units; that the subject property is specifically delineated and identified in the Comprehensive Plan for CRT zoning. Compatibility? Mr. Bass stated that compatibility is addressed in the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and by specific criteria set forth in the Zoning Code; that the Staff Report identified residential properties to the west of the subject property; that the two remaining residential dwelling units fronting on the north side of Fruitville Road, east of East Avenue to U.S. 301 are under separate ownership and are currently being marketed for "commercial" use; that the CRT Zone District was specifically designed to create a stable edge along a major corridor; that the subject property has been designed to be the edge between a major corridor, Fruitville Road, and residential properties to the rear. Why can't the subject property be used as zoned? Mr. Bass stated that properties along Fruitville Road, from U.S. 41 to Tuttle Avenue were reviewed; that all the properties, except one, were being marketed for non-residential purposes; that lack of market demand or acceptance for a parcel on a major corridor at a signalized intersection is demonstrated by a review of the sales in the noted area. Preservation of an Oak Tree? Location of the ingress/egress point and concern as to traffic into the residential neighborhood to the north. Mr. Bass stated that Section 35-25 of the City Code addresses the Criteria for Granting Permits to remove trees and requires that the Building and Zoning Administrator make certain findings consisting of at least one or more of a series of nine criteria; that the transcript of the PBLP February 8 meeting reflects that Mr. Litchet 1) considered whether or not viable options were available to save the tree and determined that there was no feasible means to pave around the Laurel Oak for preservation, 2) concurs with Mr. Johnston's testimony that the life span of a Laurel Oak is less than that of a Live Oak, and 3) agrees that the ingress/egress should be located as far removed as possible from the intersection of Fruitville Road and East Avenue, as depicted on the PS&D. Mr. Bass stated in conclusion that the subject rezoning petition along with its accompanying PS&D is consistent with: 1. the Sarasota City Plan, as identified by Staff; 2. the intent and purpose of, and implements, the CRT Zone District; 3. the minimum requirements of the CRT Zone District; 4. the criteria of Section 4-10 Conditional Rezoning of the City's Zoning Code; and 5. Section 35 of the City Code dealing with Tree Preservation; Mr. Bass continued that the subject petition is also consistent with good design practices and criteria; that alternative means to arrange the property to preserve the subject Laurel Oak are not practical. Attorney Rees referred to proposed Ordinance No. 95-3855; and stated that the ordinance correctly identifies the legal description for the property and the PS&D and requires that a final PS&D be brought back for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; that the petitioner has complied with the conditional rezoning portion of the Zoning Code; that the required petition and supporting documents have been filed; that all filing fees have been paid; that the neighborhood workshop required under Zoning Code Section 4-5 has been conducted; that all of the criteria of the CRT Zone District has been met; that the property fronts on Fruitville Road and is within the designated, eligible area for CRT rezoning; that special buffering, landscaping, parking, signage, and other requirements have been addressed in the accompanying PS&D; that the property meets the minimum lot and yard requirements; that the proposed one-story structure does not exceed the maximum height limitation; that all minimum off-street parking requirements have been met. Attorney Rees continued that the DRC has considered the requirements for approval and found the plans to meet the applicable code requirements; that the Staff Report comments affirmatively on each of the applicable elements, policies or objectives of the Sarasota City Plan demonstrating consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and concurrency for all essential public facilities and service. Attorney Rees further stated that one of the requirements for the CRT Zone District approval is to provide for the residential mixed- use component either within the subject site or off-site; that the BOOK 38 Page 11732 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11733 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. proposed 5,000 square-foot, one-story structure requires an offset of three residential dwelling units; that the original structure previously located on the site has been relocated to a qualifying location; that a duplex structure, if approval is received tonight, would thereafter be subject to code inspection for compliance and brought up to code; that all three structures would then meet the requirements of the ordinance as to housing in the eligible area; that the subject site would be developed as a 5,000 square-foot, one-story structure for office or professional uses. Attorney Rees stated that a rezoning petition, Petition 86-CO-04, was previously initiated for OPB-1 rezoning on the subject propertyi that the petitioner voluntarily stayed the processing for that petition to await the results of the study on the Third Street/Fruitville Road Corridor and the probable development of new implementing ordinances to establish Zone Districts; that the study took a long period of time and was well participated in by the property owners and the community at-large; that at the conclusion of the corridor study, the CRT Zone District was recommended, studied, and adopted; however, by that time, the property owner no longer had a viable purchaser; that the petitioner, Mr. Reynolds, awaited stabilization of the real estate market before refiling this petition; that the petitioner was informed that the previous petition would have to be refiled, assigned a new petition number, and filing fees paid, less a credit for previous filing fees paid or used by the City in the process; that Petition 94-CO-09 was filed to implement a CRT Zone District in lieu of the prior proposed OPB-1 Zone District; that a known user has not been identified for the property; that, consequently, the petitioner is seeking approval of the PS&D and would, thereafter, build upon the identification of a specific user. Attorney Rees requested that time be reserved for him to respond, if necessary, after public input has been received. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Joshie Webber, 5225 Fielding Lane (34233), stated that she, her son, and a third party, own the properties adjacent to the rear and to the west of the property proposed for rezoning, as well as adjoining property on Fruitville Road; that the subject property is more suitable for office use than for residential uses since Fruitville Road is a six-lane roadway and a traffic signal exists at the corner of the property; that she supports approval of the rezoning. Jon Susce, 2048 8th Street (34237), representing the East Sarasota Neighborhood Association (ESNA), presented to the Commission approximately 105 signatures on a petition which stated: We, the undersigned, want to leave the corner of East and Fruitville as a part of our residential neighborhood, and prefer a park at the corner of East Avenue and Fruitville Road instead of the proposed development of office buildings. Mr. Susce stated that in representing the working class people of the surrounding neighborhood, he does not have expert witness to testify in opposition to the conditional rezoning. Mr. Susce continued that the required residential units previously mentioned were relocated to 2060 and 2064 Fifth Street; that the house was positioned sideways at 2060 Fifth Street lot and is not compatible with the neighborhood; that the 2064 Fifth Street dwelling is a slum; that the house number is identified by white paint; that numerous people reside at the house which is in a deplorable condition. Mr. Susce further stated that the traffic turning into the proposed office space at the corner of Fruitville Road and East Avenue will further congest the area; that the ESNA hopes to preserve East Avenue as residential and divert commercial development to Lime Avenue. Mr. Susce added that a 15-foot buffer between residential and commercial is required; that such a buffer has not been depicted on the PS&D; that the ESNA has not been informed of all previous meetings on the subject petition; that the neighborhood issues identified by the ESNA were not put forth during the Neighborhood Workshop held by the petitioner; that the neighborhood is a poor neighborhood; that the ESNA envisions Community Housing Corporation or Habitat For Humanity housing in the subject area to prevent a slum and blighted area. Mr. Susce requested that the Commission deny rezoning the subject parcel from residential to commercial. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Attorney Rees stated that extensive discussions were held with attendees of the Neighborhood Workshop at which Mr. Susce was present; that he filed with the Planning Department an affidavit attesting to the proper mailing, using the labels supplied by the City, of the notice to affected property owners and a sign in sheet of attendees at the workshop; that the neighborhood's desire to convert the property to an urban or metropolitan park was extensively discussed; that the residents advocating that position were informed that the City and/or County use certain qualifications and criteria to determine the suitability of a property for a park, none of which the subject property would meet; that it was also discussed that if the intent of the City was not to develop the subject property for uses consistent with CRT zoning, alternative uses would have been identified. BOOK 38 Page 11734 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11735 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Attorney Rees continued that Section 8-135 of the Zoning Code provides that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a new non-residential use in the CRT Zone District until such time as a certificate of occupancy has been issued for all residential dwelling units required; therefore, the residential dwellings mentioned by Mr. Susce must meet all necessary code requirements before a certificate of occupancy can be issued on the proposed office building; that the petitioner intends to meet the necessary requirements; that, following approval of the rezoning, the petitioner will request that the appropriate code inspections be performed so that any deficiencies can be identified and brought into code compliance. Attorney Rees further stated that the property owner/Petitioner has demonstrated that all criteria required by the City for approval of the CRT Zone District has been met; that testimony has been heard by two witnesses and himself; that no competent, substantial evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the petitioner has not complied; that the Staff Report clearly indicates a finding of consistency and a demonstration of concurrency on the required elements; that the City should begin allowing properties in the CRT eligible areas to be rezoned and accomplish the redevelopment that has been planned; that the petitioner has patiently endured and waited for the opportunity to come before the Commission and obtain approval of the rezoning; that the Commission is requested to make the favorable findings necessary to approve the proposed ordinance and allow the petitioner to move forward. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Attorney Rees was indicating that the residential properties were in poor condition and not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as described by Mr. Susce? Attorney Rees stated that he had referred to the Zoning Code under which the designation of substitute housing is not required prior to a request for a certificate of occupancyi that nothing has been provided to him to indicate there are deficiencies in the housing; however, Lee Halstead, of the Hispanic American Alliance, recipient of the relocated structure, who is present in the audience, could clarify the current condition of the residential dwellings. Commissioner Atkins stated that resolving any existing deficiencies would be in the best interest of the neighborhood; and asked, if the petitioner would agree to bring the houses up to code prior to making a request for a certificate of occupancy if deficiencies are identified? Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Halstead come before the Commission. Mr. Halstead presented photographs of the houses on Fifth Street; and stated that the property referenced by Mr. Susce was to the west of the housing and not associated with the proposed petition; that the duplex was previously below code, but has been rehabilitated over the past two years; that one of the houses is an end elevation, as are other properties in the same area. Commissioner Pillot requested that Mr. Litchet come forward to comment on the condition of the houses. Mr. Litchet referred to the photograph of the single-family structure and stated that an existing structure on the subject site was relocated to Fifth Street pursuant to a petition filed with the Board of Adjustment; that the Board of Adjustment addressed whether the structure would be compatible with the neighborhood or devalue any structures within 500 feet of the relocation site; that the relocated structure has a side entrance, but many of the structures in the neighborhood have side entrances; that a final inspection has not been performed; however, the structure has been rehabilitated and should be ready for final inspection shortly; that, in his opinion, the rehabilitation was performed properly and exceeded his expectations. Mr. Litchet continued that the petitioner intends to rehabilitate a duplex structure; that a final inspection has not been performed on the duplex to determine whether it qualifies under the ordinance; however, he has viewed the structure; that the structure meets most code requirements, but the Zoning Code requires that the structure be brought up to the Community Development Block Grant standards; that further improvements could be made to structure, but it should meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Litchet further stated that the Zoning Code does not require completion of the rehabilitation until a certificate of occupancy is requested on the commercial building; that the intent of the provision was to prevent premature expenditures by the property owners since the conditional rezoning process can be lengthy. Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission could stipulate that the rehabilitation be completed by a specific date. City Attorney Taylor stated that consent from the developer or the property owner as to when the properties could be brought into compliance would be preferred. Mr. Halstead stated that the houses are currently rented; that no complaints from the tenants have been received; that he believes the properties are in compliance; however, any deficiencies identified could be brought into compliance within 30 days. Commissioner Pillot stated that Mr. Litchet had stated that he thought the properties would presently meet the code requirements. BOOK 38 Page 11736 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11737 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that subsequent to approval of the proposed ordinance, the structures would be inspected to determine what other work, if any, would be necessary to bring the structures into compliance with the Community Development Block Grant standards. Commissioner Atkins asked for comment on Mr. Susce's reference to the 15-foot buffer. Mr. Litchet cited the following from Section 8-142 of the Zoning Code: where a CRT lot abuts land zoned residential, a landscaped buffer is required conforming to the provision of Section 6-22. Mr. Litchet stated that Section 6-22 requires a 5-foot landscaped buffer with a 6-foot high opaque structure, which has been depicted on the PS&D as revised on October 19, 1994, pursuant to the initial plans review; that the special landscaping requirements along Fruitville Road have also been met. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to find Petitions 94-CO-09 and 94-PSD-Q consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Commissioner Cardamone stated that competent, substantial evidence is difficult to provide; that she is concerned with the Snyder decision on rezonings; that many neighborhoods cannot afford the expertise of an attorney, a land planner, and a landscape architect to present opposition to the Commission as was the case in a previously denied CRT rezoning proposed in a more affluent neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from page 2 of the letter and summary of issues and findings from Mr. Bass: Issue: Why can't the subject property be used as zoned? Finding: As vacant land, zoned RMF-2 there is simply no measurable market for a parcel of less than one half an acre which would permit a total of four dwelling units Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Comprehensive Plan is not designed to create a market for property owners; therefore, the finding is not relevant. Commissioner Cardamone stated that expert testimony from the City's consulting Landscape Architect has been received in regard to the Laurel Oak tree; however, the following statements as reflected in the verbatim transcript of the February 8, 1995, PBLP meeting are contradictory to that testimony: MR. LITCHET: It's a very large tree and beautiful but it is BOARD MEMBER ANNIS: It's in good condition. MR. LITCHET: It's in fairly good condition. There is some problems up in the tip of it if you look at it carefully. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the copy of the site plan provided to her does not include the appropriate departmental approvals; that Item 9 under Section 5-11 of the Zoning Code refers to architectural definitions for buildings in the development, exact number of dwelling units, sizes and types together with typical floor plans of each type; that floor plans should be required on all site plans. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following City response to the neighborhood concerns with ingress/egress onto the residential street of East Avenue from page 5 of the Bruin Court Reporting verbatim transcript of the February 8, 1995, PBLP meeting: The Engineering Department does not recommend nor will favor a curb cut onto Fruitville Road. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she objects to the PS&D as presented; that there are 15 curb cuts on Fruitville Road between Osprey Avenue and U.S. 301; that there are 18 curb cuts between U.S. 301 and East Avenue; that placing one more curb cut on Fruitville Road to alleviate impact to a neighborhood street should be considered; that the building could be relocated with the ingress/egress entrance on Fruitville Road; that an attempt should be made to save the magnificent Laurel Oak tree on the site; that it should not be cut down because it is in the way of a parking lot; that many other trees are located on site and a tree plan should have been included with the PS&D presented. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP has continuously brought up the issue of providing a tree plan with the PS&Ds submitted. Debbie Marks, Sr. Planning Technician, and Ms. Robinson came before the Commission. Ms. Marks stated that the signature block referred to by Commissioner Cardamone is routinely placed on only four copies of the PS&D; that PS&DS are not forwarded for Commission approval until departmental approval is received; that in reference to a tree plan, tree shrubs are indicated on the second sheet of the proposed PS&D; that two copies of a tree survey are required for use by the Zoning Department. BOOK 38 Page 11738 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11739 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked how the PBLP or the Commission, in certain circumstances, can make a finding on consistency with the Tree Protection Ordinance if copies of the survey indicating the trees removed are not provided? Ms. Marks stated that trees being removed are typically indicated on the PS&D; that, in addition, a memorandum is furnished by the Building and Zoning Administrator as to his review of the tree survey provided. Commissioner Cardamone asked for comment on the required floor plan as referenced in the Zoning Code. Ms. Robinson stated that the Zoning Code requires specific elevations, parking, landscaping, and square-footage; that she does not think a floor plan is a requirement for PS&D approval. Mr. Litchet stated that the Zoning Code does address floor plans; however, floor plans have not been required on conditional rezonings for which the tenant is unknown; that the intent of requiring the final site plan to be approved by the Commission in the conditional rezoning process is to allow for development without tenants being identified; that developing a full floor plan for a structure without identified tenants would be extremely difficult. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the floor plan requirement appears in the Zoning Code; that her concern is predicated on the size and potential uses of a structure in a previously denied conditional rezoning petition. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Preliminary Site and Development Plan and Final Site and Development Plan are addressed in separate sections of the Zoning Code; that this inconsistency has continually created problems and is one of the major issues to be addressed and resolved during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Update process. Mr. Sollenberger requested that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, come before the Commission to address the curb cut issue. Mr. Daughters stated that the Engineering Department recommended placement of the ingress/egress driveway on East Avenue rather than Fruitville Road for traffic safety reasons: 1) the development as proposed would require placing the driveway on Fruitville Road close to the intersection at East Avenue, 2) the traffic median would prohibit eastbound travel from the site, thereby, encouraging U-turns at the end of the median; that City requirements could be met to permit the driveway on Fruitville Road; however, Fruitville Road is a State road and final approval would have to be obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission must make a determination based on competent, substantial evidence; that in addition to the evidence provided by Attorney Rees, Mr. Bass, and Mr. Johnston, the Staff Report indicates consistency with the Sarasota City Plan, and the DRC found the plans to meet the applicable code requirements; that evidence to the contrary has not been presented. Commissioner Pillot continued that the Commissioner Cardamone referenced comments made by Mr. Litchet and Mr. Annis regarding the Laurel Oak tree; that Mr. Litchet and Mr. Annis do not have the same competency as Mr. Johnston in that particular context; that Mr. Johnston stated in his letter that the Laurel Oak has a limited life span. Commissioner Pillot asked City Attorney Taylor if opinions by neighbors stating they would prefer to have a park should be considered competent, substantial evidence? City Attorney Taylor stated, no. Commissioner Atkins stated that the subject neighborhood has been improving recently; that new homes have been built that are for sale; that the Hispanic American Alliance's attempt to rent in the area will provide the opportunity for decent housing; that large families reside in the area; that all of the properties do not front on the streets; that he does not agree that the neighborhood is becoming a slum; that the neighborhood is located between two major thoroughfares; that children crossing U.S. 301 to frequent Gillespie Park, or Fruitville Road to frequent Payne Park is dangerous; that the Commission should consider accommodating the need for a park. Commissioner Atkins continued that the City has not been successful in previous court challenges related to the Snyder decision; that no competent, substantial evidence to disapprove the request has been presented; that under the guidelines of the Snyder decision, the Commission has no alternative other than to approve the rezoning. Mayor Patterson stated that a large area along the Fruitville Road corridor has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan as eligible for CRT zoning; that all of the eligible properties abut residential properties; that the Comprehensive Plan should be changed if the Commission does not feel the CRT Zone District is an appropriate use in the area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that permitting the CRT zoning on Fruitville Road was not the issue she raised; that locating the ingress/egress driveway on a residential street and removing the Laurel Oak tree that could possibly be saved were the issues she raised. BOOK 38 Page 11740 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11741 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that an office use on a six-lane road serves as a good buffer to residential propertyi that the previously denied CRT rezoning petition for property located at Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41 was not an inappropriate use; that professional experts representing the neighborhood in opposition to that petition did not necessarily affect the outcome; that inconsistencies with the proposed use were found, but he would have supported an office use at that location; that he could not find any inconsistencies with the rezoning petition presented tonight. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to find proposed petitions 94-CO-09 and 94-PSD-Q consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to find Petitions 94-CO-09 and 94-PSD-Q consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance. Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Johnston come before the Commission and clarify the age of the Laurel Oak tree. Mr. Johnston stated that the life span of a Laurel Oak is 40 to 60 years; that the Laurel Oak on the referenced site is in the 40 year range; that it is similar in size to the trees planted after World War II that were removed on Main Street. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Pillot requested that Mr. Daughter come before the Commission to clarify whether a curb cut on Fruitville Road would be permissible. Mr. Daughters stated that Fruitville Road is a State road; that placing the driveway on Fruitville Road would meet City requirements; however, he is not sure it would meet FDOT standards. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3855 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 95-3855 with the City Administration to further review the potential of placing a curb cut on Fruitville Road and the residential dwellings be in compliance with the applicable Codes within 30 days. Mayor Patterson asked for a clarification on the intent of the motion. Commissioner Pillot stated that intent of the motion is to: 1) require that the residential dwellings be brought up to code within 30 days from April 5, 1995, and 2) request the Administration to further explore with traffic engineers, law enforcement personnel, and the FDOT the potential of locating the ingress/egress on Fruitville Road and report back at second reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3785, AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 1-2 DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS RELATING TO DOCKS AND THE REGULATION THEREOF; AMENDING ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6-23 TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ERECTION OF DOCKS AND STRUCTURES THEREOF AND TO REVISE THE CRITERIA FOR THE GRANT OF A VARIANCE RELATING TO SUCH REQUIREMENTS BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, SECTIONS 8-4, 8-6 TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN DOCKS AS ACCESSORY USES, AND 8-16 AND 8-198 TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN DOCKS BY SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH THEREIN; AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 8-203 RELATING TO THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE MARINE PARK (MP) ZONING DISTRICT AND SECTION 8-204 RELATING TO SIGNS IN SUCH DISTRICT; AMENDING ARTICLE XI, SECTION 11-2 TO EXEMPT SIGNS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO BE AFFIXED TO DOCKS FROM THE SIGN REGULATIONS OF SAID ARTICLE; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING; STIPULATING THREE BOATS PER DOCK ON ONE DOCK PER BUILDABLE LOT (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #3 (0602) through (1320) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance was drafted to address the concern that over one-third of the variances being considered by the Board of Adjustment were related to the permitted length of docks; that the process to develop the ordinance included meetings with industry representatives, marine contractors, the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that a memorandum detailing the proposed changes has been provided in the Agenda packets; that alternative language regarding the total number of residential docks allowed per parcel has been provided by City Attorney Taylor in response to the Board of Adjustment resolution supporting that the number of docks per residence be limited to one. City Attorney Taylor stated that an inconsistency, in the language was noted in the proposed ordinance; that page 4 indicates a private residential dock is designed to moor no more than two boats; that page 7 states that a private residential dock be designed to BOOK 38 Page 11742 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. - - BOOK 38 Page 11743 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. accommodate no more than three vessels; that he understood the number of vessels determined by the PBLP/Board of Adjustment was two. Mayor Patterson stated that limiting the number of vessels to two per dock is too restrictive in conjunction with limiting the number of docks to one per lot; that many people who own waterfront property have three boats, i.e., a power boat, a sailboat, and a dinghy. Mr. Litchet stated that he had just spoken to Ernest Babb, Board of Adjustment Chairman, who recalled that the consensus reached at the joint meeting on the number of boats per dock was three; that the issue was controversial; that the number of boats was bantered back and forth from three to two and finally back to three; that a total consensus regarding the issue was not reached by either of the Boards separately; that the recommendation that more than one dock be allowed per waterfront property was reached at the joint meeting; that, subsequently, the Board of Adjustment passed a resolution supporting that the number of docks per residence be limited to one; that the Board of Adjustment's resolution was passed based on three boats moored per dock. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3785 on first reading. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Dan Bailey, Attorney, 1550 Ringling Boulevard (34236) representing M/M Ed Klein, stated that his clients who are remodeling a home at 3315 Bayshore Road have a dock variance request pending; that adoption of the proposed ordinance is supported although it will not dispense of his clients' need for a variance; that the State and Federal governments regulate waterfront activities regarding environmental impacts and obstructions to navigation; that the City of Sarasota regulates docks under an existing ordinance; that 35 petitions requesting dock variances by the Board of Adjustment have been filed since 1976; that 32 of the 35 dock variances requested were granted; that the Board of Adjustment is a demanding board that requires a hardship be demonstrated and is careful not to grant more of a variance than required to make reasonable use of a property; that incipient policies have emerged on the Board of Adjustment by which the dock variances have been uniformly addressed; that the proposed ordinance would serve as codification of those incipient policies and be beneficial in informing a potential petitioner of the process followed. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3785 by title only. Mayor Patterson stated that two issues should be addressed in a motion: 1) the number of boats permitted at each dock, and 2) the number of docks per property; that whether per waterfront lot or per waterfront property was the intent of the Board of Adjustment's resolution should be determined; that a property owner who builds one residence on six waterfront lots should have the option of building more than one dock; that the proposed ordinance as drafted doesn't address the number of docks per property; that as currently drafted, as many docks per lot as feasible, would be permitted; and asked for comment by Mr. Babb. Mr. Babb came before the Commission, and stated that the Board of Adjustment did not address the issue of waterfront lots in single ownership; that, in his personal opinion, a property owner of more than one waterfront lot which meets the necessary building requirements should be permitted to have one dock for each of the buildable lots; that one of the multiple waterfront lots could be sold to another property owner who would have the right to develop the property and construct a dock. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No.94-3785 on first reading with the number of boats or vessels per dock to be clarified before second reading. Mayor Patterson asked if the intent of the motion is to place no restrictions on the number of docks? Commissioner Pillot stated that he is satisfied with the competency of the Administration to draft an appropriate ordinance; that he assumes the ordinance would be interpreted to permit one dock per buildable lot. Commissioner Pillot withdrew the motion. Commissioner Cardamone asked if six docks meeting the private residential dock requirement to hold three boats each would be permitted on six, 50-foot wide waterfront lots or 300 feet of waterfront property? Commissioner Pillot stated that the lots would have to be buildable lots. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3785 on first reading with the stipulation that three boats per dock be permitted on one dock per buildable lot. BOOK 38 Page 11744 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11745 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the intent of the motion could be accomplished by including the language referenced in his memorandum dated March 28, 1995, revised as follows: There shall be no more than one private residential dock per buildable lot it will serve. Mayor Patterson stated that the language should read "per buildable, waterfront lot" to avoid vesting dock rights for a waterfront property with four inland lots. Commissioner Atkins asked for the necessity of permitting three boats per dock? Mayor Patterson stated that three boats for one property with one dock is not an unreasonable limitation; that an individual could have a larger boat used for vacations, a runabout used for water skiing, and a little dingy used by their children; that permitting three boats per dock is reasonable. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3860, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, AS PETITIONED BY JOEL J. FREEDMAN, FOR ROBERT W. GEYER AND PATRICK H. DICKINSON, SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; A PARCEL OF LAND BEING LOTS 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, AND 24, BLOCK H, RESUBDIVISION OF TAMIAMI PARK AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 125, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 3931/3951 DEARBORN AVENUE AND 3940 SCHOOL AVENUE: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO INCLUDE SAID REAL PROPERTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (ANNEXATION PETITION NO. 95-ANX-01, JOEL FREEDMAN, BISHOP AND ASSOCIATES) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #3 (1320) through (1980) Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill and left the Commission at 9:40 p.m. Richard Walker, Senior Planner, came before the Commission, displayed Zoning District Maps on the overhead projector to depict the scope of the requested annexation. Mr. Walker stated that this is the third annexation requested by the property owners of Coast Cadillac, an auto dealership; that the applicants are requesting annexation of nine residential lots, with a future land use designation for commercial, and ultimately a rezoning to Commercial Intensive (CI); that in May, 1991, the City entered into a Municipal Services and Pre-Annexation Agreement with property owners Robert W. Geyer, Patrick H. Dickinson and Coral A. Weirch to which the following three conditions were agreed: 1. Submit an annexation petition within 90 days from the effective date of the agreement for the current Volvo dealership; 2. Submit an annexation petition for the Cadillac dealership by July 1, 1993; and 3. Submit an annexation petition for an out parcel (south % of lot 23 and all of lot 24, Block H, Resubdivision of Tamiami Park) when the out parcel became contiguous to the boundaries of the City. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:43 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 9:43 p.m. Mr. Walker stated that the property owners complied with the first two conditions; that the Volvo dealership was annexed and rezoned to CI in September 1991; that the Cadillac dealership was annexed and rezoned to CI in October 1992; that the out parcel and intervening lots mentioned in the third condition are the subject of this annexation request. Mr. Walker displayed and referred to an aerial photograph of the subject property which reflected a stormwater retention pond, a paved parking lot, an unpaved parking lot, two duplexes and one single family dwelling. Mr. Walker stated that the applicants have requested that the annexation be approved on first reading, but that the second reading of the ordinance be deferred until the Comprehensive Plan amendment is completed. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:45 p.m. Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, and Vance Dickinson, representing the Petitioner, came before the Commission and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mr. Freedman displayed and referred to the annexation map included in the notice of the 1991/1992 processes on the overhead projector; and stated that lots 22, 23, and 24 abut School Avenue; that the recent acquisition of lot 22 makes the three lots contiguous to the City boundaries; that a provision of the Pre-annexation Agreement required that the property owners annex lots 22, 23 and 24 into the City once lot 22 was acquired; therefore, an annexation request has BOOK 38 Page 11746 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. da BOOK 38 Page 11747 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. been filed. Mr. Freedman continued that lot 22 is developed with an employee parking lot on Residential Multi Family (RMF) zoned property; that lots 23 and 24 currently contain a stormwater retention pond; that the current uses were permitted through the County; that the City no longer provides for employee parking or stormwater facilities on residentially zoned property in connection with a commercially zoned project; that obtaining final approval on the annexation prior to the potential rezoning being addressed would result in non-conforming uses on the subject property; therefore, the Petitioner has requested that the final approval be delayed until the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning processes have been completed. Mr. Freedman continued that the Petitioner intends to develop a repair facility and detail shop structure on lots 9, 10, and 11, with employee parking and another small stormwater facility on lots 12, 13, and 14; that additional street access would not be necessaryi that the potential CI zoning would extend from Bee Ridge Road to Hansen Street and be bounded by School and Dearborn Avenues; that the Comprehensive Plan amendment application has been filed; that a Neighborhood Workshop is scheduled for April 4, 1995. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office has ruled and the property owner understands that no vested rights would be gained if the Commission passes the proposed ordinance on first reading. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3860 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3860 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 14. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (1920) through (1950) There was no one signed up to speak. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: BAY ROAD/OSPREY AVENUE CONGESTION RELIEF STUDY APPROVED FOR THE AFFECTED AREA IDENTIFIED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (1928) through (2213) - Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that at February 21, 1995 City Commission meeting, Staff was requested to meet with area businesses and residents to discuss solutions for traffic circulation and traffic congestion problems on Osprey Avenue and Bay Road from Siesta Drive to U.S. 41; that a twelve-step approach and schedule has been developed for the Bay Road/Osprey Avenue Congestion Relief Study. Commissioner Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Daughters referred to and explained the twelve-step approach and schedule and map depicting the boundaries of the affected area which were contained in the Agenda packets; and stated that the first two steps in the schedule, 1) preparing "packets" of information and proposed improvements to the Publix development, and 2) arranging for meeting location and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) representation, have been accomplished; that two meetings between the Engineering Department and affected businesses and residents have been scheduled to obtain public input on the proposed improvements related to the Publix development; that an FDOT representative will attend the first meeting; that presentation of the Congestion Relief Study results to the City Commission for review and approval is anticipated on July 5, 1995. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve 1) the schedule of the Bay Road/Osprey Avenue Congestion Relief Study, and 2) the boundaries of the affected area as depicted in the map presented. Mayor Patterson stated that the schedule reflects potential funding for the identified improvements being allocated between the years 1999 and 2002; and asked if other street improvements, i.e., installation of left-turn lanes on Osprey Avenue to Versailles Street, will be completed earlier? Mr. Daughters stated that the allocation of funding referenced in the schedule refers to potentially vast improvements to the affected area; that the Development Agreement for the proposed Publix development requires that the left-turn lanes on Osprey Avenue and the improvements to Bay Road at U.S. 41 be completed within three years of the effective date of the Development Agreement; that the Administration intends to work with the FDOT to accomplish the Development Agreement improvements as soon as possible. Mayor Patterson asked if public input from the affected businesses and residents will be obtained on the designs proposed for the Development Agreement improvements? BOOK 38 Page 11748 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11749 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission had requested that the affected businesses and residents be involved in developing a solution to alleviate the congestion on Osprey Avenue and Bay Road; that she would expect the Administration to consider requesting Publix to change the site plan if, for example, a feasible solution of relocating the entrance on Bay Road was identified by the neighborhood. Mr. Daughters stated that the site plan for the Publix development was approved and final site plans have been received; that a change in the site plan would substantially delay the Publix development. Commissioner Cardamone asked why relocating a driveway by 50 feet to alleviate traffic concerns could substantially delay development? Mr. Daughters stated that the site plans would have to be redesigned; that the parking lot layout is based the location of the driveways as depicted on the site plan; and that the thrust of the Congestion Relief Study is to identify long-term solutions to the congestion in the subject area. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to address the scheduled approach to address concerns. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SARASOTA COUNTY TO PROVIDE A SHORT-TERM LOAN FOR ANGLIN DRIVE DRAINAGE PROJECT FUNDING = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (2213) through (2253) City Manager Sollenberger stated that at the March 6, 1995, City Commission meeting, the Commission approved providing "bridge-type" funding for the subject project, provided that Sarasota County enter into an agreement to reimburse the City for the $57,000.00 loan within a specified short-term period; that an Interlocal Agreement has been prepared to provide for that stipulation. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the interlocal agreement with Sarasota County to provide a short-term loan for Anglin Drive Drainage Project funding. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CENTRAL FLORIDA CONTRACTORS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,185.85, FOR THE MUNICIPAL SIDEWALK PROJECT, PHASE II = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (2253) through (2269) City Manager Sollenberger stated that sealed proposals were received until 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 15, 1995, for the purpose of selecting a contractor to furnish all labor, material, equipment, tools, consumables, transportation and incidentals required for the Municipal Sidewalk Project, Phase II; that three bids were received; that the lowest responsible bid for this project was submitted by Central Florida Contractors, Inc., a minority business enterprise. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends awarding the construction contract for the Municipal Sidewalk Project, Phase II, to Central Florida Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $71,185.85 for the completion of the work as specified. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to award the contract in the amount of $71,185.85 to Central Florida Contractors, Inc. for the completion of the Municipal Sidewalk Project, Phase II. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:58 p.m. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND PAT BALL FOR THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 513 CENTRAL AVENUE FOR OFFICES FOR THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #3 (2285) through (3060) Don Hadsell, Community Development Director, came before the Commission and stated that the negotiations of the lease agreement between the city and Pat Ball have concluded; that the agreement was executed by Mr. and Mrs. Ball without a witness; therefore, re- execution will be necessary; that the major changes to the lease are as follows: 1. The City has the option to purchase the building according to a predetermined schedule at any time during the term of the lease. 2. The amount of the improvements provided will be no less than $270,000. 3. Details on the warranties has been added. The City will receive a one-year builder's warranty, a ten-year warranty on the roof and all manufacturer's warranties. 4. Because this is now a triple net lease with an option to purchase, the City is responsible for maintenance and insurance. BOOK 38 Page 11750 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11751 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hadsell stated that at the request of the city Manager the following Clarifications have been included in the Lease Agreement: Paragraph 7: Added the language, "Documentation regarding the value of the improvements - must be submitted by the lessor to the City Manager for verification." Paragraph 21: City to apply for any available exemption from the payment of sales tax to the State of Florida. Mr. Hadsell stated that the responsibility for application for the exemption was changed from the Lessee to the City, who will be the benefactor, to assure that the application is filed in a timely manner. Paragraph 24: Condemnation award or sales proceeds to be distributed as identified in Schedule C. Commissioner Atkins asked for clarification of Item #4. Mr. Hadsell stated that Mr. Ball and his attorney felt the City should be responsible for maintenance and insurance since, as negotiated, the Lease Agreement provides for purchase by the City at any time in accordance with Schedule C, which is an amortization of $450,000 over 10 years; that previously, the option to purchase only existed at the end of the ten-year lease term. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Commission agreed to negotiate an agreement with the property owner to lease the subject property as a means of sparking the redevelopment of the Central Avenue Corridor; that the Commission reluctantly agreed to the terms of the conceptual Lease Agreement; that agreeing to maintain the property, pay insurance, and pay incremental property taxes on a leased property is too extensive; that he will not support the Lease Agreement as revised. Commissioner Cardamone asked why revisions were made to the Lease Agreement which had been conceptually approved by the Commission? Mr. Hadsell stated that the City's consent to the items referenced was necessary to reach an agreement with the property owner regarding the lease. Commissioner Cardamone asked if any revisions were made to the Lease Agreement that were favorable to the City? Mr. Hadsell stated that the amount of the improvements was further defined; that verification of the improvements was included; that the option for the City to purchase the building at any time was included; that the warranties on the building were further defined; that the property owner's position throughout the negotiations was that the lease be viewed as a triple-net lease and as such the city should be responsible for the maintenance of the building beyond the warranties provided. Mayor Patterson asked if the $450,000 amortization figure was based on an appraisal on the structure? Mr. Hadsell responded, no; and stated that the amortization figure was based on the property owner's verifiable expense of $150,000 to date, the $270,000 required for the improvements, plus a developer's profit of $30,000. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed improvements, the size of the property, including the parking spaces, etc., should be evaluated by a commercial appraiser to determine what the property is worth; that the City Manager previously told the Commission that an income source was not available to purchase the property; and asked if Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds could be used to float a bond issue to purchase the property? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he recommends referring the item back to the Administration. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to refer this item back to the Administration. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. Mayor Patterson stated that public input on the item had not yet been received. The following person came before the Commission: Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street, stated that another property owner in the Central Avenue area would like an opportunity to negotiate a Lease Agreement with the City for the Office of Housing and Community Development; that the City could obtain office space at a better location for substantially less cost; and asked why the City has pursued Lease Agreement with only one property owner. Commissioner Cardamone stated that in her opinion, the former African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church building at 513 Central Avenue is the most prominent building on Central Avenue; that approaching a renovated, large-imposing structure with signage reading "Office of Housing and Community Development" at. the entrance to the redevelopment area would signify the City's commitment and further promote the redevelopment of Central Avenue; that she supported paying a premium on the lease space to obtain BOOK 38 Page 11752 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11753 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. the dramatic effect that could not be obtained by locating the office elsewhere on Central Avenue. Mr. Levy stated that he supports redevelopment of Central Avenue; that any steps taken would assist in promoting the redevelopment efforts; and asked if similar consideration or incentives would be provided to other property owners who attempt to renovate dilapidated buildings on Central Avenue or if the City's assistance is isolated to one property owner? Mayor Patterson stated that assistance on future proposals would have to reflect the needs of the City; that a Lease Agreement for the property at 513 Central Avenue was considered for various reasons to be beneficial to the City. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a letter was submitted for the record by Mary Quillin requesting that the Commission deny approval of the Lease Agreement. Mayor Patterson stated that no action on the Lease Agreement has been taken by the Commission; that a motion to refer the specific location back to the Administration for review was defeated; therefore, the Administration will be expected to present to the Commission an alternative proposal for locating the Office of Housing and Community Development. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would not have seconded or supported the motion if he had realized the intent was to refer the specific location back to the Administration. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification if taking no action provides the Administration with an opportunity to bring back a revised Lease Agreement on the same building or an alternative building? Mayor Patterson stated that the motion to refer the specific Lease Agreement back to the Administration was defeated; that the Administration should present any proposal they deem appropriate. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE IMPLEMEN- TATION OF A PERMIT PROCESS FOR THE USE OF THE SEAWALL ON KEN THOMPSON PARK FOR CITY AND COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #3 (3060) through (3109) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that when the City Commission discussed conceptual approval of the New Pass Seawall plan, the Commission approved the plan without the tie-up piers because the Commission believed the City had provided more than its fair share of storage space for artificial reef materials; that in conveying the Commission action to Sarasota County, Staff was informed that a factor in the County's recommendation to award the City $194,000 in Florida Boater Improvement Program (FBIP) funds for construction of the new seawall was based upon the availability of the Ken Thompson Park site as an artificial reef staging area; that an alternative site in the City for such activities is not available; that the five guidelines outlined in the memorandum dated March 21, 1995, contained in the Agenda packet, allow for the continued use of Ken Thompson Park for the Artificial Reef Program. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends implementing a permit process for the use of the seawall on Ken Thompson Park for City and County Public Works projects, following the guidelines noted in the referenced memorandum. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 20. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: REOUEST BY THE COUNTY FOR CITY STAFF TO IDENTIFY POSSIBLE PROJECTS NEEDED BETWEEN 1999 AND 2009 THAT MAY BE FUNDED BY THE ONE CENT INPRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX IF RENEWED BY THE PUBLIC - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A LIST (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (3109) through (3125) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to direct the Administration to prepare a list for Commission approval. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 21. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: COMMISSION REVIEW OF SUGGESTED LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES - APPROVED AS PRESENTED EXCLUDING THE ITEM OPPOSING THE INCREASE OF HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FROM $500 TO $2,500 (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (3133) through (3580) Mayor Patterson distributed a prochure listing Legislative Priorities to thè Commission; and stated that she and Commissioner Cardamone would be travelling to Tallahassee tomorrow to participate in a lobbying effort; and requested Commission authorization to pursue or oppose the priorities as listed or modified accordingly. Commissioner Pillot stated that he does not feel strongly about removing from the list of priorities the item supporting Public Access to Local Official, but he personally likes the restrictions imposed by the Snyder decision. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the legislative priorities as presented. BOOK 38 Page 11754 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11755 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that homeowners who have not been able to reap the benefits of capitalism should be excused from tax exemption either by age or ability to payi that the homestead exemption should not be extended to renters, but should be increased for widows, blind persons, and persons totally and permanently disabled. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would support removing opposition to the HB 873 and SB 912 under Expansion of Homestead Exemptions. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he has some reservation on supporting a vote in opposition to Private Property Rights; however, he will support the legislative priorities identified. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to exclude from the legislative priorities the item opposing the increase in Homestead Exemption to widows, widowers, blind persons, and persons totally and permanently disabled from $500 to $2,500. Amendment carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved amend the motion to exclude support for the Public Access to Local Officials item from the list of legislative priorities. Amendment died for lack of second. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the main motion to approve the legislative priorities presented excluding the item opposing the Homestead Exemption increase from $500 to $2,500. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO SERVE AS PASS-THROUGH, ADMINISTRATIVE SPONSOR OF THE SARASOTA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM AND THE ADMINISTRATION. TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS DECISION - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (3580) through #4 (0327) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program has been in operation for six years; that the Program has nearly completed Phase I which includes the technical studies for planning and developing a strategy for improvement of Sarasota Bay; that the next step is the implementation phase; that the program has been successful because the Program collaborates with citizens' groups and governmental bodies regarding regulations for the Bayi that the Program was previously sponsored by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), forerunner of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); that resources and personnel were administered by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) at the direction of the FDER under a cost reimbursement contract between the two agencies; that due to the more complex bureaucratic requirements of state government and the distance of Tallahassee from Sarasota, administration was transferred directly to SWFWMD in 1991; that the implementation phase is ready to begin and SWFWMD proposes to distribute duties throughout its organization, claiming greater efficiency in utilization of personnel by operating the Program from Brooksville; that the Program Policy Board believes moving the Program to Brooksville is not the most effective use of personnel; that the Program Policy Board believes the Program should be administered closer to home by an agency serving as a sponsor, or "pass-through", to the program; that the Program Policy Board recommends the City sponsor this program; that the City has the administrative capacity to undertake this program; that all costs of the program would be paid through grants and participating local government contributions; that the city would be reimbursed for any administrative costs; that employees transferred from SWFWMD would participate in the Florida Retirement System rather than the City's; that employees would be provided health care benefits comparable to City employees, but through a health insurance policy so as not to impact the City's self-insured fund; that a similar arrangement would be made for workers' compensation coverage; that SWFWMD would continue to participate as a member of the Management Conference; that SWFWMD would provide financial support and other resources through the Manasota Basin Board and the Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) Program; that the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the City's sponsorship role of the Program. Commissioner Pillot asked if the current staff will remain with the Program? Mr. Sollenberger stated that current staff will remain with the Program and become City employees with the option of joining the Florida State Retirement Program. Mayor Patterson stated that Mark Alderson, Director of the Program, is available for questions; that the Administration has not addressed disability issues; that the City does not have a disability policy but has paid disabled employees full pay, retirement benefits, health insurance, etc., for as long as a year or more; and asked if the contract for the Program employees includes a disability provision with a stipulation that once a person becomes disabled, the person will no longer be a City employee? Mr. Sollenberger stated that any benefit costs would be paid by the Program and not the City. BOOK 38 Page 11756 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11757 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that the benefit issues have not been addressed or estimated. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City will not have to subsidize the Program. Mayor Patterson stated that disability protection should be in the calculations if there is an intent to provide disability benefits. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he will verify that disability benefits are included in the calculations. Mayor Patterson asked if Program employees will no longer be employed by the City if funding ceases? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City will provide for termination of the employees if the funding terminates; that there would be no program if the funding ceases. Mayor Patterson stated that Sarasota County did not want to administer this program due to the potential long-term liability; therefore, the City is being asked to do it; that apparently the city does not have a concern that the program could be a long-term liability; that the City has been a leader with this program in the past; that the City is facing more monetary difficulties than any other governmental body benefitting from the program; that the Program Policy Board found that the State, not local government, was the umbrella organization for other National Programs once Phase I had been completed. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is pleased that other agencies did not select this program; that the Program has been one of the most valuable programs in the City as Sarasota Bay is the City's number one asset; that the program is well managed and implemented; that he is proud the City will administer this Program. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City was not asked to administer the Program only because no one else was available; that several other options were considered; that the City representative on the Program Policy Board and the City Manager prefer to keep the Program local because its headquarters is located on City property and the City is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Program. Mayor Patterson stated that the other options considered did not involve other local governments also benefitting from the Program; that the potential administrators being considered were Mote Marine, SWFWMD and the State; that Sarasota and Manatee Counties were not interested in administering the program. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Sarasota and Manatee counties do not benefit from the program as much as the City does. Vice Mayor Merrill asked the effective date of the program? Mr. Sollenberger stated July 1, 1995; that an interlocal agreement between the city and SWFWMD will be brought back to the table prior to the effective date. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved that the City serve as pass-througn, administrative sponsor of the Sarasota Bay National Esctuary Program and that the Administration take all actions necessary to implement this decision. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 23. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE QUIT CLAIM OF ONE FOOT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FRONT OF TUCKER'S SPORTING GOODS FOR A LENGTH OF 151 FEET FOR CONSIDERATION OF $16.00 PER SOUARE FOOT PLUS CLOSING COSTS = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (0328) through (0333) City Manager Sollenberger stated that William Ludi, owner of Tuckers Sporting Goods located at 1400 State Street, has a sale pending; that a portion of the building encroaches onto City right- of-way by six inches; that the proposed owners will be providing some stucco surfacing to the building; that it has been determined that the best method of resolving this matter is to quit claim one foot in depth north and south on State Street for a length of 151 feet in return for a purchase price of $16.00 per square foot for a total of $2,416. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to authorize a quit claim of one foot of right-of-way in front of Tucker's Sporting Goods for a length of 151 feet for consideration of $16.00 per square foot, plus closing costs, for a total of $2,416. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 24. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SALVATION ARMY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2825-2827 ARLINGTON STREET - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-5) #4 (0334) through (0343) City Manager Sollenberger stated tiat the Salvation Army wishes to receive water service at their property located at 2825-2827 Arlington Street; however, a pre-annexation agreement is needed; that the Salvation Army has agreed to enter into a pre-annexation agreement which stipulates that it will initiate an independent annexation for all their eligible properties if a neighborhood annexation does not occur within one year. BOOK 38 Page 11758 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11759 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve and authorize the execution of a pre- annexation agreement for the property located at 2825-2827 Arlington Street. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 25. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH BOTH THE PEACE RIVER MANASOTA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY AND MANATEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY POTABLE WATER INTERCONNECTION - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-6) #4 (0344) through (0416) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration has negotiated Interlocal Agreements with the Peace River/ManaSota Regional Water Supply Authority and Manatee County Government; that the Interlocal Agreements will provide for funding and implementation of an emergency potable water connection between the City and Manatee County; that the Agreements have been reviewed by City Attorney Taylor; that emergency interconnection between neighboring utilities is recognized as a cost effective means to assure the availability of potable water; that the City currently maintains three such interconnections with Sarasota County and one with the Siesta Key Utility Authority. Mayor Patterson stated that the City will also expend funding for the interconnection. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Peace River/ManaSota Regional Water Supply Authority has received a grant from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) which can be used to provide assistance in facilitating emergency interconnection installations between water utility systems within the Region; that the Authority has offered to fund construction of an interconnect by making a zero interest loan to the City repayable in five equal annual payments; that the cost of construction is estimated not to exceed $370,000; that the loan is contingent upon the execution of an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Manatee County; that the primary beneficiary of this interconnect is the City. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve execution of the Interlocal Agreements with the Peace River/ManaSota Regional Water Supply Authority and Manatee County Government for construction of an emergency potable water interconnection. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 26. NEW BUSINESS: REQUEST BY THE JOHN RINGLING CENTRE FOUNDATION. INC.. FOR TERMINATION OF THE THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN FIRST SUNSET DEVELOPMENT, INC. THE JOHN RINGLING CENTRE FOUNDATION, AND THE CITY OF SARASOTA - DISCUSSION CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 17, 1995, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-7) #4 (0417) through (2219) Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a prerequisite to his placing this item on the agenda was that the John Ringling Centre (JRC) Foundation notify the newspapers, television stations and neighborhood coalitions in order to allow for public input on this issue. William Preissner, Jr., Executive Director, JRC Foundation, Deborah Dart, Vice President, JRC Foundation, and William Merrill, Attorney for the JRC Foundation, came before the Commission. Attorney Merrill stated that tonight's meeting was announced in a newspaper article and on the 6:00 news; that the JRC Foundation requests the City terminate the three-party agreement with First Sunset Development, Inc., the JRC Foundation and the City of Sarasota. Attorney Merrill cited the following from a letter dated March 31, 1995, from Ms. Dart: The Foundation asks both partners to agree to terminate the three-party agreement calling for the demolition of the JRT upon failure of the project. The JRC Foundation will in turn do the following: 1. Prepare a construction contract ready for execution to complete the exterior rehabilitation to be known as "Phase I." 2. Commence "Phase I" on or before May 1, 1995... Attorney Merrill stated that the agreement, originally drafted as a safeguard for the project, has become a roadblock to current and future funding; that a letter from the Florida Department of State dated March 27, 1995, notified the JRC Foundation that the $478,000 grant for repairs to the exterior work will not be dispersed until the agreement, a standing order for demolition, is terminated; that the Florida Department of State will not take a financial risk on a building which could be demolished or could revert to private hands; that as long as the agreement exists, the project also risks losing the ability to compete for future grants; that the project has already lost the chance to compete for a $40,000 grant from the Florida Department of State because of delays at the beginning of the project; that the project is in jeopardy of losing a master tenant lease for the retail space if the work is not completed in a timely fashion; that immediate review and action on this matter is necessary. BOOK 38 Page 11760 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11761 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Attorney Merrill continued that Susan Hanson and George Dietz, representing First Sunset Development, Inc., were not able to attend this meeting; that the attorney representing First Sunset Development, Inc., indicated receptiveness to resolving this issue and proceeding with the exterior work as scheduled. Mr. Sollenberger cited the following from a letter dated March 27, 1995, from Frank Stockton, Senior Attorney, Florida Department of State: 1. The Foundation must establish a definitive Phase I of the restoration satisfactory to the Department, specifying exactly what work will be done during this phase and the Foundation must have sufficient funds available to do this work. 2. The Foundation must amend all contracts and other agreements with the City of Sarasota and First Sunset Development, Inc., whereby upon completion of Phase I of the restoration, as specified, any reverter contained in the deed of the hotel property to the Foundation shall be vitiated and void, and the tile in fee simple shall be vested in the Foundation. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the following should be determined prior to a decision by the City Commission: 1. The definitive Phase I plans submitted by the JRC Foundation are acceptable to the Florida Department of State; and 2. The First Sunset Development, Inc., is amenable to terminating the three-party agreement. Attorney Merrill stated that the scope of the exterior work will not change since it is covered in the grant application; therefore, the first action requested by the Florida Department of State has been met; and asked if the JRC Foundation should make its request to the City to terminate the three-party agreement based upon receiving agreement from First Sunset Development, Inc.? Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission's decision regarding termination of the three-party agreement is subject to: 1) affirmation by the Florida Department of State that the JRC Foundation's Phase I is approved; and 2) First Sunset Development, Inc., will agree to the termination. I Ms. Dart stated that the JRC Foundation risks loss of future funding if the Commission terminates the three-party agreement after the Phase I work is completed. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Florida Department of State is requesting a definitive Phase I plan, not completion of work. Mayor Patterson cited the following from Attorney Stockton's letter dated March 27, 1995: .If the above conditions are complied with, upon completion of Phase I the Florida Department of State would place in escrow the sum of the grant-in-aid awarded to the Foundation to be used for the remaining phases of restoration.. Commissioner Pillot stated that the funds from the Florida Department of State will not be received before construction begins; that the City will not terminate the agreement unless First Sunset Development, Inc., also agrees to the termination; therefore, a decision by the City tonight to terminate the agreement would not guarantee the funding for the JRC Foundation. Attorney Merrill stated that having money in escrow allows the JRC Foundation to become eligible for more funds and to draw against the escrow. Mr. Sollenberger cited the following from Attorney Stockton's letter dated March 27, 1995: 3. The Foundation must amend all contracts and other agreements with the City of Sarasota and First Sunset Development, Inc., whereby upon completion of Phase I of the restoration, as specified, any agreement for demolition of the hotel building shall be rescinded and nullified. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Attorney Stockton's letter clearly indicates that the JRC Foundation should use its own resources to complete Phase I of the project; that the letter also clearly states that the Florida Department of State will provide funds from the grant once the three-party agreement is terminated. Commissioner Atkins asked if Attorney Stockton's letter indicates that Phase I must be completed before receiving State funding? Attorney Merrill stated that is correct. Commissioner Atkins asked if the City can terminate the three-party agreement after Phase I is complete? BOOK 38 Page 11762 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11763 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Attorney Merrill stated that the Florida Department of State requires termination of the three-party agreement before placing the funds in escrow. Mayor Patterson stated that the JRC Foundation originally approached the City for the three-party agreement based upon the cost to complete Phase I; that Phase I includes restoration of the first two floors and exterior of the building; that the City allowed the JRC Foundation 18 months to solicit project funding; that the Florida Department of State has reservations about funding nearly a half million dollars after discovering an agreement allowing demolition of the building; that the Florida Department of State requests that Phase I be redefined to include only the work to be completed with JRC Foundation resources so that the investment by the Florida Department of State is secure; that the Florida Department of State prefers that Phase I include only renovation of the building's exterior. Attorney Merrill stated that a lawsuit filed against First Sunset Development, Inc., by a party not entitled to the property, concerned the Florida Department of State although assurance was given that the JRC Foundation has good title to the property; that the Florida Department of State learned of the three-party agreement, which is a public record, when researching this lawsuit. Mayor Patterson stated that the State agrees to the three-party agreement as long as Phase I is funded by the JRC Foundation. Attorney Merrill stated that the JRC Foundation has sufficient funds to complete Phase I; that the money will remain in the State's coffer if the grant is not used for the exterior work; therefore, the JRC Foundation could not apply for more funding during the application cycle ending May 31, 1995. Mayor Patterson stated that Phase I could be changed to include only the interior work; therefore, the grant funds could then be used for the exterior. Attorney Merrill stated that the City requested the exterior of the building be completed first. Mayor Patterson stated that the concern is the long-term viability of the building; that there should not be a concern as to which part of the project is completed first. Attorney Merrill stated that every developer faces the demolition option; that in this case, the City has imposed a three-party agreement before the restoration has begun which is not the usual procedure; that the value of the property would go up if the building were demolished. - Mayor Patterson stated that there are no development rights on that property; that the property would not increase in value. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has concerns about canceling the three-party agreement without input from First Sunset Development, Inc.; and asked if First Sunset Development, Inc., would obtain ownership of the property if the building were demolished? Mayor Patterson stated that the JRC Foundation would obtain ownership if the property were demolished which is not agreeable to the Florida Department of State. Attorney Merrill stated that the Florida Department of State desires ownership to revert to an acceptable body, such as the City. Mayor Patterson stated that the City is not interested in obtaining that piece of property. On motion of Commissioner Atkins, and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to continue this discussion to a later date so that the JRC Foundation can research this issue and provide clearer explanations of the issues brought forth tonight. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has three concerns which are: 1. - it is important for the Commission to know the position of First Sunset Development, Inc., on the three-party agreement; 2. it is important for the Commission to know the status of the lawsuit against the JRC Foundation property since the City is a party to the restoration project; and 3. it is surprising the Florida Department of State promised grant money before researching the public records; therefore, this issue regarding thè three-party agreement should have been confronted at the planning stage. Attorney Merrill stated that the JRC Foundation is amenable to a motion which includes the condition that First Sunset Development, Inc., must approve the termination of the three-party agreement; that the lawsuit is against First Sunset Development, Inc., not the JRC Foundation; that a lawsuit against the property would be a slander of title since the property is owned by the JRC Foundation; that the petitioner will not receive anything from the property; that at most, the petitioner could receive damages from First Sunset Development, Inc. BOOK 38 Page 11764 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11765 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that this project is controversial; that he and the Community support the restoration of the building; that the JRC Foundation is up against deadlines and the Commission should support the JRC Foundation in their restoration endeavor. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Merrill; that the City cannot "lose" by voting for termination of the three- party agreement since termination will not occur unless First Sunset Development, Inc., agrees; that the lawsuit is probably frivolous and should not be an issue when voting on terminating the three-party agreement. Mayor Patterson asked if the JRC Foundation assumed the City will turn over the escrow money required under the three-party agreement? Attorney Merrill stated that the escrow money would revert to the JRC Foundation as part of the three-party agreement. City Attorney Taylor stated that the only way to draw from the escrow money is to provide the escrow agent with a letter of certification that the three-party agreement has been breached; that once the three-party agreement is voided, there is no triggering mechanism to cause the escrow to be paid out. Mayor Patterson stated that the lawsuit may not be frivolous; that the lawsuit may or may not interfere with the restoration project; that the petitioner in the lawsuit alleges it has a valid contract for the sale of the property from First Sunset Development, Inc.; that the contract for sale apparently refers specifically to the petitioner's intent to renovate the building; that the petitioner's financial backing, expertise in restoration, and desire to work with the JRC Foundation should be analyzed. Attorney Merrill stated that he has found parts of the lawsuit to be frivolous; that the contract for sale indicated certain conditions must have occurred during a specific time frame and the conditions never occurred; that the JRC Foundation did not see the contract for sale until after it was signed; that the- JRC Foundation does not personally know the prospective buyers. Mayor Patterson asked if the JRC Foundation is interested in determining the prospective buyers' plans? Ms. Dart stated that is not necessary since a project is already in place. Commissioner Atkins stated that a project is in place only with creative financing which is falling apart. Ms. Dart stated that the project is solid. Mayor Patterson stated that there may be a possibility that the prospective buyers could speed up the renovation with their own money and efforts. Ms. Dart stated that the JRC Foundation is the first organization to establish a successful restoration project in the last 15 years; that the project has been well planned and will be completed in small, manageable phases; that the JRC Foundation has a master tenant ready to move in, community space is planned, and money has been donated for a mixed-use community center. Attorney Merrill stated that this is a $3 million construction project and will provide many jobs for the Community. Mayor Patterson stated that the State would not have concerns if the JRC Foundation had the $3 million to restore the building. Ms. Dart stated that the State would still be concerned because of the risk of demolition and the fact that the property could revert to private hands. Commissioner Atkins asked the risk to the City if the building remains in its present condition? Ms. Dart stated that the JRC Foundation would sign a construction contract for the exterior work if the City will terminate the three-party agreement; that the JRC Foundation should not have to forfeit $478,000 for the exterior work because of an unnecessary agreement. Commissioner Pillot stated that if the lawsuit does not succeed, there is no problem; that if the lawsuit does succeed, the City has no further obligation because it no longer is a party to an agreement with the property's owners; that nothing is gained by delaying a decision; that a motion would include that the three- party agreement would be terminated based upon: 1) approval of the definitive Phase I plans by the Florida Department of State; and 2) agreement to the. termination by First Sunset Development, Inc.; therefore, if First Sunset Development, Inc., is not satisfied with terminating the agreement, the City is released from the action of the motion; that the project could lose funding by delaying a decision. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there are still unanswered questions. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to call the question. Mayor Patterson stated that it has been moved to call the question; that it is not debateable. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): BOOK 38 Page 11766 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11767 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson restated the main motion as to continue this discussion at the April 17, 1995, regular Commission meeting sO that the JRC Foundation has time to research the legal position of the City, the position of First Sunset Development, Inc., on this issue, and the status and implications of the lawsuit. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson asked Attorney Merrill to call her to discuss the lawsuit. Commissioner Pillot stated that Commissioner-elect Dry will be at a disadvantage in voting on this issue since it has been discussed for so many years; that Commissioner-elect Dry should be provided a briefing on the issue. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration should provide any information that Commissioner-elect Dry requests. 27. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION OF GRANT PROPOSAL FOR HOMELESS - LETTER TO BE SENT TO THE COUNTY ENDORSING THE COUNTY'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEMS VIII-8) #4 (2200) through (2500) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County's administrator has indicated a concern about the County's capacity to administer a grant for the homelessi that the City Administration also has concerns about its capacity to administer a grant for the homeless; that the City Commission has taken the position of encouraging the dispersion of homeless shelters outside the City and encouraging the County to support this effort; that the Administration's recommendation is to determine whether the Commission wishes to support the grant proposal, and, if so, communicate to the County Board of Commissioners that the City Commission supports the program and encourages the County to administer it. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the cost of this grant proposal is $6.6 million; that there are so many other programs which could benefit from this money; that he recommends the Federal Government apply this money to reduce the Federal deficit. Mayor Patterson stated that the grant specifically references that shelters are to be added to existing facilities; that shelters are needed, but she does not want all shelters to be located in the City, specifically the downtown area. Commissioner Atkins stated that he agrees with Mayor Patterson; that the County must quit "passing the buck"; that he believes most of the homeless and indigent are within the City limits due to the County's zoning laws; that the County could disperse these people throughout the greater Community area instead of in the downtown urban core; and asked if the Salvation Army had responded regarding their facility expansion and their 10-year master plan? Mayor Patterson stated that no response has been received. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Salvation Army should be contacted to follow up on those two issues. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the grant covers the entire County, not just the City. Commissioner Atkins stated that the County understands they should be supportive of this program; that the County is attempting to pass this program on to the City; that the City has already assumed responsibility for administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the County; that the County is now attempting to redirect the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program and the homeless program to the City. Mayor Patterson stated that a letter should be sent to the County encouraging its support of grant proposal and administration of the program, and also including the City Commission's concerns about having the homeless concentrated in the downtown area. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to support the grant proposal and to communicate to the County Board of Commissioners the City's support and endorsement of the County's administering the program. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to extend the meeting past 11:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 28. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE STEPS TO REMOVE PEOPLE LIVING ON BOATS IN THE BAY AND REPORT BACK AT THE APRIL 17, 1995, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING; ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS OPEN-AIR DINING AT THE QUAY (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (2501) through (3142) COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that he appreciates the beautiful and timely Sister City display completed by City Auditor and Clerk BOOK 38 Page 11768 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11769 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. Robinson; that the visiting Russians will be taken on a walking tour of downtown Sarasota on April 11. B. stated that he enjoyed working with Commissioner-elect Dry on the Civil Service Board; that his respect- and affection for Commissioner Atkins has grown during the six years of working with him on the City Commission; that Commissioner Atkins' work while serving on the City Commission for the last 10 years has been tremendously valuable to the City; that it has been a privilege serving with Commissioner Atkins. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that the City should inquire about funding to develop a park in the northeast downtown area; that the northeast side is an up-and-coming neighborhood and that new homes are being built in that area. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she is concerned about boats being moored in the Bay; that moored boats crashed against the seawall and went aground near Bay Point during a storm last month; that people are living aboard the grounded boats within 200 feet of residences on Bay Point Drive and Hudson Bayou; that the Police have been called, but the boats are still there; that pictures of people using the Bay as a restroom have been provided to the City Commission by a resident; that the pictures include boats grounded not far from Selby Gardens and garbage floating in the Bay; that the City should have these boats removed immediately. Commissioner Atkins stated that he agrees with Commissioner Cardamone. Mayor Patterson asked if there is an ordinance stating a person cannot live aboard a boat over a specified number of days? City Attorney Taylor stated that a City ordinance stipulates a person cannot live aboard a boat beyond 72 hours. Commissioner Pillot stated that it was helpful for Commissioner Cardamone to bring this issue up in a public forum; however, the issue should also have been immediately addressed to the City Manager. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had previously spoken to V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, after learning of this problem; that the people living aboard the boats, referred to as "bum boats," have been directed to leave by City staff but have not yet done so; that the pictures distributed tonight were just received this afternoon; that these "bum boats" must be removed immediately; that these "boat people" have caused problems along the Bay by setting up campsites near Selby Gardens. Commissioner Pillot stated the people using the Bay as a restroom should be put in jail for 60 days. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer this issue to the City Manager for an immediate response. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the Administration should address the open-air dining facilities at the Sarasota Quay; that the building itself fronts along residential areas; that Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, indicated that a business is exempt from the open-air dining requirement if it does not front on a street or a residential area; that Mr. Litchet's interpretation was not the intent of the Commission; that Mr. Litchet stated that the ordinance was passed after the Quay was in operation and no retroactive provisions are written in the ordinance; that before the ordinance was passed, open-air dining was prohibited except by Special Exception; that the ordinance was passed without requiring new Special Exceptions by restaurants offering open-air dining; that the ordinance was passed so that restaurant owners would not have to pay the $1,000 fee for a Special Exception; that the ordinance should reflect that dining is allowed outdoors and. should move indoors at midnight since sound travels across the 'water and interferes with the residential areas; that the Board of Adjustment may need to appeal Mr. Litchet's interpretation of the ordinance. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer to the Administration the issue of open-air dining at the Quay. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 29. OTHER MATIRBABKINIETATIVE OFFICERS = ADMINISTRATION TO FOLLOW UP ON DUMPSTER LOCATED IN PARKING SPACE IN GOLDEN GATE POINT: RESCHEDULE APRIL 29, 1995, GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP; CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO APPEAL THE NOISE ORDINANCE RULING (AGENDA ITEM XII) #1 (3143) through (3328) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: BOOK 38 Page 11770 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11771 04/03/95 6:00 P.M. A. stated that 19 dumpsters and 2 recycling bins have been relocated off the right-of-way. Mayor Patterson stated that a dumpster located at Golden Gate Point was relocated to a parking space at a 12-unit building which has only 12 parking spaces; that she has referred this to V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager. B. stated that the April 29, 1995, Annual Goal Setting workshop would be rescheduled in order that all five Commissioners can attend. CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: A. stated that the City received a negative ruling concerning the Nuisance Ordinance in County Court; that he has filed an appeal on behalf of the City to preserve the City's right; that the Commission can approve the appeal or the appeal can be dismissed. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pursue the appeal for the Noise Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a lawsuit has been filed by the representatives of Walgreens? City Attorney Taylor stated that a lawsuit has been filed against the City because of the Commission's previous decision denying the rezoning for the development of a Walgreens store. 30. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (3329) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the regular meeting of April 3, 1995, at 11:49 p.m. Hola Fllisen 4 NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: BillE Rabencon BILLY ECFROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK t)