MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene M. Pillot, Vice Mayor Albert F. Hogle, Commissioners Mollie C. Cardamone, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) 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: MAYOR'S CITATION TO SHRODE JEWELERS FOR OVER 50 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF A FAMILY BUSINESS #1 (0050) through (0200) Mayor Pillot stated that the City is pleased and honored to recognize businesses in the City which have been in the same family ownership for at least 50 years. Mayor Pillot requested that the following members of the Shrode family present in the audience come before the Commission: Karl, Mary, and Bryan Shrode. Mayor Pillot stated that Karl and Ethyle Shrode moved to Sarasota in 1936; that Shrode Jewelers was established in 1942; that the Shrode family has a reputation for providing quality craftsmanship, ethical business practices, state-of-the-art internet technology providing access to the world's finest certified diamonds, gemstones, and precious metals, and one of the largest selections of Lladro porcelain, Lalique, and Waterford crystal on Florida's west coast; that local businesses such as Shrode Jewelers contribute to the City's continuing heritage, traditions, and success, and are appreciated; read the Mayor's Citation in its entirety; and presented the Mayor's Citation to the Shrode family for over 60 years of continuous operation of a family business. BOOK 49 Page 20772 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20773 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Shrode stated that being born and raised in the City was a pleasure; that - a better city does not exist in the United States; that the recognition is appreciated. 2. PRESENTATION RE: : MAYOR 'S CITATION PRESENTED TO LIEUTENANT THOMAS "STAN" DUNCAN FOR HIS SELECTION AS THE STATE'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR 2000 #1 (0200) through (0445) Mayor Pillot requested that Vice Mayor Hogle join him before the Commission table to make the presentation and requested that Gordon Jolly, Police Chief, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), Stephanie Woods, Executive Director of the Safe Place and Rape Crisis Center (SPARCC), Thomas "Stan" Duncan, Lieutenant, SPD, and family members, Ann Duncan, wife, Alison Duncan, daughter, and Eric Duncan, son, join him before the Commission. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that Lt. Duncan was recently named the State's Criminal Justice Police Officer of the Year 2000 for his police work addressing domestic violence; that Lt. Duncan was instrumental in implementing an automated domestic violence profiling program, has published a training manual concerning the handling of domestic violence cases, has written several articles concerning domestic violence and violence in the workplace, and teaches criminal justice at the University of North Florida; that Lt. Duncan helped changed the way domestic violence is treated in Sarasota and forged a collaboration with local advocacy groups to assure a close relationship to help deter domestic violence. Chief Jolly stated that having Lt. Duncan in the SPD is a pleasure; that Lt. Duncan has done a significant amount of work to make the community safer for victims of domestic violence; that the attitude toward domestic violence crimes has changed dramatically over the past 15 to 20 years; that domestic violence crimes have been reduced tremendously through the efforts of Lt. Duncan; that the Executive Director of SPARCC is thanked for nominating Lt. Duncan; that the competition was fierce; that the SPD is proud of Lt. Duncan''s work and achievements. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that SPARCC has been a wonderful addition to the City. Ms. Woods stated that nominating Lt. Duncan for State Criminal Justice Police Officer of the Year 2000 was a pleasure; that Lt. Duncan has been working with SPARCC since her joining the staif in 1985, has served on the SPARCC Board of Directors for a year and a half, headed a SPARCC personnel committee, and participated in important work for the organization; that living in a city which is forward-thinking in attitudes toward domestic violence is fortunate; that no homicides related to domestic violence occurred within City limits in the year 2000 which is a significant accomplishment; that Lt. Duncan's efforts in developing protocols and policies as well as forging strategic collaborations with training officers and SPARCC staff has contributed to the record; that the community is aware of domestic violence and provides tangible support services; that SPARCC has a new location at 2139 Main Street; that being located Downtown is a pleasure. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that Lt. Duncan is considered a domestic violence expert not only in Florida but in the entire United States; that Lt. Duncan teaches police officers across the United States methods to handle domestic violence cases; read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation honoring Lt. Duncan for his selection as the State's Criminal Justice Police Officer of the Year 2000; and presented the Mayor's Citation to Lt. Duncan in recognition of the excellent work. Lt. Duncan thanked Ms. Woods for the nomination, his wife for 22 years for support, Chief Jolly for the opportunity to teach, and the City. 3. ADOPTION RE: : MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1352, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF LILLIAN GRANT BURNS, ELDER STATESWOMAN OF HIS STORIC PRESERVATION - ADOPTED #1 (0445) through (0660) Mayor Pillot stated that Memorial Resolution No. 01R-1352, recognizes the February 24, 2001, passing of Lillian Grant Burns, an outstanding citizen and elder stateswoman of historic preservation in Sarasota. Mayor Pillot read Memorial Resolution No. 01R-1352 in its entirety. On the motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 01R-1352. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk. Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously BOOK 49 Page 20774 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20775 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yesi Quillin, yes. The following family members came forward and were presented with a copy of the memorial resolution appropriately framed on a plaque: Harriet Stieff, sister, and Lorin Stieff, brother-in-law Ms. Stieff stated that Ms. Burns loved the City. Mr. Stieff stated that the resolution is a wonderful tribute. 4. BOARD ACTIONS RE: : REPORT RE: PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2001 RECEIVED REPORT; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION REGARDING A 10 P.M. TO 7 A.M. CLOSING TIME FOR EASTWOOD PARK (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0660) through (0815) Duane Mountain, Public Works Capital Projects Manager, came before the Commission - and presented the following items from the February 15, 2001, meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board (Parks Board) : A. Improvement of Conditions in Eastwood Park Mr. Mountain stated that a 22-year resident spoke for the Eastwood Park residents to voice the residents' desire to improve conditions at Eastwood Park; that Eastwood Park is located at the corner of west and east Cornelius Circle; that a January 8, 2001, petition signed by 21 Eastwood Park residents was presented to the Parks Board; that three other residents accompanied the speaker to the meeting; that the residents believe a dusk-to-dawn curfew is necessary as most objectionable activities take place at night or in the early morning hours; that the residents believe a curfew and signage would reduce problems and provide police a reason to check the park and eliminate a number of the current problems; that the Parks Board voted unanimously to recommend the Commission adopt closing hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for posting and request the Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department take necessary action to repair the damage in Eastwood Park. B. Lighting and Sidewalk between Tuttle and Jefferson Avenues on Eighth Street Mr. Mountain stated that grant funding is available from the Grant Program of the Recreational Trails Program of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); that the City will be applying for a grant for installation of lighting and widening the sidewalk in the area between Tuttle and Jefferson Avenues on Eighth Street which is used by school children going to and from Tuttle Elementary School; that the Parks Board voted unanimously to recommend the Commission support the grant application for the Eighth Street Linear Park and Recreational Trail. C. Proposed Skateboard Park Mr. Mountain stated- that the County and the City have arranged a series of public meetings which will be conducted by the Parks Board to discuss the future skateboard park in Payne Park; that the meetings are scheduled for April 5, 2001, at 6 p.m. at Sarasota High School in the west cafeteria for potential users of the skateboard park and April 10, 2001, at 6 p.m. at the Sarasota Mobile Home Park Auditorium for the surrounding residents; that the Parks Board expressed thanks to the Commission for allowing involvement in such an exciting project. Mayor Pillot asked if action is necessary on any business item? City Manager Sollenberger stated that action is required concerning the request from the Eastwood Park neighborhood for a closing time of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.; that authorization from the Commission is required to proceed; that a resolution is necessary if the Commission wishes to proceed. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the report of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board and direct the Administration to prepare an appropriate resolution for a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. closing time for Eastwood Park. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yesi Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. BOOK 49 Page 20776 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20777 03/19/01 6:,00 P.M. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVED; ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING MODULAR NEWS RACKS ; ITEM NOS. 2 THROUGH 8 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 9 - APPROVED; ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0815) through (1758) Commissioner Quillin requested that Item Nos. 1 and 9 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Status Report for City Hall lobby, Sidewalks, and Commission Chambers Renovation Project 3. Approval Re: Status report to the City Commission on the 911 Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for the Sarasota Police Department to conduct School Proximity Tobacco Enforcement investigations 5. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a formal contract between the City of Sarasota and Spectrum Underground Inc., (Bid #01-27M) Portable Water System Improvements, in the amount of $238,855 for the construction of a water distribution system interconnection with Sarasota County Utilities 6. Approval Re: Monthly activities report from the Downtown Association 7. Approval Re: Monthly activities report from the Greater Downtown Action Team 8. Approval Re: Monthly report on the activities at the Urbaculture site On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 2 through 8, inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 1. Approval Re: One-Year Review of Ordinance No. 99-4152, pertaining to modular newsracks Commissioner Quillin stated that the hope was the one-year review required by Ordinance No. 99-4152 pertaining to modular newsracks would return as a workshop item; that the first area in which the modular newsracks were installed was St. Armands Circle; that the identification of other locations is unknown; that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is having difficulty receiving an adequate number of modular newsracks from the supplier; and requested the status of the availability of the modular newsracks. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune had difficulty receiving modular newsracks from the manufacturer; that the original manufacturer is no longer in business; however, another manufacturer was identified; that the next shipment of modular newsracks is expected in the middle of April 2000 and will be installed immediately thereafter. Commissioner Quillin stated that Ordinance No. 99-4152 was to return to the Commission for review after one year; that the other areas which can utilize modular newsracks were not discussed; that the supply of the modular newsracks is a concern. Mr. Schneider stated that targeted locations during the first year are high-visibility areas in which ten or more free- standing newsracks are located; that many such locations have not yet had modular newsracks installed; that Staff will continue to identify the locations with ten or more freestanding newsracks in the future year. Commissioner Quillin stated that Section 6 of Ordinance No. 99-4152 indicates the ordinance is subject to review; that the Commission has received the report; however, the desire is for more information concerning future plans; that telephone calls have been received from citizens requesting the installation of modular newsracks in other locations. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the one-year review of Ordinance No. 99-4152 pertaining to modular newsracks and request additional information concerning the future plans for installation of additional modular newsracks. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the motion is supported; that a personal interest is the manner in which self-policing is BOOK 49 Page 20778 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20779 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. working; that other types of newsracks have been sprouting up across the City; that self-policing should be strengthened; that Staff should be more involved in ensuring the removal of unnecessary newsracks; that self-policing should be included in the report returned to the Commission. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yesi Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract between the City of Sarasota and National Constructors, Inc., for services through May 19, 2001, in the amount of $98,000 Commissioner Quillin stated that National Constructors, Inc. (NCI), is the Project Manager for the renovation project at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) ; that the City was aware the VWPAH Foundation would not pay for NCI's services in September 2000; that a question is the reason for the Commission's being advised of the requirement for the services in March 2001 rather than earlier. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the VWPAH reopened on October 13, 2000; that NCI's services as the City's representative to assure the work at the VWPAH was completed properly were still required for approximately two additional months; that NCI's services are also currently required during the mediation concerning the VWPAH renovation project; that negotiations began with NCI; however, some legal issues required time to resolve. Commissioner Quillin asked the. reason the contract was not presented to the Commission in September or October 2000 upon knowing the VWPAH Foundation would not pay for NCI's continued services? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the contract for NCI's services required finalization prior to presentation to the Commission; that the anticipation was the work would be completed on a timely basis and the Commission's ratification would be requested toward the end of 2000; however, resolution of some provisions in the contract required additional time. Commissioner Quillin asked the limit on the amount Staff can encumber without Commission approval? City Attorney Taylor stated that no specific limit is established in the Charter of the City of Sarasota (1996) except for a limit of $5,000 on the amount of a claim which can be settled without the Commission's approval. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City accumulated the expenses in the absence of a contract with NCI and without Commission approval; and asked if the Commission's approval is required for an expenditure unless the expenditure is included in the budget. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City required continued services after the termination of the agreement with NCI and the VWPAH Foundation; that the City Manager authorized the continuation of the services with the idea a contract would be prepared at an appropriate time; that developing the contract took a period of time due to the continuing work regarding the VWPAH renovation project; that the Commission is requested to ratify the activities to date and authorize additional expenses as indicated in the contract. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the information being discussed in the mediation cannot be discussed outside of mediation; and asked if a time frame is known for the conclusion of the mediation? City Manager Sollenberger stated that mediation sessions are scheduled for April 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2001; that the hope is to conclude the mediation at that time; however, the time frame cannot be definitely predicted. Mayor Pillot stated that the participants have been formally instructed by the mediator that the contents of the discussions cannot be publicly divulged in accordance with State law. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct. Mayor Pillot stated that no one other than the participants has access to the information; that undoubtedly, considerable additional information is known and additional factors exist regarding the VWPAH renovation project which would assist the public and the Commission in understanding the current situation; that not being able to divulge the known information must be difficult; that the hope is the public, the community, BOOK 49 Page 20780 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20781 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. and the Commission will be patient until the mediation is concluded; that the . belief is a great deal of the financial burden will be borne by entities other than the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the payment of $98,000 is a subject of the mediation? City Manager Sollenberger stated no; that a response can be provided as the $98,000 is not a subject for the mediation; that otherwise, a response could not be provided. Commissioner Quillin stated that NCI was hired as the City's agent to, act as Project Manager; that the original contract could not be found and apparently does not exist; that the scope of services expected was not known at the time the VWPAH Foundation notified the City the expenses would no - longer be paid; that NCI is the same company which ceased taking minutes at meetings of the Oversight Committee in June 2000; that the concern is not knowing the scope of services which will be provided; that the public wishes to know the reason the Commission is not asking questions; that questions are being personally asked; that the funds have been committed; that the Commission is being requested to ratify actions already taken; that being left out is not liked; that approval of the contract will not be supported; that the constituents did not elect her to ratify past actions; that being informed is desired; that no information from the mediations sessions is requested; that the City should have better procedures sO funds cannot be encumbered if not in the budget without the Commission's knowledge; that a question is the reason the Commission was not advised in September or October 2000. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to delay action concerning Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 9, until the April 2, 2001, Regular Commission meeting sO the questions can be answered. Mayor Pillot asked if the City has a contractual obligation to pay for the services? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that the City hired NCI; that NCI's activities for the VWPAH Foundation are irrelevant; that the recommended contract begins at the time the arrangement between NCI and the VWPAH Foundation ended; that 19 items are listed in the scope of services in the contract; that the City is paying for a significant number of internal reviews performed by NCI since September 2000; that none of the expenses are in controversy; that the services were received and are almost concluded; that another approximately 60 days of services are required; that the contract for all the services is being presented for Commission approval at this time. Mayor Pillot stated that the questions raised were answered; that the responses may not be liked or not considered satisfactory; that the obligation exists; that the City Manager has exercised competent oversight; that the problems involving the VWPAH renovation project were beyond a reasonable expectation; that errors were made by individuals in whom justifiable confidence was placed; that a motion to delay payment will not be supported as the payment is currently due; that the expenses are legitimate; that responses to specific circumstances concerning the VWPAH should still be sought, especially responses to issues which are the subject of mediation and cannot be divulged at this time. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the interest was not if the bill would be paid but rather in receiving responses to the questions raised; and asked if any problem for or disadvantage to the City would result in the event consideration is delayed for two weeks to allow obtaining additional information? City Attorney Taylor stated that no major penalty would result; that the City is trying to work with NCI to assure the best possible position during mediation; that the services being performed are designed to assist with the processi that an analogy is not paying someone who has been assisting for a period of time; that no payment has been made to NCI to date; that the suggestion is to delay an additional two weeks; that the negotiations have reached a sensitive position; that some participants are short of patience; that NCI would like payment for the services rendered since September 2000; that a two-week delay may or may not make a difference. City Manager Sollenberger stated that authorizing the payment at this time is important; that NCI has been working for the City for an extended period without payment and is currently involved in work important to the City for the mediation efforts; that NCI should continue the work knowing full compensation will be forthcoming; that the hope is the Commission will authorize the payment. BOOK 49 Page 20782 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20783 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone, as the maker of the motion, with the approval of Commissioner Mason, as the seconder, amended the motion to authorize the payment to National Constructors, Inc. (NCI), but to have the questions answered. Commissioner Quillin asked if NCI is the same company which provided reports to the VWPAH Foundation that the VWPAH renovation project was on budget and on schedule? City Manager Sollenberger stated that NCI ' S agent provided reports the VWPAH renovation project was on budget and on schedule. Commissioner Quillin stated that the concern is no original contract existed between the VWPAH Foundation and NCI; therefore, an expectation from NCI cannot be determined; that the City is paying for services which should have been received from the beginning; that NCI was compensated well at $16,000 monthly. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the concerns regarding the present situation of the VWPAH renovation project and the responsibility are shared; however, the bill should be paid; that responses should be provided to the. questions raised publicly and privately with the City Manager by individual Commissioners. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to approve the payment to National Constructors, Inc. (NCI), and to have responses provided to the questions raised. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, noi Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot recognized David Mills, Chairman, Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, present in the audience. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1272) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1351) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1347) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4291) ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4296) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1758) through (1924) 1. Adoption Re: : Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1272, indicating support for the Lido Beach Erosion Control Project and willingness to provide the necessary local fund match; setting forth findings; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1351, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash, or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against all real or personal property owned by the violator for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1347, regarding the approval of new maximum purchase price or value limits for housing activities assisted under the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program in keeping with the requirements of S. 420.9075, Florida Statutes, for submission to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4291, pertaining to the fee charged for the demolition of any building or structure; amending the City of Sarasota Amendments to the 1997 Edition of the Standard Building Code, Section 103.7.4, Schedule of Permit Fees, the increase the fee and the amount thereof set aside for purposes which further the Historic Preservation Program; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4296, amending and restating Ordinance No. 00-4209 to reflect the approval and substitution of the revised site plan submitted with Application No. 01-SP-07 for the previously approved site plan submitted with Application No. 00-SP-09; said site plans pertaining to the construction of a residential condominium on the north side of Gulf Stream Avenue between Sunset Drive and Cedar Point Drive to be known as the Tower Residences at the Ritz-Carlton; etc. (Title Only) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 01R-1272, 01R-1351 and 01R-1347 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 01-4291 and 01-4296 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 5, inclusive. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried BOOK 49 Page 20784 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20785 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. unanimously (5 to 0): Hogle, yesi Mason, yes; Pillot, yes, Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that Applicants at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have 15 minutes to speak; that members of the public will have 5 minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 7. NON QUASI- JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: TRANSMITTAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1344, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 00-PA-01 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN TO ALLOW MIXED USE DEVBLOPMENTS ON PROPERTIES CLASSIFIED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS "COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL" AND "COMMUNITY/OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND PROVIDING A MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DENSITY OF 25 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMISSION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 00-PA-01, APPLICANT FREEDMAN CONSULTING GROUP, AS AGENT REPRESENTING AMC PROPERTIES, L.L.P.) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) #1 (1924) through (2886) David Smith, Senior Planner II, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1344 is to authorize transmittal of a proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), as indicated in Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comment; that the proposed amendment is to allow mixed-use developments in the Community Commercial and Community Otfice/Institutional land use classifications with the density of the residential component which is limited to 25 dwelling units per acre; that final approval of the amendment will require adopting an ordinance after comments are received from the DCA; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing on January 24, 2001, and voted unanimously to recommend Commission adoption; that Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01 is one of two related proposals to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan submitted by AMC Properties, L.L.P. (AMC), and provides the potential for creating mixed-use developments on sites having the designation; that Staff supports the proposal. Mr. Smith further stated that the second proposal is a small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map for 2.2 acres which is not the subject of the public hearing but will occur later if the Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01 is approved; that the Applicant is seeking to change the land use from the Community Office/Institutional to the Community Commercial land use classification in the vicinity of Tenth Street. and Oregon Court north of Jefferson Center; that both proposals will be presented to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and Commission for public hearing after comments are received from the DCA concerning Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01. Mr. Smith stated further that the proposed amendment to the Community Commercial and Community orfice/Inatitutional land: use classifications provides for the following: A mix of residential and non-residential land uses The furthering of several concepts of new urbanism including reducing automobile dependence and improving pedestrian access to housing, shopping, offices, and employment opportunities New shops and offices in close proximity to residential neighborhoods Mr. Smith continued that new urbanism emphasizes pedestrian transportation; that currently the Community Commercial land use classification provides for medium intensity commercial uses and prohibits multiple-family uses; that primary and secondary uses include retail offices and institutional uses including child care centers, hotels, motels, and government activities; that a similar medium intensity or density development of up to 25 units per acre which is similar to the Multiple Family Medium Density land use classification would be allowed; that the Community Office/Institutional land use classification also provides for medium intensity office and institutional uses and currently prohibits multiple-ramily residential uses; that the proposed uses would be secondary in nature and compliment the primary uses of commercial or office uses; that the proposed residential uses BOOK 49 Page 20786 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20787 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. would only be allowed as developed along with or after the primary non-residential use. Mr. Smith referred to a displayed map entitled Community Commercial and Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Plan Map Locations included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that most sites are located along the thoroughfare planned roads lending to transit-oriented development which may have higher intensity residential uses as well as a mixture of commercial and non-residential uses served by transit bus service. Mr. Smith referred to displayed slides of the proposed changes to the Community Commercial land use classification; and stated that the Community Commercial land use classification is discouraged from expanding beyond the current areas of the Future Land Use Map; that a change to allow for expansion if the project meets mixed-use residential and non-residential components is included in the proposed changes; that maximum retirement center densities are being added; that some design objectives were added for the Community Commercial land use classification following the concepts of new urbanism such as the following: Locate offices, workplaces, and shops in close proximity to residences Create buildings which form a distinct edge Provide a variety of housing needs Increase pedestrian convenience to reduce automobile dependence Mr. : Smith stated that multiple-family dwelling units and retirement centers are added under secondary uses; that residential use will be removed under non-primary and non-secondary; that several components of the City's Comprehensive Plan including the goals, action strategies, and objectives of development of mixed-use projects on Community Commercial and Community/office Institutional land use application sites are advanced as a result of the change; that Staff reçommends the proposed amendment for the Community Commercial and Community/Office Institutional land use classification be forwarded to the DCA for formal objections, recommendations, and comments. Commissioner Cardamone asked the number of acres involved? Mr. Smith stated that the site on Tenth Street contains two areas owned by the Applicant; that one block is 4.5 acres and the other is 2.2 acres. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Applicant indicated that the Client owns all the property surrounding the gasoline station on Tenth Street; and asked if the property owned includes the commercial property facing US 41 from Fifth to 11th Streets? Mr. Smith stated yes. Commissioner Mason asked if a grocery store is part of the concept plan? Mr. Smith stated that the addition of a grocery store has been discussed; however, the signing of a contract is unknown. Commissioner Mason referred to an August 23, 2000, letter from Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting Group, on behalf of AMC as follows: The concept Plan shows a Grocery Store (27,000 s.f.) as the anchor to the village. Mr. Smith stated that a preliminary site plan indicated the addition of a grocery store. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Joel Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Group, representing John Agen, AMC Properties L.L.P., 1290 North Palm Avenue, Suite 108 (34236), stated that the property surrounding the Speedway gasoline station on Tenth Street has been assembled; that the intention is a grocery store would be a key point of the proposed project; that an application was submitted for a small- scale amendment several years ago to request the Central City land use classification be extended across Tenth Street; that work began with Staff as a result of the reaction of the Commission and inability to obtain a certain property at the time; that a better idea was conceived for the property and the City which is to modify the Community Commercial and Community/Office Institutional land use classifications to allow mixed use; that residential development was prohibited in some of the key intersections and areas in which transit or BOOK 49 Page 20788 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20789 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. pedestrian opportunities could occur; that six or more acres acquired and assembled in such a location is a large parcel; that moving forward is exciting; that Staff has done a good job with the presentation. Commissioner Mason asked if the 60 to 70 units of residential use are still expected? Mr. Freedman stated that the number of units may be less depending on the market; that the units would contain a mixture including multi-level condominiums and townhouses. Commissioner Quillin stated that the proposed commercial use is moving further into the neighborhoods near US 41; and asked if the mixed use discussed will buffer the project? Mr. Freedman stated that the west portion of the plan is already designated in the Community Commercial land use classification, and the east portion of the plan is designated as the Community Office/Institutional land use classification; that changing the area to the Community Commercial land use classification and allowing residential mixed use will buffer the area; that the immediate use to the east is an apartment complex; that mixed-use property would buffer the neighborhood to the east and would not create pressure to move forward with commercial use. Commissioner Quillin stated that Pioneer Park is on the other side of 11th Street. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1344 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 01R-1344 authorizing transmittal of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the DCA for review. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1344 authorizing transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment requested by Plan Amendment Application No. 00-PA-01. Commissioner Cardamone stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1344 contains the new urbanism concepts desired and mixes the uses in an area which requires rehabilitation and renovation; that the property is beautifully located near the Bayfront and adjacent to a park; that the motion is pleasing; that caution should be taken in implementing mixed use in other areas which may not be as suitable for mixed use as the Tenth Street and US 41 location. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes. 8. NON QUASI-J JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4270, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA (1998 ED.), BY THE ADOPTION OF THE SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-01; SAID SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CONSISTS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF TEN LOTS FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY" TO PHFN/REION SAID LOTS BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 58th STREET ADJACENT TO THE NEW COLLEGE CAMPUS AND THE RINGLING ART MUSEUM; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF THIS SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-01, APPLICANT NEW COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC.) - DENIED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-2) #1 (2886) through 2 (3168) Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4270 is to approve Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-01 filed by the City at the request of New College Foundation, Inc. (New College Foundation) for a small scale amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) i that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4270 is to approve a request to change the future land use classification of ten lots on the south side of 58th Street adjacent to the New College of the University of South Florida (New College) campus and The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art (Museum) from the Single Family Low Density to the Metropolitan/Regional land use classification; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing on January 24, 2001, and unanimously voted to recommend Commission approval of the request; that the amendment is an BOOK 49 Page 20790 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20791 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. administrative amendment; that the City is the sponsor of the amendment; that Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-01 is a partnership between the City as the sponsor and New College Foundation as the Applicant; that New College Foundation was required to complete the application for the amendment, pay all the billable fees, and was treated as any other private-sector applicant. Mr. Parsons stated that the New College Foundation is a private fund-raising organization for New College and not part of the State University System or New College; that the request is to change the existing Future Land Use Map designation of the properties on 58th Street from the Single Family = Low Density to the Metropolitan/Regional land use classification. Mr. Parsons referred to a displayed document entitled the University of South Florida (USF) Comprehensive Plan Long Range Plan Map; indicated University Parkway, The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art to the south, the Asolo Theater to the east, and the ten parcels of property being discussed on 58th Street and New College to the north; and stated that the Applicant owns Lot Nos. three, four, and seven; that the intention is to build an office on Lot Nos. three and four; that an access point for a dormitory, a paved parking area, and an education building is on the north side of 58th Street. Mr. Parsons referred to displayed photographs of the entrance to 58th Street, a dormitory, Lot Nos. three and four, the rear of the paved parking area which has access from 58th Street, and the east end of 58th Street; and stated that 58th Street is incorporated in the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; however, the residences on 58th Street are not; that the entrance for motor vehicles on 58th Street will be changed to an entrance for pedestrians; that currently an access loop road runs north of the entrance; that the long-range plan is for the loop road to connect to 58th Street; that the character of 58th Street will change. Mr. Parsons stated that the Single Family Low Density land use classification contains single-family dwellings; that 58th Street is in the Single-Family Residential-1 (RSF-1) Zone District; that the change desired is to the etrepolitan/Regional land use classification, each of which in the City has a specific set of uses; that the proposed uses for the area would be associated with institutions of higher learning, museums, or the performing arts; that any zone districts which would implement the change to the etropolitan/egional land use classification would fall into such a category and would be associated with one of these uses as the implementing zone districts have specific allowable uses. Mr. Parsons referred to a displayed map of the existing land use in 1997; and stated that the vacant lot which New College currently owns was vacant in 1997; that the ten lots being discussed are currently in the RSF-1 Zone District; that any change in the land use classification would not automatically change the zone district. Mr. Parsons referred to a displayed map entitled Current Zoning Map and stated that any residential properties on 58th Street would be considered a zoning enclave if the change is approved; that a zoning enclave would allow for the current zoning and uses to continue in perpetuity or until the land use classification is changed; that the Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) Zone District is to the north and west; that the Governmental Use (G) Zone District is to the south and east; that on balance the application is in the public's benefit. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Charles Bailey, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34236), representing New College Foundation, stated that New College Foundation is a non-profit organization independent of New College but committed to providing support for New College in terms of capital improvements, program support, and scholarships; that New College Foundation shares a building with the New College Admissions Department which requires expansion and occupation of the first floor in which New College Foundation is currently located; that disabled applicants do not have accessibility to the second floor to the Admissions Department; that New College Foundation has identified Lot Nos. three and four on 58th Street, which were gifts to the New College Foundation, for the building of an office with privately donated funds; that the property must be rezoned for the proposed office building; that the request is to approve a redesignation of the present land use classification from the Single - Family Residential to the etropolitan/Regiona land use classification to allow rezoning of the property: BOOK 49 Page 20792 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20793 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Attorney Bailey continued that three lots are owned by New College Foundation and one lot is owned by the Diocese of Venice; that the PBLP unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance; that an open discussion was held concerning the request; that the ten lots constitute a small island in a vast ocean in the MCI and G Zone Districts in the area; that the surrounding area is non-residential use but is compatible with residential use; that professors live in two homes owned by the New College Foundation in the area; that 58th Street is owned by the New College Board of Regents; that the owners have an easement to reach property via 58th Street; that the proposal to include 58th Street as the southern leg of the route is proposed independently of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4270 and will eventually occur without regard to the action taken concerning the current request; that the hope is the Commission will take positive action; that the intention is the owners in the area who would like to continue to live in the area will be allowed to do sO and keep the existing zoning; that a plan is to eventually transition the area consistent with the desire of the owners; that a life estate may also be allowed. Attorney Bailey stated that $1.5 million in funding has been requested from the State Legislature; that the funding was not approved in 2000; however, the expectation is the funding will be approved in 2001; that the funding will directly fund the purchase of the remaining lots over time; that the residents who desire to stay may reserve a life estate; that the proposal is not for a rezoning but rather for a Comprehensive Plan designation indicating the future of the ten lots; that an application would be submitted for rezoning, the criteria of which must be met for approval. Attorney Bailey referred to a displayed map of the ten lots on 58th Street; and stated that the property owners of Lot Nos. one, two, three, four, five, and seven support the request; that the residents which have expressed concerns are the owners of Lot Nos. six, eight, nine, and ten; that those residents are on the west end of 58th Street and isolated from the lots being discussed for conversion to office use; that the lots are surrounded on two sides with non-residential zoning sO the change will not be traumatic; that the Vice Chairman of the PBLP indicated the following at the January 4, 2000, PBLP Regular meeting: It has been obvious for decades what the ultimate use of these parcels is going to be. Any prospective buyer can determine this for himself. The job of the PBLP is to put the best category on the property for what is realistically expected for this property. The Comprehensive Plan land designation needs to make sense for what we think the property ought to be and what the market will assign to the land a couple of decades from now. The rezoning is another question entirely and should not be considered at this hearing. Despite the future land use designation change, the present owners may remain and continue to live in their homes. If the house burns down it can be rebuilt as single-family. Any future purchasers will have the same options. Attorney Bailey stated that the land use cannot be changed under the present designation; that the area is residential and will remain residential due to the size of the lots; that the new designation will allow the residents to keep the property as residential or eventually seek rezoning to one of the uses of the MCI Zone District which are confined to educational institutions of higher learning, museums, or entertainment, and should not be traumatic to the neighborhood; that some residents have expressed concern as New College Foundation has not yet bought the properties; that New College Foundation has not yet received the funding from the State Legislature and is prepared to offer a stipulation for the Commission to defer second reading of the proposed ordinance until such time as the State Legislature has confirmed appropriation of the $1.5 million which would be applied to the purchase of the lots. Attorney Bailey distributed and referred to a letter dated March 19, 2001, from the New College Foundation entitled A Stipulation by the Applicant indicating the following: It is stipulated by New College Foundation, Inc., that the second reading on the ordinance approving Comprehensive Plan amendment application No. 01-PA-01 shall not occur unless and until the Florida State Legislature has passed an appropriation to fund the acquisition by the State University System of residential parcels on 58th Street from those owners who desire to sell their parcels in fee simple or in fee simple with a life estate reserved. If the State Legislature does not appropriate the funds, then the second reading will not take place. BOOK 49 Page 20794 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20795 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Hogle asked if a time limit is placed on the proffer? Attorney Bailey stated that the stipulation is aimed at the 2001 State Legislative session; that the desire is to not allow the application to wait until the 2002 Florida State Legislative session; that the intention is to apply for the grant again in 2002 if unsuccessful in 2001. Rolland Heiser, Lt. General Retired and President, New College Foundation, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that 58th Street properties were originally a portion of the Charles Ringling Estate and owned by Hester Ringling Sanford who was the daughter of Charles Ringling; that Ms. Sanford sold the south side of 58th Street due to financial difficulty; that the Charles Ringling Estate was later sold to settle tax obligations and purchased by the trustees of New College; that 58th Street remains owned by the State University System; that the 58th Street neighborhood is not just nine houses and one vacant lot but also consists of a dormitory, office buildings, classrooms, a computer laboratory, and parking facilities; that additional buildings on the New College campus could be built across from current residences on 58th Street; that many visitors have viewed 58th Street and most have indicated the area should become part of the New College campus; that 58th Street properties will become part of the New College campus community in the future. Lt. General Heiser continued that New College Foundation owns three of the lots; that two lots were donated to New College Foundation; that space is necessary for the construction of an office building; that a 5,000 square foot or less building is proposed for the lots; that traffic for the office building will be minimal and not disturb the neighborhood; that donors are available for the costs of construction and design of the proposed office building; however, New College Foundation is not applying for a zoning change at this time; that the future land use of the property should be the same as the New College campus and The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art. Lt. General Heiser further stated that sufficient funding has been requested from the State Legislature to purchase the 58th Street properties from those who wish .to sell; that life estates will be offered to those who wish to sell and remain in their homes; that confidence in receipt of the funding in 2001 is expressed; that a stipulation is offered to ensure compliance with the proffer; that the application is in the best interest of the community. Commissioner Quillin stated that the stipulation indicates a second reading will not take place unless funding is acquired; that the stipulation does not indicate New College Foundation will purchase the properties with the funding; and asked the reason New College Foundation has not gone to the property owners to contract the purchase of the property with life estates instead of making a proffer at this time? Attorney Bailey stated that the stipulation is the commitment made; however, modifications may be made to the stipulation if the Commission desires; that the suggestion is not to exercise power of eminent domain; that purchases of the properties will be voluntary based on fair market value; that the funds will be available; that offers will be made in good faith; that the reason no purchase contracts have been developed as the funding has not yet been appropriated for the purchases. Lt. General Heiser stated that a contract cannot be signed without the funding in hand. Commissioner Quillin stated that the sale of property could be contingent on the approval of State funding which is a legitimate contract and might make the residents feel more comfortable with the knowledge of good faith in receiving fair market value; that residents may retain a life estate if moving is not desired; that the contingency of the sale being based upon receipt of State funding could be stipulated in a contract for sale. Attorney Bailey stated that is correct; however, New College Foundation does not want to disappoint the residents if the funding is not approved; that adequate protection exists as nothing will be built on the two lots if not rezoned; that the area cannot be rezoned if second reading of the proposed ordinance does not proceed; that the stipulation may be tightened to indicate the funds will be used for the purchases if necessary. Commissioner Mason stated that the New College campus was toured in the year 2000 with Lt. General Heiser; that the concern is the manner in which New College and the concerned neighbors on 58th Street will agree to a compensation package; that 58th Street is short but contains homeowners; that one dissenting homeowner is too many; that a compromise between the New College Foundation and BOOK 49 Page 20796 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20797 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. the homeowners is possible; and asked the outcome if the State Legislature does not approve the appropriation of funding? Attorney Bailey stated that the stipulation offered will ensure no second reading occurs if the funding is not appropriated by the State Legislature; that the proposed ordinance would die; that only the lots owned by the supporters could be included in the application for the Comprehensive Plan amendment if the concern is inclusion of the lots owned by the dissenting residents. Commissioner Mason stated that the concern is compensation packages for the dissenting property owners; that the dissenting property owners are not opposed to the change but do not trust the compensation will be satistactory at this point. Attorney Bailey stated that the question is the relation of the compensation issue to the land use issue; that the concerns are understood; that the Commission's concern should be if the area will transition from the current status to a different status in the future; that the area will change in the future; that a future land use plan is being discussed; that the offer is beyond the normal planning context; that the offer has been made; however, New College Foundation is not prepared to buy lots unless the funding is appropriated by the State Legislature. Commissioner Mason stated that the concern may be diminished after hearing public input. Commissioner Cardamone asked the reason for considering the proposed ordinance on first reading and delaying second reading rather than waiting until the availability of funding is determined and arrangements concerning purchases and life estates are complete? Attorney Bailey stated that first reading could be delayed if desired. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the preference is to have the first reading after the funding is appropriated and the dissenting residents have either a written commitment to a life estate or a purchase agreement. Attorney Bailey stated that the testimony can be concluded this evening; that the Commission can be informed of appropriation of the funding and then have a first reading; that a second reading should not be a repeat of the current discussion; and asked if the testimony would be repeated if first reading is delayed? Commissioner Cardamone stated that addressing the subject before the funding is appropriated is not understood; that time will have been wasted if the funding is not received; that first reading of the proposed ordinance can wait until funding is received and all property owners are satisfied sO no problems will occur. Attorney Bailey stated that the donor for the construction of the proposed office building has included a stipulation the donation be expended in the near future. Lt. General Heiser stated that the donor is pressing to move forward with the project. Attorney Bailey stated that no jeopardy to the City exists; that the City is fully protected if a second reading of the proposed ordinance is never held; that the delay of first reading will only accomplish delay of the project. Commissioner Cardamone asked if delaying the first reading until funding is available provides an advantage? City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearing can be closed; that the Commission can await a report from the Administration indicating certain conditions have taken place if action is not desired; that the public hearing process will have been terminated and readvertising and other processes will not be necessary which is positive from the Applicant's perspective; that the Commission should take the most comfortable action; that delaying first reading or passing the proposed ordinance on first reading does not have much difference; that delaying first reading is acceptable if the Commission is not comfortable with holding first reading until the conditions are met. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City is the petitioner and New College Foundation is paying the advertising costs? Attorney Bailey stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the expenses would not reoccur if the public hearing was continued? BOOK 49 Page 20798 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49. Page 20799 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearing could be closed and a report requested from Staff or could be: continued to a later date. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the cost would be incurred if the public hearing is continued but not incurred if the proposed ordinance is passed on first reading? City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearing must be continued to a date and time certain to incur no additional advertising costs. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the public hearing can be continued to a date and time certain as the State Legislature is in session for only a certain period of time. Attorney Bailey stated that the Commission will be changing composition in a few weeks; that a repeat of the process will be necessary with the next Commission if the proposed ordinance is not passed on first reading; that the request is to take action on first reading this evening; that second reading can be held after the appropriation of funds. Mayor Pillot stated that risk to the dissenting residents is not seen. Attorney Bailey agreed. Mayor Pillot stated that the stipulation is a matter of record; that the integrity of the representatives of the New College Foundation is unquestioned; that the stipulation is a matter of record indicating a second hearing will not be held absent legislative funding; that the State Legislature expects knowledge of the use of funding; that delays might make favorable passage of the funding legislation more difficult; that no risk exists until the contracts with the property owners are executed. Lt. General Heiser agreed and stated that discussion was held with members of the State Legislature after approval of the PBLP which kept momentum in the process; that being able to continue favorable discussion with the State Legislature is desired. Mayor Pillot stated that the State Legislature may decide to delay a decision if the Commission chooses to delay first reading which is a detriment to New College; that the hope is to proceed. Commissioner Quillin stated that having the full support of the State Legislature would be helpful; that residents have been told for years the property would be purchased; that a contract should be drafted; that the residents are part of a neighborhood and agree with many of the desires of New College; however, the plans are contingent upon receiving funding in 2001; that a second reading will not be held if the funding is not received. Attorney Bailey stated that the residents are not at risk. Commissioner Quillin stated that the residents are at risk and will not be able to sell the properties if the proposed ordinance is passed on first reading; that the properties will be in limbo. Attorney Bailey stated that the properties would only be in limbo for a few months; that the residents could still sell the properties. Commissioner Quillin stated that the properties could be sold but possibly not at the best rate. Attorney Bailey stated that residents could sell the properties; that buyers would know the properties are valuable and New College Foundation is a willing buyer if the desire is to resell the properties. Commissioner Quillin stated that buyers would know the properties could be taken by eminent domain. Attorney Bailey stated that New College Foundation does not have power of eminent domain. Commissioner Quillin stated that New College and the State of Florida have the power of eminent domain. Attorney Bailey stated that New College Foundation does not represent New College; that New College Foundation owns some lots; that part of the appropriation would be used to conduct appraisals of the properties before purchase; that the process has not begun as the funds are not yet available; that voluntary purchases are a lengthy process; that the desire is to have the proposed ordinance passed on first reading before beginning contracts, closings, etc. BOOK 49 Page 20800 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20801 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that having contracts and the agreement of the residents before notifying the State Legislature would be preferred. Mayor Pillot stated that the discussion is significant; however, the remainder of the meeting is lengthy; that the Agenda may not be completed before 11:30 p.m.; ; that staying past 11:30 p.m. is not desired; that the four other Commissioners may complete the Agenda if desired; that the reason for not staying past 11:30 is not personal fatigue but rather the inability to make good judgments; that the Commission is requested to make a decision. City Attorney Taylor stated that citizens are signed up to speak and must be heard; that the decision can be made after public input. Mayor Pillot stated that the public may desire to know the decision of the Commission before speaking; however, the public hearing will proceed as recommended by the City Attorney. The following people came before the Commission: James Harman, Executive Vice President, New College Foundation, 7522 Fairlinks Court (34243), stated that the comments of the Applicant are supported. Dr. Arland Christ-Janer, 1301 North Tamiami Trail (34236), Interim Director, The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, and Interim Director, Florida State University (FSU) Center for the Cultural Arts, stated that thoughts of the cultural arts induce images of the collaborative efforts between New College, the FSU Center for the Cultural Arts, the Asolo Theater, etc.; that the FSU School of Dance will be arriving; that graduate programs are being introduced which will enlarge the educational activities of the museum and center; that all the facilities are part of one entityi that the hope is some means can be found so the owners of the properties on 58th Street can feel certainty of fair treatment; that 58th Street should become a part of the New College campus in the long term; that more events will take place which will unify the area; that the current owners should feel comfortable with fair representation and reimbursement; that the hope is the State Legislature approves the funding; that the Commission is encouraged to receive the proposal favorably; that the landowners are urged to see the proposal in the long term; that the efforts of the New College Foundation are supported. Edward Garst, 480 58th Street (34243), stated that the passage of the proposed ordinance is opposed at present; that a home is owned on 58th Street; that the home and neighbors are enjoyed; that the residents of 58th Street are satisfied with the current state of the neighborhood and would like to be left alone to enjoy the neighborhood; that the Applicant wishes to tear down a house to build an office on a residential street; that neither New College nor the State is requesting the change but rather a private organization; that a private organization must typically receive approval of all landholders within 500 feet to request a change; that the City's participation in the proposal is the only element permitting the proposal to appear before the Commission without the residents' approval; that having a private corporation enter against the wishes of sO many landholders seems unfair; that many more residents would agree if. the State or New College wanted the land and was willing to pay a fair price so the residents could purchase comparable homes; that the State has not shown interest to date; that the split of USF and New College is an unresolved issue; that neither university may ever desire or be willing to pay for the propertyi that the State Legislature will not have a significant amount of money in 2001; that approval of the change will destroy a single-tamily neighborhood; that the residents could sell to New College or New College Foundation if either had the funding; however, the funding is uncertain; that a Cloud exists over the property; that the future of the property is unknown; that four homeowners on 58th Street strongly oppose the change; that the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association opposes the change; that the request is to oppose the change at this time. Nancy Garst, 480, 58th Street (34243), stated that the residents enjoy being a small island in a vast sea; that the neighborhood is charming; that areas such as Burns Court and 58th Street contribute to the charm of the City; that the change in property values is of concerni that the future of the area is uncertain. Ann McFadyen, 436 58th Street (34243), stated that no changes should be made until both sides are satisfied. Nan Plessas, 448 58th Street (34243), stated that the residents have been promised the offer of life estates for several years; that the offers have not yet been made in writing; that architectural design services for a proposed building on 58th Street were personally provided for New College Foundation in BOOK 49 Page 20802 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20803 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. 1999; that the personal recommendation was to have the agreement of the neighborhood; that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was begun in 1999; that the neighborhood did not agree; that the request was for a written agreement which was never received; that New College Foundation does not have funding and is discussing giving the residents funding through a State appropriation; that approving an appropriation and having funds in hand are two separate items; that an appropriation may not be funded and can be taken away; that an agreement should be established before the continuation of the Comprehensive Plan amendment; that everyone believes the land should be part of New College in the future; however, the residents would like to receive assurance of compensation; that the Comprehensive Plan amendment cannot be approved solely on the basis of an appropriation but rather requires written agreements and funding in hand; that the residents have not received agreements in writing; and referred to a July 6, 2000, letter to the City Manager from the new College Foundation proposing the City become initiators of the Comprehensive Plan amendment which indicates several important items have changed since the Commission agreed to allow the New College Foundation to initiate the rezoning for the ten lots on 58th Street with a neighborhood response as follows: Items Response USF has taken over the 58th Street has always been John and Mable Ringling surrounded by uses of the Museum of Art so 58th etropolitan/Regional Land Street is surrounded by Use Classification university property The support of the Members of the neighborhood neighborhood has been are present to oppose New received College Foundation USF is updating the Master USF has no actual master plan Plan to incorporate 58th which incorporates more than Street the street The donor for the The request is not for a construction of the office rezoning although the building is in a hurry Applicant claims the donor is in a hurry Ms. Plessas continued that nothing has changed in the neighborhood in some time; that Comprehensive Plan Amendments were considered for the area for years and have never addressed the specific neighborhood. Ms. Plessas referred to a displayed map of 58th Street and indicated the property in the etropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification and the property in Single Family Low Density Land Use Classification; and stated that the building of an office building would introduce an office use into a single-family residential area; that the office may serve New College but is still a private office in a residential area; that the planning is not good. Dave Picone, 512 58th Street (34243), stated that the reclassification prior to a compensation package is opposed; that the land should eventually go to New College and New College Foundation; however, the passage of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment followed by a delay poses a risk to the residènts who may not be able to sell the properties; that a telephone call was personally placed to the Staff of the State Legislature who indicated the $1.5 million has not been appropriated for the 2001 budget but rather scheduled for 2002; that the Federal Government in Washington, D.C., was personally served for 30 years; that the indication from the State Legislature last year was the funds could be appropriated; however, the funds were not appropriated last year; that the funds could have been allocated for higher priorities; that the residents will be unable to sell the properties if the funds are appropriated and the public hearing process goes through first and second readings and the funding is rescinded; that no one will buy a residence on 58th Street with a Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification; that the dictionary definition of appropriations in implementing bills is: bills authorizing the spending of public money such bills are effective for one year only Mr. Picone continued that the government has many methods to move funds back and forth; that the fear is the process will continue for a lengthy period of time; that the process should be stopped until each homeowner is treated fairly and has an agreeable compensation package. Glenda Mock, 2100 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), representing the North Trail Association, stated that involvement has been with the Gateway 2000 project and transformation of the North Tamiami Trail for many years; that USF, New College, The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, and the Asolo Theater create BOOK 49 Page 20804 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20805 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. an impressive northern gateway to the City; that steps should be taken to ensure the future of the area is as splendid as possible; that the area is in Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification with the exception of 58th Street; that 58th Street is between The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art and the New College campus; that the future land use plan on 58th Street will be consistent with the overall direction of the property in the decades ahead; that the concerns of the residents on 58th Street should be addressed; that Lt. General Heiser has integrity. Michael Bassis, 460 Pheasant Drive (34236), Dean and Warden, New College, stated that the application of New College Foundation to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan is supported; that 58th Street is situated in the center of a vast academic and cultural complex; that the lots are the only lands not classified in the Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification; that the programs and activities among the surrounding entities will only continue to expand; that 58th Street is already owned by the State and currently serves as the only entryway to one of New College's parking lots; that a new entryway to the New College campus which leads through a perimeter road was recently finished; that the perimeter road has been designed to incorporate 58th Street and make a complete vehicular loop in the future campus master plan; that the enclave of ten lots should be classified as in the etropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification; that doing otherwise would be to perpetuate an anomaly which is apparently only an historical accident. R.K. Mattern, 2400 Wood Street (34237), stated that work was done restoring Ca'd'Zan, former home of John and Mable Ringling, for two years; that the proposed loop road would encroach upon the property of the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art which is one of the few remaining publicly accessible areas over 40 acres which is owned by the people of the State of Florida; that significant traffic would use the proposed loop road; that the periphery of the proposed loop road runs next to the separating wall between the two properties and would impinge upon one of the few quiet, wooded Bayfront areas available to the public; that the efforts of New College Foundation are supported; that the process should be started as easily and quickly as possible; that the exclusion of 58th Street in the expansion of the area for the assurance of the highest amount of money possible would be a shame; that the more dangerous the situation becomes the longer the process is delayed as the area would make a good development for multi-million dollar housing; and stated that the passing of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is supported. Kafi Benz, Box 2900 (34230), Director, Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA), referred to and quoted a letter dated March 19, 2001, from the IB/SSA President to the Commission indicating the Application involves residential property in the IB/SSA neighborhood; that the neighborhood association opposes the requested change from the Single Family Low Density to the Metropolitan Regional Land Use Classification; that the requested land use classification is inconsistent with the current and historical use of the property as single-family residential; that approval of the Application would result in an unnecessary intrusion of commercial/institutional use into an attractive and desirable residential enclave; that the New College Foundation is a private, nonprofit corporation; that the Commission should not consider the change in the land use classification unless the Application originates from the abutting institutional users. Ms. Benz continued that the enclave is Pine Park, which along with other neighborhoods such as the Uplands, is included in the neighborhood; that Pine Park and the homes preceded the USF presencei that the neighborhood is established; that the neighborhood association will continue to defend the rights of residents until each neighbor ceases to request support of the neighborhood association. Attorney Bailey stated that the funding which will be appropriated may be acquired in the name of the Board of Regents or the New College Foundation; that condemnation power cannot be exercised if the funding is acquired in the name of the New College Foundation; that the State has condemnation power which does not relate to the land use issue if the funding is acquired in the name of State. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4270 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 00-4270 on first reading subject to the stipulation offered by New College Foundation that second reading, will not take place if funding is not appropriated. BOOK 49 Page 20806 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20807 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that no language changes were attempted to incorporate the stipulation; that the desires of the Commission are unknown; that the suitable language can be drafted if the desire is to delay second reading. Mayor Pillot asked if the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4270 on first reading with the stipulation the proposed ordinance will be denied on the second reading if the funds are not appropriated? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to bring forward the proposed ordinance for denial at second reading to bring Closure to the matter if the funding is not appropriated. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 00-4270 on first reading. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that too many negative impacts particularly to interim property values to the neighborhood were discussed; that a discussion was held with the Assistant Dean of USF last week; that the lack of the presence of the Dean of USF is indicative of the situation; that the situation is analogous to a tenant filing a zoning variance for property not controlled; that the Applicant can enter into contracts with the residents between now and the next presentation. Commissioner Quillin asked who is requesting the appropriation from the State Legislature? Attorney Bailey stated that the State University System initiated the request which has been lobbied by the New College Foundation. Lt. General Heiser stated that the State University System requested the funding for inclusion in the State's five-year financial plan. Commissioner Quillin asked if purchasing the properties is a line item in the budget? Lt. General Heiser stated that the purchase of the properties will be a line item if approved. Commissioner Quillin stated that the purchase of the properties is not a line item in the State Legislature's long-range plan; that no assurance exists to indicate the property owners would be able to negotiate to sell properties even though the funds are being requested; that a property owner would be limited to selling to New College if a family disaster required a sale of property; that no rational person would buy the properties knowing the proposed zoning; that a good faith contract should be implemented to indicate the purchase of the property if the funding is approved. Attorney Bailey stated that a dormitory is already located near the property. Mayor Pillot stated that a college dormitory is more disruptive than a small office building. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the proposal would not pass on second reading if the funds are not appropriated; that the New College Foundation takes a risk in the request; that the understanding is New College Foundation would have agreements with the residents prior to returning to the Commission; that the first reading should be delayed; that the funding should be obtained; the residents should be satisfied; that New College Foundation should return for the first and second reading. Mayor Pillot stated that a significant amount has been said concerning the future value of the properties; that living in the homes on 58th Street would be nice; however, the concerns regarding the property values if the proposed ordinance is passed is puzzling; that the speakers who oppose the proposed ordinance indicated the ultimate future is the land will become part of the total complex; that the concession has been heard by all parties; that a buyer would know the ultimate future of the area absent any action; that the action of the Commission should not have an effect upon any knowledgeable buyer; that the motion to deny is not supported; that the Commission should move ahead. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Application was filed on behalf of the City; that the process has taken some time before the PBLP and Commission; that denial of the Application will result in the process being repeated from the beginning to include advertisements, etc.; that an alternative may be possible; that the Commission can choose not to take action and continue the discussion at a date and time certain based upon conditions. BOOK 49 Page 20808 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20809 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that 58th Street will ultimately become property of the State; that too many questions are unanswered; that another public hearing should be scheduled. Commissioner Cardamone stated that New College Foundation could be the originators of the Application with the support of all residents. Vice Mayor Hogle requested restatement of the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to deny proposed Ordinance 00-4270. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Pillot, no; Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yesi Hogle, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that the remaining items on the Agenda are substantial; that staying beyond 11:30 p.m. is undesired; that the Commission should indicate if the meeting will be extended until the completion of the Agenda. Commissioner Cardamone stated that knowledge of the Agenda was accepted ahead of time; that the intention is to stay until completion. Commissioner Quillin stated that some items were brought forward which could be placed on the Agenda of the April 2, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that the Commissioners arrive knowing the length of the Agenda and should stay; however, decision-making becomes difficult at some point; that the 11:30 p.m. time will be acceptable if the Commission agrees. Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Hogle. On motion of Mayor Pillot, it was moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Motion died for lack of a second. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that no one is signed up to speak at the next two public hearings of Agenda Items IV-A-3 and -4; that one person has signed up for citizens' input; that five persons have signed up for the presentation of Agenda Item V-1 concerning the John Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement; that one person has signed up for new business. Mayor Pillot stated that making knowledgeable, responsible decisions is important; that due to age, the mental strength of colleagues may not be possessed; that stupid decisions will not be made; that the meeting will be left at 11:30. The Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. 9. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4262, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED.), REGARDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOAPNUNICATION FACILITIES, SPECIFICALLY TOWERS; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; AMENDING ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, DIVISION 6, USE STANDARDS; SECTION VII-602, SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN USES; SUBSECTION H, COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS; SUBPARAGRAPH 3, EMPLACEMENT RESTRICTION STANDARDS, REGARDING THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR SITES UPON WHICH TOWERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE LOCATED WHEN SUCH SITES ARE ON OR ADJACENT TO PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (DEFINED AS PROPERTY ZONED RSF-E, RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4, RMF-1, RMF-2, RMF-3, RMF-4, RMF-5, RMF-6, RMF-7, RMF-R, PUD-1 OR PUD-3 OR PROPERTY DESIGNATED IN THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN AS A RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION) ; AMENDING SECTION VII-602, SUBSECTION H, SUBPARAGRAPH 9, TOWER HEIGHT; REGARDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR TOWERS LOCATED ON PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY UTILIZING CAMOUFLAGING ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS; AMENDING SETBACK REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO TOWERS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-3) #2 (3168) through (3336) Mark Hess, AICP, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4262 regarding Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-02 is to revise and clarify the regulations regarding height and setback requirements for commercial wireless telecommunication facilities proposed on or adjacent to residentially zoned property; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4262 amends Article VII, Section H, Zoning Code (1998) to: a. revise the emplacement restriction standards sO as to clarify that the minimum size of four acres for sites upon which towers can be located is applicable to towers located on or adjacent to protected residential property; and BOOK 49 Page 20810 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20811 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. b. speçify height limitations for any tower located on or adjacent to protected residential property, including those utilizing camouflaging architectural treatments. Mr. Hess continued that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing on February 7, 2001, to consider Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-02 and found the proposed zoning text amendment consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), and voted unanimously to recommended Commission adoption. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4262 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 00-4262 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4262 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes. 10. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4282, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE II, BOATING, OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE PERTAINING TO BOATING AND MOORING OF VESSELS OR WATERCRAFT; TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS AND TO CONSOLIDATE DEFINITIONS; TO REPEAL SECTIONS INCONSISTENT WITH OR REGULATED BY STATE LAW; TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF A MOTORBOAT IN EXCESS OF SLOW SPEED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO PROHIBIT THE MOORING OF VESSELS OR WATERCRAFT NOT CAPABLE OF MOVING UNDER THEIR OWN POWER OR BY SAIL; TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS; TO PROHIBIT ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS OR WATERCRAFT IN THE PUBLIC WATERS OF THE CITY; DECLARING UNLAWFULLY MOORED, ABANDONED, OR DERELICT VESSELS OR WATERCRAFT TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT AND ABATEMENT PROCEDURES FOR SUCH VESSELS OR WATERCRAFT; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-4) #2 (3336) through (3563) E.J. Whitehead, Deputy Chief, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), I came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4282 pertains to boating and mooring of vessels or watercraft; that the proposed ordinance provides a means through which the City can effectively deal with vessels or watercraft which have been abandoned, derelict, or are not capable of moving without assistance; that the proposed ordinance provides a procedure for the posting, removal, and disposal of abandoned or derelict vessels in accordance with Chapter 705, Florida Statutes, relating to loss of abandoned property. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot Closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4282 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4282 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4282 on first reading. Commissioner Cardamone stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4282 has been desired for seven years; that having finally accomplished proposed Ordinance No. 01-4282 is pleasing; that the length of time to bring proposed Ordinance No. 01-4282 to fruition is disappointing; that many comments have been received concerning derelict vessels on the Bayfront. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes. BOOK 49 Page 20812 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20813 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. 11. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (3585) through #3 (0325) The following people came before the Commission: Edward Harding, 2171 Wood Street (34232), stated that during personal service in World War II, General George Patton is recalled to have crossed the Rhine River on three pontoon bridges with tanks, people, and gasoline; that the Major General of the Army Corps of Engineers was contacted and passed along the contact name of a Colonel who was delighted with the concept of placing a pontoon bridge beside the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the City should acquire necessary parts for a pontoon bridge; that the National Guard can build a four-lane pontoon bridge in two weeks or less in May or June 2001 while the John Ringling Causeway Bridge is repaired; that the cost will be $3 million, saving $65 million which can be used to construct an elevated bridge from Longboat Key at a height of ten feet continuing as an elevated highway across Ken Thompson Park to Tenth Street; that Tenth Street could be expanded to four lanes from Orange Avenue to US 301; that less than $65 million would be spent; that the solution is simple; that the cost for litigation has been wasted. Richard Smith, Attorney, representing the Bridge Too High Committee (BTHC), referred to and distributed copies of a March 19, 2001, letter to Mayor Pillot concerning negotiations with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and stated that the recent negotiations with FDOT were ineffective and unproductive; that the significant issue of the City's appeal to the First District Court of Appeals (DCA) for the State of Florida concerns the constitutional standing of the City to challenge a decision of a State department or agencyi that FDOT has not followed the planning processes required by the State Legislature in attempting to construct fixed-span bridges to replace the Cortez Bridge, the Manatee Avenue Bridge to Anna Maria Island, and the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the elected representatives of the affected local communities opposed FDOT's illegal actions to construct fixed-span bridges; that FDOT's actions to construct a fixed-span bridge to replace the John Ringling Causeway Bridge grossly violated the rights of the local community; that FDOT held only one of a series of the State-required public hearings and entered into a contract to design the fixed-span bridge prior to the required public hearings; that the State requires FDOT hold the public hearings prior to entering a contract for the design of a bridge; that the FDOT Value Engineering Study recommended rehabilitation and widening of the John Ringling Causeway Bridge but was withheld from the public; that an FDOT study indicated the fixed-span bridge would terminate west of the intersection of John Ringling Causeway at Bird Key Drive and was also withheld from the public; that FDOT did not perform a vessel-height survey to avoid providing data at the public hearing to demonstrate the minimum 65-foot clearance of the fixed-span bridge would not be realized; that FDOT's illegal actions constitute the primary reason for the appeal; that FDOT Secretary Thomas Barry asserted the City did not have the legal standing to challenge an FDOT decision. Mayor Pillot stated that Attorney Smith has reached the time limit; however, hearing no objections, Attorney Smith will be allowed to continue to speak. Attorney Smith stated that FDOT's illegal actions have been exposed to the justices of the DCA; that a small number of citizens proposed the Mayor's attempting to negotiate a settlement with FDOT to allow the City legal standing to challenge future FDOT decisions, provided the appeal was withdrawn; that the City should not compromise with FDOT, which acted illegally; that the City should not withdraw from the appeal, which has consumed significant time, funds, and efforts. Mayor Pillot quoted from the March 19, 2001, letter as follows: With FDOT's abuses not exposed in front of the 1st District Court of Appeal, some heretofore anonymous persons are proposing to the Mayor that, if FDOT is willing to take a step back from obvious tyranny, the City should abandon its court battle to force FDOT to obey the law. Mayor Pillot continued that Attorney Smith's characterizations of FDOT are not supported; that anonymous persons did not propose the Mayor should seek to negotiate with FDOT staff; that the negotiations reflect a personal initiative. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: : REPORT REGARDING DISCUSSIONS WITH SECRETARY BARRY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - REPORT PROVIDED; MAYOR PILLOT RESIGNED (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) #3 (0325) through (3400) BOOK 49 Page 20814 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20815 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot distributed copies of a prepared statement indicating communications with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Secretary Thomas Barry, and stated that a significant effort was devoted to preparing the statement; that flaws and errors of omission may exist in the statement; however, the intent is to provide an objective and critical assessment of personal communications with FDOT Secretary Barry and the City's pending appeal with the First District Court of Appeals (DCA) for the State of Florida. Mayor Pillot read from the prepared statement and stated that the intent is not to review the history of the development of the proposed fixed-span bridge to replace the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge or the City's challenge to FDOT's decision to construct the fixed-span bridge; that the record of the proceedings of the relevant discussions are available in the public record for consideration by citizens; that the purpose of the prepared statement is to inform the Commission, the Administration, and the citizens of personal communications and meetings with FDOT Secretary Barry, FDOT staff members, Michael Bennett, State Representative for the 67th House District, and a significant number of the citizens of the City; that an Administrative Hearing was conducted by the Florida Department of Administrative Affairs (FDAA) during May. 1999 to review the City's challenge to FDOT's decision; that the recommended orders of the administrative judge were provided to FDOT and the City on September 21, 1999, and were included for adoption in the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry, who indicated the City lacked the legal standing to challenge FDOT decisions; that FDOT Secretary Barry's comments led to personal support for the City's support of a legal appeal; however, personal support for the appeal was based upon the comments of FDOT Secretary Barry only and not the design of the fixed-span bridge, which is supported. Mayor Pillot continued that a meeting was held with David Twiddy, District One Secretary, FDOT, at the request of a local citizen; that at the meeting, FDOT District Secretary Twiddy was informed a motion would be personally made at a Commission meeting to withdraw the City's appeal if FDOT Secretary Barry acknowledged the right of a city to request a hearing to challenge an FDOT decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes; that FDOT District Secretary Twiddy indicated the information would be provided to FDOT Secretary Barry; that in a September 20, 2000, letter, FDOT Secretary Barry referred to the reception of the information, indicated support for communication with and obtaining input from local governments, but did not fully acknowledge the right of a city to challenge an FDOT decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes; that public support for constructing the fixed-span bridge always existed; that public opposition to the construction of the fixed-span bridge continues as well; that the community is divided; however, a significant number of citizens recently intensified requests for the City to discontinue further action against FDOT; therefore, an additional attempt was made, which should have been made a long time ago, to obtain an agreement with FDOT Secretary Barry concerning the right of a city to challenge an FDOT decision. Mayor Pillot stated further that a personal meeting was held with FDOT Secretary Barry at a hotel near Tampa International Airport, in the City of Tampa, Florida, on March 12, 2001; that he and his wife, Beverly Pillot, were already scheduled to visit the City of Tampa for personal reasons on March 12, 2001; that FDOT Secretary Barry had also previously planned a visit to the City of Tampa on March 12, 2001, to conduct FDOT business; that a clear indication was provided the meetings were for personal representation only and not representation of the City nor was any authorization received from the Commission to conduct negotiations with FDOT; that at the meeting with FDOT Secretary Barry, support for moving to withdraw from the pending appeal at a Commission meeting was reiterated - if FDOT Secretary Barry specifically acknowledged the right of a city to challenge an FDOT decision according to the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes; however, further stipulations were added to the requested acknowledgement, * that cities would only have the right to challenge an FDOT decision if the appropriate hearings were held, objective consideration of the outcome was conducted by FDOT, publication of FDOT's decision had occurred, and an additional hearing conducted by FDAA to allow public input was conducted; that at the conclusion of the meeting, FDOT Secretary Barry indicated the meeting would be discussed with FDOT staff; that during the evening of March 12, 2001, a telephone call was received from FDOT Secretary Barry, who indicated FDOT legal staff advised the proposed acknowledgement held Statewide ramifications and should not be supported. Mayor Pillot further stated that on March 14, 2001, a telephone call occurred with FDOT legal staff; that the stipulations placing limitations on FDOT's acknowledgement of the City's BOOK 49 Page 20816 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20817 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. legal standing were reiterated; that FDOT legal staff indicated the matter would be discussed with FDOT Secretary Barry again but was not optimistic of a reversal of FDOT's position; that a March 15, 2001, letter from FDOT Secretary Barry indicated FDOT would continue to refuse to acknowledge the City's legal standing; that in an attempt to analyze the positions of the City and FDOT regarding the City's legal standing, the recommended orders of the administrative judge, the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry, the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the 1988 decision of the State Supreme Court in FDOT V. Lopez-Torres, 526 So.2nd 674, were reviewed; that while not fully competent to personally interpret and evaluate legal orders and case law conclusively, an attempt was made to gather the appropriate data to reach a personal position on the matter; that the personal position is the City, any citizen, or agency has a right to contest a decision of government at any level; however, an absolute right does not exist to receive a hearing or to prevail; that the City should be allowed to challenge FDOT's decisions but does not possess the authority to ensure a hearing is granted; that FDOT asserts the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and FDOT V. Lopez-Torres serve to deny the City's legal standing to challenge FDOT's decision to construct the fixed-span bridge. Mayor Pillot stated that the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry do not absolutely deny the City's legal standing to challenge any FDOT decision but only the FDOT's decision to construct the fixed-span bridge; that FDOT participated in the May 2000 FDAA Administrative Hearing; that the assertion the City has no right to receive a hearing to challenge an FDOT decision should have been indicated prior to the May 2000 FDAA Administrative Hearing; that FDOT agreed the assertion should have been made prior to the FDAA Administrative Hearing; that the recommended orders also indicated the decisions were made by the FDOT only and would not be made by other State departments or agencies; therefore, the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry do not serve to deny the right of any city to challenge the decision of other State departments or agencies. Mayor Pillot continued that the right of a City to challenge an FDOT decision should be decided as each dispute occurs; that the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and FDOT V. Lopez-Torres may serve to deny the City's legal standing to challenge the FDOT decision to construct the fixed-span bridge; that FDOT V. Lopez-Torres granted FDOT plenary but not absolute authority to construct State projects; therefore, FDOT does not possess autocratic authority to impose decisions without consultation of affected local jurisdictions; that the State Supreme Court ruled State departments or agencies could not posses absolute authority if illegal actions occurred; that the Bridge Too High Committee (BTHC) and other citizens allege FDOT engaged in illegal actions, which is neither denied nor supported; that personal support for the appeal of FDOT's decision was only based upon FDOT Secretary Barry's statements refuting the right of a city to challenge an FDOT decision and not based upon the proposed design of the fixed-span bridge; that FDOT Secretary Barry's statements do not constitute illegal actions; that the efforts of FDOT staff to communicate and conduct meetings are appreciated; that the efforts and advice of Representative Bennett and a signiticant number of local citizens are appreciated; that all personal positions are made in good faith without external influence or pressure; and distributed copies of a recommended motion to withdraw from the pending appeal with the DCA concerning the City's legal standing to challenge FDOT decisions. On motion of Mayor Pillot, who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Hogle, and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to authorize the City Attorney to have prepared and filed the necessary documents with the First District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida to withdraw from the pending appeal and to notify all other parties to the appeal. Mayor Pillot referred to the prepared motion and stated that the positive and negative benefits to the City were personally considered in preparing the motion; that the City's withdrawal from the appeal would have a neutral affect on the merits of the case before the DCA, which will continue deliberations as other parties participated in filing the appeal; that additional expenses will not be incurred if the City does not withdraw from the appeal; however, the City would benefit from withdrawing from the appeal by indicating to the local community the cessation of opposition to the construction of the proposed fixed-span bridge; that by indicating the withdrawal of opposition, the City could work towards fostering communitywide support for the fixed-span bridge. Commissioner Mason concurred. Commissioner Quillin asked if citizens have signed up to speak? BOOK 49 Page 20818 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49. Page 20819 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that public input should be received prior to considering the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson concurred. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that speakers will be timed, will have three minutes to speak, and will be informed when one minute remains. The following persons came before the Commission: Richard Storm, 707. Gulfstream Avenue (34236), stated that he is a BTHC member; that the City has opposed the construction of a fixed-span bridge for seven years; that the Mayor's attempts to further examine and resolve the matter are appreciated; however, the City should not withdraw from the appeal; that the City's withdrawal from the appeal would not be perceived as a neutral action and would set a precedent allowing FDOT or other State departments or agencies to act without consulting aifected local jurisdictions and citizens; that the BTHC and the Florida League of Cities (FLC) joined the City in the appeal; that a significant number of citizens support the appeal; that other cities in the State are anticipating the outcome of the appeal and the potential precedents established; that withdrawing will represent caving to the demands of FDOT and the State and an act of cowardice; that the City should continue to support the appeal. Lawrence Ludwig, 122 Seagull Avenue (34236), resident of Bird Key, stated that he is a member of but not representing BTHC; that the Mayor should not have acted independently of the Commission, legal counsel, the BTHC, and the FLC; that the Commission should have been previously informed of the meetings; that the City's legal counsel should have accompanied the Mayor to the meetings; that the previous Commission voted unanimously to join the appeal against FDOT following a significant number of public hearings and advice from the City Attorney, Staff, and the Administration; that the Mayor supported the City's legal appeal based upon the presentation of the City's special counsel, David Levin, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, of evidence of FDOT's illegal activities; that significant changes in the relationship of the City and FDOT or FDOT's actions have not occurred; that the BTHC is also a party to the appeal; that a positive resolution will not occur if the City withdraws from the appeal. Edward Harding, 2171 Wood Street (34237), stated that he is an engineer; that the United States Army Corps of Engineers was recently contacted concerning the construction of a temporary pontoon bridge; that drivers could utilize the pontoon bridge while the John Ringling Causeway Bridge is properly repaired; that modern technologies could be incorporated into the bridge repairs to further ensure public safety; that the proposed fixed-span bridge will not be too high but will be constructed at the wrong location; that the proposed location of the fixed-span bridge will intensify vehicular traffic through St. Armands Key; that the proposed fixed-span bridge should be elevated and constructed from Ken Thompson Park to Tenth Street to decrease vehicular traffic to St. Armands Key; that the vehicular traffic from St. Armands Key results in further traffic at US 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue; that commercial and condominium construction at the Bayfront recently increased significantly, that vehicular congestion will similarly intensify; that the construction of the pontoon bridge and the repairs to the John Ringling Causeway Bridge would cost less than the construction of the proposed fixed-span bridge; that the result would be decreased vehicular congestion; that the City's advertisements of public meetings in the Sarasota Herald- Tribune should be in larger print. Robert Van Wagoner, 5880 Midnight Pass Road (34242), former Mayor of the Town of Holmes Beach, stated that he previously served as Mayor of Holmes Beach from 1996 to 1998 but has since relocated to Siesta Key; that the City is aesthetically and functionally pleasing; that the Stickney Point Road Bridge was recently repaired and rehabilitated for significantly less than the proposed fixed-span bridge and will not require further repairs for 30 years; that as the former Mayor of Holmes Beach, a similar attempt by FDOT to construct a locally undesirable bridge to replace the Manatee Avenue Bridge at Anna Maria Island was personally opposed; that FDOT's actions to replace the Manatee Avenue Bridge were defeated; that Attorney Levin provided successful counsel in the case against FDOT concerning the replacement of the Manatee Avenue Bridge; that the Mayor's action were inappropriate and potentially violate the regulations in Florida's Sunshine Law governing public meetings; that the other parties to the pending legal appeal should have been included in the meetings; that difficult decisions were made as Mayor of Holmes Beach; that the difficulty of governing is acknowledged and respected; that the construction of BOOK 49 Page 20820 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20821 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. telecommunications towers was opposed as the Mayor of Holmes Beach; that a personal attempt was made to negotiate with GTE Florida Incorporated (GTE), which was planning to construct the telecommunications tower; however, all meetings and discussions with GTE were publicly noticed and other Holmes Beach Commissioners informed of personal actions; that the meetings conducted by the Mayor should have been conducted publicly with the knowledge of the Commission; that FDOT's construction methods for the proposed fixed-span bridge should be closely examined. Mark Smith, 5032 Calle Minorga (34242), representing the Executive Committee of the Florida Association of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), stated that a significant number of architects from local communities in the State are anticipating the outcome of the appeal; that the issue of a city's legal standing to challenge an FDOT or other State department or agency decision is important; that local communities will be negatively affected if the legal standing to challenge State decisions is denied; that the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry would serve to deny all cities the right to challenge an FDOT decision and would set a precedent to allow other State departments and agencies to issue similar orders; that the FLC and Thousand Friends of Florida would not have supported the appeal if the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry affected only the City of Sarasota; that legal counsel should be consulted regarding the ramifications of withdrawing from the pending legal appeal; that community input in local planning is significant; that receiving public input concerning transportation planning is especially significant; that local communities should be ensured the right to provide input concerning all planning decisions. Mayor Pillot stated that FDOT legal staff was not present at the meeting with FDOT Secretary Barry in the Tampa; that FDOT District Secretary Twiddy, Representative Bennett, and two local citizens were also present at the Tampa meeting; that the City Attorney was consulted prior to attending any meeting with FDOT representatives; and asked the City Attorney if an illegal action had occurred? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Mayor attended the meetings in a private capacity and neither represented the Commission nor acted as a Commissioner; therefore, a violation of Florida's Sunshine Law did not occur. Mayor Pillot stated that the regulations of Florida's Sunshine Law are understood; that personal meetings between public officials does not necessarily constitute a violation of Florida's Sunshine Law; that the epithets of the public speakers are not appreciated, were unwarranted, and are considered disappointing and disrespectful; that serving as a Commissioner is a personal pleasure; that discourse at Commission meetings should be respectful. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that one additional Request to Speak form was received; that hearing no objections, the consensus of the Commission is to allow Richard Smith, Attorney, representing the BTHC, to speak. Richard Smith, Attorney, representing BTHC, 2070 Ringling Boulevard (34235), came before the Commission and stated that significant efforts were undertaken to file the appeal with the DCA; that the City should not withdraw from the appeal; that a decision to withdraw from the appeal should not be based upon the Mayor's meetings and discussions with FDOT representatives and legal analyses, which are not supported by the previous analyses of Attorney Levin, the City's special legal counsel; that the Mayor indicated FDOT V. Lopez- - Torres allowed cities to retain a right to challenge FDOT decisions; however, FDOT's brief against the appeal filed with the DCA previously referred to FDOT V. Lopez-Torres and indicated all cities do not have the right to challenge any FDOT decision; that the Mayor assumes the City will be able to retain legal standing and the ability to challenge future FDOT decisions if necessary; however, the City will not be allowed to challenge future FDOT decisions if the appeal is withdrawn and a precedent established; that greater than $500,000 was spent by the City to bring the case before the DCA to attain a binding decision; that withdrawing from the pending legal appeal will negatively affect the DCA's decision and the rights of cities to challenge the decisions of State departments and agencies; that the City should continue to support the appeal. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City's appeal no longer primarily concerns FDOT construction of the proposed fixed-span bridge but the City's legal standing to challenge the decision of a State department or agency; that cities should be allowed to provide input in the decisions of State departments and agencies which affect local citizens; that the State Constitution provides home rule to local urisdictions; that a significant number of local jurisdictions are significantly BOOK 49 Page 20822 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20823 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. concerned with the ramifications of the precedent established if cities are not allowed to challenge the decisions of FDOT or any other State department or agencyi that local jurisdictions were informed the Commission would continue the appeal until a binding decision is attained from the DCA; that the DCA justices are most qualified to render a binding decision in considering the merits of the appeal and should be allowed to do so; that the City should return to negotiating with FDOT concerning the construction of a replacement bridge following either a positive or negative binding decision; that the City should have a right to negotiate on behalf of the citizens in a fair and equitable manner; that the Commission should not support the motion; that the City also has a responsibility to maintain the appeal for the other cities of the State; that a significant number of the State's cities could not afford a legal challenge of FDOT or other major State departments or agencies; and asked if the DCA will issue a binding decision if the City withdraws from the pending legal appeal? City Attorney Taylor stated yesi that other organizations are party to the appeal. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City's withdrawal will affect the decision of the DCA? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is a major party to the appeal; that decisions in favor of the appellant are typically negatively affected if a major party to the appeal withdraws. Commissioner Quillin asked if the DCA would require several years to reach a binding decision? City Attorney Taylor stated that the required time to reach a binding decision is unknown. Commissioner Quillin stated that the significant issue of the appeal concerns the City's legal standing to challenge FDOT decisions; that the City's reputation Statewide is at risk; that the City should continue to support the appeal. Commissioner Cardamone asked the legal standing of the FLC, the BTHC, and Thousand Friends of Florida before the DCA if the motion passes? City Attorney Taylor stated that the BTHC is an independent intervener in the case and can continue the appeal; however, the status of FLC and Thousand Friends of Florida, who intervened on behalf of the City, may be negatively affected. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she and Mayor Pillot have jointly opposed and expressed outrage concerning FDOT's actions for seven years; that FDOT has provided inaccurate and flawed information to the City and presented misleading statements to the Commission; that hen-Commissioners David Merrill, Nora Patterson, Jerome Dupree, along with now-Mayor Pillot and herself, adamantly opposed the actions of FDOT and the construction of the fixed-span bridge; that as a leader of the City, Mayor Pillot has strongly opposed FDOT's actions concerning the construction of a fixed-span bridge; that Mayor Pillot's current actions require clarification and are not personally understood; and asked the reasons for the change of personal position concerning FDOT's actions? Mayor Pillot stated that the change in personal position is based upon the comments included in the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry regarding the City's legal standing to challenge an FDOT decision; that the previous actions of FDOT concerning the development of the proposed fixed-span bridge are still not supported but do not concern the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barryi that personal support for the City's appeal was based only upon the perception the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry would not allow the City legal standing to challenge FDOT decisions; however, the perception was inaccurate; therefore, personal support for the appeal was discontinued; that the previous inappropriate actions of FDOT cannot be corrected or altered; that the anticipation is FDOT will construct the fixed- span bridge to replace the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the proposed motion may be a mistake; however, the proposed motion is personally supported as the appropriate course of action; that the decision to support the motion was made following significant consideration and analysis; that all comments concerning the appeal received from citizens supported withdrawal; that the motion should be supported. Commissioner Cardamone stated that previous Commissions understood the local community was divided concerning construction of the proposed fixed-span bridge and decided unanimously to oppose FDOT to rally public support; that FDOT staff repeatedly presented misleading statements and false information to the Commission; however, the issue is no longer if the proposed fixed-span bridge should be constructed or the John Ringling Causeway Bridge repaired; that the issues are the illegal actions of FDOT and the right of the City to challenge BOOK 49 Page 20824 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20825 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. the FDOT decision; and asked if the topics of the 1999 Out-of- the-Sunshine Commission meeting can be discussed? City Attorney Taylor stated noi that the matter is still pending. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City Attorney and Attorney Levin were both present at the Out-of-the-Sunshine meeting; that the Mayor's concerns should have been raised at the meeting; that authorization to negotiate with FDOT should have been sought from the Commission; and quoted the following from the Mayor's prepared statement: On March 14, I had an opportunity to talk by telephone with FDOT General Counsel Pamela Leslie. Commissioner Cardamone stated that discussing the business of the City with FDOT legal staff constitutes an inappropriate action; that Mayor Pillot indicated the competence to interpret and evaluate legal orders and case law conclusively is not possessed yet concluded the City and citizens have a right to contest any decision of government; that Mayor Pillot's interpretation of the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry is not sufficient to withdraw from the appeal; that the FLC dedicated significant legal expertise to interpreting the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry and concluded the legal standing of cities to challenge the decisions of State departments or agencies would be negatively affected; that the City committed the expenditure of $500,000 to file the appeal; that the illegal actions of FDOT should not be supported; that the City is ethically obligated to support the BTHC, the FLC, and the Thousand Friends of Florida, all of whom have provided significant efforts, expertise, and funds to the appeal; that the local community remains equally divided concerning the proposed fixed-span bridge; that the City may lose the appeal; however, challenging the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry will always be respected locally and Statewide; that the City is a proud member of the FLC; that significant time is devoted to the FLC, which would never have volunteered signiticant funds and expertise if the City had not requested assistance and supported Mayor Pillot's interpretation of the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry; that the City Attorney, Attorney Levin, Attorney Smith, and FLC legal staff do not support Mayor Pillot's interpretation of the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry; that the Commission should not support the motion; that Mayor Pillot is personally respected; however, the actions of Mayor Pillot are not supported. Commissioner Mason asked if the appeal will continue if the City withdraws? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that the anticipation is the BTHC, as an independent intervener, will continue the appeal, which will eventually be decided by the DCA. Commissioner Mason stated the motion was seconded only for discussion; that the community is divided concerning the issue, which should be examined closelyi that the City spent significant funds to oppose FDOT's actions; that the appeal should be supported until a binding decision is reached; that the epithets directed at Mayor Pillot are unwarranted and not supported; that no Commissioner is a coward; that the binding decision, negative or positive, should be supported; that the anticipation is the fixed-span bridge will be constructed regardless of the outcome of the pending legal appeal; that supporting the binding decision will demonstrate unity and assist in unifying the local community. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that significant experience is held in public safety; therefore, a natural inclination was to support the construction of the fixed-span bridge prior to election as a Commissioner; however, at the time of initial election to the Commission, the personal position was neutral regarding FDOT's proposal to construct the fixed-span bridge; that the pending legal appeal was initiated prior to election to the Commission; that after considering the safety of the public and significant Commission discussion, the fixed-span bridge is supported; that support for the fixed-span bridge was indicated at previous meetings of the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ; that compromise has not been reached with FDOT since election to the Commission; that a significant issue affecting the City is vehicular traffic congestion; that resolving and relieving vehicular traific congestion is a personal primary goal; that the fixed-span bridge will significantly alleviate vehicular traffic congestion between Downtown and St. Armands Key; that the majority of local community members do not support the City's pending legal appeal; that the City should work with the Town of Longboat Key to resolve vehicular traffic congestion originating from Longboat Keyi that the motion is personally supported. BOOK 49 Page 20826 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20827 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that City Attorney Taylor indicated the City's withdrawal will negatively affect the appeal; that 50 years was spent serving the public; that at the current meeting, the most personal criticism while serving the public was received; that the legal advice of City Attorney Taylor was sought; that the potential for the appeal to continue if the City withdrew was directly asked of City Attorney Taylor, who indicated yes; that the motion would not be personally supported if the anticipation was the appeal would be negatively affected; that at the current meeting, City Attorney Taylor previously indicated the decisions of the DCA justices would be negatively affected by the City's withdrawal; that the DCA justices should issue a binding decision based upon the merits of the appeal and the qualified interpretation of the appropriate laws and not the withdrawal of a major party; that the actions and conduct of City Attorney Taylor are considered personally disappointing. City Attorney Taylor stated that significant pressure was received concerning the appeal; that the entire Commission, not just a single Commissioner, is served by the City Attorney; that the appeal concerns two issues: 1) approval of the construction of the proposed fixed-span bridge and 2) the legal standing of the City to challenge an FDOT decision; that the issue of the approval of the construction of the proposed fixed-span bridge has not received significant consideration at the current meeting; that Mayor Pillot's actions concern the legal standing of the City to challenge an FDOT decision; that Mayor Pillot's interpretation of State law or the final orders of FDOT Secretary Barry are not totally supported; that the matter will not be personally debated; that Attorney Levin was hired to provide special legal counsel to the City regarding the appeal and FDOT's actions; that the City Attorney serves as local counsel only; that the Commission cannot be completely assured the other parties to the appeal will not be affected negatively without significant research and consideration; that sufficient time should be allowed for significant research and consideration if the Commission desires to withdraw. City Attorney Taylor continued that the legal standing of the City to challenge an FDOT decision is a significant issue which affects local planning activities and efforts such as the realignment of streets and the lanes assigned to streets; that FDOT legal staff provided assurances public input would be received for all local planning activities if desired; however, the City would not currently be allowed to challenge if an FDOT local planning decision is contrary to the public input received; that the motion will neither be supported nor discouraged; that legal advice requires careful research and consideration; that Attorney Levin should be consulted if an opinion on the matter is required from the City Attorney's Office. Mayor Pillot stated that an ethical opinion concerning personal actions was not requested from the City Attorney; that only cognitive questions were asked; that the City Attorney indicated a discussion concerning personal actions was discussed with Attorney Levin, who was assumed not to object. Mayor Pillot continued that he was blessed with a successful career; that service as a Commissioner was undertaken for the public good; that personal respect has been received from present and past Commissioners; however, continuing as a Commissioner is no longer personally desired; that he was elected as a Commissioner 12 years ago on March 17, 1989; that his current term ends on April 13, 2001, at 12 noon; however, the personal desire is not to continue as a Commissioner with good faith and conscious; that resignation as Commissioner is given effective immediately; that the community is personally loved; that respect and admiration is held for the citizens of the community; that the privilege to live and work as a public servant in many capacities in the community will always be treasured and appreciated; that a significant number of blessings have been received such as fortune, a wonderful family, and a successful career; that the support of the community is appreciated. Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Hogle and left the Chambers at 10:35 p.m. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the motion currently on the floor is to authorize the City Attorney to have prepared and filed the necessary documents with the DCA to withdraw the appeal concerning the John Ringling Causeway Bridge and to notify all other parties to the appeal; that the maker of the motion has resigned from the Commission; that taking action of the motion would be inappropriate. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission should not take action on the motion as the maker of the motion is no longer a member of the Commission. Vice Mayor Hogle asked if the motion should be considered moot? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. BOOK 49 Page 20828 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20829 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. The Commission recessed at 10:40 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. 13. APPOINTMENT RE: VACANCY CREATED BY THE RESIGNATION OF MAYOR PILLOT APPOINTED COMMISSIONER. - ELECT PALMER TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF MAYOR PILLOT'S UNEXPIRED TERM EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 26, 2001; SCHEDULED A 6 P.M., MARCH 26, 2001, SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE SWEARING-IN CEREMONY #3 (3400) through #4 (0055) Vice Mayor Hogle stated that Commissioner Mason is requesting a new item be placed on the Agenda. Commissioner Mason stated that the request is to consider an appointment to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mayor Pillot. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission's consensus is to approve the addition of a new item on the Agenda. Commissioner Mason stated that that Lou Ann R. Palmer was elected as an at-large Commissioner at the March 13, 2001, election by a majority of the voters and should be appointed to the Commission to fill the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term. Vice Mayor Hogle requested clarification regarding the procedures to appoint a person to fill the remainder of the unexpired term of a vacated seat on the Commission. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson quoted from Section 5(b), Article III, City of Sarasota Charter (1996), regarding vacancies on the Commission, as follows: If such vacancy occurs within one year prior to the expiration of a Commissioner's term, a majority of the remaining, Commissioners shall, within 21 days, appoint a qualified elector to the vacant seat to serve the remainder of the unexpired term. If the City Commission fails to make the appointment within 21 days, the Governor is hereby authorized to appoint a qualified elector to serve the remainder of the unexpired term. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson continued that 24 days remain in Mayor Pillot's term; that the Commission has 21 days to make the appointment to fill Mayor Pillot's vacated seat. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the appointment should be considered prior to the 7 p.m., March 26, 2001, Commission Workshop; that the public would have the proper notice to consider the appointment and to provide input to the Commission. Commissioner Mason stated that delaying the appointment to March 26, 2001 is supported. Commissioner Quillin stated that delaying the appointment is not supported; that the public provided input by electing Commissioner-Elect Palmer on March 13, 2001. Commissioner Cardamone stated that time to consider the appointment should be allowed; that the appointment should be scheduled as an agenda item of a Commission meeting; that the appointment of Commissioner-Flect Palmer to the Commission for the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term is supported; however, the action is significant and should be handled cautiously and with careful consideration. Commissioner Quillin stated that Commissioner-Elect Palmer previously served as a Commissioner and recently as a member of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the Commission's Agenda for March and April 2001 is signiticant; that the vacated Commission seat must be filled immediately; that Commissioner-Flect Palmer possesses the necessary experience to provide quality input and make knowledgeable decisions and should be appointed immediately. Commissioner Cardamone stated that appointing a qualified elector to fill the unexpired term of a Commissioner is a significant action; that caution and consideration are required; that the appointment of Commissioner-Flect Palmer to the Commission at the current meeting will be supported if desired by the other Commissioners; however, additional time should be allowed to consider the matter. Commissioner Quillin stated that a unanimous decision should be obtained to appoint Commisioner-Flect Palmer to the Commission for the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term; that the Commission Agenda for March and April 2001 is significant; that Commissioner-Elect Palmer possesses the necessary qualifications BOOK 49 Page 20830 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20831 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. to participate effectively for the remaining Commission meetings of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the March 26, 2001, Commission Workshop is to review the pertormance of the City's Charter Officials; that Commissioner-Flect Palmer would be required to participate in the March 26, 2001, Commission Workshop if appointed at the current meeting; that Commissioner- Elect Palmer has not served on the Commissioner during the previous year and would not be able to participate adequately in the evaluation of the City's Charter Officials; that a Regular Commission meeting is scheduled for April 2, 2001; that Commissioner-Flect Palmer could be appointed immediately prior to the March 26, 2001, Commission Workshop to enable participation at the April 2, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Hogle asked if a 6 p.m., March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting could be scheduled if the Commission's consensus is to appoint Commissioner-Elect Palmer to fill the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a 6 p.m., March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting could be scheduled and noticed to appoint Commissioner-Flect Palmer to fill the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term; that the swearing in of Commissioner-Flect Palmer could occur also. Vice Mayor Hogle asked the appropriate motion to appoint Commissioner-Elect Palmer? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a motion to appoint Commissioner-Flect Palmer to fill the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term effective March 26, 2001, and to schedule a 6 p.m., March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting is recommended. On mot'ion of Commissioner Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to appoint Commissioner-Flect Palmer to fill the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term effective March 26, 2001, and to schedule a 6 p.m., March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Commissioner-Elect Palmer will take office on March 26, 2001? Commissioner Mason stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission is reviewing the City's Charter Officials at the 7 p.m., March 26, 2001, Commission Workshop and asked if Commissioner-Elect Palmer should instead be sworn in at the April 2, 2001, Regular Commission meeting? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a separate Special Commission meeting should be held to swear in Commissioner-Elect Palmer. Vice Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to appoint Commissioner-Elect Palmer to fill the remainder of Mayor Pillot's unexpired term effective on March 26, 2001, and to schedule a 6 p.m., I March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1343, REGARDING MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION NO. 00-CU-03 AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 00-SP-13, FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC., TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A LEASEHOLD USE CONSISTING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EDUCATION WING (PHASE I) AND CONCERT HALL (PHASE II) IN THE GOVERNMENTAL USE (G) ZONE DISTRICT AT THE CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 00-CU-03 AND 00-SP-13, APPLICANT THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC., AS TENANT) (AGENDA ITEM VI-4) AND 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1346, TO GRANT G ZONE WAIVER APPLICATION NO. 00-GZW-01 AS REQUESTED BY THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC. FOR THE PROPOSED EDUCATION WING (PHASE I) AND PROPOSED CONCERT HALL (PHASE II) TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC., AT THE CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX IN THE GOVERNMENTAL USE (G) ZONE DISTRICT, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 00-GZW-01, APPLICANT THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC., AS TENANT) (AGENDA ITEM VI-5) AND 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC., TO ALLOW THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC., TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM OF 212 PARKING SPACES WITHIN A BOOK 49 Page 20832 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20833 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. DESIGNATED PORTION OF THE VAN WEZEL PARKING LOT TO SERVE THE PROPOSED EDUCATION WING (PHASE I) THE SHARED PARKING SPACES WOULD BE REDUCED TO 183 SPACES UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED CONCERT HALL (PHASE II) ETC. (AGENDA ITEM VI-6) AND 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, , INC., TO PROVIDE FOR THE CITY'S S CONSENT, AS LANDLORD, OF THE PROPOSED CONCERT HALL (PHASE II) AS IT RELATES TO THE COORDINATION OF USAGE OF THE SHARED PARKING SPACES BETWEEN THE PATRONS OF THE VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL, THE MUNICIPAL AUDITORIUM, SYMPHONY PERFORMANCES AND ACTIVITIES OF SYMPHONY'S SUBLESSEES; ETC. (AGENDA ITEM VI-7) AND 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO VIEW CORRIDOR EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA, SARASOTA RENAISSANCE II, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY, INC., PROHIBITING THE CITY, AND ANY OF ITS TENANTS I FROM CONSTRUCTING ANY NEW STRUCTURE HAVING A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 45 FEET ABOVE FLOOD ZONE A, EXCEPT FOR THE VAN WEZEL AND ONE (1) OTHER EXISTING OR NEW STRUCTURE FOR PRIMARY USE OF THE PERFORMING ARTS, WHICH MAY HAVE A HEIGHT UP TO 90 FEET ABOVE FLOOD ZONE A, ETC. - CONTINUED ITEMS VI-4 THROUGH VI-8, INCLUSIVE, TO APRIL 16, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VI-8) #4 (0055) through (0155) Vice Mayor Hogle stated that legal counsel for the Florida West Coast Symphony (FWCS) wishes to address the Commission concerning Agenda Items VI-4 through VI-8, inclusive; that hearing the Commission's agreement, legal counsel for the FWCS is requested to come forward. Charles Bailey, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34236), representing the FWCS, came before the Commission and stated that FWCS requests the continuance of Agenda Items VI-4 through VI-8, inclusive, until the newly constituted Commission is seated; and asked the date of the first Regular Commission meeting of the newly constituted Commission? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the first Regular Commission meeting of the newly constituted Commission is scheduled for April 16, 2001. Attorney Bailey stated that FWCS requests the continuance of Agenda Items VI-4 through VI-8, inclusive, until the April 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the request of FWCS is supported and seems prudent; that hearing no objections, the request of FWCS to continue Agenda Items VI-4 through VI-8, inclusive, until the April 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting is approved. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REQUEST OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO MEET WITH CITY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED DRAFTING A LETTER RECOMMENDING THE COMMISSION HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE BCC PRIOR TO FALL 2001 IF POSSIBLE (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) #4 (0155) through (0425) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the item concerns a request from the BCC to hold a joint meeting with the Commission regarding the tax increment financing for the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020). City Manager Sollenberger referred to a March 1, 2001, letter from David Mills, Chairman of the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC), regarding tax increment financing, and stated that the request for a joint Commission and BCC meeting is the result of discussions with County Administrator James Ley and the County and City Attorneys' Offices to discuss the adoption of the Master Plan 2020; that the BCC is requesting an opportunity to discuss the Master Plan 2020 with the Commission; that a joint meeting was requèsted for the summer 2001; that the BCC is requesting the joint meeting be scheduled for the fall 2001; that the Commission Agenda will be significant during the summer 2001; that the Administration recommends a motion to draft a letter recommending the Commission hold a joint meeting with the BCC in the fall 2001. Commissioner Quillin stated that the proposed letter indicates the City is planning to acquire $2.1 million in Tax Increment BOOK 49 Page 20834 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20835 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Financing (TIF) debt; however, the Commission approved the acquisition 'of approximately $6 million in debt to commence a number of the projects proposed in the Master Plan 2020; and requested clarification concerning the $2.1 million in TIF debt. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the City has acquired $6 million in debt to commence a number of the projects proposed in the Master Plan 2020; however, only $2.1 million of the debt will be repaid by funds from the TIF District; that the remaining debt will be repaid from revenues of the Local Options Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) extension, also called the penny sales tax, and the Environmental Land Management Study (ELMS) Gax Tax. Commissioner Quillin stated that the joint BCC and Commission meeting should be scheduled earlier than fall 2001. Commissioner Cardamone asked the reason all TIF funds will not be utilized to repay the $6 million debt? City Manager Sollenberger stated that TIF funds are already scheduled for appropriation to certain projects contained in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ; that the Main Street Streetscape Program was previously scheduled for funding by L.O.S.T. revenues and is also a project recommended by the Master Plan 2020; that the L.O.S.T. funding schedule was approved by the County and City electorate and should be maintained; that the $2.1 million in TIF revenues will primarily be utilized for improvements to Lemon Avenue between Main and Second Streets. Commissioner Cardamone stated that L.O.S.T. revenues can fund projects throughout the City; however, TIF funds can only be utilized to fund projects in the TIF District, which serves as the Community Redevelopment Area; that the L.0.S.T. funding schedule was approved by the electorate but should be altered to meet the capital requirements of the City; that the projects funded by TIF revenues eventually generate additional ad valorem tax revenues for further projects Downtown but not for the entire City; therefore, the Commission should seek to maintain a balance of funding projects throughout the City; that L.O.S.T. revenues could be utilized to provide a balance of funding for projects throughout the City. City Manager Sollenberger concurred but stated that the City should proceed to issue the required bonds for $6 million. Commissioner Cardamone concurred. City Manager Sollenberger stated that an amendment to the CIP will be required to adjust the L.O.S.T. funding schedule; that a 2 p.m., April 24, 2001, Commission Workshop is scheduled to consider the fiscal year (FY) 2001/02 CIP, at which time project funding decisions can be made; that the CIP can be revised in accordance with Commission direction. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the newly constituted Commission should be informed of the procedures for collecting and distributing TIF revenues. City Manager Sollenberger concurred. Commissioner Quillin stated that Staff will provide an analysis of the available funds at the CIP Commission Workshop; that L.O.S.T. funds should be utilized for projects outside Downtown in the City if TIF funds are available to fund the scheduled projects; however, all available TIF funds are already scheduled for projects Downtown; that sufficient TIF funds do not exist to repay the entire $6 million debt; that the efforts of the Director of Finance and Staff to conserve City tax revenues without incurring significant debt are commended. Vice Mayor Hogle concurred and stated that a motion should be offered. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to approve drafting a letter recommending the Commission hold a joint meeting with the BCC prior to the fall 2001 if possible. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CITY ATTORNEY ' S MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 12, 2001, REGARDING STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS - DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY' 'S OFFICE TO SEEK AN OFFICIAL POSITION FROM THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS CONCERNING MR. RUTKOWSKI'S PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM THE CITY (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) #4 (0425) through (0940) Commissioner Cardamone referred to a March 12, 2001, memorandum from the City Attorney to the Commission concerning the standards of conduct for public officers provided to the Commission concerning the purchase of City-owned property at BOOK 49 Page 20836 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20837 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. 1865 Laurel Street by Laurel Park Ventures, Inc., a principal of which is Devin Rutkowski, who served as a member and Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) at the time of the negotiations concerning purchase of the property; that a status report would be appreciated; that Mr. Rutkowski is requesting an official opinion from the State Commission on Ethics (COE) be sought; that other citizens also requested an official position be sought to verify Mr. Rutkowski's position in the local community as an outstanding citizen and public servant; that a significant number of newspaper articles were written which impugn Mr. Rutkowski's reputation and were misleading; that the City Attorney's Office did not find a wrongdoing in any of Mr. Rutkowski's actions; and requested legal comment. City Attorney Taylor referred to the March 12, 2001, memorandum and stated that the Commission did not previously authorize the City Attorney's Office to seek an official position from COE; that personal discussions were held with COE staff, who indicated the evidence would be considered if an official position was sought; that two issues exist concerning Mr. Rutkowski's actions; that the first issue is if Mr. Rutkowski utilized the position of PBLP member to acquire property from the City; that Section 112.313 (3), Doing Business With One's Agency, State Statutes, prohibits public otlicers only from individually selling property to the agency served; however, Mr. . Rutkowski negotiated purchasing property from the City and did not sell àny property to the City; that COE staff indicated Mr. Rutkowski's actions to purchase property from the city were not illegal. City Attorney Taylor referred to an October 25, 2000, memorandum from the City Attorney's Office to Mr. Rutkowski concerning a possible conflict of interest for purchasing property from the City, and continued that the second issue concerns a conflict of interest; that the October 25, 2000, memorandum indicated a conflict of interest existed due to Mr. Rutkowski's negotiating purchase of the property from the City; that the conflict of interest would exist if Mr. Rutkowski, as a public officer, entered into a contract for the purchase of property from the City, which Mr. Rutkowski serves; however, Mr. Rutkowski resigned from the PBLP prior to the execution of the contract to purchase property from the City; therefore, a conflict of interest does not exist; that the pertinent provisions of the State Statutes concerning the conduct of public officers no longer applies to Mr. Rutkowski; that the City Attorney's Office finds a conflict of interest did not occur at any time during Mr. Rutkowski's tenure on the PBLP; that COE staff also indicated an official position could only be obtained if authorized by the Commission; that an official position could be sought if directed; however, the City Attorney's Office does not find a necessity to do sO. Devin Rutkowski, 324 Julia Place (34236), came before the Commission, read from a prepared statement, and stated that the January 2, 2001, Sarasota Herald-Tribune article contained misleading and false statements concerning personal actions and accused the City and himself of improprieties; that any impropriety while serving as a PBLP member is categorically denied; that the Commission is requested to seek an official position from COE regarding personal tenure on the PBLP. Commissioner Quillin stated that COE will refuse to issue an official position on the matter as Mr. Rutkowski no longer serves as a PBLP member and is no longer governed by the State standards for public officers; that the issue is moot; that the actions of Mr. Rutkowski and the City were neither illegal nor nappropriate; however, an official position from COE should have been sought prior to Mr. Rutkowski's negotiating the purchase of property from the City; that the actions of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune are not supported; that the matter no longer requires discussion; that Mr. Rutkowski provided quality and excellent service to the City as a PBLP member and should continue active involvement with the City as a private citizen; that previous official positions of COE in similar situations were reviewed; that COE ruled against previous public officers purchasing property from the served agencyi that although an illegal or improper action has not occurred, the City should seek a position if requested by Mr. Rutkowski. Vice Mayor Hogle asked if COE will refuse to issue an official position? City Attorney Taylor stated that COE staff indicated Mr. Rutkowski L's resignation serves to render an official position moot; that potential still exists for COE to issue an official position; however, Mr. Rutkowski's resignation will significantly affect the rendering of an official position; that the position of the City Attorney's Office is Mr. Rutkowski has not violated any provisions of the State Statutes while serving as a PLBP member. BOOK 49 Page 20838 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20839 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that minor personal disagreements are held with Mr. Rutkowski; however, Mr. Rutkowski served with integrity as a PBLP member. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to direct the City Attorney's Office to seek an official position from the State Commission on Ethics concerning Mr. Rutkowski's purchase of property from the City. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Rutkowski's actions were not illegal or improper; therefore, the City and Mr. Rutkowski will not be negatively affected if an official position is sought from COE; that Mr. Rutkowski's reputation should be Cleared of any alleged improprieties. Commissioner Mason concurred and stated that the City should honor Mr. Rutkowski's request. Vice Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Mason, yesi Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to continue the meeting beyond 11:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yesi Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY USE AGREEMENT 2000, PERTAINING TO THE SITE AT THE N.W. CORNER OF U.S. 41 AND GULF STREAM AVENUE (CURRENTLY HOLIDAY INN/DENNY'S PROPERTY) - APPROVED AND ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00-4257, TO REZONE FROM THE RMF-6 ZONE DISTRICT TO THE C-CBD ZONE DISTRICT A 1.44 ACRE SITE AT THE N.W. CORNER OF U.S. 41 AND GULF STREAM AVENUE (CURRENTLY HOLIDAY INN/DENNY'S PROPERTY) TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 72- UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONTAINING, 400 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE AND 24,680 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 00-RE-17 AND 00-SP-24, APPLICANT DOOLEY & MACK CONSTRUCTORS, INC., AS AGENT REPRESENTING CELT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, THE OWNER) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-9) #4 (0940) through (1265) City Manager Sollenberger stated that approval of the First Amendment to the Right-of-Way Use Agreement 2000 and adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257 is requested. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission, referred to displayed transparencies throughout the presentation, and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257 would grant approval to rezone a 1.44 acre site located at the northwest corner of US 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue, the Holiday Inn/Denny's property, from the Multi-Family Residential - High Density (RMF-6) to the Commercial, Central Business District (C- CBD) Zone District to allow the construction of a 72-unit condominium also containing 13,400 square feet (sq. ft.) of retail space and 24,680 sq. ft. of office space; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257 was approved on first reading at a continued public hearing during the February 5, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that a condition of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257 was approval of the proposed First Amendment to the Right-of-Way Use Agreement 2000 by the Commission and the parties to the agreement prior to granting approval on second reading; that all parties approved the First Amendment to the Right-of-Way Use Agreement 2000; that the parties include S.L.A.B., L.L.C., an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company (SLAB), Core Development, Inc. (Core), Sarasota Tower, Inc. (Sarasota Tower), as the successor to Ecoventure Residences II, Ltd. (Ecoventure), Celt, Inc. (Celt), and the City. Attorney Fournier continued that approval of the Right-of-Way Use Agreement 2000 was required with approval of Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-04; that proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257 requires the further development of the property according to Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-24; that the disagreements between the parties and potential conflicts between Site Plan Application Nos. 00-SP-04 and 00-SP-24 will be resolved through the proposed First Amendment to the Right-ot-Way Use Agreement 2000, which is an interim plan effective until the appropriate building permits are issued. Commissioner Quillin asked for clarification of the displayed transparency? Attorney Fournier stated that the displayed transparency is Exhibit C of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257; that Exhibit C was BOOK 49 Page 20840 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20841 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. recently revised; that the displayed transparency is slightly different than the version included in the Agenda backup material; that the First Amendment to the Right-of-Way Use Agreement 2000 serves as an interim plan; that previously a significant issue was providing access from US 41 to the property during construction; that the First Amendment to the Right-of-Way Use Agreement 2000 provides the appropriate access from US 41; however, the Holiday Inn/Denny's property will not have access to the newly constructed First Street/Ritz-Carlton Boulevard during reconstruction; that access will be from US 41 during the period. Attorney Fournier referred to a displayed transparency of Exhibit C, and stated that access will not be allowed to the northern boundary of the property during construction; that a portion of First Street will remain open following the completion of construction and will afford vehicular access to the proposed condominium unit, known as the Ringling Tower; that vehicular access will also be allowed from US 41; that the temporary parking spaces located to the north on First Street of the property are indicated as parallel but will be angled during construction; that existing stormwater utilities will be maintained due to a revised reduction in the turning radius on the southwestern curb of US 41 at First Street/Ritz-Carlton Boulevard; that the proposed location of the Multi-Use Recreational Trail (MURT) near the property was also altered; that the access to US 41 allowed during construction will be closed upon completion of the Ringling Tower; that vehicular access will solely be provided to the Ringling Tower from First Street/Ritz-Carlton Boulevard in accordance with Site Plan No. 00-SP-04; that Exhibit C of proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257 was revised a significant number of times. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving the First Amendment to the Right-of-Way Use Agreement 2000. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to approve the First Amendment to the Right- of-Way Use Agreement 2000. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4257 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 00-4257 on second reading. Vice Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Cardamone, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED INTERIM PARKING AGREEMENT AMONG CITY OF SARASOTA, HOTEL ASSOCIATES OF SARASOTA, LTD. (BEAU CIEL CONDOMINIUM WEST OF HYATT HOTEL), BASIN DEVELOPMENTS, LTD. (CONDOMINIUM TO BE BUILT PURSUANT TO AIR RIGHTS ON PARCEL NORTH OF SARASOTA QUAY) AND OWNER OF SARASOTA QUAY AND OWNERS OF LOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL BETWEEN FOURTH STREET AND BOULEVARD OF THE ARTS - APPROVED AND PROPOSED DONATION AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF THE .354 ACRE BAYFRONT PARCEL OF PROPERTY AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF BOULEVARD OF THE ARTS TO THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR PASSIVE RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE PURPOSES - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #4 (1265) through (2810) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the item concerns an Interim Parking Agreement and a Donation Agreement. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission, referred to displayed transparencies of the area throughout the presentation, and stated that the proposed Interim Parking Agreement between the City, Hotel Associates of Sarasota, Ltd. (HAS), Basin Developments Partnerships, Ltd. (Basin), Sarasota Quay U.S. Partnership, Ltd. (Sarasota Quay), and Reemark Sarasota Quay, Inc. (Reemark) concerns the location of temporary parking during construction of two condominiums near the Sarasota Quay and the Civic Center; that the proposed Donation Agreement between the City, HAS, and Basin concerns the conveyance of .354 acre of a Bayfront parcel of property located at the western terminus of the Boulevard of the Arts to the City; that at the March 7, 2001, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) meeting, the PBLP approved Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-23, to allow the construction of a 70-unit condominium on the parcel of property located to the north of Sarasota Quay and adjacent to the Hyatt Hotel; that Basin owns the air rights to the property while HAS owns the ground rights; that the PBLP BOOK 49 Page 20842 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20843 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. also approved Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-26 to allow the construction of a 44-unit condominium, known as the Beau Ciel located to the west of the Hyatt Hotel, and a parking structure located to the east of the Hyatt Hotel. Attorney Fournier continued that the Commission does not possess the authority to approve site plan applications unless an appeal is filed within ten days of the final decision of the PBLP; that the ten-day appeal period has expired; that Site Plan Application Nos. 00-SP-23 and 00-SP-26 were approved contingent upon Commission approval of the proposed Interim Parking Agreement, which is necessary due to displacement of the required on-site parking during construction and provides temporary off-site parking during the construction of the condominiums; that the Hyatt Hotel requires a total of 354 parking spaces; that 147 of the parking spaces are located on the site of the Basin condominium; that the remaining parking spaces are located to the east and west of the Hyatt Hotel; that the City Attorney's Office determined the PBLP did not possess the authority to approve temporary off-site parking agreements; that the PBLP can only approve the permanent location of required parking; that the Interim Parking Agreement concerns only temporary off-site parking and contains a provision prohibiting execution unless the Donation Agreement is properly executed; that separate agreements between the City and HAS and Basin will be executed. Attorney Fournier referred to a displayed transparency indicating the location of the proposed condominiums and the temporary off-site parking, and stated further that HAS will be constructing a parking structure to the east and a condominium to the west of the Hyatt Hotel; that the Interim Parking Agreement provides for the construction of the parking structure first; that the parking structure must be issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) prior to issuance of a building permit to commence construction of the proposed condominium; that 72 parking spaces are required for the Hyatt Hotel at the location of the proposed parking structure; that during construction of the parking structure, the Interim Parking Agreement will allow the Hyatt Hotel to provide the 72 required parking spaces at Payne Terminal near the Civic Center north of Tenth Street; that the site was examined by all parties, who determined 76 parking spaces could be provided at the site; that the Payne Terminal site satisfied the concerns of Staff for the provision of the required parking; that the parking structure will provide 125 parking spaces for the Hyatt Hotel and the proposed condominiums, which will be constructed after the parking structure is completed; that the site of the proposed condominiums currently contains 105 parking spaces utilized by the Hyatt Hotel; that 53 of the 105 parking spaces will be provided in the parking structure; that the temporary off-site parking location will provide the remaining required parking spaces; that only hotel employees will be allowed to self park at Payne Terminal; that valet parking at Payne Terminal will be provided to hotel guests. Attorney Fournier further stated that the Interim Parking Agreement requires HAS acknowledge Van Wezel Way may be closed due to the construction of new facilities for the Florida West Coast Symphony (FWCS); that the site of the Basin condominiums currently contains 147 parking spaces required for the Hyatt Hotel; that the Sarasota Quay parking lot has 300 parking spaces and will be temporarily reconfigured to narrow existing parking spaces and remove existing landscaping to provide 391 total parking spaces; that the Reemark parking lot currently contains 127 parking spaces and will be provided during the construction of the Basin condominiums; that 11 parking spaces will be preserved at the site of the Basin condominiums; therefore, only 136 parking spaces will be required off-site; that only 9 parking spaces will actually be required of Sarasota Quay for the construction of the Basin condominiums; however, 68 of the required parking spaces for Sarasota Quay are located in the Reemark parking lot; therefore, the expansion of the Sarasota Quay parking lot was necessaryi that 59 of the Reemark parking spaces are surplus; that 127 of the parking spaces required for the Hyatt Hotel will be located at the Reemark parking lot; that a new entrance for the Reemark parking lot will constructed to Boulevard of the Arts; that HAS will be allowed to utilize the temporary parking site at Payne Terminal for a maximum of three years; that the right of HAS to utilize Payne Terminal will be terminated upon issuance of a CO for the HAS condominiums; that the Payne Terminal site will subsequently be made available for displaced parking for the Basin Condominium, the Sarasota Quay, or the Reemark parking lot, which will utilize Payne Terminal for parking related only to construction personnel or equipment. Commissioner Mason asked if signage will be installed at the Payne Terminal site to notify the public of usage by the Hyatt Hotel? Attorney Fournier stated that HAS is required to install a guard rail or fence and signage around the Payne Terminal site subject BOOK 49 Page 20844 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20845 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. to Staff's approval; that the Zoning Code (1998) requirements for landscaping at the Sarasota Quay will not be met during the three-year construction period but should be allowed; that a performance bond will be required to reconfigure the Sarasota Quay parking lot; that Sarasota Quay may file a site plan application for the redevelopment of the Sarasota Quay property during the three-year construction period; that an additional performance bond will be issued for the construction of the Basin condominiums; that the parking spaces temporarily located at the Sarasota Quay parking lot will eventually be provided underneath the Basin condominiums; that the HAS and Basin condominiums will have a surplus beyond the required parking. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the individual briefings regarding the Interim Parking and Donation Agreements with Staff prior to the current meeting were appreciated. Commissioner Quillin asked if the parking spaces provided at the Sarasota Quay includes the underground parking? Attorney Fournier stated no; that 197 additional parking spaces are provided beneath the Sarasota Quay and will not be affected. Commissioner Quillin asked if 197 parking spaces will be sufficient to meet the required parking spaces for Sarasota Quay? Attorney Fournier stated that 197 parking spaces are required; that they are private spaces, and will continue as such. Commissioner Quillin stated that the displaced parking is public parking only. Attorney Fournier stated that additional on-site public parking will be provided at the Sarasota Quay to accommodate the parking requirements for the Hyatt Hotel. Commissioner Quillin stated that public parking at Sarasota Quay is limited and difficult to obtain; that valet parking is most frequently utilized to park a personal vehicle. Attorney Fournier referred to a displayed transparency of the Bayfront property proposed for conveyance to the City, and stated that the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020) recommends the City acquire Bayfront property to provide additional access to Sarasota Bay and to maintain the view corridors from Downtown; that HAS and Basin have offered to convey .354 acre of a Bayfront parcel of property located at the western terminus of the Boulevard of the Arts to the City as a condition of approval of Site Plan Application Nos. 00-SP-23 and 00-SP-26; that the City already owns an adjoining parcel of property; that the conveyed property could be combined with the City-owned property; that HAS owns the on-grade portion of the property; that Air Rights Development of Sarasota, Inc. (AR) owns the air rights to the propertyi that AR is affiliated with Basin; that the conveyed property could not be utilized for a parking structure but could be utilized to construct a 16-unit condominium structure; that a significant number of architectural and engineering studies were conducted by HAS and AR to assess the potential for the construction of a 16-unit condominium structure on the property. Attorney Fournier continued that the City will acquire the air and on-grade rights through the Donation Agreement; that the City would be required to the pay HAS $125,000 and AR $250,000 upon conveyance of the property for the architectural and engineering studies; that the total cost to obtain the property for the City will be $325,000; that the value of the property if developed for a 16-unit condominium structure was appraised at $6.4 million; that the City would also be required to cooperate with HAS and Basin to execute any forms required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) related to the conveyance of the property and to assist HAS and Basin in establishing donative intent for Federal income tax purposesi that the property will be reserved by Basin and HAS for utilization as a construction staging area, each for one year prior to conveyance; that HAS will be entitled to utilize the property first upon issuance of a building permit for the proposed condominium; that the rights of Basin to utilize the property will also be afforded to Sarasota Quay and Reemark during the same one-year time period; that the rights to utilize the property will expire in three years. Attorney Fournier stated Eurther that the City will be required to utilize the property for passive recreational and open space purposes only; that the property will be reverted to HAS and AR if the City does not utilize the property for passive recreational or open space purposes or attempts to sell the property; that the Donation Agreement was modified recently; that Section 2.1 of the Donation Agreement was modified to allow separate conveyances as the HAS and Basin condominiums will be constructed during different time periods per the Interim Parking Agreement; that Section 2.3 of the Donation Agreement BOOK 49 Page 20846 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20847 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. was modified to allow the City to pay HAS and AR separately for the conveyance of the property. Commissioner Quillin asked the assessed value of the property if not developed? Attorney Fournier stated that the market value of the on-grade portion of the property is approximately $500,000; that the value of the air rights is unknown. Commissioner Quillin asked if the conveyance of the property will satisfy Federal tax requirements? City Manager Sollenberger stated that similarly valued properties were conveyed to the City previously; that the City cooperates with the property donors but does not issue a formal position concerning the value of the conveyed property; therefore, Federal tax requirements only affect the property donor. Attorney Fournier stated that Section 3.1 of the Donation Agreement indicates the City will not seek a formal valuation of the property. Commissioner Quillin asked the effect of the Interim Parking Agreement upon the available public parking at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) ? Attorney Fournier stated that Payne Terminal site would only affect VWPAH, is located to the north of Tenth Street, but is not utilized by VWPAH; that parking is not currently permitted at the Payne Terminal site, which will require redevelopment prior to the permitting of parking. Commissioner Quillin asked the responsible party to fund the redevelopment of the Payne Terminal site for parking? Attorney Fournier stated that the costs will be the responsibility of HAS. Commissioner Quillin stated that Staff indicated valet parking would be provided at the Payne Terminal site; that construction may occur during construction which will Close Van Wezel Way; that VWPAH or FWCS events may further stymie efforts to provide valet parking at Payne Terminal; that significant traffic congestion will occur; that only two entrances exist to the Civic Center, which already experiences significant traffic congestion. Attorney Fournier stated that the Hyatt Hotel examined the traffic circulation problems at the Civic Center and is determined to utilize the Payne Terminal site regardless of the traffic congestion; that the parking space utilized at Payne Terminal will primarily be for employees and will not significantly add further traffic congestion to the Civic Center. Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, representing Basin, and Jeffrey Russell, Attorney, law firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford, and Gordon, representing HAS, came before the Commission. Attorney Russell stated that HAS will sign the Donation Agreement subject to the revisions proposed by Staff. Attorney Furen stated that the Interim Parking Agreement and Donation Agreement will be executed; that the efforts of Attorney Fournier are appreciated. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving the Interim Parking and Donation Agreements. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to approve the Interim Parking Agreement and the Donation Agreement including the proposed revisions. Commissioner Quillin stated that efforts of Staff to formulate the Interim Parking Agreement and the Donation Agreement are appreciated; however, the impact of the increased traffic congestion on nearby residents, the Sarasota Quay, and the Gulfcoast Wonder & Imagination Zone (G.WIZ) should be examined; that further cooperative efforts are required; that the staging of construction equipment for the construction of the HAS and Basin condominiums should be examined; that a significant number of children visit G.WIZ daily; that the potential hazards posed to the children by positioning construction equipment near G.WIZ should be examined; that VWPAH will experience a parking shortage as construction of FWCS facilities and the HAS and Basin condominiums occurs simultaneously, that the construction will not be pedestrian or vehicle friendly; that a traffic BOOK 49 Page 20848 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20849 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. circulation program for the Civic Center should be developed as soon as possible. Vice Mayor Hogle concurred and stated that traffic circulation at the Sarasota Quay, the Civic Center, and Centennial Park should be examined. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a significant opportunity is presented to the Commission and the City by acquiring further property at the Bayfront; that the Master Plan 2020 indicated the City should attempt to acquire Bayiront property to serve as a view corridor to Sarasota Bay; that the efforts of Attorney Fournier to negotiate the acquisition of the property are appreciated; that concerns regarding the traffic circulation at the Civic Center are significant and are well tounded; that a partnership should be established between Basin, HAS, and nearby residents to ensure all parking needs are meet and traffic circulation maintained; that the Payne Terminal site is not currently utilized and will be improved significantly to be utilized for temporary parking; that the City will be able to utilize the Payne Terminal site for permanent parking following completion of construction of the HAS and Basin condominiums; that approving the Interim Parking Agreement and the Donation Agreement is supported. Vice Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to approve the Interim Parking Agreement and the Donation Agreement including the proposed revisions. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 23. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 ACCEPTED AND RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (2810) through (3345) Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the item cOncerns a presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year (FY) 1999/2000. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, William Hawthorne, Audit Partner, CPA Associates, P.A. (CPA), and Jim Keding, Principal, CPA, came before the Commission. Mr. Mitchell referred to a March 12, 2001, memorandum to the Commission concerning the CAFR, and stated that the CAFR was prepared for FY 1999/2000 but was completed later than usual; that the State requires the issuance of the CAFR by March 31 following each fiscal year; that the CAFR will be submitted prior to the State-required deadline; that preparing the CAFR required significant Staff time and efforts; that the Finance Department was responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the CAFR; that the CAFR's financial statements were examined and audited by CPA, a certified public accounting firm; that the Independent Auditor's Report issued by CPA was detailed with only a couple of concerns. Mr. Hawthorne referred to the CAFR, and stated that the opportunity to address the Commission is appreciated; that the CPA audit report of the CAFR was prepared and represents an unqualified opinion; that the professional and cooperative behavior of the Finance Department Staff is commended; that the Letter of Transmittal is required by the State and is prepared in a format established by the Office of the Florida Auditor General; that the CAFR was prepared according to State guidelines; that the City followed the appropriate procedures in conducting financial affairs; that two findings occurred; that the first finding concerns the renovations to the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i however, the CPA report indicates an independent auditor was hired to review the matter and mediation is ongoing between the disputed parties; therefore, Eurther CPA analysis of the matter is not required; that the second finding concerns the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), an agency which determines the standards and requirements for governmental accounting and reporting; that GASB recently decided to change governmental financial reporting standards; that as a result, the format of the City's CAFR will be changed significantly, that the City's current fund accounting practices will continue; however, a Citywide reporting procedure will be utilized; that the City's existing general fixed-asset fund reporting will no longer be utilized; that the City will be required to depreciate all infrastructure annually. Mr. Hawthorne continued that a Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) will also be required in the new CAFR format and will require significant detail; that the City will be required to provide detailed discussion of such items as the reasons the budget of a particular item was not maintained; that a Statement of Activities will also be required by the new CAFR format and should document revenues and expenses by function; that particular revenues will be assigned to the functions of particular departments or activities such as the expenses of the Sarasota Police Department; that preparing the Statement of Activities will require significant efforts of the Finance Department Staff but BOOK 49 Page 20850 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20851 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. will not be required until FY 2002/2003; however, the City will be required to commence efforts and training immediately to prepare the Statement of Activities; that Finance Department Staff are currently undergoing training concerning the required methods and procedures to prepare the Statement of Activities; that the educational qualifications of the Finance Department Staff are excellent; however, further training is required until the Statement of Activities is adequately prepared. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the new requirements for CAFR reporting constitute an unfunded mandate; and asked if Finance Department Staff will be increased significantly to enable preparation of the new format of the CAFR? City Manager Sollenberger stated that an increase in Finance Department Staff was not previously discussed. Mr. Mitchell stated that the operations of the Finance Department and Staff will be reorganized to accommodate the preparation of the new format of the CAFR, which will require significant Staff efforts and time; that Staff is already organizing efforts to prepare the new format of the CAFR; that the FY 1999/2000 CAFR should be received and accepted; that the CAFR will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) upon approval by the Commission; that the City received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the FY 1998/99 CAFR; that the award was received for the 19th consecutive yeari that Staff anticipates the City will receive the award for the FY 1999/2000 CAFR as well. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends accepting and receiving the FY 1999/2000 CAFR. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to accept and receive the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year (FY) 1999/2000. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the efforts of Finance Department Staff to prepare the CAFR are excellent and commended. Vice Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 24. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECOND STREET AND ORANGE AVENUE = CONTINUED TO APRIL 16, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #4 (3340) through (3390) Vice Mayor Hogle stated that legal counsel representing Day One, Inc. (Day One), / requested to address the Commission; that hearing no objections, legal counsel is requested to come forward. Charles D. Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, representing Day One, came before the Commission and stated that Agenda Item VII-4, concerns the sale of City-owned property located at the southeast corner of Second Street and Orange Avenue; that a delay is requested to the April 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting as a final agreement has not been prepared for the purchase of the property. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that hearing no objections, Agenda Item VII-4, concerning the sale of City-owned property located at the southeast corner of Second Street and Orange Avenue, will be continued to the April 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. 25. NEW BUSINESS: STATUS REPORT RE: : FORMATION OF TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (TMO) RECEIVED STATUS REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #4 (3390) through (3500) Vice Mayor Hogle stated that a status report regarding the formation of a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) will be presented. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that discussions were held with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association) regarding the formation of a TMO; that Staff is cooperating with the Downtown Association to prepare a work plan and budget for the TMO; that upon completion, the work plan and budget will be submitted to FDOT for approval; that two agreements will be formulated to establish the TMO; that agreements will be between the Downtown Association and the City and between the City and FDOT; that the anticipation is the agreements will be presented to the Commission for approval during May 2001; however, FDOT is BOOK 49 Page 20852 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20853 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. first required to approve the agreements which may delay action until after May 2001. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends receiving the status report concerning the formation of a TMO. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to receive the status report concerning the formation of a Transportation Management Organization. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 26. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF CONFERENCE SCHOLARSHIPS TO CITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO ATTEND 2001 NEIGHBORHOODS, USA CONFERENCE IN PITTSBURGH, PA. APPROVED $6,400 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE TEN SCHOLARSHIPS TO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO ATTEND THE 2001 NEIGHBORKOODS, USA, CONFERENCE LOCATED IN PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, AND DIRECTED STAFF TO ADVERTISE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE SCHOLARSHIPS (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #4 (3500) through (3570) Vice Mayor Hogle stated that a recommendation concerning the use of funds from the Neighborhood Grant Program for a limited number of scholarships for City Neighborhood Associations to send representatives to the 2001 Neighborhoods, USA, Conference located Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, will be presented. Commissioner Quillin stated that $6,400 in funds is requested from the Neighborhood Grant Program to provide scholarships to representatives of the City's Neighborhood Associations to attend the 2001 Neighborhoods, USA, Conference located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; that $6,400 could fund ten scholarships, which would provide an opportunity to members of the City's Neighborhood Associations to learn how other communities are addressing neighborhood concerns and issues; that the recommendation is the result of an exchange of ideas with the Department of Neighborhoods. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving $6,400 from Neighborhood Grant Program to provide ten scholarships to representatives from the City's Neighborhood Associations to attend the 2001 Neighborhoods, USA, Conference located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and directing Staff to advertise the avallability of the scholarships. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to approve $6,400 from Neighborhood Grant Program to provide ten scholarships to representatives from the City's. Neighborhood Associations to attend the 2001 Neighborhoods, USA, Conference located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to direct Staff to advertise the availability of the scholarships. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 27. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (3570) There were no Commission Board or Committee reports. 28. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - CONSENSUS: 1) TO HAVE A RESOLUTION DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA AND PRESENTED AT THE APRIL 2, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING AND 2) FOR THE VICE MAYOR TO DIRECT A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE LOAN OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBERS (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (3570) through #5 (0185) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: : A. stated that Commission approval to develop a resolution concerning the importance of the University of South Florida (USF) in the community is requested for presentation at the April 2, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that the Commission's support would be of assistance to USF; that enhancing the USF programs offered should be considered; that a four-year program should also be suggested. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission's consensus is to have a resolution developed in support of the University of South Florida and presented at the April 2, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. B. stated that Commission approval for the Vice Mayor to direct a letter to the Chairman of the Boàrd of County Commissioners expressing appreciation for the loan of the wonderful and comfortable County Commission BOOK 49 Page 20854 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49. Page 20855 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. Chambers; nevertheless, returning to the newly renovated City Commission Chambers is anxiously awaited. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission's consensus is for the Vice Mayor to direct a letter to the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners expressing appreciation for the loan of the County Commission Chambers. VICE MAYOR HOGLE: : A. stated that appreciation is expressed to Staff of the Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Entorcement and the City Attorney's Office for the elecommunications ordinance presented earlier in the meeting; that the ordinance was beautifully written. B. stated that the efforts of the Sarasota Police Department in developing the ordinance concerning marine mooring presented earlier in the meeting are appreciated; that the ordinance was long awaited; that an excellent job was done. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Director of Engineering/City Engineer was in attendance at the most recent meeting of the Tourist Development Council; that County Staff indicated some funds may be available next year to assist with the removal of derelict boats. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the funds would probably be available through a grant process. C. stated that a one-page application for a building permit required for a minor project involving repairs to a leaking pool was presented to the City by a citizen; that the citizen indicated a queuing process results in first-come/first-served review, which means more lengthy projects may be reviewed first; that a two-tiered process may make sense; that different processes for a lengthy new construction process and a small home remodeling project may alleviate unnecessary delays; that the Administration is requested to consider the possibility of a two-tier process and make a recommendation; that follow-up by the Administration is requested. COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that a previously presented ordinance concerning commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods did not pass; that several interested individuals have been in contact; that the Ad Hoc Committee previously considering the regulations could be requested to meet again in an effort to develop a solution; that Commission consensus to request the Committee meet again to attempt to develop a solution would be appreciated. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that having the Committee meet again is not objectionable; that the Committee should meet with a Committee from the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA) if additional meetings are held; that during a recent drive through some City streets with a representative of the Home Builders Association of Sarasota County, the number of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods in the evening on a weekday night in the City is surprising; that an answer to the problem is not known; that the Committee could continue in an effort to resolve the problem. Commissioner Quillin asked the locations the Vice Mayor visited? Vice Mayor Hogle stated that a visit was made to most of the City south of Fruitville Road; that the rest of the City has been toured as well. Commissioner Quillin stated that the impact is obvious. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the attendance of CCNA representatives would be helpful; that the Commission's consensus is to arrange for the Ad Hoc Committee to schedule additional meetings in an effort to resolve the problem of parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the CCNA is meeting to resolve the problem. Commissioner Quillin stated that the composition of the Committee should be reviewed to assure an adequate balance of representation. BOOK 49 Page 20856 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 20857 03/19/01 6:00 P.M. 29. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS - AGREED THE MARCH 26, 2001, COMMISSION WORKSHOP WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE 6 P.M. MARCH 26, 2001, SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM XI) #5 (0184) through (0305) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that a 6 p.m., March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting has been scheduled to swear in Commissioner- Elect Lou Ann R. Palmer; that Commissioner-Blect Palmer has been contacted and is available; that a 7 p.m., March 26, Commission Workshop is also scheduled; that if acceptable, the Commission Workshop will be noticed as directly following the 6 p.m., March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the March 26, 2001, Commission Workshop will immediately follow the 6 p.m., March 26, 2001, Special Commission meeting. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: : A. stated that the City has moved forward with the recommendations of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020) with the City's acquisition of the lot at the end of Boulevard of the Arts to create a belvedere, the purchase of the Federal Building, and the financing to advance projects on Main Street and Lemon Avenue; that a good start on implementation of the Master Plan 2020 has been achieved. B. stated that the Commission requested contact with the Sarasota County Administrator concerning ditch maintenance in the City; that a written report will be provided; that a special assessment program has been developed in the unincorporated area; that County and City Staff will meet concerning the program with the objective of assuring consistency between the City and the unincorporated area. C. stated that the Commission requested a review of traffic circulation at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i that the Police and Engineering Departments have prepared reports; that the Police Department determined the left turn signal was green for 20 seconds from Tenth Street to US 41; that traffic moved well; however, the traffic signal is part of a net of signals until 10 p.m. which is in the coordinated traffic signalization program; that the traffic signal becomes operational based on demand after 10 p.m.; that additional information will be requested. 30. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #5 (0305) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the Regular meeting of March 19, 2001, at 12:39 p.m. Qdti a ALBERT J. HOGLE, VICF MAYOR TE Te 3 Ly E RaLs a6 B3 IS T T : ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 49 Page 20858 03/19/01 6:00 P.M.