Book 34 Page 8806 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 1992 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Jack Gurney, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Jack Gurney The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 7:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1992 = TO BE GIVEN UNDER EACH PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0001) through (0002) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and requested that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's report regarding each petition be presented with each of the individual public hearings to follow. It was the consensus of the Commission to proceed as requested. 2. INTRODUCTION RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0002) through (0004) Sherry Plaster, Chief Planner of the Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that tonight is the Adoption Public Hearing for the 1992 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; that the City Commission last reviewed these Plan Amendments (PA) on May 26 and June 1, 1992 and approved them for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) i that objections, recommendations, and comments regarding these Plan Amendments were received from the DCA on September 21, 1992 and will be explained with each individual Plan Amendment; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency reviewed and made recommendations to the Plan Amendments on October 21, 1992. Ms. Plaster stated that there has been further discussion with the DCA regarding the annexation policies. Ms. Plaster explained that the following motions were required of the Commission for each Plan Amendment: 1) adopt, 2) adopt with changes, or 3) not adopt. Mayor Gurney requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time the petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-PA-07-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0007) through (0010) Pamela Hower, Senior Planner of the Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and explained that 92-PA-07 is the annual update to the Capital Improvements Element; that the Planning Board action on October 21, 1992 was to recommend adoption by the City Commission. Ms. Hower stated that the Florida Department of Transportation through the DCA submitted comments related to changing the schedule for the road widening projects for 12th Street and Orange Avenue. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 92-PA-07-Capital Improvements Element. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-PA-06-NEIGHBORHOOD POLICIES = ADOPTED WITH CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0011) through (0014) Pamela Hower, Senior Planner of the Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and explained 92-PA-06 Neighborhood Policies was presented to the City Commission on May 26, 1992 and subsequently transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) ; that the Planning Board action on October 21, 1992 was to recommend adoption by the City Commission. Book 34 Page 8807 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8808 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Ms. Hower listed the following items pertaining to neighborhoods: The City Commission meeting agendas are published in the newspaper. A The Coalition of City Neighborhoods lists are receiving the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency agendas. A neighborhood self-help guide is being developed. The neighborhood planning process will be completed during the plan update. The guidelines for public workshops will be developed prior to the next budgeting process. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 92-PA-06. Commissioner Merrill stated that with regard to policy 7.2 he was concerned about using the words "inform the neighboring residents of the nature of the proposed development and explain the site development plan" and suggested using the wording under policy 8.7 "solicit suggestions and conçerns" instead. The change in wording was acceptable to the maker and seconder of the motion. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the motion as changed. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yesi Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-PA-03-FUTURE LAND USE MAP 15 = ADOPTED WITH CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM III-C) #1 (0015) through (0289) Bill Molnar, Senior Planner of the Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and explained that 92-PA-03 is a proposed future land use map change filed by Land Resources Strategies, petitioner, requesting that "Other Restrictions: Prohibit access on Royal Palm Avenue,' I on Future Land Use Map 15, DeSoto Road/Airport IMA be deleted; that on June 1, 1992 the Commission voted to approve and transmit Future Land Use Map 15 with the following restrictions: remove "Other Restrictions: Prohibit access on Royal Palm Avenue." add "Other Restrictions: Limit access on east side of Royal Palm Avenue to one unified curb cut." add "Other Restrictions: Prohibit access on west side of Royal Palm Avenue." add "Other Restrictions: Require a development agreement which enacts neighborhood traffic abatement measures based upon public input. 1 Mr. Molnar stated that the Commission amended the motion "to put a stipulation that before a curb cut was approved at this location, the City Commission would have to approve a traffic abatement plan for Royal Palm Avenue. 1 Mr. Molnar continued that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency at its October 21, 1992 meeting recommended no change to Future Land Use May 15, DeSoto Road/Airport IMA; however, due to a lack of a quorum, the amendment was forwarded to the City Commission with no recommendation by the Planning Board. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. Attorney Michael Furen, 2033 Main Street, representing Robert Marquis, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission transmitted this proposed Plan Amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their comments, recommendations, or objections and it was returned without any comments, recommendations, or objections; that this site was rezoned by the City Commission to a Commercial Office Park (COP) zone district; that this site was limited by that approval to "right turn in" and "right turn out" only on DeSoto Road (now renamed University Parkway); that he had pointed out to the Commission that there was no indication that the City understood that DeSoto Road would be constructed with a solid median along the entire length at this site when it adopted the policy prohibiting access to Royal Palm Avenue to one access only, which the petitioner seeks to have amended. Attorney Furen continued that he thinks it makes sense to permit an additional access to this COP Zone District off of Royal Palm Avenue; that he had submitted a transportation study at the public hearing which was done by Dames & Moore as required by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment procedures, which indicates a de minimis impact on the neighborhood from this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attorney Furen stated that there are no objections to the proposal from the DCA and that it incorporates within it a requirement that before the access is constructed, a traffic abatement program for that area will be approved by the City Commission; that the petitioner concurs with that recommendation and agrees to that stipulation. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration's recommendation is that the Commission affirm the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's recommendation for no change to Future Land Use Map 15 and asked Attorney Furen if that is what the petitioner is requesting. Attorney Furen stated that that is not what they are requesting; that they are asking that the City Commission to adopt the proposed Book 34 Page 8809 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8810 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Comprehensive Plan Amendment as previously amended by the Commission with the stipulation that no curb cut off of Royal Palm Avenue be constructed until a traffic abatement program has been approved by the City Commission. Commissioner Merrill asked whether Attorney Furen felt the people living along Royal Palm Avenue will have their neighborhood disrupted if the curb cut is installed. Attorney Furen stated that he did not feel their neighborhood would be disrupted because the requirement for a traffic abatement program within the proposal will be developed with the input of the neighborhood. Commissioner Merrill stated that the neighborhood might decide they would like to have Royal Palm Avenue cul-de-sacced and traffic abatement does not necessarily mean that the road will be left open for full use. Commissioner Patterson stated that she feels if the intent were not for people to drive through the neighborhood rather than on DeSoto Road, there would be no particular use for a curb cut. Attorney Furen stated that he understands that a curb cut cannot be put in without approval by the Commission of a traffic abatement program. There was no one else to speak and the public hearing was closed. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Future Land Use Map 15 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 92-PA-03) with the following changes: remove "Other Restrictions: Prohibit access on Royal Palm Avenue. # add "Other Restrictions: Limit access on east side of Royal Palm Avenue to one unified curb cut." add "Other Restrictions: Prohibit access on west side of Royal Palm Avenue." add "Other Restrictions: Require a development agreement which enacts neighborhood traffic abatement measures based upon public input." put a stipulation that before a curb cut is approved at this location, the City Commission would have to approve a traffic abatement plan for Royal Palm Avenue. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mr. Molnar stated that the Commission had asked the Planning and Development Department to investigate a City/County Joint Interlocal Agreement that would ensure that the new University Parkway would be a limited access road; that it has been reviewed by the Legal Staff and is currently being reviewed by the Engineering Department; that the Commission will be informed of the progress on this at the next meeting. Mayor Gurney stated that for the record he had had a major concern at one time that University Parkway would play a critical role with regard to the U.S. 41 designation; however, it now appears University Parkway will be strictly a state road. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-PA-09-URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY = APPROVED WITH ALTERNATIVE 1 (AGENDA ITEM III-D) #1 (0290) through (0467) Bill Molnar, Senior Planner of the Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that 92-PA-09 deals with the Urban Service Boundary required a number of years ago by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) ; that Alternative 1 was approved by the City Commission on May 26, 1992. Mr. Molnar continued that the DCA had the following two comments: The Future Land Use Map 27 was unclear in that the "Urban Service Area" was that area inside the "Urban Service Boundary" and to rectify that, Staff revised the text by adding "Urban Service Boundary Area" as well as changing it on the map. That in reviewing petitions for annexation, the boundary was "unclear as to the City's intentions for development on Barrier Islands." Since any increase in densities/intensities requires a Plan Amendment and the barrier islands are already developed, this comment was not considered applicable and was not addressed. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and . the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Atkins asked which map enhanced the City's position with regard to justifying its existence as a city. Mr. Molnar stated that he feels Alternative 1 makes it easier for the City to look at different annexation scenarios. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the National Estuary Program wishes to examine the ability of the City to handle some waste water treatment from the broader area of Alternative 1 which may be in the City's interest; and that he feels a broader service area would be appropriate. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment Book 34 Page 8811 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8812 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. 92-PA-09 Alternative 1. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2-PA-OB-VOLUNTARZ ANNEXATION POLICIES = NOT ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-E) #1 (0468) through (0668) Bill Molnar, Senior Planner of the Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and explained that 92-PA-08 is being revised as it deals with the Comprehensive Plan as well as ordinances; that the City Commission had approved the proposed changes on May 26, 1992; that on October 21, 1992 the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency voted to recommend adoption of revised Policy 1.5 language as requested by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and presented by Staff. Mr. Molnar stated that the DCA voiced an objection that "proposed Future Land Use Policy 1.5 is inconsistent with state law regarding planning for annexed areas because it is unclear that any change in density or intensity would require a Plan Amendment" and that Florida Statute "provides that an annexed area remains subject to county land use regulations until rezoned to comply with the City's plan..." Mr. Molnar stated that Staff revised Future Land Use Policy 1.5 to comply with state law as recommended by the DCA and decided to deal with a lot of the annexation policies with ordinances, but go along with the state laws until then. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language in the revised Policy 1.5 deletes a lot of detail and what is left is the DCA recommended language which is merely a statement of state law; that he feels the City should drop this policy and follow the state law itself. City Manager Sollenberger stated that administratively he agrees with the City Attorney. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. Karen Brodeen, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, representing the Department of Community Affairs, came before the Commission and stated that she agrees with the approach advocated by Senior Planner Molnar and the City Attorney; that the DCA's objection was limited to the conflict with the Annexation State Statute 171; that the DCA cannot object if the City handles this matter with an ordinance apart from a Comprehensive Plan Amendment ordinance; that DCA feels a developer or land owner would want assurance that a rezoning would not be challenged and taken to Circuit Court because the City used a City rezoning before the Comprehensive Plan was amended. There was no one else to speak and the public hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Pillot asked whether the proposed revised language in Policy 1.5 was needed. Attorney Taylor stated that it was not needed and he feels 92-PA-08 should be denied. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved not to adopt 92-PA-08. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: FUTURE ANNEXATION POLICIES = DIRECTED STAFF TO DEVELOP AN APPROACH FOR EVALVATING FUTURE ANNEXATION POSSIBILITIES, TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHICH WOULD BENEFIT FROM BEING PART OF THE CITY, AND PLAN LAND USES FOR LAND NOT YET IN THE CITY (AGENDA ITEM III-E) #1 (0675) through (1395) Bill Molnar, Senior Planner of the Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency at its special meeting of October 21, 1992, recommended that the City Commission direct Staff to develop an approach for evaluating future annexation possibilities, to identify areas which would benefit from being part of the City, and to identify methods to evaluate and plan land uses for land not yet in the City. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to direct Staff to develop an approach for evaluating future annexation possibilities, to identify areas which would benefit from being part of the City, and plan land uses for land not yet in the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would not support a complex policy that would involve expenditures the original annexation study produced; that she hopes it is a noncomprehensive effort at this point in time that is careful in its choice of areas to study. Mr. Molnar stated that the Planning and Development Department has conducted a study of the Pinecraft area because the area approached the City and asked for such a study to be done for them; that the cost of conducting the study was minimal. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would not support the motion because he does not want to see Staff time spent on something that he considers to be a fruitless enterprise; that he wished the City had the ability to annex areas that need assistance. Book 34 Page 8813 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8814 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City is already providing water and sewer to some areas not paying City taxes and she feels a deadline should be given to those areas on annexing into the City; and that she hopes setting such a deadline is in the Planning and Development's plan. Mr. Molnar stated that that issue is on their agenda as well as a number of other annexation policies that will be brought to the Commission in December. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. Ron Annis, 1934 Datura Street, representing the Planning Board /Local Planning Agency, came before the Commission and stated that the Planning Board made its recommendation to not only determine what areas might be interested in annexation, but to develop a policy underlying how annexations are approached; that he feels the City did not expand its urban boundaries when it should have years ago. There was no one else to speak and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the real solution is not to continue annexation today because it will be on a small scale; that the real solution is consolidation. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he feels the City needs an annexation policy; however, the policy should state that the City is not going to do studies where people have not asked to have studies conducted. Mayor Gurney stated that perhaps the City policy should state that if a majority of people in a given area request annexation, it would be considered. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to Call the Question. Motion carried unanimously: (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the original motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: SARASOTA CITY PLAN WORK PROGRAM = ADOPTED THE WORK PROGRAM AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND THE AMENDMENT OF THE DATE OF COMPLETION TO THE UPDATE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO THE SUMMER OF 1995 (AGENDA ITEM III-F) #1 (1400) through (2080) Sherry Plaster, Chief Planner of the Planning and Development Department, and Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, came before the Commission. Ms. Plaster stated that there is some concern as to whether the Work Plan can be totally completed within the time frame allotted; that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), the Post-redevelopment Plan, and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report are some of the major projects as well as the Vision Plan; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommends adoption of the Work Program as presented by Staff and to amend the date for completion of the Comprehensive Update of the Land Development Regulations to the summer of 1994; that she has done some research on the cost of completing the update and found that it would be between $100,000 to $200,000. Ms. Robinson stated that they would like to modify the 1994 date to 1995 after having talked to several cities and finding out that it takes more than just one year to obtain all the public input and complete the job. Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt the Work Program as presented by Staff and the amendment of the date of completion to the update of the Land Development Regulations to the summer of 1995. Ms. Robinson stated that there are problems all the time with the City's 20-year old Zoning Code; that many areas need to be reworked. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels a continuing revision of the LDRS would be best. Ms. Plaster stated that a lot of the problem is formatting since it has been amended so many times; that the Zoning Code is very, difficult to follow any more; that since the Zoning Code was done in 1974 in very legal language, there has been a national trend toward a "user friendly" format; that a good example is the San Bernardino, California Code. Ms. Robinson stated that they could bring a proposal to the Commission and show what changes could be made to the Zoning Code with the funds the City has from a $50,000 grant. city Manager Sollenberger stated that he feels the Commission wants changes to the Zoning Code done one or two at a time so that it can be more easily understood rather than attempt to change it all at once. Commissioner Patterson stated that she does not object to having the Zoning Code rewritten all at once as long as Staff assures the Commission that the policies were not changed but only put in language that is clearer; however, if changes to land use are also going to be made, she would want them done one at a time. Mayor Gurney stated that he understands that the City's Zoning Code is antiquated as well as confusing and asked whether it can be Book 34 Page 8815 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8816 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. redone for $50,000 or will it cost $200,000. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he did not know the answer to that question at this time. Mayor Gurney called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 10. LARGE HOMES ON SMALL LOTS WITHIN THE CITY (WATERFRONT AND OTHER) - DIRECTED THAT WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHATEVER INPUT COMES FORTH IN THE VISION PLAN ON THIS ISSUE, IF ANY, STAFF WOULD LOOK FIRST AT HOW OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE HANDLING THIS ISSUE AND THEN LOOK AT WHAT WOULD BE REASONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO LIMIT LOT COVERAGE WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF IT IS GOING TO BECOME AN EXTENSIVE STUDY REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT FUNDING IT WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL (AGENDA ITEM III-F) #1 (2088) through (2535) Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, came before the Commission and stated that she understands some of the Commissioners have had requests for the City Staff to look into the idea of modifying City standards when large homes are built on small lots; that many of the homes built on the waterfront are large because they have had to be elevated for the flood plain. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 8:20 p.m. Ms. Robinson stated that this is a study that would take a lot of time and would require public input; that they requested addressing this issue through the Land Development Regulations process; that the Commission might consider this a priority and consulting assistance may be necessary. Commissioner Patterson stated that she hated to have the City wait potentially until as late as 1995 to address this issue because she feels it could be initially addressed under the current allowable coverage of a building; that she does not feel it would require three years to come up with a recommendation for this. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:22 p.m. Mayor Gurney stated that it would not require a consultant for Planning and Development to check with the City of Naples or the City of Vero Beach or any other Florida city as to how they are addressing this issue. Ms. Robinson stated that they could do that; however, they needed to know which projects were priority and which projects to set aside in order to address the ones that are deemed priority. Mayor Gurney asked whether Ms. Robinson needed any direction from the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that she understands the Commission wants them to check with other communities and look into it sooner rather than later. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved that within the next year, taking into consideration whatever input comes forth in the Vision Plan on this issue, if any, Staff look first at how other communities are handling this issue and then look seriously at what would be reasonable recommendations to limit lot coverage with impervious surface, with the understanding that if it is going to become an extensive study requiring significant funding it will come back to the Commission for approval. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3638, AMENDING THE COMPREMENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREKENSIVE PLAN: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE FIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 92-PA-03, 92-PA-06, 92-PA-07, 92-PA-08, AND 92-PA-09, AND A WORK PROGRAM, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (2536) through (2593) Mayor Gurney opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3638 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3638 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. 12. CITIZENS' INPUT = PLACED THE MARINA JACK PARKING ISSUE ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 16, 1992 AND ASKED THE CITY MANAGER TO ASSURE THAT NO DEMOLITION WORK WILL BEGIN UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THAT MEETING (AGENDA ITEM V) #1 (2594) through #2 (1835) Book 34 Page 8817 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8818 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Mayor Gurney requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the Citizens' Input process. Mr. Robinson replied that at this time any citizen can sign up to speak and come before the Commission to discuss any issues, with a five-minute time limit. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, came before the Commission and stated that she feels there should be procedures set in place when someone is requesting rezoning, variances, or whatever so that they are dealing with the City in good faith by producing a paid tax bill and proof that there are no code enforcement violations and fines outstanding against them. Commissioner Patterson stated that she agreed that the City should be careful and always try to deal in such a way. Lee Sullivan, #2 Marina Plaza, representing Jack Graham, Inc.. Attorney John Strickland, and Jack Graham, came before the Commission. Mr. Sullivan stated that he believes the basis for every relationship is communication; that if good communication exists there will generally be a good relationship; that in a partnership arrangement the most constructive means of maintaining a good relationship is for each party to go above and beyond the bare written legal requirements of the agreement and under the "spirit" as well as the letter of the contract. Mr. Sullivan continued that with these principles in mind, he comes to the Commission in a positive and constructive effort to resolve some apparent misunderstandings and disagreements between the City of Sarasota and its primary tenant on the bayfront, Jack Graham, Inc. Mr. Sullivan continued that he was giving each Commissioner a file that contains pertinent written correspondence between the City of Sarasota and him (on behalf of Jack Graham, Inc.) in order to communicate some historical perspective toward the entire bayfront redevelopment project; that he would like all of it to be part of the record though- time does not permit him to admit each of them orally. Mr. Sullivan stated that it is his recollection and belief that when the Commission adopted the current bayfront redevelopment plan, they did so with the provision that it would not violate the rights and obligations that exist in the lease between the City and Jack Graham, Inc.; that he specifically recalls some comments by at least one Commissioner to this effect and believes that a review of the records will confirm this; that the comments were made in reference to the parking issues and acknowledged the City's obligation to provide adequate parking to meet the public need in connection with the use of the facilities operated by Jack Graham, Inc. and its subtenants; that he feels a review of the records will also confirm that the Commissioners at one time directed the City Administration to engage a qualified parking and traffic consultant to study the parking requirements planned redevelopment in order to for the bayfront and be adequate for the determine how much activity without his bayfront, and if this was parking it would knowledge or done, was done results of such a study. participation and he has not seen the Mr. Sullivan stated that he City proceeds to demolish respectfully the requests that before the accompanying 106 marked parking north access road with its position, intentions, and consideration spaces, the City clarify its of the A following points: Assuming the City intends to honor of its lease with Jack the spirit and the letter its obligation with Graham, Inc., how does the City the basis for the City's respect to the parking issue and what define is position? - Has the City's attorney briefed legal requirements of the the Commissioners as to the would you share this City under the lease, and if position with us? so, Has the City determined the cost maintaining the open spaces and and source of funding for is being created on the landscaping that has been and aware of and do they bayfront, and are the Commissioners it is the City's acknowledge that under their lease that improvements? responsibility to maintain all of these Mr. Sullivan stated that they decision before the request the City to reconsider area commences. demolition of the north access road and its parking Vice Mayor Pillot asked whether lease with Jack the City is in violation City Attorney Graham, Inc. by demolishing the north of the Taylor stated that access road. some things that have occurred in the City has an old lease with some things that have occurred in accordance with what it says and does not really talk about; that accordance with what the lease which shows parking areas and, if there is an exhibit to the lease way it is drawn, it could be one took it literally from that is now in said that some of the the particular grass, brick, and mortar bayfront area area; however, even the marina actually is in that accordance with the document. has not developed in lease says as part of an Attorney Taylor continued that the the City is to cooperate amendment done after its inception is reasonably with the tenant to that have been necessary to accommodate the leasehold provide parking he made in granted; that that was partly the interests that order to put forward on the reason for the attempt parking situation appears to be record exactly what the left open to there; that what is "reasonable" may not be interpretation; adequate that the parking at Marina is fairness to the City's based upon a trial or test; and Jack that may or position and to that of Marina in Jack, if we Book 34 Page 8819 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8820 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. with regard to parking or to cannot agree on what is necessary of what currently exists, but reasonably meet the needs, not only would have to make a then someone with an expansion capability, litigation or arbitration. decision for us, either through that he is not in a position to say that he Attorney Taylor stated law and defend whatever the parking can go into a court of situation is complicated situation really is because the parking be there after this removal, not only by what is there, what will uses and the future uses; that and also an inventory of the present site that have never been determined it is the future uses of the that he knows of that the city has through any study or program he would advise the undertaken; that from his perspective been laid on the table, if the Commission that since the issue has concerns that some time is going to respond to the tenant's factual situation is City to determine what the city's needs to be spent has the basis to go to court and defend and whether or not the City ought to be negotiating on it. itself or whether or not the city that he does not want his vote which was Vice Mayor Pillot stated the north access road to violate the cast in favor of tearing up nor does he want it to violate letter or the spirit of the lease, concern regarding right and sense; that there is enough should do common him to say that he feels the City a wrong here to cause that that would be to wait for that which is easier to undo; reasonable period of time. Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, On motion of Vice Mayor a hold on the demolition of the it was moved that the city put time to be recommended at the first parking area for a period of for the purpose of determining the opportunity of the city Manager, in his statement. issues Mr. Sullivan raised stated that she will continue to abstain Commissioner Patterson at the Marina Jack facility from any issues involving parking Lee Sullivan and Jack because her husband's legal firm represents Graham. what the reality is Gurney asked how the City can determine Attorney Mayor short of getting a court opinion. this of its obligations, is that the City faced Taylor stated that his understanding that since when the Bayfront Park was being designed; same question involved in much of the early planning, Marina Jack had not been Marina Jack and its turnaround in terms of involving there was a with the City to determine what would be representatives in working accommodation at the site. necessary to provide a reasonable not been a part of that process; Attorney Taylor stated that he had that that process went through that he feels Mr. Sullivan is saying rejection of the that did not include an outright out to a conclusion access road would ever come (because concept that the north the but that there was a that has always been part of plan), reasonable the question as to how the Gulfstream Avenue of the pedestrian crosswalk would work as it relates to cut-through and lessee; that the gentlemen's the operations agreement) was that the City would agreement (not a written how it affected the lessee's give it a trial period and see restated that he had not been operation; however, Attorney not sure. involved in that Taylor process, so he is Commissioner Merrill stated that with reasonable level of parking, he feels regard to the issue of a City to charge for parking at the the lease also allows the Jack wants to put in an additional bayfront; that he feels if Marina need to use a pricing mechanism 150 boat slips, the City would Merrill continued that with for the parking. Commissioner feels that when Marina Jack regard to the "spirit" of the he the City to allow Marina was built, it was not the intention lease, parking lot; that he feels Jack to turn the whole bayfront into of a Bayfront Master Plan that has another been "spirit" is the "spirit" of the components was that there would be approved and one of its is completed; that a less asphalt after the major great deal of project designs that showed green, money was spent on beautiful open space. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he maximum green space at the agrees that the public wants however, his motion does not undo bayfront the and he concurs with that; north access road and increase the previous action to remove the says let's apply a little common green space; that his motion if anything, to be lost by sense since there is very good judgement of the waiting a period of time that, under little, the Commission and then find City out Manager, whether would be expressed to the the Commission was wrong. City Manager Sollenberger stated that from opposed the bayfront project; that day one Lee Sullivan concern with the restriction he opposed it because of Jack; that the Commission on parking as well as access to Marina his access road to be removed; adopted that the Master Plan with the north took the north esplanade out of based on the fact that the was a concern that there the bidding package because City complete the entire would not be enough money there that the Master Plan, Marina Jack had available to roadway would remain in the expectation another phase in the place for at least a year until removal of it and Marina project Jack came along which would allow for try to determine whether the felt that would be a time to test the and plan would be adequate; that parking he did facilities provided under the Jack felt there was a not view it as though Marina expectation; that he feels gentlemen's it did agreement, but rather an when the City determined it had come as a surprise to Marina Jack esplanade sooner than anticipated. the money to remove the north Mr. Sollenberger continued that there is debate the issue because the not much time to study and change order has been issued and the Book 34 Page 8821 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8822 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. within the next week or soi work to remove the road is set to begin road will be removed prior to is that the that the expectation the Commission might want to consider Thanksgiving; that perhaps at this time and leaving half in removing only half of the asphalt place. road is removed and it becomes Jack Graham stated that if the his business will be the apparent that parking is not sufficient, Commissions had asked him to one to suffer; that previous City that he feels any promise made to build some of the parking lots; would be removed is subordinate to a constituents that the asphalt parking. commitment made in the lease to provide adequate the lease agreement is be Attorney Strickland stated that perhaps executed in 1964; that the being overlooked; that the lease was in 1969; that he has been provision related to parking was amended resolve the respective problems; working with Attorney Taylor to has an attachment called that the provision covering parking for Marina Jack; that part of Exhibit B and it lays out the parking been taken and made into a what is shown on Exhibit B has already the understanding of Marina that when this was done, it was that the city park; done in light of the fact Jack that this was being of that particular area would would wait and see how the taking in the north end; that affect the remainder of the parking, mainly because the Marina Jack is asking for is not unreasonable to what that Marina Jack is only asking lease calls for cooperation; lot until they see what the impact delay removing the north parking is said and done, they would like to is going to be; that when all can live with. have a situation that the community that Marina Jack thought there was an Mr. Sullivan stated north access road open since the understanding to leave the to regulate parking in that Commission recently passed an ordinance area. to the stated that he has a feeling of obligation Plan that Mayor Gurney who saw the pictures of the Master thousands of people did not include either the north or was approved and those pictures not going to support the motion south access roads; that he was on what all of the people saw because he would not be compromised voted to approve a Master Plan and believed in when the Commission that included removing the asphalt. stated that he feels the Commission should look Commissioner Atkins the City is in legally. at the position to Call the Question. The motion died Commissioner Atkins moved for lack of a second. Mayor Gurney stated that he has no Mr. Taylor can come back with objection if Mr. Strickland and issue between now and next some degree of reasonableness on this Monday night. Mr. Graham stated that problem; that paragraph 26 in the lease could solve Recapture"; paragraph 26 is entitled "The this that he is going to defend the City's Right to buy it; that he resents being kicked lease or the City can job; that the City has been in around for trying to do a good states that he shall have ten feet violation of the lease because it in the basin has only three feet of water; however, some level; that the lease of water in depth at mean places tide grounds, and he has states that the City will paid to have the grounds keep up the supposed to keep the seawall in good kept; that the city is to have the seawall completed repair, and he had to help the project. when the City ran out of money pay for On motion of Commissioner Atkins and it was moved to Call the Question. second of Vice Mayor Pillot, Atkins, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, Motion carried (3 to 1): yes; Gurney, yes. Mayor hold Gurney called for the vote on the on the demolition of the motion that the City put a be recommended at the first parking area for a period of time to the purpose of determining the opportunity of the City Manager, for statement. Motion failed issues Mr. Sullivan raised in his Pillot, yes; (2 to 2): Atkins, yes; Gurney, no. Merrill, no; Mr. Sullivan stated that he had had a and Mayor Gurney in which an alternative meeting with Mr. Sollenberger resolve this issue for was discussed that might presented to perhaps the everyone; that he understands a plan was a means of having grass Engineering where the Department in which there was giving Marina Jack the to north access road is and also this might be a reasonable ability use it for parking; that he feels Jack. Mr. solution for the City as well as which has Sollenberger stated that he had Marina been designed by Design Studios discussed this approach Daughters; that he understood it West with City Engineer provide firmer traction and provided for a subbase that would automobiles; that the Engineering avoid rutting and sinking by that they feel it would be parked Department's solid problem with that is grass would not grow if that is the most of the time and the preferable to look at removing case; that it might be than the total roadway. only a portion of the roadway rather Mr. Sullivan stated that if the would be parked solid most of the Engineering Department feels it feel parking is necessary there. time, it sounds as though they Commissioner Atkins stated that if the subbase under the grass to City decided to put in a solidify the ground for parking, this Book 34 Page 8823 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8824 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. and should not be used area would be for potential overflow parking off with marine ropes until it's needed; that it could be roped something; that he feels until it is needed for special events or or at least take a to solve this problem there are opportunities look at it. stated that it might be a good idea to schedule Mr. Sollenberger on November 16. this for discussion at the regular meeting Gurney passed the gavel to On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot (Mayor Gurney, it was moved that Vice Mayor Pillot) and second of Mayor discussion at the meeting on this issue be placed on the agenda for to assure that no work November 16, 1992 and ask the city Manager until the conclusion of that meeting. will begin left the Commission Chambers at 9:35 p.m. Commissioner Patterson moved to amend the motion to delete the Commissioner Merrill of the asphalt. The motion died for reference to delay the removal lack of a second. called for the vote on the motion. Motion Vice Mayor Pillot Merrill, no; Gurney, yes; Pillot, carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; yes. Pillot returned the gavel to Mayor Gurney. Vice Mayor Commission Chambers at 9:40 Commissioner Patterson returned to the p.m. STATUS OF EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 13. REPORT RE: REOUIRED (AGENDA ITEM IV) AND PLAN UPDATE - NO ACTION #2 (1836) through (1923) Planner, came before the Commission and Sherry Plaster, Chief (EAR) is part of stated that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report on this; that it is for the Work Program and no action is required it is a sizable task that the the Commission's information; that is facing over the next two Planning and Development Department that the size of this task is years and is required by the state; with the current plan; going to depend on the degree of contentment the land use to include that there is some interest in modifying and the transportation element. the neighborhood planning program had checked with Ms. Plaster stated that the Planning Department for clarification on when of Community Affairs (DÇA) the the Department whether it can be staggered so that this report is due and it all at one time; Commission would not have to try to comprehend regarding the EAR yet, that the DCA has not created any regulations to have it all at once. but she feel that the DCA would prefer 14. OTHER MATTERS = SCHEDULED A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 23, 1992 AT 7:00 P.M. = INSTRUCTED MR. SOLLENBERGER TO ASSIGN SOMEONE TO ACT AS LIAISON WITH THE COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP THE NEWTOWN LIBRARY - INSTRUCTED STAFF TO PREPARE THE FACTUAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS AND DISTRIBUTE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY AND THEN SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH RESIDENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMISBION'S MEETING IN DECEMBER - ASKED STAFF TO CONTACT DR. CHARLES JOHNSON REGARDING HIS CONCERN WITH RUBBLE IN THE BAY NEAR HARMONY LANE (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (1926) through (2747) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: : A. stated that he would like to request that a Special Meeting of the City Commission be scheduled for a public hearing on November 23, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. on a petition by property owners and businesses on Fillmore Drive to convert it to a one-way street so that diagonal parking can be placed on it which will produce an additional 22 spaces. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there is a Special City Commission Meeting scheduled on November 30, 1992 and if the proposed ordinance is passed on November 23, it could be adopted on second reading at the November 30 meeting and the work could be completed on the first or second of December to have those additional parking spaces available for the season. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would prefer to have the meeting on November 23 held at 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to hold the meeting at 7:00 p.m. VICE MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that Commissioner Patterson and he had attended a meeting today at the Human Services Center concerning the Newtown Library; that he would like to request the Commission's endorsement of a comment he made at the meeting that the people who are interested in providing the library with space there ask Mr. Sollenberger to appoint someone to act as liaison to a committee that will be studying the details of the library. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to instruct Mr. Sollenberger to assign someone to act as liaison with the committee to develop the Newtown Library. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Gurney, yes. Book 34 Page 8825 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8826 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that with regard to the John Ringling Towers (JRT), there have been two Letters to the Editor printed recently in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune as well as one editorial written which contained information that is not completely accurate; that she feels it is important that the people know what density is already allowed at the JRT and exactly what the Commission can or cannot do in that regard; that she feels a lot of condominium residents in the area think that the Commission is adding a density to the area that already exists; that she would like to have City Staff prepare a brief paper stating what the facts are in terms of how much latitude the Commission does or does not have in terms of densities in the area of the JRT; that she would like City Staff to call a meeting of the people involved in the area to hear their input and explain what the City hopes to have occur at the JRT. Mayor Gurney stated that he feels Commissioner Patterson's suggestion is a good one; that whatever the City can do to communicate with the residents in the area will be beneficial; that he has been asked to speak at One Watergate and any facts he can present will be helpful. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would like people to receive a copy of the City's assessment of what is in place and what the City can do with regard to the JRT. Mr. Sollenberger asked whether Commissioner Patterson would like to have this information sent to the residents prior to the JRT issue coming before the Commission in December. Commissioner Patterson stated that that was correct. Mayor Gurney stated that a fact sheet that shows a diagram of the area, the zoning, and describes the density would be good. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he would ask the Planning and Development Director and the City Attorney to prepare the factual information and distribute it as soon as possible and then schedule a meeting with residents prior to the Commission's meeting in December so the City can set the record straight regarding this situation. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would like to have it be a "noticed" meeting so that the Commissioners could attend if they so wished. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he had been thinking in terms of conducting the meeting with the drop-in style that was used for the bayfront project. Commissioner Patterson stated that she feels that would not be the most positive approach to this issue because the City Staff would not have the ability to talk individually with each and every person at length on this complex issue; however, if Staff wants to hold both types of meetings, that would be fine. City Attorney Taylor stated that there is already an approved site and development plan which grandfathers a portion of this project; that last week he produced a lengthy memorandum on this point that lays out each official action that must be taken in order to accommodate this project and this might be a document that should be submitted immediately to the City Commission to give the information needed by the Commissioners. Commissioner Patterson stated that she understands there is an ordinance that was passed specifically for the JRT, relating to historic hotels, that would give any developer the right to renovate the JRT and retain its density on the land next to it. Attorney Taylor stated that would require the rooms to be strictly hotel rooms; that the Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) ordinance would not give a developer the density they would want on the site if.it had sleeping rooms; that the only way the maximum density could be achieved would be without sleeping rooms. COMMISSIONER MERRILL: A. stated that Dr. Charles Johnson had contacted him about one month ago regarding some rubble in the bay at the end of Harmony Lane and the City did not respond to his concern; that he feels the City should contact Dr. Johnson because he called today asking why City Hall had not responded to his call. Mayor Gurney stated that he had gone to the area with Dr. Johnson to look at the situation and had given Dr. Johnson's phone number to Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, Housing, and Code Enforcement. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he would see that Dr. Johnson was contacted on this issue. B. stated that the report from Design Studios West (DSW) on the 50-Year Vision Plan is scheduled for one hour at the meeting on November 30, 1992 and he feels it will probably take longer than that to present. Book 34 Page 8827 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. Book 34 Page 8828 11/09/92 7:00 P.M. 15. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VII) #2 (2748) The Special Sarasota City Commission Meeting of November 9, 1992 was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 1 - cla TA JAÇK GURNEY, MAYOR ATTEST: Ty 77 3ill.E. Rebens on BILLY EROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling Drive X CITY :: COUNTY 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: November 9, 1992 X: ELECTIVE 13 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures IO his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEÇISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CI FORM *B 10-86 PAGE 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEÇISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on November 9, 19_92 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A vote was taken to delay the removal of the North Esplanade Road at Bayfront Park. This removal was voted for by the City Commission on October 19, 1992. At that time, I also declared a conflict of interest due to the fact that my husband's law firm represents Marina Jacks, a marina and restaurant located at the Bayfront. November 10, 1992 Hora Ataen Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE 2