MINUIES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION OF FEBRUARY 7, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone, and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR 1993, IDA "HAP" MCNEELY, SENIOR CLERK, SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT #1 (0065) through (0287) John Lewis, Director of Public Safety; Julius Halas, Chief of Fire Rescue Services Bureau; and Ida Mae "Hap" McNeely came before the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that during the year, there can only be twelve Employees of the Month; that those twelve honored employees are in the upper 1% of City of Sarasota employees; that the (submitted) recommendations for Employee of the Year show that Ida Mae "Hap" McNeely is (number) one of one thousand employees). Chief Halas introduced Hap McNeely and stated that Hap has been a tremendous asset to the Fire/Rescue and Support Services Bureau in Public Safety for several years; that she strives for serving with excellence and pride; that her quality work, positive attitude, and congeniality toward the public and other employees helped her to earn the Employee of the Month award in April 1993; that those same outstanding qualities placed her out front when the votes were tallied for Employee of the Year; that Hap is a Sr. Clerk with the Support Services Bureau and maintains approximately 10,000 records and reports for the emergency, medical, and fire incidents each year; that Hap is often the first contact to the public because of her location in the lobby of Station 1, Fire Rescue Headquarters, where Director Lewis and he are located, and also serves as receptionist for the building; that Hap is a team player who works diligently at achieving the goals and objectives set by her department and the City Administration; that outside her work duties she volunteers to work on committees, problem-solving teams, Book 36 Page 10128 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10129 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. and new projects; that her colleagues find her to be a pleasure to work with and around; and that his Administrative Assistant, Judy McCloud, originally nominated Hap; Chief Halas continued that some employees are recognized for a particular accomplishment while on the job, for Hap, it's not one thing in particular, but rather the entire job that is outstanding; that serving with excellence and pride is not a requirement of the job for Hap, it's a way of life. Director Lewis read and presented the Employee of the Year certificate to Mrs. McNeely and stated that these accolades show a small percentage of the pride (the Public Safety Bureau) has in Hap's performance and the affection they feel for her. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has known Hap for a long time and has always been impressed with her extremely positive attitude of "can do, and I'1l get it done"; that he was not surprised at her being chosen as Employee of the Year, and thought it was a natural choice. Mr. Sollenberger continued that former Fire Chief (Thomas) Fields has attended the meeting to observe the ceremonies and joins in the congratulations to Hap on achieving the Employee of the Year award. The Commission recognized Mrs. McNeely's husband Greg and father Jim Emmert in the audience. Mayor Pillot stated that it is a privilege for him to represent the entire City through the Commission, and presented Mrs. McNeely with a watch engraved Hap McNeely, Employee of the Year 1993, City of Sarasota. Mrs. McNeely stated that she wants to thank everyone involved in the nomination process as well as the selection process, and the City Administration and Commission for having such a recognition program; that she wants to thank her mom and dad for making her the person she is, and most of all, the citizens of Sarasota for being sO wonderful to serve. 2. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD, VIOLA V. DURRANCE, DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, SARASOTA MOBILE HOME PARK, WITH 10 YEARS OF SERVICE AND DAVID W. LUTZ, JR., MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST, SARASOTA MOBILE HOME PARK, WITH 10 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0287) through (0372) Viola Durrance, Data Entry Operator; David Lutz, Maintenance Specialist; and Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission. Mr. Gerkin stated that Viola Durrance has been an employee at the Sarasota Mobile Home Park for (10) years; that she has collected rent payments and has handled the complaints and service of the mobile home park with quality and a smile; that he extends his personal appreciation for her work as a City employee over the past 10 years. Mr. Gerkin read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented retirement awards to David Lutz and Viola Durrance in appreciation of their service. 3. PRESENTATION RE: : FLORIDA GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION DESIGNATING GIBSON E. MITCHELL, FINANCE DIRECTOR, AS A CERTIFIED GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER #1 (0379) through (0522) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Mitchell is one of 28 finance directors in the state of Florida who has taken an intensive set of examinations (prepared by the National Government Finance Officers Association) and achieved the (designation) of Certified Government Finance Officer; that his achievement reflects the excellence that he brings into the management of the day-to-day affairs of the City of Sarasota finances. D.R. Perkins, representing Florida Government Finance Officers Association (FGFOA) ; and Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission. Mr. Perkins stated that the (FGFOA) started in Florida in 1937 and is one of the oldest professional finance associations in the nation; that the FGFOA has over 1300 members; that Mr. Mitchell is one of 28 people in four years to become a Certified Government Finance Officer which is of the highest deem; that this accomplishment speaks highly for the City of Sarasota and how its Finance Department is run; that he understands that Mr. Mitchell has also received the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting) for the past (twelve) years. Mr. Perkins presented Mr. Mitchell with a certificate as a Certified Government Finance Officer. Mayor Pillot stated that a presentation was recently given on behalf of the City of Sarasota in New York to the bonding rating agencies, Moody and Standard and Poors; that Mr. Mitchell answered each question asked of him in a fashion that was commended by the national raters; and that he was proud to be part of and watch how the City was represented in New York by the City's Finance Director. Book 36 Page 10130 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10131 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. 4. PRESENTATION RE: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE WEBBER SEAVEY AWARD PRESENTED TO THE CPTED TASK FORCE AS SEMI- FINALIST #1 (0527) through (0725) A booklet of The Webber Seavey Award, a Summary of the Top Twenty- Five Programs was presented to the Commission as Rod Sears, and Randy Evans, representing Motorola Communications and Electronics and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Task Force members: Sherry Carter, Captain Stanley Carter, Linda Silver, and Officer Arthur Walls, came before the Commission. Mr. Sears stated that he is a Vice President with Motorola Communications and Electronics; that Motorola won the Malcolm Baldridge Award in 1988 for quality in manufacturing processes; that Motorola has been a supplier of communications to public safety (agencies) throughout the world; that Motorola got together with the IACP and created the Webber Seavey Award for quality in law enforcement; that 5 of the 23 (winners), finalists, and semi- finalists from over 300 applicants were from the state of Florida; that the sponsorship by Director of Public Safety Lewis and City Manager Sollenberger made this particular project interesting because the situation involved the Public Safety Department as well as the Planning Department. Mr. Sears presented Captain Carter with a medal for being a semi- finalist of the Webber Seavey Award and congratulated the CPTED task force members. Captain Carter stated that he is Co-Chairperson) of the task force; that he accepts the award on behalf of not only the primary members of the task force, but also the members who have joined the task force since the project was submitted: Debbie Marks, Planning Department, Alexandra Hay, Engineering Department, (Officer Pat Ledwith), and County Planner Steven Freiburg, who participates on an ad hoc basis; that the individual work effort, as well as the support of the Commission, Director Lewis, and Director Jane Robinson, make it all worthwhile; that Sherry Carter, Co- Chairperson, made a presentation this past December in Washington D.C. where the CPTED task force also received recognition from the American Institutes of Architects and the National Institute of Justice. Mayor Pillot stated that the award was an honor, and congratulated and thanked the CPTED task force. Mayor Pillot stated that he was privileged to have a very pleasant, interesting meeting today with two representatives of the City of Vladimir, Russia; that Mr. Steven Briggs, representative of the Rotary of Sarasota Bay and Mr. Carl Weinreig, Director of the YMCA, have represented the City of Sarasota and have helped the City of Vladimir establish a YMCA; that Vladimir is a city of 400,000 population, 1000 years old, and is located 180 kilometers or 100 miles northeast of Moscow; that the City of Vladimir is interested in establishing a sister-city relationship with the City of Sarasota in the hope that there could be shared commerce and tourism between the cities and beyond; that there will be a return visit from representatives in the fall, and with the approval and leadership of the Mayor at the time, perhaps the City could be represented in a visit to Vladimir. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION OF JANUARY 10, 1994 AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION OF JANUARY 18, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0819) through (0828) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Sarasota City Commission of January 10, 1994, and the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Sarasota City Commission of January 18, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 1994 - REPORT ACCEPTED; SPECIAL EXCEPTION 94-SE-1 - APPROVED SUBJECT TO PETITIONER PROVIDING EIGHT PARKING SPACES ON SITE; DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE S 15-27 TO ADDRESS DENSITY LIMITS FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES; ORDINANCE NO. 94-3765 SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0833) through (1059) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Berta Lefkovich, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency, came before the Commission. Ms. Lefkovich stated that Mr. Annis is currently the Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency; however, she was still Chair at the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's January 5, 1994, meeting and will submit the report of the following actions: A. Special Exception Petition 94-SE-1 - Special Exception to permit one additional dwelling unit in an existing seven unit apartment building in a historically designated structure; that the structure is located at 1882 5th Street in an RMF-3 Zone District. Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found Special Exception Petition 94-SE-1 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission approval. Book 36 Page 10132 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10133 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to affirm the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's recommendation to approve Special Exception 94-SE-1, subject to the petitioner providing eight (8) parking spaces on site, and direct staff to amend Section 15-27 of the Zoning Code to address density limits for historic structures. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved (to affirm the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's recommendation to approve Special Exception 94- SE-1, subject to the petitioner providing eight (8) parking spaces on site, and direct staff to amend Section 15-27 of the Zoning Code to address density limits for historic structures). Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification on amending the Zoning Code to address density limits for historic structures? City Manager Sollenberger stated that there has been some concern as to how much density can be provided for a historic structure and that approving the special exception for this structure could be precedent setting. Ms. Robinson stated that this is the first time that a special exception has been used to increase density; and that guidelines need to be developed for future requests. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there is no preconceived standard at this point. Ms. Robinson stated that is correct. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the Motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Proposed Code Amendment (Ordinance No. 94-3765) Nonconforming Use Extension extending the expiration period for non-contorming uses for an additional five (5) years. Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found proposed Ordinance No. 94-3765 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission approval. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to set (proposed Ordinance No. 94-3765) for public hearing; that the Administration will present particulars by the second reading as to how to deal with the overall issue of non- conforming uses. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (affirm the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 94-3765 extending the expiration period for non-conforming uses for an additional five (5) years and set for public hearing) Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of January 5, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD' 'S REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1994 = REPORT ACCEPTED, ; FLORIDA NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS OF THOMS HOUSE, 5030 BAY SHORE ROAD; BINZ HOUSE, 5050 BAY SHORE ROAD; DR. WALTER KENNEDY HOUSE, 1876 OAK STREET, AND CORRIGAN HOUSE, 463 SAPPHIRE DRIVE APPROVED; FUNDING FOR A BOARD AND STAFF MEMBER TO ATTEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DAY IN TALLAHASSEE ON MARCH 1-2, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (1061) through (1135) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and William Merrill, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Merrill stated that the following actions were taken at the January 11, 1994, meeting of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board: A. Florida National Register Nomination Proposals: Thoms House - 5030 Bay Shore Road Binz House - 5050 Bay Shore Road Dr. Walter Kennedy House = 1876 Oak Street Corrigan House - 463 Sapphire Drive Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board approved the nomination of these structures to the Florida National Register and directed that a letter be prepared in support. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to (approve the National Register Nominations for 5030 and 5050 Bay Shore Road, 1876 Oak Street, and 463 Sapphire Drive). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Historic Preservation Day March 1 (and 2), 1994 Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board approved recommending that the City Commission pay to send a Board and staff Book 36 Page 10134 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10135 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. member to attend Historic Preservation Day in Tallahassee, Florida, March 1st through 2nd, 1994. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval of the request. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (approve funding for a Board and Staff member to attend Historic Preservation Day, as these funds are available in the 1993-1994 approved budget). Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the Historic Preservation Board's meeting of January 11, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that it was a few minutes past 6:30 p.m. and the Commission will proceed to public hearings. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3758, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE III RELATING TO THE BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS, PROVIDING FOR LICENSING BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA OF QUALIFIED PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN CONTRACTING AND FOR THE REGULATION AND DISCIPLINING OF SUCH LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; ; PROVIDING FOR THE BOARD TO ENACT RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINARY PENALTIES UPON LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO RECOMMEND DISCIPLINE TO BE IMPOSED UPON LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR SUCH BOARD TO DENY THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO A CONTRACTOR CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AMENDING THE CITY OF SARASOTA LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE 1991 EDITION, PERTAINING TO CERTAIN CONTRACTORS TO AMEND SUCH SECTIONS TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE ; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) AND 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3759, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE IX, RELATING TO THE ELECTRICAL BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS, PROVIDING FOR LICENSING BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA OF QUALIFIED PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING AND FOR THE REGULATION AND DISCIPLINING OF SUCH LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE BOARD TO ENACT RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF SUCH DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; : PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINARY PENALTIES UPON LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS : PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO RECOMMEND DISCIPLINE TO BE IMPOSED UPON SUCH LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS - LICENSING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS, ; AMENDING THE CITY OF SARASOTA LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE 1990 EDITION, PERTAINING TO ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS TO AMEND SUCH SECTIONS TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE) ; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) AND 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3760, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE V, RELATING TO THE MECHANICAL BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS / PROVIDING FOR LICENSING BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA OF QUALIFIED PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN MECHANICAL CONTRACTING AND FOR THE REGULATION AND DISCIPLINING OF SUCH LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE BOARD TO ENACT RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINARY PENALTIES UPON LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO RECOMMEND DISCIPLINE TO BE IMPOSED UPON LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD ; PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS ; PROVIDING FOR THE BOARD TO DENY THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO A MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS : AMENDING THE CITY OF SARASOTA LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARD MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION, PERTAINING TO MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS TO AMEND SUCH SECTIONS TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; Book 36 Page 10136 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10137 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) AND 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3761, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICIE VI, RELATING TO THE PLUMBING BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS, PROVIDING FOR LICENSING BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA OF QUALIFIED PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN PLUMBING CONTRACTING AND FOR THE REGULATION AND DISCIPLINING OF SUCH LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE BOARD TO ENACT RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; ; PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINARY PENALTIES UPON LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF BOARD TO RECOMMEND DISCIPLINE TO BE IMPOSED UPON LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LOCALLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE BOARD TO DENY THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO A PLUMBING CONTRACTOR CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AMENDING THE CITY OF SARASOTA LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARD PLUMBING CODE - 1991 EDITION PERTAINING TO PLUMBING CONTRACTORS TO AMEND SUCH SECTIONS TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE OF PERMIT FEES RELATING TO HOT WATER HEATERS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE; : PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (1135) through (1484) Mayor Pillot stated that the first four public hearings appear to be similar in nature and relate to the same purpose, and asked City Manager Sollenberger if he would like to present these (ordinances at the same time) with the City as petitioner in each case? Mr. Sollenberger stated that these proposed ordinances are changes to the (Zoning) Code to conform with the changes in State law. Mayor Pillot asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if it would be appropriate to open the public hearing on all four ordinances simultaneously? Mr. Robinson responded yes. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the State is slowly tightening contractor regulations; that a law was passed that requires all cities to regulate their contractors; that the City has always regulated their local contractors; and that the City Attorney has made the necessary changes to bring the City into complete compliance with the new State law. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing on proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3758, 94-3759, 94-3760, and 94-3761 similtaneously. There was no one signed up to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3758 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3758 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3759 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3759 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3760 by title only. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 6:42 p.m. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved (to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3760 on first reading). Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3761 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3761 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 6:45 p.m. Book 36 Page 10138 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10139 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that he has been asked on occasion by citizens who view the Commission meetings at home why some of the (items) are read with a roll-call vote taken while others are not read and a voice vote is taken and asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain (why this is done). Mr. Robinson stated that (the City of Sarasota) Charter requires that an ordinance or a resolution have a roll-call vote; that ordinances are required by law to change the (Zoning) Code or City Code and require a public hearing; that the title only is read because the full body of the ordinance is posted on the bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall; that if the title is not posted three days in advance of the meeting, the entire body of the ordinance or resolution is required to be read. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3768, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM CG ZONE DISTRICT, SARASOTA COUNTY ZONING, TO CI ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING, ON REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND OF APPROXIMATELY 100 FOOT FRONTAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BEE RIDGE ROAD LYING JUST EAST OF SCHOOL AVENUE, SAID PARCEL IS KNOWN AS THE SPARKIE CAR WASH WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 2215 BEE RIDGE ROAD : MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CO-01, RON & GLORIA MARVIN): - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #1 (1487) through (1556) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance is a petition to rezone a parcel of land located at 2215 Bee Ridge Road from CG Zone District, Sarasota County Zoning, to CI Zone District, City of Sarasota Zoning; that the property was annexed into the City (on April 19, 1993); that the property is currently used for a car wash; that the CG Zone District, City of Sarasota Zoning, does not allow car washes; however, the CI Zone District does; and that all the appropriate departments have signed off on this petition. Mayor Pillot asked if the City was the petitioner or if the owners were interested in presenting? Ms. Robinson stated that the owner is present, but would like the City to present the petition. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3768 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved (to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3768 on first reading) Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3778, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1882 FIFTH STREET, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE (SPIEGEL) APARTMENTS, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-08, COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #1 (1563) through (1637) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Lori Muldowney, the representative from the County who now reviews the City's historic designations, is present and available for any questions by the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that this proposed ordinance provides for the designation of the Indiana Apartments, located at 1882 Fifth Street, as a structure of historic significance; that this designation is connected with the special exception that was formally heard earlier in the meeting; that the Historic Preservation Board, at its meeting dated December 14, 1993, recommended approval (3-0, 1 abstained); that Member Town abstained from voting because he is involved in the design of the concept plan. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he has been informed that the apartments should be called the Spiegel Apartments instead of the Indiana Apartments and will read the title as such. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3778 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved (to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3778 on first reading). Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3781, AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF "AVERAGE COMPENSATION" AND "SALARY" IN SECTION 24-21 OF THE CITY CODE TO EXCLUDE LUMP SUM PAYMENTS OF ACCRUED LEAVE UNLESS PAID AS PART OF A UNIFORM POLICY; AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF "FIREFIGHTER" AUTHORIZING ELIGIBLE ROLLOVER DISTRIBUTION; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE Book 36 Page 10140 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10141 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-7) #1 (1638) through (1710) Fire Pension Board of Trustees Chairman David Stershic was unable to attend the meeting, and Mayor Pillot stated that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, who is also Secretary/ (Treasurer) on the Fire Pension Board, will present this item. Mr. Robinson stated that the proposed ordinance does the following three things: (1) Makes the definition of "firefighter" consistent with the definition of Public Safety, (2) Allows eligible roll-over distributions to be made directly to another Trustee, as required by law, and (3) Changes the definition of "average compensation" and "salary" to exclude lump-sum benefits in the pension computation. Mayor Pillot stated that this (ordinance) is the same as what was recently approved for the Police Pension Board. Mr. Robinson stated that is correct. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3781 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved (to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3781 on first reading) . Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3784, PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RSF-3 ZONE DISTRICT TO OPB ZONE DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, L THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT 9, ALL OF LOTS 10, 11, AND 12, BLOCK C, WASHINGTON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 27, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; REQUIRING THAT A PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE SUBMITTED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING THE CONTINUATION OF THE EXISTING ZONING; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 87-CO-02, RUBIN) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH THE STIPULATION THAT BEFORE SECOND READING A DISCUSSION BE TWEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE f ATTORNEY SMITH ADMINISTRATION, AND CITY STAFF TO DETERMINE ADDITIONAL TIME CONSTRAINTS SO THAT WHEN THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE A TERMINATION DATE AND NOT BE OPEN-ENDED (AGENDA ITEM IV-8) #1 (1710) through (2570) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the representative of the owner is present at the meeting. Attorney Richard Smith, representing the petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that Mrs. Ferne Rubin is the owner of the property in question; that the record already contains the reasons for the extension request; and that he had two points for clarification. Attorney Smith stated that the first matter of clarification is that in the title of the ordinance the zoning is extended for a period of twelve months and requires that a preliminary site and development plan be submitted for the subject property within twelve months of the effective date of the ordinance; that (this title) was in accordance with the Administration's recommendation, supported by the petitioner, and approved by (the City Commission); however, the language in the body of the ordinance departs from that approach by requiring the following as stated on the top of page 3: obtain approval thereof from the City Commission, and make application for and obtain a building permit pertaining to development of the property described herein no later than twelve (12) months from the effective date of this ordinance. Attorney Smith stated that this requirement adds a considerable number of requirements beyond the submission of the preliminary site and development plan; that these requirements put Mrs. Rubin in a more onerous time period from the standpoint of selling the property; that he requests that Staff review the Administration's recommendation which was intended, as the title indicates, to provide a requirement for a new site and development plan to be submitted within the twelve month period. Mayor Pillot asked Attorney Smith if he was specifically asking for the body of the ordinance to which he referred to be changed to contain a requirement for the submission of the site and development plan within the twelve months, but (to exclude) the other parts? Attorney Smith stated that was correct. Attorney Smith stated that there would be no objection (by the petitioner) to the Staff inserting additional time requirements Book 36 Page 10142 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10143 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. beyond (the twelve months) for the issuance of building permits, and for the approval of the site and development plan; that he feels the intention (of the Administration) was to give Mrs. Rubin the opportunity to have twelve months to obtain a buyer and submit the site and development plan; and that the (site and development) process is extensive. Mayor Pillot asked Attorney Smith if the petitioner would agree to the twelve month requirement for the submission of the plan, and obtaining the approval thereof and applying for and obtaining the building permit subsequent to the twelve month period. Attorney Smith responded yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that he agrees with Attorney Smith; that the title of the ordinance gives the impression that there is a twelve month window of opportunity, and yet the body basically states that in order to keep a site plan alive and retain the conditional rezoning, the site plan must be approved and a building permit must be obtained (within the twelve months); that he doesn't know if there is any particular restriction in the (City's) ordinances applicable to this which would prevent doing what is being requested; that since this petition has been around for approximately five years, the ordinance is on the books, sO there is some finality in these processesi that he would suggest that between first and second reading a discussion be held between (the City Attorney's office), Attorney Smith, Administration, and Staff to determine additional time constraints sO that when the site plan is submitted, (the additional requirements) will have a termination date and not be left open-ended. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he agrees with the City Attorney's suggestion. Attorney Smith stated that he also agreed. Mayor Pillot stated that there is no need for the Commission to change the language in the ordinance tonight at the table; however, (if the ordinance is passed on first reading) there is the understanding that discussion will be held between first and second reading (between the mentioned parties) to determine mutually suitable language. Attorney Smith referred to Section 2 (a) of the ordinance and stated that his second point is a matter which he has raised with members of the City Staff in connection with reviewing how the property should be developed to meet the zoning requirements of the City; that the first condition has been carried forward since 1987 and appropriately limits the property to low intensity professional office uses; however, he has discussed alternative language (of the remaining approach) with the City Attorney's office; that he believes the City Attorney's office has conferred with members of the Staff because the language has been modified; that he has also suggested using language that states "and similar low intensity office professional uses which generate the same or fewer p.m. peak hour trips as the office professional uses specifically listed herein as determined by the fifth additional or later of the Institute of Traffic Engineer (ITE) trip generation manual"; that the advantage of this language is that it provides the City Administration with an intelligible, quantifiable standard for low intensity uses; that from a legal standpoint, the City Attorney would agree that following the Snyder decision, by which these zoning matters are quasi-judicial in nature, the courts are looking for quantifiable, measurable approaches toward defining land use; that whether a list contains six, seven, eight, or twelve items is arbitrary in terms of listing only certain uses when there are inevitably other uses which are of no greater intensity, which is the issue the City Commission is seeking to regulate. Attorney Smith stated that a person involved in real estate appraisal has expressed interest in his client's property; that real estate appraisal is a use which falls within the low intensity category, however, (under the stated language) an amendment to the ordinance will be required for the appraisal office to be permissible; that the language he suggests gives the staff a quantifiable measure to determine what appropriate low intensity uses are by reviewing the ITE manual; that the Staff currently uses the ITE manual to determine traffic impacts for impact fees; that the language currently contained in the ordinance is not his (suggested) criterion, but one which the City Attorney has developed in connection with discussions with Staff members; that he would like his language discussed as part of the public hearing process; that as the City Manager has stated (in the past), there are many cracks in the Zoning Code that need to be dealt with; that coming up with a standard which is quantifiable and not left up to an arbitrary determination is one modest step toward quantifying the appropriate quasi-judicial authority of the City Commission to state that only certain intensity of uses are appropriate. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would like to deal with both of the petitioner's concerns in the same manner; that he has not had the opportunity to review the issue, and he likes to have Staff input when he makes a recommendation to the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated as a point of clarification that he thought the suggestion to further define the standard actually came from Attorney Smith and was taken to the Engineering Department to determine proper language from their perspective for use as a standard; that he saw the language, himself, for the first time today; that he concurs with the City Manager; that he would like some time between first and second reading to discuss the issue with appropriate Staff. Book 36 Page 10144 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10145 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked if the (City Manager's) recommendation is acceptable to Attorney Smith if agreed to by the Commission? Attorney Smith responded yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this ordinance seems to be particular to (Mrs. Rubin's) propertyi that she assumes that this same "laundry list" of acceptable occupancies has been developed and used in zoning other properties; that the change should be across the board, and not for one particular property, if the City decides that it is appropriate to apply a trip generation criteria. Ms. Robinson stated that Vice Mayor Patterson's concern is one of the issues that will be reviewed between first and second reading; that the ITE manual seems to be an appropriate control measure for traffic; however, the Staff would not want to preclude issues, other than traffic, related to low intensity uses in a different situation. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3784 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3784 on first reading (with understandings as discussed). Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission is also requested to direct Staff to amend Section 4-10(f) (1), of the Zoning Code in order to address extending conditional rezoning of real property after the building permit has expired. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to (direct Staff to amend Section 4- 10(f) (1), of the Zoning Code in order to address extending conditional rezoning of real property after the building permit has expired) . Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission will now proceed to Consent Agendas. 16. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 = ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 AND 9 - APPROVED; ITEM 5 - DIRECTED STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PRESENTATION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH TO SEEK PUBLIC INPUT BE TTER IDENTIFICATION OF 1992 STRUCTURAL FLOODING, THE PERCENTAGE OF POLLUTANT REDUCTION INTO THE (HUDSON BAYOU) FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD PROJECT, AND TO OBTAIN MORE SPECIFIC DATA ON A TIME LINE BASED ON IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (2572) through (0170) Commissioner Merrill requested that Item 5 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an inter-local Agreement between the MPO and Member Governments to allow the Airport Authority voting privileges 2. Approval Re: Encroachment Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Bird Key Improvement Association, Inc. for the City-owned median at the entrance of Bird Key and the City-owned property adjacent to the decorative entry walls on both sides of Bird Key Drive 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the County of Sarasota, to reimburse the City of Sarasota pertaining to a W.C.I.N.D. Grant for the purchase of two four-wheel drive pick-up trucks and boating safety equipment 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Agreement between the City of Sarasota, Sarasota Sports Committee, and the Chicago White Sox for the Ed Smith Stadium Spring Training Operations parking lot. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Sarasota Bay Program and the City of Sarasota, to perform a feasibility assessment for expansion of the City's wastewater treatment service area. 7. Approval Re: Acquisition of two vacant lots in Gillespie Park located at the corner of Tenth Street and Goodrich Avenue. 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Professional Services Contract with Tank Industry Consultants, Inc., Orlando, Florida (R.F.P. #94-39), for consulting engineering services for existing elevated water storage tanks. 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement with David W. Johnston Associates, Inc. (R.F.P. #93-33), Book 36 Page 10146 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10147 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. for renewal of landscape architectural services for an additional one (1) year period. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill; yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. Approval Re: Authorize staff to move forward with the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan presentation to the public, scheduled for March 1994. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is concerned with what can realistically be expected from presenting the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan at public meetings; that by setting this out for public meetings, citizens will assume that it has a stamp of approval; that he feels much of the data in the master plan is lacking or (inaccurate); that based on the Commission's standards to set priorities, this project should move to the #1 stormwater project in the City if the Commissioners believe that 150 homes will flood under the current conditions in a 25-year storm; that he has contacted a number of people in the (Paver Park) area since the Workshop meeting on January 27, 1994, and has been told that the Euclid Canal did not get out of its banks; that the flooding that did occur was not from the canal flooding, but from the catch basins clogging upi and that expecting that the neighbors will come to the public meeting to tell what really happened (is unrealistic). Commissioner Merrill stated that the environmental aspect of the Hudson Bayou Master Plan is a very expensive project; that he is worried about where (the master plan) would fit into the City's priorities; that there is a pollution problem in Hudson Bayou, but the cause is unknown; that County Commissioner Derr had stated, " Shouldn't we find out where the point sources are coming from?" and someone said, "You can't find a point source for these kinds of pollutants." Commissioner Merrill continued that the expensive School Board project is on the upper reaches of one of the tributaries into the Hudson Bayou; that it seems logical that a lot of the pollution would come from the high level of traffic that uses U.S. 41, and the acres of parking lots are downstream from where the School Board structure to improve the water quality will be built. Commissioner Merrill Eurther stated that a letter asking, "Did you flood?" could be sent to the identified potential flood structures; that properties that flooded would certainly return the letter stating, "Yes, we did." and tell about their neighbors who flooded as well; that his concern is that there is not enough information (in the master plan); that he is concerned that sending the presentation to public meetings may give the impression that the stamp of approval has been given to this inadequate report; that the County should be asked to put something more detailed together before setting public meetings. Commissioner Atkins stated that if the information received by the Commission is what will be presented at the public meetings, he supports Commissioner Merrill's statements. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she also supports what Commissioner Merrill said regarding the lack of information presented to the Commission; and that she is also concerned that there is no real address to funding possibilities. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that it seems to her that some portion of this (master plan) will have to be addressed by the School Board (with or without the City's involvement); that the proposal including the City has the School Board contributing land; that if the School Board builds without the cooperation of the City, they will not only have to apportion some piece of land, but also apportion a sum of dollars to create mitigation for their own runoff as they build; that there is a fair dollar value associated with contributing land versus what the School Board would have to spend if they weren't working in cooperation with the City. Vice Mayor Patterson further stated that there is also a portion of the master plan that needs to be on a fast track to eliminate building a School Board stormwater retention (site) that the taxpayers will pay for which may have to be redone as part of a larger project; that the projects in the master plan (need to be prioritized and identified for fast tracking possibilities to coincide with the School Board's construction program time line). Commissioner Cardamone stated that she shares Vice Mayor Patterson's point of view on the opportunities with the School Board to handle the problems on their property; that she views the public meetings as an opportunity to obtain the data (that is lacking); that the public meetings will present an opportunity to talk to residents and determine what their problems are with the stormwater (drainage), and perhaps discover some of the (sources) of the pollutants in the Hudson Bayou. Commissioner Cardamone continued that just because a home didn't flood in a particular storm referred to as a 25-year storm, doesn't mean the home wouldn't flood in the next 25-year storm. Commissioner Cardamone further stated that while she is concerned with residents who may experience structural flooding, her primary concern is the environmental issue of the water going into Sarasota Bay; that a strong commi tment has been given to do everything possible to clean up the bayi and that this (issue) is a very important part of the north bay. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Commissioner Merrill has raised a valid point that needs to be addressed; that the submitted report shows (an area with) 150 houses susceptible to flooding, yet Book 36 Page 10148 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10149 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. that area did not have a flood problem in June of 1992 which was the strongest rain event in Sarasota within the past thirty years; that if those areas were susceptible to flooding as the computer model indicated, flooding would have been reported in those areas; that the residents of the (Paver Park) area should be contacted to determine any flooding experience. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification on what portion of the master plan "laundry list" is involved in the School Board's own necessity and has a time line attached to it? City Manager Sollenberger requested that Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, come before the Commission to address Vice Mayor Patterson's concerns. Mr. Daughters stated that it is difficult to fast track any drainage project because of the permitting procedures; that the projects within the Hudson Bayou Basin (Master Plan) presented to the Commission were not prioritized because public input, plus the input obtained during the Commission Workshop, was to be evaluated before prioritizing the projects and re-presenting them to the Commission in May. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the master plan has not been presented to the Commission as a search for public input; that it has been presented as taking a "dog and pony" show out to the citizens to tell them what (the Commission) is proposing to do, how it will be done, and how it will affect them; that a project "laundry list" of approximately $4 million has been presented to the Commission with no funding plan or any idea whether the citizenry will be willing to fund the projects, especially those citizens who will not benefit from the improvements; that the overall feeling of the Commission seems to be that the master plan isn't quite ready to be presented to the public. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he thinks that (the stormwater drainage) is an integral part of the Interlocal Agreement entered into by the City with the School (Board) and the County with respect to planning the improvements for the Sarasota High School campus, which creates a sense of urgency; that specific desires of the Commission on the outcome of the public meetings would be wise and can be conveyed by Staff to the County drainage utility. Mr. Sollenberger continued that there is no guaranteed source of funding; however, since this matter encompasses an area broader than the City, extending into the County, there may be a broader source of utility funding (available). Mr. Sollenberger further stated that another major drainage issue, Whitaker Bayou, will be brought to the Commission; that the planning and surveying work will be undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but funding requirements will also be necessary; that the Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) which has been authorized for ten years could be a potential source of funding in addition to other funding; that L.O.S.T. funding (for stormwater drainage) depends upon the Commission presiding at the time and upon a re-enactment referendum to extend the L.O.S.T. funding for an additional five years; that he feels that the concerns raised by the Commission can be addressed and that the public meetings should be held; that the Commission should tell the Staff what kind of input they want from the public meetings. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to direct Staff to move forward with the presentation scheduled for March to seek public input, to seek better identification of 1992 structural flooding, to seek the percentage of pollutant reduction into the (Hudson Bayou) from the School Board project, and to obtain more specific data of a time line based on identified funding sources. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the School Board project is complete by itself as listed under proposed project 3-4, and if it takes care of what Sarasota High School immediately needs to accomplish? Mr. Daughters stated that the sequence of improvements in the major drainage canals need to be started at the bottom (portion of the canal); that improvements cannot be made at the top (portion of the canal) and have the water rush down to a facility that does not have adequate size to support it. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her question is which of the Hudson Bayou Proposed Projects must be done immediately to complete the obligation of the School Board? Chuck Collins, School Board Construction and Parks Department, came before the Commission and stated that he is the Construction Manager responsible for the Alta Vista (Elementary School) and Sarasota High School Master Plan; that he has not seen the "laundry list" to which Vice Mayor Patterson is referring; however, Sarasota High School's project occurring on the east side of School Avenue is scheduled to start in January 1995; that the stormwater projects for Sarasota High School and Alta Vista Elementary School include impervious conditions being reduced; that the driveways, number of buildings, and hard surface areas are being reduced; that an Interlocal Agreement has been signed to discuss stormwater, traffic, and parks and recreation; that the School Board is meeting with the County and SWFWMD on Monday to discuss the (Hudson Bayou) project; that he feels that the stormwater (drainage issue) timing will be worked out over the next month to determine how the School Board plans fit (into the overall stormwater drainage plan). . Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her answer will have to come later. Mr. Collins stated that is correct. Book 36 Page 10150 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10151 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the Motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 17. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 = ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-702) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-711) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-712) = ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-714) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3715) = ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3762) - ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3764) - ADOPTED; ITEM 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3780) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, AND -8) #2 (0172) through (0428) Commissioner Atkins requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R- 702, 94R-711, and 94R-712 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 93-3715, 94- 3762, 94-3764, and 94-3780 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-702, 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 the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-711, urging National Railroad Passenger Corporation to restore passenger railroad service to the Bradenton-Sarasota area; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-712, supporting the municipalities of Manatee County in their request for inclusion of a "Sunset" provision in the pending amendments to the Environmental Action Commission Special Act (Chapter 91-412, Laws of Florida); etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:35 p.m. 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3715, amending the Zoning Code to allow open-air dining facilities in connection with restaurants as permitted principal uses in the CSC-N, CSC-C, CSC-R, CT, COP, CBN, CN, CG, CI, CRT, C-CBD, and TAD Zone Districts, provided said facility neither abuts nor is located across an intervening street or alley from residentially zoned property; providing that open-air dining facilities are permissible by special exception in the CSC-N, CSC-C, CSC-R, CT, COP, CBN, CN, CG, CI, CRT, C-CBD, and TAD Zone Districts when said facility abuts or is across an intervening street or alley from residentially zoned property; setting forth district regulations as to the location and operation of open-air dining facilities; deleting the prohibition against heating or cooking of food or open flames at open-air dining facilities in the C-CBD and TAD zones; defining terms; making findings as to need; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3762, amending Article VIII, Division 26, of the zoning code pertaining to the district regulations for the North Trail (NT) Zone District as set forth herein; specifying the requirements for parcels as to frontage on U.S. 41, 10th Street, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, Myrtle Street, or University Parkway (f/k/a Desoto Road) in order to be eligible for rezoning to the NT Zone District; making findings as to need; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3764, amending Chapter 29.5, Site Improvements Engineering Design Criteria, by deleting therefrom Section 29.5-5, future right-of-way lines, Subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g); repealing ordinances in conflict; etc, (Title Only) Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:37 p.m. 8. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3780, granting a time extension for the filing of a final Site and Development Plan and the obtaining of a building permit pertaining to Petition 90-V for a period of two years from the automatic expiration of the approval of the preliminary Site and Development Plan; providing for the continuation of the conditional rezoning from RMF-4 to WFR-B Zone District, for a period of two (2) years measured from the automatic expiration of the preliminary Site and Development Plan approval for the following described property; that parcel of land on the west side of North Tamiami Trail opposite 12th and 13th streets, with a street address of 1201 and 1301 North Tamiami Trail as more particularly described herein; setting forth findings as to the circumstances of the automatic expiration of Petition 90-V; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 90-CO-04, Charles E. Githler, III) Book 36 Page 10152 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10153 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-714, appropriating $13,500 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to purchase nine (9) moving/stationary radar systems for the Department of Public Safety, etc. Commissloner Atkins stated that he was concerned with appropriating funds for nine moving/stationary radar systems when the Public Safety Department currently has four radar systems. John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission and stated that of the four (radar units) that the Public Safety Department currently has, two are no longer repairable, and the certification on the other two (radar units) expires as of February 1994; that when the certification expires, the units will no longer be allowed to be used as radar guns in the State of Florida; that this will leave the Patrol Division with no speed measuring devices. Director Lewis continued that funds are being requested from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF) to purchase nine radar units to be mounted on the (police) vehicles; that the nine radar units will replace the four existing hand held units, and increase the effectiveness of traffic enforcement throughout the City; that these radar systems can be used either stationary or as a moving vehicle on patrol; that since the radar systems will be mounted on the patrol vehicles, there will be times when the cars are in for service; that purchasing nine units, ensures that three or four units will be available for traffic enforcement each day. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is not sure that nine radar guns are necessary; that the citizens should be notified that nine radar guns will be used to enforce speed limits so that they can adjust their deviant behavior. Commissioner Cardamone asked how many vehicles are used for traffic enforcement? Director Lewis stated that the use of the radar (units) will be expanded from the traffic (division) to the patrol (division); that the four (radar units) being replaced are from the patrol division. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R- 714 in entirety. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Resolution No. 94R-714. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 18. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (0428) through (0428) There were no scheduled presentations. 19. CITIZENS . INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0430) through (0430) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated there was no one signed up to speak. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: ELECTORAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS - PLACE A REFERENDUM ON THE (SEPTEMBER) BALLOT TO PROVIDE FOR DETERMINING AT-LARGE SEATS BY MAJORITY VOTE; PLACE A REFERENDUM ON THE (SEPTEMBER) BALLOT TO PROVIDE FOR DETERMINING DISTRICT SEATS BY MAJORITY VOTE (AGENDA ITEM VII- 1) #2 (0437) through (2166) City Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney Fournier was asked to make this analysis because he was the City's chief legal counsel when (the Electoral System) was mitigated in the mid 80s and is still active in this type of litigation representing other governmental entities in the State. Robert M. Fournier, Esquire, came before the Commission and stated that he will not attempt to go into any great detail as to the basis of the conclusions stated in the report (on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) because the Commission has had the report for several weeks; that he was asked to review three possible modifications to the City's current electoral structure and to assess the probable result of a legal challenge to any one, or all, of these modifications in combination; that he did not attempt to do a complete legal analysis of the matter nor did he intend for this report to be a brief in support of, or in opposition, to any one of the particular, potential modifications; that the three items he was asked to address are as follows: 1. Review the elimination of districts - to provide a system as existed prior to 1985 with five at-large seats; 2. Review the restoration of the numbered seat requirement Candidates for the two at-large seats would be Book 36 Page 10154 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10155 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. required to specify which of the two seats up for re- election for which they choose to run, and the voters would be allowed to vote for one single candidate for each specifically numbered seat; and 3. Review the restoration of the majority vote requirement 508 plus one vote would be required in order to get elected to office. Currently there is a plurality system wherein the percentage of the vote required is not known to the candidate. Attorney Fournier stated that the majority vote requirement has two sub-parts: the majority vote requirement in the context of the two at-large seats and the majority vote requirement in the context of the three district seats; that different legal issues are presented by those two different subjects; that the district court entered a supplemental order in 1985 wherein the court formally relinquished jurisdiction over the case; therefore, in the event of making any changes there is no need to seek the court's approval to do sO. Attorney Fournier stated that the answers to the posed questions are inherently speculative; that he feels that answers can be speculated based on nine years of information on the electoral system currently in place; that political scientists look at patterns from past elections to try to predict the results of future elections; that this would serve as the evidentiary basis for the court's conclusions in any basis, sO he tried to look at the patterns that have occurred in the elections over the past nine years in forming his conclusions; that a challenge to any of these modifications, if it were to come, would be brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which guarantees two things to minority voters protected by the Act: (1) an equal opportunity to participate in the political process, and distinct from that, (2) an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Attorney Fournier stated that to summarize his conclusions he felt that District 1, which was created in 1985, has proven to offer African/American voters in the City of Sarasota an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice; therefore, the districts should be retained; that with regard to the numbered seat feature, and the majority vote feature, he concluded in the report that it would be easier to defend the implementation of a majority vote requirement in the context of the two at-large seats and let the numbered seat feature remain absent from the system for the present time; however, he modifies that conclusion slightly by stating that it would be easier to restore one or the other of those two features in the context of the at-large seats, but not both; that doing both together would make both harder to defend in the event they were challenged. Attorney Fournier stated that different issues are presented regarding the majority vote requirement in the context of the three district seats; that while majority vote requirements are normally thought to work to the disadvantage of a politically cohesive minority; that African/Americans are a minority of the voting-age population in District 1 and a minority of the registered voters; that the turn out of the African/American voters in the district is high enough sO that the majority of the people going to the polls on election day in District 1 are African/Americans; and that would have to be considered if the court looked at the issue of whether or not the restoration of the majority vote requirement in the context of the districts was permissible. Mayor Pillot asked if he was correct in his interpretation that the majority requirement could speculatively be sustained in both the districted and the at-large seats? Attorney Fournier stated that there are viable, credible arguments that could be made in support to restoring the majority vote requirement. Mayor Pillot asked if Attorney Fournier was also stating that any other changes in the current electoral system would probably not be sustained? Attorney Fournier stated that if the numbered seat system feature is more important to the Commission than the majority vote requirement, then (the numbered seat) feature of the electoral system may be able to be restored; however, in that event, he would not recommend restoring the majority vote feature. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Attorney Fournier is making a statement that the Commission not pursue a majority vote requirement for the districted seats? Attorney Fournier stated that he feels pursuing a majority vote requirement for the districted. seats is more problematic than the restoration of the majority vote requirement in the context of the at-large seats; that he thinks there are arguments which could be made either way; that there are definitely very viable arguments based on the election day majority of African/American voters in the district; however, plurality voting is generally perceived as beneficial to a politically cohesive minority, and African/Americans remain a minority in District 1, which would be the obstacle to overcome if majority voting was to be restored in the districts. Mayor Pillot quoted from page 13 of Attorney Fournier's report as follows: Book 36 Page 10156 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10157 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. a credible argument can be made that imposition of the majority vote requirement in the district elections would not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Attorney Fournier stated he stands by that statement. Commissioner Atkins stated that the report indicates the percentage of African/Americans in District 1 has declined since the 1985 court decree; and asked if there is the potential to raise those percentages in order to increase the chances for African/Americans to be elected? Attorney Fournier stated that he was surprised at the percentage drop; that he thought the opposite would have occurred demographically; that the percentage of whites among the voting-age population has also declined; that the decline is due to a corresponding rise in representation of other races, primarily Hispanics; that evidence was presented in the 1984 trial indicating the AFrican/American population was dispersing geographically; that the City's African/American population is still overwhelmingly in District 1; that (the African/American population) has increased but decreased in terms of percentage (of voters); that increasing voter registration rates will strengthen the political influence (of minority groups). Commissioner Atkins stated that he remembers the court case and the trial (in 1984); that the judge's decision put together (the electorial compromises of the current system) and each piece was critical to assure an opportunity for African/Americans to be elected in the City of Sarasota. Commissioner Atkins asked Attorney Fournier if he had considered whether weakening any point in the court decree would make (the possibility of electing an African/American) less likely not only in the District 1 but also the at-large seats? Commissioner Atkins stated that (the changes to the electoral system were also made to enhance the ability) of an African/American to be elected as an at-large City Commissioner. Attorney Fournier stated that, for clarification, the components of the current system were developed by the City prior to the trial in 1984 (not the judge); that the City Commission at the time faced the prospect of either defending the at-large system or searching for a compromise; that the Commission was advised by legal counsel to incorporate a 3/2 mixed system which could be successfully implemented and demonstrated to the court as complying with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act; that it was not known whether the opportunity for African/Americans to elect a representative would be in District 1 or the at-large elections because the voter turn out under the new system was unknown; however, the results over the last nine years have shown that the opportunity to elect a representative of choice is in District 1 rather than in the at-large seats. Commissioner Atkins asked Attorney Fournier if he has seen any city or community in the last nine years which had a compromise electorial system revert back to something closer to an at-large system. Attorney Fournier stated that he is not familiar with any. situation exactly like this where similar changes were made; that if the City were to reimpose the majority vote requirement, the question would be: "Would the imposition of a majority vote requirement in the context of the at-large seats operate to deprive minority voters of an equal opportunity to either elect representatives or to participate?" Attorney Fournier stated that he thinks the question can be answered in the negative. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is philosophically concerned about electing Commissioners without a majority vote; that (majority voting) is part of the American way of life and the democratic process; and that she does not think majority voting would interfere with the ability of District 1 to elect an African/American, nor should it interfere with electing an African/American at large. Mayor Pillot summarized as follows: 1. the Commission is not asking to change the three district/two at-large seat election process; and 2. the Commission is not asking for numbered seats in the at-large (election). Commissioner Cardamone stated that she still has a vested interest in numbered seats in the at-large (election). Mayor Pillot stated he also shares an interest in numbered seats in the at-large (election) ; however, he is not sure he can vote for it. Mayor Pillot continued summarizing the issues before the Commission: 3. to amend the election process to assure the two at-large Commissioners are elected by majority vote; and 4. to consider if the three districted Commissioners should be elected by majority vote. Book 36 Page 10158 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10159 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked Attorney Fournier if his summary is accurate? Attorney Fournier responded yes. Commissioner Atkins stated that to set a regressive standard in the voting process would not be positive for the City of Sarasota; that the components of the court decree were developed because the former system disenfranchised African/Americans and members of other minority groups; that the Commission should be extremely careful; that the City paid for the process once and has a history of not winning; and that this direction is very unproductive because it is trying to reverse Federal Court decisions relating to the Voting Rights Act. Commissioner Merrill stated that it is critical to the credibility of the government that at least the majority of those elected are elected by a voting majority; that his concern relates to the election prior the last (at-large) election when many candidates ran; that Gene Pillot got the most votes, which was less than a majority at 46% of the vote; that it is critical to have a candidate who represents a geographical area elected by majority vote. Attorney Fournier stated that under the current system three at- large elections have occurred: in 1985, 1989, and 1993; that all at-large Commissioners elected in 1985 and 1993 were elected by a voting majority, i.e., the majority of voters cast one of their two votes for the Commissioner elected; that for the at-large seats, the majority of voters and not the majority of votes cast is the basis for the majority voting; that everyone has two votes and, therefore, a meaningless number is obtained if a percentage of votes cast is used. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is a majority rule person; that she would like to change both the districts and the at-large seats to the majority vote candidate wins, not a plurality vote wins as currently exists; that there is, however, a limit to City resources she is willing to spend to change a system that appears to be working well; that the current Commission appears to be balanced in its votes; that she does not perceive a reason to change what is in place; that she would like to see majority voting for the at-large seats, and, (if recommended by Attorney Fournier), would vote the same for district seats, but has no strong feelings one way or another; that the time has passed when it can be assumed that a minority candidate will receive only the votes of minority voters; and that she does not want to involve the City in a lawsuit costing a lot of money and resulting in a loss. Commissioner Atkins suggested that the Commission should adopt five single-member districts with plurality vote and not worry about the majority of votes in the City; that majority voting only works in presidential elections and gubernatorial and senatorial races; that voting is for district representatives at all other times, such as State and Federal Legislative seats; and that representative majority voting is not a reality. Commissioner Merrill stated that the approach suggested by Commissioner Atkins is similar to (Sarasota) County's; that the problem with that approach is that if five people represent different districts, without an overseeing board, fighting occurs among themselves; that he likes the City's electorial system which allows every voter to vote for three Commissioners, which is the majority of the Commission; that, therefore, voters feel they can affect the outcome of any issue; and that he strongly supports keeping the current system rather than going to a five-district system. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the at-large Commissioners represent the entire welfare of the City rather than a specific district; that it is good to have (the citizens of) each district represented by three people. City Attorney Taylor stated that there was a very penal side to changing the election system when the City's case went to court; that attorneys for the City felt that the playing surface was not totally level; that he is not saying it should have been; that the court considered past practices and determined that single-member district seats were necessary to correct past shortcomings of the community; that Attorney Fournier and himself felt that a 3/2 system was at least a small victory for the majority of the Commissioners (in 1984) who wanted to retain at-large seats. City Attorney Taylor asked Attorney Fournier if, in today's environment, the courts are still looking at the same set of historical events to determine whether it is necessary to utilize a plurality system in single-member districts or has there been a change in the courts' emphasis? Attorney Fournier stated that some changes have occurred in the law; that different threshold requirements must be satisfied before a minority group can bring a challenge; that the legal standard applied is the "totality of the circumstances" test; that it results as a practical matter in a very broad scope of what is considered admissible or relevant evidence; that it involves what the courts refer to a "searching practical evaluation of past and present reality in the community"; that the wide scope of evidence considered relevant allows these cases to take on a life of their own and last forever. Mayor Pillot asked City Attorney Taylor if (a change in the electorial process) must go before the electorate for approval of a charter amendment. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Book 36 Page 10160 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10161 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. There was a consensus of the Commission to vote on each issue separately. On a motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to place a referendum on the ballot to provide for determining at-large seats by majority vote. Mayor Pillot repeated the motion and stated that the Commission will take the action necessary to place on the ballot a charter amendment requiring majority vote for the at-large seats; and that the effect on the electoral process would be communicated to voters at the time of the vote on the charter amendment. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On a motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to place a referendum on the ballot to determine the district seats by majority vote. Mayor Pillot repeated the motion and stated that the same process previously indicated would be followed to place on the ballot the question of determining the three districted seats. Commissioner Merrill stated that, although he thinks this is an excellent idea and philosophically agrees with it, the legal advice is that (a majority voting requirement for both the districted and at-large seats) may be too much; that, therefore, he will vote no. Mayor Pillot stated that page 12 of Attorney Fournier's report addresses the vote already taken; that following a very clear and understandable discussion on page 13 of the report, Attorney Fournier states that: Perhaps it would be prudent to wait until further electorial and demographic evidence is available before attempting to restore the majority vote requirement in elections within the three districts. However, based on the above (discussion), a credible argument can be made that imposition of the majority vote requirement in the district elections would not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Mayor Pillot stated that this (section of the report) applies to the current motion. Attorney Fournier stated that he stands by (the report); that credible arguments can be made, but the arguments are more problematic than those for implementing or restoring the majority vote requirement for the at-large seats. Commissioner Cardamone asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if the (City) Charter requires a specific number of votes by the Commission to place an issue on (the ballot). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an ordinance will have to be developed and set for public hearing; and that three votes are required to adopt an ordinance. Commissioner Merrill asked Attorney Fournier the downside of the Commission's voting for the majority (voting requirement) in the three district seats? Attorney Fournier stated that if (the majority requirement) is not challenged there is no problem; that this discussion is in the event of a (legal) challenge; that while there are credible arguments based on the high African/American turn out, there is less certainty that the majority vote requirement in the districts would be approved as conforming to the requirements of Section 2 (of the Voting Rights Act); that in terms of the degrees of certainty, a majority vote requirement in the districts is less likely (to be approved by the court) than for the at-large seats simply because African/Americans remain a minority of the voting age population in District 1. Commissioner Atkins stated that he appreciates Attorney Fournier's compliments of the turn out of African/American voters as it relates to the basis of his argument to disenfranchise the African/Americans; that Attorney Fournier's position is one of the worst possible; that the Commission has been presented with the opinion of only one attorney; that the Commission is treading on "thin ice" by considering to change the 1985 Federal Court decree. Mayor Pillot stated that while the conçern of defending an action is clearly valid, he will now and always cast his vote based on his best conviction of what is right and never out of fear of a lawsuit. Attorney Fournier stated that the comments made in the report or verbally tonight regarding the African/American voter turn out in District 1 were not intended to be complimentary nor were they intended to be derogatory in any sense; that the comments are simply factual; that the numbers exist in the record and are evidence to be used. Mayor Pillot repeated the motion as to instruct the Administration to prepare the necessary process to put before the voters a charter amendment to require the three districted seats to be elected by majority vote. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the Motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 36 Page 10162 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10163 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked for Attorney Fournier's recommendation on the issue of numbered seats? Attorney Fournier stated that he does not recommend restoring the numbered seat requirement because it has been found (by the courts) to inhibit the equal opportunity of minority voters to participate; that minority participation is enhanced by the absence of the numbered seat requirement primarily due to the ability of minority voters, or anyone else, to single-shot vote which is the ability to cast only one of the permissible two ballots; that another reason that the federal courts look with favor on the absence of numbered seat requirements is that those election contests do not pit a white candidate against a black candidate; that, theoretically, this will down play racial considerations in election campaigns; that testimony can be obtained from political scientists to that effect; that political scientists will state that, in the absence of a numbered seat requirement, there is greater uncertainty among the candidates about the probable basis of their support and this then maximizes the candidates incentive to appeal to all segments of the electorate in order to maximize their chances of getting elected; that this operates to encourage the minority voters to participate in the system; and that these are the reasons why he did not recommend restoring the numbered seat requirement. Commissioner Cardamone asked if he had an opinion on a strategy that could be used by minorities in targeting an assigned seat in a campaign election? Attorney Fournier stated that he did not, other than to single-shot vote which would result in a block of votes difficult for any candidate to ignore. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her idea of supporting the majority vote requirement originally was because the (1989) campaign had 11 candidates; that interviews and discussions were limited to a brief introduction and there were no real issues that people could debate; that in the (1993) election there were only six candidates and it was easier for the public to get a feeling for what the candidates were supporting, but there was no head-on competition; that her bringing (the numbered seat requirement) to the table was from a competition perspective to enable the candidates to have a specific opponent. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the material in front of the Commission as well as the presentation given tonight reflects that adopt both a majority vote and a number seat requirement would make the Commission vulnerable in the event of litigation; therefore, she can't support the numbered seat requirement. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if (the referendum) will be placed on a the (ballot) during a scheduled election in an effort to limit expenses. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Supervisor of Elections has suggested placing the questions on the ballot for the September primary; that the September primary election tends to have a greater turn out than the October primary; and that there will be no room on the November ballot. Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance to be presented for Commission approval will state the ballot question. Mayor Pillot stated that there will be no motion to number the seats, and he will not pass the gavel to make that motion because it would not be supported by the Commission; however, he will go on record as believing it ought to happen. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the percentage of votes for the most recent election which were listed in the (Sarasota Herald Tribune) today are in error; that the results were based on District 1 voting only rather than the entire City. Attorney Fournier asked if the Commission intend to bifurcate the question (on the ballot) or join the issues in tandem? Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance can be prepared to present the questions on the ballot separately; however, the Commission can decide when the ordinance is brought back whether the question (on the ballot) should pertain to both of the issues or each of them separately. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ARTWORK SCHEDULE - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (2177) through (2505) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the agenda item requests Commission approval for the (text for the five historic stages); however, the language needs to be "tightened up" and will be brought back to the Commission in final form at the next (Regular Commission Meeting). Dennis Daughter, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, came before the Commission, used the overhead projector to display the Main Street Artwork schedule, and stated that information will be presented to the Commission three more times in addition to tonight's presentation. Mr. Daughters stated that the schedule has been revised slightly from what is contained in the Commission (packets); that between now and the February 22nd Commission Meeting, the wording for the Book 36 Page 10164 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10165 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. sandblasted text will be finalized; that the draft wording which has been supplied in the Commission packets will be abbreviated to fit into the allotted space; that a preliminary drawing of the sculptures and etched glass as well as a full scale (drawing) of the text will be presented at the March 7th meeting, assuming approval is given (on these items) by the Public Art Committee (PAC); that a full-scale drawing of the etched glass (and a scale model of the sculpture) will be brought to the PAC and then presented to the Commission at the April 4th meeting; that if the artwork is approved at that time, the artist will start construction of the etched glass and the sculpture; that the etched glass will be installed in early June and the installation of the sculptures will be mid-July; that the scheduled installation exceeds the deadline for the contract with H.L.S. Florida Landscaping Systems, Inc. (H.L.S.) which is still June 16th; however, because the artwork is a limited facet of the project, it will not be a problem. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she wants the drawings that will be presented to the Commission to be totally recognizable sO there is no embarrassment when the artwork is completed. Mr. Daughters stated that scaled-models of the two sculptures will be presented at the April 4th meeting. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to approve the Main Street Artwork schedule. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yesi Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated she had a question for Mr. Daughters regarding a separate subject; and asked for comments regarding the browning of leaves on a number of the black olive trees immediately after being planted along Main Street. Mr. Daughters stated that he has been told that this is a common occurrence when black olive trees are first planted; that the situation was aggravated somewhat by the cold temperature and the wind experienced subsequent to planting the trees; however, the trees are not dead and the leaves will return. 22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF HILLVIEW STREET TRAFFIC ABATEMENT (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) AND 23. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: : STATUS OF BAHIA VISTA STREET TRAFFIC ABATEMENT - PUBLIC MEETINGS TO BE HELD WITH RESIDENTS TO SEEK FURTHER OPINION ON THE PROPOSAL (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (2507) through (3772) Mayor Pillot asked for the status reports on Hillview and Bahia Vista Streets be given at one time. Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. A diagram of the Hillview Street Traffic Abatement was displayed on the overhead projector. Mr. Mohammed stated that the purpose of the presentation is to update the Commission on the Hillview Street Traffic Abatement project; that in September 1993, the Commission approved the installation of speed humps on Hillview Street between U.S. 41 and Shade Avenue; that residents affected by the installation of the speed humps were contacted; that a number of people who attended the meeting in November (regarding the Hillview Street speed humps) had stated that they had not received information regarding the speed humps, and had not been involved in the decision-making process; that notices about the six public meetings and the September public hearing had been sent to Hillview Street property owners using the tax rolls; however, many of the residents attending the November meeting did not own the property they are living on; therefore, did not receive a notice. Mr. Mohammed continued that a survey was conducted to seek the approval of the residents of Hillview Street; that 63 surveys were mailed (in the same manner as the notices), but only 24 responses were received; that 39 residents or 628 did not respond; that 178 of the responses (supported the speed humps), and 218 of the responses (did not support the speed humps); that 798 of the people that responded to the survey either did not complete it or said yes; and that experience shows when people support something they assume that it will be done whether they respond or not. Commissioner Merrill stated that the speed humps are not a controversial project; that (more than 178) of the residents were at the public hearings in support of the speed humps; that several of the responses received which were counted as "no" were not actually no; that they had question marks on the location of the speed humps; that several of the "no" responses were in the same handwriting; and that the controversial issue is why they are not installed. Mr. Mohammed presented the surveys to Vice Mayor Patterson for her review. Mr. Mohammed proceeded to the status of the Bahia Vista Street Traffic Abatement project and a diagram of the Bahia Vista Street traffic abatement was displayed on the overhead projector. Mr. Mohammed stated that an alternative traffic abatement proposal has been researched for Bahia Vista Street; that the neighborhood Book 36 Page 10166 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10167 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. emerged with a consensus after many meetings and agreed to (a combination of speed humps and neckouts narrowing the entrance to the street) Mayor Pillot stated that (this project) pertains to Bahia Vista Street from U.S. 41 to Orange Avenue. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the residents she has spoken with want the traffic abatement to proceed; however, the speed humps were added to the traffic abatement plan at the last neighborhood meeting; that she has attended a couple of the public meetings and feels comfortable there is major support for the neckouts, but she is not as comfortable about the speed humps; that since the proposed plan has the speed humps being installed first, and the neckouts six months later, more input from the residents should be obtained. Mr. Mohammed stated that the residents would prefer to have the neckouts installed first; that the speed humps are not their preferred means of traffic abatement; however, the residents want to have the entire traffic abatement program effective at the same time. Commissioner Merrill stated that he will vote to support the Bahia Vista traffic abatement (because the residents support doing it); however, he does not want the Commission to become overconfident and think that traffic abatement is not controversial; that neckouts installed on a street where 6000 cars travel daily will cause the cars to play "chicken"; that the City has no experience with neckouts; that they have not been tested on a less busy street, and it is not known at what point they cause massive traffic jams; that he is not an advocate of putting speed humps and four-way stop signs at every corner; that he does not know the (public) reaction to the neckouts and he thinks traffic abatement could be set back if the neckouts are installed and a head on collision occurs. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this is a valid point and has been a concern of hers; however, she feel comfortable that the neckouts will not cause a head-on collision; that Bahia Vista Street is approximately one foot narrower than most of the surrounding streets that allow on-street parking; that the length of the neckout will accomplish the same narrowness of street as the surrounding streets with cars parked on them; that the neckout will project no more than the width of a car if the street were as wide as the surrounding streets which permit on-street parking; that the available footage of the street (to traffic) is the same as the neighboring streets; that the neckouts are set back from the entrances to the street sO that people will have an opportunity to see them. Commissioner Merrill stated that the surrounding streets permitting on-street parking do not have 6,000 cars travelling on them daily; that a government action is being taken to install the neckouts; that it can be argued that the neckouts create an unsafe condition; that he has argued strongly for a phased installation approach to first reduce the volume and notify people that the tone of the street is being changed (and should no longer be used as a cut through street); that he is concerned with installing all the traffic abatement mechanisms at once and having an accident occur. Mayor Pillot stated that the diagram shows traffic "must yield the right of way" and agreed with Commissioner Merrill that (the neckouts) are dangerous. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is trying to look at this matter as a street other than the one she lives on, and asked if two cars can pass going in opposite directions (with the neckouts installed) ? Mr. Mohammed responded no. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has not attended any of the Bahia Vista Street meetings since her campaign in an effort to keep at arms length from the issue; that 6,000 cars travel on the street daily because the City removed the on-street parking and allowed the street to be used as a thoroughfare; that an active neighborhood group had the street re-declared as a neighborhood street; that she shares the concerns (about the neckouts) and would like hear from the public as to how they view being constrained or restrained in the travel of Bahia Vista Street. Mayor Pillot stated that Bahia Vista Street, Fruitville Road, and Bee Ridge Road, which is partially in the city, are the only east/west streets that create an east/west extension (across the City) ; that Bahia Vista Street is more than a neighborhood street; that while the residents deserve consideration, his thought is to think about the potential danger; that he represents more than just the neighbors; that he does not think he will support the neckouts. Mr. Mohammed stated that the idea of the neckouts originated when the residents of Bahia Vista Street requested on-street parking; that subsequently, he attended a conference in Europe and visited a city where neckouts are used; that data was received at the conference which recommends using the neckouts in a phased manner; that first, the speed limit is reduced, second, the stop signs are installed, and third, the neckouts are installed with the speed humps. Vice Mayor Patterson stated she is not opposing that phasing program; however, Bahia Vista Street is used as a cut through street to avoid U.S. 41; that the small section of Bahia Vista Street being discussed does not correspond to the broad, wide, commercial street east of U.S. 41; that the reason people continue to use Bahia Vista Street as a cut through street is (1) there is a Book 36 Page 10168 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10169 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. traffic light on Osprey that continues the link and (2) there is a turn lane when heading south on Orange Avenue that almost directs traffic onto Bahia Vista Street; that her choice would be to leave Bahia Vista Street alone, forget the speed humps, forget the neckouts, take the traffic light out, take the turn lane out, and install some stop signs; however, she doesn't know if there has been a consensus of the residents. Mayor Pillot stated that he likes Vice Mayor Patterson's proposal better than the alternatives being proposed. Commissioner Merrill stated that he likes the idea of removing the traffic light best, rather than installing the neckouts on such a busy street; that he has followed cars (west on) Bahia Vista Street; that some turn left at U.S. 41 toward the hospital and some turn right to go downtown; that Bahia Vista Street seems to be a route of choice because the Bay Street traffic light at U.S. 41 creates traffic back up each time one or two vehicles want to turn left into the Wood Street office building (or the Sarasota Herald Tribune) and an instantaneous green light is granted; that (the Bay Street) traffic light needs to be reviewed to relieve traffic from Bahia Vista Street; that if the traffic light (on Osprey Avenue) was removed then the Bahia Vista Street route could no longer be taken. Mr. Mohammed stated that warrants are necessary for the installation of traffic lights and also for the removal of them; that the warrants to remove a traffic light are difficult to obtain once a light has been installed. Mr. Mohammed stated that he will seek the residents' opinions on the proposed plan and return to the Commission at a public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that at a (Bahia Vista Street) meeting she had attended, a gentlemen from Loma Linda Street had expressed concerns of his street inheriting the traffic from Bahia Vista Street (once the traffic abatement measures were installed); that Loma Linda Street residents claim traffic has already been inherited from the stop sign installed on Bahia Vista Street; that Loma Linda Street residents requested a four-way stop sign which was denied because daily vehicle traffic on the street was only 200 cars per day; however, at one of the public meetings, she heard Mr. Mohammed tell the residents stop signs would be addressed for neighboring streets. Mr. Mohammed stated that the proposed plan does includes installing stop signs at Alta Vista Street and Pomelo Avenue and at Alta Vista and Loma Linda Streets. 24. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : 1994-95 CALENDAR OF BUDGET ACTIVITIES APPROVED; CONSENSUS TO HAVE ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE A REVIEW MEETING PRIOR TO THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #2 (3773) through #3 (0187) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to approve (the calendar of budget activities). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she was concerned with the calendar being backed up to setting the millage deadline. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the workshops will be conducted in June; that an overview on the budget will be presented on a Friday afternoon (June 17th), and the workshops will begin on the following Tuesday to give the Commission the opportunity to review the material; and that an (all-day) Saturday Annual Goals and Objectives Workshop has been scheduled for March 19. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had expressed concern to the Administration regarding scheduling a review of the budget prior to the public hearings so that the Commission has a clear understanding of what will be presented to the public rather than wrangling over the budget for hours in a public hearing as was done last year, and asked if this review is what has been planned for Friday, June 24th? Mr. Sollenberger stated that a review has not been scheduled. There was a consensus of the Commission to have Administration schedule a review meeting during the seven-week period prior to the first public hearing on the budget. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she will not be in attendance at the June 17, 1994, meeting; however, she will obtain the overview material from the Administration. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 25. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: RIGHT OF WAY & MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, ; MOUNT STREET (U.S. 41) FROM PALM AVENUE TO U.S. 301 - APPROVED THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTVS PLAN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (0188) through (0584) Duane Mountain, Streets, Highway, and Landscape Maintenance Manager, and David W. Johnston, Landscape Architect, came before the Commission. Book 36 Page 10170 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10171 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that this is a $140,000 project; that ($70, ,000) in beautification matching funds are available; that $70,000 of Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) funds have been provided in the City's Capital Improvements Program for 1994/95 which the Administration proposes to use as the City's portion of the matching funds. Mr. Johnston stated that the State and City funding calendars are on different (fiscal year) schedules; that in order to receive a grant from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the 1994/95 fiscal year, (an application must be submitted at this time) ; that FDOT funds are allotted as of July 1st; however, the funds are not available until September which is only 30-45 days prior to the beginning of the City's fiscal year. The Mound Street Improvements map was displayed on the overhead projector, and Mr. Johnston stated that a Highway Beautification Counsel Grant application has been prepared for Mound Street from Selby Gardens at Palm Avenue, to (Pelican Ford) on U.S. 301 which includes all the medians in that area as well as all the intersection medians. Mr. Johnston stated that the area between Osprey and Palm Avenues contains relatively small medians and planting opportunities are limited to ground covers up to 30" tall and small scaled trees or palms less than 4" in (diameter) under the FDOT Index 546 Standards for Clear Zones; that Pigmy Date Palms and India Hawthorn will be utilized as a theme in this area to keep a clean level of sight and avoid dangerous problems. Mr. Johnston continued that the mood changes in the Osprey Avenue and U.S. 301 area; that the visibility and site distance triangles of the preliminary project have been verified by the Sarasota area (FDOT) maintenance engineer; that use of larger scaled plant material, Washingtonia Palms and Canary Island Date Palms, is acceptable in designated areas and will be used to indicate a terminus or beginning of the project, depending on which way the area is being travelled; that other plant materials which have been successful in other City roadway planting and are also used on the Bayfront will be extended through the entire Mound Street area for continuity. Commissioner Cardamone asked if construction of medians will be necessary? Mr. Johnston stated that no, this plan is retro-fitting to the construction that took place last year. Mr. Johnston distributed a before and after color computer- generated sketch of the Mound Street Improvement Project to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone asked if planting the striped area between Orange Avenue and Osprey Avenue on the south side of Mound Street which is currently striped to prevent cars from stacking up to make south turns on Osprey Avenue is addressed in this plan? Mr. Johnston stated that no resolution was reached at the meeting in Bartow when the subject was brought up, so the segment was not included in the plan; however, it would be very simple to continue the design concepts through that segment. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is interested in the cost of the project, and asked if the project could be done as nicely with fewer dollars? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the cost is scheduled in the Capital Improvements Program for 1994/95; that a Capital Improvements Program is adopted when a budget is adopted; however, funding is only committed for the first year, and the subsequent funding is committed to annually; that funds are available for the (Capital Improvements Program on Mound Street). Mr. Johnston stated that if the beds are thinned down too drastically to lower cost, there will be an increased maintenance cost; that the project has been developed whereby the City gives their matching funds in cash and an outside contractor is hired to install the plant and irrigation materials; however, it is possible to have the (the City's matching funds provided) by in-kind services with FDOT purchasing the plant and irrigation materials, and the City's personnel installing it. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he does not support installing landscaping with City personnel; that when projects are done, the maintenance of other landscaped areas in the City suffers because of limited stafi. Mr. Johnston stated that the grant is a 50/50 funding grant, and the Commission will know prior to adopting the 94/95 budget if funding has been granted by FDOT. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve (the plan as presented by David W. Johnston & Associates). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 26. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT RE: INTERSECTION OF MOUND STREET AND OSPREY AVENUE - ACCEPTED FDOT'S RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE STRIPING AND MONITOR OSPREY AVENUE TRAFFIC (AGENDA ITEM VIII- 3) #3 (0586) through (1051) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mr. Mohammed stated that the recommendation by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has come as a result of numerous calls from citizens and concerns by the City of Sarasota Book 36 Page 10172 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10173 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Police Department; that the City entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota Memorial Hospital to discourage traffic intrusion through South Osprey and Orange Avenues into the neighborhoods surrounding the Hospital; that one recommendation of the Interlocal Agreement was to reduce the right-turn storage lane on Mound Street to decrease southbound travel on Osprey Avenue; that the storage lane was shortened on a trial basis by placing striping on the ground; that many people drive over the striping and others try to continue in the straight lane after they have tapered into the lane; that five accidents have occurred since the striping has been placed on the ground; that FDOT recommends removing the striping and monitoring the impact on Osprey Avenue. Mr. Mohammed stated that current traffic counts will be taken on Osprey Avenue; that the striping will be removed, if approved by the Commission, and Osprey Avenue will be monitored by traffic counts to determine if an increased volume is caused by removing the striping. Mr. Mohammed stated that the remote possibility of removing the entire lane from Orange Avenue to Palm Avenue was discussed with FDOT; however, the Commission is only being requested to approve removal of the striping at this time. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that if the capacity on U.S. 41 is lowered, the temptation will be greater to use neighborhood streets; that narrowing the capacities on the main roads and also trying to keep people off the neighborhood roads will be difficult. Mr. Mohammed stated that the capacity is not being lowered; that there are only two lanes for travel past Osprey Avenue; that there are three lanes of traffic for a short distance which narrows down to two lanes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she understood from the meeting with Attorney Jim Toale, Mike Guy of the MPO, and the FDOT representative that the lane would be striped on a trial basis, and, when the medians were planted for the Mound Street project, planting would be placed in that area to prohibit people from driving over the striping; that when the study was performed for the Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota Memorial Hospital it was discovered that more cars were making a southbound turn on Osprey Avenue than were travelling straight on U.S. 41; that a similar scenario was true for Orange Avenue. Mayor Pillot stated that reducing right-turn traffic onto Osprey Avenue could exacerbate the problem on Orange Avenue; that Osprey Avenue is a more commercial street than Orange Avenue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that "No Right Turn on Red" signs were suppose to be installed on U.S. 41 at Osprey and Orange Avenues; however, only one sign was installed at Orange Avenue. Mr. Mohammed stated that with the installation of the Closed Loop System, which is many years behind schedule, but scheduled to be in place within the next few months, there will be more capacity on U.S. 41, which will encourage people to use it; that he believes the short, three lane section on (Mound Street) encourages traffic to use Osprey and Orange Avenues. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how many cars are absorbed on Osprey and Orange Avenues? Mr. Mohammed stated that the counts are different at different places; that Orange Avenue has close to 14,000 cars daily and Osprey Avenue has from 11,000 to 22,000 cars daily. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that citizens are angry about the additional Bayfront traffic lights the City has installed on U.S. 41; that she is not ready to do more (traffic abatement in that area) until people get used to what has recently been done; that putting a landscaped island on (Mound Street) will divert traffic onto Orange Avenue; that she is willing to look at eliminating the entire right-turn lane next year, but not right now because difficulty created by the Bayfront Improvements has already been expressed to her by citizens, and an additional traffic light is still scheduled to be installed. Commissioner Atkins stated that this Commission and previous Commissions have taken the position of discouraging automobile traffic in the downtown corridor; that he believes public transportation will be the mode of transportation in the future; that his most immediate concern is removing the stripes from Mound Street before another accident occurs. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to (accept FDOT's recommendation to remove the striping and monitor traffic on Osprey Avenue). Commissioner Atkins stated that he heard earlier that the vehicles would be monitored before the stripes are removed. Mr. Mohammed stated that the stripes will be removed and then the impact will be monitored on Osprey Avenue; that traffic counts will be taken first to have a base to which the monitored traffic counts can be compared. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the impact should also be monitored on Orange Avenue. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 36 Page 10174 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10175 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. 27. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT RE : INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AT U.S. 41 AND BEE RIDGE ROAD = DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO MONITOR AND REPORT BACK SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS TO THE COMMISSION AND TO FORWARD COMMENTS TO FDOT THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND NO SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE, IS CONCERNED WITH HARMING BUSINESSES BY CONSTRUCTING A RAISED MEDIAN, OBJECTS TO ACQUISITIONING CROSSROADS LAND TO WIDEN U.S. 41, AND OBJECTS TO TWO LEFT-TURN LANES AT BAY ROAD (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #3 (1051) through (1925) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. The overhead projector was used to show displays throughout the presentation. Mr. Mohammed stated that this item originates from County Commissioner Charlie Richards who is also a member of Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO); that the left-turn lane at the Bee Ridge Road/U.S. 41 intersection backs up traffic travelling south and turning east on Bee Ridge Road between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.i that similar congestion exists at the intersection at Bay Road/U.S. 41 for traffic travelling north on U.S. 41 turning left onto Bay Road; that there have been numerous traffic accidents in this area; that the MPO commissioned a study and concluded (that geometric improvements will be necessary); that, subsequently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) developed three alternatives to solve the excessive congestion and help eliminate the accidents occurring across from Southgate Mall on U.S. 41. Mr. Monammed stated that Alternative #1 proposes lengthening the left turn lanes on northbound and southbound U.S. 41 to provide more storage capacity; that in order to solve the problem of accidents stemming from the left-turn activity in and out of the median in front of the Southgate Mall on U.S. 41, FDOT recommends a concrete separator be placed on U.S. 41 from Bee Ridge Road to Siesta Drive in each of the alternatives; that the Commission is not being asked for their opinion on the concrete separator, FDOT will do further research and make a decision; however, the Commission is being requested to choose and recommend an alternative. Mayor Pillot stated that Alternative #2 is the Administration's recommendation and adds an additional left turn lane on U.S. 41. Mayor Pillot asked if FDOT will construct the additional lane? Mr. Mohammed stated yes; that the cost of Alternative #2 is $1.35 million; that FDOT recommends taking the right-of-way from the west side of the road; that a portion of the right-of-way will have to be purchased from the (Crossroads) shopping center. Mr. Mohammed stated that Alternative #3 adds two left-turn lanes on each the northbound and the southbound sides; that two left-turn lanes access onto Bay Road from U.S. 41; that staff did not support this alternative and realizes the Commission does not want this amount of traffic volume directed toward Osprey Avenue; that Alternative #2 has two left-turn lanes onto Bee Ridge Road, but only one lengthened left-turn lane at Bay Road. Commissioner Atkins stated that the solid raised median strip from Bee Ridge Road to Siesta Drive will seriously impact the business in that area; that the medians could "kill" Southgate Mall. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if this issue will be an MPO vote or a City vote? Mr. Mohammed stated that it is a City vote; that this matter may end up with the MPO, but FDOT has asked for the Commission's opinion on the alternatives. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission may not like any of the alternatives, and asked if this will be another Ringling Bridge scenario where the Commission's input is immaterial? Commissioner Merrill stated that it has been discussed at the MPO that the double lanes onto Bay Road are not wanted. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the solid median is also not wanted. Mr. Mohammed stated that those concerns should be made clear in the Commission's motion; that an alternative can be approved without a median and taken back to FDOT as the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that these alternatives are expensive; that the main problem, the stop lights, hasn't been addressed; that the light at Siesta Drive and U.S. 41 often doesn't function and half of the time only lets two cars travelling from the south to turn left; that this light is a bottleneck and creates vehicle back up; that changing the timings on the traffic lights would be less expensive than putting up a medians and/or taking property from a shopping center. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would like to see something done that doesn't cost any money; and that he supports Vice Mayor Patterson's comment about the medians; however, he thinks that the double left-turn southbound (on U.S. 41 at Bee Ridge Road) is necessaryi that these lanes can help alleviate the cut-through behavior on the residential streets. Mr. Mohammed stated that once the traffic lights are coordinated as part of the Closed Loop System, more people will use U.S. 41 rather than residential streets. Book 36 Page 10176 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10177 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she shops in that area; that many people use Versailles Street to access (Crossroads shopping center) ; that installing a median will cut off access to Crossroads for traffic travelling on U.S. 41; that the shopping center has had problems, but has just been purchased by a business capitalized well enough to make the shopping center work; that the median proposal needs to be fought. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the right-turn lane to go west on Bay Road can be eliminated to avoid purchasing the right-of-way and installing the median; that studies would probably show that there is a not a lot of right-turn usage of that lane. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there may not be a lot of right- turn usage, but there is a lot of traffic headed south; that the lane is currently right-turn or through; that in order to avoid purchasing the right-of-way, but provide another left-turn lane, one through lane would have to be eliminated. Dennis Daughters stated that there are currently three through lanes and one left-turn lane; that if another left-turn lane is added, a new lane will be necessary. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to accept Alternative #2 with the median deleted. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that if the Commission does not give the FDOT a recommendation, the City will receive what the FDOT wants. Mr. Mohammed stated that the FDOT did not express a strong desire to have the median. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there is a negative to adding the additional left-turn lane (South on U.S. 41 at Bee Ridge Road) ; that right-of-way will be taken from a shopping center that is lean on parking. Mayor Pillot stated that there is also a building on the northwest corner. Mr. Mohammed stated that the Commission can choose Alternative #1 if they do not want the additional turn lane; that Alternative #1 lengthens the turn lane and costs $170,000. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Alternative #1 without the median would be almost no expense. Mr. Daughters stated that Alternative #1 without the median is similar to what currently exists; that controlling the lane as a left-turn only lane will be difficult; that the lane is currently a two-way turn lane being utilized as a left-turn lane. Commissioner Atkins stated that the left-turn lane can be brought north to the entrance at Versailles Street to allow another 200 feet of stacking; and that Versailles Street will remain accessible to traffic travelling north. Mayor Pillot stated that a concrete barrier can be used from south of Versailles Street to Bee Ridge Road without harming the merchants. Commissioner Merrill stated that the opening into the car wash and Publix will have to be closed or an additional turn-lane will have to be added. Mr. Mohammed stated that lengthening the storage lane without a median will not have an impact. Commissioner Merrill stated that the property owners will be compensated for the acquisitioned right-of-way necessary to put in an additional left-turn lane; that other areas are affected when the cars have trouble turning left onto Bee Ridge Road and seek alternate routes through the city's neighborhoods; and that this issue is an essential problem to be solved. Mayor Pillot asked if there is room to take land without taking the entire Crossroads office building? Mr. Mohammed stated that he doubts the building was included in the $1.35 million estimate. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to accept Alternative #2 with the median deleted. Motion failed (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, no. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to take no action, but direct the Administration to carefully monitor this situation with FDOT closely and report significant findings back to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mr. Daughters asked for clarification of what was to be reported back to FDOT. Mayor Pillot stated the consensus of the Commission as follows: The Commission found a problem with all the proposed alternatives; The Commission is concerned with constructing a raised median which will be harmful to businesses on both sides of U.S. 41; The Commission objects to acquisitioning Crossroads (shopping center land) to widen U.S. 41; and Book 36 Page 10178 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10179 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. The Commission objects to having two left-turn lanes entering Bay Road. 28. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : NO WAKE ZONE AT NEW PASS - DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE A FORMAL REQUEST TO SARASOTA COUNTY TO HAVE THE NO WAKE ZONE AT NEW PASS EXTENDED TO THE END OF KEN THOMPSON PARK, AND AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (AGENDA ITEM VIII-5) #3 (1927) through (2016) Alexandra Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that Vice Mayor Patterson had requested that Administration look into extending the No Wake Zone along New Pass. Ms. Hay stated that the procedure is as follows: (1) obtain approval and direction from the City Commission to request an extension, (2) make a presentation to the Natural Resources and Recreation Advisory Board for approval, and (3) (present the formal request) to Sarasota County. Ms. Hay stated that once all approvals are obtained, the Sarasota County Resource Department will pursue (extending the No Wake Zone at New Pass to the end on Ken Thompson Park) ; that it takes 18 months to two years for the approval process and installation of a No Wake Zone sign. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that boats speed along the area and land is being lost; that the seawall is deteriorated and replacement funds are not currently available; that the seawall will eventually be replaced, and will be better protected if boats are not speeding by. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (direct Administration to make a formal request to Sarasota County to have the No Wake Zone at New Pass extended to the end of Ken Thompson Park, and authorize Administration to make a presentation to the Natural Resources and Recreation Advisory Board). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 29. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE TEMPORARY SALES CENTER AT THE L'ELEGANCE CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 1800 BEN FRANKLIN DRIVE - APPROVED; USE OF CONSTRUCTION TRAILER FOR 120 DAYS AS A TEMPORARY SALES CENTER - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-6) #3 (2020) through (2036) There was consensus by the Commission that a presentation on this item was not necessary. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to (approve the location of the temporary sales center, subject to State of Florida approval and to approve the use of their construction trailer for 120 days as a temporary sales center). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 30. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX AMENDMENTS - AUTHORIZED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO CREATE AN EQUITY STUDY COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-7) #3 (2043) through (2387) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the Florida Legislature passed a bill during the 1993 session which allows local jurisdictions to increase their occupational license fees; that (to participate) the City has to have the first fee adjustments in place by October 1995. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 8:53 p.m. Mr. Hewes stated that the first step necessary is to create an Equity Study Commission; that the State has specified the increase amounts; that an overall increase is limited to 108 in the first year; however, the law allows the City to make up suffered losses, and the City will suffer a loss in funds next year from the County; that the loss can be made up in addition to the 108; that every two years the City will be allowed to increase the rates for local occupational license tax by 58 which will generate approximately $45,000; that this is one way to increase revenue without raising property taxes. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 8:55 p.m. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to (authorize the City Attorney to draft a resolution to) create an Equity Study Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson asked when the last time occupational license fees had been raised? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated in 1982. Commissioner Atkins stated that the County Economical Advisory Board is also raising fees. Book 36 Page 10180 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10181 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hewes stated that the County has used their existing board to review fees and obtain the maximum fees allowed; that (the law) gave the County the right to take (occupational taxes) away from the City; however, the law also allows the City to make up that loss. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is concerned with raising (occupational) licensing fees for the businesses of the City of Sarasota. Mayor Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:57 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that (the presentation by the Police at the Crime Workshop) showed that this is a city servicing double its population and requires heavy police and firefighter service which makes meeting the budget difficult; that she is sympathetic to raising the fees to business owners; however, any business whose fee hasn't been raised since 1982 can equitably absorb a 10% increase and then subsequent 58 increases; that the City cannot afford to ignore additional sources of revenue. Commissioner Merrill stated that the fee was raised by the County. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this (fee increase) once again asks the business owner to support people coming into the City to work, whether they shop, spend, eat, or not. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the business owners are the people who come to the City to work. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the majority of people come into the City to work in the office buildings, or the County and City buildings, rather than in the smaller businesses; that the wrong people are being increased; that although the City is generating the sales tax, the ability to use some of the monies raised by the County occupational tax has been lost; that she will plead the side of the business owners who are already being charged for services for which they pay caxes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the only way to address Commissioner Cardamone's concern is to have an income tax which is constitutionally prohibited. Mayor Pillot stated that the business owner can pass the increase of the occupational licensing fee on to its customers; therefore, the 94,000 people who come to the City to work and shop will ultimately be paying for the increase. Commissioner Cardamone stated that business owners cannot limitlessly continue to raise prices to meet the ongoing overhead increases. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 31. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF BEACH PROTECTION DEVICES AT 3710 BAYOU LOUISE DRIVE - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM VIII- 8) #3 (2404) through (2475) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that this (permit) is the third of three properties requesting beach protection in the Bayou Louise Drive area in the City limits; that a rock revetment on this property will complete the strand of beach protection from the County line along Big Pass on Bayou Louise Drive. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set the proposed beach erection for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the applicants (E. McCarver and R. Moser) are clients of her husband; however, he will not be representing them before the Commission in this matter; that City Attorney Taylor considers it appropriate that she vote in such circumstances; therefore, she intends to vote unless the Commission objects. There was no objection by the Commission to Vice Mayor Patterson voting on this issue at public hearing. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 32. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: : HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #3 (2477) through (3269) Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the regulations that govern the Housing Authority Board. Mr. Robinson stated that by State law, the Housing Authority Board is appointed by the Mayor with the consensus of the City Commission; that if no consensus is reached by the Commission, the Mayor can subsequently submit appointments until consensus is reached. Mayor Pillot asked if the Mayor declines to change recommendations would there be a stalemate until a new Mayor is seated? Mr. Robinson stated yes; and that the persons serving would continue to serve until a consensus is reached on an appointment. Book 36 Page 10182 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10183 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that there are two individuals signed up to speak and asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson how to proceed. Mr. Robinson stated that citizens are not prohibited to speak on this item and should speak at this time. Joanie Mills, 668 Cohen Way, and Queen Esther Curry, 624 Cohen Way, representing the Housing Authority Tenants Association, came before the Commission. Ms. Mills stated that she requests the Commission appoint a person to the Board who cares about the tenants of the Housing Authority, is an active person in their (respective) community, and will not be dead weight on the Board; and that the Commission make appointments to attain a full seven-member Board sO that deadlocks on decisions can be avoided. Ms. Curry stated that no more "Walter Brown yes people" are needed on the Housing Authority Board. Mayor Pillot stated that the terms of Doris Gipson, Karen McAllister and Nathan Coon have expired; that Nathan Coon is eligible and interested in reappointment; and that he submits Mr. Coon for reappointment. Mayor Pillot stated that a vacancy on the Board also was created by Mr. Rowell moving out of the City; that he has talked to a number of people including Mr. Rowell; that the presence of an attorney on the Housing Authority Board is valuable; that a qualified attorney application has not yet been received; therefore, he will not make a recommendation for that position tonight, leaving the seat vacant. Mayor Pillot stated that he appoints Dorothy Jones to take the seat of Doris Gipson, and appoints Diana Olivieri to take the seat of Karen McAllister. Commissioner Atkins stated that he realizes that Mayor Pillot has spoken to people regarding these appointments; however, the majority of tenant concerns are reported to him; that the tenants are not being properly represented on the Board; that the appointment recommendation of Dorothy Jones has created a problem in the public housing community; that the tenants are concerned that that appointee, who will be the tenant representative, will not properly represent the tenants; that it would be in the City's best interest to appoint members to the Board who have been working (for the public housing authority) and are concerned with and impacted by the decisions of the Board. Commissioner Atkins continued that he has a concern related to Nathan Coon; that he appointed Mr. Coon to the Board while he was the Mayor knowing that Mr. Coon was the brother-in-law of Walter Brown; that the appointment was supported by that Commission; however, that choice was a problem at the time and has since become more of a problem as well as an admitted mistake; that the Housing Authority has come under scrutiny by the Federal government concerning an unapproved audit and has had difficulty with the Home Ownership Program (HOPE 1 Plan); that he has brought to the attention of the City Manager as well as the Commission that something is going on at the Housing Authority that has nothing to do with the tenants; that he recommends conducting an evaluation, a public hearing, or a workshop so that tenants can express their concerns; that the Commission should attend Housing Authority Board meetings and interact with the tenants. Commissioner Atkins stated that Nathan Coon has not been effective as an advocate for the tenants or as a responsible fiduciary representative for the Housing Authority; that he does not support reappointing Nathan Coon or appointing Dorothy Jones. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would be interested in hearing from the tenants and the community in a workshop setting. Mayor Pillot stated that he would support a workshop; however, that is not the issue faced by the Commission tonight. Mayor Pillot stated that the controversy and conflict that has existed with the Housing Authority Board within the past five years needs to be removed; that he determined to the best of his ability two new appointees who will not bring conflict to the Board; that with respect to Mr. Coon, he does not have the information presented by Commissioner Atkins and is willing to withdraw the reappointment of Nathan Coon, leaving the seat vacant while an evaluation is made on Mr. Coon's performance on the Board; that evaluation will not be made on the basis of Mr. Coon's relationship with Mr. Brown, but on whether Mr. Coon has contributed in his attendance and input to the Board. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like the opportunity to speak with the appointees; that she has reservations with a Board member who is related to the Executive Director (of the Housing Authority). Vice Mayor Patterson suggested tabling the issue. Mayor Pillot stated that it is not necessary to table the issue because absent a consensus, the appointments are not approved. Mayor Pillot stated that for the remainder of his term he will not withdraw his recommendations of Dorothy Jones and Diana Olivieri; therefore, if the appointments are not approved by the Commission, the seats will remain vacant until a new Mayor is (selected). On motion of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to approve the Mayor's recommendations. Motion died for lack of a second. Book 36 Page 10184 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10185 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she requests the appointments be brought back after she speaks with the appointees. Mayor Pillot stated that his appointments of Dorothy Jones and Diana Olivieri will not be substituted or withdrawn. Mr. Robinson stated that he will place the appointments on the agenda after Vice Mayor Patterson has spoken with Ms. Jones and Ms. Olivieri. Commissioner Cardamone requested that the Commission receive recent minutes of the Housing Authority Board before the next (Regular Commission Meeting); that the minutes of the Board should be presented to the Commission on a regular basis. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he will request that the Housing Authority Board forward minutes on a regular basis. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she supports Commissioner Atkins' suggestion of interaction between the City Commission and the Housing Authority Board; that although she is not familiar with the HOPE 1 grant, it seems the Commission should have been leaders in getting it and a great opportunity was lost for the City; and that she supports a joint meeting (between the City Commission and the Housing Authority Board) with reports from the Executive Director, Walter Brown. 33. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: : GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES - LOU ANN PAIMER REAPPOINTED (AGENDA ITEM IX-2) #3 (3283) through (3298) Mayor Pillot stated that the term of Lou Ann Palmer serving on the General Employees Pension Fund Board of Trustees has expired; and that Mrs. Palmer has expressed an interest in reappointment for another two (2) year term. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to reappoint Mrs. Palmer to the General Employees Pension Fund Board of Trustees. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 34. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: CONSENSUS TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY RESEARCH REGULATIONS REGARDING ABORTION CLINIC PROTESTORS; CONSENSUS DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO ADVISE THE COUNTY THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD LOOK FAVORABLY UPON THE COUNTY'S EXPLORING THE COURTELIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (3301) through #4 (0303) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that she had been visited today by a gentleman who was extremely upset because he has been accosted in front of his house during the past five years by protestors of the abortion clinic located on the North Trail; that he is looking to the City to get these people off his front lawn, the sidewalks and the street in front of his house; that multiple people carrying offensive signs, using offensive language, etc., are present at all hours, including Sundays, nighttime, and while the clinic is closed; that she would like the Commission's support to request the City Attorney look into what can be done by the City; that some parameters must exist to get people away from people's front yards. Mayor Pillot stated that there are fairly recent court rulings on this topic which are very clear. City Attorney stated that the legal precedents are not very favorable to local regulation. Mayor Pillot stated that the authority does not rest with the Commission but rather with the courts; that this same gentleman had come to see him some time ago; that he told the gentleman that the Federal Courts had voiced (their position); and that the Federal Courts have jurisdiction, the City Commission does not. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the most recent (court decisions) have been supportive of some kind of regulation, i.e. the Melbourne Clinic; that the Supreme Court had just ruled that the Rico Act can be used to prosecute offenders; however, something must be in place which is being violated, but the City does not have a regulation in place. City Attorney Taylor stated that he will bring back a report on recent rulings to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had spoken to the City Attorney on this man's behalf approximately eight months ago; that a news article about the new (Supreme Court) ruling was presented at the table about a month agoi that she supports helping this man. There was consensus of the Commission to have the City Attorney research regulations regarding (abortion clinic protestors). B. stated that an article in the Sarasota Herald Tribune by Mr. Tom Lyons entitled "Art or Ad - Board Decisions Defy Logic" referred to the Board of Adjustment's decisions regarding murals on walls stating that the Board of Adjustment agreed to one (mural) and not another; that she had received a letter from Leslie Ahlander, of the Public Art Committee, stating that (the citizens) probably do want some murals and not others, and it may be better to have a process whereby this issue comes Book 36 Page 10186 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10187 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. before the Public Art Committee for a decision as to what is art and what is not rather than for the Board of Adjustment to make the determination. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she feels this is a good idea. City Attorney Taylor stated that the issue is not if the Board of Adjustment is judging art but rather if (the mural) is a sign under terms of the Zoning Code; that at one time the Golden Apple Dinner Theater had a mural at the back (of the building) which became a big issue years ago before the Board of Adjustment as to whether or not (the mural) was a sign advertising the business. Vice Mayor Paterson stated that, according to Tom Lyons, the situation was that a veterinarian clinic put (paintings of) dogs, cats, birds, and bunnies on a wall which was ruled as art and not a sign; that, again according to Tom Lyons, the Art Werks tried to put up a mural of a Mona Lisa but the Board of Adjustment ruled that it could not be put up; however, Leslie Ahlander's letter states the facts differently. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she is not certain which are the correct facts; but that it does seem that (the Board of Adjustment) is almost judging art. City Attorney Taylor stated that he would request the facts and do a report (on the issue). C. stated that the trailer portion of a semi (tractor trailer truck) is parked at the Flea Market (on the corner of 301 and Fruitville Road) and has big garish signage advertising hub caps; that (the trailer) is operating as a store selling hub caps, and is lit by neon lights at night; that the City is desirable because it has been made a beautiful, attractive place; that this (positive) reputation will be lost if this (type of activity) is allowed. Vice Mayor patterson requested the City Manager review the situation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement will look into this. D. stated that Mayor Pillot had mentioned that Saks Fifth Avenue expressed an interest in moving to Southgate shopping center and potentially Publix is moving to Crossroads shopping center; however, another possibility exists; that Lynn Robbins and other interested citizenry had a meeting in the Downtown North area with Naples shopping center representatives of Mr. Alec Courtelis' organization on a concept which received favorable commentary by Tom Lyons in the newspaperi, that the key to this (area's development) is the County (of Sarasota) which owns a large portion of land on which they plan to put the library; that there are other viable locations for the library; that she is interested int he Commission's views on encouraging the County through the City Administration to entertain some type of offer from Mr. Courtelis. Mayor Pillot stated that he has supported the concept of the Courtelis development project from the first time he heard of the possibility and continues to do so; that he agrees (that the County should be encouraged to support the Courtelis development). Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees and would like to see the library moved to the existing Doctors' Hospital Building because it is centrally located. Mayor Pillot stated that (the Doctors' Hospital Building) is an excellent site for the library; that it is located on Tuttle Avenue, which will soon be an improved street, and is half way between Fruitville and Bee Ridge (Roads) which are excellent east/west feeders all the way to Interstate 75. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the door should not be closed on any possibility. Commissioner Atkins stated that he had never supported the proposed location for the library; that commercial development at the (proposed library) site would be much more productive. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City Manager should be given the authority to advise the County that the City Commission would look favorably upon the County's exploring the possibility (of the Courtelis development plan). There was consensus of the Commission to Vice Mayor Patterson's statement. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she has not seen the minutes of the Van Wezel Advisory Board as requested. B. stated that she has asked William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, to update her on the history of the Humber House and Inn located on Fruitville Road; that she believes there are vagrants and (negative) activities occurring at the location; that a long history of Commission action, reaction, votes, etc exists; that building permits were promised (in the past) and have not been pulled; and that she requests this (item) be placed on the agenda to update the Commission on the status. Book 36 Page 10188 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10189 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated she was of the impression from conversations with the owner, Mr. (Mark) Famiglio, that the location was to be renovated; that she appreciates Commissioner Cardamone's bringing the topic back to the Commission's attention. C. stated that she had the pleasure of representing Mayor Pillot at a Friendship Force dinner for 21 people from Turkey, including the Vice Governor of the largest city, Ankra; that the Vice Governor of Ankra had indicated that the highlights of their trip were: the Ringling Art Museum and Selby Gardens; and that she was happy to have represented Mayor Pillot at that function. Commissioner Cardamone presented Mayor Pillot with a scaled rug- making machine on behalf of the (Turkish) as a sample of their rug- making abilities. MAYOR PILLOT: A. confirmed the Workshop scheduled for Monday, February 14 at 4:00 p.m. on Employee Benefits and the Regular City Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 22, because of the Presidents' Day holiday on Monday, February 21. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (304) through (315) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that Central Gardens is currently being demolished, and (the project) will be complete within the next couple of days. B. stated that the dedication of the monument to (former City Manager) Ken Thompson on Ken Thompson Island will be on Sunday, February 20, at 3:30 p.m.i that invitations have been sent out. OTHER REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (315) through (499) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the memorandum in the agenda packet on the Three Crowns (property) indicates a demolition price of $278,000; that this is difficult to believe since the estimate for demolishing the John Ringling Towers, which she believes has more square footage, was approximately $150, ( 000. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the estimate to tear the building down is $278,000; that, in addition, there is asbestos abatement which ordinarily equates to the same price as demolition; and that a study can be undertaken for about $6,500 (to determine the exact cost). Mr. William Hewes, Director, Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that contractors had been requested to bid on the basis the City may demolish the building; that, therefore, the contractors may not have been as accurate as if the bid were for actual demolition and there may be room for decreasing the amount. Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Hewes obtain a bid (for the Three Crowns demolition)- from the same contractor used by the John Ringling Foundation. Mr. Hewes indicated that there is less chance of asbestos (in the John Ringling Towers) because it was constructed before asbestos was used; that he spoke with Mr. Daniel Joy, the attorney representing Mr. Fares Hatoum; that Attorney Joy indicates that one foreclosure after another is being pursued to put the condominium into one ownership; and that Mr. Hatoum has attained approximately 808 ownership (of the property). Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City could take the property and tear it down, resulting in the City's ownership of valuable beachfront property that could be sold to recover some of the (expense). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the mortgages would have to be paid off; that the City would be last in line (to receive the money). Mr. Hewes stated that the City could proceed with demolition and put a lien against the property; that after a certain period of time, the City would have a right to foreclose the lien; that he does not know the (debt) against the property, but he suspects it is not a great deal because Mr. Hatoum has been paying it off. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Cardamone's idea) may be viable; that once the City initiates the process, (Mr. Hartoum) will do something to keep the City from taking the land. City Attorney Taylor stated that the codes are in place right now allowing the City to give notice and require the demolition; that the question is what will happen when (the owners) do nothing; that the City will have to put up the money to demolish the building; that the building cannot be demolished without a cost; that the City should know the status of the liens against the property Book 36 Page 10190 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10191 02/07/94 6:00 P.M. because the City does not become a priority lien (holder) over others that were previously placed as a matter of record. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she might be interested in fronting the demolition costs if the City could get ownership of the property. Attorney Taylor stated that obtaining ownership of the property would involve condemnation for a public purpose; that the City would have to have money (for the total value of the property). Vice Mayor Patterson asked what would happen if the City simply foreclosed on its lien? Attorney Taylor stated that could be done as long as the City covers the liens ahead of the City lien. Mr. Hewes stated that he will have a search done on the property to determine the amount of the liens. Attorney Taylor stated that the public nuisance law which allows a municipal attorney to file a law suit could be utilized to have the property declared a nuisance and have the court enter appropriate orders. Commissioner Cardamone requested that all possibilities be explored. 35. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (0500) The regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of February 7, 1994, adjourned at 10:41 p.m. M : * GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: Bilks Reben C / - ay BILLY E ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 19,