MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2004, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen D. McGowan, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer and City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson PRESIDING: Vice Mayor Martin The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:30 p.m. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Mayor Palmer was called to Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of the City regarding possible funding for the Ed Smith Stadium and will not be in attendance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED CD 2:32 through 2:35 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IV.A.7, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Municipal Services and Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Joseph A. and Jennifer L. Palladino for a connection to be provided to the City of Sarasota's water distribution system for a developed site located at 3005 Hawthorne Street, per the request of Technical Services Manager Haas. B. Add Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IV.A.8, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Municipal Services and Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Theresa Valenti for the purpose of obtaining potable water and sewer service for an undeveloped site located at 1806 Hansen Street, per the request of Technical Services Manager Haas. BOOK 55 Page 27042 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27043 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. C. Remove New Business Item No. 1, XIV.1, Discussion Re: Appeal to City Commission from decision of Planning Board regarding approval of Site Plan Application 03-SP-40 (Burns Court Villas), per the request of John Stone. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the Commission has any objections to the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Vice Mayor Martin stated that hearing no objections, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. Vice Mayor Martin asked if any Commissioner wished to remove an item from Consent Agenda No. 1 or 2. Commissioners Servian and Bilyeu requested that Item No. IV-B-9 be removed for discussion. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that Item No. IV-B-9 concerns Resolution No. 04R-1723 to amend the City's Formal Rules of Procedure and will be considered under New Business as Agenda Item No. VII-1, which will be heard in the afternoon session. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:35 through 2:46 The following people came before the Commission: Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive (34237), stated that the traffic system works well when people respect each other; that the thought seemed to tie in with the remarks for the current meeting; that a question is if the current period in history will be remembered more for Osama bin Laden or United States Attorney General John Ashcroft; that thousands of Americans are fighting and dying at the moment to bring freedom of speech to the people of Iraqi that for an elected body in America to seek to limit the right of free speech for the citizens at home is ironic; that the current Commissioners as candidates in February and March 2003 visited homes, neighborhood associations, and a variety of other public and private venues to request votes; that the importance of hearing the personal point of views and working with the neighborhood associations to obtain a fair representation of the values was stressed; that a question is what has changed. Mr. Senf continued that to take the position of a constituent being denied the opportunity to speak to issues due to the placement on the Agenda is difficult to understand; that a question is if the disregard for the public is gleaned in the refined atmosphere of the Foundation Meetings at Michael's on East or from the developers and attorneys who are frustrated with the public's testimony; that a question is, at the next election will the constituents' opinions become more important; that perhaps other representatives will be identified who will honor each citizen and the Democratic process; that having a discussion with the Commissioners over coffee would be welcomed; that the process and the procedure limits the ability to do so; that having only three minutes to give an opinion to the Commission is difficult; that the average citizen is not prepared to do so; that the vote of the average citizen is important; that citizens should be assured of the opportunity to address the Commission; that the Commission should have the opportunity to listen. Stan Zimmerman, 2469 Novus Street (34237), stated that all Democratic entities implement rules to govern the behavior of the government and citizens who are responsible for the Democratic institutions; that some items on the Agenda cannot be discussed under the City's rules; that Sarasota has many Sister Cities; that Sarasota really only has one mother city which is the City of Athens, Greece; that Athens was the first municipal democracy in world historyi that during the Peloponnesian wars when Athens was at war and most of the young men were in service in the field, the Athenians celebrated a 100 year anniversary of the Democracy; that a coup occurred soon thereafter by the people having money and property; that developers and attorneys and people with economic power are the modern day counterpart; that the forces of Democracy recaptured the government of the Athens a couple of years later and decided the old rules did not work; that new rules were established; that the aftermath of the Peloponnesian wars are described in a book entitled "The Peloponnesian Wars"; that the old rules had failed to protect Democracy from subversion sO the Athenians enacted legislation declaring anyone taking part in the destruction of the Democracy or holding office in a regime aiter the suppression of the office an enemy of Athens was to be killed with impunity and personal possessions became public property; that the people were required to take an oath to uphold the law; that the law was inscribed in stone at the entrance of the Council Chamber and remained in force well into the Fourth Century. BOOK 55 Page 27044 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27045 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Zimmerman continued that strong rules are important; that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 strips citizens of the opportunity to come speak to the Commission; that the opportunity to speak to the Commission is reduced in half; that the attorneys and developers are not restrained at all in the presentations to the Commission; that the proposed Resolution was spawned in the middle of the night and carefully slipped into the Consent Agenda where no public or Commission comment is allowed; that doing sO is a subversion of Democracy or government by stealth; that the debate should be heard; that having the two Commissioners pull the Resolution off the Consent Agenda is appreciated. Al Moore, President of the John Ringling Neighborhood Association, Member of the Barrier Island Group, 700 John Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that the subject for discussion is a proposed inclusion of the Barrier Island Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the 1998 City's Comprehensive Plan sets forth principles and goals in each chapter for neighborhoods, housing, and environmental protection; that the addition of a Barrier Island Chapter is desired; that the barrier islands lie offshore from Downtown Sarasota and include Lido Key, Lido Shores, St. Armands Key, and Bird Key; that Golden Gate is a peninsula but has island characteristics; that the Town of Longboat Key is a barrier island; that the City has no jurisdiction over Longboat Key; that half of the island of Longboat Key is in Sarasota County; that the City's Comprehensive Plan includes by reference the Town of Longboat Key in the chapters on transportation and governmental coordination; that one part indicates the City in cooperation with Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) will recommend broadening the roadway and levels of service to alleviate congestion; that the contemplation of the reduction of Bayfront Drive from four to two lanes is just the opposite; that the traffic lanes are desperately needed; that the use of additional lanes stimulated the 1996 request for a Barrier Island Chapter; that the cost of eight years of imposing Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) plans for a high bridge seems to have indicated a major misunderstanding of the growth of jobs and the taxable contribution of the barrier islands; that a preliminary draft of a Barrier Island Chapter is ready for implementation; that many island objectives always are and will be identical with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that some island situations are different; that the height of a residence should be measured from on top of a 12 or 14 feet pylon; that large, oceanfront setbacks require larger lot dimensions; that good traffic flow is vital if storm shelters are not feasible on barrier islands in the path of a Category Three hurricane; that temporary storage of vehicles Downtown prior to major storms is not permitted at this time; that emergency management personnel should persuade business owners to provide shelter for the vehicles; that the problem is insurance; however, the proposal should still be in the plan; that the opportunity to add an additional chapter is limited by time; that the matter should move forward. 3. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 2004, AND THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2004 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS II-1 AND 2) CD 2:46 through 2:47 On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2004, Emergency Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes of the January 26, 2004, Special Commission meeting? Vice Mayor Martin stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the Special Commission meeting of January 26, 2004, are approved by consensus. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE' S REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 2004 RECEIVED REPORT i DENIED APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH ARTIST BROWER HATCHER; DIRECTED THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE TO REVIEW PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS WITH WATER AND SEATING FEATURES (AGENDA ITEM III-1) CD 2:47 through 3:35 James Bowen, Chair, Public Art Committee, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Bowen presented the following item from the January 14, 2004, Public Art Committee meeting: Public Art for the Lemon Avenue Plaza Mr. Bowen referred to computer-generated slides of artwork by Brower Hatcher for display at the Lemon Avenue Plaza on the BOOK 55 Page 27046 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27047 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Chamber monitors; and stated that the call to artist process should be explained; that the process was approved by the Commission on December 12, 2002; that 182 submittals were received by February 28, 2003; that the understanding is the response was significant; that the response was pleasing and required a significant amount of work in narrowing the list by reviewing the work submitted; that 48 finalists were initially chosen, which was narrowed to 12, and then again to four; that a presentation was received by the Public Art Committee from the four finalists on January 14, 2004; that the Public Art Committee recommendation will be covered at the end of the presentation. Mr. Bowen continued that Brower Hatcher is the artist selected from the four finalists by the Public Art Committee; that Mr. Hatcher's studies include mechanical engineering and English literature at Vanderbilt University; that Mr. Hatcher holds a Bachelor of Industrial Design from Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, New York; that graduate studies in sculpture were taught at St. Martin's School of Art in London, England; that Mr. Hatcher was head of the Sculpture Department at Bennington College in Vermont; that over 20 major commissions have been built in the last 20 years for public and corporate entities throughout the United States; that Mr. Hatcher's work has been exhibited in over 16 one-man shows and 36 group exhibitions; that Mr. Hatcher has received numerous awards, including awards from the Ford Foundation, the Sainsbury Foundation (Tate Gallery), the Guggenheim Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Arts; that Mr. Hatcher holds an Honorary Ph.D. from State University of New York (SUNY). Mr. Bowen displayed photographs of Mr. Hatcher's work on the Chamber monitors including the Language of Whales done in 1984 which is located in Battery Park, New York; and stated that the piece has some characteristics of the proposed artwork; that another work subsequently executed is called the Prophecy of the Ancients done in 1987; that the finished work is located at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota; that the artist produced a piece located at the entrance to the Herbeger Theater in Phoenix, Arizona, called Layering of Worlds which was done in 1983; that the Adirondack Guide Monument was done in 1984 and is located at SUNY in Plattburg, New York; that another sculpture is Starman which was done in 1990 and is displayed at the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; that Brainstorm was done in 2001 and is displayed at the ADC Telecom in Minneapolis, Minnesota; that Seer was done in 1994 and is displayed at Brigham Young University Museum in Provo, Utah; that El Arbor de Esperanza was done in 1995 and is displayed at Thomas Jefferson Park, New York City, New York; that Global Apex was done in 1994 and is displayed at the St. Paul Companies in St. Paul, Minnesota; that the sculpture Vortex with a canopy structure was done for the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 2002; that the piece is especially significant because the piece is a stepping stone for the proposal for the City; that the rainwater is caught and funneled into the circular area which gives the piece the name Vortex. Mr. Bowen stated further that the description from the artist for the artwork proposed for the Lemon Avenue Plaza is a series of canopy and support structures to cover a large portion of the designated site; that the overhead structures provide shade and partial rain protection for the public; that the support structures are stainless steel frameworks which support an array of petal-shaped powder coated elements; that the petal-like shapes overlap to catch rainwater and to allow the rainwater to fall into a catchment basin and drain through the basins; that the rain and catchment basin will become an intriguing water feature; that the support frameworks are connected overhead by a dome which supports a layer of glass elements, continues the patterns created by the petal forms, and projects the shapes, patterns, and colors onto the pavement beneath. Mr. Bowen further stated that the sculpture will be located in the mid portion of the Lemon Avenue Mall with paving and benches around trees for the plaza space; that the actual sculpture piece will have dimensions of 24 feet, 5 inches by 45 feet, and 1 inch long; that an elevation drawing of the same piece shows five of the elements; that the overall height to the top of the elements is 10 feet, 1 inch; that the metal bowl feature is the catchment basin where water funneled through the vortex is caught and drains through the bottom of the element, which is a concrete base. Mr. Burg stated that pragmatic issues must be addressed, the first of which is wind; that the piece will be designed for 130 mile per hour winds; that the final drawings must be stamped by a Registered Engineer; that the piece will be made of very durable finishes; that the finishes are powder coated stainless steel and powder coated aluminum and only require hosing down occasionally; that safety and vandalism are always concerns; that the glass pieces in the central hexagon will be laminated pieces of glass with embedded wire mesh; that the piece would BOOK 55 Page 27048 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27049 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. remain intact even if someone were to throw a rock; that the proposal was reviewed by the City's Risk Management Department which indicates no hazards were apparent; that the budget is $125,000 and is primarily for the vertical elements; that the funds come from two sources; that $68,130 is from the Public Art Fund; that $56,870 is from the developer as a requirement to meet the public art requirement for the Whole Foods Centre Market project; that funding was set aside in an escrow account with the City prior to the commencement of the project; that the remaining Elatwork will come from $50,000 which is part of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape budget; that the artist has indicated the cost of the central, vertical elements and the supports will not exceed the $125,000 budgeted; that all the streetscape work in the project budget goes to the roadway near First Street and back to the alley; that Public Works has budgeted $50,000 as part of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Project which includes brick paving, trees, tree grates, and some other elements; that the contractor, the cost estimator, and the artist should meet and develop a change order to the contract which changes the design and allows the geometry of the proposal to be rebuilt in the space within the project budget; that the geometry of the trees and grates may be different; that the exact paving and geometry of all the elements with the exception of the canopies may change as the project proceeds; that the Public Art Committee discussed the placement of the sculpture; that a major feature of the piece is the sunlight will come through and create incredible patterns on the pavementi that the patterns on the concrete will be elaborate by themselves even if the concrete work has relatively simple geometric cuts created by the artist; that a shadow with colors will move across the pavement with the sun coming through the piece; that the placement of the seating around the pavement could change slightly while going through the process; that the canopies would remain the same. Mr. Bowen stated that the Public Art Committee recommends the Commission authorize appropriate City Officials to negotiate and execute a contract with Mr. Hatcher for fabrication and installation of a public artwork for the Lemon Avenue Plaza for a cost not to exceed $125,000 payable from the Public Art Eund. Commissioner Servian stated that the seating areas are not included in the proposal; that the funds for the seating would come from City funds. Mr. Burg stated that is correct. Commissioner Servian stated that for the $125,000, the City is receiving the vertical pieces and not any of the seating. Mr. Burg stated that the hope is the seating can be built with the present geometry and substituting the elements proposed at the location; that some of the elements could change at the time the detailed process is reviewed with a contractor. Commissioner Servian asked if the seating elements will be constructed of the same material as the vertical pieces? Mr. Burg stated that in the initial plan the seating is proposed as concrete. Commissioner Servian stated that the piece is not a fountain element; and asked if water would only flow over the piece whenever raining. Mr. Burg stated that is correct. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification regarding the openings at the top of the vortexes. Mr. Burg stated that an answer cannot be provided at this time. Commissioner Servian stated that the areas could clog with the wind, rains, or even birds' nests. Mr. Burg stated that a screen would be attached on top of the catchment basins sO any leaves could be cleaned out. Commissioner Servian stated that a concern is the possibility of the return of the Farmers Market to the site since the square footage is reduced; and asked if the total square footage of the footprint is known including the seating area? Mr. Burg stated that the Farmers Market was discussed; that Mr. Hatcher's design was determined the most flexible with regard to use of the site by the Farmers Market; that vendors could work around the five columns and utilize the seating pods on the periphery. Commissioner Servian stated that the Commission would like to have had the opportunity to see the other proposals; and asked if the other proposals are single pieces or spread out throughout the plaza? Mr. Burg stated that two of the proposals had a single, dominant piece which was centered in the plaza or placed somewhere in the BOOK 55 Page 27050 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27051 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. plaza; that the fourth proposal had elements on the edges of the plaza. Commissioner Servian referred to the Minutes of the January 14, 2004, Public Art Committee meeting and stated that several of the proposals were for a fountain, seating, and sculpture all in one piece. Mr. Burg stated that one proposal had water which flowed out of the piece. Commissioner Atkins stated that mention was made of the glass; that the glass could become cloudy and burned due to intense sun; and asked if the aesthetically pleasing pattern on the concrete will be affected? Mr. Burg stated that the wires in the glass will not be seen; that the wires may be seen if a person looks up at the piece but would not be a part of the general pattern on the ground. Commissloner Atkins asked the effect of the sun burning and clouding the piece over time? Mr. Burg stated that the exact type of glass is not known; that glass is a fairly stable material, as opposed to plastic or an acrylic which discolors over time. Commissioner Atkins stated the concerns are for the seating and the compatibility with the surrounding area; and asked if compatibility is a concern to the artist? Mr. Burg stated that the unit costs would be sent out as a rough estimate of the budget available for brick costs, pavers, etc., if the proposal is approved; that preliminary designs would be used in a one-day charrette with the artist coming to Sarasota to confer with the contractor and the estimator; that the basic design of the plaza would be designed to meet the budget as well as blend in with the other Lemon Avenue Streetscape; that all the issues would be resolved; that a change order for the contractor would be prepared with no monetary increase at the conclusion of the updated design. Commissioner Atkins stated that the proposal will probably not work because the design is sO aesthetically pleasing; that the concern is water would stream down through the funnel of the vortex into the catchment basin which catches the water; that likely more concentrated splashing in the area near the pillars would be created. Mr. Burg stated that the design would be partial protection in a light rain; that water may go everywhere in a heavy downpour; that the plaza will drain like a normal plaza; that much of the water would get caught, funnel down the petals, get caught in the catchment basin, go down the bases, and would be perhaps fascinating in a normal or light rain. Commissioner Atkins stated that personal experience from trying to stay out of the rain in Sarasota is a person sometimes gets wetter when trying to hide from the rain; that the proposal appears to create more water around the pillars than would be created in the middle of the rain; and asked if the matter been clearly considered? Mr. Burg stated that views of the artist cannot be provided; that the area may not be an appropriate gathering during a heavy downpour; that the design is not meant to create an umbrella; that a total canopy or rain protection is not provided; that the piece would be similar to standing under a tree. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that standing underneath the sculpture in the rain is not desirable unless the sculpture is geometrically formed to hit the innermost, smaller neck of the catchment basin; and asked if the water would go into the stormwater drains? Mr. Burg stated yes. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the water goes into the catchment basin and runs into the stormwater drains; that the ceiling is not solid; that gaps are observed in the ceiling. Mr. Burg stated that is correct. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the glass is acceptable; that the glass is the same as installed at schools; that the mesh is seen through the glass which would not be broken if hit with a rock; that the maintenance of some public art is a problem; that shade would be provided by the proposed artwork; that the water element would be only when raining; that seating will be supplied as part of the landscape; that maintenance is a concern. Mr. Burg stated that a repair and maintenance fund is part of the Public Art Program; that public art is polished and waxed on a regular basis; that the sculptures made of the powder coated metal BOOK 55 Page 27052 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27053 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. surfaces and stainless steel are quite durable; that no absolute guarantee exists if a person is absolutely destructive; that the design is built to withstand 130 mile per hour winds, is made of stainless steel, and is as durable as possible; that some maintenance would be required over time. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that nothing is maintenance free in Florida. Commissioner Atkins stated that he has been through the process in the past; that the Public Art Committee has told the Commission the art was in the best interest of the citizens of the City which created problems; and asked if the artwork is as expected by the Commission and is the best available? Mr. Bowen stated that the four artists chosen as finalists are very skilled, world-renown professionals in the world of public art; that four finalists were reviewed; that for any of the four pieces to come to the City would be pleasing; that Mr. Hatcher's piece is sophisticated; that a review of Mr. Hatcher's previous work and his engineering associates provides confidence the piece would be of a very high quality and a source of pride for the City for many years. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Public Art Committee developed the requested proposal; and asked the vision of the Public Art Committee other than having a great artist selected or if the Public Art Committee had a predetermined concept or was accepting of new concepts? Mr. Bowen stated that the members of the Public Art Committee had an open mind; that the creation of the artwork is at the discretion of the artist; that the role of the Public Art Committee was to choose an appropriate choice from all the responses; that the piece has all the qualities of relating to the space in particular, rather than being more object oriented; that the canopy would be a significant element which is part of an urban design. Vice Mayor Martin referred to the minutes of the January 14, 2004, Public Art Committee concerning the actual colors being used and whether the colors are truly represented; and asked if some further determination concerning the colors has been made? Mr. Bowen stated that the artist indicated the colors are approximately three times removed when the images are placed on the computer screen; that the colors are not exactly as perceived but are close to the intentions of the artist; that the full range of colors are available in the coating and materials; that the color is as close as could be portrayed; that the artist was trying to indicate the colors were as close as could be provided with the computer generated image. Vice Mayor Martin stated that maintenance costs are generally considered for a project; that maintenance would require much more than simply hosing off occasionally to keep the artwork in excellent condition; that the maintenance issue should be addressed in a budgetary manner as the project moves forward; and asked the height of the catchment basin? Mr. Bowen stated that an approximation would be 42 inches which is just above counter height. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a concern is people may use the catchment basin as a trash receptacle. Mr. Bowen stated that a screen would be located at the top of the catchment basin to prevent debris from going down and clogging the holes inside and could easily be brushed off. Commissioner Servian stated that a concern is the unanswered questions regarding the maintenance of the project; that members of the Public Art Committee indicated in a meeting a canopy was sought and is being shown; that the other pieces which were presented have not been seen; that the direction given was for a fountain and seating area; that the artwork only catches water when raining; that no one would be outside in the rain to appreciate the project; that the manner in which the water would drain through the open mesh with nothing to direct the water to the bottom is not understood. Commissioner Servian continued that having water run over the bases and into a reservoir and recycled into a continuous fountain would be more in keeping with the Commission's suggestion; that moving forward with the project as presented is not supported at this time; that additional information is necessaryi that the maintenance requirements are a concerni that the sculpture could become a haven for birds which would require frequent cleaning or the glass could become discolored very quicklyi that the accumulation of leaves and other debris whether screening exists or not could become a problem; that someone would have to climb to BOOK 55 Page 27054 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27055 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. the top of the sculpture for cleaning on a regular basis which would add to the expense of maintaining the piece; that the artist's work is beautiful; that the work of all the artists submitting proposals were reviewed on-line; that the artists are all fine; that the City would be lucky to have any of the pieces; that Mr. Hatcher's artwork does not appear as the appropriate piece for the location. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to deny moving forward with entering into a contract with artist Brower Hatcher. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the motion is to deny consideration of the project and begin again or to further consideration of the project to address the concerns? Commissioner Servian stated that no support was heard to postpone the project to receive additional information; that a denial would be necessary to consider the work of the next artist if no consensus exists for postponing consideration until more information is obtained. Commissioner Atkins stated that the sculpture looks beautiful; that a working model is desirable; that the idea at the beginning of the project was for something comparable to the water feature which is being removed from the plaza now; that a seating area with a fountain was requested by the Commission; that the concern is the piece may be world-renown but would not fit the City's needs. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the seating and the water element and shade were all requested; that the sculpture appears to be a high maintenance item; that the reflecting pool in the hallway of City Hall has a sign saying "Please bear with us" until the pool is fixed; that the money should be well spent; that obtaining more information is acceptable; that the Commission will not have any choices if a Committee is charged to bring the Commission one concept; that making a decision on what is before the Commission is difficult; that too many variables exist which should be developed further before support could be given. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's discussion was clearly indicated the interest in a fountain, the need for a water feature, and the importance of the seating; that the sculpture was not supported initially; however, the sculpture was supported more over time due to the unanimous decision of the Public Art Committee; that trust is placed in the Public Art Committee; that not receiving the two items which were highly valued and clearly articulated by the Commission, i.e., a water feature and seating, is disappointing; that the maintenance and long-term aesthetics of the sculpture are concerns; that the motion is supported. Vice Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Vice Mayor Martin stated that an apology is extended to the Public Art Committee due to the amount of work performed on the project over a long period of time; that the efforts of the Public Art Committee are respected; that the Public Art Committee should not be left hanging; that the entire project is left hanging; that the Commission should engage for a moment regarding the manner in which to move Eorward. Commissioner Servian stated that the second choice finalist should be considered at this time which was Archie Held, unless the Commission would like to see the final three pieces and then make a decision; that the recommendation should come from the Public Art Committee; that the Public Art Committee's opinion is valued; that the Commission had a different idea of the direction in which the project should proceed. On motion of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to enter into a contract with Archie Held, who was the second choice. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Mr. Held's piece has not been seen. Commissioner Atkins stated that the pieces which reflect the expectation of the Commission should be reviewed rather than to accept Mr. Held's piece at this time. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Public Art Committee may have missed the strong expectation of the Commission which was to have a water feature and seating; that the hope would be for the Public Art Committee to review the artwork presented under the water and seating context and bring the artwork which fall into such category forward. BOOK 55 Page 27056 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27057 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to request that the Public Art Committee review previous submittals particularly pertaining to water and seating features. Commissioner Servian stated that the preference is to look at the artwork which already meets the Commission's expectations rather than requesting the artist to go back to the drawing board; that many other concerns exist about the piece in addition to the concerns raised. Vice Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to receive the report of the January 14, 2004, Regular meeting of the Public Art Committee. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yes. The Commission recessed at 3:33 p.m. into a Special meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and reconvened at 3:50 p.m. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3,4,5,6 7 and 8 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A) CD 3:50 through 3:51 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Sarasota-Manatee Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) Memorandum of Understanding among Manatee County, Sarasota County, The City of Bradenton, The City of Sarasota and The Town of Longboat Key relating to the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Traffic Management Center Facility Operations in Manatee County. 2. Approval Re: Settlement of lawsuit brought by Ken Hall against the City of Sarasota Police Department, Officer Earl DelValle and former Officer Charles Robinson. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an amendment to the Joint Project Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Florida Department of Transportation for the construction of a seawall and bulkhead remediation at the Ringling Causeway Bridge. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Neighborhood Partnership Office to use $7,500 from the Neighborhood Grant Program to fund the cost of scholarships to the Neighborhoods U.S.A (NUSA) 2004 Conference in Hollywood, Florida on May 19 through 22, 2004. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a formal contract between the City of Sarasota and Hole Montes, Inc., to provide professional engineering consulting for design and construction administration for the Southgate Underdrain Project. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order Number 1 between the City of Sarasota and Kuxhausen Construction, Inc., for the Gillespie Avenue Improvement Project. 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Joseph A. and Jennifer L. Palladino for a connection to be provided to the City of Sarasota's water distribution system for a developed site located at 3005 Hawthorne Street. 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Theresa Valenti for the purpose of obtaining potable water and sewer service for an undeveloped site located at 1806 Hansen Street. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 through 8, inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yesi. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1696) - ADOPTED; ; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1716) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1717) - ADOPTED; ; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1718) - ADOPTED i ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1719) = ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1720) = ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1720) ADOPTED; ITEM 10 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1724) - ADOPTED; ; ITEM 11 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4517) = BOOK 55 Page 27058 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27059 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. ADOPTED; ; AND ITEM 12 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4520) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 3:51 through 4:00 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1696, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations or junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against all real of personal property owned by the violator for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only). 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1716, appropriating $3,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-070) to fund a donation to Close the Gap, Inc., a local not-for-profit agency which sponsors public celebrations for minority children; etc 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1717, appropriating $2,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-070) to fund a donation to First Step Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Center, a not-for- profit agency helping people in our community to overcome alcohol and substance abuse issues; etc. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1718, appropriating $1,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-070) to fund a donation to Thaise Educational and Exposure Tours, Inc., a local not-for- profit agency which provides year-round after-school care, and exposes minority at-risk students to various educational arenas and places throughout the United States and abroad; etc. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1719, appropriating $110,000.00 from the Unrecognized Revenues of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Fund to partially fund a habitat restoration project at South Lido Park; etc. 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1720, appropriating $5,000.00 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to fund the settlement cost of the Richard E. Lyons claim, as approved by the Commission on January 26, 2004; etc. 7. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1721, appropriating $2,000.00 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund to provide funds for the re-appropriation of Sister Cities funding that was not spent in the previous fiscal year, as approved by the City Commission of February 2, 2004; etc. 10. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1724, supporting federal funding of coastal projects; setting forth findings; etc. (Title Only). 11. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4517, to rezone real property located on the north side of Seventh Street between Central Avenue and Cohen Way and having street addresses of 1435 and 1443 Seventh Street from the Residential Multiple Family-3 (RMF-3) Zone District to the Commercial Neighborhood District (CND); said property presently contains a one-story structure known as the Leonard Reid House; providing for conditions of the rezoning as more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Application No. 03-RE-14, Applicant Thomas Luzier, Esq., as agent representing Marlow Investments, LLC) 12. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4520, providing for the rezoning of a 7.6 acre parcel of property from the North Trail (NT), Commercial Intensive (CI), and Residential Multiple Family-3 (RMF-3) Zone Districts to the Commercial Residential District (CRD) and to the Office Regional District (ORD) Zone Districts; said parcel being more fully described herein and being located on the block bounded on the west by the North Tamiami Trail, on the east by Cocoanut Avenue, on the south by 10th Street, and on the north by 11th Street; approving Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-14 which has been proffered as a condition of this rezoning to permit the construction of a mixed use development containing 188 dwelling units, a 32,500 sq. ft. grocery store, 21,020 sq. ft. of retail space, 5,550 sq. ft. of office space and a 5,550 sq. ft. restaurant and bar; providing for additional conditions of the rezoning and site plan approval as more fully specified herein; providing for severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) (Application Nos. 03-RE-05 and 03-SP-14, Applicant Joel J. Freedman, AICP, of Freedman Consulting Group as agent representing Cocoanut Partners, LLC and RMC Property Group as contract vendees). BOOK 55 Page 27060 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27061 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution Nos. 04R-1696 and 04R-1724 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 04-4517 and 04-4520 by title only and Resolution Nos. 04R-1716, 04R-1717, 04R-1718, 04R-1719, 04R-1720, and 04R-1721 in their entirety. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll- call vote. Motion carried (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4491, TO REZONE A i 1.4 ACRE SITE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY-2 (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE OFFICE REGIONAL DISTRICT (ORD) ZONE DISTRICT TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY USES PERMISSIBLE BY MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE AND A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION PERMISSIBLE BY MINOR CONDITIONAL USE; SAID PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 17"H STREET AND GILLESPIE AVENUE CONSISTING OF LOTS 17 THROUGH 26, BLOCK G, CITY PARK SUBDIVISION, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; APPROVING SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 03-SP-32 WHICH HAS BEEN PROFFERED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF THIS REZONING; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 03-RE-18 AND 03-SP-32, APPLICANT PETER M. DAILEY, DAILEY DESIGN GROUP INC. AND MIC CHAEL BUTTERFIELD, / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GIFTS FROM GOD OF SARASOTA, INC., AS AGENTS REPRESENTING ARNOLD AUSTIN AND GIFTS FROM GOD OF SARASOTA, INC. / OWNER AND CONTRACT VENDEE, I RESPECTIVELY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-I) AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1633, APPROVING MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION NO 03-CU-04 TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY USES CONSISTING OF AN OFFICE, MEETING ROOM SPACE, PAVILION, FOOD PREPARATION AND PARKING AREA, IN THE OFFICE REGIONAL DISTRICT (ORD) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 17"H STREET AND GILLESPIE AVENUE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ; SAID MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 03-SP-32; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-CU-04, APPLICANTS PETER M. DAILEY, DAILEY DESIGN GROUP, INC. AND MICHAEL BUTTERFIELD, / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GIFTS FROM GOD OF SARASOTA, INC. AS AGENTS REPRESENTING ARNOLD AUSTIN AND GIFTS FROM GOD OF SARASOTA, INC. / OWNER AND CONTRACT VENDEE, RESPECTIVELY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-II) AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1693, APPROVING MINOR CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION NO. 04-MCU-01 TO ALLOW A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION IN THE OFFICE REGIONAL DISTRICT (ORD) ZONE DISTRICT UPON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 17"H STREET AND GILLESPIE AVENUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITY, ; SAID MINOR CONDITIONAL USE IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SITE PLAN APPLICATION 03-SP- 32; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-MCU-01, APPLICANTS PETER M. DAILEY, DAILEY DESIGN GROUP, I INC. AND MICHAEL BUTTERFIELD, 1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GIFTS FROM GOD OF SARASOTA, INC. AS AGENTS REPRESENTING ARNOLD AUSTIN AND GIFTS FROM GOD OF SARASOTA, INC. OWNER AND CONTRACT VENDEE, RESPECTIVELY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-III) CD 4:00 through 4:16 Vice Mayor Martin stated that the public hearing concerning the matters was held at the January 20, 2004, Regular Commission and was closed at that time; that no additional public input will be received at the current meeting; that the Commission previously requested modifications to proposed Resolution No. 04R-1693; that the Applicant requested a continuation to the current meeting to assure clarification of proposed language for incorporation in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1693. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, and Karin Murphy, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Attorney Schenk referred to Section 3(c) of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1693 and stated that the phrase permanently installed" has been included to read as follows: BOOK 55 Page 27062 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27063 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. (c) No permanently installed outside speakers shall be used upon the rezoned property. Attorney Schenk stated that the Applicant indicated a common practice is to have a small group Bible study meeting which could involve listening to a worship recording from an amplified speaker device on an occasional basis; that Applicant met with Staff and suggested the inclusion of the following language: Portable amplified speakers and music systems may be temporarily set up and used for Sunday Worship and other occasional outdoor functions, however such speakers shall not be set up and used before 9:00 o'clock a.m. or after 9:00 O'clock p.m., seven (7) days per week. Attorney Schenk stated that the phrase "other occasional outdoor functions" is key; that additionally, the word "outside" has been changed to "outdoor" in Activity 8 of Exhibit B, the activities matrix, of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1693; that the word "weddings" has been added as an example of small group activities; that the following sentence has also been added to Activity 8: All such outdoor small group activities shall be accessory to the approved community service facility or approved religious institution. Attorney Schenk stated that due to the addition of the term "accessory, I eliminating the restriction to 25 people or less was possible. Mr. Litchet stated that the provision is acceptable and enforceable; that the term "accessory" is defined in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the uses must be accessory to a community service facility or approved religious institution; that the understanding is the provisions are acceptable to the Applicant. Ms. Murphy stated that one problem with the 25 people or less limitation was if one additional person came to participate in the activity; that an undue burden should not be created; that small group meetings are also defined in the provisions. Vice Mayor Martin referred to a footnote in Exhibit B as follows: Small Group Meetings and Bible Studies Defined: Group of generally 25 or less Mr. Litchet stated that some flexibility was desired; that both the City and the Applicant appear committed to making the proposal work; that the proposal is workable. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Staff has worked hard on the bringing the proposal to completion; that the Applicant has praised Staff's efforts to bring the Application to completion sO construction on the project can begin; asked if outdoor music is regulated, for example, for a new bar or nightclub and if the occupancy rate is mandated by the Fire Department? Mr. Litchet stated that most bars, taverns, and nightclubs are conditional uses under the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), similar to the current proposal; that regulations would be recommended for the particular use; that any conditional use is a concern; that the impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, etc., are reviewed for conditional uses; that restrictions are common for conditional uses; that almost all bars and taverns are conditional uses. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the same is true for the restriction of permanent outdoor speakers at, for example, an outdoor restaurant? Mr. Litchet stated that a restaurant could be a permitted or a conditional use; that restrictions could be imposed on a restaurant which is a conditional use; that the City's noise regulations impose restrictions on outdoor amplified music in certain zone districts; that generally, the issue is if an impact to neighbors will result; that the ability to impose restrictions is consistent. Commissioner Servian stated that an adjacent property owner is First Step of Sarasota, which has a mothers' and infants' program housed in a building facing the Gifts from God property; that seven day a week amplification may have an impact; that the women in the program are going through substance abuse treatment to assure healthy babies; and asked if a neighborhood meeting or discussion with adjacent neighbors was held relative to the time the amplification will be allowed? Ms. Murphy stated that some correspondence objecting to the speakers has been received; that no other input has been received; that an additional neighborhood meeting was not required; that the public hearing has been closed on the item. BOOK 55 Page 27064 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27065 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that the mothers' and infants' program is two buildings removed from the Gifts from God property; that the outdoor speakers will likely not affect First Step of Sarasota. Ms. Murphy stated that the decibel level would be measured from the property line; that the Applicant has indicated the desire to minimize the impact; that a small radio would have been prohibited under the regulations as previously written; that the recommended language is a compromise position; that the Commission can change the language if desired. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the difference between a permanent and a temporary speaker does not seem significant. Ms. Murphy stated that a temporary speaker provides more flexibility if a nuisance is encountered. City Manager McNees stated that the Applicant raised the question of a lawn care worker with a radio; that as previously written, the radio was an outdoor amplified music device and would be prohibited, which was not the intent; that the intent was to find a middle ground to assure reasonableness. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a permanent speaker could be on a stand inside a door which could be taken outside. Ms. Murphy stated that the Applicant has the burden of proving a violation has not occurred if complaints are received under the revocability provisions of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the recommended language is a good compromise to allow flexibility. Vice Mayor Martin stated that enforcement can be provided; that the conditional use can be revoked if problematic. Mr. Litchet stated that the provisions are enforceable; that communication and cooperation from both sides will be required to make the provisions work. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4491 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03-4491 on second reading. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, no; Atkins, yes. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1633 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1633. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Martin, yes; Servian, no; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1693 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1693. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that approving the project is pleasing; that Gifts from God will do good things for the community; that Staff and the Applicant are thanked for bringing the project to completion; that the lengthy requirements to establish a church in the City is saddening. Vice Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll- call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Servian, no; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROVIDE INPUT AND DIRECT STAFF TO FINALIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION FOR THE REPLACEMENT TREE FUND = DIRECTED STAFF TO FINALIZE THE NEW ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION (AGENDA ITEM VI-IV) CD 4:17 through 4:24 Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the Administrative Regulation concerning the Replacement Tree Eund has been reviewed by Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the Commission is being requested to provide input into the Administrative Regulation prior to finalization; that the Administrative Regulation will govern the handling of the Replacement Tree Fund which is the mitigation fund established under the new Tree Protection Ordinance; that no funds have been paid into the Replacement Tree Fund except for $5,000 appropriated BOOK 55 Page 27066 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27067 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. by the Commission; that a minimal payment is expected in the near future; that at the end of the year, a report regarding the type of funds received, etc., will be provided the Commission. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the new Tree Protection Ordinance was adopted which included the Replacement Tree Fund requiring people who could not place trees on the personal property to pay into the Replacement Tree Eund sO the trees could be planted elsewhere; and asked the relationship of the special trust fund for affordable housing and the Replacement Tree Fund? Mr. Litchet stated that the proposal is to distribute the monies received under the Replacement Tree Fund in three different ways; that one-half of the funds go to new trees for City-owned properties, rights-of-way, and public parks; that the second portion is equal to a quarter of the funds and will be allocated for developments qualifying as affordable housing; that the proposal is to allocate a quarter of the funds for arborist services; that an outside arborist can be utilized to help in making decisions. Mr. Litchet continued that the City Manager can transfer funds from the other two areas if sufficient funds are not available in the event an affordable housing project is presented; that the type of requests which will be received is currently unknown; that a request for funds may not be received for one or two yearsi that some administrative flexibility is necessary to transfer the funds from one portion of the fund to another; that flexibility is written into the Replacement Tree Fund. Commissioner Servian asked if any assurance is presented the applicant will be going into an owner occupied unit as opposed to a person buying affordable housing properties as an investment and renting the property? Mr. Litchet stated that no provision concerning owner occupied housing currently exists regarding the Replacement Tree Fund; that the cost of initial sale for affordable housing is based upon a sale price of $145,000; that a rental type affordable housing situation could be presented; that Staff discussed the issue of owner occupancyi that the owner occupancy is difficult to track except initially; that a situation could exist to help improve the aesthetics of the property even with rental housing; that the policy for either type of situation probably makes sense. Commissioner Servian stated that understanding the rationale was necessaryi that a property is easily identifiable as owner occupied at the time initially purchased; that to expect Staff to track owner occupancy over time is excessively cumbersome. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a quarter of the Replacement Tree Fund will be utilized in instances involving affordable housing, specifically low or moderate income housing; that providing assistance to low income housing only is more of an interest; that the threshold for moderate income housing is $145,000; and asked if Staff considered making the threshold low income rather than low to moderate income housing? Mr. Litchet stated that the threshold for low income housing is not known; that the Tree Protection Ordinance indicates the program will be for low to moderate income families; that the original Tree Protection Ordinance did not designate a separation between low and moderate income housing; that the threshold will be $145,000; that implementing a separation based on the cost of housing may require a change in the Tree Protection Ordinance. Commissioner Atkins stated that the threshold is $145,000 or lower; that the needs would be addressed; that the matter can be refined in the future. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to direct Staff to finalize the Administrative Regulation for the Replacement Tree Fund. Motion carried (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to extend the meeting to complete the New Business Item on the Agenda. Motion carried (4 to 0) Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 9. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R- 1723, AMENDING THE CITY'S FORMAL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS, ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 96R-936 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 97R-959, 97R-1010, 99R-1191, 02R-1471, 02R-1496, 03R-1555 AND 03R-1658, TO ADD "COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS," 1 "REMARKS OF COMMI SSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA, " AND "OTHER ATTRSAONISTAIIVE OFFICERS" TO THE AGENDA ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR THE AFTERNOON SESSION; AND TO CHANGE THE TIME LIMITS FOR PUBLIC INPUT FROM 5 TO 3 MINUTES DURING NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FROM 3 TO 2 MINUTES BOOK 55 Page 27068 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27069 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. FOR ALL OTHER AGENDA ITEMS ALLOWING PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS, AS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT A; ETC. ADOPTED TO ADD "COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS, H "REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA, I AND "OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS" TO THE AGENDA ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR THE AFTERNOON SESSION (AGENDA ITEM VII 1) CD 4:25 through 4:40 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that at the February 2, 2004, Regular meeting, the Commission requested an amendment to the City's Formal Rules of Procedure; that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 adds Commission Board and Committee Reports, Remarks of Commissioners, Announcements and Items for the Next Agenda, and Other Matters/Administrative Officers to the afternoon session if time is available to address the items; that if time is not available, the items would still be at the evening session; that a request was made to change the public input for Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings from five minutes to three minutes; that the time limits for Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings are set at the particular meeting; that the time limit for other interested persons for the Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings has generally been three minutes; that additionally, the public input time has been changed for all other Agenda Items including Citizens' Input from three to two minutes. Commissioner Servian stated that the intent of the Commission may have been more governed by exhaustion than consideration for public input; that reducing public input to expedite the completion of the meetings was not meant as a negative consequence and seemed reasonable at 1:15 a.m.; that in retrospection, the idea is not satisfactory; that citizens currently have few opportunities to discuss matters with the Commission and to let the perspectives and feelings of the citizens be known to the rest of the community; that to handle Commission Board and Committee Reports, Remarks of Commissioners, Announcements and Items for Next Agenda, and Other Matters/Administrative Officers at the afternoon session is supported; that the time limit changes could be reduced and the item moved forward if possible or the matter could be brought back at the next meeting, making all the changes except the time limits. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the recommendation to change the time limit to two minutes was personally made; that much can be said in two minutes; that appointments can be made; that personal visits to people's homes have been made in the evening to discuss an important issue; that the Commission usually allows the time if citizens desire additional time for comments; that Remarks of Commissioners sometimes concern matters which arise during the meeting; therefore, the current placement on the Agenda is satistactory; that citizens should be allowed to have input on the changes of the meeting order, especially the time limits for public input; that the other concern is people are not allowed to speak under Citizens' Input to any matter on the Agenda; that every citizen should be granted the opportunity to speak; that being heard is difficult if a Commission meeting continues until 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Bilyeu continued that the City is evolving every year and getting busier which results in more items on the Agenda; that a Workshop and Commission discussion may be necessary to consider the items for the Commission's Agenda; that the public should be granted the opportunity to speak to the matter of time limits for public input before a decision is reached. Commissioner Atkins stated that the proposed Resolution is supported as presented. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification of the options available. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that the Commission could refer proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 to the City Auditor and Clerk with changes as desired, could deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723, or could adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 with changes. City Manager McNees stated that three minutes is the current length of time for speakers at Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings; that no reason exists for an inconsistency between Non Quasi- Judicial Public Hearings and Quasi-Judicial Hearings; that the length of time for public input at Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings could be reduced from five minutes to three minutes for consistency; that the public input for the remainder of the Agenda items could remain at three minutes if desired. BOOK 55 Page 27070 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27071 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Servian stated that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 is supported except for the change in time limits; that the remainder of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 could be discussed at a workshop or could be put on an Agenda for public input; that moving Remarks of Commissioners to the afternoon session is desirable due to the certain conclusion time of 4:30 p.m., which could result in a significant reduction in discussion at the conclusion of the evening session. Commissioner Servian continued that the situation may not be completely in control at the end of the night; that the Commission should demonstrate some restraint if the public is expected to demonstrate some constraint; that reducing the public input from five minutes to three minutes during Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings causes concern due to the important nature of the items; that most citizens do not take the complete five minutes; that always having to extend the time is also problematic; that two minutes may be plenty of time for a professional, polished speaker; that most citizens who come before the Commission are nervous and have a difficult time getting personal opinions across in three minutes. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that the Commission may wish to adopt the desired items included in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 and strike the balance of the items not desired. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1723 amending the City's Formal Rules of Procedure for the Commission meetings by moving Commission Board and Committee Reports, Remarks of Commissioners, Announcements and Items for the Next Agenda, and Other Matters/Administrative Officers to the afternoon session. Vice Mayor Martin stated that moving Remarks of Commissioners to the afternoon session will work well for the Commission and citizens; that the Commission and Staff are more articulate at such time of day. Commissioner Atkins called for a vote on the motion and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes. 10. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VIII) CD 4:41 There was no one signed up to speak. The Commission recessed at 4:41 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Mayor Palmer is not in attendance due to travel in Tallahassee, Florida; that the purpose of the visit is to assist in the City's lobbying efforts regarding funding for Ed Smith Sports Complex; that best wishes are extended to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson who is not in attendance due to illness. 11. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE : PROCLAMATION FOR ENGINEERS WEEK (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) CD 6:00 through 6:03 Vice Mayor Martin requested that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Annie Ross, President of the Myakka Chapter of the Florida Engineering Society join him and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation; and read in its entirety the Proclamation declaring February 22 through 28, 2004, as Engineers Week. Ms. Ross stated that the proclamation is appreciated; that the City Engineer is an active member of the Florida Engineers Local Chapter of the Florida Engineering Societyi that the association sponsors educational programs in local high schools; that approximately $4,000 is donated for the purposes of furthering education; that the National "Math Counts" competition for sixth through eighth grade students is supported as well as the "Toothpick Bridge" competition being held at Gulfcoast Wonder & Imagination Zone (G.WIZ); that the recognition is appreciated. 12. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: : UPDATE OF THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (EMS) WITHIN THE CITY OF SARASOTA (AGENDA ITEM X-1) CD 6:03 through 6:35 Vice Mayor Martin continued that an update regarding Fire and Emergency Services (EMS) within the City will be provided. Chief Gorski, Stephen Handra, Assistant Chief, Operations Support and Logistics, Terrence Kehoe, Assistant Chief, Fire BOOK 55 Page 27072 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27073 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Operations, and Paul Dezzi, Assistant Chief, EMS, Sarasota County Fire Department, came before the Commission. Chief Gorski recognized David Harrawood, Executive Director, and Lori Gavars, Strategic Planner, Sarasota County Fire Department, present in the Chambers audience; and stated that the reason for the update is to ensure communications between the City and the Fire Department continue; that the hope is to become more involved and perhaps provide updates twice per year; and distributed the City of Sarasota Fire Suppression Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Annual Report (Annual Report). Assistant Chief Handra referred to a chart of the distribution of call volume responded included in the Annual Report, and stated that the Fire Department responded to a total of 6,333 fire calls Countywide during 2003; that 2,445 fire calls were within the City limits; that of the 2,445 calls, 225 fire calls required fire suppression activities which included structure, vehicle, and dumpster fires; that the resulting fire loss was $1.1 million; that 69 fire calls related to rescue calls; that 276 fire calls related to hazardous conditions; that 109 fire calls related to service; that 265 calls resulted from good intent; that details are included in the Annual Report; that Battalion One covers the entire Cityi that the response time to incidents was 4.78 minutes. Chief Gorski stated that 1,500 City fire calls related to false alarms; that false alarms have been an issue with Fire Departments across the Nation for years; that fire alarms sometimes function as a result of a malfunction or are from fire alarms which are too sensitive contributing to false alarms; that Fire Marshall Jane Ross has been working diligently to have overly sensitive fire alarms removed from nursing homes and other businesses and updated with newer technology; that County Ordinance No. 2003-105 is a fire ordinance currently in place, which is included in the Annual Report, but is in the process of being revised; that the ordinance includes provisions for repeated false alarms in buildings; that fines are imposed for each service call if the fire alarms are not repaired within a certain time frame; that the ordinance is being revised to increase the fines which will hopefully provide an incentive for businesses to repair fire alarms. Assistant Chief Dezzi stated that EMS calls for 2003 totaled 35,750; that 8,520 were calls for EMS within the City, 4,600 of which were transported, i.e., the patient was transported to an emergency care facility that the average response time is 4.74 minutes from dispatch; that false alarms were the number one reason for fire calls, followed by ill persons, vehicle crashes, and respiratory and cardiac cases. Commissioner Servian stated that the EMS team responding to her recent accident was magnificent and arrived in less than 4.5 minutes. Chief Gorski stated that customer satisfaction is considered important sO a survey was developed for patients who were transported to hospitals; that the survey was originally generic and only provided to approximately 10 percent of patients transported; that the survey is now provided to 100 percent of patients transported; that the concept of the survey is to obtain feedback for the services provided and if the service meets the needs of the community; that a question was if the cardiac treatment protocol is working and if the correct medication is being provided to patients at the scene; that patients which were transported were contacted to provide information to assist in developing surveys for cardiac, respiratory, orthopedic, and general patients; that the survey, which is included in the Annual Report, asks specific questions of each patient, provides necessary feedback, and allows the patient and family to comment regarding the services rendered; that customer satisfaction surveys are conducted on structure fires; that the fire service survey was expanded to include other types of fire related incidents; that survey feedback will assist the Fire Department with providing a better service and making changes in protocols and standard operating procedures. Assistant Chief Kehoe referred to a Percent Patient Survive to Discharge from Sudden Cardiac Arrest chart displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the customer satisfaction surveys begin with the call to the emergency 911 center to determine if the 911 center was courteous, asked pertinent questions, and ensured help was dispatched in an expedient manner; that the survey includes questions regarding response time, the performance of the paramedic crew on the scene, treatment of injuries, explanation of services being provided, overall quality of services provided such as a smooth ride to the hospital, and treatment of the patient in a caring, courteous, and professional manner; that an area for additional comments or suggestions is also included; that in 2003, the overall satisfaction rating for the fire service survey was 93 percent, which is a source of pride; that the Fire Department is BOOK 55 Page 27074 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27075 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. always seeking to improve; that the overall satisfaction rating for the EMS customer satisfaction survey was 97 percent in 2003. Chief Gorski stated that the Fire Department is proud of the customer satisfaction program; that the program has won recognition at the State and National level; that public safety Fire Departments do not typically conduct surveys with customers in the community; that the customer satisfaction survey for 2004 will determine confidence of the community; that currently, only customers which have been provided service are sampled and surveyed; that the goal is to determine the confidence level of customers who have not been provided service; that the surveys assist the Fire Department in many ways such as purchasing equipment and addressing citizens needs relating to injuries and illnesses; that Fire Departments utilize cardiac arrest to measure effectiveness in the community; that a person's heart stops beating and breathing ceases at the time a person is in cardiac respiratory arrest; that the heart rhythm must be restored within four to six minutes; that otherwise, the brain cells begin to die which is irreversible; that typically, at the time of cardiac arrest, the person is in ventricular fibrillation, which is a treatable rhythm if the treatment is expedient; that training the public in Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and deployment of external defibrillators for use by the public will assist in the resuscitation rate; that typically, the resuscitation rate in large cities such as New York City, New York, and Chicago, Illinois, is one to five percent and translates as a pulse was recovered and the person was transported to a hospital; that the percentage of the resuscitation rate calculated by Sarasota's Fire Department incorporates the point at which the patient is actually discharged from the hospital; that the resuscitation rate percentage is high not only due to the expertise of the paramedics and firefighters but also due to the involvement of the entire community. Chief Gorski continued that the customer satisfaction survey includes a question regarding the treatment of chest pain; that the Fire Department has a protocol to relieve chest pain; that the question provides information concerning the medication's relief of the patient's chest pain; that the survey revealed chest pain was not being relieved, which was a significant request of patients; that the protocol was modified to include increased dosages of nitro glycerin and more aggressive use of controlled substances to reduce pain. Chief Gorski referred to the 2004 Business Plan displayed on Chamber monitors; and further stated that the 2004 Business Plan includes five categories: 1) life guards, 2) emergency management, 3) communications, 4) emergency medical services, and 5) fire operations; that the following four perspectives are addressed within each category: customer importance; - operational excellence; - proficient and motivated workforce; and financial accountability. Chief Gorski stated further that the entire Fire Department adheres to the 2004 Business Plan; that the Fire Department's Capital Improvement Plan includes Fire Station Number Four which is located on Old Bradenton Road, was constructed in the early 1960s, and is not able to house sufficient workforce or apparatus. Assistant Chief Handra referred to an artist's rendering of Fire Station Number Four located on Old Bradenton Road displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the proposed building consists of 8,100 square feet, including 4,000 square feet of living area, and is designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and the community; that three drive through bays for fire apparatus are included; that the old building has been demolished; that approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil has been delivered to the site and has been compacted; that construction will begin shortly; that the anticipated completion date is the fall of 2004. Commissioner Atkins asked if the City will be required to give up any adjacent park land to accommodate the drive through bays? Assistant Chief Handra stated that the building is being constructed in the same footprint as the previous building; that sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of the block which will travel to the park; that other improvements are planned as well. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the new building includes a community room? BOOK 55 Page 27076 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27077 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Assistant Chief Handra stated no; that the building includes only sufficient room for living area for firefighters and the drive through bays. Chief Gorski stated that a different 12,500 square foot prototype building with a community room or office on one side was developed but not utilized in this instance. Assistant Chief Handra stated that the new building will be constructed to withstand a Category 3 Hurricane. Chief Gorski stated that the Commission will be kept apprised of the progress of the construction; that the desire is to include the Commission in the opening ceremonies of the new building; that another fire station is being constructed on Stickney Point Road. Chief Gorski continued that the Fire Department also provides hazardous materials special operations team services to the City; that the team is trained in hazardous material special operations; that the team has specialized vehicles and handles incidents related to gas leaks, other hazardous type material, and weapons of mass destruction; that the team has gone through additional training; that grants totaling approximately one quarter million dollars were received; that additional equipment was provided which regionalized the team; that the team is one of a few to receive the additional training and equipment in the State; that based on the training level of the team and the equipment received, the team could be called upon to assist in events occurring in another region or county; that the specialized equipment can analyze chemical and biological substances in an instant; that the specialized equipment was used by the military and has been provided to the Fire Department; that decontamination equipment as well as medications and antidotes for any chemical and biological substances have also been provided; that Sarasota is one of a few communities to receive the specialized equipment; that the specialized equipment can be deployed to other communities if necessary. Chief Gorski further stated that public education is provided to citizens of all ages in the community; that many programs were implemented during 2003; that Fire Marshall Ross was able to obtain grants from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a smoke alarm program; that some people living in the community do not have smoke alarms; that smoke alarms save lives; that code enforcement officers deliver and install smoke alarms for citizens in need; that the Fire Department has jurisdiction to conduct inspections for fire safety in commercial buildings; that the majority of fires are in residential homes; however, the Fire Department has no jurisdiction to conduct inspections within a residence; that a volunteer home fire safety inspection program was implemented and will encourage the community to allow the Fire Department to inspect homes for fire hazards; that a presentation was recently conducted in Warm Mineral Springs, Florida; that approximately 190 residents requested home inspections, which is tremendous; that in June 2003, fire statistic information was plotted on a Geographic Information System (GIS) mapi that hotspots for fires can be identified; that determinations can be made as to the causes of the fires; that the number one cause of fires in Sarasota is related to kitchen fires resulting from people who are cooking, become distracted, and leave cooking unattended; that a specific area of high kitchen fires was identified by grid; that public information pamphlets were compiled and delivered door to door to the area in an attempt to provide education; that the effectiveness of the effort will be measured in one year; that the goal is to reduce fires. Chief Gorski referred to Sarasota County Ordinance No. 2003-096 included in the Annual Report which was adopted on November 12, 2003, by a vote of 5 to 0, and which addresses fireworks; that fireworks have been a concern in the community; that fireworks are illegal; that an exception in the law allows certain use of fireworks such as the annual public display of fireworks; that sparklers are not considered fireworks; that Manatee County also recently adopted a fireworks ordinance. Chief Gorski referred to Sarasota County Ordinance No. 2003-105, also included in the Annual Report, which was recently adopted as the fire ordinance and expanded the fire district to the DeSoto County line; that the fire district line previously ended at Myakka State Park since the area beyond Myakka State Park is desolate; however, the Fire Department still responded to 911 calls across the line; that fire suppression user fees were also implemented; that a fee is imposed if a citizen is transported in an ambulance; that fire suppression user fees are imposed if negligence is determined as a cause of a fire; that language has been added to the fire ordinance to provide the authority to assess undeveloped land; that a methodology to assess the land has not yet been finalized. Chief Gorski continued that Sarasota County's ordinance governing fire alarms has been in place since approximately 1996; that false fire alarms are a problem in every community; that the County's BOOK 55 Page 27078 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27079 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. fire alarm ordinance has not been as effective as desired; that the County's fire alarm ordinance sunsetted on December 31, 2003; that the statistics and the regulations of the County's fire alarm ordinance were reviewed; that as a result, the fire alarm ordinance was revised and is currently under legal review; that the State Statutes are consistent regarding placement of fire alarms; that some buildings are small, and have fire alarms, and do not require monitoring; that Fire Marshall Ross is working with the City's Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department Staff to correct issues relating to fire alarms; that the goal is to reduce the number of false alarms from 1,500 to 1,000 by 2005; that false alarms have been significantly decreased; however, new alarms are installed as new buildings are constructed. Commissioner Servian asked the number of hazardous material specialists? Chief Gorski stated that 33 hazardous material specialists are assigned at one fire station; that the Fire Department has 44 hazardous material specialists. Commissioner Servian asked the number of portable defibrillators in the County and the plans to increase the number available to the community? Assistant Chief Dezzi stated that within the County, requests for defibrillators are received weekly from different agencies such as condominiums, club houses, and malls; that Westfield Shoppingtown mall has defibrillators; that the County purchased 50 defibrillators in 2003; that the American Heart Associated also provided 50; that one defibrillator is located at City Hall; that all of the defibrillators have been distributed. Chief Gorski stated that a 911 emergency call for a cardiac arrest at a tennis court was reviewed; that the 911 dispatcher provided the caller with CPR instructions and informed the caller to get the on-site defibrillator; that the sirens can be heard in the background of the 911 call; that the person was resuscitated by the time the paramedics arrived on the scene. Commissioner Atkins asked the plan for the fire station on Fourth Street. Chief Gorski stated that the plan is to work with the City, the community, and developers; that the fire station is an important factor to maintain the Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating; that the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) shares the facility; that the County's Capital Improvement Plan includes architect and design for the station scheduled for 2006 with construction in 2007; that the dates are tentative; that a developer interested in the property has recently visited with the Fire Department and expressed a desire for the Fire Department to locate on a different site; that the Fire Department cannot be located too far from the site while still maintaining the ISO rating. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the update is appreciated; that the presentation was excellent; that providing an update twice per year is a good idea. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public hearing sign-up process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. 13. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4522, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SARASOTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (A/K/A SARASOTA CITY PLAN) FOR ONE (1) YEAR; SAID MORATORIUM TO BE APPLICABLE TO AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE FILED AND PROCESSED FOR THE 2004-2005 ANNUAL AMENDMENT CYCLE; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE NEED FOR AND PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY THE MORATORIUM; EXEMPTING APPLICATIONS PERTAINING TO ANNEXED PROPERTY; AND ALSO EXEMPTING EMERGENCY AMENDMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS AS DEFINED IN THE ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) MOTION TO ADOPT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A MAJORITY (AGENDA ITEM XI-A-1) BOOK 55 Page 27080 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27081 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. CD 6:35 through 7:36 Vice Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is to establish a moratorium on the processing of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) for one year; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward. Douglas James, Chief Planner, and David Smith, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Mr. James stated that the State Statutes require every county and city in the State update the Comprehensive Plan every seven years; that the City last updated the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1998; that the State Statutes also require staffing the preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) : that the EAR is labor intensive and requires a considerable amount of cooperation and coordination among City departments and regional and State agencies; that the EAR must be completed by November 2005; that based on current staffing levels, the decision is to begin work on the EAR earlier rather than later; that the request is not to require Staff to prepare the EAR while concurrently processing 9 to 12 private sector initiated amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan during the 2004/2005 year plan amendment cycle while carrying out other routine duties; that work on the EAR will commence in April 2004 to meet the State mandated deadline of November 2005; that the annual plan amendment cycle begins in May 2004. Mr. James continued that the request is similar to the request for a moratorium the Commission considered and approved in 1995 at the time the current EAR was prepared and subsequently approved; that the request is to allow a delay in the May 2004 cycle for amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the result would be Staff would not be required to analyze and process an anticipated 10 to 14 amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan sO focus can be placed on the EAR; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 provides for the Commission to allow an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan after receipt of a recommendation from Staff, which is a safety value for any unanticipated opportunity. Mr. James distributed a document regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications acted upon by the City Commission since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan 1999 through 2004; and further stated that the document provides a framework for the Commission and indicates a number of applications entertained by the Commission have been for Future Land Use Map amendments affecting individual parcels; that in general, the individual parcels are quite small with the exception of a City-initiated amendment concerning the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the document indicates individual parcels average 1.72 acres of the 27 EFuture Land Use Map amendments; that based on prior year averages, Staff would be addressing approximately 17 acres worth of Comprehensive Plan Amendments in 2005; that concurrently, Staff will be reviewing 500,000 acres associated with the City's municipal boundaries relating to the overall EAR; that the ability to step back at this point and view the larger picture from a statistical perspective has merits; that the document validates stepping back from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle has serious repercussions for the development potential for the Cityi that the document indicates the City will continue to process and evaluate any rezoning applications, conditional use permits, site plans, and street or alley vacations filed with the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that every development agreement, building permit application, variance, request for historic designation, subdivision plat, government (G) zone waiver, provisional use permit, filed, will be processed; that every amendment authorized by the Commission to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan will be processed; that every EAR based amendment will be processed as part of the EAR; that all interested persons will have the opportunity to be heard as part of the EAR; that all emergency amendments and amendments based upon court decisions will be heard; that the Commission will have the authority to move any amendment deemed appropriate forward. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding an emergency amendment. Mr. James stated that an example is a hurricane or an event requiring a significant amount of modification to the City's Comprehensive Plan or implementing ordinances sO quick action could be required. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the document indicates the City Manager will be able to consider an amendment. Mr. James stated that the City Manager would bring the request to authorize a specific amendment to the Commission; that the Commission would make the determination; that the document BOOK 55 Page 27082 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27083 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. includes a list of departmental special assignments and projects which are not routine; that the special assignments and projects vary on a daily basis; that Planning and Redevelopment Staff has an active responsibility for special assignments and projects; that shifting obligations to conduct work on the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan cycle is difficult. Mr. James distributed a February 8, 2004, letter to the Mayor from the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) ; and continued that the letter indicates the CCNA unanimously recommends approval of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 establishing a one year moratorium on the processing of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. James further stated that the Commission is encouraged to pause at this juncture and take time to reflect; that the occasion is rare for the Commission to step back from the rigors of day to day governing and reflect on the long term vision for the future development of the Cityi that the Commission is encouraged to take time to evaluate past failures and successes and use the findings to hone new policies for the future, which should be done in a thoughtful and deliberate manner; that the issue is important; that the time has come to stand back and reflect. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the document indicates a number of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are City-initiated; and asked the average number of privately initiated amendments? Mr. James stated that approximately 10 to 12 amendments are privately initiated. Mr. Smith stated that 10 amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan exist at this time; that two are City-initiated and eight are privately-initiatea. John Tylee, Executive Director, Downtown Partnership of Sarasota, 1818 Main Street (34236), stated that he is speaking on behalf of the Policy Committee of the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota, and distributed and read a prepared statement indicating that the budgetary concerns regarding Staff are recognized; that the technical difficulties and potential confusion in dealing with specific amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the EAR process is also understood; however, the Commission is requested to consider the broader picture; that a moratorium has a chilling impact on the development community; that the community will be placed in a negative position in the eyes of national and international developers; that the message a moratorium sends may be more powerful than the reality; that in the current environment, additional Staff might be considered an investment by the City which could be repaid many times by additional tax revenues received by speedy development; that the Commission is requested to reconsider the proposed moratorium or at least combine the moratorium with a public education campaign indicating the City remains open for business and is anxious to have developers come into the Cityi that the term "moratorium" sends a negative message, for example, an individual indicated in an earlier meeting, the City is closing down all building permits, which is clearly wrong but is the kind of rumor generated by use of the term "moratorium", that the City is requested to increase dialogue with the most affected portions of the community prior to issuance of such regulations as a moratorium are announced; that increased dialog will help develop a winning situation for everyone but could also develop a way of presenting the City's action in a positive manner, therefore, avoiding the chilling effect of imposing a moratorium. Craig Colburn, 1819 Main Street (34236), stated that he serves as General Counsel to the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, is a member of the Young Professionals Group, and is speaking as a young professional and business member of the community; that the moratorium is a bad idea and is not necessaryi that the City has an excellent Planning and Redevelopment Department; that the department has been unable to fill a position for a Planner for which dozens of applications have been received; that the City's needs being sO unique a qualified candidate cannot be found is highly unlikely; that the City should identify the best applicant and hire the individual on a temporary, permanent, or contract basis; that the City should consider outsourcing the work regarding the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan if the needs are sO great the work cannot get done; that requesting a moratorium to deal with workload problems should be a last not a first resort; that the City should not risk the great momentum gained in recent years; that the momentum has been achieved through hard work of City officials, great Staff, and through the dedication of private individuals such as arts groups, the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota, merchants, and investors; that the moratorium sends the wrong message to investors; that the Whole Foods Centre project has banked on Sarasota's continued growth as a means to support its grocery store; that Eifth Third Bank is planning to open a branch and a major regional operation in the new Five Points Plaza; that the BOOK 55 Page 27084 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27085 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Downtown location was chosen since a vision and commitment to growth and prosperity on the part of the City was seen; that the moratorium dishonors the commitment; that exceptions will exist for large projects; however, the small projects bring more people to the Downtown; that the small projects will likely be forced to wait or will not be constructed if the moratorium is approved; that the Commission is urged not to impose the moratorium. Kerry Kirschner, 2033 Main Street (34236), representing The Argus Foundation, stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is not supported; that many of the projects involve small parcels and are brought forth by individual applicants; that government exists for the people; that denying the people the process of being able to petition government is wrong; that the message being sent by the moratorium is wrong. Mr. Kirschner referred to the January 20, 2003, memorandum to the City Manager from Jane Robinson, Director, Planning and Redevelopment regarding the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Follow-up Discussion from the August 1, 2003, Moratorium on the Processing of Comprehensive Plan Amendments During the FY 2004/05 Annual Amendment Cycle, included in the Agenda backup material, and continued that the memorandum indicates in 1995, a similar moratorium was imposed and similar reasons were provided for the preparation of the EAR; and quoted the following footnote from the memorandum: The number of "planning" staff members has not increased since 1995, although "redevelopment" staff has due to the reorganization. Currently the equivalent of 2.05 planners are assigned to petition processing and 1 to long range planning. Mr. Kirschner quoted the October 14, 2003, memorandum to Jane Robinson from Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, regarding the Proposed Two Year Moratorium on Privately Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the FY 2004/05 and 2005/06 Annual Amendment Cycles as follows: After the moratorium goes into effect, the City must take prompt action to address the situation which caused the moratorium to be declared. Mr. Kirschner stated further that the reason the problem was not corrected after a moratorium was imposed in 1995 and no additional staff was hired is not understood and indicates neglect; that the cost of legal action alone will exceed the amount of money to employ an additional Staff member if one applicant comes in and sues the Cityi that the Commission should not deny the public the right of petition. Jeff Russell, Attorney, law firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford and Gordon, Chartered, 240 South Pineapple Avenue, (34236), stated that the land use moratoriums decided by courts nationwide for the last 30 years were reviewed for Clients; that moratoriums which were upheld by the courts fell into two distinct categories; that the first category was at a time a change in the zoning ordinances was pending sO the moratorium was to prohibit developers from inundating the jurisdiction with applications in anticipation of the zoning changes; that often areas had been annexed but not zoned; that the goal was to zone the areas prior to receiving applications to avoid a proliferation of unwanted uses such as fast food restaurant, or adult book stores; that the second category upheld by the courts were moratoriums involving areas in which insufficient public services such as potable water or sewer services were available; that both categories are the only circumstances found acceptable to the courts to uphold a moratorium; that the grounds for a moratorium in the City have been advanced; that Staff's position is appreciated; however, the City will pay legal fees in excess of the cost to hire additional Staff or outsource the process, if just one person files a challenge; that Sarasota County encountered the same problem as the City and outsourced the process, which worked well; that the Commission is strongly recommended to consider the alternative of hiring additional Staff or outsourcing the process. William Couch, Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), 1945 Fruitville Road (34236), stated that a moratorium on amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan is not the best way to deal with the EAR; that the moratorium is not considered an acceptable response; that the term "moratorium" sends a bad signal at a time the City is riding the crest of an economic wave which benefits all the City's residents; that the people at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reviewing the HOPE VI grant will see Sarasota has passed a moratorium; that the effect on the Enterprise Zone and the redevelopment in Newtown and Downtown should be considered; that an individual with an exceptional project could be allowed to BOOK 55 Page 27086 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27087 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. process an amendment with the approval of the City Manager which places the Administration in an awkward position; that criteria does not exist to determine if a project is worthy of breaking the moratorium; that the process cannot be fairly administered without written criteria and standards; that no one is placing blame as to the reasons the City is in the predicament at this time; that the fact the City has undergone unprecedented growth and development during the past several years placing an unusual burden on City Staff is understood and appreciated; that Staff has performed well considering the volume; that the efforts of the Commissioners, the Administration, and Staff are appreciated; that a moratorium on privately initiated new amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan is a bad idea; that the Commission is requested to reconsidered direction regarding the issue and request the Administration and Staff seek some alternative solutions. Joe Hembree, 1335 Second Street (34236), stated that the moratorium is a bad idea; that applicants proposing development on small parcels will suffer; that losing an entire year due to a moratorium is an extreme cost and setback to small individual developers; that everyone likes large, special projects; that large projects will receive attention; however, the individual small developer deserves the right to be heard; that government should never be closed to the individual citizen due to poor planning; that adequate Staff should be available to accommodate each individual citizen; that the term "moratorium" is a bad word; that the Commission should step back and think about the seriousness of the matter. Michael Furen, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street (34237), stated that he is representing himself; that he has practiced land use development law within the City, the County, and the southwest coast of Florida for 30 years; that he has seen the outcome of using the term "moratorium" in the community; that a moratorium is devastating to plans to bring in new and desirable developers with desirable projects; that the Commission has been informed an appropriate amendment can be initiated during the moratorium if a desirable project is brought forth; that the City Manager has the right to bring forward a proposed amendment the City's Comprehensive Plan to the Commission without any standards as a guide by which to judge the project; that the situation places the Commission in the untenable and improper position of having to prejudge the merits of a proposed amendment before the amendment can be filed; that the situation is not considered a correct posture in which to place the Commission; that the City has adopted many amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan to implement the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the amendments are now effective; that the indication is not many privately initiated amendments will be coming forward over the next year; however, he is aware of the existence of many projects which cannot be discussed publicly at this time; that the projects may require amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that causing undue delay which is inherent in the moratorium would be unfortunate for the City and for the potential proponents of development, that the moratorium is really not only for one year. Attorney Furen referred to the October 20, 2003, memorandum from Jane Robinson, Director, Planning and Redevelopment, regarding the moratorium on the processing of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and continued that the memorandum indicates the following disadvantages for private sector applications: Amendments which would normally be filed in the FY 2004/05 amendment cycle and become effective in either March or October 2005 would not become effective until the summer of 2007. Attorney Furen further stated that the summer of 2007 is over three and one half years away; that from a legal perspective, the Commission should not have the legal authority to adopt the proposed moratorium; that the City Attorney's Office has indicated a reasonable relationship between the moratorium and the public health, safety, and welfare must exist; that the relationship has not been demonstrated as a matter of public record; that the only testimony and document in evidence seen in the record is establishing a relationship between the proposed moratorium and the Staff workload; that sympathy is held for the efforts of Staff; that the City has a fine and hardworking Staff; nowever, the legal justification of an overburdened Staff for a moratorium is not supported; that the views expressed by the previous speakers are shared; that other alternatives are available to solve the problem; that consultants can be used and have been previously used effectively; that the City could also outsource the process or hire temporary Staff. Peter Trigg, 4014 Bay Shore Road (34234), member of the Board of Directors of the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association (IBSSA); stated that he represents IBSSA at the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) ; that he is BOOK 55 Page 27088 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27089 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. speaking in support of the Planning and Redevelopment Department and for proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522; that any people wanting amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan during the review year should work within the EAR process rather than file individual amendments; that otherwise, the process would be too time consuming and confusing not only for Staff but for affected neighborhoods; that a better result will be achieved if developers, Staff, Commissioners, and neighborhood representatives address all the development issues together during the EAR process rather than individually; that the effect on the entire City should be considered; that the term "moratorium" should not be used but should simply be a part of the process; that the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan designed to implement the EAR will be initiated in the spring of 2006 which is a good time for everyone to regroup, and make future plans; that Comprehensive Plan Amendments may not be necessary if everyone works together as a groupi that the Commission is respectfully requested to support proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522. City Manager McNees stated that Staff workload is not the main reason for the proposed moratorium; that the term "moratorium" is being used since the City is legally required to use the term; however, use of the term is not necessarily a good idea; that the views expressed by the previous speaker are shared; that the term "moratorium" is causing more of a problem than necessary; that the issue of standing still and stopping the privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments during the EAR process is legitimate since the direction and energies of the Planning and Redevelopment Department are critical; that without consideration of workload issues, the direction and energies of the Planning and Redevelopment Department will be directed at the overall EAR process allowing equal attention for everyone; that everyone can petition the government regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan during the EAR process; that the EAR process is extensive and creates a legitimate workload issue; that the panic over the moratorium is somewhat unjustified; that the commercial lenders at Fifth Third Bank and other local development companies understand the difference between a moratorium on privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments and a building or development moratorium; that the issue is not complicated; that the moratorium will probably not lead to the gloom and doom which is being portrayed; that Staff has not indicated size of projects would be relevant and has not indicated the City Manager would be asked to make recommendations without having criteria; that the suggestion is to develop criteria by October 1, 2004; that the criteria should be based on a connection to a time related hardship; that a previous speaker indicated the moratorium extends beyond one year, thereby not allowing a project through the process until 2007; that some will not be through the process until 2006 if a moratorium is not imposed; that the moratorium is still a one year change to the time necessary to go through the process; that criteria should be established which the Commission should review prior to imposing the moratorium; that the point the Commission is to some degree presupposing is what determines a successful application is legitimate; that the legality of the moratorium should be addressed by the City Attorney's Office; that the Administration will prepare an adequate budget according to the Commission's direction. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Staff come forward. Mr. James, Mr. Smith, and Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Mr. James stated that the idea of pausing and stepping back from the work program is one of the reasons for earlier comments; that pausing, refreshing, and reviewing the broader picture is important; that the term "moratorium" is onerousi that people in the community are sufficiently intelligent and wise; that projects not requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendments would not be affected even if the moratorium were in place; that government is not being closed to the individual small developer; that individual developers have the opportunity to participate in the broader context of the EAR process; that no one is being denied the opportunity to petition the City; that the forum is different; however, the opportunity to petition the City is available. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification regarding the relationship between the moratorium and the public health, safety and welfare. Attorney Fournier stated that the points raised by Attorney Russell will be addressed; that his October 14, 2003, memorandum indicated a relationship must exist between the imposition of the moratorium and the promotion of the public interest; that the public welfare must be served; that Attorney Russell previously submitted a letter which was reviewed; that the letter indicates a municipality is entitled to impose a moratorium in two specific instances which are: 1) existence of an imminent threat to health, safety, and welfare, and 2) pending regulatory change in the zoning ordinance and a desire to prevent development which is inconsistent with the pending change; that both instances are two BOOK 55 Page 27090 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27091 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. examples in which the public interest is served; that a third instance is the moratorium is based on the premise that having the City's Comprehensive Plan evaluated and appraised in a timely fashion as required by Statute without a State imposed penalty moratorium serves the public interest. Commissioner Servian referred to the October 14, 2003, memorandum to Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment, from Attorney Fournier regarding the proposed two year moratorium on privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and stated that the same argument as is currently being put forth was used in 1995; that the memorandum indicates after the moratorium goes into effect, the City must take prompt action to address the situation which caused declaring the moratorium; that the City has not taken prompt action to address the situation. Attorney Fournier stated that a previous speaker also raised the point; that prompt action was meant as the City must be prompt and immediate about starting the EAR process after the moratorium is imposed. Commissioner Servian quoted the language from Attorney Fournier's October 14, 2003, memorandum as follows: After the moratorium goes into effect, the City must take prompt action to address the situation which caused the moratorium to be declared. Attorney Fournier stated that although the point is valid, the intent of the sentence was to begin work promptly on the EAR; that action should be taken to address the situation causing the moratorium at some point; that the need for the moratorium is caused by the need to prepare the EAR which must begin promptly upon implementing the moratorium; that Attorney Furen commented on a lack of standards; that the phrase administrative amendments is a defined term which is addressed in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that administrative amendments are amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan initiated by the Commission to: a) make the plan consistent with any applicable Federal, State, or municipal law to harmonize it with some other regulation, b) comply with the order of any court, or any other entity having subject matter jurisdiction, C) address annexed parcels, and d) pursue modifications recommended by the City Manager; that the reason standards are not included in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) is, generally speaking, City-initiated administrative amendments have been either text amendments or amendments which do not pertain to privately owned properties; that a need did not exist for standards; that in the event the Administration had recommended a modification, the City Manager would be able to explain to the Commission the reason the modification is in the best interest of the City to pursue; that an initial judgment to go forward must be made; that the amendment is not totally being prejudged since initiation of an amendment is not tantamount to ultimate approval; that the Commission is not committed to approving anything if an amendment is initiated; that evidence and testimony must be heard. Mr. James stated that approximately two or three years ago, the Commission directed Staff to support an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan outside of the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle; that Staff moved forward with the amendment which the Commission denied; that the Commission did not prejudge the amendment by directing Staff to move forward; that the evidence and testimony was ultimately the reason for denial of the amendment. Commissioner Servian asked if the City is aware of any projects which were lost due to the 1995 moratorium? Mr. James stated that no one has come forward to indicate any project was lost due to the 1995 moratorium. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification regarding the process for a developer owning less than an acre of land in the City, desiring to build as soon as possible, and requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, if the moratorium is in effect. Attorney Fournier stated that the best solution under the circumstances would be to participate in the EAR process with the hope the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be addressed in the EAR and then would be implemented by means of those subsequent City-initiated amendments intended to implement the EAR. Mr. Smith stated that going through the individual process would be quicker since the moratorium would not be in place in 2005; that the developer could file an application in 2005; that approval could be obtained in 2006; that the EAR based amendments would not take effect until 2007. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the developer could apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in October of 2005 if the moratorium is approved. BOOK 55 Page 27092 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27093 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Smith stated no; that a moratorium would be in place for the annual amendment cycle beginning in May 2004; that another amendment cycle begins in May 2005, which is not being discussed; that the amendment cycle in May 2005 will still take place. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the moratorium is from May 2004 to May 2005. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct; however, the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan designed to implement the EAR will not be initiated until spring of 2006. Mr. Smith stated that is correct; that the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan designed to implement the EAR will be initiated in the spring of 2006 but will not be completed until the summer of 2007. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a majority of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests are City initiated; and asked if the reason for the moratorium is the fact the City is understaffed in the Planning and Redevelopment Department? City Manager McNees stated that a significant number of City departments are understatted. There was no one else to speak and Vice Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 on second reading. Commissioner Servian stated that citizens speaking in opposition of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 should refer to the document distributed by Staff indicating the following development applications which are not impacted by the proposed moratorium on the 2003 and 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle: Rezonings; Conditional use permits; Site plans; - Street and alley vacations - Building permit applications; Adult use permits; - Variances; - Historic designations - Subdivisions/Plats - Development agreements; Developments of regional impact; - Government (G) Zone waivers; and Provisional use permits. Commissioner Servian continued that the moratorium is not a building moratorium; that the thought of a building moratorium should not be promulgated by the development and real estate community; that rezonings, conditional use permits, site plans, variances, development agreements, etc., will be processed; that the City is not closing down for business; that Staffing issues should be addressed; that the moratorium provides an opportunity to review the City's Comprehensive Plan in a proper manner; that privately initiated amendments can be brought forward and can be approved one year sooner than going through the EAR process; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is supported. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is not supported; that the City is experiencing change, which should continue; that some requests are for small development; that small business is the backbone of America; that the Commission should address staffing issues; that the Commission should ensure sufficient staffing is adequate to perform necessary work; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is not supported as the public process is important. Vice Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is supported; that the moratorium has been poorly publicized and embraced by the community, which is unfortunate; that the moratorium concerns the greater picture of planning in the community; that State legislation provided for comprehensive planning and created the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) i that one of the most important elements is the EAR process; that the EAR process is the one time everyone can be heard; that the EAR process provides visioning for the community; that not providing full attention to the EAR process is a concerni that City Staff is overworked due to the exciting BOOK 55 Page 27094 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27095 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. development taking place; however, overburdened Staff is not the focus of the issue; that the focus is the City needs good development at this time and into the future; that the Downtown will not require any further Comprehensive Plan Amendments for growth; that the 1995 moratorium was difficult to consider; that the times are more dynamic; that the safety valve of having the City Manager review strategic projects to bring forth to the Commission to judge provides comfort; that Commissioner Atkins previously indicated the 1995 moratorium did not cause problems; that Staff has also indicated no problems resulted from the 1995 moratorium; that discussions took place with former Mayor and Commissioner Nora Patterson, who indicated the 1995 moratorium was not a problem for any developer; that projects moved forward; that the 1995 EAR process set the pace for the growth the City is presently experiencing; that the debate and concern regarding the moratorium is understood; however, proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is supported. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the moratorium will affect the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI grant and the Enterprise Zone? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Commissioner Atkins stated that a moratorium will definitely affect the development community; that the decision is difficult; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 is not supported. Commissioner Atkins called for a vote on the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4522 on second reading; and requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion failed for lack of a majority (2 to 2): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, no; Martin, yes; Servian, yes. 14. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4529, TO CONDITIONALLY VACATE THAT CERTAIN DEDICATED ALLEY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND TO THE NORTH OF 1012 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, SAID ALLEY RUNNING EAST TO WEST CONNECTING OREGON COURT TO THE SOUTHERN MID BLOCK TERMINUS OF A PLATED ALLEY, ALL AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF i ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-SV-01, APPLICANT JOEL J. FREEDMAN, AICP, OF FREEDMAN CONSULTING GROUP AS AGENT REPRESENTING COCOANUT PARTNERS L.L.C. AND RMC PROPERTY GROUP, CONTRACT VENDEE) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XI-A-2) CD 7:36 through 7:42 Vice Mayor Martin stated that Application No. 04-SV-01 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4529 is to conditionally vacate the dedicated alley located immediately adjacent and to the north of 1012 North Tamiami Trail; that the Applicant is Joel Freedman, AICP, of Freedman Consulting Group, as agent representing Cocoanut Partners, LLC and RMC Property Group, contract vendee; opened the public hearing, and requested that the Applicant come forward. Joel Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Group, as agent representing Cocoanut Partners, LLC, and RMC Property Group, contract vendee, and Charles D. Bailey, Jr., law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman referred to a site plan of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the request is to vacate a portion of an alley which was created at the time an older alley was vacated for the purpose of the Speedway service station which is now the Sunoco service station; that at the time the alley was vacated, businesses were still being served by the alley, including the gas station; that the applicant created the new alley to provide a connection with Oregon Court; that as a result of the redevelopment project, the alley is no longer needed; that cross access easements will be incorporated into the project. Attorney Bailey stated that the request is out of sequence with other approvals since arrangements with the Sunoco service station came later in the process; that the deed was given by the predecessor of Sunoco, Inc., in January 1998; that the function of the alley will be replaced by an internal roadway and parking lot system; that a new roadway will be constructed from 11th to 10th Street and will provide good circulation; that the Commission's consideration is appreciated. Mr. Freedman stated that second reading for the other alley and street vacations which are required for the project and which have already been passed by the Commission on first reading will be included with second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4529 to vacate the east-west alley to Oregon Court. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. BOOK 55 Page 27096 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27097 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission; and stated that the request is straight forward; that the Applicant requests approval of Site Plan Application 04-SP-03 to eliminate one of the seven platted lots which constituted the site of a Speedway service station approved in 1998 and which is now owned by Sunoco, Inc. There was no one signed up to speak and Vice Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4529 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4529. Vice Mayor Martin requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes. 15. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM XII) CD 7:42 There was no one signed up to speak. City Manager McNees stated that a suggestion is to hear Agenda Items XIV-2 and XIV-4 prior to hearing Agenda Item XIV-3. Vice Mayor Martin and Commissioners Servian and Atkins agreed. 16. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 = RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED (AGENDA ITEM XIV-2) CD 7:43 through 7:45 Vice Mayor Martin stated that a presentation will be provided regarding the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year (FY) ended September 30, 2003. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission, referred to the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the FY ended September 30, 2003; and stated that the Finance Department has prepared the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the FY ended September 30, 2003, in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement (GAAP) No. 34; that the transmittal letter and section entitled "Management Discussion and Analysis" included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report provides an overview of the information in the report; that the financial statements have been examined by Purvis Gray and Company (Purvis Gray), Certified Public Accountants; that Purvis Gray prepared a Management Letter which is included in the Agenda backup material; that the City received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in 2002, which was the 22nd consecutive year the City has received the prestigious award; that the anticipation is the City will continue to receive the Certificate of Achievement for the current Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; that the Commission is requested to receive and accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the FY ended September 30, 2003. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to receive and accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : 2002-2003 AUDITOR' 'S MANAGEMENT LETTER AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM XIV-4) CD 7:45 through 7:48 Vice Mayor Martin stated that the fiscal year (FY) 2002/03 Auditors' Management Letter and the Administration's response will be presented, Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission; and stated that on February 10, 2004, Purvis, Gray & Company, (Purvis Gray) the external auditors, issued a Management Letter which summarizes the findings of the audit which was completed December 1, 2003; that the Administration's response to the auditors' Management Letter is included in the Agenda backup material; that the City is required to provide a written statement of explanation, including corrective action to be taken, to the governing body within 30 days; that the City Manager and the City Auditor and Clerk will forward the Administration's response to the Auditor General after the Commission accepts the Administration's response to the Management Letter; that Staff recommends the Commission approve the Administration's response to the Management Letter. BOOK 55 Page 27098 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27099 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Servian stated that Finance Staff is doing a remarkable, commendable job; that 2003 was a difficult year due to the newly imposed Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement (GAAP) standards. City Manager McNees stated that the Management Letter prepared by Purvis Gray has only a few comments which are minor; that the Management Letter is clean, which is amazing due to the new GAAP standards; that the efforts of Finance Staff are appreciated. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve the Administration's response to the Management Letter. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : REQUEST OF CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY OF SARASOTA IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 FOR THE WHITAKER BAYOU MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT DENIED i DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERING FIRM TO DETERMINE THE POSSIBLE FUTURE INVOLVEMENT OF THE CITY OR COUNTY, / IF APPLICABLE (AGENDA ITEM XIV-3) CD 7:49 through 8:35 Vice Mayor Martin stated that the City is being requested to make a contribution for the Whitaker Bayou Maintenance Dredging Project. Rick Winters, Projects Manager, Engineering Department, came before the Commission; and stated that at the May 5, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, the Commission heard a request from a group seeking to form a special taxing district to pay for the dredging of Whitaker Bayou; that the Administration was given authorization to work with the group to form the tax district; that the group has not yet submitted the proposed properties which would be assessed and the physical limits of the proposed dredging project to the City Engineer; that once received, the City Engineer will report through the City Manager for the Commission to begin public hearings regarding the matter; that Whitaker Bayou Maintenance Project, LLC, is requesting a $1 million contribution to include an area in the dredge project north of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way (Dr. MLK Way) to Cocoanut Avenue; that a special taxing district must provide equal benefit to localized properties paying the special tax; that the requested contribution would include taxes paid by the entire City tax base; that an indication as to the benefit to the entire City tax base from the contribution has not been provided; that the City has contributed to similar projects in the past such as the parking lot off St. Armands Circle; that the land was purchased through the creation of a special assessment district and the City constructed the improvements; that Staff recommends the Commission deny the request for a $1 million contribution. Vice Mayor Martin stated that he is recusing himself from the proceeding due to a conflict of interest; that he owns property on Whitaker Bayou; that the $1 million contribution would directly be of value to him which is the reason for the recusing himself from the proceeding. City Attorney Taylor stated that State Statutes address voting conflicts; that a public officer may not vote on a matter which will inure to his or her special private gain or loss; that the direction of the process concerning the Whitaker Bayou is not certain at this time; that the number of properties involved is not known; that although exceptions to the rules regarding voting conflicts exist, the exceptions may or may not apply during the proceeding; that the State Statutes indicate if an appearance of an impropriety exists, not participating in the vote is acceptable; that Vice Mayor Martin should not participate in any vote for this Agenda Item; however, the State Statutes indicate the language "shall not vote" does not indicate the public officer may not participate in the process; that no legal impediment exists for the public officer to speak; however, a vote will not be cast due to the declared conflict. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification regarding the City's involvement in the past. Mr. Winters stated that the actual property for the parking lot near St. Armands Circle was purchased through a special taxing district; that as part of the deal, the City constructed the parking lot and the improvements. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if Whitaker Bayou has been previously dredged, and if SO, were City funds used? Mr. Winters stated that according to preliminary information, Whitaker Bayou has been dredged in the past; that years ago, the City provided funding for the dredging; however, documentation has not been found. BOOK 55 Page 27100 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27101 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins asked the percentage of dredging which will be covered by the $1 million contribution? Mr. Winters stated that neither the actual budget for the dredging project, nor a list of affected properties, nor the actual scope of the dredge have been received; that the total cost is not known. Commissioner Atkins asked the reason Staff was requested to bring forth the request for the contribution without having sufficient detail? Mr. Winters stated that the request was sent through the City Manager. City Manager McNees stated that the request was brought forward since the Engineer crafting the project asked the request for the contribution be placed on the Agenda; that the reason the Administration and Staff agreed to bring forth the request is due to the confusion in the neighborhood regarding the project; that indications are being made in the neighborhood the City will or will not financially support the project; that the Administration is requesting an immediate response as to the public benefit of the project; that the Engineering firm can move forward with private contributions if the City does not support the $1 million contribution; that the reason for bringing the request forward is to bring closure to the confusion in the neighborhood. Commissioner Servian stated that the Engineering firm recently distributed a letter to all the residents along Whitaker Bayou which seemed to indicate the City was willing to contribute $1 million for dredging; that a significant amount of correspondence going to the residents along Whitaker Bayou is indicating the City is working in a partnership with the Engineering firm, which is not the case; that at the May 5, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, the Administration was given authorization to work with the group to form the special tax district but with extremely limited Staff resources and not with an endorsement of the dredging project; that the decision regarding the dredging is up to the residents; that a significant amount of confusion exists due to the manner in which the project has been presented by the Engineering firm; that the Commission did not make a predetermination to contribute City funds for the dredging project. Yvonne Lacy, 1038 Calusa Drive (34234), stated that the views expressed by Commissioner Servian are shared; that the concern is the manner in which the petition, assessment, and project have been presented; that the Commission is requested to deny the requested $1 million contribution; that the project is not supported; that many of issues of concern will not be raised at this time; that dredging Whitaker Bayou would be a good idea with the involvement of an appropriate Engineering company or if the City became involved and proceeded through a bid process, which would be more fair; that consideration should be given to the assessment itself; that many people living in Whitaker Bayou would not be able to pay the assessment and would be forced to sell, which is a grave concern. Richard Clapp, 426 South Shore Drive (34234), stated that he is speaking as a private citizen with significant knowledge concerning the dredging project since the project has been followed for the neighborhood association; that flooding problems are not the reason for dredging Whitaker Bayou; that dredging is necessary due to silting deposits from stormwater runoff; that the County has indicated stormwater carries silt into Whitaker Bayou; that silt traps have not been installed; that silt will continue to carry into the Whitaker Bayou even if the dredging occurs; that the stormwater carries silt into Whitaker Bayou due to changes made in the County over the past 100 yearsi that the only reason for dredging Whitaker Bayou is for navigational purposesi that Sarasota has many needs and does not need to contribute $1 million for navigational dredging; that he is a taxpayer which is the reason for coming before the Commission; that contributing $1 million to a group of approximately 100 waterfront property owners is objectionable; that a windfall of $10,000 per waterfront property owner is objectionable; that the redevelopment of the Newtown area needs a significant amount of money; that the redevelopment of Newtown is excellent and should be supported; that during the fall of 2003, a spike occurred in the number of breaking and entering into homes in the neighborhood; that the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) worked diligently with the neighborhood providing extra patrols; that the number of breaking and enterings was reduced; that the efforts of the SPD are appreciated; that the SPD could use more money in the budget; that the FY 2004/05 budget for the SPD was reduced; that the City should address the many other needs in the community if an extra $1 million can be identified. BOOK 55 Page 27102 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27103 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. Peter Trigg, 4014 Bay Shore Drive (34234), stated that the views expressed by previous speakers and Commissioner Servian are shared; that $1 million could benefit many other City projects and many more people rather than the small number of people living on Whitaker Bayou. David Verizzo, 1008 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that his property is located on the north shore of Whitaker Bayou at Whitaker Bayou and the Webber Canal; that he has resided on the property since 1959; that the City should contribute $1,000,000 or some other amount toward the dredging project; that the Commission is being addressed regarding a matter of morals and ethics; that Commissioners are requested to imagine owning a piece of property in which sewage has been dumped in the back yard for 45 years; that a question is the responsible party for cleaning up the sewage; that since at least 1959, the City has been dumping sewage affluent into Whitaker Bayou; that the accretion on the bottom of Whitaker Bayou is unlike the accretion in Phillippi Creek or Hudson Bayou or in any other tributary in Florida; that the accretion is sewage muck; that the City has made great progress in reducing the solid matter which is deposited into Whitaker Bayou; that nonetheless, people living on Whitaker Bayou have sewage from the City along with some silting from the entire north County which is benefited by the Whitaker Bayou drainage; that the government is responsible; that the City government covered all costs for dredging of Whitaker Bayou in the early 1970s and again in the early 1980s; that dredging Whitaker Bayou is the responsibility of the City; that the City's sewage is in the backyards of people living on Whitaker Bayou; that the City is requested to clean up the sewage at whatever cost necessary. Don Farr, 3301 Bay Shore Road, (34234), Director, Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association (IBSSA), stated that the request for taxpayer dollars is unusually large and will only benefit a disproportionately small number of taxpayersi that he has come before the Commission in the past requesting funding for parks and other projects which would benefit a greater number of City taxpayers; however, total support for the requests was not provided; that the request for a contribution of $1 million should clearly be denied; that the tactics used by the engineering firm and the information received are questionable; that people having properties which front on Whitaker Bayou have indicated incurring the additional tax burden for the dredging is not desired; that the dredging project will not sufficiently benefit the property owners to justify the additional tax burden for the next 20 years; that the property owners will be pushed further toward the additional tax burden if the City contributes $1 million to the project; that the dredging being experienced at Phillippi Creek is considered a temporary improvement; that the Whitaker Bayou dredging will likely be money poorly spent unless some significant modifications are made to stormwater runoff upstream; that the Commission is requested to use $1 million for a better purpose. Janet Robinson 1062 Calusa Drive (34234), stated that dredging Whitaker Bayou is supported; however, the tactics used by the engineering firm to coerce the neighbors into an agreement are considered a problem; that the engineering firm provided her with an estimate of $26,000 to have 100 feet along a seawall dredged; that she and one other neighbor live on Webber Canal; that the total cost to dredge 100 feet of seawall is $52,000, which does not make sense; that the engineering firm indicated the City would contribute $1 million toward the dredging project sO the only cost incurred by each neighbor would be $11,000 for dredging 100 feet; that $22,000 is still considered extreme; that in addition, the County will be removing the 18 inch pipe which runs through an easement on her property into Webber Canal which flows out to Whitaker Bayou; that the County will be replacing the 18 inch pipe with a 24 inch pipe, which indicates additional stormwater runoff is expected; that dredging Whitaker Bayou is the responsibility of the government; that the City is requested to contribute $1 million toward the dredging project, if the project can move forward; that funds from the County are also necessary to pay for the dredging project; that many people in the neighborhood are living on fixed incomes; that the dredging project would be good for Whitaker Bayou and good for Sarasota Bayi that the project is good and will benefit the neighborhood, the City, and the County. Charlie Clifton, 2118 Alameda Avenue (34234), distributed a February 5, 2004, Pelican Press article entitled "Dredging won't solve Phillippi Creek silt problems" and stated that he also lives on Webber Canal; that in 1980, Webber Canal and Whitaker Bayou were dredged at the expense of the County; that the City's involvement is not known; that neighbors petitioned against being assessed for the cost of the dredging based on the argument the Whitaker Bayou and Webber Canal are County-wide drainage areas which were silted in; that he moved to the neighborhood in 1988; that upon moving to the neighborhood Webber Canal and Whitaker Bayou were silted in which is only BOOK 55 Page 27104 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27105 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. eight years after the 1980 dredge; that the tide is too low to navigate through Whitaker Bayou only one or two times per yeari that otherwise, navigation is not a problem; that Whitaker Bayou should be dredged if the City and the County believe the silting problems are related to drainage; however, property Owners are not willing to be assessed for the project. Aime Verhofstadt, 1014 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that her property is on the north shore of Whitaker Bayou; that she wrote a letter to the County, the City Commissioners, City Manager, and City Engineer in June of 2003 regarding the condition of Whitaker Bayou; that Whitaker Bayou is silted and should be cleaned; that Whitaker Bayou was dredged at the City's expense in the early 1980s; that neighbors did not incur any cost for the dredging; that since the time, and up until 1995, the City has been dumping raw sewage into Whitaker Bayou; that in 1995, the State required the City to remove the pipe from Whitaker Bayou; that the facts are personally known and are not hearsay; that a large part of the problem in Whitaker Bayou is sewage; that another part of the problem is silt; that the County is responsible for stormwater managementi, that everyone in the watershed pays for stormwater management, including ditches and pipes; that stormwater management should include maintenance of Whitaker Bayou; that neighbors are not responsible for the silt and sewage in Whitaker Bayou; therefore, neighbors should not be responsible for dredging or bearing the cost of dredging of Whitaker Bayou; that the City and the County are responsible and should clean up Whitaker Bayou; that only one response from her letter was received, which was from the County Administrator; that the County Administrator expressed thanks for the June 23, 2003, letter and indicated the County is developing a basin master plan for the Whitaker Bayou basin; that Whitaker Bayou is part of the physical conditions which will be input into the hydrologic model; that during the model evaluation phase, improvements to the existing conditions will be evaluated; that the recommendations will be forwarded to the Sarasota Board of the County Commissioners (BCC) and City Commission for consideration if the improvements to the conditions found are cost effective; that a determination could be made the drainage conveyance system is compromised by sedimentation; that the routine removal of sediment along the area in question could then be placed into a routine maintenance activity; however, stormwater environmental utilities could not be used as a silt remover if the dredging is for navigational purpose only. Walter Verizzo, 1008 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated he resides on the north shore of Whitaker Bayou; that the views expressed by his son, who previously spoke, are shared; that he lived in the neighborhood at the time Whitaker Bayou was dredged; that the first plan was to cut a single channel on the south side of the bayou; that he spoke with former City Manager Ken Thompson and explained the reasons the plan would not be cost effective; that the single channel would fill up within a couple of months; that the dredging plan did not include Webber Canal; that after providing further explanation, City Manager Thompson ensured the dredging was performed seawall to seawall; that the dredging was paid for by the City; that during the time, the City was fairly prosperousi that since the time, City revenues have tremendously increased; that the City is suddenly indicating funds are not available and perhaps $1 million will be contributed, which is considered ridiculous; that a growing City such as Sarasota should be proud to pay for the cost of dredging Whitaker Bayou. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification regarding silting and sewage. City Manager McNees stated that the process is not sufficiently along to definitively identify the problem in Whitaker Bayou; that the engineering report which included core sampling has been reviewed; that the engineering report does not indicate the sediment in the Whitaker Bayou is sewage sludge; that sewage sludge and silt are very different; that the belief is raw sewage has not been dumped into the Whitaker Bayou for a long time, if ever; that testimony has been heard Whitaker Bayou was completely dredged in the early 1980s; that even if the City did dump large amounts of sewage sludge into Whitaker Bayou prior to 1980, the dredging which occurred would have addressed the problem. Mr. Winters stated that silt and stormwater from public roads and/or adjoining properties will certainly migrate to all bayous and tributaries, which is a natural phenomenon; that tributaries carry off all the stormwater from the land; that the stormwater carries off silt and other debris collected; that the County continues with Whitaker Bayou basin planning efforts as well as planning efforts for other basins; that addressing water quality is included in the design effort; that water quality inlets are being used on all new storm systems being constructed on St. Armands Key; that grant funds are available which assist in addressing water quality issues; that individual properties contribute to silt as well. BOOK 55 Page 27106 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27107 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that the issue has become complex due to information which is being distributed throughout the neighborhood; that the suggestion is to consider options; that an option which is not suggested is to contribute $1 million to the dredging project; that the City does not have $1 million to spare toward the project; that the Commission could deny the contribution since no benefit is seen; that another option is to not specifically commit $1 million toward the project at this time but to remain open to reviewing engineering work and documentation to determine if a legitimate public benefit exists or if stormwater funds could be used. Vice Mayor Martin stated that his property is located upstream of the discharge which took place in the past; that the indication the discharge was raw sewage at the time is a misnomer; that the silting on his property is definitely silting which is mucky and deep; that the belief is the silting is definitely stormwater runofi; that the County will be presenting a preliminary report of the Whitaker Bayou Basin Study soon; that a piece of information is included in the study which will be helpful; that the Army Corps of Engineers conducted studies on Whitaker Bayou in the past; that the status or outcome of the studies are not known; that the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program has performed an entire study of all the Bay waters and its tributaries to determine impacted waters; that the study indicated fecal e coli form contamination was found in the area of the Whitaker Bayou bridge which could be from a number of sources including septic tanks, birds, or fish; that the situation is not considered alarming; that further studies are ongoing at this time. Mr. Winters stated that City-owned properties are involved in the proposed taxing district along Whitaker Bayou. Commissioner Servian asked the number of City-owned properties along the proposed area of dredging? Mr. Winters stated that the belief is seven or eight City-owned properties are involved. Commissioner Servian asked who funded the dredging project in the early 1970s and 1980s? Mr. Winters stated that an answer is not known. Commissioner Servian stated that not having an answer as to who funded the dredging in the early 1970s and 1980s is a concern; that a coordinated plan to clean up Whitaker Bayou should exist between the City and the County; that the City and County engineers should work together and bring a report back if both are deemed responsible for the silting in Whitaker Bayou; that relying on an outside engineering firm which is working specifically with a developer is not supported. City Manager McNees stated that the reason the discussion is taking place at the table is due to a petition by a private interest group to the Commission requesting dredging of Whitaker Bayou and creation of an assessment district; that the private group agreed to take on the dredging project if the Commission provided permission for the project to move forward; that the private group used private funds for preliminary engineering work which is a necessary first step for the creation of an assessment district; that to date, the County has not indicated dredging of Whitaker Bayou falls under the responsibility of stormwater management; that he is not in the position to claim the City's wastewater utility is responsible; that the Administration can continue to work with the engineering firm as the project progresses, if the Commission believes responsibility could lie with stormwater management through the County or in some way through the Cityi that clearly, the greatest benefit is to the abutting property ownersi therefore, an assessment mechanism is probably legitimate; that the private group requested an assessment district which the Commission supported. Commissioner Servian stated that at the time the private interest group made the presentation to the Commission, the indication was an interest in Whitaker Bayou; that a development interest rather than a simple interest in dredging the Whitaker Bayou has developed over the course of the year; that the City was led down a path and the course of the path has changed; that working with the engineering firm regarding the project is fine; that a presentation could be made to the County to determine if stormwater funding could be contributed; that the City should do a better job of communicating with the Whitaker Bayou neighborhood; that the letters received by residents of the neighborhood are frightening; that the letters indicate the project is supported by the City and the City will provide funding, which is not true; that the City should conduct meetings with the neighborhood sO the residents are better informed. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a number of residents have raised concerns with the City; that he requested the Administration to provide the truth to the Whitaker Bayou residents regarding the project; that the story told by others is creating a considerable BOOK 55 Page 27108 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27109 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. amount of alarm and confusion; that the City Manager will be able to draft a letter to the neighborhood explaining the position of the City at this time. City Manager McNees stated that the private interest group was previously informed City Staff would not be of much use regarding the dredging project due to workload and the fact the dredging project is not part of Staff's work plan; that the reason for becoming involved at this time is the project has caused too much confusion and order is necessaryi that the project could be useful but could fall through due to the confusion; that the Commission is requested to provide guidance to the Administration as to the manner in which to proceed. Commissioner Atkins stated that a realistic polling of the abutting property owners should take place to identify which residents support or do not support an assessment;, that the County's Whitaker Bayou Drainage Basin Study, once received, will indicate if the County is willing to assist with the dredging; that contributing $1 million toward the project is not supported, especially since the private interest group and engineering firm have not truthfully represented the project to the residents of Whitaker Bayou. Vice Mayor Martin stated that most neighbors have indicated an assessment would not be agreed upon without knowing an exact amount; that polling adjacent property owners at this point will be difficult due to the many unknowns of the project. Commissioner Atkins stated that the reason for not supporting the $1 million contripution is due to the many unknowns of the project. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that canals into which stormwater runoff drains should be maintained; that the County should contribute funds if deemed appropriate; that contributing $1 million at this time is not supported; that the anticipation and previous understanding was the private interest group would come back before the Commission with a total cost of the project and specific assessment amounts, which has not happened; that once the information is received, a determination can be made as to the amount contributed by the City; that some City property exists on Whitaker Bayou; that the City should contribute a fair amount; that the friction between the private engineering firm and the residents is sad; that the parties involved are known; that development sometimes causes friction; that making a determination regarding the project after more information is received is supported. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to deny the requested $1 million contribution and to direct the Administration to continue working with the engineering firm to determine the possible future involvement of the City or County, if applicable. Commissioner Servian stated that the hope was not to become involved with the Whitaker Bayou dredging project as long as possible; that the hope was the private interest group would work in coordination with the Whitaker Bayou neighborhood; that misstatements and rumors are occurring, which should not be happening; that the City will now be required to work more closely with the engineering firm sO rumors regarding the City's involvement in the project are avoided; that the City should be responsible for ensuring the lines of communication in the neighborhood remain open. Vice Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): : Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Servian, yes. 19. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 8:35 through 8:37 COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that the members of the Sarasota Housing Authority Board of Directors and tenants are having meetings; that everyone is continually hopeful regarding the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI grant; that discussions were held with Katherine Harris, US House of Representatives, 13th Congressional District, during the Sarasota Opera House gala opening; that Congresswoman Harris expressed confidence with the process of the HOPE VI grant; that the hope is the relationship between the community and the developer for the HOPE VI project will be fruitful and prosperous. 20. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - ADMINISTRATION TO RESEARCH PERMITTING PROCESS REGARDING USE OF GILLESPIE PARK; ADMINIS STRATION TO ADDRESS BOOK 55 Page 27110 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27111 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND PINEAPPLE AVENUE (AGENDA ITEM XVI) CD 8:37 through 8:58 COMMISSIONER BILYEU: A. stated that an opportunity was provided to observe the City's Code Enforcement process; that he was visiting the home of a contractor who resides on his street; that the contractor was planning to construct a fence; that one of the City's Code Enforcement officers was seen conversing with the contractor; that the contractor did not have a permit to construct the fence; that the contractor praised the Code Enforcement officer for a job well done. B. stated that the status of the ordinance regarding commercial vehicles should be discussed in a future meeting. C. stated that he attended an awards presentation at the Sarasota Garden Club with the Mayor; recognized members of the Sarasota Garden Club who received the awards present in the Chambers audience; and referred to a silver plate awarded to City Staff displayed on the Chamber monitors. City Manager McNees stated that the City award was received for the most outstanding landscaping in the City overall, which is wonderful. D. stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association has expressed concern regarding people operating businesses in Gillespie Park; that limiting use by anyone in the park is not supported; however, conducting a business in the park, which is City-owned property, is a concern; that the issue concerning groups in Gillespie Park is difficult; that public parks should not be used to conduct business; that the goal is not to stop people from using public parks; however, rules should probably exist to avoid people conducting actual business in public parks. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification of the problem in Gillespie Park. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Gillespie Park is being used by one group on a regular basis, which is basically the same as using the park for a business, whether profit or non-profit, and which is different than a group using the park only occasionally for a holiday such as Thanksgiving or Christmas; that a situation is developing in Gillespie Park with another group in addition to Gifts From God which is raising concerns. Commissioner Servian stated that the City Attorney's Office was requested to continue to research the possibility for the City to issue permits for groups using City-owned parks; that a permitting process for public parks is not unusual; that the County issues permits for park use on a regular basis; that a permitting process does not stop people from spontaneous demonstration or limit freedom of speech. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the issue should be placed on an Agenda of a future meeting to discuss or the issue can be referred to the Administration to research. Commissioner Servian stated that placing the issue on the Agenda of a future meeting is supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that placing the issue on an Agenda of a future meeting is not supported; that doing sO will create another energy for which the Commission is not prepared; that the preference is to refer the issue to the Administration; that the Administration can then advise the Commission sO appropriate action can be taken once the issue is placed on an Agenda. Vice Mayor Martin stated that any particular ideas can be discussed individually with the City Manager; and stated that hearing no objections, the issue is referred to the Administration. City Manager McNees stated that the suggestion is for the Administration and the City Attorney's Office to first review the prior ordinance; that a determination will be made as to if the issue should be discussed during a workshop or brought forward as an Agenda item at a Regular Commission meeting. E. stated that the intent of the question posed earlier to Staff indicating Planning and Redevelopment Staff is shorthanded should be clarified; that the intent was to indicate the hard work performed by the Planning and Redevelopment Staff is acknowledged and appreciated. BOOK 55 Page 27112 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27113 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. F. stated that apologies are extended concerning the analogy made regarding his children at the Farmers Market, since the analogy upset a few people; that working with the Farmers Market is anticipated. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that questions have been posed regarding the HOPE VI Project, which has not been seen in its entirety; that she was informed parcels of property included in the HOPE VI Project are privately owned but are being slated for eminent domain if the HOPE VI projects moves forward; that one of the properties slated for eminent domain belongs to Architect Carl Abbott. Commissioner Atkins stated that based on Federal guidelines regarding the HOPE VI Project, the understanding is eminent domain does not apply. B. stated that she organized the Downtown Umbrella Group which is comprised of commercial land owners, merchants and residents in the Downtown environs; that one of the reasons she brought the groups together is due to the conflicts regarding street closures for markets and fairs, etc.; that the same two blocks of Main Street are being continually impacted; that the Deputy City Manager developed a policy whereby the Downtown Umbrella Group must be made aware and agree to such conflicts; that the policy was not followed at the time the City decided to relocate the Farmers Market; that the commercial landowners in the area are claiming the City did not provide notification; that a meeting will be held to identify methods for preventing a similar situation in the future to determine if the Farmers Market should remain in the new location; that the issue regarding the relocation of the Farmers Market is not over. C. stated that a request was made for the City to address the intersection of Main Street and Pineapple Avenue; that several Sarasota Police Department (SPD) police officers have indicated the intersection is causing many conflicts and near accidents due to the manner in which the lanes direct traffic. City Manager McNees stated that the situation will be addressed. D. stated that proliferation of hot dog vendors has been raised as an issue; that the City requires a permit for hot dog vendors in the rights-ot-way; that a hot dog vendor exists outside of Selby Public Library by the temporary bus station; that a hot dog vendor is proposed inside the Whole Foods Centre Market project construction site; and asked the manner in which hot dog vendors are assigned in the City? City Manager McNees stated that a permit process exists; that a provision exists in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that after receiving a permit another hot dog vendor cannot be established within 500 feet; that the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department issues the permits; that operators of the hot dog carts must inform the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department if the space will be vacated for one week; that illegal hot dog vendors are cited; that the owners of the Whole Foods Centre Market property can have a hot dog vendor on site since the property is privately owned but only if an occupational license has been received. Commissioner Atkins stated that most of the vendors are sandwich wagons which are established for large construction sites; that the food is expensive. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that negotiations regarding the acquisition of additional property at the south end of Fredd Atkins Park continue; that the situation will be resolved as soon as possible. B. stated that the Front Porch Florida program sponsored by the State Office of Urban Opportunity is still requesting support for the Newtown Easter Parade; that volunteers and participants are encouraged. C. stated that a community meeting is taking place on February 24, 2004, at Bethel C.M.E. regarding north Sarasota Newtown redevelopment. Vice Mayor Martin asked if information regarding the community meeting can be provided the City Manager's Office sO the February 24, 2004, date can be added to individual Commissioners' calendars. BOOK 55 Page 27114 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27115 02/17/04 2:30 P.M. VICE MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that a representative of the Central Cocoanut Neighborhood Association was recently visiting the City of San Mateo, California; that San Mateo has a program for fingerprinting, photographing, and obtaining Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) of children; that parents are provided a card with the information and the information is also filed with the City; that the idea is good and provides great assurance to parents; that the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) is interested in researching the possibility of a similar program; that having neighborhood residents come forward with information and constructive ideas is appreciated. B. stated that a major project to remove exotic plants, particularly Brazilian pepper trees, is underway in Arlington Park; that the usable area in the park is now twice as large; that the improvement to the park is amazing; that the project was not explained very well to residents; that an opportunity was missed to inform residents of a radical improvement to the park; that people were upset due to misunderstanding of the project; that the project is being funded through the Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) extension, also called the penny sales tax, which is another reason citizens should be informed; that the project is an ecological restoration; that exotics are being removed and natives are being replanted; that perhaps a poster or some other education tool could have been utilized in the park; that the Administration is requested to research the possibility of including a story board in the park sO people, albeit after the fact, will be aware the project is not complete; that additional plantings and other improvements are planned. C. stated that Inc. Magazine has chosen Sarasota as the number three of best places in the country to do business in a medium metropolitan area, which is remarkable; and quoted a March 2004 article as follows: Sarasota may well be Florida's "next big thing, I an affordable coastal region that attracts many skilled, middle-class emigrants from the north. A sizeable tech work force has made this among the fastest growing areas for information based industries. And there is always the beach. 21. OTHER ANTERSADKNISTATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XVII) CD 8:58 through 8:59 CITY MANAGER MCNEES: A. stated that the Sarasota Downtown Partnership Office has secured permission from Michael Saunders and Company for the use of the parking lot on the corner of Orange Avenue and Laurel Street for the Farmers Market; that the Engineering Department is working hard with the Public Works Department to construct cross walks, signage, and everything which is humanly possible to make people understand the locations in which to park, the manner in which to cross the street, and to calm the traffic, etc.; that the project has been indicated as the number one priority of the week; that Pineapple Avenue became an option for the Farmers Market since the neighborhood association, which is comprised of commercial property owners and retailers, approached the City requesting Pineapple Avenue as a temporary location for the Farmers Market. 22. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVIII) CD 9:00 There being no further business, Vice Mayor Martin adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of February 17, 2004, at 9:00 p.m. - LOU ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR ATTEST: Ball E Rabnson BILEY" EROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 55 Page 27116 02/17/04 2:30 P.M.