MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Jerome Dupree, Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 1995 - ROBERT M. STANTON, SERGEANT, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION #1 (0031) through (0177) City Manager Sollenberger requested that Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, and Robert Stanton, Sergeant, join him before the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger stated that each month a City employee who serves with excellence and pride is honored as Employee of the Month; that Sergeant Robert Stanton has been selected among those recipients as the Employee of the Year for 1995. Police Chief Jolly explained the formation and functions of the Sarasota Area Burglary-Robbery Enforcement (SABRE) Unit and stated that Sergeant Stanton, who was honored as the 1994 Police Officer of the Year, is being additionally honored as the City of Sarasota's Employee of the Year for 1995 for his fine work overseeing the Public Safety Internal Affairs Division and for his work as the SABRE Unit's first line supervisori that the statistics of the SABRE Unit in garnering over 555 arrests, seizing over 1,400 pieces of rock cocaine, 187 baggies of marijuana, and numerous firearms give an example of Sergeant Stanton's leadership; that much of the SABRE Unit's success and the City's ability to maintain an 18% reduction in crime can be attributed to Sergeant Stanton's self-initiated planning and execution of crime suppression efforts; that Sergeant Stanton's service to the citizens of Sarasota has made a marked difference in many lives. Police Chief Jolly congratulated Sergeant Stanton for being selected the Employee of the Year for 1995. Book 39 Page 12786 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12787 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill presented Sergeant Stanton with a Seiko watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the 1995 Employee of the Year; and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. Sergeant Stanton recognized his wife, Joan, and his son, Will, who were present in the audience; and stated that assistance from fellow police officers and the able leadership of Police Chief Jolly, John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, and Lieutenant James Fulton, SABRE Unit Commander, have contributed to the success of the SABRE Unit; that he accepts the award not only on his behalf but also on theirs. 2. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION DECLARING FEBRUARY 11-17, 1996 AS "RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS WEEK" #1 (0184) through (0239) Mayor Merrill read the City of Sarasota Proclamation in its entirety which explained the purpose of "Random Acts of Kindness Week" as to encourage Sarasota residents to commit conscious acts of goodwill toward one another as an affirmation of the goodness and generosity of the human spirit and which declared February 11- 17, 1996, "Random Acts of Kindness Week, 1 a week of special importance and worthy of the recognition of the citizens of the city of Sarasota. Joan Hopkins, Service Committee Chairman, and Pamela Hastings, ASID Chairman, Zonta Club of Sarasota, came before the Commission to accept the proclamation; and distributed "Random Acts of Kindness Week" buttons to each of the Commissioners. Mayor Merrill recognized members of Boy Scouts Troop 24 from the Church of the Redeemer who were present in the audience; and stated that the Boy Scouts are working to earn their citizenship in the community merit badges. 3. PRESENTATION RE: RECIPIENT OF STATE OF FLORIDA MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMEMORATIVE COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD FOR 1995-96 #1 (0252) through (0360) William Davenport, Director of Human Resources, and Larry Lovejoy, Employee Services Manager, came before the Commission. Mr. Davenport stated that in 1992, Governor Lawton Chiles issued an executive order setting forth the objectives of the State of Florida Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Commemorative Commission to develop and coordinate Statewide activities to commemorate, celebrate, and perpetuate the life and works of Dr. King; that Larry Loveyjoy was appointed by Governor Chiles and is serving as a member of the Commemorative Commission; that at its meeting of January 8, 1996, the Commemorative Commission recognized the City of Sarasota Training Employment Program by presentation of the Commission Community Service Award by U.S. Senator Bob Graham to Mr. Lovejoy. Mr. Lovejoy stated that the Sarasota Training Employment Program was established in 1993 by the Department of Human Resources; that the Program provides employment opportunities for youths who are currently enrolled and actively attending middle school, high school, or a college/university, that priority is given to youths in the City of Sarasota who are economically disadvantaged; that the Program: 1) helps youths to develop strong personal, educational, and career goals through an interrelationship with the community, 2) has been entirely funded by local businesses, corporations, and individual citizens, and 3) provides deserving youths the opportunity to earn up to $1,000 during summer school break; that the City has received $51,250 in donations to run the Program and 55 youths have been provided productive, rewarding jobs. Mr. Lovejoy read in its entirety and presented the State of Florida Martin Luther King, Jr., Commemorative Commission Community Service Award for 1995-96 to Mayor Merrill in recognition of the Sarasota Training Employment Program. Mayor Merrill stated that he participated in a similar program working for a local government while attending college; that youths not only gain a rewarding work experience, but also an insight on the operation of government; that he is honored to accept the award on behalf of the City Commission; that the plaque will be displayed in a prominent location at City Hall. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0377) through (0382) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Consent Agenda No. 2, Item B-3, Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-871, authorizing the execution of a contract renewal for a Highway Maintenance Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation on behalf of the City of Sarasota; etc. Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any objections to the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF JANUARY 2, 1996, AND JANUARY 16, 1996, MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1996, AND Book 39 Page 12788 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. se Book 39 Page 12789 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE STATUTORY CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF JANUARY 24, 1996, AND JANUARY 29, 1996 (AGENDA ITEM I 1,-2,-3,-4,-5) #1 (0385) through (0409) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Commissioner Patterson referred to draft page 3 of the January 2, 1996 minutes; stated that her concern was inaccurately reflected and should be revised; that she recommends leaving it open ended for Mr. Robinson to get the actual gist of her statement. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no additional changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of January 16, 1996, special City Commission of January 4, 1996, statutory meetings of January 24 and January 29, 1996, and regular City Commission meeting of January 2, 1996, as corrected, are approved by unanimous consent. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1996 = AFFIRMED APPROVAL OF PETITION NO. 96-SE-01 (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0415) through (0451) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Robert Lindsay, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Lindsay presented the following item from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of January 3, 1996: A. Petition No. 96-SE-01 Mr. Lindsay stated that Petition No. 96-SE-01 is a special exception to permit the operation of a six-passenger charter boat in the Marine Park (MP) Zone District; that the petitioner would like to replace the previously approved six-passenger fishing boat, the Summer House, with another six-passenger charter boat, the Wild Mullet; that the charter boat will be occupying slip A-7 at the Marina Jack Bayfront complex; that the PBLP found 96-SE-01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and adopted a resolution to permit the use requested. Mr. Lindsay continued that the Special Exception Process is a time consuming procedure; that a simpler method should be developed to address simple changes, i.e., permitting one charter boat to replace another at Marina Jack. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends affirming the PBLP's approval of Petition No. 96-SE-01. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to affirm the PBLP's approval of Special Exception Petition No. 96-SE-01. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 14, 1995, AND JANUARY 11, 1996 - REFERRED THE BAIL PROPOSAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO A PRESENTATION BEING SCHEDULED (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0451) through (0944) Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and Herbert Quinn, Chairman of the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Quinn presented the following items from the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board's regular meetings of December 14, 1995, and January 11, 1996: A. Expansion of Leasehold at Ken Thompson Park Mr. Quinn stated that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron has requested an expansion of their leasehold area; that a variance to extend the dock and to install a culvert at the northeast portion of the leasehold to serve as a tidal flushing for the dock area has also been requested; that V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, has provided information to the Board regarding the Squadron's request; that the Board recommends: 1) granting an expansion of 150 feet to the west side of the Squadron's existing leasehold, 2) permitting the replacement and extension of the docks, and 3) permitting the installation of a culvert, provided that all requirements of the State Department of Environmental Protection, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and City Staff are met. B. Police Substation/Meeting Center at Gillespie Park Mr. Quinn stated that a presentation on the conceptual plan of the substation/meeting center at Gillespie Park was received from Stanley Carter, Captain, Public Safety Department, at the December 14, 1995, Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board meeting; that the Board recommends approval of the project to the City Commission. C. Children's Water Fountain Play Area Mr. Quinn stated that after considerable discussion and input from City Manager Sollenberger informing the Board that the location was fixed, the Board approved the conceptual design for the children's Book 39 Page 12790 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12791 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. water fountain at Island Park; that, however, the Board felt that locating the fountain at the Franklin Manor site would enhance the family theme planned for that facility. D. Franklin Manor Park Project Mr. Quinn stated that Requests for Proposals (RFPS) on the first phase of construction for the Franklin Manor Park Project were sent out; that the deadline for submission of bids was January 24, 1996; that approximately ten firms have shown an active interest; that an award of contract will be presented by the Administration for Commission approval at the February 20, 1996, regular City Commission meeting. Mr. Quinn continued that the Board deliberated for some time on an appropriate name for the park at the former Franklin Manor site; that Mr. Mountain will present a short list to the Commission for consideration at a future City Commission meeting. E. Tree Protection Ordinance Mr. Quinn stated that a workshop has been scheduled to discuss the Tree Protection Ordinance; that a revised ordinance will be presented to the Commission by the end of February 1996. F. Conceptual Approval of a Regional Anchorage Management Plan Mr. Quinn stated that a draft plan for regional anchorage management was presented to the Board by Walter stilley, president of Boater's Action and Information League (BAIL); that the Board conceptually approved the BAIL proposal and recommends the proposal be forwarded to the appropriate groups for further review; that the Board expressed reservations regarding the plan to Mr. Stilley as well as to Mr. Schneider; that progress on the plan will be closely monitored to ensure the Board's concerns are adequately addressed. G. Ken Thompson Park Master Plan Mr. Quinn stated that a presentation on the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan was made by Phil Smith of David Johnston & Associates; that the Board accepted the conceptual master plan and noted concerns regarding roadways, buffers, parking, restrooms, and landscaping. F. Orimulsion Mr. Quinn stated that Florida Power & Light is requesting the use of orimulsion at its Parrish, Florida, facility; that the extent of the impacts from the use of orimulsion are questionable and need to be further addressed prior to the Board's issuing a recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that in response to an inquiry by the Commission regarding a statement being made on orimulsion, the Administration requested input from the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board and the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) Staff; that the technical expertise required to prepare an in-depth document for Commission consideration is not currently available through the Administration; therefore, the Administration recommends the City not take a position on the issue of orimulsion. Mr. Quinn stated that Sarasota County has prepared a document and issued a statement in opposition to the use of orimulsion. Mayor Merrill requested that a copy of the document prepared by Sarasota County be forwarded to the Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone referred to a letter dated January 23, 1996, from Mark Alderson, Executive Director, Sarasota Bay NEP; and stated that development of a study on the atmospheric loadings to the Bay is planned. Mr. Schneider referred to memoranda from him to the Commission dated July 24, 1995, and January 26, 1996, which stated that BAIL is requesting that a designated anchorage be established off of Island Park in the area currently occupied by anchored boats; that a similar area off of Ken Thompson Park, although not part of the BAIL proposal, should be treated consistently with anything that may ultimately be done at Island Park. Mr. Schneider stated that the BAIL proposal has been conceptual in nature; that the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board approved BAIL's Regional Anchorage Plan on a conceptual basis; that thè City Manager has recommended the item be referred to the Administration to address with BAIL the details necessary to implement the concepti that Commission direction is requested regarding the following four concerns which have been identified and expressed to BAIL as major concerns needed to be answered prior to a proposal being presented to. the Commission: 1. What is the size of the footprint of the shoreside facilities for the anchorage at Island Park? 2. Will there be any cost participation required by the City in either capital improvements or the operating costs for the anchorage? 3. Will the anchorage area have boundaries? Book 39 Page 12792 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12793 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. 4. Will the City assume any liability for the anchorage? Mayor Merrill stated that the Administration should prepare for Commission approval a list of recommendations in response to the questions. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Administration's review regarding the boundaries should focus on the Marina Jack/Island Park area and not the boundaries of the entire Regional Anchorage Plan. Commissioner Patterson stated that the reasons why the Commission may support a Regional Anchorage Plan presented by BAIL as opposed to developing a City-imitated anchorage would be: 1) to avoid potential liability and costs, and 2) to impose restrictions in terms of the size of the anchorage area. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to refer the BAIL proposal on a regional anchorage to the Administration for review and recommendations to be brought back to the Commission before a presentation is made. Commissioner Pillot stated that he echoes Commissioner Patterson's comments regarding costs and liability. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill stated that a citizen has signed up to speak under Board Actions; that the Commission does not typically hear comments under Board Actions; and asked for a motion to suspend the rules of procedure. Hearing no motion, Mayor Merrill stated that the speaker will be permitted to speak under Citizens' Input Regarding city Topics. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 1 = APPROVED WITH THE MARCH 9 AND MARCH 16 DATES REMOVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0944) through (1012) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Sarasota and the Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing & Allied Workers, Drivers Warehousemen & Helpers Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 173 representing General Employees Relations Commission, Certification (Case No. RC-94-012) dated December 20, 1995 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Third Amendment to the Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the City of Sarasota, Florida for the design and construction of the City's Urban Reclaimed Water Transmission Line Expansion (P357) 4. Approval Re: Authorize staff to advertise a proposed amendment to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program to establish the Rental Rehabilitation Program with a budget of $50,000, and to reduce the Housing Rehabilitation Program by $50,000, and conduct a public comment period to consider the amendment 5. Approval Re: Award of Purchase Order Contract to Whalen Building Components, Sarasota, Florida, (Bid #96-29) in the amount of $23,005 for replacement of Reverse Osmosis Plant Clearstory (2nd floor windows) and the addition of two windows in the Utilities Administration Building 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, (R.F.P. #96-24) for the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Programs in Urban Areas for the Department of Utilities 7. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Red Sox of Florida, Inc. (BRS) for use of portions of the Chicago White Sox Lease Complex and Stadium (extension of 1995 Agreement through 1996) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 1. Approval Re: 1996-97 Preliminary Calendar of Budget Activities City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a scheduling conflict regarding the Neighborhood Workshop scheduled for March 9 and the Annual Goals and Objectives Workshop scheduled for March 16, 1996, has been identified; that the Administration will report back to the Commission with alternative dates for those workshop; that Commission approval is requested for the remaining dates on the calendar. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to omit the March 9 and March 16 dates and Book 39 Page 12794 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12795 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. to approve the Budget Calendar and City Commission Involvement dates. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-865) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-867) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-871) - REMOVED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3864) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3919) - ADOPTED; (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1012) through (1174) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 96R-865 and 96R-867 and Ordinance Nos. 95-3864 and 96-3919 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-865, accepting reports of abatement of nuisances, and costs incurred, pertaining to the demolition of buildings or structures in accordance with the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by the City; directing the assessment of liens against the real property upon which such costs were incurred; providing for the recording of said assessments in the City's "Assessment Book for Local Improvements" and in the Official Records of the Clerk of Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County; providing for the accumulation of interest on said liens; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-867, accepting report of abatement of nuisances, and costs incurred, pertaining to the demolition of buildings or structures in accordance with the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by the City; directing the assessment of liens against the real property upon which such costs were incurred; providing for the recording of said assessments in the City's "Assessment Book for Local Improvements" and in the Official Records of the Clerk of Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County; providing for the accumulation of interest on said liens; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3864, amending Chapter 11, Buildings and Building Regulations, Articles I through X, inclusive and Chapter 14, Articles II, III & IV, to provide for the enforcement of such chapters by the City Manager or his designees; amending Chapter 11, Article IX relating to the Electrical Board of Rules and Appeals to provide for the Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a contractor certified by the State of Florida, under certain circumstances; adopting by reference the Standard Building Code, 1994 Edition, the Standard Mechanical Code, 1994 Edition, the Standard Plumbing Code, 1994 Edition, the Standard Gas Code, 1994 Edition, and the Standard Fire Prevention Code, 1994 Edition; adopting by reference City of Sarasota amendments to each of the aforementioned Standard Codes of the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. and the Local Amendments to the 1990 National Electrical Code, as revised; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing for a penalty for violations; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3919, amending Article VI, Districts, Regulations Generally, Section 6-15, Yards, so as to permit razor wire or coiled barbed wire in CI, I, and ILW Zone Districts; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1, 2, 4, and 5. Mayor Merrill requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by city Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3926, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 95-PA-08, PERTAINING TO REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3638 FRUITVILLE ROAD AND 3, 15, 36 AND 44 GOLDEN SANDS DRIVE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-PA-08, STEPHEN D. REES, ESOUIRE FOR SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE JOSEPH STEWART STOTTLEMEYERI = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) Book 39 Page 12796 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12797 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Sherry Carter, Evaluation and Appraisal Report Consultant, came before the Commission. Ms. Carter stated that tonight is the adoption public hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-PA-08; that the city Commission approved transmittal of the amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on September 18, 1995; that the DCA has reviewed the amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Chapter 163, of the Florida Statutes and the adopted Sarasota City Plan; that no objections or comments were indicated on the DCA's Objection, Recommendations & Comments (ORC) Report received by the City on December 29, 1995; that the ORC report was transmitted to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) on January 3, 1996; that the PBLP elected not to hold a public hearing since no changes have been made to the proposed amendment; that the last City action taken on the amendment was Commission approval of transmittal to the DCA on September 18, 1995. Ms. Carter referred to various maps displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that the subject property is located at 3638 Fruitville Road and 2, 15, 36, and 44 Golden Sands Drive, at the corner of Fruitville and Beneva Roads; that the current zone and future land use designation is Residential, Single Family (RSF-2); that the total area is 5.2 acres; that Plan Amendment 96-PA-08 proposes to amend Future Land Use Map #11 to create an Impact Management Area (IMA) for the purpose of making the property eligible for a rezoning to Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-4) or less intensive residential; that the following five stipulations have been included in the amendment: 1. The use of the property shall be restricted to an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF). 2. The sole ingress and egress to the site shall be Fruitville Road. 3. The petitioner shall provide enhanced buffering of a minimum of 50-foot width utilizing native vegetation and existing tree masses. 4. The maximum height of all structures shall be 35 feet. 5. Medical clinics shall be prohibited, other than an on- site infirmary for residents if allowable under the RMF-4 zone district. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3926 on first reading to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-08 as outlined by Ms. Carter. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3926 on first reading to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-08 as outlined by Ms. Carter. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following items into the record: All items made part of the record at previous public hearings City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Ordinance No. 96-3926 Minutes of the August 21, 1995, and September 18, 1995, City Commission meetings Petitioner exhibits submitted at the City Commission public hearing of August 21, 1995 Exhibits submitted by the Planning and Development Department at city Commission public hearing of August 21, 1995 Joel Freedman, AICP, Bishop & Associates, Stephen D. Rees, Esquire, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, PA, representing the petitioner Joseph Stewart Stottlemeyer, Successor Trustee, came before the Commission. Attorney Rees stated that no subsequent data has been developed to change the conclusions reached when the data analysis was presented at the August 21, 1995, and September 18, 1995, City Commission public hearings at which time the Commission made a favorable vote for transmittal to the DCA; that Staff was directed to develop the precise language of stipulation #5 based on the discussion which took place among the Commission at the September 18, 1995, meeting; that the petitioner fully understands and accepts the language of stipulation #5 as drafted; that all of the review agencies at the State or Regional levels provided comments which raised no objection or no recommendation for modifications. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following person came before the Commission: Kate O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), stated that the original plan had a significant impact on the neighborhood in which she resides; that the project is not opposed if the size of the medical facility has been reduced, buffering will be required to protect the surrounding residential properties, and the building will not be larger than three stories. Book 39 Page 12798 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12799 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that stipulation #5 prohibits medical clinics other than a medical facility which would service residents of the ACLF. Mayor Merrill stated that additional technical data could be obtained from the Planning and Development Department. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3926 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3926 on first reading to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-08 with the five stipulations as outlined on the record. Commissioner Dupree stated that he was not in attendance at the previous quasi-judicial public hearings; that the documentation has not been reviewed; therefore, he will abstained from voting. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dupree, abstained; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3927, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREMENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED 95-PA-05, WHICH AMENDS THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO POLICY 1.3, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SAID AMENDMENT PERTAINS TO PROPERTIES FOR WHICH A SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING ORDINANCE PRIOR TO MARCH 13, 1989 AND REVERTED TO THEIR FORMER ZONE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DUE TO AN EXPIRED SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN: STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-PA-05) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1580) through (2016) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Sherry Carter, Evaluation and Appraisal Report Consultant, came before the Commission. Ms. Carter stated that tonight is the adoption public hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-PA-05; that the City Commission approved transmittal of the amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on September 18, 1995; that the DCA has reviewed the amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Chapter 163, of the Florida Statutes and the adopted Sarasota City Plan; that no objections or comments were indicated on the DCA's Objection, Recommendations & Comments (ORC) Report received by the City on December 29, 1995; that the last City action taken on the amendment was Commission approval of transmittal to the DCA on September 18, 1995. Ms. Carter referred to an overhead display of the entire Land Use Policy 1.3; and stated that Plan Amendment 95-PA-05 proposes to add the following language to the policy: Policy 1.3 shall not apply to those properties for which a site and development plan was approved as part of a conditional rezoning ordinance prior to March 13, 1989, the date of adoption of the Sarasota City Plan and reverted to their former zone district classification due to an expired site and development plan, hereinafter referred to as "Rezoned Properties." In such event Rezoned Properties shall be eligible to be rezoned to a zone district classification which is the same or less intensive than the zone district that existed on the property immediately prior to such reversion, regardless of whether the Rezoned Properties are designated as Impact Management Areas, sO long as they are consistent with the adopted Generalized Future Land Use Map. Ms. Carter stated that the development of this amendment began after the City Commission directed a Plan amendment be prepared to allow the property located between 6th and 9th streets, on U.S. 41, to be developed in accordance with the guidance provided by the Rosemary District Plan and incorporated into the Sarasota 2040 Vision Plan; that Staff discovered the subject property was already designated for commercial zoning on the Generalized Future Land Use Map; that the origin for its designation was the existing zoning held when the Sarasota City Plan was adopted; that the property surrounding the subject property, which was zoned residential, had been placed in an IMA for commercial zoning; however, because of an expired site and development plan, the subject property was rezoned to the former zoning of residential; that no action was taken to change the future land use designation; that the subject property is still designated for commercial zoning; that upon further investigation, Staff located two other properties which had held a particular zoning in 1989, were designated as such, and through the expiration of a site and development plan, had been rezoned yet not redesignated; that in all three cases, surrounding property was placed in an IMA which matched the rezoned properties. Ms. Carter continued that the three properties referenced were identified after Staff researched files in the Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, and performed a comparison between existing zoning and the adopted Generalized Future Land Use Book 39 Page 12800 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12801 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Map; that after careful examination, no other properties could be identified; however, since no exact system for tracking these anomalies was developed, there. can be no guarantee there are not other properties in the same situation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3927 on first reading which amends Policy 1.3 as outlined by Ms. Carter. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3927 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3927 on first reading. Mayor Merrill requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3909, TO VACATE A PORTION OF BRIGGS AVENUE (SAID BRIGGS AVENUE RUNS NORTH AND SOUTH). THE PORTION TO BE CONSIDERED FOR VACATION LIES WEST OF LYLE STREET, SOUTH OF HATTON STREET AND NORTH OF ALTA VISTA STREET; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-SV-04, DR. JOHN E. SYSTER, FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF SARASOTA, INC.) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (1870) through (2016) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Petition No. 95-SV-04 requests a street vacation of the unopened, unimproved Briggs Avenue right-of- way, approximately 40 feet wide by 241 feet long, located adjacent to property owned by First Congregational Church; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found 95-SV-04 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission subject to the petitioner granting the necessary easements; that the GTE utility is the only easement which is of concern. Commissioner Patterson asked if creation of a cul-de-sac will be required? Ms. Robinson stated that the City Code requires a cul-de-sac or a turn around area on dead-end streets; that a waiver from the City Engineer or the City Manager has not been issued. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3909 on first reading. John Syster, Minister, and Miles Weaver, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, representing. the First Congregational Church, came before the Commission. Mr. Syster stated that the portion of Briggs Avenue requested for vacation has not been opened and improved for the 40 years in which the Church has been located on the adjacent property; that the property owner who resides at 2719 Lyle Street has been mowing the portion of the right-of-way adjacent to his property; that the remaining right-of-way is overgrown; that the Church intends to utilize the property to expand its preschool playground and provide additional grass parking if the street vacation is granted. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3909 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3909 on first reading. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 13. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (2016) through (2038) Walt Stilley, 5835 Wildwood Avenue (34231), and Stan Zimmerman, 3011 6th Street (34237), were no longer present in the Commission Chambers. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AESTHETIC TASK TEAM REPORT ENDORSED THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AESTHETIC TASK TEAM'S FIRST CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE #1, DESIGNED BY CHARLES KUYKENDALL TO BE FORWARDED TO FDOT AND THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENTS AND NECESSARY STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FDOT BE REQUESTED TO DELAY ITS PROCESSES TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO WORK WITH THE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN ARCHITECTURE TO DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO MEET ANY OBJECTIONS RAISED BY FDOT IF ALTERNATIVE #1 IS REJECTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED; APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDED ITEMS 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AS REVISED, AND 8 (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) Book 39 Page 12802 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12803 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. #1 (2052) through #2 (2893) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team has reconsidered their recommendation of a bridge theme as requested by the Commission at the special meeting of January 4, 1996, without financial constraints previously considered as a condition; that members of the Task Team are in the audience as are representatives of FDOT, including: Gerald E. Carrigan, P.E., FDOT District Director of Production, Chuck Wood, FDOT Project Coordinator, and Doug Cox, Project Manager, for FDOT's management consultant, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; that the Task Team met on January 17, 1996, and received input from four local architects as well as the architect from FDOT, which had proposed two alternative designs for the bridge; that the choices of the Task Team in order of priority are as follows: Alternative #1: Submitted by Charles Kuykendall from Barger and Dean Architects, Inc., described as cylindrical concrete columns, close together, with a brightly colored metal pipe truss system supporting the bridge deck and a lowered pedestrian/Bicycle path. Alternative #12: Submitted by Fred Swetlund from Kunde, Sprecher & Associates (KSA), FDOT's consultants, described as cylindrical concrete columns, without fluting, with mantissas (taper) at outside edge with large longitudinal arches at three center spans in profile, also referred to as the Classic theme. Alternative #3: Submitted by Dale Parks and Mike Carlson of MGA Architecture described as graceful concrete "y"-shaped rectangular columns at the outside edge. Mr. Daughters continued that the Task Team reaffirmed its position not to retain any portion of the existing bridge as a fishing pier, to retain the Saprito Pier, to construct an additional fishing pier under the new bridge with compatible aesthetics and lighting, to lower the pedestrian walkway, and to utilize a New Jersey barrier for the vehicular railing; that the Task Team also recommended extending the New Jersey barrier through the land portion of the bridge, beginning at the left-turn pockets at both ends of the bridge; that the City's Public Safety Department has concerns about the lower pedestrian walkway; that the various recommendations of the Task Team have been analyzed and the Administration recommendations are as follows: 1. Receive the report from the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team. 2. Select the concept design recommended as the first choice by the Task Team. 3. Request FDOT not to retain any portion of the existing bridge as a fishing pier but rather construct a separate fishing pier under the new bridge, as recommended by the Task Team. 4. Request FDOT not to lower the pedestrian walkway below the level of the roadway for public safety reasons. 5. Request FDOT to utilize the Kansas Corral Rail for the vehicular railing instead of the standard New Jersey barrier as recommended by the Task Team. 6. Request FDOT to place the center vehicular railing on the bridge structure only rather than extending it through to the land portion of the bridge as recommended by the Task Team. 7. Request FDOT to place a focal point at the top of the bridge, consisting of an observation point, a lookout, and shelter with a drinking fountain. 8. Request FDOT to present alternatives for the pedestrian railing, lighting, and landscaping to the Commission at a later date through the Task Team. Mr. Daughters further stated that representatives of the organizations which developed each of the three alternatives will present their proposals. The following representatives came before the Commission: Gerald E. Carrigan, P.E. FDOT District Director of Production. stated that FDOT has no formal presentation at this time. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that some discussion had occurred at the January 17, 1996, Task Team meeting concerning the possibility of an arch at the center columns; asked if any alterations had been made to the FDOT design, Alternative #12, since the design was presented to the Commission several weeks ago. to incorporate arches? Mr. Daughters stated that the Task Team had discussed arches; however, no changes have been made to the FDOT design presented to the Commission previously. Book 39 Page 12804 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12805 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if Alternative #12 is the Task Team's second choice as presented? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Michael Carlson, MGA Architecture, Member of the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), 1697 Arlington Street, (34239) stated that many members of the AIA participated in a charette to develop for designs of the bridge; that Alternative #3, which is the third choice of the Task Team, was designed by his partner, Mr. Dale Parks, and himself; that Mr. Parks has not yet arrived but he will begin the presentation; that Alternative #3 is a structural concept bridge in a "Y" shape; that the parameters of FDOT, including the roadway and the A.A.S.H.T.O. (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) girder system, have been utilized; that the "Y" shape allows spacing the columns 30 to 40 feet farther apart than the standard FDOT design, so the proposed bridge will have fewer columns; that as few obstacles as possible should be created because of the 65-foot height of the bridge; that the proposed bridge is an aesthetic structure as every part is an expression of the structure; that no decoration has been proposed; that concrete is the only material utilized due to the ease of maintenance; that the Commission's consideration is appreciated, even though the Task Team selected Alternative #3 as its third choice; that the City of Sarasota should have a signature bridge as this structure will be the most important structure of the City; that spreading the columns farther apart was a way of making the bridge appear more airy. Charles Kuykendall, Barger & Dean Architects, Member of the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA, Member of the Downtown Association, 1130 Hampton Road (34236), stated that Alternative #1, which is the Task Team's first choice, is his design; that criteria were established to provide Sarasota with the best bridge as follows: 1) structural design, 2) color, 3) lighting, and 4) feasibility. Mr. Kuykendall continued that structural design refers to the integrity of the bridge, sensitivity to the scale of the Bay, the ability to construct using common materials and parts, and uniqueness by using common parts for an uncommon result to be identifiable from a great distance; that color refers to compatibility with the blue color of the sky and water and night color creating bright contrasts with the night sky and concrete; that lighting refers to lights on the truss system giving a glow at night and ease of maintenance; that feasibility refers to the fact that the structure is possible from an engineering perspective, utilizes available materials, can be constructed, allows for ease of maintenance, and is affordable defined as being within 5 to 10 percent of the cost of a standard FDOT bridge; that Alternative #1 meets those criteria. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if all bridge supports are identical to the two center supports? Mr. Kuykendall stated yes; however, the center supports have three- dimensional trusses; that the columns are drawn in to give a more open look on the outside of the bridge and an arched effect. Commissioner Patterson asked if the blue color of the supports would be seen from shore? Mr. Kuykendall stated yes. Mayor Merrill stated that the columns in the proposed bridge are short; that one complaint of standard bridges is that only the tall columns are seen; and asked if the intent is to make the columns less of a focal point? Mr. Kuykendall stated yes; that the tops of the columns follow the arch of the bridge; that the truss is identical along the span of the bridge; however, the concrete, which is the massive part of the columns, is proportionately less; that the light, lacy portion, which is the truss, comprises a greater proportion of the columns as the bridge approaches land; that the result is the appearance of a lighter structure. Mayor Merrill asked if concrete is a preferred material for use over salt water and if bridges made of metal have reasonable maintenance expenses? Mr. Kuykendall stated that many bridges in Florida are steel; that FDOT prefers to use concrete when possible; that many new metal coatings have been developed recently; that one coating currently being used by FDOT on several bridges has been researched and the paint company guarantees the coating, which is very easily applied, for a 15 to 20 year period; that the company has indicated no maintenance is required unless the bridge is damaged, which would be the case with any material utilized. Commissioner Patterson asked if the metal would have to be recoated after 15 to 20 years? Mr. Kuykendall stated yes; that the paint company specializes in recoating old bridges so a bridge with this coating already in place can be easily recoated. Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Dale Parks has entered the Chambers and asked if he would like to continue with the presentation of Alternative #3. Dale Parks, MGA Architecture. representing the Art in Public Places Committee and the Task Team as an Alternate Member, 1221 North Palm Avenue (34236), stated that Alternative #3, which is his design, exhibits a concrete "Y" shape; that the columns have been spread out providing more a view underneath the bridge; that many FDOT stock items have been utilized in the design; that the configuration of the columns has been changed; that the aesthetics Book 39 Page 12806 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. 3 tai 1 M Book 39 Page 12807 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. of the bridge are expressed in the structure; that a graceful appearance of what can be done with concrete was the objective in the clean lines and simplicity of the design. Mayor Merrill asked if the intent of the design is to achieve fewer columns by increasing the distance between the columns? Mr. Parks stated the intent is to have fewer columns and to spread the columns out so more open area is created under the bridge; that the intent is also to work within the palette, materials, and structural treatment used by FDOT throughout Florida; that aesthetics are not separated from the structure of the bridge; that the result is a defining aesthetic look for Sarasota. The following members of the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team came before the Commission: Roger Compton, 11 Sunset Drive, Apartment 506 (34236), stated that Mr. Daughters is to be commended for doing an excellent job in guiding the Task Team; that decisions were made expeditiously under his guidance; that the Task Team's vote to prioritize the three designs was very close, which should be considered, with only one vote separating each of the three designs; that the Commission's good judgment should weigh in the decision; that he disagrees with Item #6 of the Administration's recommendation; that former Commissioner Ted Sperling was killed because a barrier did not separate the two opposing lanes of traffic, which should be a testimonial for safety needs of the barrier to extend over the land portion of the bridge. Don Morfee, 110 Sea Gull Lane (34236), stated that the Commission should request FDOT to consider moving the boating channel easterly, eliminating the bridge landfall problem on Bird Key which affects tax dollars; that initial costs may be incurred; however, realigning the bridge's landfall will be of great benefit to the community by allowing Bird Key Park to continue being fully utilized as a place for small boating and swimming; that locating the landfall of the bridge's wide structure so close to the traffic signal at Bird Key will inhibit people from using the Park; that the citizens on Bird Key are concerned about people spending time underneath the viaduct of the bridge; that FDOT should be encouraged to move the center span farther to the east. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that realigning the position at which the bridge meets landfall could benefit the surrounding neighborhood; and asked if relocating the channel was discussed early in the process? Mr. Daughters stated yes; that the channel element was discussed during the planning stage of the bridge; that the details are not recalled, however, certain governmental controls exists on the location of the channel; that the location of the landfall on the Bird Key side is off-center; that a response as to the feasibility of relocating the channel could and should be requested from the FDOT. Kate O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), representing the Public Art Committee (PAC), stated that Mr. Daughters should be commended for his efforts in working with a very diverse group of people with individual agendas; that, personally, she feels any of the three bridges selected by the Task Team would grace the skyline of Sarasota beautifully; that the time frame between meetings precluded her from discussing the alternatives with the PAC prior to a vote being taken by the Task Team; that the members of the PAC have not had an opportunity to view a full presentation of the proposed designs; however, the PAC collectively supports a modern design. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the preference for a modern design would appear to leave out a Classic theme. Ms. O'Connell stated that a classic design is not considered modern. The following citizens came before the Commission: Michael Edwards, representing the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA, 1133 Fourth Street (34236), stated that the AIA initially supported a low bridge; that concern regarding the direction of the FDOT for a signature high-span bridge, motivated the AIA to organize a design charette to develop potential concepts, two of which have been presented tonight; that the current position of the AIA is in support of Alternatives #1 and #3, neither one above the other; that the FDOT bridge, which does not deliver on FDOT's promise to provide Sarasota with a signature bridge, cannot be supported; that the bridge presented by the FDOT is nothing more than an off-the- shelf design with some applied ornament; that both bridges presented by the AIA architects are truly unique and have the support of the AIA membership and the AIA Executive Committee. Bill Gray, representing MEA Engineers, Inc. 542 Ranger Lane. Longboat Key (34228), stated that he is a structural engineer with over forty years experience; that although his work has not focused primarily on bridge engineering, he has been the structural engineer for various bridge projects, one of which was selected as the best medium-span bridge in the country and honored nationally by the American Institute of Steel Construction; that a large contribution from the architectural and art community is recognized; that the proposed designs are beautiful bridges with an outstanding appearance; however, bridges should be designed by structural engineers; that certain structural requirements are necessary in a bridge; that the bridge form should follow the Book 39 Page 12808 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12809 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. bridge function; that, for example, support must be provided for the slab and the distance must be spanned with certain materials at certain depths for the bridge to work; that FDOT's consultant, who is probably very capable, may not be aware of the Commission's desires; that the Commission should request that the bridge consultants have architects work closely with structural engineers to develop a workable structure which would be economically feasible and have a desired aesthetic design. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she assumed a design selected by the Commission would subsequently be reviewed by a structural engineer to determine feasibility. Mr. Gray stated that structural engineers do not focus on aesthetics; that a wise bridge consultant will ask for architectural assistance from all sources available; that architects are knowledgeable and can assist with the appearance of a bridge structure; that a good engineer will accept advice from an architect; however, an architect is not usually involved until a concept of the workable structure has been identified. Mayor Merrill asked if any fatal flaws have been discerned in the three designs proposed? Mr. Gray stated that Alternative #1 is beautiful; however, trouble with birds and maintenance could be experienced with the light blue steel truss system proposed to support the bridge deck; that birds will be attracted to continually locate nests in the truss system; that the light blue color may be diminished over time with white droppings from birds; that painting the structure could be a problem; that most paints require a bright-metal condition, i.e., sandblasting metal to the surface to remove all rust which is almost impossible to accomplish on lattice designs. Mr. Gray continued that Alternative #3 with a "Y"-shaped plan has two large girders at the outside ends to support a roadway 60 to 70 feet wide with four lanes; that from a structural point of view, the main girders should be located more inward than proposed. Mr. Gray continued that very high breaking loads, a great deal of bending moments, and winding loads are elements which must be considered when a high-span bridge is designed; that the designs should be forwarded to the bridge consultant for a determination on what can be incorporated to assure a structurally and architecturally feasible bridge. Brian O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), stated that no opinion is offered on which of the three designs is the best to choose; that the steel truss system on the first design is about 35 feet, which is not a problem at the bridge's apex of 65 feet; however, the 35 feet of steel may be a problem as the bridge approaches land. Mr. O'Connell continued that a review should be conducted on conflicts of interest; that people have been involved in the process and voting and being considered for selection for the bridge design who have played a role in the decision-making process to some degree as an alternate or voting member of the Task Team or the PAC; that City Staff should be advised of what should be done in terms of counting votes of alternates; that the minutes of the last meeting of the PAC should be reviewed by the Commission. Donald Ross Blivas, AIA, 143 Beach Road, representing the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture, stated that the Foundation came before the Commission two months ago and offered its function as a facilitator in the community; that many members of the Foundation are design professionals; that the group is comprised of facilitators on a part-time basis attempting to promote excellent architecture in the community by working with local design professionals; that the Commission has created not only a Task Team but a grave public concern about the appearance of the bridge. Mr. Blivas cited the following from an editorial published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune written by John Whelan, a respected local architect: There are very few things we humans build that are more inspired than bridges. Any bridge of any size is a marvelous opportunity to marry art and engineering in a simple and exciting way. I cannot for the life of me see why it could not have been done here. Mr. Blivas continued that the Foundation has no problem with the designs presented; that the designs by the local architects reflect brilliant thought; however, the process is not working nor will it work; that the definition of a camel is a horse designed by committee, which is what is happening with the bridge; that the Foundation is willing to bring in, at its expense, world-renowned bridge designers and engineers to assist with the process; that the desire is not to take the process out of local hands, but to best assist the overall process and the community; that the Task Team and the Commission are comprised of laypeople who are not protessionally qualified to make the decisions on what will be placed in the community; that the Foundation believes a meeting concerning the bridge should occur in the Governor's Mansion as FDOT will not comply with the Commission's decision if spending additional dollars is required; that Alternatives #1 and #3 will cost more than FDOT is willing to spend and are well worth it; that the AIA members have done a brilliant job, but the project cannot successfully be completed by appointing committee upon committee upon committee. Book 39 Page 12810 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12811 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Blivas further stated that the Foundation is willing to assist Sarasota in achieving a handsome, world-class bridge structure by bringing in people who understand the engineering and design of bridges; that members of the Foundation cannot fulfill that function, but are willing to locate, and pay the expense of bringing the necessary expertise to Sarasota. Mayor Merrill asked for the Administration's recommendations. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends the eight points proposed by the City Engineer; that the Administration does not recommend a lowered pedestrian walkway for reasons of public safety and based on CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principles; that a covered platform is also recommended as a good architectural feature and for viewing purposes. Mayor Merrill stated that an observation platform at the bridge's apex of 70 feet in the air will provide a view of the Gulf of Mexico and a nice stopping point for joggers, walkers, and bikers; that the major and most difficult issue at hand is determining which of the three designs will be recommended; that the Commission should adopt a priority of choices; that a separate priority of choices could be established or the priority choices of the Task Team could be adopted or changed; that the feasibility of constructing the Commission's first choice would be considered by the bridge consultant; that the second choice would be considered if the consultant's determine the first choice is not feasible. Commissioner Pillot stated that more doubt and less personal conviction exists on how to vote on this issue than any other issue considered while on the Commission; therefore, a decision has been made not to vote on a specific design; that the guilt will be accepted if not voting is sidestepping his responsibility as a Commissioner; that the entire process has been superbly managed by the Task Team to which a tremendous debt is owed for the time, consideration, energy, and intelligence; however, controversy still exists; that he is not qualified to cast a vote on the structural and architectural design of a bridge which will remain in Sarasota for many years, perhaps a half century; that abstention is not permitted under Florida law; however, a "no" vote is permitted and will be his vote on each design. Commissioner Pillot continued that sufficient public input, especially of the type offered by the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture, would provide a basis on which he could cast a vote and meet his responsibility for representing the people who elected him; however, he cannot do so responsibility or conscientiously at this time; that the Commission previously agonized over how. to paint a water tower, an issue of substantially less importance than the bridge; that the Commission ultimately determined to find out what the people thought; that designs of the water tower for people to consider in a non-binding, informal referendum were distributed to various locations; that the bridge is substantially more important. Commissioner Pillot further stated that his "no" vote does not indicate the designs presented are not good, but that his opinion about aesthetics is not valid enough to cast one of potentially three votes to place a structure of the magnitude and importance of the bridge in Sarasota; that his position, if it prevails, will result in a delay; that a delay of a certain number of months is relatively unimportant in considering a structure of this importance; that his intent is to accept the offer of the Foundation; however, a specific determination of the process is unclear. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to accept the offer of the Foundation and have the process move forward on the basis of the opinions of the professionals qualified to make the decision. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the timing is not a concern to her; that a delay for any amount of time in the selection of a bridge design is acceptable; however, a great amount of loyalty exists towards the Task Team which has spent the better part of a year working through the process; that the Task Team has learned a tremendous amount about placing, siting, designing, and building bridges; that none of the Commissioners may be qualified to select a structurally sound bridge; that after engineering features are considered, the bridge designs presented for selection by the Commission may not be able to be built; that she was prepared to select a bridge prior to hearing Commissioner Pillot's statements; that further Commission discussion is requested. Commissioner Dupree stated that he has not had the benefit of participating in previous Commission discussions on this issue; however, careful notes were taken regarding concerns with durability, strength, and safety in addition to appearance; that he cannot in good conscience vote for any design presented at this time. Commissioner Patterson stated that two years of bridge controversy and discussion have occurred at the City Commission and the Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) levels; that FDOT will not build a bridge which does not meet established criteria of safety and structural soundness; therefore, the responsibility for those issues will not rest with the City Commission; that regardless of the amount of data presented, the Commissioners would probably not feel qualified to judge data relative to safety and structural soundness; that the MPO, without a great deal of enthusiasm, entrusted to the City of Sarasota the ability to have input on the Book 39 Page 12812 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12813 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. design of the bridge; that her concern regarding the Foundation's offer is not with delaying the process but with the MPO and the FDOT, who are growing increasingly impatient, taking away entirely the ability of the City Commission to have input on the design of the bridge; that the Task Team's endorsement of the Classic theme as its second choice heightens her concerni that she supports a modern bridge with modern architectural concepts incorporated; that the Commission should: 1) support Alternative #1 as the Commission's preferred choice, 2) request that the design be examined by the FDOT in terms of feasibility, and 3) request that the FDOT work with the Foundation to develop an aesthetically appropriate bridge if Alternative #1 is not feasible; that the Commission should not avoid making a decision as the ultimate result may be a standard FDOT bridge with adornments. Mayor Merrill stated that he agrees with Commissioner Patterson's statements; that he was prepared to vote for the lighter, airier approach of Alternative #1, which is the Task Team's first choice; that the approach of fewer columns in Alternative #3 is also appreciated; that concerns have been raised regarding the engineering of the bridge design; that perhaps the Foundation can critically review Alternative #1 to determine the feasibility; that time is not critical from his perspective, but it may be to other people; that the State may view further review as a delaying tactic; that the intent is to try to find a bridge about which the State, the community, and everyone can be proud; that the motion could be amended to accept the Foundation's offer with an expression of support or one of the alternatives. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that as a newly formed entity, the Foundation was not available earlier to provide a critical review; that the Foundation's current offer is very generous, but the City's control over the process should not be lost; that the current Ringling Causeway Bridge is not attractive or symmetrical; however, the Bay can be seen from the Bridge; that birds' nests and droppings exist on the current bridge and will occur on any bridge constructed; that the Commission should be open minded if the Foundation can review the two alternatives presented by local architects or have ideas as to other designs; that a great deal of time has been spent on the issue. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to require that the three designs as prioritized by the Task Team be widely circulated throughout the community and input be brought back to the Commission periodically. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Patterson stated that the amendment could not be supported as Alternative #1 is her preferred design; that input on necessary structural modifications should be requested from FDOT's structural engineers before the entirety of the process is reopened; that the city should take advantage of the Foundation's offer only if Alternative #1 is totally changed or deemed unworkable by the FDOT. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Foundation's offer and their expertise will be valuable; that an excellent result has been achieved by the Task Team; that the three alternatives selected by the Task Team should be labeled in the order of the Task Team's preference, circulated throughout the community and input received from the public; that the Commission would then have the benefit of input from local architects, the Task Team, the experts to be brought in by the Foundation, and the general public; that the result would be the best of all worlds. Mayor Merrill stated that three alternatives have been presented on which more input from structural engineers, etc., is desired, but the priority of choices as indicated by the Task Team could be accepted. Commissioner Pillot stated that representation of more than his own aesthetic bias, which may not be very popular, would be appreciated when he ultimately votes. Commissioner Patterson stated that the main motion refers the issue to the Foundation; that the Commission may not have the luxury of going through a lengthy process with the Foundation, which will require people from other areas to be brought into Sarasota; that the architects and the Task Team have considered aesthetics; that the Commission is being asked to vote on aesthetics totally separate from structural issues; that the bridge consultant who is versed in bridge aesthetics as well as structural engineering indicated the proposed design will cost more, not that the design is totally unworkable; therefore, she is prepared to recommend Alternative #1, and as a second choice, request a delay for input by the Foundation if the FDOT determines Alternative #1 is unworkable due to costs associated with drastic structural modifications, etc. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if an FDOT bridge consultant has reviewed the bridge and made any initial determinations as to construction feasibility? Mr. Daughters stated that six designs were submitted by local architects to the Task Team; that the structural engineer from KSA, which is FDOT's consultant, commented on each design as requested by the City; that KSA did not indicate Alternatives #1 and #3 could not be designed from a structural perspective; that KSA indicated the size of the columns may change, the size of the pipe truss system may change, etc.; however, no indication was given that the proposed designs could not be built; that KSA's structural engineer indicated he would love to design the bridges. Book 39 Page 12814 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12815 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion to accept the offer of the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture with the process to be determined by professionals. Motion failed (4 to 1) : Cardamone, no; Dupree, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Foundation would determine whether a bridge is constructible or would return to the Commission with a proposed design? Mr. Blivas came before the Commission and stated that the function of the Foundation is not to design the bridge, structurally or otherwise; that as a practicing architect for over forty years, he can state that the two alternatives can be built; that modifications may or may not be necessaryi that the only question is the differential in cost; that the intent of the Foundation is not to design the bridge but rather to bring in qualified bridge designers from around the country to make the decisions. Mayor Merrill asked if the Foundation can bring back a bridge design which is buildable? Mr. Blivas stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to: 1) endorse the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team's first choice of Alternative #1, designed by Charles Kuykendall, and to forward the selection to FDOT for comments and necessary structural modifications, and 2) if the recommended choice is rejected, to ask FDOT to delay its processes to allow the Commission to work with the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture to develop an alternative proposal to meet any objections raised by FDOT. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that FDOT should also be asked to delay its process if the design is substantially altered. The maker of the motion, Commissioner Patterson, accepted the modification as part of the motion. Commissioner Pillot stated that public input is still vital on something as grand and as enduring as the bridge; and asked if the Commission is willing to have the design distributed throughout the community in the event the motion passes? The maker of the motion, Commissioner Patterson, with the agreement of the seconder, Vice Mayor Cardamone, agreed to incorporate into the motion distribution of the design for public comment. Commissioner Pillot stated that he will vote "no"; however, his negative vote is not against the design but rather against the lack of public input. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as 1) endorse the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team's first choice of Alternative #1, designed by Charles Kuykendall, and to forward selection to FDOT and the public for comments and the structural modifications, and 2) if the recommended choice necessary rejected or substantially altered, to ask FDOT to delay its is processes to allow the Commission to work with the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture to develop an alternative meet any objections raised by FDOT. Motion carried proposal (4 to to Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, 1): Merrill, yes. no; Mayor Merrill requested input from the Commission other items recommended by the Administration. regarding the Commissioner Patterson stated that an observation platform endorsed or designed by the architect who developed the proposal could be supported; however, the Commission should not mandate construction of an observation platform on an architectural design. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the Administration's recommendation #7 will be revised as follows: 7. Request FDOT to consider placing a focal point at the of the bridge, consisting of an observation top lookout shelter, and a drinking fountain, if it meets point, the a approval of Staff and the designer of the bridge. Commissioner Patterson asked for an elaboration on the Administration's recommendation #6 against extending the center railing through to the land portion. Mr. Daughters stated that the location on the bridge is no more susceptible to accidents than any other multi-lane road where traffic is passing close together. highway Mayor Merrill asked if the recent accident on the Bridge was a random event which could have happened Ringling Causeway Daughters stated yes. anywhere? Mr. Commissioner Dupree stated that recommending against the center railing because similar accidents can occur anywhere is not that a person can attempt to avoid an accident if adjacent sound; land exists; that getting out of the way over water is difficult. Mr. Daughters stated that the Administration recommends the New Jersey barrier, or center railing, on the bridge retaining portion. Commissioner Pillot asked for an explanation of recommendation #4. Administration's City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Public has expressed concerns about the lack of visibility Safety Department from the Book 39 Page 12816 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12817 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. roadway from a crime-prevention perspective and about the need to provide for emergency medical and rescue services; therefore, the Administration has recommended the pedestrian walkway not be lowered below the level of the roadway. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommended items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 as revised, and 8. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the pedestrian sidewalk can be built on one side of the bridge to reduce the width of the bridge? Mr. Daughters stated that Alternative #1 has a sidewalk on both sides; that a sidewalk and bikeway could be put on one side only; however, the Commission asked for the sidewalks to be wider; that having a sidewalk on one side may result in narrower sidewalks, unless the traffic lanes are on one side of the bridge and the width of the sidewalk is doubled. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked the width of the sidewalk? Mr. Daughters stated that the sidewalks are 10 feet wide, in addition to an extra lane on each side of the roadway which can be used for biking. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the bridge will be very wide, which is a concern; that eliminating one sidewalk and one bike lane on either side and having two-way pedestrian and bike traffic on the other side in an effort to narrow the width of the bridge is an interest. Mr. Daughters stated that constructing the sidewalk on one side of the bridge is a possibility; that depending on the direction pedestrians and bicyclists are travelling, the street would have to be crossed twice to continue walking or biking on the proper side of the road when the bridge meets landfall. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if pedestrians and bicyclists could go under the bridge? Mr. Daughters stated that circling around and under the bridge to get to the sidewalk is quite a distance. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that recreational use will not be as great as in the past considering the height and grade of the bridge; that expanding the bridge as proposed for less recreational use than presently exists adds to the cost and creates a very broad bridge. Mayor Merrill stated that one reason the bridge is so wide is to allow for potential six-laning of the bridge in the future; that the original width of the sidewalk was 6 feet on each side; that the Commission asked for 8 feet, which was achieved by narrowing some of the inner lanes; that 10 feet on each side is adequate for biking; that the sidewalks should be kept on each side as people from Bird Key will want to use one side and people from Sunset Point and Watergate will want to use the other side; that the roadway will look very wide if viewed from an airplane, but the bridge will generally be viewed from a car; that he strongly supports sidewalks and bike lanes on each side. Mr. Daughters stated that the Merrill Barber Bridge in Vero Beach has sidewalks on both sides. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion to approve the Administration's recommended items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 as revised, and 8. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. The Commission recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:56 p.m. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3897, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO CRT ZONE DISTRICT; AND TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 95-DPR-02 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 5 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE AND A RESTAURANT ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, SUB OF LOTS 14 AND 16, BLOCK H, PLAT OF SARASOTA, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A: PAGE 73, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 95-CO-04 & 95-DPR-02, RUSSELL MOORE, DESIGN STUDIOS WEST) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (2909) through (3169) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this item is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission stated that this item is a second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3897 and final approval for Development Plan 95-DPR-02; that Ordinance No. 95-3897 conditionally rezones from Residential Multiple-Family (RMF-4) Zone District to Commercial Residential Transition (CRT) Zone District the property located on the north side of Morrill Street between Osprey and Links Avenues; that in conjunction with Conditional Rezoning Petition No. 95-CO-04, Development Plan 95-DPR-02 has been filed to permit mixed uses and the construction of live/work townhomes within a proposed condominium development with a restaurant; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found Petition Nos. 95-CO-04 and 95-DPR-02 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and recommended approval to the City Commission subject to various conditions proffered by the Book 39 Page 12818 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12819 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. petitioner as stated in the PBLP minutes of December 6, 1995; that the City Commission passed proposed Ordinance No. 95-3897 on first reading subject to language being added to the ordinance between first and second readings to require that the restaurant cease service of all food and beverages to patrons no later than 12 midnight; that the petitioner has accepted the revised language. Commissioner Dupree stated that he was not in attendance at the previous quasi-judicial public hearing; that the documentation has not been adequately reviewed; therefore, he will abstained from voting. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she was not in attendance at the quasi-judicial public hearing and first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3897; however, the video tape and minutes of the January 16, 1996, regular City Commission meeting, as well as the documentation provided to the Commission, has been reviewed; that she will vote on this item. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Ordinance No. 95-3897 on second reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3897 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 95-3897. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dupree, abstained; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3923, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 95-3862 PERTAINING TO THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO CRT ZONE DISTRICT OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 1 THROUGH 18 AND LOT 20, BLOCK "B," TOWLES SUBDIVISION, A RESUB OF LOT 18, 20 AND BLOCK "H," PLAT OF SARASOTA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATED PETITION 95-DPR-01; SETTING FORTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 95-3862 PERTAINING TO SAID REZONING; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-DRP-01, RUSSELL MOORE, DESIGN STUDIOS WEST FOR BEVERLY HILLS ASSOCIATES) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #1 (3169) through (3282) Commissioner Patterson stated that her husband's law firm represents the developer of the project; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will not vote on this item. Commissioner Dupree stated that he was not in attendance at the previous quasi-judicial public hearing; that the documentation has not been adequately reviewed; therefore, he will abstained from voting. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that Beverly Hills Associates, owners of the Towles Court project, requested a minor revision to Conditional Rezoning Ordinance No. 95-3862 for change in language to require a building permit, rather than a certificate of occupancy, be secured for the structure at 1936 Adams Lane within one year from the effective date of the ordinance; that the revised final site and development plan reflects a change from the originally proposed condominium ownership to fee simple ownership of the individual lots. Mr. Litchet referred the Commission to a memorandum dated January 1, 1996, from him to David Sollenberger, City Manager, which included the following: The reviséd site plan being considered by the City Commission is for 15 single-family lots to be transferred in fee simple ownership. The originally approved site plan reflected 19 single-family lots to be transferred through condominium ownership. a. Lots 1 and 2 of the condominium plan were combined to form lot F on the fee simple ownership plan. b. Lots 3 and 4 of the condominium plan were combined to form lot G on the fee simple ownership plan. C. Lots 10 and 11 of the condominium plan were combined to form lot I on the fee simple ownership plan. d. Lots 12 and 13 of the condominium plan were combined to form lot J on the fee simple ownership plan. The revised final site plan is substantially similar to the originally approved site plan; that the change reflected in the form of ownership, in his opinion, is a minor revision pursuant to Zoning Code Section 5-12(c). City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Ordinance No. 96-3923 on second reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3923 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 96-3923 on Book 39 Page 12820 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12821 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. second reading. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Dupree, abstained; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 17. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: REQUEST SHERIFF TO PATROL U.8. 301 (WASHINGTON BOULEVARD) AND U.8. 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS - REFER TO THE ADMINISTATION WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #2 (3282) through (3715) Mayor Merrill stated that Commissioners have requested the ability to speak to items they have agendaed prior to a motion being made; that as is his preference, Robert's Rules of Order requires a motion to assist the Commission in knowing the direction in which a Commissioner is proceeding with an item; however, in the spirit of "Random Act of Kindness Week," and to clarify the degree to which this item may be referred to the Administration, the Chair will not enforce Robert's Rules of Order on this particular item. Commissioner Patterson stated that an article regarding an elderly woman who was carjacked at the Brenton Reef restaurant located off of U.S. 41, within the City limits, was recently published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that a shortage of manpower in the Sarasota Police Department is continually sensed, although the Department appears to be heavily manned; that City residents contribute taxes toward the Sheriff's Road Patrol service; that the City has pursued the dual taxation issue in various manners, i.e., litigation and requests for manpower assistance; that in February 1995, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to request the Sheriff's Office to supply manpower on City roads which are the responsibility of and continue into the County; that the Sheriff has not responded to the request and the County Commission has not pursued the issue any further. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to refer the issue of the Sheriff's Road Patrol on U.S. 41 and U.S. 301, within the City limits, to the Administration to: 1) consult with the Department of Public Safety, 2) report back to the Commission as to whether or not pursing the issue would be appropriate, and 3) provide specific reasons if a determination is made that pursuing the issue would not be appropriate. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Administration should be authorized to move forward prior to reporting to the Commission if a determination is made that the issue should be pursued; that a report should be required only if a determination is made that pursing the issue is not appropriate. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objection, the motion will include authorization for the Administration to proceed, if deemed appropriate, prior to reporting back to the Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the motion implies the latitude for the Administration to pursue roads other than U.S. 41 and U.S. 301? Commissioner Patterson stated that is correct. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to refer the issue of Sheriff Road Patrol on U.S. 41 and U.S. 301 or other streets within the City limits determined to be appropriate, to the Administration to: 1) consult with the Department of Public Safety, 2) report back to the Commission in writing and at the Commission table as to whether or not pursing the issue would be appropriate, and 3) if appropriate, to proceed prior to reporting back, and if not appropriate to provide specific reasons why. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: RESPONSE TO THE 1994-95 AUDITORS' MANAGEMENT LETTER - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #2 (3715) through #3 (0225) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the annual audit conducted by the external auditors has been completed and the management letter summarizing the findings of the audit was issued on January 26, 1996; that the City is required to provide a written response to the Auditor General of the State of Florida within 30 days; that the Administration's response to the auditors' management letter has been provided for Commission review; that Commission approval of the audit report and the Administration's response is requested prior to the City Manager and the City Auditor and Clerk signing and forwarding the same to the Auditor General. Jerry Marlar, Certified Public Accountant, representing Armstrong, Parent, Marlar & Company, came before the Commission and stated that finalizing and testing of the City's transactions and account balances as of September 30, 1995, began in August; that the field work included correspondence with the City Attorney, actuaries and other agencies related with insurance and valuation balances, and interaction with department heads under the Administration and in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that the field work was completed on December 28, 1995; that the auditor's management letter was completed three weeks later, discussed with the Administration, and delivered to each of the Commissioners on January 26, 1996. Mr. Marlar continued that the management letter for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1995, included current year comments as well as comments on items reported in the September 30, 1994, auditors' Book 39 Page 12822 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12823 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. management letter; that the list of 1994 items which were satisfactorily addressed was substantially longer than the list of items identified this year, two of which are continuation items; that progress is being made to implement a new billing system for utilities and solid waste; that fair and professional responses to the external auditors' findings have been put forth by the Administration. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to accept the audit report and approve the management response. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 19. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: NEW STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH REMOVAL OF TRASH RECEPTACLES FROM FRONT YARDS = DIRECTED AN ORDINANCE BE PREPARED AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHICH MAKES THE DAILY FINE $25, REQUIRES TRASH RECEPTACLES BE BROUGHT IN NO LATER THAN 8:00 A.M. THE DAY FOLLOWING TRASH PICKUP, AND INCLUDES A PROCEDURE FOR HARDSHIP CASES PROVIDING FOR DISCRETION BY THE CITY MANAGER; DIRECTED A NEW NOTICE BE MAILED IN UTILITY BILLS AND A PERMANENT NOTICE BE PRINTED ON THE UTILITY BILLS WHICH DETAILS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE AND EXPLAINS THE PENALTIES (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (0225) through (2168) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that in response to the January 2, 1996, Commission discussion regarding removal of trash receptacles, the following strategies are proposed: 1. Amending the ordinance to make the daily fine $25 2. Amending the ordinance to reflect that trash receptacles be brought in no later than 8:00 a.m. the day following trash pickup 3. Amending the ordinance to provide a procedure for hardship cases (residents who are able to document they cannot physically move trash receptacles). 4. Mailing a new notice in utility bills, after the changes to the ordinance are adopted, which details the provisions of the ordinance and explains the penalties. Commissioner Pillot stated that reasonable hardships, other than physical inabilities, could exist; that the type of hardship should not be specified; that latitude regarding hardship situations should be left to the appropriate Administration discretion. Commissioner Patterson stated that people who go out of town may not be able to retrieve their trash receptacles. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that residents who can document they are unable to physically move trash receptacles would also have difficulty getting trash receptacles to the curb. Mr. Litchet stated that the Public Works Department has a program by which the refuse equipment operators take the trash receptacles to and from the curb at residences where individuals have provided proper documentation of a physical inability to do so; that the intent of including a hardship procedure is to provide the Administration with the flexibility to dismiss citations if unique circumstances exist. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for the cost associated with inspecting and issuing citations to violators of the ordinance? Mr. Litchet stated that a cost analysis performed on inspections many years ago indicated the cost for two inspections at $261. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the existing $50 fine does not contribute substantially to the cost of enforcement; that the fine should not be reduced; that the amount of the fine has not been an issue; that the lack of warnings prior to citations being issued and inadequate notice of the ordinance have been the primary issues raised by the public and the media. Mr. Litchet stated that the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department has a procedure for issuing notices of violation prior to issuing citations; however, utilizing the procedure to enforce the provisions of Ordinance No. 95-3896 would prolong compliance; that many of the violations occur in transient areas; that differentiating whether a residence has been served a notice of violation or citations would be cumbersome for the inspectors; that serving notice is difficult; that many people do not retrieve certified mail. City Manager Sollenberger stated that many of the violations are occurring in areas where rentals are predominant; that providing notices of violation in transient areas would diminish the effectiveness of enforcement and not produce the results desired by enactment of the ordinance. Commissioner Patterson stated that the same difficulties with behavior modification would be experienced in transient neighborhoods whether a citation or notice of violation is issued. Mr. Sollenberger stated that various strategies can be utilized to modify the behavior of residents in transient neighborhoods; that the utility service for rentals is often in the name of the property owner; that property owners will counsel tenants to avoid receiving a fine; that tenants who obtain utility service for a residence can be notified of the requirements regarding trash Book 39 Page 12824 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12825 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. receptacles; that word-of-mouth notification often occurs in neighborhoods where fines are issued. Commissioner Patterson stated that a policy should be established whereby a notice explaining the requirements and penalties of the ordinance is distributed when utility service is obtained; that permanent notification regarding the details associated with the ordinance should be printed on the monthly utility bills. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she supports permanent notification on the monthly utility bills; and asked if the current stickers applied to the trash receptacles indicate a fine will be issued for noncompliance with the ordinance? Mr. Litchet stated no; that the law is cited, but the sticker does not indicate a fine will be imposed. Mr. Sollenberger stated that changing the stickers, which cost the City approximately $12,000, should be avoided. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission should have been informed of the cost for the stickers prior to distribution. Commissioner Pillot asked for the method the City will utilize in collecting the fines if a resident chooses to ignore a citation? Mr. Litchet stated that code enforcement fines are recorded as liens against a property; that interest is accrued at 12% annually; that the city has the right to foreclose on personal property in certain situations; that the vast majority of code enforcement liens are identified during title searches for bank financing. Commissioner Dupree stated that many low-income people who work two or three jobs and return home in the late evening or early morning hours are too tired to retrieve the trash receptacles or simply forget; and asked if the latitude granted the Administration for hardships will extend to those situations? Mr. Sollenberger stated that changing the time for curb retrieval from 9 p.m. the day of trash pickup to 8 a.m. the day following trash pickup should provide people with ample time to retrieve the trash receptacles; that the effectiveness of the ordinance could be diminished if too many situations are considered hardships; that granting the Administration latitude will provide for each situation to be assessed individually; that the situation referenced by Commissioner Dupree will be considered and a response provided when an ordinance amending the current ordinance is brought back to the Commission for public hearing. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the current ordinance was enacted to address numerous complaints by citizens who reside next to people who leave trash receptacles at the curb; that retrieving the trash receptacles may be difficult for people who have two or three jobs; however, people in a neighborhood, who abide by the law, should not be subject to continuous viewing of trash receptacles; that a fine line is drawn between being hard-hearted and being understanding; that the City Manager will be required to walk that fine line. The following people came before the Commission: Dwight Garris, 834 Gillespie Avenue (34236), was no longer in the Commission Chambers. Linda Holland 617 Gillespie Avenue, and Patty Snyder, 803 Goodrich Avenue (34236), came before the Commission. Ms. Holland stated that she is the president of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA); that on January 22, 1996, a letter was forwarded to City Manager Sollenberger expressing the GPNA's continued support of the current City ordinance which requires trash and recyclable containers to be placed at curbside and returned from the street to side or rear yards within a specified time frame; that the appearance of the Gillespie Park neighborhood has suffered for a number of years due in part to residents leaving trash receptacles at the curbs or in front yards between regular solid waste collection days. Ms. Holland continued that many working-class people, who are tired when they return home, retrieve the trash receptacles as required; that others choose to leave the receptacles at the curb and walk to the curb to deposit trash into the receptacle; that quite often the receptacles remain at the curb for extended periods of time, which is offensive not only to those residents who exercise care and maintenance of their property but also to visitors and potential property purchasers. Ms. Holland further stated that the GPNA strongly supports continued enforcement of the ordinance; that notice of violations or warnings will make enforcement cumbersome; that fines promote modified behavior; that the fine should not be lowered; that extending the retrieval time to 8 a.m. the following day will provide adequate time for people who do not work standard hours to retrieve the receptacles; that the City Manager should be provided flexibility regarding hardships; that the communication with City residents regarding the ordinance was not very clear or informative; that additional notice with stronger language should be provided. Mayor Merrill stated that the majority of the complaints refer to people who leave trash receptacles at the curb all week; that trash pickup occurs twice weekly in the City; that providing 48 hours in Book 39 Page 12826 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12827 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. which to retrieve the receptacles would make enforcement less cumbersome for inspectors; that, for example, inspectors could easily identify violators in a neighborhood which has pickup on Tuesdays and Fridays by performing inspections on Thursdays and Mondays; that people whose pick up is scheduled on Friday, but whose trash has not been picked up by the time they leave on a weekend trip, should not be penalized if the focus is to deter people from leaving receptacles at the curb all week. Ms. Holland stated that trash pickup for the Gillespie Park area is on Mondays and Thursdays; that many trash receptacles remain at the curb all week; that others are placed at the curb on Monday and retrieved on Friday. Ms. Snyder stated that as the Chair of the Greater Gillespie Park Neighborhood Action Team which is part of the Weed and Seed Program, she concurs with the statements made by Ms. Holland; that other problems identified throughout the neighborhood include: 1) unorganized Clusters of receptacles, e.g., on 8th Street between Osprey and Orange Avenues, where duplexes and groupings in homes are predominant, 2) the lack of receptacles for pedestrian traffic, and 3) the difficulties property owners with corner properties have concealing trash receptacles. Mayor Merrill asked for an estimate of the number of residents in the Gillespie Park neighborhood whose trash receptacles remain at the curb all week. Ms. Snyder stated that trash receptacles remain at the curb at approximately 25 of 30 residences on the streets consisting of single-family homes and duplexes. Ms. Holland stated that the majority of residents on her street retrieve the trash receptacles. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the problem is easily viewed by travelling the neighborhoods on a Saturday afternoon. Devin Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street (34236), representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), read into the record a letter dated February 5, 1996, from the LPNA which stated that the LPNA has and will continue to deliver written notices, specifically mentioning the potential of a fine for noncompliance with the current ordinance, to properties located within the boundaries of the neighborhood; that warning notices were ineffectively issued to 13 properties within the neighborhood in the spring of 1994; that no noticeable improvement occurred until December 1995 when 6 of the 13 properties were cited for noncompliance; that the LPNA requests the City vigilantly continue citing property owners within the Laurel Park neighborhood who violate Ordinance No. 95-3896; and that the $50 fine not be lowered. Mr. Rutkowski distributed to property owners in the Laurel copies of the notice which is property owners in many Park neighborhood; and distributed stated that sign deed-restricted trash acknowledgement of and adhere to communities are required to pickup; that the regulations with absentee landlords, problem throughout the City is pertaining to of the law; that the who are responsible for predominantly and inform violators LPNA is working to improve informing the tenants penalized; that the of the law; that violators neighborhood without City should continue should be reservation and without enforcing the that changing the retrieval making any substantial ordinance notices of violation time is acceptable; changes; unnecessary will be ineffective however, issuing burden on City resources. and generate an Commissioner would Patterson asked if Mr. Rutkowski modify his behavior? Mr. Rutkowski if a $20 parking fine stated yes. Commissioner to be $50 to Patterson asked if the amount of the modify his behavior? fine would have Mr. Rutkowski stated no; to an absentee landlord whose however, a $50 fine will make a difference tenants are violating the ordinance. Commissioner Patterson stated name in which the utility that the fine will be issued to the utility service is in the service is registered; that the name of the tenant. many times Mr. Rutkowski stated that the of the rent for the utility service is included Parks and Downtown majority of rentals in the as part East Gillespie and and should not be reduced. neighborhoods; that the $50 fine is working Laurel Mayor Merrill asked if the neighborhood is with residents predominant problem in the Laurel the curb all week? Mr. whose trash receptacles Park Rutkowski stated yes. remain at Mayor Merrill asked for than worrying people who suggestions to address the problem overnight. may forget to retrieve the other receptacles Mr. Rutkowski stated that the current ordinance will communication with residents violators; that, for assist in weeding out the regarding which had remained example, he posted 35 notices repeating at the curb after on receptacles weekend; that only three trash pickup and over next trash pickup. receptacles remained at the curb after the the Sandy Vaughn, 2135 4th Street Neighborhood Association (34237), representing East of ESNA; that problems (ESNA), stated that she is the Sarasota Gillespie and Laurel similar to those president Parks neighborhoods experienced in the are experienced in the Book 39 Page 12828 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12829 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. East Sarasota neighborhood; that receptacles, containing inappropriate waste, remain at the curb all week; that 75% of the residents do not comply with the ordinance; that violators should be fined; that a $50 fine is more effective than a $25 fine; that the $50 fine, which does not currently cover the cost of enforcement, should not be reduced; that extending the retrieval time to 8 a.m. the following day provides ample time for all residents, including those working two jobs, to comply with the ordinance; that many tenants do not pay or receive utility bills; that the Administration should notify and request assistance from landlords to inform tenants of the law. Jesse Johnson, 919 Goodrich Avenue (34236), stated that he recently purchased a new home in the Gillespie Park neighborhood; that poor people, who cannot afford $50 fines, live in neighborhoods throughout the City; that many tenants, who are required to pay $600 and $700 in rent, work three and four jobs to survive; that a $50 fine would be detrimental to the survival of poor people; that the discussion regarding liens being placed on properties is discouraging; that placing more pressure on people who are working hard to survive can create additional problems. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the value of properties are diminished in neighborhoods which have trash receptacles remaining on the curbs throughout the week; that poor, working people, who are able to place trash receptacles at the curb for pickup, should be able to find someone, i.e., a child, to retrieve the trash receptacles; that the City's focus is not on fining poor people; that the City Manager will be provided latitude to address hardship situations; that the City's focus is on encouraging residents to be good neighbors. Jencie Davis, 1420 5th Street (34236), stated that she is a hard- working, free-labored individual who complies with the ordinance; that arrangements are made when she is not able to retrieve the trash receptacle; however, trash receptacles, containing inappropriate waste, remain on the left side of 5th Street continuously; that those receptacles are used at the curb and never moved; that many people just do not want to move the receptacles. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to direct an ordinance be prepared and set for public hearing, incorporating the following: 1. Require trash receptacles be brought in no later than 8:00 a.m. the day following trash pickup. 2. Develop a procedure for hardship cases. 3. Mail a new notice in utility bills which details the provisions of the ordinance and explains the penalties. 4. Print the details associated with the ordinance directly on the monthly utility bills. 5. Allow hardship cases to be addressed at the discretion of the City Manager. Commissioner Patterson stated that hardship cases may include people who are unable to pay the fine, but should not include people who continuously fail to comply with the ordinance; that granting a hardship for people who work two or more jobs would diminish the effectiveness of the ordinance; that residents should be responsible for retrieving the trash receptacles regardless of the number of jobs being worked. Commissioner Patterson continued that she does not support retaining the $50 fine, which is one-third of a person's weekly income in various parts of the Cityi that she cannot be classified as poor; that a $25 fine will modify her behavior; that landlords will not ignore a $25 fine; that the same lesson will be taught if the fine is reduced to $25. Commissioner Patterson further stated that her neighbors are asked to retrieve her trash receptacle if she will be out of town; that extending the retrieval time to 48 hours could encourage people to leave the receptacles at the curb until the next pickup. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Patterson on all points made; that he supports reducing the fine to $25 for the people to whom a fine of $50 would be substantial; that extending the retrieval as proposed will permit trash receptacles to be legally placed at the curb 46% of the week; that a further extension of time is not necessary. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to reduce the daily fine to $25.00. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that similar behavior modification at a reduce fine amount is understood; however, the entire population of the City contributes toward the code enforcement activities undertaken to promote retrieval of trash receptacles; that the $261 figure cited by Mr. Litchet was estimated four or five years ago; that the current cost to the City for two inspections is obviously higher; that the people generating the need for the activity should supplement the cost. Commissioner Dupree stated that he could support a $50 fine, but not a "daily" fine of $50. Commissioner Patterson asked for the manner in which fines would be assessed. Book 39 Page 12830 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12831 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that fines are imposed for days in which actual evidence of a violation can be documented; that the intent has been to issue one-day fines of $50 to get the resident's attention; that the City has the right to fine $50 daily for the majority of code enforcement violations. Commissioner Patterson asked if the accrual would begin only if a citation is issued and the person refuses to retrieve the trash receptacle? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that the fine would be assessed at $50 daily if the violation is repetitive and documented properly; that the inspectors have been targeting the 7-day-a-week violators. Commissioner Dupree asked for the fine assessed to a resident if pickup is on Monday and a trash receptacle is documented as illegally placed at the curb on Thursday? Mr. Litchet stated that the fine would currently be $50. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the amendment to the motion to reduce the fine to $25. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, yes; Cardamone, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill stated that trash receptacles in his neighborhood do not remain at the curb for extended periods of time; that occasionally, the receptacles are left at the curb overnight; that the ordinance was enacted to respond to numerous complaints received in particular neighborhoods where trash receptacles are left at the curb seven days a week; that the list of citations indicates fines were issued on streets all over the City; that the desired result could be achieved and enforcement would be less cumbersome if inspections were performed on a day identified during the week that all receptacles should be not be at the curb, e.g., inspections could be performed on a Monday for trash pickup which occurred on Friday; that providing 48 hours for retrieval will target the problem with people who leave the receptacles at the curb all week without creating a problem for the abiding citizens who may forget to retrieve the receptacle overnight; that the situation can be resolved and the City's goal achieved without passing an ordinance to overregulate a potentially simple problem. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to prepare and set for public hearing an ordinance as directed. Motion carried (3 to 2): Dupree, no; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 20. REMARKS OF COMMIBSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (2168) through (2619) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that previous mention has been made regarding vehicles being parked on grass areas close to the sidewalk at the Pelican Ford dealership on U.S. 301; that a similar situation has been noticed at the SAAB dealership on Osprey Avenue; and asked if the City Codes address landscaping at automobile dealerships? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a meeting with Pelican Ford is scheduled for tomorrow at which time the dealership will be given 10 days to comply with the terms of a permit previously issued by the City or the permit will be withdrawn; that the SAAB dealership will be reviewed; that the Administration will report back to the Commission regarding both issues. B. stated that a complaint regarding a concrete wall built on an adjacent property was received from a property owner who resides on Prospect Street; that apparently, the concrete wall was made aesthetically pleasing only on the side of the property for which it had been constructed; that the side facing the neighbor was not; that the affected property owner was told the City Codes do not address the situation; that the Commission may want to consider enacting an ordinance which requires minimum standards for walls and fences facing adjacent properties. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that a similar call was received from the same individual; that an ordinance may not be required; that the requirements could be incorporated into a fence permit. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration will report back to the Commission. VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that Commission attendance is requested on February 15, 1996, at 5 p.m., as the people selected as heros in the community and selected to participate in the Olympic Torch Run in Sarasota on July 4, 1996, will be announced on the waterfront at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. COMMISSIONER DUPREE: A. stated that a complaint was received regarding a pot belly pig located at a residence in the city. Book 39 Page 12832 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12833 02/05/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that pot belly pigs are not permitted within the City limits; that the issue will be reviewed and a report forwarded to the Commission. COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that he will not be able to attend the presentation for the announcement of the torch bearers on February 15, 1996; however, he did have the privilege of nominating a applicant through the Boys and Girls Club of Sarasota County. B. stated that issues for which Commission input is necessary should be brought up under Remarks of Commissioners; however, the Commission previously discussed contacting the Administration individually and prior to meetings with issues about which the Commissioners need administrative input; that, for example, requesting reports from the Administration on the issues of the pig and the concrete walls prior to the meeting would have been more efficient than discussing those issues at the table. 21. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (2619) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the regular meeting of February 5, 1996, at 10:20 p.m. ruu C Ca-lar DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: 3he Roloo BILLY ECREBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 7 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC. OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME: NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, ÇOMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Srasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON 707 Freeling Drive WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: XXcrry COUNTY 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY Sarasota, Sarasota NAME OF POLITICAL: SUBDIVISION: City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED February 5, 1996 MY POSITION IS: XXELECTIVE a APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; the use although of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature ofthe conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETINGAT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CLFORMI *B 10-X6 PAGF 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on February 5, 1996 19. (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) XX; inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Ordinance No. 96-3923, amending for minor changes Conditional Rezoning Ordinance No. 95-3862 was brought before the City Commission for second reading. My husband, as an attorney, represented the petitioner before the City's Board of Adjustment. February 15, 1996 Hora Date Aion Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10-86 DASF ?