BOOK 37 Page 11313 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0030) through (0067) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Public Hearings, Item No. IV-5, Ordinance No. 95-3853, amending the Ken Thompson Park Master Plan, Section 22-1, Sarasota City Code, per the request of Deputy City Manager Schneider B. Add under New Business, Item No. VIII-1, Resolution No. 95R-795, the State Housing Incentives Partnership (SHIP) Program Incentive Plan changes, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger C. Add under Board Appointment, Item No. IX-1, Appointment Re: Housing Authority Board, per the request of Mayor Patterson On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 2. BOARD ACTIONS: ADVANCED REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD /LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1995 = ACCEPTED; AFFIRMED PBLP APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION NO. 95-SE- 03 WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT A SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ON OSPREY AVENUE AT VERSAILLES STREET AND/OR AT THE PUBLIX MAIN ENTRANCE MODIFIED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION RATHER THAN PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0078) through (1111) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Judson Boedecker, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Boedecker presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of January 4, 1995: A. Petition No. 95-SE-03 and 95-PSD-A Mr. Boedecker stated that Special Exception No. 95-SE-03 is a request to permit a free standing Publix Supermarket and a Drive-Thru Bank in a Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial (CSC-C) zoning district; that the parcel is located at the northwest corner of South Tamiami Trail and Bay Road; that Preliminary Site and Development Plan (PS&D) 95-PSD-A is a request to permit the construction of the free standing Publix Supermarket and Drive-Thru Bank. Mr. Boedecker continued that the PBLP found Special Exception 95-SE-03 and PS&D 95-PSD-A consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and Tree Protection Ordinance; that the PBLP recommends approval of Petitions 95-SE-03, and 95-PSD-A subject to the conditions referenced on Page 3 of the City Engineer's memorandum, and the addition of southbound left-turn lanes on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street and/or the main Publix entrance as part of the City's efforts in the development agreement. Ms. Robinson stated that the following are the items referenced from Page 3 of the City Engineer's memorandum: The Petitioners comply with all elements listed under "Right-of-Way Conditions" and "Engineering Design Criteria Manual Review" in our letter dated 3 January, 1995, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Publix store. The Petitioners enter into a development agreement with the City wherein the City will construct the lane improvement and raised concrete separator discussed in Traffic Concurrency (previous item) utilizing road Impact Fees and/or other funding sources. The mitigation improvement shall be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Publix store. The development agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the building permit for the Publix store. The petitioners construct an extension of the outside (far right) westbound lane on Bay Road, from the southeastern most driveway, to the southwestern most driveway, and the lane extension shall be in place or under actual construction prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Publix store. BOOK 37. Page 11314 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11315 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is for approval with the conditions of the PBLP approval of special exception Petition 95-SE-03 modified to remove the requirement that the City construct a southbound left-turn lane on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street and/or at the Publix main entrance on Osprey Avenue from the development agreement and add it as an additional condition of the special exception. Mr. Sollenberger stated that since the lane improvement on Osprey Avenue is not necessary for the project to meet concurrency, it is not required to be in the development agreement; and that the Zoning Code does not require City Commission approval of the PS&D. Mayor Patterson stated that she previously abstained from voting on the placement of a water tower in the vicinity. of the subject parcel; that she has part ownership in a property directly across from the parcel on which the water tower was placed; that the subject parcel is further away and may have less of an effect on the value of her propertyi however, she will declare a conflict of interest and abstain from voting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a letter from the Coalition of City Neighborhoods was received today requesting that the City Commission set this issue for public hearing to give the citizens of Sarasota an opportunity to express their views on the project. Mr. Boedecker stated that a public hearing was held on the issue at the January 4, 1995, PBLP meeting; that only one citizen was present at 6:00 p.m. to speak on the issue; that the PBLP postponed the public hearing until later in the meeting to give the Staff an opportunity to accumulate additional information regarding the placement of structures and medians; that the one citizen referenced remained and spoke during the public hearing which was held at 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that as an independent citizen, she is concerned with the potential entrance limitations associated with the median proposed for Bay Road; that the affected business owners should have an opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the PBLP minutes reflect that Osprey Avenue was not addressed as a concern since it does not abut the subject parcel; and asked for clarification on the exclusion of Osprey Avenue from the study area. Mr. Boedecker stated that Osprey Avenue meets concurrency standards and the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the Level of Service (LOS) on Osprey Avenue; therefore, Staff did not feel a study was necessary; that the PBLP members, many of whom live in the area or have encountered the existing problem of vehicles stacking at the intersection of Versailles Street and Osprey Avenue, opened the Osprey Avenue issue for discussion during the public hearing; that the stacking which extends to and sometimes through the intersection at Osprey Avenue and Siesta Drive occurs even during non-peak hours when a vehicle travelling southbound attempts to make a left turn on Versailles Street; that the PBLP felt a condition for an additional southbound left turn lane was necessary at Versailles Street and the new Publix entrance to keep the traffic flow at a sustainable level. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the PBLP minutes reflect that the PBLP was attempting to design a traffic abatement measure for Osprey Avenue at 1:00 a.m., a time when minds are not the most clear; that a public hearing should be scheduled to address the issues raised which are of concern to the citizens. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has the following options: 1. Affirm the PBLP approval of Special Exception Petition 95- SE-03; 2. Deny Special Exception Petition 95-SE-03; or 3. Set Special Exception Petition 95-SE-03 for public hearing. Commissioner Pillot asked what the Petitioner could construct without a special exception? Ms. Robinson stated that PS&D approval with concurrency issues addressed would be the only approval necessary if the Petitioner attached the proposed buildings to the main structure at the Crossroads Shopping Center; however, the Petitioner's intention is to detach the proposed structures from the shopping center to provide proper circulation around the new Publix building; that a special exception is necessary to permit a detached structure. Commissioner Pillot stated that the same traffic would be generated and the same patronage could be expected whether the structure is attached or detached; however, attaching the building would create an inconvenience associated with deliveries or removal of debris; that detaching the building to provide rear building access and proper circulation for delivery activities at the proposed Publix would be more beneficial to the public. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to affirm the PBLP approval of Special Exception Petition 95-SE-03 with the Administration's modification to include as an additional condition the requirement that the City construct a southbound left turn lane on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street and/or at the Publix main entrance on Osprey Avenue. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he would have concerns if 20 people signed up to speak on the issue before the PBLP and because of the late hour only one citizen remained and spoke. Mr. Boedecker stated BOOK 37 Page 11316 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11317 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. that did not occur; that the individual signed up to speak at 6:00 p.m. remained at the meeting and addressed the PBLP during the public hearing. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he shares Commissioner Cardamone's concern related to the potential impacts the proposed median on Bay Road could have on existing businesses. Mr. Boedecker stated that the median issue was addressed at the PBLP meeting; that the PBLP had concerns related to the strip mall located to the south and across the street from the subject parcel; that Staff indicated that the store owners had no objections to the proposed median. Ms. Robinson stated that the development agreement requires two public hearings, one before the PBLP and one before the City Commission; that concurrency remedies and traffic circulation issues can be addressed at that time. Commissioner Atkins asked Commissioner Cardamone if she realized a public hearing would be held on the development agreement when she suggested another public hearing? Commissioner Cardamone stated that she understands the structure would be built if the Commission approves the special exception, but the traffic issues would not be addressed for up to three years after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and that she does not feel comfortable with an important decision being made at 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Atkins stated that he has concerns related to the effects of medians on businesses and would like to support Commissioner Cardamone's position; however, he does not want to delay the process if a public hearing will be scheduled during which the median concerns can be addressed; and asked if voting yes on the current motion would eliminate a public hearing being held to address the concerns related to the medians? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the public hearing which would be scheduled on the concurrency issue would deal specifically with the widening of Bay Road and the median, which are measures recommended as means to achieve concurrency; that the issue of the left turn lane on Osprey Avenue would not be included as part of that public hearing because it is not a concurrency issue; that the Administration concurs with the PBLP that the left turn lanes on Osprey Avenue are necessary. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Tindale Oliver and Associates, Inc., Engineering Consultants, concluded that Bay Road is Level Of Service "F" but Osprey Avenue is Level Of Service "D" in the area being discussed? Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that no traffic signal exists between the intersection at Osprey Avenue and Siesta Drive and the intersection at Bay Road and U.S. 41; thereforei the consultants considered Osprey Avenue and Bay Road as it surrounds the subject parcel as one link and concluded that the entire link was a Level of Service "F". Mr. Mohammed continued that the consultants indicated the proposed improvements at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Bay Road would alleviate the congestion occurring on Osprey Avenue, and therefore, did not feel left turn lanes on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street and the main entrance to Publix were necessary. Mayor Patterson askèd for clarification of Commissioner Cardamone's concern. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has difficulty with the statements reflected in the PBLP minutes as follows: Ms. Almy stated that Mr. Daughters did not: have control over Osprey Avenue because it was not adjacent to the Publix project, however, Versailles Street was. Ms. Bacon asked why it was not part of the property. Mr. Daughters stated that his understanding was that the Planning Board was talking about a left turn lane on Osprey Avenue. Ms. Almy felt that this was not well thought out and not well presented. She stated that the Planning Board did not have the graphics to see the issue. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she has a major concern with issuing a Certificate of Occupancy to a business that could create a substantial traffic impact on an area and allowing three yéars subsequently for the traffic ramifications to be addressed; that the proposed median would prohibit patrons frequenting the Bagel Inn or the Nettle Creek Shop from accessing Bay Road; that the residents on Versailles Street and Jasmine Drive have concerns related to the cut through traffic developing from drivers attempting to avoid the Osprey Avenue and Siesta Drive traffic light; that these issues need to be addressed. Commissioner Pillot stated that the concerns being raised relate to the impact on the neighborhoods and traffic conditions; and asked if the Petitioner could build an attached structure without the special exception? Ms. Robinson stated that the structure would have to be attached to the main structure if the special exception is not approved by the BOOK 37 Page 11318 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11319 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. Commission; that a development agreement relative to concurrency issues is necessary whether the structure is attached or detached. Commissioner Pillot stated that an attached structure will be built if the Commission denies the special exception and the impact on the neighborhood will be the same. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the PBLP minutes indicate there may be an advantage to building a free standing store since the entire shopping center would have to be upgraded to meet the current code requirements if the proposed store was attached; and asked for comment from Staff on the discussion held between Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Litchet as reflected on page 12 of the January 4, 1995, PBLP meeting minutes. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that Mr. Lindsay's statement was incorrect; that the issue was further deliberated as reflected on subsequent pages of the minutes; that a developer will not get around any code requirements by building a free standing versus an attached structure; that specific elements such as parking and landscaping are upgraded when shopping centers expand; that, for example, the new areas of the Southgate Plaza had to meet existing code requirements and the parking attributed to those specific developments also had to be upgraded, but the entire shopping center was not required to upgrade to meet current code requirements. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City is imposing regulations on the developer; that the regulations creating the difficulty are self- imposed by the City and will be addressed during the concurrency public hearing; that the new Publix development should not be delayed. Mayor Patterson stated that Osprey Avenue is a self-imposed issue that won't be addressed at the public hearing regarding the development agreement; that Commissioner Cardamone is concerned with whether the public feels their concerns relating to Osprey Avenue have been addressed. Mayor Patterson asked if the large oak tree located on Bay Road will be saved if the Bay Road expansion proposal is approved? Mr. Litchet stated that the City Engineer has indicted the referenced oak tree would be saved. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to affirm the PBLP approval modified as recommended by the Administration. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, abstained. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the advanced report of the PBLP regular meeting of January 4, 1995. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission requested a response from the Administration related to previous actions taken with regard to the PBLP's authority to set their own public hearings; and asked for the status of that response., Mr. Sollenberger stated that Staff is currently researching if any action was taken in that regard; that a report will be presented to the Commission promptly. 3. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER, 1994 - CLEO AMMONS, WELDER (NIASE), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT #1 (1154) through (1257) Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and Cleo Ammons, Welder, Public Works Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain stated that Mr. Ammons is a valued, 15-year City employee whose dependability, quality of work, and personality are good examples for other employeesi; that Mr. Ammons constructed a hydraulic lift on the rear of a pickup truck for use when moving refuse containers for repairs, thereby eliminating the use of large front-end loading refuse vehicles for this purpose; that Cleo Ammons is an employee whose hard work and leadership exemplifies "Serving with Excellence and Pride." Mayor Patterson presented Mr. Ammons with a plaque and certificate for the Employee of the Month for December 1994 in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. Mayor Patterson requested city Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-793, AFTER MEETING AND HEARING TESTIMONY FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE ST. ARMANDS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF A.) ACQUIRING CERTAIN REAL BOOK 37 Page 11320 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11321 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTING THEREON A SURFACE PARKING FACILITY, HEREINAFTER THE "PROJECT," AND B.) FUNDING ACQUISITION OF THE REAL PROPERTY WITH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; MAKING A FINAL DECISION TO LEVY THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; THEREAFTER MEETING AS AN EQUALIZING BOARD TO HEAR AND CONSIDER ANY AND ALL COMPLAINTS AS TO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND ADJUSTING AND EQUALIZING THE ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF JUSTICE AND RIGHT: APPROVING A FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK; DIRECTING, UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, A CREDIT TO EACH ASSESSED PROPERTY OWNER OF A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSED COST AND THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE REAL PROPERTY IF THE ACTUAL COST IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT SET FORTH ON THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL APPROVED HEREIN; DIRECTING THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK PROMPTLY AFTER SUCH CONFIRMATION OF THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE REAL PROPERTY TO RECORD THE ASSESSMENT IN A SPECIAL BOOK TO BE KNOWN AS THE "IMPROVEMENT LIEN BOOK"; DIRECTING THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO RECORD A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION IN THE OF- FICIAL RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED WITH EXHIBIT "A" INCLUDED AS PRESENTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1355) through (1770) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, and Mike Connolly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Resolution No. 95R-793 makes final the decision to levy a special assessment against real property with the St. Armands Special Assessment District for the purpose of acquiring property on Fillmore Drive on which a surface parking facility will be constructed; that the costs associated with acquisition of the real property needed for the surface parking facility will be paid by special assessment; that these costs amount to $1.525 million plus interest and total $2,863,762.40; that the special assessments will be included annually for a 20-year period on the ad valorem tax bill beginning November 1, 1995. Mr. Mitchell stated that on January 22, 1992, the City Commission authorized David M. Griffith to prepare a cost apportionment study for the proposed parking facility at St. Armands Circle; that this study recommended using building square footage as the method of apportionment; that in September 1993 the Commission approved the public/private partnership proposal to provide approximately 250 parking spaces on vacant property bisected by Fillmore Drive near St. Armands Circle; that approximately 60 percent of the land owners petitioned for an assessment district to finance the cost of the land acquisition; that the Commission approved the concept and allocated $500,000 toward construction of the parking facility; that negotiations with the property owner concluded in June 1994; that on July 18, 1994, the Commission took the following actions as recommended by the Administration: 1. Approved the purchase of the Fillmore Drive property negotiated at $1,575,000 with a closing by March 3, 1995, and agreed to post a forfeitable earnest money deposit of $10,000; 2. Authorized the financing of $1,525,000 through the First Florida Governmental Financing Commission to be repaid from assessment district revenuesi 3. Allocated $130,000 from the Adams Drive parking project to the Fillmore Drive Parking project; 4. Approved an engineering contract to design and bid the parking project; 5. Authorized the Administration to advertize the construction project for bids; and 6. Authorized the Administration to initiate and set for public hearing the Uniform Method of Collection, rezoning, street vacation, and assessment district proceedings. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Administration has signed the contract to purchase the land on Fillmore Drive and paid the $10,000 earnest money; that the parking facility has been designed and approved; that the City has successfully financed $1.525 million from First Florida Governmental Financing Commission; and that public. hearings as follows have been held: October 3, 1994 Uniform Method of Collection December 19, 1994 Rezoning of Lot 11, Blocks 12 and 13, St. Armands; and Street Vacation of a portion of Fillmore Drive Mr. Connolly stated that the public hearing scheduled tonight is required by Chapter 170, Florida Statutes; that the public hearing is designed to hear testimony from the affected property owners as to the propriety and advisability of acquiring the real property and constructing the parking facility with the funding of the acquisition of the. real property to be pursuant to a special assessment; that the City Commission will be asked to make a final decision as to whether to levy the special assessment against the properties within the district after hearing testimony; that subsequent to that decision, the Commission is required to meet as an equalizing board to hear and consider any and all complaints as to the special assessments; that the Statute does not require two public hearings; that he recommends the Commission hold the public hearing, make a decision, and, if the decision is to levy a special assessment, determine how much the BOOK 37 Page 11322 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11323 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. special assessment will be for each particular parcel; that the proposed resolution should be adopted after the special assessment is equalized; that the Administration's proposed Special Assessment of Properties has been attached to the resolution as Exhibit A. Mr. Connolly continued that a second public hearing on the Uniform Method of Collection is tentatively scheduled for June 19, 1995, for the Commission to make the final decision pursuant to the tax bill; that a public hearing on a resolution accepting the completed project is anticipated for September 5, 1995. Mayor Patterson stated that approval or disapproval of the resolution is actually the only action required by the Commission. Mr. Connolly stated that is correct if the Commission decides the Special Assessment of Properties as presented is appropriate; however, if the Commission functioning as the Equalizing Board, determines a property owner's assessment should be lowered, Exhibit A will have to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly; that the city has financed the cost for the acquisition of the real property; that a 100 percent Special Assessment is necessaryi that lowering one property owner's assessment will require that another property owner's assessment be raised by an equal amount. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Martin Rappaport, representing the Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands (CLAS), stated that the Association discussed and approved of a self assessment figure that would be acceptable; that the proposed Special Assessment figure is lower than anticipated; that the proposed resolution is fully supported by the Association. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission appreciates the efforts put forth by Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Sollenberger, and Mr. Rappaport; that Lou Mettler and Gil Waters, Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands; Jim MacDonald, St. Armands Merchants Association; and Nancy Cook, President of the St. Armands Residents Association, should also be thanked for their support and participation. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Resolution No. 95R-793. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-793 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-793 including Exhibit A. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-782, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AS TO PETITION NUMBER 95-MI-01; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER A OUIT CLAIM DEED CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED WITH MORE PARTICULARITY HEREIN COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS EAST AVENUE, LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHGATE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-MI-01, JAMES E. TOALE AS AGENT FOR SAMUEL ZELL, TRUSTEE) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1730) through (2204) Mike Connolly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Resolution No. 95R-782 makes certain findings as to Petition No. 95-MI-01; that this unique petition is pursuant to Chapter 255.22(5), Florida Statutes, requesting the reconveyance of the real property commonly referred to as East Avenue located within the Southgate Shopping Center previously dedicated for right-of-way use; that Chapter 255.22(5), Florida Statutes, was adopted in May 1993 authorizing a request of a governmental entity with the reconveyance of land that had been dedicated; the this petition was the only petition filed with the City under the "window of opportunity" which closed on October 1, 1994; therefore, the Commission will not be involved in future statutory procedures such as this. Mr. Connolly displayed on the overhead projector the nine different elements set forth in the Florida Statutes which must be established as a condition precedent to the City's execution and delivery of a quit claim deed. Mr. Connolly stated that the statute does not specify who shall act as the trier of fact in determining the establishment of the nine elements; however, it appears appropriate that the City Commission be such trier of fact. James Toale, representing the Petitioner, Samuel Zell, Trustee, Owner of Southgate Plaza, came before the Commission to address the nine elements required as follows: 1. Is the ownership and/or use of the subject property in dispute? Mr. Toale stated that the dedication for public use was made in December 1958; that a dedication for public use can be accepted in two ways: explicitly by written resolution of a government body or implicitly by construction or maintenance; that there is no public BOOK 37 Page 11324 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11325 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. record indicating that either the City of Sarasota or Sarasota County explicitly accepted the dedication; that the property has been used as a private driveway from 1958 to current; however, the property is still shown on the right-of-way maps of the City of Sarasota. 2. Has a demand that the City quit claim the subject property to the Demander been made upon the City of Sarasota on or before October 1, 1994? Mr. Toale stated that a demand pursuant to the statute was personally hand-delivered to the City Auditor and Clerk on September 30, 1994. 3. Was the Demander, at the time of filing the demand with the City of Sarasota, the owner of land adjoining the disputed property on at least one side? Mr. Toale stated that, as the Attorney for the Petitioner, he can testify that the property lying immediately to the west and the north of the disputed property is owned by the Petitioner. 4. Was the disputed property conveyed to the City or the County by deed or dedication as an easement? Mr. Toale stated that the dedication states specifically that the property was to be used for a public street; that the dedication was not a conveyance of fee simple title to either the City or the County. Mr. Toale submitted a certified copy of the dedication into the record. 5. Did the conveyance of the easement occur on or before May 5, 1983? Mr. Toale referred to the December 1958 date on the face of the certified copy of the dedication. 6. Did the grantor of the easement convey the easement for no valuable consideration? Mr. Toale stated that no consideration is shown on the face of the dedication; that no documentary stamp, tax stamps, or surtax of any type is affixed to the dedication. 7. Was the conveyance of the easement for a specified purpose or use? Mr. Toale stated that the dedication was specified for use as a street. 8. Did the City and/or the County fail to use the subject property for such purpose for a period of ten consecutive years from the date of conveyance? Mr. Toale submitted copies of letters from Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and T.J. Ballenger, P.E., Development Services Division, Sarasota County from which he cited the following: Our search of records and field review indicates the City of Sarasota did not construct, and has not maintained the roadway or associated improvements within the dedicated area for a period of ten consecutive years from the date of dedication. Therefore, our records do not indicate that Sarasota County was involved in construction of the roadway or maintenance to the roadway for ten consecutive years from the date of dedication. 9. Is the Demander the successor in title to the grantor of the easement? Mr. Toale stated that the demand filed includes a title search which shows that Samuel Zell, Trustee, is the successor in interest to the dedicator. Commissioner Pillot asked if Mr. Connolly concurs with the Mr. Toale's testimony? Mr. Connolly stated that the only item he sees as a potential issue would be Item 8 in regard to a factual matter; that he spoke with Mr. Toale and the item will not be contested; that from a legal perspective he has reviewed the submission made by Mr. Toale and concurs. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Resolution No. 95R-782. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed. the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-782 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone, and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-782. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 37 Page 11326 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11327 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3836, AMENDING ARTICLE VI OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PACKAGE STORES FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; AMENDING SUCH PROVISIONS TO EXEMPT PACKAGE STORES FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LOCATED IN CSC-N, CSC-C AND CSC-R ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (2207) through #2 (0512) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, and Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission. Mr. Litchet stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 exempts package stores in the Commercial Shopping Center districts (CSC-N, CSC-C, and CSC-R) from meeting the minimum distance requirements from residentially zoned properties, churches, schools, or other package stores; that the current Zoning Code requirements allow package stores as permitted uses in all of the CSC zone districts; that Staff feels that eliminating the distance restrictions will not result in any negative impacts; that a broader ordinance was originally proposed and approved by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); however, the Administration revised the proposed ordinance to include a more conservative approach to accommodate current needs and plans to review the entire alcohol issue in more detail during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Comprehensive Update; that the basis of the Staff's recommendation for approval of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 is that shopping centers located in the City of Sarasota are found on properties with land areas of 4 to 25 or more acres and generally have large areas of parking and streets that serve as effective buffering. Mr. Litchet continued that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 would allow the new proposed Publix store at Crossroads Shopping Center to sell beer and wine and also allow Staff to review similar uses proposed in other shopping centers. Commissioner Pillot asked if this proposed ordinance relates only to carry-out purchases and not establishments that serve alcohol to seated patrons? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that establishments issued a 4-COP-SRX State license which requires 50 percent of sales from food could continue to sell alcohol beverages to seated patrons. Commissioner Pillot asked if a proposed ordinance would make more flexible the requirements with respect to carry-out? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot referenced the proposed, high-quality establishment in the Midtown Plaza, and asked how the distance requirements from the nearby Sarasota High School would be measured, directly across Bahia Vista Street to the school or from the traffic light at U.S. 41 to the school? Mr. Litchet stated that the measurement taken was from East Avenue across Bahia Vista Street to School Avenue as the normal route of ordinary pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Cardamone asked what would be exempted in the specific case referenced by Commissioner Pillot? Mr. Litchet stated that the proposed ordinance would exempt that establishment from undergoing the variance process. Commissioner Pillot stated that the cited establishment could acquire the proper State license and serve alcoholic beverages? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that the current Zoning Code allows restaurants with a 2-COP or 4-COP-SRX State license to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises; that establishments with carry-out sales are considered package stores by definition under the Zoning Code; that previously, grocery stores, i.e., the Kash-n-Karry located at the Midtown Plaza, were not interpreted as package stores; however, William Hewes, former Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, after reviewing the package store ordinance in effect, determined that any establishment with carry-out alcohol sales is considered a package store. Mr. Litchet continued that the referenced Kash-n-Karry is within 500 feet of residentially zoned property; that measurements pertaining to residentially zoned property are taken from the property boundary of the shopping center to the nearest residentially zoned property; that measurements pertaining to schools are taken from the front door of an establishment to the nearest property boundary of the school; that assuming the existing Kash-n-Karry was not there, under the current interpretation of the Zoning Code relating to package stores, a grocery store selling beer and wine would not be allowed to locate in the Midtown Plaza. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he has no objection to the sale of beer and wine at grocery stores which the public accepts and from which there is no negative impact; that he has no objection to a restaurant adjacently opening a beer and wine core facility; however, the distance requirements and prohibitions of the original ordinance were initiated for a reason; that he is concerned with the unintended consequences of adopting the proposed ordinance; that shopping at superstores" is becoming a nationwide trend; that certain uses are being concentrated at one store, i.e., books at the Bookstop Store; that he fears this ordinance may allow a giant package store to locate in 20,000 square feet of vacated space if, for example, one of the larger stores were to go out of business or leases were to change at Ringling Shopping Center or Midtown Plaza; that he has no BOOK 37 Page 11328 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11329 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. objection to the two uses for which this proposed ordinance was developed to assist; however, he has a real problem with opening the door to unintended consequences which could be damaging to neighborhoods, and, therefore, cannot vote for the proposed ordinance as drafted; that methods to tighten the proposed ordinance should be reviewed; that a maximum square footage of hard liquor relating to inventory or retail space or a requirement that the establishment be a restaurant should be considered. Commissioner Atkins stated that Vice Mayor Merrill has expressed some of his concerns; that the proposed ordinance appears to include the exemption for the package stores which the public perceives as liquor stores; that the entire community should not be subjected to an infiltration of liquor stores so that one or two uses can be accommodated. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Litchet to read the list of shopping centers affected by the proposed ordinance. Mr. Litchet cited the following seven shopping centers which are the only shopping centers located in the permitted cones that would be affected by the proposed ordinance: Zone District 1. Colonial Shopping Plaza CSC-C 2. Town and Country Plaza CSC-R 3. Sarasota Commons CSC-R 4. Ringling Shopping Center CSC-N 5. Midtown Plaza CSC-C 6. Southgate Mall CSC-R 7. Crossroads Plaza CSC-C Mayor Patterson stated that the provision of the proposed ordinance would be limited to those seven locations. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the definition of package "liquor" stores has changed to package "beer, wine, and liquor" store? Mr. Litchet stated that the Zoning Code defines a package store as the take out of any alcoholic beverage; that an establishment selling carry-out beer would be considered a package store under the City's definition; that the definition has not changed; however, the City's interpretation of the package store ordinance has changed; that previous Administrations viewed beer and wine sales as accessory uses. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the public defines package stores as liquor stores and beer and wine stores as açcessoryi that she is concerned with using the unclear "package store" definition. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she is concerned with lessening or eliminating the distance requirements from neighborhoods, churches, and schools, regarding the sale of liquor carry-out; and asked the following questions: Why is the City developing this ordinance? Who initiated the development and why? Mr. Litchet stated that requests for a variance at the Midtown Plaza and a means to accommodate beer and wine sales at the new Publix development at Crossroads Shopping Center were the issues that initiated the development of the proposed ordinance; that the Administration realizes the definition of package store could be improved. Mr. Litchet continued that a discussion was held with the city Manager earlier today regarding the possibility of limiting the proposed ordinance to beer and wine sales; that language can be inserted to that effect if the Commission so desires. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the following language could be substituted as the addition on page 2 of the proposed ordinance to address the Publix issue and partially address the problems at Midtown Plaza: The distance restrictions set forth in subsection (c) shall not be applicable to package stores for the sale of beer and wine only located in CSC-N, CSC-C or CSC-R zoning districts Mr. Sollenberger stated that the liquor issue could be re-examined at a later time by another ordinance. Commissioner Atkins asked how liqueurs would be addressed? Mr. Litchet stated that a change to beer and wine only would be viewed as just that, beer and wine, with liqueurs considered a liquor. Commissioner Atkins stated that a workable definition should be devised to accommodate the issues raised without allowing liquor package stores at the seven locations cited. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the new Publix could obtain the ability to sell beer and wine through the City's variance process? Mr. Litchet stated that securing a variance would be necessary for the new Publix to sell beer and wine if the proposed ordinance is not approved; that proving a hardship, which is difficult to do, is one of the criteria used to determine issuance of a variance; that during a joint workshop, the Commission asked the Board of Adjustment to be conservative and strict in granting variances; that the Board of Adjustment has taken the Commission at its word; that he feels it would be difficult for the new Publix to. secure a variance. BOOK 37 Page 11330 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11331 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that a member of the public questioned her earlier regarding the notice which was given on this public hearing; and asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the notice procedure used. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a legal notice was advertised in the Sarasota Herald Tribune ten days in advance of the public hearing; that a notice was sent to the Superintendent of Schools; and that notices were sent to all package stores and churches within the City limits. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if a map or documentation listing the shopping centers affected was attached to the notice? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the map was not available when the notices were sent, and, therefore, was not included. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836, as drafted, on first reading; however, if the Commission does not wish to pass the proposed ordinance as written because of the liquor provision, he recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 with the language revision of "beer and wine only" as cited, and referring the liquor portion back to the Administration to be addressed in a separate ordinance. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Ken Smiley, representing Nature Talk, P.O. Box 2025 (34230), stated that a referendum should be placed on the ballot to prohibit the sale of liquor in Sarasota; that liquor sales and consumption have created catastrophes across the nation; that liquor alters an individual's personality for the worse and is a detriment to good health and well being; that ancient tribes opposed "firewater" because it. hinders people's health and vitality; that a close look at the statistics will probably show that crimes related to handguns and firearms, domestic violence, and rapes are related to alcohol consumption. Michael Klauber, 1212 East Avenue South (34239), stated that he has been involved with and worked to upgrade Midtown Plaza; that many changes have been made to the area which was once a difficult retail location; that under the current interpretation of the Zoning Code and with the distance requirements in effect, there are no locations within the City of Sarasota where a package store could open; that representatives from Midtown Plaza and the new Publix have been involved with City Staff in developing a solution to address this problem by allowing package stores to locate in the proposed zone districts; that he has been a proponent for controlling consumption of alcohol; however, the current Zoning Code requirements are too restrictive; that the proposed ordinance would allow package stores, by definition, to locate at seven sites throughout the City. Mr. Klauber continued that the Commission should consider what the difference is between one can of beer, one bottle of wine, and one bottle of alcohol; that there is no real difference; that he agrees with the current definition of package stores, which includes all forms, if the City's intent is to limit alcoholic beverage sales; that he suggests continuing the public hearing if the Commission wants to consider further language. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for the approximate square footage. of the store Mr. Klauber is attempting to open adjacent to his restaurant at the Midtown Plaza? Mr. Klauber stated that the establishment would be approximately 5,000 square feet and include a cooking school and a bakery. Vice Mayor Merrill asked what portion of that 5,000 square feet would be designated for the package store function? Mr. Klauber stated that approximately 20 to 25 percent of the selling floor space would be devoted to the use. Commissioner Pillot asked what food service would be provided at the proposed facility? Mr. Klauber stated that a bakery, a gourmet deli and gourmet foods, pre-packaged gourmet foods, cooking and food related accessories are anticipated for the proposed gourmet market; that the facility would have no dining seats. Commissioner Pillot asked if the facility could be considered accessory to the existing restaurant? Mr. Klauber stated that the facility would be under the same roof line and an accessory use was explored with Staff. Commissioner Pillot referred to. Article VI, Section 6-25, and asked if the exemption from the distance requirements relating to a facility that is accessory to a restaurant and meets certain size and serving requirements would be applicable to Mr. Klauber's proposed facility? Mr. Litchet came before the Commission and stated that the referenced exemption deals with in-house sales of alcoholic beverages, not carry-out, and would not apply to the proposed facility. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Klauber made a request for a variance and was denied; and asked if during that process it was determined that the entrances of the facility were more than 500 feet from a school? BOOK 37 Page 11332 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11333 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Klauber stated that the 500-foot requirement from a school was met; however, the distance requirement from residentially zoned property was not met since the measurements are taken from the boundary of the Plaza to the nearest residential property boundary. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the various measurements used to determine the distance requirement. Mr. Litchet stated that there are four separate measurements; that the distance requirements from one bar to another bar are from entrance to entrance; and cited the following measuring techniques: SCHOOL (entrance to boundary) shortest route of pedestrian travel from the main entrance of the facility to the nearest point of the school grounds in use as part of the school facilities. RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY (boundary to boundary) following a straight line from the nearest boundary of the property on which the package store is located to the nearest boundary of the residentially zoned properties. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this is the type of issue which needs to be addressed as part of the LDRs Comprehensive Update. Mayor Patterson stated that she understands why the PBLP members felt a public hearing before the PBLP would have been appropriate; that a proposed grocery store should not be delayed 1.5 years while the LDRs are updated; that the Commission is concerned that in order to accommodate two petitioners a door may be opened to something that has not fully been considered; that the City Manager recommended limiting the exemption to beer and wine facilities only; that Mr. Klauber is concerned that approach would prohibit the concept he is attempting to put forth; that she received a telephone call from the principal of Sarasota High School, Dan Kennedy, expressing his concern about the potential associated with the proposed ordinance of allowing a large liquor store to open in the vicinity of the high school. Mayor Patterson continued that the proposed ordinance could be revised to "beer and wine only" as recommended by the City Manager with further language added, i.e., "and for sale of other alcoholic beverages in a facility of certain size specifications." Commissioner Pillot stated that Mayor Patterson's suggestion makes sense; however, it is difficult to amend a document in the forum under which the discussion is taking place; that a continuance of the public hearing would allow Staff the opportunity to make the revisions referenced. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission realizes the current, very convoluted ordinance encompasses many unintended circumstances; that the Commission is not prepared to address all the issues of the current ordinance at this time; that the proposed ordinance should be limited sufficiently to accommodate the immediate needs. Mayor Patterson asked if that interpretation of the Commission's position was correct. There was a consensus of the Commission to Mayor Patterson's interpretation. Commissioner Pillot stated that Mr. Klauber has made his Midtown Plaza restaurant a top quality establishment and the manner in which Midtown Plaza has profited through his efforts is clear; however, he is concerned that approving the proposed ordinance to accommodate a liquor establishment by Mr. Klauber would open the door and also be applicable for other establishments which may not exhibit the same high quality as Mr. Klauber. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to continue the public hearing and related topics until the Administration reports back to the Commission in a timely manner. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3851, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, ARTICLE XI, SIGNS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY MANAGBR, OR HIS DESIGNEE, SHALL BE EMPOWERED TO REMOVE ANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGN PLACED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAK; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROMULGATE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PROCESS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF ILLEGAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (0512) through (0728) City Attorney Taylor stated that at the City Commission meeting of December 5, 1994, the City Commission denied proposed Ordinance No. 94-3835 which included a complicated procedure of removing signs in rights-of-way; that the ordinance was referred back to the Administration for modification and a simpler administrative procedure; that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3851 authorizes the City Manager or his designee to remove and dispose of any political campaign sign erected or maintained within the right-of-way of any street, road, or public way in violation of the prohibition of Section 11-5(d) of the Sarasota City Zoning Code. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3851 on first reading. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3851 by title only. BOOK 37 Page 11334 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11335 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3851 on first reading. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that ordinarily he would not be comfortable passing an ordinance which indicates that the City Manager, or bureaucrats, develop the law; however, this particular restriction applies to politicians; that the Commission should not take a similar approach on future issues that are "sticky." Commissioner Atkins stated that poor, struggling politicians sometimes need to use the government's rights-of-way to get exposure; that there are problems with other signs, i.e., advertisement, commercial, and realtor signs; and asked how other signs placed on City rights-of-way will be addressed? Mayor Patterson stated that other signs were included in the original ordinance proposed which was presented in Commissioner Atkins' absence; that City has regulation which currently prohibits placement of political and other signage in the rights-of-wayi, that the opinions of the four Commissioners present varied when this item was last discussed; that the Administration has eliminated all but political signs in an attempt to get a Commission consensus; that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3851 will not change the current regulation, but make it more enforceable. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that it is currently a violation of the Zoning Code to place any sign in the City rights-of-way; that the City attempts to contact the owners of the sign and issue a one-day notice of violation; that owners of signs that are not removed upon receipt of notification are issued a Code Enforcement citation which imposes a $50.00 per day charge after the first day. Mayor Patterson stated that she was one Commissioner who had supported leaving the commercial signs in the originally proposed ordinance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports the proposed ordinance as modified; that the previously proposed ordinance was costly and difficult to administer; and asked how the candidates will be notified of the City's regulation? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that candidates for City elections qualify with him; that a large print, one-page summary of the City's regulations regarding signage in the City's rights-of-way will be prepared for inclusion in the candidates packets; that the Supervisor of Elections has agreed to include a copy of the summary in the local and State candidate packets. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3846, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, CHAPTER 33, TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES, ARTICLE III, ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT NOT ONLY OFFICERS TO ISSUE PARKING CITATIONS BUT OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY sO DESIGNATED; EXPANDING THE TIME TO ANSWER A PARKING CITATION FROM 48 HOURS TO 14 DAYS; ASSESSING DELINQUENCY FEES FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PARKING CITATIONS; RAISING THE THRESHOLD AUTHORIZING WHEEL LOCKING TO THE EXISTENCE OF OUTSTAN- DING PARKING CITATION FINES TOTALING FIFTY DOLLARS OR MORE, INCLUDING LATE FEES, AND REQUIRING THE DELINQUENT CITATIONS BE AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS OLD: DELETING THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK'S AUTHORITY TO SUMMONS VIOLATORS WHO FAIL TO PAY PARKING CITATION FINES; APPOINTING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER FOR THE CITY TO CONDUCT A POSF-HHEEL-LOCKED HEARING; INCREASING THE WHEEL LOCKING FEE FROM TWENTY DOLLARS TO THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS; INCREASING THE TOWING FEE FROM TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS TO SEVENTY- FIVE DOLLARS; EXPANDING THE AUTHORIZATION FOR WHEEL LOCKING TO INCLUDE CARS PARKED WITHIN CITY-OWNED PARKING LOTS: AMENDING ARTICLE IV, STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING, DIVISION I, GENERALLY, TO PROVIDE THAT VEHICLES PARKED ON TWO WAY STREETS MUST BE PARKED WITH THE RIGHT HAND WHEELS ALONG THE RIGHT HAND CURB: CLARIFYING THE USE OF THE TERM "ADJACENT PARKING SPACE" : AMENDING ARTICLE IV, STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING, DIVISION 4, FINES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS, BY DELETING REFERENCE TO THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BECAUSE PARKING ENFORCEMENT IS NOW ADMINISTERED BY THE PARKING VIOLATIONS COLLECTIONS DIVISION: REVISING THE FORM TO BE USED FOR PARKING VIOLATION CITATIONS; REVISING THE FORM TO BE USED FOR THE NOTICE OF WHEEL LOCKING; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #2 (0736) through (0100) Russell Pillifant, Commander, Support Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Department of Public Safety assumed command of the collection and enforcement aspects of parking regulations in February 1994; that the ordinance has been reviewed and changes have been incorporated to more accurately reflect the current practice and to make the operation more efficient. Commander Pillifant continued that one change of significance relates to the requirement for wheel locking a vehicle; that previously, when fines were not paid within the 14 days provided, the vehicle license number had to be sent to Tallahassee to obtain the name and address of the violator so a notice of the City's intent to wheel lock that vehicle could be issued; that many violators reside out of the State and contact information could not BOOK 37 Page 11336 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11337 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. be obtained; that deleting the requirement of sending a letter to each and every violator that fails to respond within the 14 days will enable the City to wheel lock all violators who fail to respond; that the only requirement for wheel locking a vehicle will be the existence of outstanding parking citation fines totalling $50 or more, including late fees, and that the delinquent citations be at least 30 days old. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3846. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3846 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill, and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3846 on first reading. Commissioner Pillot asked if the provision that vehicles parked on two way streets must be parked with the right hand wheels along the right hand curb means that vehicles parked on the side of the street facing on coming traffic would be in violation? Commander Pillifant stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot stated that the public should be well-informed of that change. City Attorney Taylor stated that the provision is State law. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Administration should not exert a lot of energy in enforcing that violation in neighborhoods where vehicles may be parked on the wrong side of the street. Vice Mayor Merrill agreed. 9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1995 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #2 (0100) through (0127) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Hearing no changes, Mayor Patterson stated that the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of January 3, 1995, were approved by unanimous consent. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1 AND 2 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #2 (1027) through (1033) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Cooperative Funding Agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the Manasota Basin Board 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to accept an EPA de minimis settlement offer from one of four options regarding the Peak Oil Site On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 and 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-788) = ADOPTED: ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-794) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3837) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3847) - ADOPTED: ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3852) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #2 (1033) through (1140) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-788 and 95R-794 and Ordinance Nos. 94-3837, 95-3847, and 95-3852 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-788, amending, by reference, Personnel Rules and Regulations for General Employees and Civil Service Employees of the City of Sarasota, Florida, except as may be negotiated by the City Manager with respect to impact, if any, on Employees for whom collectivé bargaining is required, pertaining to revision of Rule 2.11, pertaining to the hiring of Temporary Employees. etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-794, authorizing the execution of a contract renewal for a Highway Main- tenance Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation on behalf of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 8:06 p.m. 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3837, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota; amending Section 24-44 of the code to provide for a two step claims procedure; providing for severability of BOOK 37 Page 11338 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11339 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. the parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95- 3847, amending Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, Recycling and Solid Waste, Article II, collection and disposal of recyclable materials and solid waste, to amend the imposition of charges per month for the collection of solid waste; amending Chapter 37, Water and Sewers, Article II, Rates and Charges, to amend the unit of measurement for gallonage charges for water consumed; to amend the assessment of monthly unit service charges; to provide that water and sewer service shall be disconnected for non- payment sixty days after rendition of the delinquent bill; to provide the city Manager with discretion to lengthen the time period prior to disconnection; to specify the rate of interest assessed on unpaid water and sewer service bills; providing that a lien against property for unpaid water aind sewer bills shall be discretionary, rather than mandatory; providing conditions for letters of credit in lieu of a cash deposit; providing for severability, of parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 8:07 p.m. 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95- 3852, providing for the designation of the structures located at 3540 Almeria Avenue historically known as the Dr. William J. Shields House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-HD-20,Mikki Hartig) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill, and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 5 inclusive. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 12. CITIZENS' INPUT - ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT REGARDING GARBAGE PICK-UP CHARGES FOR TWO PROPERTIES WITH ONE WATER METER (AGENDA ITEM VI): #2 (1140) through (1366) Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:08 p.m. Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill and left the Commission Chambers at 8:08 p.m. The following people came before the Commission: Ken Smiley, representing Nature Talk, P.O. Box 2025 (34230), distributed and cited the following share prayer: I think it's a murder of innocence and a deception of the elect. It's a mystery to me how most bible thumpers and church building attendees in the United States can call themselves christians. They even say that christian means christ-like. I think they are the blind leading the blind on their way into a ditch. How can it be otherwise? They don't seem to be able to read their book. The one they call their teacher and example clearly states in his sermon on the mountain in Matthèw of their gospels that they are to pray in secret to the one who hears in secret, as in a closet after the door is closed behind them. Repeatedly by his example, he goes a stone's throw away from any group to pray. No wonder Jesus said that we. need to be more righteous than the priests, preachers, rabbis, etc., or we don't get into heaven. In heaven, he says, is made of these as he points to a woman and her children. We are in our father's midst. Let's start acting like it. Commissioner Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:10 p.m. George Taylor, 2215 Evora Avenue (34234), stated that he feels in many instances the City is charging for services that are not provided; that a resolution, law or administrative procedure should be passed whereby citizens are charged only for services the City actually provides. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:11 p.m. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 8:11 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Taylor has a specific issue of concern? Mr. Taylor stated that he owns two houses on two adjacent lots; that the two houses run off of one water meter; that one house is often vacant; however, he is charged for garbage pick-up on both properties; that he does not feel he should be charged two garbage pick-up fees when the City is providing service to only one property. Mr. Taylor continued that he has spoken with V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, whose response was that the City's ordinance requires the charge; that the ordinance should be revised. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will speak with Mr. Taylor and provide the Commission with a written report. BOOK 37 Page 11340 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11341 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: SARASOTA MOBILITY STUDY U.8. 301 CORRIDOR = (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (1366) through (3260) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer; Bob Schmelz, Consultant, Gannett Fleming, Inc.; and Mike Crawford, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), came before the Commission. Mr. Mohammed stated that the Commission has requested continued updates on the status of the U.S. 301 Mobility Study; that the consultants have developed alternatives; that Mr. Schmelz will present the alternatives selected for further study and obtain input from and answer any questions the Commission may have; that additional public input will be received during the public workshop scheduled for January 31, 1995, at the Sudakoff Center after which a presentation will be made to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Mr. Schmelz referred to board displays and explained the Purpose of the Study and the Desire Line Drawing Percent Distribution of Total Trips. Mr. Schmelz stated the Study Technical Advisory Team (STAT) consists of representatives from the FDOT, the City, Sarasota County, Manatee County, Sarasota County and Manatee County Area Transits (SCAT, MCAT), the MPO, and MPO Citizen Advisory Committee; that the STAT has narrowed the vast number of alternatives to a number that is manageable. Mr. Schmelz continued that the Desire Line Drawing indicates the origins and destinations of the people surveyed in March 1994 as they entered, transversed, and utilized the U.S. 301 corridor for various types of trips including work, tourist, and other non-work trips such as shopping; that the results indicated that the highest plurality of trips goes through, versus stopping and starting in, the study area; that zone designations from which the vehicles were coming or going, i.e., Zone 2 indicating south of the study area and Zone 4 indicating north of the study area were used by the surveyorsi that the results indicated that between 200 and 220 of the trips surveyed went through the study area using U.S. 41 or U.S. 301. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the locations at which vehicles were surveyed. Mr. Schmelz stated that surveys were conducted at the following five locations: U.S. 41/University Parkway, U.S. 301/University Parkway, U.S. 41/Fruitville Road, Fruitville Road/Tuttle Avenue, and U.S. 41/Bahia Vista Street. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the number of people surveyed. Mr. Schmelz stated that the sample was approximately 1,000 vehicle drivers; that the survey was conducted during the three peak hours over a three-day period. Mayor Patterson stated that she expected the total trips coming from the islands to be larger than three percent. Mr. Schmelz stated that the percentage of tourist and recreation trips is most likely higher; that information in that regard is available and will be forwarded to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the areas studied. Mr. Schmelz stated that the project is an Urban Mobility Study emphasizing the U.S. 301 corridor but including travel requirements, predominantly north/south travel requirements, from Sarasota Bay to Lockwood Ridge Road; that Beneva Road, outside the original study area, was included as an alternative to be considered for. improvements; that the study area also goes from University Parkway to Bahia Vista Street; that Bee Ridge Road, south of the original study area, was also included for consideration; that the Sarasota/Bradenton Airport was also included in the analysis. Mr. Schmelz continued that many of the drivers surveyed were not aware that alternative paths were available for travel to their destination; that one of the short- term, inexpensive solutions proposed is to add, "trailblazer" signs. Mr. Schmelz referred to board displays and explained the Preliminary Evaluation Criteria, Alternative Themes, and Mobility Strategies. Mr. Schmelz stated that the STAT reviewed community input and developed the Preliminary Evaluation Criteria as follows: Serves Mobility Requirement Supports Proposed Land Use Economic Development Minimizes Neighborhood Disruption Avoids/Minimizes Environmental Disruption Rights-of-way Impacts Costs Implementation Time Travel Safety Existing Proposed Infrastructure Mr. Schmelz stated that transit and congestion management strategies are alternative themes that will enhance each alternative and therefore will be part of each proposed alternative. BOOK 37 Page 11342 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11343 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Schmelz displayed and explained a Transit Alternative Map which indicated better through-trip bus service between Bradenton and Sarasota, additional park and ride lots, and an enhanced circulator route downtown and an enhanced transfer center. Mr. Schmelz displayed and explained a Congestion Management Map which indicated various types of signs and sign locations and stated that proper location of variable message signs for incident management or route selection would benefit the entire study area. Mr. Schmelz referred to board displays and explained the following Preliminary Evaluation Alternatives: Widening U.S. 301 Bypasses: Tuttle Avenue, Lockwood Ridge/Beneva Roads, and Railroad Right-of-way Bypasses One-Way Pairs: U.S. 301/Osprey Avenue U.S. 301/Orange Avenue U.S. 301/East Avenue U.S. 301/Railroad Right-of-way Mr. Schmelz stated that during the application of the evaluation criteria by the STAT it became clear the One-Way Pairs would not solve the transportation problem and would result in serious neighborhood problems; that the ratings and suggestions indicated: 1) the Lockwood Ridge/Beneva Bypass provided a better opportunity for long-term solution, and 2) a desire to further study the existing Railroad Right-of-way Bypass in combination with Tuttle Avenue. Mr. Schmelz stated that the following alternatives will be further studied and modelled in detail: Widening U.S. 301 to widen U.S. 301/Washington Boulevard from 4 to 6 lanes including pedestrian and bicycle improvements beginning at 47th Street and continuing south to Bee Ridge Road. Railroad Right-of-way Bypass create a bypass using the existing Seminole Gulf Railway right-of-way beginning at 47th Street and U.S. 301 and following the railroad right-of-way alignment south and then continuing east, just north of Alderman Street, to Tuttle Avenue which will be used for traffic continuing south. Lockwood Ridge Road/Beneva Road Bypass provide a bypass using Lockwood Ridge Road starting at University Parkway continuing south to 17th Street, east on 17th Street to Beneva Road which will be used for traffic continuing south. Mr. Schmelz referred to a display board and explained the task schedule for the project which included public workshops on January 31 and in April, and a completion date by late spring. Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission will be provided with the results of the public workshops? Mr. Schmelz stated that can be arranged; that the Commission is welcome to attend the public workshop on January 31. Mr. Schmelz distributed a copy of the Sarasota Urban Mobility Study Fact Sheet to the Commission and stated that 300 copies explaining the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) planning process and the progress on the project have been mailed; that the fact sheet included an 800 number for people to inquire about specific questions related to the project. Commissioner Cardamone asked who the 300 people were that received the fact sheet? Mr. Schmelz stated that the mailing list was developed by Georgianne Ratliff, Florida Planning Studio, the sub-consultant handling public participation and planning concerns, and included inputs from the City, County, MPO, and other individuals who had signed up to be on the mailing list. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he strongly supported initiation of a mobility study to develop alternatives to six-laning U.S. 301; however, out of his fear of the Railroad Right-of-way Bypass alternative, he will strongly support six-laning U.S. 301; that much of the railroad right-of-way is only 25 feet wide through the Ringling Boulevard area; that a substantial amount of right-of-way will be required; that the bowling alley or office buildings to the west would have to be demolished and south of Ringling Boulevard would require demolition of the Scotty's retail structure or elimination of the back yards of the homes in that vicinity; that the railroad becomes unusable if that Railroad Right-of-way alternative is chosen; that future mass transit options would be pre-empted; that such a bypass would also have the potential of extending to Beneva Road and then to Clark Road; that Shade Avenue would be tremendously impacted by traffic travelling on the proposed bypass getting off to continue travelling east. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the projections for five years after completing the widening project (Tuttle Avenue) were that Tuttle Avenue would be at congestion; that channeling the congestion from U.S. 301 to Beneva Road or Tuttle Avenue, unless Tuttle Avenue is six-laned, will serve only to transfer congestion from a State BOOK 37 Page 11344 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11345 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. highway to a local street; that the State highways are bordered by commercial uses, which provide a good buffer for residential property; that the congestion should be channelled to a well- buffered area. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that if Transit or Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies cannot solve the congestion problems, U.S. 301 should be six-laned. Mr. Schmelz stated that Vice Mayor Merrill has raised valid points; that one of the difficulties with the Railroad Right-of-way Bypass is that the railroad is an active railroad; that severing that rail connection would impact traffic by adding more truck traffic to the area to serve the commercial interests; that movement of goods and services in and through the corridor is one of the fifteen MPO factors considered in the ISTEA process; and that issue will be reviewed as the alternatives are studied further. Mr. Schmelz continued that environmental concern is one of the negative aspects associated with six-laning U.S. 301; that there are many churches immediately adjacent to U.S. 301; that six-laning U.S. 301 in the vicinity of the Sarasota County office buildings could be difficult. Mr. Schmelz further stated that one of the advantages of the Lockwood Ridge Road/Beneva Road Bypass is that it tends to travel between neighborhoods as opposed to through neignborhoods. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if six-laning Beneva Road would still be required if the Lockwood Ridge Road/Beneva Road Bypass were chosen? Mr. Schmelz stated that review of the future-year travel demand forecast results would be necessary to see if the bypass would eliminate the need to six-lane Beneva Road. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Tuttle Avenue from University Parkway to Bee Ridge Road is one straight route already having its right-of-way purchased; that the Evaluation Alternative map connects the proposed railroad bypass to South Tuttle Avenue; and asked why Tuttle Avenue was not attached north as a through route to the County line at University Parkway? Mr. Schmelz stated that the STAT felt that particular alternative should not be carried forward. Mr. Mohammed stated that he and Pam Hower, Sr. Planner, are members of the STAT; that the STAT was informed that the right-of-way is being acquired to improve Tuttle Avenue with sidewalks and bicycle paths; that six-laning Tuttle Avenue would conflict with that project. Commissioner Cardamone stated that six-laning Tuttle Avenue may not be necessary; that the alternative should not be considered until the future-year travel demand forecasts are reviewed. Mr. Mohammed stated that the studies performed by the County projected that a four-laned Tuttle Avenue would be saturated by the year 2000 with no additional capacity available. Mayor Patterson stated that the City previously planned to widen Lockwood Ridge Road further to the south than the bypass being proposed; however, that item was removed from the Capital Improvement Plan for budgetary reasons; that the rebuilding of Lockwood Ridge Road, as with Tuttle Avenue, is part of the dual tax settlement with Sarasota County on road issues; that a specific date for completion of Tuttle Avenue, which has past, was included in the settlement agreement, but a specific date for completion of Lockwood Ridge was not; and asked why the proposed Lockwood Ridge Road/Beneva Road Bypass does not extend more southerly on the map? Mr. Schmelz stated that costs associated with the purchase of right-of-way, implementation time, and utilization of existing infrastructure was reviewed. Commissioner Pillot stated that the presentation has been very thorough and helpful; that the Commission has two more opportunities to make comments at the scheduled public hearings; and suggested that the Commission move forward on the agenda. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the proposal to four-lane Lime Avenue was also removed from the City's Capitol Improvement Plan for budgetary reasons; that a Lime Avenue/17th Street connection could be considered as an alternative to the proposed Railroad Right-of-way Bypass; that he will support six-laning U.S. 301 since the other alternatives. are terrible from a neighborhood perspective. Mr. Schmelz stated that the STAT is aware of the challenges and will attempt to develop a positive solution with minimal disruptions to the neighborhoods. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF FUND RAISING FOR THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS FOUNDATION - DECLARED THE $3 MILLION FUNDRAISING GOAL HAD BEEN REACHED AND AUTHORIZED THE JRC TO PROCEED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2: (3260) through #3 (2290) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City has supported the efforts for historic rehabilitation of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) by withholding code enforcement action leading to demolition and by amending the Zoning Code to provide private sector incentives to enable rehabilitation and permitting a density transfer; that the City's objective has been to achieve rehabilitation without creating a current or future financial burden for the public; that the City entered into a three party BOOK 37 Page 11346 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11347 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. agreement with the owner, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the John Ringling Centre Foundation (JRC) to provide that, in the event the JRC is unable to rehabilitate the JRT, the City has a party obligated to demolish the building with a readily available source of funding to cover demolition and debris removal costs; that the agreement provides that First Sunset Development, Inc., will demolish the JRT and the Bickel House within sixty days from the date of a written notice from the City Manager stating that the JRC has failed to raise the sum of $3 million for the rehabilitation of the historic structures prior to December 31, 1994. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the JRC reported funds raised to the City on January 5, 1995; that Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, assisted by Christopher Lyons, Deputy Finance Director, conducted an evaluation of the JRC's records; that the Finance Director determined that the JRC has raised $3.3 million dollars; that the following determinations were also made: 1. $435,671 of the cash and in-kind services have been expended for administrative and fundraising costs; 2. $548,000 of the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) grant is for grounds work and not building rehabilitation; and 3. A number of conditions are associated with an anonymous donation of $800,000. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the three-party agreement requires that $2 million of the $3 million be in cash or unconditional pledges; that the Administration's analysis of funds raised available for rehabilitation is at $2,344,485; that a strict interpretation of the three-party agreement would indicate that the JRC has not met the requirements. Mr. Sollenberger continued that some members of the Commission have expressed interest in considering some form of extension or leniency depending on the status of the fundraising reported; that the Administration's analysis is based on a strict interpretation. Mr. Sollenberger further stated that the decision made on this item will be a matter of judgement by the Commission on the basis of the result the Commission wishes to see achieved; that he has not provided an Administration's recommendation but offers the following options for consideration: The Commission could order demolition based on a strict interpretation of the $3 million fundraising obligation; The Commission could extend or waive the fundraising deadline by mutual consent of the three parties; or The Commission could interpret the fundraising obligation more broadly as $3 million towards the completion of the project rather than strictly towards rehabilitation of the structures. Mr. Sollenberger stated that an item of concern to the Commission has been that there be funding set aside to guarantee the demolition of the building should the JRC fail to rehabilitate the exterior facade and the first two floors of the JRT within 18 months after acquiring title; that the parties amended the three party agreement in December 1994 to provide upon conveyance of the property the sum of $250,000 previously agreed to be contributed by First Sunset Development, Inc., to the JRC shall, in lieu of direct payment to the JRC, be paid to an escrow agent as demolition security; that, in addition, the JRC is obligated to provide the City with an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $50,000 plus any additional amount that may be necessaryi that the $300,000 security has been based on estimatéd construction costs for demolition and asbestos removal; that a security would be provided if the Commission chooses to interpret, the $3 million fundraising obligation in a broader sense. Mr. Sollenberger continued that by a strict interpretation, the JRC has raised $2.3 million and the $3 million fundraising obligation has not been reached; however, $2.3 million is a significant achievement; that the JRC received a grant for $478,000 from the Florida Department of Historic Resources; that the Administration contacted that State agency and was told the JRT rehabilitation project would compete effectively for continued funding; that the Opera House previously received approximately $800,000 in funding from the Florida Department of Historic Resources in three successive grants over a period of six to eight years; that the City also received three grants of approximately $700,000 from the same State agency over several years for the Municipal Auditorium restoration project. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission has an opportunity to make a flexible interpretation of the fundraising obligation; that a mechanism has been provided to secure demolition of the building if further progress is not made with the JRT or if something happens negatively in the future; however, the JRT cannot be put back if it is demolished tomorrow; that the alternative that can most easily be undone should be chosen when two alternatives, each' of which can be argued favorably, are presented; that he supports a flexible interpretation to continue the restoration of the JRT; that any major effort of this kind has fundraising costs associated; that the $435,671 for administrative costs should be interpreted as part of the funds raised and as within the expectations of the three-party agreement; that he can also flexibly interpret the $538,000 of the ISTEA grant for grounds work; that technically the grounds are not part of the building, BOOK 37 Page 11348 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11349 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. but restoration of the building without the surrounding grounds and parking restored clearly cannot be expected; that completion of the first phase of restoration is required within 18-months of transfer of title; that to the Administration's satisfaction, a mechanism has been provided for escrowing $300,000 in funding to secure that the City would not be responsible for the cost of demolition in the event that the 18-month deadline is not met or the project fails. Commissioner Pillot continued that the Commission should use a flexible interpretation to determine that the $3 million fundraising obligation has been met and authorize the JRC to proceed with the rehabilitation of the JRT over the next 18 months. The following people came before the Commission: Kappie Spencer, 3735 Beneva Oaks Way (34238), distributed a copy. of an article entitled, "Was tearing down the Old Federal Building worth it?" as published in the Wednesday, February 16, 1994, edition of The Des Moines (Iowa) Register and stated that a few faded photographs and the sketch of the Old Federal Building as depicted in the article is all that remain of that 100-year-old building; that the city of Des Moines tore down the oldest public building in the city to provide a 600-car ramp for the J.C. Penny store that opened in 1971; that as with the JRT, the Old Federal Building had fallen into disrepair, but was structurally sound; that it too had many unique features, including a clock tower, cast iron columns, rod iron railings, and at least 40 fire places; that efforts to save the building were fruitless, and a large parking garage now sits empty as does the J.C. Penny store located across the street; that it would be a pity to see the JRT suffer the same fate as the Old Federal Building in downtown Des Moines; that demolition of the JRT would destroy an important piece of Ringling legacy; that the unique features of the JRT should be preserved for Sarasotans young and old to enjoy. Ms. Spencer cited the following from the article: People have come to realize that preserving parts of the past isn't just a sentimental indulgence, it's an imperative if a city is going to maintain a sense of roots and of place. Those are some of the very quality that make a city thrive. Ms. Spencer continued that the JRT is a beautiful building that should be preserved with loving care; and requested that the Commission not make the error that the city of Des Moines made. Bill Gulick, 904 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that the JRT was not built, but purchased by John Ringling; that he is a circus enthusiastic and spiritually agrees that old structures should be preserved; however, as a nearby City of Sarasota resident, he doesn't feel the accomplishment requested by Ms. Spencer can be achieved with $3 million; that the JRT area has recently been cleaned up and looks much better, but the JRC management has been negligent in maintaining the property throughout the fundraising effort; that this does not instill his confidence that the remaining obligations will be followed through and done properly. Mr. Gulick continued that, in terms of time and financially, the JRT project has been plânned for a very short term; that the first two floors are to be restored within 18 months, but plans for the remaining 70 percent of the building have not been presented; that he is concerned the JRT project will not providé the City with a viable, thriving structure over the. next five to ten years; that the JRT is currently a derelict property which may remain derelict indefinitely; that $3 million of fundraising would be wasted if the project fails; that the Commission should assess the feasibly of accomplishing the goal of a restored JRT; that he does not feel the goal can be accomplished with $3 million. Mr. Gulick further stated that the plan proposed by the JRC would not have been accepted by the Commission. if it had been proposed by a private developer. John McDonald, 950 South Tamiami Trail (34228), stated that he has participated in historic restoration for 17 years; that he has used $142 million to restore 36 historic structures nationally, of which 22 are on the national register of historic places; that the JRC business plan estimates $3.5 million to complete phase one of the restoration project and over $7 million to complete restoration of the entire JRT; that these figures do not include restoration of the Bickel House; that many fundraising activities are taking place simultaneously; that feasible methods of restoring the properties within a specified time period are available; that the Commission cannot make a decision based on whether an ineligible grant can be used to pay a contractor $3.5 million in cash; that the JRC was to raise $1 million by June of 1994; that certification of that goal being reached cannot be found in the public records; that in November, the JRC reported $1.7 million had been raised of which $900,000 was cash; that the JRC reported a total of $3.3 million on January 4; that the City Manager reported tonight that $2.3 million is eligible; that the final figures reported anticipate each and every pledge being collected; that the Commission had concerns with passing title on the JRT property to the JRC prior to the fundraising obligation being met; that the City Attorney had stated, "therefore, it is in my opinion that title to the JRT will not pass to the JRC unless the fundraising deadline is met." Mr. McDonald continued that First Sunset Development, Inc., will deed the property to the JRC on Thursday, January 19, according to the press release; that according to the City Manager the JRC does not have $2.4 million to conduct a $3.5 million project; that creative financing can be used to justify the Commission's vote tonight, but the decision to demolish the JRT in 18 months will be more painful after $1 million in privately collected funds have been expended. BOOK 37 Page 11350 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11351 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. McDonald what the community will lose if the Commission takes a liberal interpretation of the fundraising obligation and authorizes the JRC to proceed with the restoration? Mr. McDonald stated that the Commission is saying that $3.5 million is not necessary to restore the JRT if the funds presented tonight are accepted; that the funds raised are not adequate to pay the contractor; that the Commission may assume that the balance of the funding necessary will be collected within the next 18 months and the project would move forward; that the reality is, based on the past two years, that the JRC needs seven years to raised the total funds necessary for restoration during which time the City will be subject to the property in some form of its present condition. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. McDonald's input is valued; and asked if Mr. McDonald is advocating the demolition of the JRT? Mr. McDonald replied he is not, and stated that the Commission previously addressed the issue of deeding the property to an entity prior to the funding being raised to pay the contractor; that the property should not be deeded to the JRC if the JRC cannot afford to pay the contractor. Mayor Patterson stated that the City does not own the property; that the Commission does not have the authority to deed the property; that the current owner, First Sunset Development, Inc., has stated its intention to deed the property to the JRC in accordance with the two-party agreement between those parties. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. McDonald is not advocating that the Commission vote to demolish the structure. Mr. McDonald stated that is correct; that he would love an opportunity to restore the JRT to a first-class hotel. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that had Mr. McDonald purchased the property and been willing to perform the restoration, he may have supported transferring the efforts from the JRC to a private developer; however, that has not occurred; that the Commission is in the position of voting to either demolish the structure or continue the project with the JRC; that Mr. McDonald's interest in the building shows support that the JRT can be saved. Mr. McDonald stated that the JRT can definitely be saved; however, the City is in a position of realizing its worst fears; that the property will remain in its current condition for a protracted period of time because adequate funds to perform the restoration have not been raised. Mayor Patterson stated that a press release made by Mr. McDonald lead her to believe that he had the property under contract and intended to close on the property rapidly; that the Commission has not seen evidence that such a business transaction occurred; therefore, the Commission must view the fate of the building tonight based on the efforts of the JRC with no viable alternatives available; and asked for the status of Mr. McDonald's efforts? Mr. McDonald stated that the offer made on the entire 11.2 acres of property by a group of investors in November was rejected by First Sunset Development, Inc., (Huntington National Bank); that a new offer was tendered in December; that the counter offer put forth by the Bank was signed by a Senior Vice President of Huntington National Bank; that the money was placed in escrow with Michael Saunders & Company on instructions by the Bank to ensure that the purchasing group intends to pursue the closing of the. contract. Mr.. McDonald continued that the contract is specific that the property will be deeded to the JRC if the Commission determines the fundraising goal has been met. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that several options have been submitted to the Commission for consideration including an extension period during which the JRC would be required to raise additional funds; and asked if Mr. McDonald would be purchasing the property during such an extension period and be a legitimate owner of the property ready to perform the restoration if the JRC failed to meet the requirements of the extension granted? Mr. McDonald stated that is the plan of the purchasing group; that the purchasing group intended to close recently, but the Bank did not provide the documentation necessary to close; that the purchasing group intends to close on the property. Fred Starling, 214 Little Pond Lane (34242), stated that he has been a member of the JRC Board of Directors for approximately eight months; that the JRC Board of Directors has integrity; that 20 plus business and civic leaders have joined forces and set a goal to rehabilitate and return the JRT to public use; that the JRC Board has pledged much time in the past and will pledge time in the future to continue their efforts to rehabilitate the JRT; that he was recently brought onto the JRC. Board to assist in the construction and development of the project; that he would not be involved on the JRC Board if he thought the goal of the restoration could not be accomplished. Audrey Napshin Quale, 350 Herons Run Drive (34232), stated that she has taught third grade in the Sarasota County Public School System for the past eight years; that she currently teaches at Bay Haven School of Basics Plus but previously taught at Gocio Elementary; that the third grade curricula requires that students be taught BOOK 37 Page 11352 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11353 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. about their community; that her students have been excited by the way in which she has used existing structures to present Sarasota County history; that two years ago students at Gocio Elementary School initiated a penny drive to show their support of the JRT project which was being discussed; that the students, not the teachers, came up with the penny drive as a solution; that within three weeks, Gocio Elementary School students raised $397 worth of pennies; that as a teacher she implores that the Commission retain such edifices of Sarasota County's history; that history for students can be very boring or incredibly exciting; that the Commission should show the children, not only what they actually helped to save, but also that historic structures are valuable to the community. Rod Macon, Board of Directors; William Merrill, Attorney; Deborah Dart, Executive Vice-President: and Donovan Rypkema, Consultant; representing the John Ringling Centre Foundation, came before the Commission. Ms. Dart presented the Commission with a petition in support of saving the JRT signed by 47 Pine View School students whose signatures had been collected by her daughters during their lunch period. Ms. Dart stated that she is proud to represent the following: more than 450 citizens who have become involved and volunteered their time, energy and professional services or experiences to the project; more than 2,500 people who have made a financial contribution; the 5,000 people who have recently shown their support for the JRT restoration project; and nearly 10,000 citizens who previously signed petitions to show support for saving the JRT. Ms. Dart stated that the referenced support is significantly broad based in a city where less than 25% of the 50,000 population votes in City elections; that the JRC has raised in excess of $3 million; that the year end goal has been met; that the JRC has created a community-initiated development that is succeeding. Ms. Dart continued that at the 48th Annual Conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Boston this year, the Vice President addressed a record audience of over 2,000 people; that the JRT was one of two historic preservation projects within the United States mentioned and recognized in that address as leading projects succeeding through the innovative, Community-Imitiated Development process. Ms. Dart further stated that the City Manager's January 13, 1994, report shows that the City's Finance Director has reviewed the JRC financial status and concurs that the JRC has raised more than $3 million; however, Mr. Sollenberger stated that he does not feel comfortable including the ISTEA grant awarded to thé project in June 1994 and funds expended on fundraising and operations toward the fundraising obligation; that the three-party agreement obligated the JRC to raise $1 million by June 30, 1994; that in a letter to the City Manager dated June 16, 1994, the JRC reported that the $1 million goal had been reached; that the ISTEA grant included in the $1 million reported was acceptable in June and should be acceptable now. Ms. Dart added that the fundraising and operation costs are part of the project; that the funds were expended on maintenance of the property, security of the buildings, the establishment of the JRC and construction offices, on-site utilities, promotion, and 3.5 years of development of the project; that the administrative costs were included in the report provided to the City Manager in June and satisfied the Commission at that time. Ms. Dart stated that the JRC has met the fundraising goal and would like the Commission to give the project their blessing and consideration in providing the project with any non-financial assistance possible in the future to best expedite a successful rehabilitation; that on Thursday, January 19, the JRC will secure for the City a sum of $300,000 to cover the asbestos removal and, in the unlikely event of project failure, funding to perform demolition of the JRT and to restore the site as stipulated in the three-party agreement. Ms. Dart continued that the JRC Board, as developer of the project, has accepted the responsibility, and obligation to make the first two floors of the JRT operational within 18 months of receiving title to the property; that the JRC Board will determine the phasing and scope of work to contract in order to meet that final obligation. Mr. Rypkema stated that he has been involved in the JRT project for four years as a paid consultant to the Huntington National Bank; that Commissioner Pillot has stated the reasons by which the fundraising obligation has been met; that he is the author of the Community-Initiated Development (CID) reference book which includes the amounts of funding anticipated to be spent by a locally based non-profit organization on a project at various stages; that a minimum of 20 percent of a project cost is anticipated to have been spent by an organization when the "hailpounding" or construction stage of development is reached; that the JRC has reached the construction stage by spending less than 13 percent of the project budget; that administrative and operation costs are real rehabilitation costs that are crucial for a project to take place; that the Bank and the JRC have more than performed the roles and functions set forth in the rehabilitative strategy he wrote four years ago for the JRT project; that the JRT project has been referenced across the country as a CID model; that ISTEA grants and BOOK 37 Page 11354 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11355 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. administrative and operation costs are usually included as raised funds in rehabilitation efforts. Mr. Rypkema continued that the public or private sector efforts regarding the JRT over the past 15 years got nowhere; that the formation of the JRC proved successful in moving progress forward on the JRT; that the JRC has added value to the JRT and now developers are expressing an interest; that the JRC has raised $3 million, identified long-term tenants, and obtained signed commitments; that he does not know of a project of this scale and nature anywhere in America where the city government is providing as little assistance as the City of Sarasota has on the JRT project; that this fact adds to reflect the superior job the JRC has done in moving the project forward. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is hopeful and optimistic that a ribbon-cutting ceremony will take place in the future; and asked what happens to the JRC assets in the event that the project fails or the building is demolished? Mr. Macon stated that the JRC Board has not yet made that decision; however, he contemplates an attempt would be made to return the assets, to the extent possible, to those that have made contributions to the project. Commissioner Pillot asked what would happen to the ownership of the land if title passes to the JRC and the land should become vacant? Mr. Merrill stated that the JRC is required to complete construction of a portion of the JRT over the 18 months following the transfer of title; that within that 18-month period the reverter clause included in the deed will be in effect; that the Bank could require that the JRC transfer title back to the Bank if the construction deadline is not met or an extension could be granted; that the property becomes : that of the JRC once the 18-month construction period or any extensions thereof expire; that the JRC would remain the owner of the property unless the JRC Board decided to contribute it to some other non-profit organization or the City. Commissioner Pillot asked what provisions have been made by the JRC to properly manage the JRT as an active building? Mr. Macon stated that the Commission has been provided with the Business Plan of the John Ringling Centre Foundation dated February 1994 which reflects the anticipated operating expenses and operating income at the completion of Phase I and at the completion of all phases; that as reflected in the Business Plan, the JRC expects to be able to operate in the black, maintain the building, and build proper reserves. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Business Plan referenced was prepared 11-months ago; that an update of the Business Plan should be forwarded to the City Manager if a vote is passed authorizing the JRC to proceed. Mr. Macon stated that will be done. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the earliest date construction would begin if the Commission approves the fundraising presented? Ms. Dart stated that construction is anticipated to begin on March 1, 1995; that construction workers will be on site prior to March 1 to perform asbestos removal. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the details associated with Phase I of construction. Ms. Dart stated that construction on the exterior of the building is the initial phase that will commence on March 1, 1995; that the interior phase will follow directly thereafter beginning with the 8,000 square feet of space to be leased to a retail tenant who needs the space available for build-out by October 15 and anticipates opening to the public in January 1996. Commissioner Cardamone asked if citizens could drive by the JRT in the month of March and see noticeable repairs? Ms. Dart stated that commencing in the month of March there will be visible changes to the building that will significantly alter the community's conceptual view of the JRT; that citizens will recognize that the project is moving forward. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the time associated with completion of the exterior construction. Ms. Dart stated that Dooley and Mack Constructors and Ball Construction, a joint venture as the contractors for the JRC, anticipate completion of the exterior and initial interior spaces within nine months. Commissioner Cardamone stated that conçerns related to the appearance of the JRT have been the main reason why certain members of the public have not supported the JRT project; and. asked if financial support from a bank in excess of the amount raised by the JRC has been obtained for the project? Ms. Dart stated that preliminary discussions have taken place with banks regarding establishment of a consortium for a community loan on the property; that the leases will provide a revenue stream that provides a viable financial base on which to secure bank financing; that bank financing will be pursued further after a decision is made by the Commission tonight regarding the status of the fundraising. BOOK 37 Page 11356 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11357 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked for further information regarding the lease associated with the tenant who will take occupancy on October 15, 1995. Ms. Dart stated that the tenant would accept the space for build- out and finish work on October 15; that an agreement for a ten-year lease at $100,000 per year will be completed and executed by January 31; that three five-year options are included in the lease. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the time period mentioned for retail space occupancy is shorter than the 18-month construction deadline. Ms. Dart stated that as developer of the property, it is in the JRC's best interest to make visible changes as soon as possible to increase the funding development of the project. Commissioner Cardamone stated that many unknowns surround the project at this time; and asked what will occur if the lease is signed but due to construction delays the referenced tenant's ability to enter the building on October 15 and subsequently open for business in January 1996 is hindered? Ms. Dart stated that a Clause has been included in the lease agreement whereby the retailer will agree to take occupancy in June 1996 if unforeseen development causes a stall in rehabilitation. Mayor Patterson stated that the JRC has presented fundraising in excess of $3 million; that the excess provides certain flexibility by the Commission on the interpretation of some of the items. Mayor Patterson referred to the $800,000 donation with which a condition of meeting the $3 million is associated; and asked if the JRC has received an interpretation from the donor. or his representative, Attorney Steven Judd, as to whether the $3.3 million raised as reported by the JRC is acceptable to meet that condition? Ms. Dart stated that Attorney Judd is present to verify that the donor feels that the JRC has met the $3 million goal. Steven Judd, of Judd, Urlich & Dean, P.A., came before the Commission and stated that the JRC has met the $3 million goal referenced as a condition of the donor. Commissioner Pillot stated that he appreciates and respects the thorough analysis of the report and the integrity with which it was provided by the City Administration. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to find that the $3 million December 31, 1994, goal of the JRC has been met and authorize the JRC to proceed. Commissioner Atkins stated that the applicability of the $800,000 is not clear; however, the JRC has made a grand effort toward meeting the fundraising goal; that he accepts the creative financing as part of the process; that the current and past Commissions should be congratulated for standing their ground to move the community to this point in the process without the City having to contribute a large amount of funding; that the City, however, has expended a tremendous amount of money in time and energy on the JRT and surrounding land. Commissioner Atkins continued that he hopes future Commissions will take the same position and not allow the project to get out of hand so that the JRC attempts to give an unrestored structure back to the City. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she views the translation of the report by the Administration as literal and the accounting of the JRC as liberal; that numerous City Staff and legal hours have been expended on the JRT project from which the City needs to be removed; that she accepts the JRC's liberal interpretation as having raised the necessary fundraising; that when the exterior of the JRT is improved, the label of "eyesore" will be removed; that the building will look great from a citizen's view; that a favorable vote on the motion by the Commission will remove the pressure of further involvement by the City; that the JRC will assume the pressure and, hopefully, continue their heroic efforts. Mayor Patterson stated that she will support the motion; that the Commission has had a great amount of faith in the substance, ability, enthusiasm, and sincerity of the parties involved, and the enthusiasm they have raised among the public; that examining the dollars more specifically than has been done seems inappropriate; that she is willing to authorize the JRC to further work for the betterment of the community by attempting to make the restoration of the JRT a reality. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion declaring acceptance of the fundraising and authorizing the JRC to proceed with restoration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE RENEGOTIATED LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND MARINA JACK, INC. APPROVED: AUTHORIZED PREPARATION OF A RE-STATED DOCUMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNCHANGED FOR EXECUTION BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION BY THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (2300) through (2539) Mayor Patterson stated that her husband's law firm represents Marina Jack, Inc.; therefore, she is declaring a conflict of interest and will not vote on this item. BOOK 37 Page 11358 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11359 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Marina Jack lease has been renegotiated and is submitted for approval and execution by the Mayor; that the values negotiated in the lease were based on a report prepared for the City by appraiser E. Larry Sewell; that the Commission accepted the renegotiated lease agreement in concept at the January 3, 1995, regular City Commission meeting. Mr. Sollenberger referenced the City Attorney's memorandum of January 13 and cited the following: I think the requested action of the City Commission, on this matter, should include authority to prepare a re- stated document which may be signed by the mayor and City Auditor and Clerk without future action by the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger stated that numerous amendments have been made to the original 1964 Lease; that the Administration recommends approval of the amended lease as renegotiated; and. requests authorization to prepare a re-stated document subsequently to combine all the lease amendments; that execution of the re-stated document without requiring further Commission action is recommended. City Attorney Taylor stated that the re-stated document would not change in any material manner the language; covenants, and restrictions contained in the 1964 Lease, as amended including the requested City Commission action, but would simply consist of all Lease Amendments consolidated into one re-stated document of approximately 26 or 27 pages. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the renegotiated lease, authorize preparation of a re-stated document with the terms and conditions unchanged, and authorize the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City and the City Auditor and Clerk to attest. Commissioner Pillot stated that any re-stated language should also be approved by the attorney representing the lessee. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, abstained. City Attorney Taylor stated that signed agreements have been provided by Marina Jack, Inc.; therefore, additional signatures are not required. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3808, AMENDING ARTICLE IX, NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES, ETC.; DIVISION 4, NONCONFORMITY RESULTING FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, BY PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE ZONING CODE FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON TUTTLE AVENUE BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND HIBISCUS STREET WHEN SARASOTA COUNTY HAS EXERCISED IT'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND HAS ACOUIRED OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING A PORTION OF AN EXISTING LOT OR PARCEL. 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. - PASSED PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3808 ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (2555) through (3082) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, and Barbara Burton, Right-of-way Agent, Sarasota County Transportation Department/Real Property Office, came before the Commission. Mr. Litchet stated a review of the taking of parcels along Tuttle Avenue was requested of Staff; that a site and field review of the parcels was undertaken; that passing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808 will allow the Administration flexibility to work with the property owners on minor impacts the taking will create without requiring variances and unnecessary expensesi; that the specifics reviewed included the following: Signs Mr. Litchet stated that approximately 12 signs would require a variance or have to be relocated if the proposed ordinance is not passed; that in most cases the signs would be non-conforming by 6 to 12 inches and the change would be unnoticeable; that relocation of the signs would be expensive and many of the signs would be difficult to relocate. Parking Impacts Mr. Litchet displayed the property located at 2 North Tuttle Avenue on the overhead projector and stated that the structure at that location will lose two parking spaces due to the taking; that there is no apparent on site place to replace those lost parking spaces; that requiring the property owner to remove a portion of the building floor area to meet the parking requirement would not be feasible; that an Engineering firm currently occupies the professional building and not a lot of in and out traffic occurs. Vacant Parcels Mr. Litchet displayed Parcel No. 384 and 386-A on the overhead projector and stated that his review of the vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Tuttle Avenue and Fruitville Road indicates the parcel is zoned Commercial Office Professional (COP), which BOOK 37 Page 11360 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11361 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. requires one acre minimum lot area for commercial development; that while 1,490 square feet will be taken, over 65,000 square feet of land will remain for assembly of a commercial development. Mr. Litchet displayed Parcel No. 289 and 800 on the overhead projector and stated that the vacant parcels at the northeast corner of Bahia Vista Street and Tuttle Avenue are currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4), which requires 5,000 square feet minimum land area and 50 foot minimum lot width for single-family structures; that the parcels are in an Impact Management Area (IMA) which requires assembly of a minimum of 40,000 square feet of land for any commercial development; that 41,000 square feet of available land is estimated for assemblage prior to the taking with 38,250 square feet remaining after the taking; that the proposed ordinance, as drafted, would allow for commercial development if all the available lots were assembled; that he feels the 38,250 square feet could be developed in a reasonable commercial manner as currently envisioned in the Sarasota City Plan; however, the proposed ordinance could be revised to exempt these parcels if the Commission does not want to allow commercial development on 38,250 square feet. Mr. Litchet displayed Parcel No. 292 on the overhead projector and stated that the only other parcel which raised a major concern was the property at the northwest corner of Bahia Vista Street and Tuttle Avenue; that the taking will bring the right-of-way line within four feet of the corner of the single-family house currently located on the property; that the already nonconforming structure will become even closer to the roadway; that the parcel is currently zoned Residential Multiple Family (RMF) in the Sarasota City Plan, but will probably be rezoned commercial in the future; that the nonconformity resulting from the taking on this parcel will be the most noticeable. Mayor Patterson stated that the Mr. Litchet's written report indicates that the Commission has the option of exempting Parcel No. 292 from the ordinance which would require that the property owner remove a portion of the house; that she does not feel that Commission action would be necessary unless a turning problem from the driveway is anticipated. Ms. Burton stated that the entrance to the driveway is close to the corner; that the manner in which the property is approached was revised prior to the taking. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Litchet made the implication that Parcel No. 292 may be rezoned commercial in the future; and asked if that element was considered when compensation was negotiated with the property owner? Ms. Burton stated that Témple Beth Shalom owns the property which is used as a rental/residence; that the taking does not eliminate the ability to rent the property to tenants; that Temple Beth Shalom has settled with Sarasota County; that the element referenced by Vice Mayor Merrill was not an issue considered regarding the settlement. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808 was read at the previous meeting prior to the motion to continue discussion. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5. to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO HOWELL BROTHERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.. SARASOTA, FLORIDA (RFP #95-15) FOR THE BOARDWALK CONSTRUCTION FROM SELBY LIBRARY TO VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL = APPROVED WITH ADDITIONAL WOOD SLATS TO BE USED AS THE SAFETY FEATURE; ITEM TO BE BROUGHY BACK IF THE USE OF WOOD SLATS WILL EXCEED THE FUNDS BUDGETED (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #3 (3082) through (3407) Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, and Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a low bid of $30,260 has been received from Howell Brothers & Associates, Inc., to construct a boardwalk across the 6th Street canal; that $18,000 of the project cost will be funded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); that the Commission previously allocated $25,000 toward this project; that the Administration recommends awarding the contract to Howell Brothers & Associates, Inc. as proposed. A photograph depicting a similar baywalk at Ken Thompson Park was displayed on the overhead projector. Ms. Hay stated that the 10' X 180' boardwalk between the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) and the Selby Library would be wider than the 6-foot wide Ken Thompson Park boardwalk and have two 6' X 10' overlooks with benches. Mayor Patterson asked if the sides of the. proposed boardwalk will have chain-link fencing? BOOK 37 Page 11362 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11363 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hay stated that the proposal includes a coated material similar to chain link as a safety feature; that additional funds may be available in the budget if the Commission would prefer the use of additional wood slats. On motion of Commissioner Atkins, and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to award a contract to Howell Brothers & Associates, Inc., and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the same with wood slats to be used rather than coated chain link and that the item come back before the Commission if the use of wood slats will exceed the funds budgeted for the project. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the proposed boardwalk will be located at the eastern end of the canal? Ms. Hay stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if provisions for bicyclists will be made on the access road? Ms. Hay stated that would be accomplished. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that construction of a boardwalk will make the parking lot at Selby Library Closer to the front door of the VWPAH than the majority of VWPAH parking lot; and asked if the Administration foresees a parking problem being created at the Selby Library when matinee shows are at the VWPAH? Ms. Hay stated that the Administration feels the majority of attendees will choose to use the VWPAH parking lot first; that the intent of the boardwalk is to provide walking access to the VWPAH for the people staying at the Hyatt or in the condominiums located on the Boulevard of the Arts; that she does not foresee the Selby Library parking lot as the first choice of parking for VWPAH attendees. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the boardwalk also provides a view of the Clean lagoon and the active fish life which resulted from the National Estuary Program's restoration efforts. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-795, THE STATE HOUSING INCENTIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM INCENTIVE PLAN CHANGES = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (3407) through (3610) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City Commission adopted the SHIP Affordable Housing Plan on April 18, 1994; that the Florida Housing Finance Agency has requested clarification of the recommendation for the establishment of expedited permitting for affordable housing developments; that the proposed resolution makes it clear that permitting for affordable housing developments would take priority over the review of permits for all other developments. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Administration recommends approval of proposed Resolution No. 95R-795. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-795 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-795. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he voted, "no" because the material was not included in his agenda packet for review. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that. the material was distributed as a Change to the Order of the Day. 19. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD - RATIFIED MAYOR PATTERSON'S APPOINTMENT OF LOUISE HENDERSON TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #4 (0015) through (0996) Mayor Patterson stated that she sent a letter to Betty Clemons, who served a term on the Housing Authority Boàrd, indicating she would not be reappointed; that appreciation was expressed for her past service and guidance of the Board. Mayor Patterson continued that she is placing the name of Louise Henderson in nomination for appointment to the Housing Authority Board; that Ms. Henderson is President of her neighborhood association, has college training as an Accountant, has functioned as an Auditor in her profession, and has done housing rehabilitation; that documents and letters from Irwin Cooperman, Attorney for Ms. Clemons, have been included in the Commission's materials. Betty Clemons, 1906 Eighth Street (34234), Jane Grossman, 4580 Ascot Circle (34235), and Irwin Cooperman, Attorney for Betty Clemons, 240 North Washington Boulevard (34236) came before the Commission. Attorney Cooperman stated that he is privileged to represent Ms. Clemons in presenting her reasons why she should be reappointed for a new term to the Housing Authority Board; that he asked. Ms. Clemons why she wants to be privileged and unpaid to guarantee her abuse for another four-year term on the Board; that Ms. Clemons indicated that serving on the Board is her privilege and dedication in life; that he is of the opinion that he and Ms. Clemons are not properly before the Commission at this time; that they met with Mayor Patterson on December 5, 1994, in connection BOOK 37 Page 11364 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11365 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. with the letter the Mayor wrote to Ms. Clemons on October 4, 1994; that an extensive discussion occurred and the Mayor was very generous with her time; that he, on behalf of Ms. Clemons, reviewed the minutes of the last five meetings of the Housing Authority Board; that he is an advocate of Ms. Clemons but would like to present an objective overview as to whether Ms. Clemons is a negative, disruptive, or improper influence in the workings of the Board; that he compiled material which was delivered to the Commissioners' offices at 4:30 p.m. this afternoon, however, the Commissioners probably have not had an opportunity to review the material; that Mayor Patterson wrote Ms. Clemons on October 4th that it was her judgment that: 1) the Board would function more cohesively in striving for consensus with a new appointee, 2) the strength of Ms. Clemons' involvement in creating a better environment for public housing tenants has become so great that other Board members have been less inclined to contribute to the functioning of the Board, and 3) Ms. Clemons' dedication, while admirable, tends to blur the distinction between the policy-making role of the Board and the Administrative responsibilities; that the Mayor concluded in her letter that she would like to have a new appointee; that he has read the minutes of five Board meetings from May through September 1994, and Ms. Clemons has been as active, outspoken, and honest as any other Board member; that she attended every Board meeting in her capacity as Chairman of the Board; that a vote taken by the Board became the position of the Board, without rankling, or rumbling as far as he could detect from a fair reading of the minutes; that Ms. Clemons is knowledgeable, experienced and has only one mission on the Board, which is not to garner personal gain but rather to represent the people who are the occupants and tenants of the Housing Authority; that one of her accomplishments in the last six to nine months was being instrumental in the Board's decision that the Executive Director, who has been in office 11 years, should reapply for his position if he chooses; that she spearheaded the effort to seek applications for a new Executive Director; that she brought the President of the National Association of Housing and Rehabilitation Officials (NAHRO) to Sarasota for a five-day period for input and guidance and to provide a vision of what housing authorities are likely to be in the 21st Century; that housing authorities will not be the custodians of people at the lowest level of society but will bring social services to those requiring them; that he has raised significant legal issues in his correspondence with the Commission, including fundamental Constitutional issues; that he has great confidence in City Attorney Taylor's ability to advise the Commission; that the legal issues deserve consideration; that judgment does not have to be rushed on a matter which he was informed late this afternoon would be on the agenda; that a final decision should not be made this evening, and the matter should be continued to a later date to provide an opportunity to confront any accusations against Ms. Clemons' continued tenure. Ms. Grossman stated that she supports Ms. Clemons, whom she has known for six years; that Ms. Clemons has served as Vice President of Friends of Unity in the community and was Chairman of the annual Christmas Party for two years; that Ms. Clemons is dedicated and honest. Ms. Grossman continued that she advised Ms. Clemons when she was appointed two years ago there were serious problems with the Housing Authority; that Ms. Clemons visited communities to see how an executive director with vision can make a community better for the tenants living in community housing; that Ms. Clemons educated herself and has been an advocate for people without an advocacy voice; that the Housing Authority is in a very critical period as a new Executive Director is being sought; that putting an uninformed citizen who has probably never been in the Sarasota's public housing properties in a decision-making role would be wrong; that the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was yesterday and he taught unconditional love; that the Commission should take this approach towards an unpaid, dedicated public servant who has fought hard to hold the position because of her beliefs. Ms. Clemons stated that she has appeared before the Commission twice, the first time during the joint workshop with the Housing Authority Board and the Commission and tonight is the second time; that no one was doing anything in public housing when she took the position on the Board, and she felt no one cared - about the conditions in which people were living; that she may be over zealous according to Mayor Patterson. Ms. Clemons continued that seeing substandard living conditions in Sarasota and the striving of other housing authorities have made her zealous and want change for the better; that she saw simple things which could be done and spoke out since these things were not being done; that if she was wrong, it was because she does not want to see her neighborhood or any other neighborhood look like what she has seen; that she tried to do a job for the people in the community; that she went to City Manager Sollenberger with a cry for help long before Mayor Patterson was aware of what was happening; that she could not have resolved the issues herself as she had four new Board members who were learning their jobs; that she determined training must occur; that she was appointed by Commissioner Atkins because she was dedicated to the job; that she wanted to do the job and not create an atmosphere where no one could work; that she does not want to run anything and is not self-promoting; that all she wants is to see a job done correctly which she knows can happen; that public housing does not have to look like it does now; that people do not have to be afraid to speak out and people should not live like they are currently living because it is not fair; that the Commission should tell her if there is something she has not done that the Commission wants done or feels should be done so that she has a chance to do the job which pubic housing can do for its people. Mayor Patterson stated that she notified Ms. Clemons on Wednesday that the appointment was being placed on the agenda of tonight's BOOK 37 Page 11366 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11367 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. meeting; that she also spoke to Ms. Clemons on Saturday at which time Ms. Clemons expressed herself very eloquently. Mayor Patterson continued that she is making no accusations but rather has made a difficult decision; that she has placed the appointment before the Commissioners, who have also followed what has happened in the Housing Authority in the last year; that the Commission may choose to ratify her decision or not; that she is not willing to denigrate the accomplishments of Ms. Clemons; that the legal issues should be addressed by City Attorney Taylor. City Attorney Taylor stated that he has not had a lot of time to review Attorney Cooperman's position; that the process being brought before the Commission goes far beyond what is expected to be the norm in terms of appointments of this nature; that a due process procedure is required under the State statute if someone on a board with an unexpired term is being removed for cause; that he is not aware of a requirement that a person whose term has expired must be reappointed to another term unless sustainable grounds can be determined, absent written standards; that he does not view this situation as a complicated legal question involving civil rights, etc., but rather a political appointment; that the appointment is the prerogative of the Mayor which is all the statute requirès; that the statute does not require any reasons for not reappointing and the Mayor has the authority to determine a change is in order; that legal precedents were presented involving public employment situations but this is not an employment situation; that his initial reaction is the cases presented are not particularly persuasive in this instance. Commissioner Pillot stated that he appreciates Attorney Cooperman's distinguished presentation and Ms. Grossman's pleasant telephone conversation this afternoon; that he has been plaintiff and defendant in a number of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and court proceedings while he was Superintendent of Schools; that his experience as a layman is that there is a great distinction between reappointment and removal; that Ms. Clemons is not being removed, but rather her term has expired, and the Mayor's determination was not to reappoint Ms. Clemons; that the reference to the Mayor's decision without appropriate review and due process being retaliatory conduct can be considered in the same context; that the Mayor is not required to reappoint anyone to an advisory board or to the Housing Authority Board; that the Mayor is not required to give any reason for the failure to reappoint or for appointing a different person; that the Mayor was trying to show in her letter respect and appreciation for what Ms. Clemons has done and who she is but did not have to give any reason at all; that he does not judge whether Ms. Clemons' service has been anything other than of the highest quality; that he supports the Mayor's judgment unless he hears, sees, reads, or otherwise learns of substantial reasons why he should not. Attorney Cooperman stated that he regrets getting involved in a detailed discussion of legal precedent at 11:00 p.m. and is respectful of City. Attorney Taylor's position of having received material after 4:00 p.m. when he was probably preparing for this evening's meeting; that he respects Commissioner Pillot's experience as an administrator; however, the law is to the contraryi that excellent grounds would exist not to reappoint if Ms. Clemons has been guilty of misfeasance, neglect of duty, or theft but the Mayor's widé discretion is not total discretion under the federal statutes and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has the discretion of tabling the issue for a legal examination; that she has made a nomination and the Commissioners have an opportunity speak to it. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Mayor's appointment should be ratified, absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to ratify Mayor Patterson's appointment of Louise Henderson to the position on the Housing Authority Board previously held by Betty Clemons. Commissioner Pillot stated that, based on the quality of the people who just spoke, ratifying the appointment is not the easy thing to do but is the right thing to do for reasons previously stated. Commissioner Atkins stated that ratifying the appointment is the wrong thing to do, especially at this time in the evolution of public housing in the City of Sarasota; that the person with the most knowledge, the greatest understanding and the greatest energy to participate in the process is being removed; that he appointed Ms. Clemons to the Board and she has done nothing less than what he or the community expected of someone appointed to an advisory board in advocating in the best interest of the citizens upon which the board's programs impact, as well as the citizens of the community as a whole; that the Housing Authority and the Commission is in a cycle in which they need all the knowledge and experience that can be obtained; that the present Mayor has replaced over half of the Board, therefore, the experience lével of the members is very low; that the Commission went through the same process four years ago when most of the Board members did not want to be reappointed since they could not do anything as the Housing Authority Administrator held them and the tenants hostage; that an opportunity exists to move forward and the person who has done the most work and the most good for the public housing tenants in Sarasota in the last four years is being removed; that this is wrong and not fair; that the Commission does not understand the process as Ms. Clemons has done exactly what needed to be done; that when Ms. Clemons gets the job done, the Commission says it is the Mayor's prerogative to appoint someone else; that appointing a Board member is not the Mayor's BOOK 37 Page 11368 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11369 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. prerogative as Ms. Clemons will stay on the Board as long as the Commission does not accept the Mayor's recommendation; that the Housing Authority is better for having Ms. Clemons on the Board and will be worse without her; that the Mayor's appointee does not know anything about public housing or the tenants there, and those people need someone who is ready right now to help develop goals and objectives for the next five to ten years; that appointing someone who must be trained is not fair when dollars have already been spent in education and trips throughout the country for Ms. Clemons to prepare her to help the City; that for some reason, Ms. . Clemons is no longer needed when she is ready and the reason for the firing should be determined; and asked how someone can be complimented and fired at the same time? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he has voted for every Mayoral appointment for the Housing Authority Board, including the appointment of Ms. Clemons; that when the Commission asked for Ms. Clemons' qualifications at that time, it was indicated that it was not necessary to provide the qualifications; that he had no information or reasons to vote for her nomination but he did vote in favor of the nomination; that he also voted in favor of appointees when Commissioner Pillot nominated members for the Board and, therefore, will do sO tonight; that appointing members to the Housing Authority Board has always been a prerogative of the Mayor; that being controversial is a price paid and there is nothing wrong with that; that he served on the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board and was not reappointed as he was controversial but that fact did not stop him from going on to other things; that a chance exists of not being reappointed in a political arena. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that it is not unnoticed that two members of the Housing Authority Board are in attendance, probably in support of Ms. Clemons; that the support is noted and appreciated. 20. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - UPDATE FROM THE "BRIDGE TOO HIGH" COMMITTEE WILL BE ADDED TO THE JANUARY 30, 1995, AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (1000) through (1275) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she would like an update from the "Bridge Too High" Committee to be added to the January 30, 1995, agenda. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that there is a Special Meeting on January 30, 1995, at 4:00 p.m. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission for the above item to be added to the agenda. B. stated that she has often been critical of delays in decision-making on the part of the City staff, Administration and Commission; that the Commission agendas are so full that items must be pushed off the agenda; that ordinances on sidewalk cafes and valet parking have been under consideration for months; ànd asked if an occasional meeting could be called for the purpose of acting on some items which may be languishing and if there is a way to speed up the meetings? Commissioner Pillot stated that Commissioner Cardamone's comments are valuable and something should be done; that part of the blame for items languishing rests with the Commission; that Commissioners may decide more information is necessary and send an item back to the Administration. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the agendas are determined in advance so the agenda is full when the Administration is ready to bring an item back to the Commission; that an extra meeting may help avoid the problem. Mayor Patterson stated that the longest meetings have been due to the length of public input, and Commission input has often beèn only 10 percent of the discussion on controversial issues. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is not willing to reduce public accessibility. Mayor Patterson stated that the procedures approved previously to limit presentations may have an ameliorating effect; that an occasional meeting for the purpose of acting on additional items may be beneficial; that the Planning Board may also have an interest in discussing ways to speed the decision-making process as their last meeting continued until 1:00 a.m.; that apparently the Planning Board allows unlimited public input. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that "Parkinson's Law" is that a job will take as much time as is available; that the Commission adjourns each meeting about 11:30 p.m. and any additional time is consumed; that the Commission meetings used to start at 7:00 p.m. when the City had a Parks Department and was the dominate government in the area; that the City is discussing the consolidation of the Fire Department with the County; that the Commission meetings were moved to 6:00 p.m. and now more meetings are being discussed; that time management is the issue; that under Robert's Rules of Order, each BOOK 37 Page 11370 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11371 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. person only speaks twice to each issue after which an extension of the rules is required; that the purpose of Robert's Rules is to assure meetings stay interesting and move forward; that the problem rests with the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the procedures to which everyone agreed should be more closely followed. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration may choose to have a special meeting from time to time; that the Administration should tell the Commission when a meeting is necessary. VICE MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that there was an excellent article about the library in the newspaper this morning; that he will oppose assuming debt in order to locate a library at Five Points Park. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that she has occasionally been able to have the Commission meetings adjourned by 9:00 p.m. B. stated that she is being visited by a young Russian woman from Sarasota's Sister City of Vladimir, Russia who is on the Sister City Board and who will be staying in Sarasota for two weeks during which time she will be available to meet with any of the Commissioners. 21. OTHER MATTERS (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI): #4 (1276) through (1410) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that Southern Living Magazine was in Sarasota over the weekend to take photographs and develop a story concerning Main Street and the bay front but he does not know when the story will appear. B. stated that the recommendations for beach renourishment projects have been reprioritized; that those projects without federal funding have been prioritized downward. Mayor Patterson asked if Sarasota is off the list? Mr. Sollenberger stated that is correct; that information concerning another federal project will be brought to the Commission; that the use of a professional could be helpful to the federal delegation in trying to expedite the designation of a project in Sarasota for federal funding. Mayor Patterson stated that Jim Patterson, Longboat Key city Commissioner, indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers had postponed their pass dredging project. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he understands the project is being postponed or delayed until the end of the year or the beginning of next year. Mayor Patterson stated that delaying the Longboat Key project puts more urgency into the City, of Sarasota's lobbying effort. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that a workshop meeting on the Breen Consortium Report is scheduled for January 23, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. and the workshop will be televised. 22. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1410) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the regular meeting of January 17, 1995, at 11:20 p.m. Hora Alon NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: Billy E Rabensn BILLY F ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BQOK 37 Page 11372 01/17/95 6:00 P.M. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH, I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling Drive X CITY : COUNTY 17 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City, of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION 1S: January 17, 1995 X ELECTIVE 11 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. it applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective counry, 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 of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influençe 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 1O 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. (E FORM XB 1-86 PAGE I 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 INUEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on January 17 19. 95 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A motion was made and adopted to approve and authorize the execution of the renegotiated lease agreement between the City of Sarasota and Jack Graham, Inc. (Marina Jacks). My husband is a partner in the law firm that represents Marina Jacks, a marina and restaurant located at Bayfront Park. 20,1995 loes / Hasena Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGF 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Sarasota City Commission Patterson, Nora MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH - SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling Drive XCIrY COUNTY 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON W'HICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: January 17, 1995 X ELECTIVE 17 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures 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 fother than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE. VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CE FORM XB 10-86 PAGE I 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 January 17 19. 95 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A motion was made and adopted to affirm the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's approval of Special Exception Petition No. 95-SE-03 to permit a free standing Publix Supermarket and a Drive-Thru Bank in a commercial shopping Center Community Shopping (CSC-C) Zone District, located at the northwest corner of South Tamiami Trail and Bay Road (Crossroads Shopping Center). My husband and I are part owners of property located across the street (3750 South Osprey- Avenue) from the subject site. Hora Allunon 20,1995 Date Fhed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985); A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE 2