MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 5, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Jerome Dupree, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0010) through (0166) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-8, Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Jon F. Swift, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, (Bid #97-48) in the amount of $298,300 for the construction, landscaping, irrigation and lighting of Osprey Avenue, from Ringling Boulevard to Brother Geenan Way B. Remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1 and place under Consent Agenda No. 1, as Item No. III A-10, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Florida West Coast Symphony, Inc. C. Add under Special Presentations, Presentation Re: Proclamation proclaiming May 11 through May 17, 1997, as "Historic Preservation Week" D. Add under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-3, Report Re: Status of the Children's Fountain at the Bayfront On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. BOOK 41 Page 14506 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14507 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked the city Attorney to explain the procedure by which proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 and 97-3994 will be addressed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the two proposed ordinances drafted to address noise issues are scheduled under the public hearing portion of this meeting; that proposed Ordinance No. 97- 3993 amends the Zoning Code section pertaining to amplified music in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District, which includes the Downtown and the Sarasota Quay; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 amends the long-time existing general noise control ordinance in the Sarasota City Code and establishes maximum decibel readings in the C-CBD Zone District; that the two ordinances are interrelated and could be heard at the same time. Mayor Pillot stated that there is a consensus of the Commission to address proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 and 97-3994 at the same time. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, members of the public signing up to speak can simply indicate "noise issue" on the sign-up sheets. 2. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 11 TO MAY 17, 1997, AS "HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK" #1 (0167) through (0198) Mayor Pillot read in its entirety the City of Sarasota Proclamation declaring May 11 to May 17, 1997, as "Historic Preservation Week, I a week of special importance and worthy of the recognition of the citizens of the City of Sarasota. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION AND SARASOTA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JOINT MEETING ON MARCH 13, 1997, STATUTORY CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1997, AND REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1997 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1,-2,-3) #1 (0199) through (0203) Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the joint meeting of the Sarasota City Commission and Sarasota Board of County Commissioners on March 13, 1997, statutory City Commission meeting of April 11, 1997, and regular City Commission meeting of April 21, 1997, are approved by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1997 = NO ACTION TAKEN REGARDING PETITION NO. 97-SE-03 (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0204) through (0979) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, and Ronald Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of April 2, 1997: A. Petition Nos. 97-SE-03 and 97-PSD-05 (136 Golden Gate Point) Mr. Annis stated that Petition No. 97-SE-03 is a request for a special exception to permit a 115-foot-high structure in the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-5) Zone District, which has a maximum height limitation of 75 feet; that Petition No. 97-PSD-05 is the accompanying Preliminary Site and Development Plan; that numerous concerns regarding the proposed height of the structure were expressed by the public and PBLP members; that after lengthy discussion, the PBLP found Petition Nos. 97-SE-03 and 97-PSD-05 inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan and denied the plan as submitted based on a finding that the proposal is out of scale with the neighborhood; that the site plan does not comply with City parking requirements; that many other issues of concern including an inability to sufficiently evaluate ingress and egress were raised by the PBLP; that the concerns are listed on pages 20 to 22 of the PBLP minutes of April 2, 1997. Mayor Pillot referred to a letter dated May 5, 1997, which had been faxed to the Mayor's Office; and stated that John Brown, Esquire, Law Firm of Brown Clark & Walters, P.A., who represents the petitioner, Ravenwood, Inc., has requested that the Commission continue the matter for 90 days so an appropriate alternative to the submitted site plan can be developed; that the petitioner will then request that the Commission refer the matter back to Staff, the Development Review Committee (DRC), and the PBLP to evaluate a revised site plan. Mr. Annis stated that a site plan with significantly modified criteria such as new setbacks, height, etc., would require resubmittal to the PBLP; that three members of the PBLP are opposed to the current 115-foot height of the proposed condominium development. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission has authority to reverse, affirm, or modify the PBLP decision; that the PBLP decision will automatically become final in 45 days if the Commission takes no action; that the Commission has occasionally continues items to a date certain; that a 90-day continuance will prevent the PBLP action from becoming final in 45 days. Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission has authority to grant the petitioner's request and postpone action on the matter for 90 days? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. BOOK 41 Page 14508 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14509 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson asked if the petitioner can return with an entirely different site plan proposal even if the PBLP's decision is affirmed by the Commission this evening? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that no particular advantage is foreseen in granting the continuance if the petitioner can return anyway. City Attorney Taylor stated that a petitioner aggrieved by a PBLP decision has 30 days to file a legal challenge after the decision becomes final; that the petitioner will not have the luxury of revising the site plan for resubmittal and at the same time maintain the right to appeal the PBLP decision. Commissioner Patterson stated that the petitioner has 30 days to file an appeal of the PBLP action in Circuit Court; that an entirely new plan could be presented to the PBLP while the appeal is pending. City Attorney Taylor stated that specific action has been taken in the past to preserve the Commission's ability to finalize a petition; that continuing the matter for 90 days will reserve the Commission's right to affirm or reverse the PBLP's decision in the future, and, if necessary, to set the matter for public hearing. Mayor Pillot asked if the Administration has a recommendation? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration does not make recommendations on quasi-judicial matters. Vice Mayor Dupree asked the time frame within which the petitioner must return with a new or modified site plan if the Commission affirms the PBLP's recommendation? City Attorney Taylor stated that no time frame exists once the Commission affirms the PBLP's denial of the existing site plan; that the petitioner is free to decide if the site plan should be modified and the development approval process reinitiated. Commissioner Patterson stated that the PBLP's decision becomes final in 45 days if the Commission takes no action; and asked for clarification regarding when the petitioner's right to appeal begins. City Attorney Taylor stated that the petitioner has the right to appeal 30 days from the date the PBLP denial becomes final; that a longer time period for appeal will be provided to the petitioner if the Commission neither affirms nor opposes the PBLP decision at this meeting; that the 30-day period during which the petitioner may appeal the PBLP decision begins 45 days following the date of the PBLP's decision if the Commission takes no action. Mayor Pillot stated that a possible appeal in Circuit Court was not discussed earlier when he spoke with Attorney Brown; that Attorney Brown indicated that the petitioner is requesting the 90-day continuance to develop a proposal which the PBLP will approve. city Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney Brown's law firm became involved in the matter only recently; that the petitioner wishes to develop a proposal for which a special exception will be unnecessary and time to work with the neighborhood. Mayor Pillot asked if the City will lose any prerogatives if the request for the 90-day continuance is granted? 1 City Attorney Taylor stated no. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Dupree), it was moved to continue Commission consideration of Petition No. 97-SE-03 for 90 days. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Pillot asked the ramifications of the Commission's taking no action? City Attorney Taylor stated that the PBLP's decision to deny Petition No. 97-SE-03 will stand approved if the Commission takes no action on the matter within 45 days. Mayor Pillot asked if the petitioner will have 30 days from that date to appeal the PBLP decision? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. B. Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Mr. Annis stated that the intent of the Commission regarding the following substantive zoning issues requires clarification: regulations for motor vehicles, transmission towers, the Fruitville Road Gateway Corridor, and refuse containment; that at the February 24, 1997, joint workshop, the Commission assigned the substantive zoning issues to the PBLP and Staff for special consideration; that the PBLP and Staff were to draft the criteria, regulations, etc., for the substantive zoning issues, meet in joint workshops with the Commission, and, time permitting, incorporate the issues into Phase I of the LDRs Update; that any substantive issues requiring further analysis would be deferred to Phase II of the LDRs Update. BOOK 41 Page 14510 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14511 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Annis continued that Staff is currently proposing to incorporate the newly drafted regulations for the substantive zoning issues into the existing Zoning Code; that the text would require subsequent revision for incorporation into the updated LDRs; that a duplication of effort appears apparenti that Staff proposes to incorporate into the existing Zoning Code issues such as landscape requirements in the Fruitville Road Gateway Corridor, which were barely reviewed during the February 24, 1997, joint workshop; that the Commission has had no opportunity to provide input regarding landscape design requirements, which have been substantially changed by Staff and the PBLP since the February workshop; that the PBLP does not agree the direction was to remove certain substantive zoning issues from the LDRS Update process, draft text for incorporation into the existing Zoning Code, and then re-format the text for inclusion into Phase I of the LDRs Update; therefore, clarification from the Commission is requested. Mayor Pillot requested a recommendation from the Administration. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration agrees with the PBLP's recommendation to continue with the process as directed at the February 24, 1997, joint workshop. Mr. Taylor stated that Siemon, Larsen & Marsh (SL&M), I the consultant retained to rewrite the LDRS, is preparing the working draft of Phase I in which virtually no substantive changes will be introduced; that controversial zoning issues such as transmission towers, motor vehicle sales, alcoholic beverage uses, height limitations, development standards for the Commercial, Residential Transition (CRT) Zone District, etc., were independently addressed by the Commission, PBLP, the Board of Adjustment, and Staff at joint workshops; that certain zoning issues such as the Fruitville Road Gateway Corridor were referred to the PBLP for further analysis; that the final draft of Phase I will be presented to the Commission within the next few months; however, Staff would like to continue discussing the substantive zoning issues with the PBLP and the Commission in the interim period preceding receipt of the final draft of Phase I from SL&M; that the substantive zoning issues will be incorporated in the general discussion of Phase I if the Commission does not wish to discuss those issues separately. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administrations" recommendation is to continue the process decided at the February 24, 1997, workshop; and asked if any conflict exists with the PBLP recommendation? Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP's understanding of Commission direction was that the substantive zoning issues would be analyzed and rewritten for incorporation into the LDRS update rather than incorporation into the existing Zoning Code before the updated LDRs are adopted; that the substantive issues such as transmission towers should be analyzed individually during the interim period and, if sufficient time is available, adopted in Phase I of the LDRs update rather than being separately adopted into the existing Zoning Code; that any substantive issues which could not be included in Phase I will be deferred to Phase II. Commissioner Cardamone stated that major substantive zoning issues were isolated for independent analysis; that she did not expect the issues to be incorporated into the existing Zoning Code and then additionally revised for inclusion in the updated LDRs. Commissioner Patterson agreed; and stated that certain high-priority issues should be included in Phase I rather than Phase II; however, regulations for substantive zoning issues, i.e., transmission towers, should not be incorporated into the existing Zoning Code prior to adoption of the updated LDRS. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the time frame for completing the LDRS Update is of concern as the terms of two PBLP members are about to expire; that the members have offered to continue serving until the final draft of Phase I is completed; and asked for clarification of the time frame for Phase I? Mr. Taylor stated that SL&M received Staff comments on the working draft one month ago; that the final draft should be completed within one month for review by the PBLP. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the original completion date of April 1997 has been moved forward to July; that Mr. Annis's term expires soon; and asked if Mr. Annis is willing to continue serving on the PBLP after his term expires? Mr. Annis stated that he could remain for one or two months following the expiration of his term. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Staff should ensure the final draft of Phase I is completed by July 1997. Commissioner Patterson asked for the amount of time the Commission and the PBLP will have to review the final draft of Phase I prior to the public hearings? Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission and PBLP will receive the document two to four weeks before the first public hearing is held. Commissioner Patterson stated that at least three weeks should be provided. BOOK 41 Page 14512 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14513 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff will review the document in detail with the PBLP during workshops. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the terms of PBLP Members Ronald Annis and Judson Boedecker expire at the end of May 1997; that both members have served eight years and are not eligible for reappointment; that he will meet with Mr. Annis and Mr. Boedecker to determine if an interest exists to continue serving until Phase I of the LDRS Update is completed. Mayor Pillot stated that the general consensus is to delay appointing new members to the PBLP until the final draft of Phase I of the LDRs Update has been reviewed. Mayor Pillot asked if further action is required? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager stated no; that an understanding between all parties regarding the future course of action has been reached. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1,2,3,4,5,6,9, AND 10 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 8 = REMOVED; ITEM NO. 7 = POSTPONED TO MAY 19, 1997, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0980) through (1021) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 7 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Vehicle Impound Program related to prostitution and narcotics cases 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Termination of Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Ballet of Florida, Inc. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to employ an individual on a part time basis to assist with economic development matters 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with the Clubhouse Publishing, Inc., to provide program booklets for the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall the 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 Seasons 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a professional services contract with Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Sarasota, Florida (R.F.P. #97-35) to provide services relative to the investigation, design, permitting and construction management to the sanitary sewer collection/transmission system on an as needed basis 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Renewal to the Agreement with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Sarasota, Florida (R.F.P. #96-49) for engineering services as Engineer of Record for the City of Sarasota Water and Sewer System for an additional one year period 9. Approval Re: Lido Key Beach Restoration Project Contract with Mote Marine for Turtle Nest Monitoring and Relocation 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the least Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Florida West Coast Symphony, Inc. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 through 6, inclusive, and 9 and 10. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. Approval Re: Expand the South Sarasota Traffic Calming Study area to Bay Road and request the South Sarasota Traffic Calming Task Force to place San Remo Traffic Abatement on a high priority Commissioner Patterson stated that at least one of the two neighborhoods recommended for inclusion in the South Sarasota Traffic Calming Study has not been given an opportunity to provide input; that the residents may not support decisions being made by people who are not immediate residents; that the opportunity should be provided for the residents to contribute input. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to postpone action and reschedule expansion of the South Sarasota Traffic Calming Study area to Bay Road for discussion at the May 19, 1997, regular Commission meeting under an agenda item other than the Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3990) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3998) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-3999) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1036) through (1140) BOOK 41 Page 14514 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14515 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3990, 97-3998, and 97-3999 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3990, amending Chapter 11, Buildings and Building Regulations, Articles II - IX, inclusive, to provide for the enlargement of the membership of the Board of Rules and Appeals and for a modification of the membership requirements of such board; amending the jurisdiction of such board to include authority to hear appeals, approve alternative standards, certify contractors and to discipline contractors under the 1994 Editions of the Standard Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Gas Code, and the 1990 Edition of the National Electrical Code and Local Amendments to each of the aforementioned codes; providing for the adoption of revised City of Sarasota Local Amendments to the Standard Housing Code, 1991 Edition and the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code, 1985 Edition; repealing existing Chapter 11, Articles IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX and renumbering Articles X, XI, and XII; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3998, pertaining to the stay of the expiration of final site and development plans or development plans processed as part of a conditional rezoning; amending Ordinance No. 96-3955 to allow the City Commission approval of time extensions applicable to such plans; setting forth findings as to the need for and public purpose served by allowing such application for an extension; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3999, extending the approval of the City Commission pertaining to the Development Plan for Petition 94-DPR- Q for a period of two (2) years from the automatic expiration of said approval; providing for the continuation of the conditional rezoning from RMF-2 Zone District to CRT Zone District, for a period of two (2) years measured from the automatic expiration of Development Plan 94-DPR-Q for the following described property: Lots 15, 16, 17, Block D, corrected plat of Golf Course Heights subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 5 of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida, as more particularly described herein; setting forth findings as to circumstances of the automatic expiration of Petition 94-DPR-Q; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-DPR-2, Petitioner Steven D. Rees, Esquire) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 3 inclusive. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3993, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, SECTIONS 8-123 AND 8-125, ZONING CODE, OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED USES IN THE C-CBD ZONE DISTRICT; ALLOWING AMPLIFIED MUSIC NOT IN A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY WHICH IS MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET FROM ANY USE WHICH IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C-CBD ZONE DISTRICT ONLY BY ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT: PROHIBITING AMPLIFIED WHICH IS NOT IN A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE ON ANY PROPERTY LOCATED LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET FROM ANY USE WHICH IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS REPEALING ARTICLE X, SECTION 10-3 PERTAINING TO NOISE: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) FOUND CONSISTENT WITH COMPRERENSIVE PLAN; PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) AND 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3994, AMENDING CHAPTER 20, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO CREATE THE CITY OF SARASOTA NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE: SETTING FORTH DECLARATION OF POLICY AND DEFINITIONS: PROHIBITING UNREASONABLE NOISE; SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC ACTS CONSIDERED TO BE UNREASONABLE NOISE; PROHIBITING AMPLIFIED MUSIC IN THE C-CBD ZONING DISTRICT BETWEEN CERTAIN TIMES ON CERTAIN DAYS, EXCEPT IN A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE: ESTABLISHING 65 DB AS THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVEL IN THE C-CBD ZONING DISTRICT; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF: BOOK 41 Page 14516 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14517 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: : 1) ALLOWS AMPLIFIED MUSIC ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS UNTIL MIDNIGHT, 2) ESTABLISHES 70 DBA AS A MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE BOUND LEVEL IN THE C-CBD ZONE DISTRICT TO BE MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE FROM WHICH THE SOUND EMANATES, AND 3) REVISES THE LANGUAGE OF CHAPTER 20-7 TO REFERENCE A TEMPORARY EXEMPTION OF SECTION 8-125(I) OF THE ZONING CODE; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO: 1) DRAFT LANGUAGE AND REPORT BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE REGARDING NOISE REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CT ZONE DISTRICT ON ST. ARMANDS AND 2) REVIEW THE POTENTIAL OF IMPLEMENTING NOISE REGULATIONS IN OTHER BUSINESS AREAS CITYWIDE (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1156) through #3 (3515) Mark Singer, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 amends the Zoning Code, Article VIII, Sections 8-123 and 8-125, which deals with the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District located in the Downtown; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 is being presented with the proposed City Noise Control Ordinance No. 97-3994, which establishes maximum decibel (dB) levels in the C-CBD Zone District and will prohibit outdoor amplified music after a specified hour. Attorney Singer continued that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 was prepared as a result of the Commission workshop held on February 11, 1997; that the draft ordinance presented to the PBLP on March 5, 1997, prohibited outdoor amplified music, except within a completely enclosed structure, on any property located within a certain distance from a residential use and expanded the special exception requirement for open-air dining facilities in the C-CBD Zone District; that the PBLP perceived multiple problems with expanding the special exception requirement for open-air dining facilities and pointed out that the Commission's goal of reducing noise could be accomplished solely by prohibiting amplified music within a certain measured distance from a residentially used property; that the matter was continued until March 18, 1997, at which time the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan; that after discussions with the Planning and Building Departments, proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 was revised by omitting an expanded special exception requirement and including additional provisions to address some of the PBLP's concerns. Attorney Singer stated that a memorandum from Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, has been submitted to the Commission outlining the reasons why the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that a finding of consistency will be required before the Commission can pass proposed Ordinance No. 37-3993 on first reading. Attorney Singer continued that the terms amplified, amplified music, completely enclosed structure, primarily residential use and property have been defined and included in the proposed ordinance; that the proposed ordinance does the following: prohibits amplified music not in a completely enclosed structure on all property any portion of which is located within 250 feet of a use which is primarily residential sets forth the method of measurement and definitions of important terms requires a permit where outdoor amplified music is allowed to provide for ease of enforcement Attorney Singer stated that business owners will be required to apply for and obtain a permit before outdoor amplified music can be played at an eligible property; that the Building Department will determine if the requesting property is or is not within 250 feet of a primarily residential use and issue a permit accordingly; that the cost for the initial permit is $100 and $25 for each renewal; that a police officer who receives a complaint by a citizen will go to the source of the sound and ask to see the permit; that establishments which offer outdoor amplified music without the issuance of a permit will be in violation of the Zoning Code; that police officers will not have to determine if the property is or is not within 250 feet of a primarily residential use. requires compliance with Chapter 20, including hours of operation, even where outdoor amplified music is allowed Attorney stated that the issuance of a permit to allow outdoor amplified music will not protect a property from other provisions in the Zoning Code; that permitted properties will be required to adhere to the provisions of Chapter 20, regarding maximum decibel limitations, hours during which outdoor amplified music can be played, and the generalized prohibition of making noise which is loud or annoying. allows a permitted use to continue offering outdoor amplified music if a primarily residential use is subsequently established within 250 feet of the property Attorney Singer stated that a future residential use could not cause an existing permitted property to cease playing outdoor amplified music; that this provision was included in the proposed ordinance to provide some certainty from a business perspective that making arrangements to offer outdoor amplified music could BOOK 41 Page 14518 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14519 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. not be defeated by a residential use subsequently locating within 250 feet of the property. defines completely enclosed structure consistent with the definition in the Sarasota City Code Attorney Singer stated that the same definitions have been used in both proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993, amending the Zoning Code, and proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994, amending the Sarasota City Code; that a completely enclosed structure means four walls with a roof and windows and doors closed except for normal ingress and egress; that businesses with doors propped or sliding glass doors left open will not be considered completely enclosed structures. enhances entorcement by requiring permits Attorney Singer stated that enforceability of the proposed ordinance was a major issue raised by the PBLP; that the permit requirements were included since the ordinance was presented to the PBLP. Attorney Singer continued that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 is viewed as consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, as outlined in the memorandum provided by the Deputy Planning Director and, if adopted, will provide a zone of protection for residential uses. Attorney Singer further stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 is a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 20 which serves the following principal purposes: 1. Replaces the loud and raucous standard Citywide with a prohibition against any sound which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities. Sets forth standards such as the following for consideration in determining whether a violation has occurred: volume, intensity, unusual nature, volume and intensity of background noise, proximity to residential sleeping facilities, nature and zoning of area where noise emanates, time of day, duration, and whether the sound is produced by commercial activity or not. Attorney Singer stated that the Chief of Police has reported to the Commission that the loud and raucous standard creates difficulties in enforcement; that police officers and citizens continuously have differing perceptions regarding what constitutes loud and raucous; that the purpose of changing the regulations is to provide for better definitions and objective standards; that the enforcement scheme will be determined at the discretion of the Administration and the Police Department; that the proposed ordinance does not require police officers to issue citations; that the complaining person could forward an affidavit with compiled evidence to the municipal prosecutor if the police officer does not issue a citation, and if appropriate, the City Attorney's Office could issue a summons charging the violation; that each complaint has particular circumstances; that tying the hands of the Administration and the Police Department to a specific enforcement scheme would not be appropriate. 2. Establishes in the C-CBD Zone District a maximum sound level of 65 dB as measured by the decibel A- weighting (dBA) from the property line of the sending property. 3. Prohibits outdoor amplified music in the C-CBD Zone District between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday, inclusive, and 11 p.m. and 10 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Attorney Singer stated that the Commission had lengthy discussion at the February 11 workshop regarding maximum sound level and hour limitations; that the Administration was directed to include 65 dB as the maximum permissible sound level and 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. as the hour limitations; that the most stringent ordinance was advertised under the concept that the Commission would receive public input, debate the issues, and then determine if the decibel and hour limitations set forth in the proposed ordinance are appropriate or should be increased and, if so, to what degree; that proposed ordinances which are made more restrictive after being advertised for public hearing have to be readvertised; that proposed ordinances which are made less restrictive do not have to be readvertised. Attorney Singer continued that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 is a product of several presentations made to the City Commission particularly on October 21, 1996, and February 11, 1997; that numerous other presentations have been made by citizens regarding problems with noise in the C-CBD Zone District; that the minutes of meetings at which those presentations were made are incorporated into the record by reference. Attorney Singer further stated that the prohibition against unreasonable noise has been expanded to include not only the person making the noise but also a person who allows or permits the unreasonable noise to be made in the C-CBD Zone District. Commissioner Patterson asked if the owner of a business could be cited if such action was determined as appropriate by the Administration? BOOK 41 Page 14520 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14521 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Attorney Singer stated that the owner of the business could be cited if the Administration determines the violation could be proven in court beyond any reasonable doubt; that the Administration intends to implement an enforcement process whereby the actual band leader, who has control over the volume, would be cited when the initial violation is discovered through the use of a sound meter; that the manager or owner of the business, if present, would be informed of the violation; that the manager or owner would be cited if the excessive decibel levels continue. Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, came before the Commission, displayed and explained a zoning map prepared by the Planning and Development Department which depicted the C-CBD Zone District, adjacent residential uses, and those properties which would be affected by the provisions of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993, which establishes 250 feet as the distance separation from any use that is primarily residential. Mr. Costanzo stated that, as previously stated, outdoor amplified music shall be prohibited if any portion of a property in the C- CBD Zone District is located within 250 feet of a use which is primarily residential; therefore, the prohibition for outdoor amplified music will apply to all areas of multiple-parcel properties, e.g., Sarasota Quay, the new Cobb Theatre complex, and Barnett Bank, although portions of those properties are outside the 250-foot distance. Attorney Singer stated that currently, a person can seek a special permit from the City Manager or his designee for a temporary exemption from the provisions of Chapter 20 for a community public event or community program, or to perform construction or demolition; that as drafted, proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 does not provide an ability to obtain a special permit for community events in the C-CBD Zone District within 250 feet of a use which is primarily residential; that Chapter 20-4, revised as Chapter 20-7, could be amended to provide for a temporary exemption in the C-CBD Zone District for community events, etc., if deemed appropriate by the Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that providing a temporary exemption for community events within the C-CBD Zone District was a serious concern of the PBLP; that residents who have raised issues regarding noise in the Downtown have not expressed objection to occasional special events; that the City Manager should be judicious in issuing permits; however, the option should be available for the City Manager to exercise discretion in issuing permits for special events in all areas of the C-CBD Zone District. A consensus of the Commission was expressed to provide for the issuance of special permits for community events by the City Manager in all areas of the C-CBD Zone District Vice Mayor Dupree asked the length of time the temporary exemption would apply? Attorney Singer stated that the special permit would be issued for a specified, limited period of time and set forth conditions or requirements deemed necessary to mitigate potential adverse effects upon neighboring properties; that the intent would be not to have continuously repeating events; that the City Manager could enact Administrative regulations for the implementation of Chapter 20-7. Commissioner Patterson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 addresses amplified music only; that concerns have been raised by citizens regarding the potential of a band playing loudly without amplification directly under the window of a condominium residence; and asked if the provisions of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 would apply under the circumstance referenced? Attorney Singer stated yes; that the decibel limitations and the generalize prohibition against any sound which annoys, disturbs, etc., a reasonable person of normal sensibilities would apply; that further changes to the Zoning Code could be enacted if the circumstance referenced became an ongoing problem. Commissioner Merrill requested clarification of Section 20-6(3) (c) of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 which references impulsive sound and a peak sound pressure level of 80 dBA. Attorney Singer stated that impulse noise is defined as follows: Impulse noise means any sound characterized by either a single pressure peak or a single burst (multiple pressure peaks) having a duration of less than one second. Attorney Singer stated that banging of a hammer or sound made by a particular type of instrument are examples of impulse noise. Commissioner Merrill stated that the 80 dBA measurement would apply only to noise which is less than one second. Attorney Singer stated that is correct; that a bang of a hammer would fall within the parameters for impulse noise; that music, which is continuous sound, will be measured by averaging the sound level over a period time. Commissioner Cardamone stated that beat-thumping, bass sound is a source of annoyance which the Commission has been told is difficult to measure with a decibel meter. BOOK 41 Page 14522 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14523 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Attorney Singer stated that measuring a beat-thumping or bass sound for regulatory purposes is difficult and complicated; that a repetitive beat-thumping, or bass sound would be covered by the generalized noise prohibitions and by the hour limitations if the sound is emanating from outdoor amplified music. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that measuring the sound level at or beyond the real property line may be difficult in some instances; that the property line for Sarasota Quay is located in the middle of the Hyatt/Quay Basin. Attorney Singer stated that the location at which the sound level will be measured has been a debated issue; that the Administration firmly recommends the decibel readings be taken at the property line to provide for proper identification and evidence as to the location from which the sound is coming; that identifying the source of sound would be difficult if the decibel reading is taken at the receiving property; that the dividing line between the Quay and the adjacent 888/988/Marina Suites condominiums is in the middle of the Basin, which poses a particularly difficult problem; that sound levels at the Quay will be measured from the Marina Suites condominium property; that the City could prove, by circumstantial evidence, that sound levels taken at a closer proximity would be higher if sound measured from a further distance is in excess of the permitted levels. Commissioner Cardamone stated that proximity from the property line to the business will vary for different properties, which could result in decibel readings being measured unequally; that a specific location from which the decibel readings will be taken should be established at each property. Attorney Singer stated that the City does not have unencumbered rights to enter onto private property; that property owners have the right to revoke permission for anyone to enter onto their property; that a situation in which law enforcement officers could be requested to leave should be avoided. Mayor Pillot stated that data received from proponents of outdoor amplified music refers to a standard used to project the loss of decibel based on distance; and asked if such a standard could be applied by extrapolating readings taken at Marina Suites to determine the actual sound level which would exist at the property line located in the middle of the Hyatt/Quay Basin? Commissioner Cardamone presented Attorney Singer with a copy of the information referenced by Mayor Pillot which contained a chart received from Gary Drouin showing the effect distance has on decibel levels based on the standard that measured sound pressure will drop off by 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source. Attorney Singer stated that use of such a standard could be considered if the information is well established in scientific literature and an expert witness could be presented to convince the court of its acceptability. Mayor Pillot stated that the potential of using the standard referenced should be researched. Commissioner Merrill stated that reference has been made to difficulties in identifying the actual sound source from the receiving property because other ambient noises exist; that street traffic and the voices of large groups of people enjoying themselves will be heard from the sidewalk in front of businesses; and asked how those types of ambient noise will be factored out of the decibel readings? Attorney Singer stated that an ability to prove a case in court is an issue; that the Commission was previously informed of the difficulties associated with enforcing regulations based on decibels and was also advised that the best way to regulate unwanted sound would be to simply prohibit the sound after a certain time. Commissioner Merrill asked if studies have been performed to determine which method has been more successful: measuring sound from the source or measuring sound from the receiving property? Attorney Singer stated that problems with noise in mixed-use areas are being experienced around the country; that ordinances from various jurisdictions have been obtained and reviewed; that the ordinance from Long Beach, New York, in part, was used as a model in developing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994; that the City of Long Beach simply prohibits the hearing of sound from a 4 certain measured distance, which is the ideal solution; however, the District Court of Appeals has ruled that measuring sound in such a manner is not constitutional. Commissioner Merrill asked if Attorney Singer is indicating that a particular system which works best does not exist and communities are still trying to find an effective method to regulate noise? Attorney Singer stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that requiring testimony from an expert witness to verify the validity of extrapolated information each time a citation is issued would make the enforcement procedure difficult and expensive; and asked if an expert could establish a table for reference which could be used instead? Attorney Singer stated that the City could clearly bring a case before the court if the decibel reading at the Marina Suites BOOK 41 Page 14524 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14525 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. condominium exceeded the maximum permissible sound level; that extrapolation of data would be necessary only if, for example, the sound level measured at Marina Suites was 64 dBA and the maximum level permitted was 65 dBA; that a clear violation should be determined before a citation is issued. Commissioner Patterson stated that the legal right the City has to take readings from the edge of the land at the Quay property should be researched for future reference. Mayor Pillot stated that in excess of 44 people have signed up to speak; that this is the first of several issues on which many people are waiting to provide public input to the Commission; and requested that speakers make succinct comments. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing; and stated that there is consensus to honor the requests made by individuals who wanted to speak first and in a specific order. The following people came before the Commission: Fred Mintz, 770 South Palm Avenue #703 (34236), and Thomas Van Zandt, 605 South Gulf Stream Avenue, representing the Bayfront Condominium Association. Mr. Van Zandt stated that the Bayfront Condominium Association represents over 1,400 individual condominium units and approximately 2,500 voting taxpayers; that the problem which directly affects 200+ residents of Dolphin Tower develop when the Lemon Coast Grille began operation in the Downtown; that the owners of the Lemon Coast Grille had agreed to install sound baffles to mitigate noise impacts on surrounding residents; however, the sound baffles have not been installed; that the noise emanating from Lemon Coast Grille continues to disturb the sleep patterns of Dolphin Tower residents; that the Association's position in favor of regulating outdoor amplified music at a level of 55 dBA, measured from the property line of the source, was forwarded to the Commission previously by letter dated April 22, 1997. Mr. Mintz stated that he was the primary consultant on community noise for the EPA for ten years and his job title was "Expert"; that prior to working with the EPA, he was a noise regulation developer for eight years; that he is qualified to address some of the questions the Commission has raised regarding decibel levels. Mr. Mintz continued that a decibel reading requirement should be included in any noise regulation developed; that a decibel reading provides an objective mechanism by which to determine the level of sound; that the question of measuring at the property line versus at the source is generally determined in favor of measuring at the property line; that the position on the property line at which the sound should be measured is a matter of judgment; that a police officer trained in the use of operating a modern sound level meter would be qualified to determine when and when not to take the measurement; that, for example, a measurement would not be taken at a time when ambient noise exists due to traffic or people engaging in loud conversation; that modern sound level meters have the capability of determining the average sound level over a period of time, requiring no assumptions or judgment about the average by the reader watching the meter; that a police officer could take measurements from a row boat positioned in the Hyatt/Quay Basin, if necessaryi however, extrapolation could be also be used; that effects of sound will differ between the Quay and the Downtown; that scientific documentation exists regarding sound standards in pure environments; that a 6 dB drop can be expected for a doubling of distance over water; that the environment in the Downtown is not pure; that buildings may in some cases block the sound and in other cases act as a channel to conduct sound; that the report prepared by Ian Caddie, Civil Engineer, a sound expert hired by the City to take decibel measurements in the C-CBD Zone District, refers to a drop of 15 dB from a measurement taken at Lemon Avenue to a measurement at the Dolphin Tower which would correspond to a calculated drop of approximately 16 dB to 18 dB; that measuring from a designated point at the source is better than measuring at the receiving property because less disturbance due to ambient noise exists and there is little question as to the source from which the sound is emanating. Mr. Mintz continued that the findings of the Commission on Environmental Health established by the Dutch government have been summarized as follows: With respect to sleep disturbance, the onset of. noise- induced awakenings in field tests occurred at a sound exposure level of 60 dB. Sound exposure level is related to sound level in the following way: if the sound lasts for one second then the sound exposure level is the same as the sound level; if the sound lasts for 10 seconds only 50 dB is necessary to achieve a sound exposure level of 60 dB. Mr. Mintz further stated that he would be willing to testify as an expert witness on behalf of the City of Sarasota; that he would not charge the City for his services. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from information previously received from Mr. Mintz: The loudness of sound "A" appears to the typical listener twice as loud as sound "B" if the sound is about 10 dB higher. BOOK 41 Page 14526 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14527 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mintz stated that the statement has been determined by a vast number of psychoacoustic tests; that the question of loudness always enters into the question of noise; that loudness is a subjective sensation heard by the ear; that the ear has a tendency to hear somewhat logarithmically; that the sound level is a measure of the physical sound pressure; that decibel is a logarithmic way of expressing the sound pressure, which is why sound can change by 10 dB and the loudness changes only by a factor of two. Commissioner Merrill stated that based on his background and experience as a consultant to the EPA, Mr. Mintz is indicating that measuring at the source is favored over measuring at the receiving property. Mr. Mintz stated that is correct. Commissioner Merrill asked if Mr. Mintz has an opinion regarding the maximum decibel level the City should require at the source? Mr. Mintz stated that 65 dB is a reasonable compromise between his personal preference of 55 dB and a practical level at which outdoor music could be played and enjoyed. Commissioner Merrill asked the decibel level of ambient noise which could be expected on a busy street? Mr. Mintz stated that the ambient noise on Main Street during the day could be estimated at 65 dB; that the ambient noise level reduces by approximately 5 dB to 10 dB in the evening. Commissioner Merrill asked the estimated level of ambient noise present on streets in other cities, e.g., Washington, D.C.? Mr. Mintz stated that the ambient noise level on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., is estimated at 70 dB to 75 dB. Commissioner Merrill asked if based on his professional experience Mr. Mintz recommends that cities establish a decibel level of 65 dB in a downtown area? Mr. Mintz stated that 65 dBA measured at the source at night is a reasonable sound level in Sarasota, Florida, not necessarily in Washington, D.C. Commissioner Patterson stated that an editorial in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune referenced noise ordinances of other cities; that New York City was cited as having an extremely strict noise ordinance which requires a sound level under 51 dBA measured at the source; that New York is a busy city Mr. Mintz stated that 51 dB is an unrealistic sound level for a city; that noise has been a problem in New York City for many years; that numerous noise ordinances have been adopted by the City of New York; that the New York City ordinance referenced is extreme and unrealistic. Gary Drouin, 958 32nd Street (34234), President, Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., distributed copies of his written presentation and placed a decibel meter on the table to provide the Commission an opportunity to view the level of sound emanating in the Chambers. Mr. Drouin stated that the decibel level the Commission chooses to establish is extremely important to the future of music in the Downtown Sarasota area; that the Commission should understand the following before a decision is made: The Inverse Square Law states that for each doubling of the distance from the source, the measured sound pressure will drop off by 6 dB. The 3 dB Rule states that sound which is 3 dB higher in level than another is barely perceived by humans to be louder. The 10 dB Rule states that a sound which is 10 dB higher in level is perceived by humans to be about twice as loud. Mr. Drouin stated that a specific location is necessary when using dB level numbers; that, for example, if a sound source measures 100 dBA at 10 feet, then at 20 feet the sound pressure level will be 94 dB (100 = 6 = 94); that decibel readings alone are meaningless without a point of reference. Mr. Drouin referred to and explained the following chart based on the Inverse Square Law showing the dB drop at two feet from a sound source measured at 110 dBA: Feet Sound Level 2 110 dB 4 104 dB 8 98 dB 16 92 dB 32 86 dB 64 80 dB 128 74 dB 256 68 dB 512 62 dB 1024 56 dB Mr. Drouin stated that, as indicated in the chart above, the decibel level drops by 12 dB by measuring as little as 8 feet BOOK 41 Page 14528 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14529 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. away from the sound source; that this will clearly be a problem when measuring different outdoor venues at the property line; that the sound level of a band playing at 100 dB at the Lemon Coast Grillé measured at a distance of 75 to 100 feet away will be 75 dB to 78 dB; that, in fairness, the sound level of the same band playing at the same level at the Main Street Depot should also be measured from the same distance as moving 8 feet in either direction changes the measurement by 12 dB; that a measuring location of approximately 5 to 10 feet from the entrance at the Lemon Coast Grille has been established; that a specific measuring location should be established for the Main Street Depot. Mr. Drouin continued that using the Receiving Land Use measurement is recommended; that the receiving property is stable and does not move; that specific measuring locations will not be necessary or questionable; that the Receiving Land Use method would also substantiate any legitimate citizen complaint and will reduce multiple complaint call-ins for the same night. Mr. Drouin further stated that research conducted by Ian Caddie, Civil Engineer, and himself, indicates the noise level at night near Dolphin Tower is between 50 dB and 60 dB; that both studies show the level of music emanating from the Downtown area which impacts the Dolphin Tower is under 60 dB to inaudible at any given time; that the distance from the Main Street Depot and Lemon Coast Grille to Dolphin Tower is over 1,000 feet; that, as indicated by the chart above, the dB drop for this distance is 56 dB; that closed windows and doors provide an additional reduction of 20 dB, which would bring the interior sound level at the Dolphin Tower to 36 dB; that an interior sound level of 35 dB to 45 dB is sufficient for sleeping. Mr. Drouin referred to and explained the following noise codes: St. Petersburg, Florida (Receiving Land Use) Commercial areas: 75 dBA 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 70 dBA 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Orlando, Florida (Receiving Land Use) Commercial areas: 70 dBA 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65 dBA 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Richard Burton, 1040 24th Street (34234), representing Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., distributed copies of his written presentation. Mr. Burton stated that a total of 3,733 noise complaints Citywide were registered with the City of Sarasota from January 1996 to March 1997; and referred to and explained a chart depicting the following pertaining to the Downtown area: 243 phoned in complaints, Downtown only (6.5% of total) A 151 written up complaint reports (4% of total) - 130 anonymous or unsubstantiated reports 21 written and signed complaints naming citizen (representing - 006% of total) Mr. Burton stated 21 legitimate complaints were registered by citizens of Sarasota regarding noise in the Downtown, 16 or 80% of which were registered by one person and 4 or 20% of which were registered by five other persons. Mr. Burton continued that Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., previously submitted for the record a petition with 8,000 signatures of people who support the continuation of outdoor music in the Downtown; that the inappropriateness of playing outdoor music directly in a residential area is understood; however, choosing to live in a downtown area, which has an increased noise level, and complaining about the noise is also inappropriate; that the Downtown is vital and conducive to an energy level higher than that of the residents of the condominiums, which is the basic conflict lifestyle; that many people, who prefer to enjoy music outdoors surrounded by fresh air rather than in a bar surrounded by smoke, come Downtown; that the population in Sarasota County is increasing; that the noise levels in Downtown will not decrease; that noise is associated with a vital area. Richard Namikas, 524 Ballaice Drive, Venice (34293), representing Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., referred to the decibel meter on the Commission table and stated that the decibel meter registers in the vicinity of 55 dB when no one is speaking, which is a reasonable level to be measuring in a person's home. Mr. Namikas stated that he is not a musician and does not reside near Sarasota Quay; that he is an audiologist who resides in Venice and enjoys music; that he has a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Wisconsin in Communicative Disorders and a Master's Degree from Purdue in Audiology; that difficulties and discrepancies may result, based on the location at which the measurement is taken, if sound levels of 65 dB or even 55 dB are measured at the source; that sufficient sound levels for sleeping have been documented; that measuring sound levels at the source of complaint would be more effective than measuring at the source of sound. Mr. Namikas distributed copies of an excerpt from "Fundamentals of Hearing: An Introduction" written by William A. Yost and Donald W. Nielson; and explained the relationship between decibel measurement, reinforcement, and cancellation. BOOK 41 Page 14530 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14531 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Namikas stated that sound pressure is inversely proportional to distance and drops by 6 dB in areas where sound encounters no obstacles, i.e., walls which produce reflections and echoes; that, for example, sound waves created reflect off a wall at a certain point, which may be the condominium unit of the person who made 80% of the 21 complaints previously mentioned; that as the sound waves return, they can add to or cancel the effects of an oncoming sound wave; that the reflected and original sound waves may collide, resulting in an area of greater condensation (reinforcement), or overlap (cancellation), resulting in a reduction in the pressure; that the cancellation of sound is a method which could be used to resolve the problem occurring at the receiving property; that a relocation of speakers or installation of sound baffles are legitimate ways of dealing with noise; that sound barriers can be installed based on the frequency, intensity, and duration of sound which could mitigate the effects on the areas which are the focal points of the complaints; that noise cancellation systems exist which produce "anti-noise" and retain sound within a specified area; that various industries have been using noise cancellation systems to eliminate sound, e.g., on jets to eliminate engine noise in the travel cabins. Mr. Namikas continued that 65 dB may not be a level at which people can enjoy music; that more options will be available to address complaints if the sound levels are measured at the receiving property. Commissioner Cardamone asked if noise cancellation equipment can be applied in an open-air facility which has no roof? Mr. Namikas stated yes; that a number of small speakers properly positioned, would be connected to the Public Address (PA) system producing the music; that upon reversing the phase of the sound, equal and opposite cancellation occurs which would deaden the sound beyond the sound field specified. Susan Wallich, representing the Arts Community, Sarasota Arts Review, and Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., stated that she has resided in Sarasota for 33 years and has chosen to raise her family in Sarasota because of its high quality of life and outstanding cultural climate; that the ability of music to inspire is documented throughout recorded history, as evidenced by the integral part music plays in every spiritual tradition; that the Commission is considering a complex issue with far reaching ramifications which will also affect the economic health and well-being of the community; that examples of unamplified music with relative decibel levels documented at the point of origin will be presented to assist the Commission in making a decision. The decibel meter, operated by Gary Drouin, registered the following dBA levels as five musicians individually came forth to play the tune Amazing Grace: Violin 73 dBA Harmonica 75 dBA Flute 78 dBA Voice 74 dBA Bag Pipes 98 dBA Ms. Wallick stated that the decibel levels registered for the unamplified music displayed were well above the maximum level included in proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994. Gina Tebbrugge, 2337 Ixora Avenue (34234) Attorney, representing Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., quoted the U.S. Supreme Court as follows: Music, one of the oldest forms of human expression from Plato's discourse in the republic to the totalitarian state in our own times, rulers have known its capacity to appeal to the intellect and emotions and have censored musical compositions to serve the needs of the State. Attorney Trabucci stated that music as a form of expression and communication is protected under the First Amendment; that music cannot be prohibited under the guise of calling it noise. Attorney Trabucci continued that dealing with noise issues in communities is not a new problem; that numerous noise ordinances have been developed in Florida and nationwide over the years; and referenced the following noise ordinances that require the measuring of sound levels at the receiving properties: Sarasota County (Siesta Key) Residential areas: 55 dBA after 8 p.m. St. Petersburg, Florida (Janis Landing area) Residential areas: 60 dBA after 11 p.m. weekdays after Midnight weekends. Orlando, Florida (Church Street Station) Residential areas: 60 dBA before 10 p.m. 55 dBA after 10 p.m. Attorney Trabucci stated that the entertainment district known as "Ybor City" is exempt from the Tampa noise ordinance until 1 a.m.; that Tampa has established a maximum decibel level of 85 dB measured at the source for outdoor venues licensed to serve alcohol. BOOK 41 Page 14532 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14533 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Attorney Trabucci stated that measurements taken at the receiving property will more precisely relate to the City's interest in keeping sound within non-disruptive levels. Bruce Glasberg, 3947 Liberty Avenue (34231), stated that he is an Environmental Engineer who has been making a living in Sarasota for the past two years as a musician; that Sarasota is one of the major cultural centers of Florida; that Lemon Coast Grille provides a range of music, e.g., big bands and jazz, and a good source of culture in the Downtown; that the hour limitations proposed for outdoor amplified music will destroy the cultural reputation Sarasota has developed; that proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 and 97-3994 are opposed. Jamie K. Sedlmayer, 2170 First Street Apt #9 (34237), stated that Sarasota was a fishing village with no economy in 1922 when an entertainer, named John Ringling, moved to the area to rent a house; that by 1928, John Ringling had created the Ringling Brothers Circus, bought every island off of the coast of Sarasota, and built the first bridge to St. Armands Key; that an entertainer paved the road of the future for Sarasota; that the proposed ordinances will close doors to entertainers; that music is one of the biggest forms of expression in Sarasota and should not be taken away by passing the proposed ordinances. Donna Eaton, 1323 Mackerel Avenue (34236), representing Nick's Italian Restaurant on the Water, stated that measuring decibel levels at the receiving property would contain any complaints geared toward harassment versus actual violations; that decibel levels for a business office, documented at 65 dB, and for vehicles, documented at 85 dB, indicate every-day-life noise is well above the proposed 65 dB level being considered; that outdoor amplified music should be permitted until at least midnight on weekdays and 2 a.m. on weekends; that private citizens should not be allowed to abuse the laws by continuously registering complaints which require police officers to respond frequently and request establishments to keep customers quiet; that 193 complaints were registered against Nick's Italian Restaurant on the Water primarily by one person over a period of one year; that Nick's on the Water has been cited for noise violations only twice; that the charges were dropped both times; that citizens . tax dollars and City resources should not be wasted in this manner. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Nick's on the Water offers outdoor amplified music? Ms. Eaton stated yes; that entertainment previously offered during the day on weekends was canceled because of the number of unfounded complaints registered and the continuous presence of police officers at the restaurant; that business has declined as a result. Hairball, A/K/A Stephen Allen Griffiths, 423 East Cornelius Circle (34232-1518). representing Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., stated that he has resided in the Sarasota/Bradenton area for the past 17 years, specifically in Sarasota for the past 13 years; that the successful revitalization efforts of the Downtown Association included encouraging the public to reinvest time Downtown versus at the mall; that theaters, art galleries, restaurants and live music venues draw people to the Downtown; that the action the Commission is considering has been instigated by only six individuals who have complained about live music, one of whom is responsible for 80% of the complaints the City has received; that the Commission previously received over 6,000 signatures of people in favor of continued live music in the Downtown; that government officials should support the needs of the majority opinion not the will of one or six citizens, especially when the livelihood of the successfully revitalized Downtown will be affected; that a vote against outdoor music will not only affect the livelihoods of the taxpaying musicians who live in Sarasota but also the venues that hire them and the public that is drawn downtown to hear them; that live music in Sarasota has been recognized in national music publications with glowing reviews. Mr. Griffiths requested that Commissioner Patterson, who has been a leasing real estate agent for Dolphin Tower, as stated in her comments made at the regular Commission meeting of October 21, 1997, should abstain from voting on the proposed ordinances. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is not a leasing agent for Dolphin Tower; that she has never sold a unit in Dolphin Tower; that she does not handle leases at all. Mr. Griffiths stated that he apologizes if he misinterpreted previous comments made by Commissioner Patterson. Karie Levin, 4635 Summerwind Drive (34234) representing The Downtown Association, stated that a generation gap exists between the people attempting to enjoy music played Downtown and the people residing in areas surrounding the Downtown; that the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall and Sarasota Opera House are large, indoor venues; however, a large area at which live, outdoor music can be played does not exist in Sarasota; that the Main Street Depot is the only venue at which musicians' families can watch them play; that the decrease in robberies, etc., in neighborhoods may be directly related to the large number of youth that are frequenting venues Downtown to enjoy live music; that great strides have been taken to revitalize Downtown; that, hopefully, an agreement can be reached which will satisfy all parties concerned. BOOK 41 Page 14534 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14535 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Wes Scheufler, 1529 Main Street (34236), stated that he is the owner and has operated Exile, a record and compact disc store, on Main Street for the past two years; that he and his family enjoy the live music offered Downtown; that live outdoor music draws people to the Downtown; that 50% of his business is derived on Friday and Saturday evenings when the store is opened until midnight; that complaints received from a residential use which was grandfathered in after the commercial zone district was established should not be the catalyst which prevents enjoyment of live music by people in the Downtown on the weekends. Laura Zane, 5726 Nutmeg Avenue (34231), stated that she is a pre- school teacher who relocated to Sarasota five years ago primarily because of the live music and entertainment scene which is offered; that people who have chosen to live in the Downtown, a business district, should expect to live with higher noise levels; that the Downtown is a vital, thriving area with a night life which should not be compromised. Christy Phillips and son, 2204 Hyde Park Street (34239), stated that the Downtown offers a supervised area were she can take her son to enjoy live entertainment and where teenagers can go without getting into trouble; that the existing opportunity available to families should not be destroyed. Eleanor Harris, 101 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), stated that she resides on the 16th floor of Dolphin Tower; that the level of sound the music is being played is the issue; that live music should not be prohibited Downtown, but residents should not be prevented from sleeping at night; that the noise levels have to be reduced. Steve Dore, President, Corporate Property Resources, and Stuart Levine, Attorney, representing Sarasota Quay. Mr. Dore stated that Corporate Property Resources is the largest property management company in Sarasota; that he was recruited and hired by Goldome Bank when Sarasota Quay was being developed; that Goldome Bank, after investing $40 million, lost the property in forclosure; that the owners who purchased the property in 1989 invested an additional $18 million; that Sarasota Quay has finally turned a profit; that occupancy, both office and retail, has increased; that the City's revitalization efforts in the Downtown have resulted in a remarkable turn around in real estate development, property values, and the number of people frequenting the area; that a desire to work through the problems raised by citizens exists, however, the Quay management also has an investment to protect; that lease agreements have been signed with tenants who have made tremendous investment in the property based on a reliance of ordinances which existed at the time the contracts were signed and an expectation of how the businesses could operate. Mr. Dore stated that his company, which began managing the Quay in February 1997, has worked closely with the Police Department and the City Manager to resolve issues identified; that Sarasota has changed dramatically over the past ten years; that the investments made in the çommunity by business owners should be taken into consideration when the Commission makes decisions pertaining to the coexistence between commercial and residential uses. Commissioner Patterson stated that problems with noise emanating from the establishments at the Quay when doors are left open have been reported; however, she is not aware of outdoor amplified music being played at the Quay. Mr. Dore stated that, for the most part, outdoor amplified music is not played at the Quay; that double doors at the entry were required by the management when Michael's Seafood Grille renovated the Downunder Jazz Bar; that $50,000 of the $300,000 expended on the renovation was for sound attenuation; that the hour limitation proposed would affect the Quay; that outdoor concert series are offered periodically, e.g., in the summer, on Valentine's Day, and at Christmas; that the concerts end by 11:30 p.m.; that obtaining a special permit each time a marketing event is offered would be burdensome. Mr. Dore stated that the parking lots at the Quay extend to between Fourth and Sixth Streets; that the distance from the restaurants to El Vernona Avenue far exceeds 250 feet but the parking lot is within 250 feet; that including the entire property within the 250-foot zone being proposed is not fair; that the measurement of sound should be taken at the receiving property versus the source of sound. Commissioner Patterson stated that obtaining a special permit is not viewed as a major burden; that the Quay could establish a schedule of events for the entire year and obtain a special permit for all the events at the same time. Michael Klauber, 20 Sarasota Ouay (34236). was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Irma Maningo, 1824 33rd Street (34234), stated that noise problems which exist in the Newtown area should be addressed; that she also has difficulty sleeping at night; that noise generated by activities occurring on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way affects her residence on 33rd Street; that amplified sound emanating from boom boxes at all hours of the night is extremely disturbing; that she appreciates music; however, sound levels of music should be restricted in residential areas. BOOK 41 Page 14536 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14537 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of the Downtown Association, 47 South Palm Avenue (34236), distributed copies and read the following letter into the record: The Board of Directors of the Downtown Association by unanimous vote suggest the following recommendations for your consideration: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 97-3993 as written. 2. Approve Ordinance No. 97-3994 with the following changes: A. Amplified music be allowed on Friday, Saturday, and Legal Holidays until 12 midnight and on week nights until 10 p.m. B. Establish 85 dB as maximum permissible sound level in the C-CBD Zone District with the measurement to be taken at the property line of the place of origination. We endorse the above for amplified music only in the C- CBD Zoning District. As a public/private team, the Downtown Association has worked hard to make Downtown Sarasota the best. We have been recognized throughout the State for what the city and the Downtown Association have accomplished. We have worked together to create Downtown as the finest place to work, live, shop, dine, and be entertained. Most people are pleased with what has happened to Downtown Sarasota. We will work hard to keep this town a viable community for all. Mr. Thorpe stated that people are proud of the accomplishments achieved in the Downtown; that enforcement as discussed will be difficult; that prohibiting outdoor amplified music in the Downtown after midnight on Friday and Saturdays should eliminate 95% of the problem. Stephen Rees, Attorney, Firm of Icard, Merrill, Timm, Cullis, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A.; and David Venefro, owner, Lemon Coast Grille. Attorney Rees stated that he has provided legal service to the Venefro family and the business establishment, the Lemon Coast Grille; that the intent and purpose section of the Zoning Code pertaining to the C-CBD Zone District provides recognition that the zone district is the City's downtown urban core and is intended to accommodate diverse land uses and activities in concentrated areas which will attract both residents and visitors in significant numbers; that the C-CBD Zone District permits and encourages the coordinated development of retail trade activities, business, professional and financial services, hotels, and high-density residential uses; that the C-CBD Zone District is intended to be an active pedestrian area with an emphasis on human-scale activities and amenities at the street level; that residential developments and mixed-use developments incorporating residential are especially encouraged in order to increase the District's resident population; that as testified by speakers previously, a tension exists between the needs of the business community and the needs of the resident population; that the Commission's seeking to accommodate a balance between those conflicting interests is realized. Attorney Rees continued that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 provides that amplified music within a structure not completely enclosed must be permitted if a primarily residential does not exist closer than 250 feet; that the PBLP workshop and public hearing of March 18, 1997, provided testimony and the map * displayed earlier by Mr. Costanzo shows that the Lemon Coast Grille is not closer than 250 feet to any primarily residential use and, therefore, is entitled to a permit; that Section 8- 123(Z.2) would recognize that after the initial permit is issued, and assuming music is regularly performed thereafter, a business would be entitled to a renewal permit; however, as his client was encouraged to facilitate the location of a business at the current site and has a conforming permitted use and structure, vested property rights should be recognized and a grandfather status incorporated into the ordinance; that, otherwise, his client will be subject to: 1) the payment of the initial and renewal fee and 2) depending upon the legislative decision of this or a subsequent Commission in the future, changes in the provisions may place his client in an adverse, detrimental position opposed to the favorable position which currently exists. Attorney Rees referred to proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994; and requested that the following be considered if amplified music will be regulated: Section 20-6(b): : increase the sound level, if measured at the property line, from 65 dBA to 80 or 85 dBA. Section 20-5(1): extend the hours by one hour on both the weekdays and weekends and by an additional hour thereafter with a decreased dBA requirement of 70 or 75 dBA. Attorney Rees stated that the proposed revisions would allow the Lemon Coast Grille to operate at the level necessary to provide entertainment services to clientele. BOOK 41 Page 14538 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14539 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Venefro stated that the Lemon Coast Grille and Monterey Deli and Pub are owned by his family; that he and his family were ençouraged to invest and locate businesses in the C-CBD Zone District several years ago; that as stated at a previous Commission meeting, an exterior sound board had been ordered; that, subsequently, the acoustical engineer hired to assess the noise problems, was not permitted to access the balconies at Dolphin Tower, therefore, took decibel readings from the Mirimar parking garage; that based on the engineer's analysis, the made- to-order exterior sound board which had been ordered would - be ineffective and therefore the proposed mitigating measure was abandoned; that reinforcing the sound stage with Styrofoam material and significantly lowering the volume has produced some results; that the number of complaints have decreased; that the Lemon Coast Grille will continue to cooperate with the City and the residents. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Lemon Coast Grille is considering the use of a noise cancellation system? Mr. Venefro stated that several concepts are being researched; that the two noise consultants which had been retained were unable to recommend a viable solution which would be weather- resistant; that the volume at the Lemon Coast Grille has beèn reduced and is measured at 75 to 80 dB at the front entrance; that hour limitations will affect the business more than the dBA requirement; that the majority of his clientele works until 11 p.m. and do not arrive at the site until 11:30 p.m.; that the Lemon Coast Grille will be adversely affected if the hour limitations proposed in Ordinance No. 97-3994 are imposed. David Carman, 3289 Cheshire Lane (34237), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Kathryn Cover, 115 North Boulevard of Presidents (34236), stated that she has called the Police Department numerous time to register noise complaints; that although her name was not requested when the calls were made, the complaints were legitimate. Ms. Cover read into the record a letter dated April 30, 1997, which had been forwarded to the Commission outlining the problems with noise vibrations resulting from the installation of sliding glass panels during the recent renovation to the Columbia Restaurant located on St. Armands Circle and sound levels which are impairing the sleep of her and her 12-year-old daughter. Ms. Cover stated that the volume of music at the Columbia Restaurant increases after 11:30 p.m. and continues until after 2 a.m.; that the business manager indicates the volume is set as low as is required; that the definition of loud and raucous does not apply to the noise being experienced; that the vibration, the pounding bass, is the sound which is unnerving; that police officers witnessed the sound level experienced inside her residence on May 4, 1997, but indicated. nothing could be done to alleviate the situation based on the language in the City Code; that consideration should be given to drafting language which would cause a violation if live. or pre-recorded. music being played at a commercial establishment is audible within the walls of a residence; that other residents have also registered complaints regarding the noise emanating from the Columbia Restaurant. Ms. Cover requested that the Commercial, Tourist (CT) Zone District be included in the proposed noise ordinances. Mayor Pillot asked if the proposed ordinances will apply to St. Armands Key? Attorney Singer stated that the language in proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 pertaining to a prohibition against any sound which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities will apply Citywide; that the decibel limitations and limitations on outdoor amplified music apply only to the C- CBD Zone District. Mayor Pillot asked if proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 would address the noise problems identified by Ms. Coyer? Attorney Singer stated yes; that the criteria for a reasonable person of normal sensibilities provides a clearer direction for the enforcement officers in the type of situation described. Commissioner Patterson stated that consideration should be given to requiring a closure of doors and hour limitations in the CT Zone District as well as the C-CBD Zone District. Ms. Cover stated that requiring closed doors will not ameliorate the disturbances being experienced; that the problems began when a solid wall was converted to sliding glass panels through which the noise emanates even when closed. Attorney Singer stated that the vibratory noise referenced is difficult to regulate with a decibel meter; however, the generalizéd regulations pertaining to a reasonable person of normal sensibilities would be applicable if proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 is adopted; that the Administration could be directed to draft language to amend the appropriate section of the Zoning Code if the Commission wants to enact regulations specific to the CT Zone District. Dr. Keith Stockwell, 117 North Washington Drive (34236), stated that by day St. Armands isa an upscale tourist area, but at night BOOK 41 Page 14540 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. 1A BOOK 41 Page 14541 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. on weekends the corner of Ringling and Boulevard of Presidents could be mistaken for a section of Bourbon Street in New Orleans; that loud, amplified music belches forth from Cha Cha Coconuts and the Columbia Restaurants; that the music is so intense that the thumping beat is heard inside surrounding residences well into the early hours of the morning even though windows and doors of the residences are closed; that the amplification travels long distances; that residences as far away as 1,000 feet or more are affected; that on May 4, 1997, he was awakened at 1 a.m. by the thumping noise and notified the police, who indicated that others had called before him and an officer had already been dispatched; that the thumping sound continued until after 2 a.m.; that the situation remains the same each week although the restaurants have been made aware of the disturbances repeatedly. Dr. Stockwell requested that the CT Zone District be included in proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 and 97-3994 or a similar ordinance be drafted to regulate amplified music in residential areas on St. Armands Key, making the required distance between the source of any outdoor amplification and residential uses at least 350 feet, to allow for the residential configuration of St. Armands which is less dense than the C-CBD Zone District. Dr. Stockwell read into the record a letter dated April 29, 1997, from Dr. Martin Portnoy which expressed similar çoncerns regarding the intolerable thumping, bass-booming sounds emanating from the Cha Cha Cocoanuts and Columbia Restaurants, experiences with the police and their inability to address the problem under the existing noise ordinance, and requesting enactment of regulations to prevent a continuation of noise pollution on St. Armands. Jodie Yeakel, 4637 Bay Shore Road (34234) and. Olga Ronay, 655 41st Street (34234) were no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Benjamin Cord Hathaway, 2347 Tangerine Drive (34239), stated that he is 52 years old and made a living in Sarasota as a musician for 21 years; that the existing noise regulations are not in effect until 10 p.m.; that he provided one-man-band performances from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday afternoons on the patio at Nick's Italian Restaurant on the Water; that sound was amplified by two small, 10-inch speakers: one which was placed inside the restaurant and one which was positioned facing him; however, continuous police responses to unsubstantiated loud music complaints, filed by one individual, began to affect business at the restaurant; that his music never met the definition of loud and raucous and although violations were never noted, he lost his job and approximately $10,000 annually because the existing ordinance requires police to response to complaints regardless of the number of unsubstantiated complaints previously received by the same individual. Mr. Hathaway read. the following letter received from the manager of Nick's Italian Restaurant on the Water at the time he lost his job: B.C. has been an employee at Nick's for almost three years. In this time he has proven himself as a loyal, dependable employee. He is a hard-working and honest, both qualities that are rare to find in good employees these days. B.C.'s entertainment is versatile, he is able to please young and old audiences alike. At the present time I have been forced to end music on the patio. I deeply regret losing him at this time. B.C. has been a great asset to Nick's and will be a great asset to any company that employs him. Mr. Hathaway stated that although Sarasota is viewed as a great : place for musicians, an abundance of jobs do not exist; that a job comparable in salary to that earned at Nick's Italian Restaurant on the Water has not been found; that at age 52, he has been forced to withdraw $14,000 from retirement savings over the past two years while he is attempting to retrain and secure viable employment; that people should not have the right to complain and harass musicians when a problem does not exist. Kris Conner, 2224-C Hidden Lake Boulevard (34237), stated that technical and legal arguments against the proposed noise ordinances have been heard; that she speaks as a member of the business community and as a registered voter of the City of Sarasota who is concerned with the effects the proposed ordinances would have on the Downtown and the businesses which operate within the C-CBD Zone District. Ms. Conner continued that when she moved to Sarasota in 1981, the Downtown was not a place to be after dark; that few restaurants existed and the majority of shops closed at 5 p.m.; that the Downtown has grown since 1981; that the renovation of the Kress Plaza sparked the renovation of many other Downtown storefronts; that the influx of new businesses and restaurants along Main Street, many of which have extended operating hours into the evening, the opening of the Main Street Depot, the upgrade of the Bayfront, new theater openings, and the forthcoming construction of the Central Library at Five Points have stimulated and transformed Downtown Sarasota into a vibrant, exciting place to be after dark; that a safer environment has developed in part by the large numbers of people walking around the streets; that businesses Downtown are prospering, not just the restaurants, clubs, and shops that are open in the evening, but also those that are not; that many people who come Downtown for dinner or the theater and stay to walk around; enjoying the atmosphere, listening to the music drifting out the doors, and looking in the windows of shops they may not have realized were there, come back BOOK 41 Page 14542 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14543 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. during the day and patronize those shops; that Art Walks, when the galleries stay open late, are held on the first Friday evening of each month; that the last Art Walk included performances of live, amplified outdoor music at several locations along Palm Avenue and lower Main Street. Ms. Conner further stated that she is concerned that strict regulations on amplified music will have a negative impact on Downtown; that the proposed ordinances, which are aimed at outdoor music, will also have a negative effect on restaurants and clubs which have indoor music; that leaving doors open is a method used to entice passing pedestrian traffic to enter restaurants or clubs and adds an atmosphere of openness to Downtown; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 would require all businesses that have amplified music to keep their doors closed at all times, which, in effect, will shut the businesses off from the pedestrian traffic and negatively affect the atmosphere and ambiance which currently exists Downtown; that people will still frequent the restaurants and theater, but will leave afterward rather than walking along the streets; that this will have a noticeable impact on the economy of Downtown. Ms. Conner stated further that the restrictiveness of proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 speaks to a much greater issue, the community; that Sarasota, like this Country and every other community within it, is comprised of a great many people from differing ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds; that the success of this Country is based on an ability to integrate all of the immigrants and the diverse elements of the society into a whole, productive community; that the success of Sarasota as a community is dependent upon an ability to meet the needs of all the citizens, not only the basic needs of clothing, housing, jobs, but àlso the needs of culture, art, music, and spiritual nourishment; that Downtown Sarasota has become a gathering place where differing people come together in a common interest - listening to music in a safe, controlled, outdoor setting which does not discriminate or exclude anyone; that a small, highly- vocal minority of disgruntled voters should not be allowed to dictate to the larger majority how the Downtown should be used and in effect exclude certain factions of the community from its enjoyment. Ms. Conner stated further that she is not opposed to noise ordinances; that residential areas should be restrictive; however, Downtown Sarasota is primarily a business district; that anyone who chooses to live in the Downtown must be aware of that fact. Rick Rothman, 3377 Bee Ridge Road #23-C (34233), stated that he has resided in Sarasota since 1960; that the classical music previously performed at the John & Mable Ringling Museum stopped due to numerous complaints from neighboring residents; that the Downtown existed when residents took occupancy in the condominiums; that a higher level of sound should be expected when people locate in the vicinity of a business district; that musicians will lose jobs and the ability to enjoy music outdoors with fresh air versus indoors with smoky atmosphere will no longer be available if the proposed ordinances are passed. Phillip Dasher, 925 Boulevard of the Arts, representing Marina Suites Condominium and Bayfront Condominium Association, stated that the condominiums surrounding the Hyatt/Quay Basin are not located in C-CBD Zone District but in the Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-7) Zone District; that the El Vernona Avenue and Lawrence Pointe condominiums are located in the RMF-5 Zone District; that on April 8, 1996, the City Commission was presented with a list of 385 complainants from residents of 888 & 988 Boulevard of the Arts, Lawrence Pointe Condominium, and El Vernona Avenue who requested noise abatement in the Basin area; that the report by Mr. Caddie shows a substantial difference in noise levels bàsed on data taken in the Downtown and at the Hyatt/Quay Basin; that the decibel readings were collected within 7 to 10 feet of the entrance to the establishments, as noted in the report; that the proximity of the homes in the Basin are closer to the source; that no buffer of buildings exists. Mr. Dasher cited the following from the report prepared by Ian Caddie, Civil Engineer: It is essential to keep a buffer distance of at least 500 feet between commercial and residential locations. This distance may have to greater in areas where sound reflects off of tall buildings. The maximum noise level should be permitted at the source. This requires no speculation and is easily and quickly measured with a general purpose sound level meter operated by a police officer certified in its use. Mr. Dasher stated that two problems exist with measuring sound levels at the Sarasota Quay: 1) the property line is located in the Basin,. and 2) the sound source cannot be identified by taking measurements at the receiving property. Mr. Dasher continued that the decibel readings should be measured outside of an establishment within 7 to 10 feet from the entrance; that a noise meter with a recording device should be permanently placed at the Sarasota Quay to document sound levels and the time as prima facie evidence of a violation to coincide with complaints registered. Mr. Dasher further stated that business at the Daiquiri Deck, adjacent to residential uses on Siesta Key, has not been affected by the a more stringent noise ordinance recently adopted by BOOK 41 Page 14544 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14545 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Sarasota County; that the new regulation appears to have resolved the tension between the business owner and residents. Mr. Dasher stated further that the doors at Michael's Seafood Grille, and In Extremis, located at Sarasota Quay, are deliberately propped open; that noise problems experienced in the Downtown and at the Hyatt/Quay Basin are somewhat different; that the areas should be addressed separately if the Commission intends to increase the decibel requirement above 65 dBA for the Downtown area. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 9:20 p.m. John Cookerly, 1944 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (34234), stated that comments made by Mr. Mintz, referred to as a qualified expert, indicated that a sound exposure level of 55 dB to 60 dB would be required to disturb the sleep of a normal person; that Attorney Singer referenced criteria established to prohibit against any sound which annoys, disturbs, etc., a person of normal sensibilities; that he enjoys music and views the use of a normal sensibilities standard as reasonable; however, a noise which is annoying to one person may not be annoying to others; that the sound levels should be measured at the receiving propertyi that the sound emitted directly outward from speakers, e.g., at the Main Street Depot, will be considerably higher than that which is heard behind the speakers; that the location at which the sound levels are measured will be critical. in determining whether or not a violation exists; that measuring at the receiving property would provide a more objective standard to determine if people are actually being disturbed because the sound levels at which a normal person is able to sleep are documented; that difficulty identifying the actual sound source from the receiving property has been referenced; that decibel readings could be measured at both the receiving property and the establishments if a question arises. Robert Welsh, 3111 Glen Elyn Boulevard (34237), stated that he frequents Downtown establishments to enjoy outdoor music in a smoke-free environment; that alcohol is served but not consumed by all who are present to enjoy the music; that the music Downtown should be allowed to continued; however, the effect on neighboring residents should be taken into consideration; that reasonable decibel levels measured at the receiving property should be established; that channeling effects, interference patterns, different frequency transmission characteristics, and directionality will affect the accuracy of decibel levels if measured at the source on the property line; that the standard level of sound at the source could be taped and compared to relative amplitudes of ambient sound at the receiving property. Greg Hagopian, 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton (34206), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Bill Gulick, 904 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that the majority of people favor outdoor music; however, the problem is amplified sound; that the talented performers who made a presentation tonight demonstrated the decibel levels which can be achieved without amplification; and asked - if the proposed definition for amplified outdoor music would apply, for example, to the 11 speakers positioned outside on the patio adjacent to the Downunder Jazz Bar at Michael's Seafood Grille, which except for the past three to four weeks, have been emanating sound at a loud and disturbing level? Attorney Singer stated that the proposed ordinances provide specific definitions for the terms amplified, amplification systems, and completely enclosed structure; that the noise regulations proposed would apply to speakers located outside. Lynn Ehlers-Baker. 3609 Lokai Place (34232), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Jane Carrigan, President, St. Armands Residents Association. 101 North Adams Drive (34236), stated that St. Armands residents began having a problem with booming bass noise the last week of February 1997; that the St. Armands Residents Association is dedicated to preserving the quality of life of residents on St. Armands - Key within the City of Sarasota; that the Association's Board of Governors has reviewed the proposed changes to the City's noise ordinances and respectfully requests Commission support to: modify the proposed ordinances to include St. Armands Key, zoned CT, as well as the mainland business district, zoned C-CBD. revise the draft ordinances to increase the distance requirement of 250 feet to 350 feet from the nearest residence. Joseph Hyland, 910 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), Neil Mcstravick, 3289 Cheshire Lane (34237), and Robert Siff, 1255 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), were no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Lucille Wallace, 1255 North Gulf Stream Avenue #1501 (34236), stated that she has resided Downtown for many years; that the music can be loud at times but makes the Downtown area viable; that the recommendations set forth by the Downtown Association are supported. Ernest Ritz, 1492 First Street (34236), representing Main Street Depot, stated that he owns the Gator Club and is the landlord of BOOK 41 Page 14546 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14547 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Main Street Depot; that the sound stage at the Main Street Depot was repositioned facing north to accommodate residents in neighborhoods to the south who had registered noise complaints; that consideration of the following is requested: increase the maximum sound level to 85 dBA if the decibel readings will be taken at the property line identify a specific location on the property line at which the decibel readings will be taken. extend the hour limitations to midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings William Bronson 2035 Brueckner Drive (34231), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Hildegard Eckman, 551 South Washington Drive (34236), distributed photographs depicting the location and proximity of her residence to Tommy Bahama Tropical Cafe. Ms. Eckman stated that for ten years, she and her husband resided across the street from a quiet business which served breakfast, lunch, and dinner, had five tables outside, and closed early; that the property was recently sold, demolished, and replaced with a building of the same size that includes a full-size restaurant and 30-foot long bar on the second floor and a balcony extending the full length of the side and front of the building on which approximately 40 patrons are seated for outdoor dining beginning at 10 a.m. for breakfast through 12 midnight for dinners; that the entrance to the restaurant is directly across from her residential driveway; that although the restaurant may not serve food after 10 p.m., people continue to frequent the bar; that people waiting to patronize the restaurant congregate and converse in front of her residence; that hundreds of eyes peer into her residence from the balcony; that she and her husband do not feel comfortable sitting on the front porch. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:35 p.m. Ms. Eckman continued that relief has been experienced over the past few weeks as the restaurant has discontinued serving on the balcony awaiting approval of a special exception for outdoor dining; that she and her husband are strongly opposed to a special exception which would allow the seating of an additional 60 patrons on the balcony and around the perimeter of Tommy Bahamas on the first floor. Ms. Eckman further stated that traffic has increased significantly; that the impact is tremendous, especially in the evenings; that vehicles park in the "no parking" areas, encroach onto the residential properties, and create safety hazards for legally parked vehicles and traffic attempting to enter onto the street; that the motorists step onto and throw cigarette butts on residents' landscaping; that the closing of vehicle doors is continuously heard; that the parking situation prevents emergency access to residences on South Washington Drive; that signs clearly designating the area as "no parking" should be posted and the regulation enforced; that the noise level which is bearable during the day is not acceptable after 6 p.m. when the restaurant begins serving dinner and patrons congregate to enter the restaurant; that the non-stop parking and double parking of vehicles begins in front of her residence as people are let out or picked up at the entrance; that loud conversation and music continuously emanates through open sliding glass doors on the second level of the building; that noise is heard from all areas of her residence until 2 a.m.; that the restaurant should be required to keep the sliding glass doors closed during the evening hours Ms. Eckman stated further that valet parking would significantly increase the noise generated by conversation and vehicle doors closing and should not be allowed if requested by the business owner. Ms. Eckman submitted a letter written by a Maryann Maier, 259 John Ringling Boulevard (34236) regarding the situation occurring on South Washington Drive. Commissioner Patterson asked if "no parking" signs are currently posted on South Washington Drive? Ms. Eckman stated that one sign is posted; however, additional signs are necessary to gain recognition by the motorists. Michael Drake, 2727 Riverside Drive (34234), referred to the following Commission goal: To achieve economic vitality through healthy businesses and quality job opportunities Mr. Drake stated that Downtown Sarasota is alive and vibrant with a healthy atmosphere; that few disturbances are created; that the Main Street Depot employs several off-duty police officers to regulate problems which may arise; that fundamentals of democracy indicate that majority rules; that the complaining residents are living in a business district by special exception on floors above the permitted height limitations; that the entertainment of the masses should not be limited by the demands of a select few. J. Russell Lock, 1559 Third Street (34234), stated that loud music in residential areas is not necessary; that testimony has been provided regarding systems which can mitigate sound; that BOOK 41 Page 14548 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14549 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. live music should be allowed to continue Downtown; that the open atmosphere of Downtown is enjoyed by residents and tourists. Scott Black, 5509 Forester Pond Avenue (34243), stated that outdoor music Downtown should be allowed to continue; that musicians have no other opportunities to play music outdoors in Sarasota; that a tremendous amount of the entertainment available in Sarasota is geared toward senior citizens; that entertainment opportunities for the younger generation are also necessary; that listening to music in an open structure in a safe area while breathing fresh air versus smoke-filled air is desired by many. Mr. Black continued that establishing a maximum permissible sound level of 65 dBA measured at the source is not appropriate; that residents should be able to sleep in the evening; however, residents are not attempting to sleep at the source of sound; that decibel readings should be measured at the receiving property; that street noise, which is measured at 85 dBA, could adversely affect the accuracy of decibel readings. Mr. Black stated further that providing for outdoor music in the Downtown helps to achieve the following Commission goals: To be an attractive, clean and aesthetically pleasing City To promote economic vitality through healthy businesses and quality job opportunities Mr. Black stated that musicians, store owners, tourism, etc., benefits from the playing of live, outdoor music in the Downtown; that residents who chose to live in Downtown should be willing to accept the hustling and bustling activity which is associated with a successful, viable business district. Katherine O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), stated that her comments are not geared toward eliminating the live, outdoor music which has done many good things for the City; however, as a Downtown business owner who values the efforts the City has made to improve Downtown, she requests that the types of outdoor music allowed be reviewed; that the weekday music of single guitarists, folk singers, and other small groups have drawn large crowds to the area; however, the amplified outdoor music played on weekends has had negative effects on surrounding residents and business owners; that art galleries and other businesses, which were directly affected by incidents relating to activities at the Lemon Avenue Mall on the weekends, have relocated out of the Downtown; that a personal loss of $21,000 in inventory resulted after a drunken brawl erupted in front of her business on Palm Avenue following a drug deal gone bad at the Lemon Avenue Mall; that assistance is necessary to preserve the small, "mom and pop" businesses which comprise the Downtown; that the amplified music penetrates the walls of fine restaurants and theaters that draw good buyers for the art galleries; that a continued urban. flight of the solid taxpaying homeowners and businesses will be viewed if the Commission fails to remedy the problem; that the residents, who located in the Downtown before amplified outdoor music became an ongoing activity, are defending against their greatest investment - their home and peace in life. Ms. O'Connell stated that prohibiting music Downtown is not being suggested; that she agrees with the Downtown Association and Mr. Ritz that amplified outdoor music should be. permitted until midnight on the weekends with the noise levels monitored; that, in addition, consideration should be given to assigning additional police officers to the Downtown area for approximately one hour following the ceasing of music entertainment and the closing of bars; that the majority of problems experienced by small business owners have occurred as a result of activities in which people engage after leaving the establishments at 2 a.m. Robert Lively, 610 Hanlon Street (33604), stated that providing outdoor music Downtown establishes a congenial freedom of people who work in the community; that he is a war veteran who has performed as a musician in Sarasota for years; that music was played at all hours at the former John Ringling Towers; that the sound and tone of music should be respected; that people adapt to and tolerate various types of noise, i.e., garbage trucks repositioning dumpsters on the ground and children crying; that the Commission should appreciate the music, dancing, etc., which is provided Downtown by outdoor music. Ryk Schoonheimy 539 Bird Key Drive (34236), stated that he is an audio/video specialist who has prepared custom audio/visual displays for the past seven years; that a requirement of 65 dBA measured at the source is not appropriate. Mr. Schoonheim requested participation by the audience and measured the sound level of applause at higher than 70 dBA. Mr. Schoonheim stated that the Commission and Administration may not realize the limited level of sound which is heard at 65 dBA; that measuring the sound level at the receiving property versus at the source would be more appropriate. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. The Commission recessed at 10:02 p.m and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered into the record a memorandum dated May 5, 1997, from Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, through Jane Robinson, BOOK 41 Page 14550 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14551 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Director of Planning and Development, to Richard Taylor, City Attorney, regarding proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993, draft 4/30/97, Regulations of Amplified Music in the C-CBD Zone District, outlining the evaluation of consistency of the proposed ordinance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 and 97-3994 by title only. Mayor Pillot asked if two separate motions regarding proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 and 97-3994 would be appropriate? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that, in addition, a finding of consistency with the Sarasota City Plan is necessary before the Commission can pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 on first reading. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3993 and 97-3994 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to find proposed Ordinance No. 97-3993 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and pass on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 on first reading changing the language to allow amplified music on Friday, Saturday, and legal holidays until midnight and on Sunday through Thursday until 10 p.m. and to establish 80 dBA as a maximum permissible sound level in the C-CBD Zone District measured at the property line from which the sound emanates. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 on first reading changing the language to allow amplified music on Friday, Saturday, and legal holidays until midnight and to establish 70 dBA as a maximum permissible sound level in the C-CBD Zone District measured at the property line from which the sound emanates. Commissioner Patterson stated that she participated in a field study in an attempt to determine an appropriate maximum permissible sound level; that sound levels below 74 dBA were not witnessed as the band playing that evening was unable to lower the volume sufficiently; however, at a level of 74 to 75 dBA, the music was heard clearly inside the condominium unit; that enforcement of a level slightly higher may result if the maximum sound level is established at 75 dBA; that the noise consultant recommended 70 dBA; therefore, establishing a maximum permissible sound level of 70 dBA has been suggested. Commissioner Patterson continued that maintaining a viable Downtown is desired; that problems with noise in the Downtown did not exist prior to the opening of the Lemon Coast Grille, which she believes has the ability to control the level of sound emanating from the establishment; that New York City, which is a lively area offering numerous music venues, regulates sound levels and does not have problems with music emanating from the establishments. Vice Mayor Dupree agreed with the statements made by Commissioner Patterson; and stated that noise affects different people in different ways; that age, physical impediments, health 1 conditions, etc., are factors which affect a person's tolerance to certain types of noise; that an increase of 10 dB results. in a level of sound perceived to be twice as loud to the human ear; that 55 dBA was referenced as the preferred level of sound by some speakers; that a maximum permissible sound level of 70 dBA is five decibels higher than the originally recommended 65 dBA and is viewed as an appropriate compromise. Commissioner Cardamone stated that fluctuations in decibel levels based on the distance from the sound source were viewed on a sound meter throughout the public hearing; that an increase in the decibel readings was viewed as the sound meter moved closer to the source; and asked if a specific location for measuring decibel readings will be established, e.g., at the curb on the corner of Lemon Avenue and State Street for the Lemon Coast Grille and at the corner of Lemon Avenue and Main Street for the Main Street Depot? Attorney Singer stated that the measurements will be taken at the property line as close to the sound as possible; that law enforcement personnel will determine an appropriate location at which to take measurements; that the location- determined will probably be. where the sound which is emanating is heard the loudest. Commissioner Cardamone stated that police officers should take measurements from the same location each time, e.g., at the front door at the curb; and asked if a decibel reading of 70 dBA could be achieved and loud music within certain boundaries still be offered by adjusting speakers, moving the sound stage, or using noise cancellation devices? Attorney Singer stated that testimony has been received that devices are available which will retain sound within certain boundaries; that whether the use of such devices is practical will remain to be seen; that the Police Department and the City BOOK 41 Page 14552 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14553 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Attorney's Office will work with the Main Street Depot within the boundaries set by the Commission and enacted in proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 to ensure the limits and methods of measurement are understood. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees with the concepts of regulating noise and requiring a decibel reading and measurement at the source; however, he supports establishing a less restrictive maximum permissible sound level which, if necessary, could be made stricter at a later date; that requiring decibel readings of 70 dBA will dramatically change the past pertormances at the Lemon Coast Grille and the Main Street Depot and, quite possibly, put both establishments out of business which may be the intent. Commissioner Merrill continued that the Commission witnessed presentations showing decibel readings higher than 70 dBA for various musical instruments and applause; that the Downtown Association and Mr. Ritz have recommended a maximum sound level of 85 dBA; that as a compromise, he suggested 80 dBA; that a sound level of 70 dBA is viewed as too restrictive for outdoor music, especially when the noise regulations are first imposed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission expressed support earlier for including language in proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 that would provide for the issuance of special permits at the discretion of the City Manager for community events held anywhere in the C-CBD Zone District; that an amendment to the motion should be considered prior to taking the roll-call vote. Attorney Singer stated that amending Chapter 20-4, revised as Chapter 20-7, as follows would be necessary to allow the issuance of special permits in the C-CBD Zone District within 250 feet of a primarily residential use: as part of a community public event or community program, or to perform construction or demolition, a person may seek a temporary exemption from the provisions of this chapter or Sections 8-123 and 8-125 (i) of the Zoning Code by seeking a special permit by the City Manager or his designee. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to include revising the language of Chapter 20-7 to allow the issuance of special permits in the C-CBD Zone District within 250 feet of a primarily residential use. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if language prohibiting any sound which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities replaces the existing loud and raucous standard? Attorney Singer stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if the new standard has been litigated? Attorney Singer stated that several of the noise ordinances in other jurisdictions included the normal sensibilities standard; that a dearth of litigation and cases interpreting the standard exists; however, in his opinion, the change will withstand court scrutiny because an objective rather than a subjective standard is set forth. Commissioner Patterson stated that Section 20-4, Unreasonable Noise Prohibited, refers to standards which shall be considered in determining a violation, e.g., "the intensity of the noise" and "whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual"; that the standards referenced are subjective. Attorney Singer stated that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case which upheld the language "loud and raucous," stated essentially that the standard was objective because a reasonable person would know what was prohibited; that, unfortunately, enforcement of the loud and raucous standard has proven to be very difficult; that in addition to the standards referenced under Section 20-4( (b), proof as evidence in court will be required that the noise violation would annoy, disturb, etc., a reasonable person of normal sensibilities as opposed to the complaining person; that based on case history reviewed, any standard employed must be objective rather than subjective. Mayor Pillot stated that he supports directing the Administration to develop an ordinance specific to the CT Zone District. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the Administration is directed to draft language and report back as soon as possible regarding noise regulations specific to the CT Zone District on St. Armands Key. Mayor Pillot stated that as referenced by various speakers, the personnel who will be enforcing the noise ordinances should be well trained; that the feasibility of permanently installing equipment which measures both time and - decibel levels has been researched; that the equipment exists but is exorbitantly cost prohibitive and could easily be abused; that a loud boom box could be played adjacent to the equipment or the equipment covered to muffle sound; that although the proposed ordinance as amended by the motion requires decibel readings be measured at BOOK 41 Page 14554 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14555 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. the sound source, decibel readings could be measured at the receiving property as well, when appropriate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the public hearing provided valuable information; that the people in support of maintaining Downtown music may have heard comments from residents and new ideas which were not previously considered; that she implores the residents who brought the problem to the Commission over one year ago to be patient, tolerant, and understanding of the young people and musicians who have expressed the enjoyment experienced and pleasure derived by frequenting the Downtown; that a level of cooperation and a spirit of friendship should be pursued to retain Downtown Sarasota as a viable area offering various opportunities. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the businesses offering music Downtown should research the feasibility of installing or using noise cancellation systems, which would provide for the best of two worlds. Commissioner Patterson stated that every city with a viable downtown has citizens who work and are willing to reside in it; that the condominium residents, who patronize the restaurants, bars, outdoor establishments, etc., played a major role in the successful revitalization of Downtown; that the City cannot afford to have the condominium owners start moving out of the City. Commissioner Patterson continues that she supports considering noise regulations as soon as possible for the CT Zone District, where residents are currently experiencing problems; however, consideration should also be given to applying similar standards to business districts Citywide; that, for example, outdoor music may become an issue at Southside Village, a lovely, lively area which is located near residential uses. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she also supports review of the CT Zone District and Citywide standards; however, over the past four years, the Commission has heard a more constant plea for assistance from residents in neighborhoods bordering Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, an issue which should be addressed in any future noise ordinances prepared. Commissioner Patterson asked if a Commission consensus exists to have Staff review the potential of implementing noise regulations in other business areas Citywide? Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the Administration is directed to review the potential of implementing noise regulations in other business areas Citywide. Mayor Pillot restated the main motion as to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3994 on first reading with the following changes: 1) allow amplified music on Friday, Saturday, and legal holidays until midnight, and 2) establish 70 dBA as a maximum permissible sound level in the C-CBD Zone District to be measured at the property line from which the sound emanates, and 3) revise the language of Chapter 20-7 to reference a temporary exemption of Section 8-125(i) of the Zoning Code and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - AESTHETIC DESIGN SELECTION - POSTPONED ACTION ON THE CLASSIC CONTEMPORARY BRIDGE DESIGN; APPROVED FORWARDING A LETTER TO CHAIRMAN MILLS REQUESTING PLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGE ISSUE ON THE MAY 19, 1997, MPO AGENDA; DIRECTED COMMISSIONERS PATTERSON AND MERRILL TO REQUEST THE MPO TO SCHEDULE THE BRIDGE ISSUE ON THE NEXT MPO AGENDA, IF CHAIRMAN MILLS DOES NOT RESPOND FAVORABLY TO THE CITY'S REQUEST (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (3600) through #6 (0431) Mayor Pillot stated that he had an opportunity this morning to open, in the presence of people representing both sides of the issue, the responses to the recent newspaper poll; that 411 people responded to the poll, of whom 42 favored a low bridge and 369 favored a high bridge. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Eugene Figg, President and Chief Executive Officer, Figg Engineers, Inc., came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that approval of the selected bridge design and pedestrian rail concepts for the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement is the only action requested from the City Commission tonight; that the Commission is not being asked to take action regarding the type of bridge which will be constructed; that in November 1993, the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) took action in favor of constructing a fixed span bridge; that in October 1996, the City approved an agreement with FDOT to fund a charette for the selection of the aesthetic design for the bridge; that FDOT agreed to fund $182,700 of the $202,000 cost for the charette, which the City hired Figg Engineers, Inc., to facilitate. Mr. Daughters continued that the Design Charette for the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Design Selection was held on January 21-22 (Charette I) and March 20, 1997 (Charette II); that 72 people representing a wide spectrum of the City devoted over 22 hours each to reach a consensus on an aesthetic design for the bridge replacement; that the Charette team developed BOOK 41 Page 14556 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14557 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. criteria on the first two days; that on the last day, Figg Engineers, Inc., presented the team with three bridge design concepts and two bridge rail concepts for consideration; that the Classic Contemporary bridge design and a "no theme" pedestrian railing were the concepts selected. A board display and wall banner depicting the Classic Contemporary bridge design concept as well as a scaled model of the selected bridge were displayed in the Commission Chambers. Mr. Figg gave a brief presentation on the overhead projector and explained the Charette process, the criteria on which consensus was reached, the three concepts presented and voted upon, and the bridge design selected. Mr. Figg stated that achieving a signature bridge for the City of Sarasota was the theme of the Charette; that the goal was to create an award-winning bridge designed with efficiency, economy, and elegance; that the horizontal geometry and 107-foot width of the bridge, including four 12-foot lanes and two 10-foot sidewalks, as well as the 65-foot fixed span of vertical clearance from the intercoastal waterway and a total construction cost of $29.4 million were the pre-established criteria provided for the Charette; that elements of the bridge were provided and ranked individually from one to ten by each of the 72 participants; that the elements which received a ranking higher than 5 were incorporated in the bridge design concepts developed; that the following elements received the highest rankings during Charette I: span length between 250 and 350 feet A variable depth superstructure - smooth underside single-box preferred over double-box > tapered piers A elliptical/oval pier shape A submerged footings A alternate unique center span unrestricted design Mr. Figg stated that the following were also favored: open railing center roadway lighting decorative pedestrian lights floodlighted piers natural and organized landscaping recreational use of the island side of bridge Mr. Figg stated that the following three bridge design concepts met the. pre-established criteria and individually incorporated the majority of elements on which consensus had been reached during Charette I; that the concepts were presented at Charette II, discussed in detail, and voted upon as follows: 38 votes Classic Contemporary featuring a single, trapezoidal variable depth box superstructure with 300-foot spans supported by elliptical section flared piers which rise vertically out of the water. 23 votes Sculptured Delta Pier featuring a single-wide, trapezoidal variable depth box superstructure of 11 spans ranging up to 324 feet supported by special piers of an inverted Delta shape to create a structure of special architectural interest. 10 votes Nautical Harmony featuring a very unique center span of 350 feet which is supported by cable stays draped from a pair of longitudinally inclined pylon legs at each of the centers-span piers. Mr. Figg stated that 53% of the Charette team favored the slender and open design of the Classic Contemporary bridge; that the bridge has a 5% grade; that the depth of the superstructure varies from 9 feet at the midspan to 16 feet, 6 inches at the piers; that the bottom profile soffit has a constant width of 32 feet; that the outer sidewalks are carried by cantilevered wing extensions on the top deck slab; that the outside web slope varies to accommodate the variation in depth of the infrastructure; that the overall configuration of the superstructure is a trapezoidal box with a smooth underside; that each pier rises vertically out of the water from special footings and foundations which are completely hidden from view; that the pier shape fits well and acts as one unit with the superstructure; that the total length of the bridge is 3,088 feet; that. the first span length is 194 feet; that the remaining spans are 300-feet. BOOK 41 Page 14558 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14559 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Figg stated that the Charette team also selected "no theme! n in lieu of the "Sarasota Historical Plaques" concept for the pedestrian railing by a vote of 33 to 25. Mr. Figg continued that the construction cost for the Classic Contemporary bridge, estimated as follows, is within the pre- established budget of $29.4 million: Bridge $23,100,000 Roadway $ 5,000,000 Lighting 640,800 Landscaping > 659,200 Mr. Daughters stated that Figg Engineers, Inc., will review the actual design of the bridge; however, conclusion of the Charette completes the major work effort for which the City contracted with Figg Engineers, Inc. Mr. Daughters continued that the Ringling School of Art and Design has prepared a video simulation of the Classic Contemporary bridge; that Thomas Linehan, President, Ringling School of Art and Design, had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend this meeting to present the video; that some concern has been raised regarding the accuracy of the representations in the video; that the bridge overlay depicted in the simulation appears slightly larger than the bridge would appear in reality. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission received correspondence from Dr. Linehan indicating the representation in the video is accurate. Mr. Daughters stated that he and Figg Engineers, Inc., have determined the representation of the bridge to be slightly larger than scale. Commissioner Cardamone read the following letter dated May 5, 1997, from Thomas Linehan regarding the Ringling Causeway Bridge: I am writing in reference to the letter sent to you by Linda Figg McAllister of Figg Engineers, Inc., dated April 30, 1997. The letter asserts that the bridge video simulation is not "to the scale" of the bridge selected at the most recent design charette. In fact, the scale is exactly the same as the selected bridge. The Figg engineers have inaccurately measured the bridge in the video. The video representation is the same as the charette selection (16.5-foot depth of superstructure at the pier and 9-foot depth of superstructure at midspan). The letter suggests that .although some of the dimensions in certain views may be correct, the visual effect it creates is incorrect." The bridge is modeled in three dimensions in the computer's memory. The program produces a view from the selected viewer position that is correct both in its perspective geometry and correct in its lighting model. The scene lighting and perspective view are correct in all cases. It is now (respectfully suggested) time for the Figg engineers to provide their visualization for the citizens of Sarasota. Respectfully, Thomas E. Linehan, Ph.D. President Commissioner Patterson stated that the material provided from Figg Engineers, Inc., indicates the bridge is 15 to 20 feet higher in the visualization and almost double in width on the top span; and asked for clarification. Mr. Daughters stated that the discrepancies in dimensions vary in different portions of the video; that time did not permit personal review of all dimensions of the visual representations in the video; however, the representations reviewed by pausing the video, holding a scale up to still shots, and correlating the results with the dimensions of the existing bridge and drawings of the proposed bridge indicated dimensions approximately 15 to 20% larger than scale. Mr. Daughters continued that the matter was discussed personally with Dr. Linehan, who indicated the video simulation was prepared based on the information available and there was absolutely no intent to distort any of the drawings. Mayor Pillot cited the following from the cover letter attached to the analysis prepared by Figg Engineers, Inc.: This video should not be shown as a representation of the bridge that was selected by the citizens at the design charette. Mayor - Pillot stated that the analysis by Figg Engineers, Inc., was detailed and provided specific arithmetic justifications to support the position that the video simulation was not accurate; that the response received from Dr. Linehan was less arithmetically defensible; that the Ringling School of Art and Design has been fantastically helpful to the community for many generations; that there is no question the video simulation was prepared in the spirit of helpfulness; that independent judgments can be made as each Commissioner views the video. BOOK 41 Page 14560 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14561 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. A video simulation which showed the following viewpoints, pausing on each to superimpose the Classic Contemporary bridge design on the existing bridge and then fading out the existing bridge, was shown on the video monitors in the Commission Chambers: 1. west turning north 2. north by northeast 3. north 4. west by southwest 5. from the 21st floor of Plymouth Harbor 6. east from Bird Key Park 7. from the west roof of a condominium on Golden Gate Point Mr. Daughters expressed appreciation to Dr. Linehan and the Ringling School of Art and Design for allowing Staff to show the video simulation at this meeting. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving and notifying FDOT of the Classic Contemporary bridge concept and "no theme" railing as developed by the Charette process and designed by Figg Engineers, Inc.; that as a result of the recent heightened public discussion, the Commission may want to request discussion of the matter by the MPO; that the Commission could direct the City Manager to address a letter to David Mills, as Chairman of the MPO, requesting discussion of the Ringling Causeway Bridge at the MPO meeting of May 19, 1997; that a city Commissioner sitting as an MPO Board member could make a motion to place the matter on the June 23 MPO agenda if the MPO Chairman decides not to honor the City's request; that a majority vote of the members present is required for an MPO Board member to agenda a discussion item; that the Administration's recommendation should be tentatively approved contingent on the outcome of the MPO if the Commission elects to request MPO discussion; that, for example, FDOT would be notified of the Commission's approval if a request for MPO discussion is turned down. City Manager Sollenberger continued that the Administration believes that a decision should be made on the Charette outcomes tonight while Mr. Figg is present and can answer any questions the Commission may have; that his recommendation is consistent with the joint project agreement between the City and FDOT particularly Paragraph 7 which provides the following: In the event the selection of the aesthetic design does not take place, the CITY will reimburse the DEPARTMENT for all payments made to the CITY by the DEPARTMENT, not to exceed the amount stated in Paragraph 4 herein above. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Michael Guy, Executive Director of the MPO, has indicated the bridge is at preliminary design status; therefore, if the MPO were to reverse its decision, approval from FDOT would also be necessary for a change in height. City Manager Sollenberger continued that David Twiddy, District One Secretary, FDOT, viewed the Administration's recommendation as consistent with Paragraph 7 but expressed concern regarding reaching a timely decision; that Mr. Twiddy also indicated that FDOT would proceed with the project and, more than likely, using the design developed by Figg Engineers, Inc., if the Commission were to reject the concept produced by the Charette. Mayor Pillot stated that the time is approximately 11:15 p.m.; that numerous people have signed up to speak; and requested that speakers make succinct comments. On motion. of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to extend the meeting to complete Agenda Item VII-2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. The following people came before the Commission: Patricia Wright, 336 Bobwhite Way (34236), stated that she has always been opposed to a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the unelected bureaucrats in the FDOT, which appears to be more powerful than the State Legislators and the Governor, should not be allowed so much power; that the entire bridge design process has been dictated to the public by the FDOT; that an analogy can be drawn as to allowing a child to frost a cake but placing limits on the color and thickness of the frosting; that the proposed bridge is inappropriate. Gertrude Vose, 327 Bob White Way (34236) representing the Bridge Too High Committee asked the full height of the bridge? Mr. Daughters stated that the vertical clearance from the water surface to the bottom of the, bridge will be, 65 feet. Ms. Vose asked if the bridge is 107 feet wide. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Ms. Vose stated that the scaled model of the proposed bridge should have been superimposed over the existing bridge to emphasize the contrast; that in the three and a half years she has been involved in the bridge design process, neither the elevation nor the landing points on the mainland and Bird Key have been illustrated for viewing; that no opportunity existed to view the massive scale of the proposed bridge before the Ringling School of Art and Design BOOK 41 Page 14562 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14563 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. created the video; and asked if the bridge design currently displayed on the overhead projector is drawn to scale? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Ms. Vose stated that paying the $200,000 fee for the charette is preferable to being burdened with a monstrosity; that a $200,000 loss in property taxes from decreased property values on Bird Key and Golden Gate Point can be expected if the proposed bridge is built. Constance Barron, 319 Bob White Way (34236), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Patricia Green, 1201 Center Place (34236), stated that the intimate interaction with the Bay when driving over the water makes the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge a jewel in Sarasota; that action should be taken to prevent the construction of a potential monstrosity; that the inappropriateness of the proposed bridge for Sarasota is not the fault of Mr. Figg who was restricted by the height specifications. June Simmons Ackerstein, 337 Bird Key Drive (34236), stated that in 22 years, she has made 38,000 trips over the bridge; that although on occasion she has been delayed due to heavy traffic on St. Armands, the traffic problems were not necessarily caused by the drawbridge; that $200,000 is not a great deal of money to prevent construction of a massive highway which will do nothing to facilitate traffic to Longboat Key; that the proposed bridge will act as a superhighway, stacking 10 vehicles at a time at the stop light adjacent to Bird Key; that the FDOT cannot predict resulting traffic patterns created from a new superhighway; that although she is a jewelry designer, she also has a degree in political science and has studied urban planning; that the public which walks and rides bicycles across the existing bridge cannot be envisioned doing sO across the proposed bridge. Ms. Ackerstein continued that people are riding bicycles, walking, jogging, etc., throughout the City; that Downtown has been revitalized; that a high-level, 65-foot bridge will not be a community bridge drawing together the mainland, with Bird, St. Armands, and Longboat Keys but a superhighway encouraging drivers to speed across the Bay; that $200,000 is a small amount of money to spend to insure the City's long-term future; that the Commission should maintain all options and not allow anyone to tell the community the design cannot be changed. Kathryn Cover, 115 North Boulevard of the Presidents (34236), stated that she is a sales representative and a single mother who has lived on St. Armands Key for six years; that she makes at least four trips across the bridge every day; that the rare five-minute waits for the drawbridge provide a beautiful view, especially at sunset; that residents of the Keys who are promoting a high bridge knew the drawbridge existed beforè their homes were purchased; that $30 million should not be: expended on a bridge which will not alleviate traffic volume; that eastbound traffic will still stack up at U.S. 41; that tourists seeking parking spaces on St. Armands Circle will bring westbound traffic to a standstill; that spending $30 million will not aid evacuation as a high bridge will be closed during high winds; that a new bridge should be built from Tenth Street to Ken Thompson Park to enable Longboat Key residents to avoid the traffic on St. Armands Keyi that another option is to start the span in the current mainland location but situate the landing point of the proposed bridge on Ken Thompson Park; that a third option is to repair the existing bridge for $1.9 million, and limit the number of times the drawbridge is raised. Herbert Ouinn, 5113 Estates Circle (34243), stated that participants of the design charette reached consensus that the proposed bridge design is distinctive, low-profile, graceful, and environmentally favorable; that limiting the underside support to nine pilings provides an open water view from any angle and is the design least destructive to the ecosystem of the Bay; that the Commission should avoid the indecision and tendencies plaguing the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners on issues such as the library; that editorials and letters to the editor have been generated from many self-styled experts since the charette produced the proposèd bridge; that the Commission must determine what is best for Sarasota. Mr. Quinn continued that residents living nearby endure the noise and exhaust fumes from idling vehicles when the drawbridge is open; that increased marine and motor-vehicle traffic in Sarasota County can be expected to compound current problems; that the City should move forward, settle on the design, and commence the details of planning, bidding, and construction; that residents should pull together as one great community. Katherine O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), representing the Ringling Bridge Aesthetic Task Team, stated that she is a 31-year resident of the City and served for several years on the Ringling Bridge Aesthetic Task Team; that her children will use the proposed bridge in future generations; that she has made 23,000 trips over the John Ringling Causeway Bridge and has a realistic view of the existing bridge. Ms. O'Connell continued that the recommendation to reduce the 107-foot width of the proposed bridge by removing three feet from the pedestrian lanes on both sides is of concern; that the reduction in width will not reduce the visual impact of the proposed bridge; that an increased number of residents are expected to use the pedestrian lanes, including in-line skaters, joggers, and bicyclists; that reducing the width of the pédestrian lane will not leave sufficient space for an in-line skater to pass a person BOOK 41 Page 14564 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14565 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. pushing a baby stroller; that Figg Engineers, Inc., has created a beautiful, viable design for an aesthetic landmark which will help eliminate gridlock on U.S. 41; that the traffic problems on St. Armands Key will not be alleviated until the stormwater flooding problems are solved; that residents living near the existing bridge endure siren noises when the drawbridge is open. Ms. O'Connell further stated that the proposed bridge provides a better view of the horizon as the structure is supported by only nine rather than the 167 concrete pillars which support the existing bridge; that a 45-foot bascule bridge will not appear smaller or more attractive against the horizon; that the editorial in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune recommending. the Commission delay approval of the bridge design proposal is unacceptable; that delaying the decision will result in the FDOT's constructing the bridge of their choice; that professional engineers have determined the video provided by the Ringling School of Art and Design is not drawn to scale; that neither the City, the MPO, or the FDOT have ever suggested a study be conducted to determine the appropriateness of a bascule bridge across Sarasota Bay. Lucille Wallace, 1255 North Gulf Stream Avenue, #1501 (34236), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Gilbert Waters, 1580 Hillview Street (34239), representing 470 respondents to a Sarasota Herald-Tribune advertisement regarding the proposed bridge, stated that he published an advertisement in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune requesting the public express an opinion for or against the proposed high-level, 65-foot bridge; that 410 of the final total of 470 responses had been received at the time the envelopes were opened at City Hall; that 50 respondents urged construction of a new drawbridge, repair of the existing bridge, or relocation of the mainland landing point to Tenth Street or University Parkway; that the remaining 420 respondents want the City to build a high-level, 65-foot, fixed-span bridge; that residents Countywide responded to the survey; that the 470 responses divided into 420 in favor and 50 against the proposed bridge are being left with the Commission for their perusal. Mayor Pillot stated that the 410 responses were opened at City Hall this morning in the presence of witnesses representing both sides of the issue. Robert Siff, 1255 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), representing Bay Plaza, was no longer in the Chambers. Charles Kuykendall, 1130 Hampton Road (34236), President, Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and President-Elect of the Downtown Association of Sarasota, stated that since 1993, the AIA has based their opposition to a high-level, 65-foot bridge on the position that the scale is too large for Sarasota; that the AIA previously developed and presented to the Commission bridge designs featuring an appropriate scale; that the Commission selected the bridge he designed on which major effort was expended to decrease the scale; that the mass of the structure was reduced by employing light materials, color and lighting; that the proposed Classic, Contemporary bridge design is all concrete and uses no light materials; that the structural design of the proposed bridge is not unique, resembles bridges built for decades, and uses neither lighting nor color to reduce the scale. Mr. Kuykendall continued that the AIA opposes the inappropriateness of the size and scale of the proposed bridge; that the City was mislead into approving a charette process in which the determining factors had already been established; that no choice was allowed on the important factors of size and scale; that the structural design is not.. unique; that additional funds should not be expended on a bad design; that spending $200,000 to terminate the proposed bridge design will be beneficial; that on behalf of the AIA and the Downtown Association of Sarasota, the Commission is requested to reject the proposed bridge design and accept the consequences of losing $200,000; that the MPO should be petitionéd and convinced of the inappropriateness of the size of the proposed bridge; that the height as well as the width should be reexamined; that the design of the proposed bridge may serve as an adequate engineering solution but does not reflect the ambiance of Sarasota. Mayor Pillot asked the City Manager to clarify his discussion with Mr. Twiddy. City Manager Sollenberger stated that as District One Secretary reporting to the Secretary of the FDOT, Mr. Twiddy has authority over the design, management, and completion of a replacement for the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the FDOT wants to proceed with the bridge project; that Mr. Twiddy was asked what would occur if the proposed bridge design is rejected and replied that the FDOT would probably proceed and construct a bridge using the Classic Contemporary design. Commissioner Cardamone stated that during the Tiger Bay Club program Mr. Twiddy stated he is amenable to discussion with the City if the proposed bridge design is rejected. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Twiddy who was asked to define what was meant by the term "amenable" replied the FDOT is willing to work with the City; however, community consensus on the structural design does not exist in Sarasota. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Twiddy, informed her that flexibility exists only in reducing the width of the pedestrian walks; that the width of the vehicular lanes cannot be altered; and requested the City Manager to clarify the role of the MPO. BOOK 41 Page 14566 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14567 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the MPO is comprised of elected officials from Sarasota and Manatee Counties and from municipalities in both Counties; that the MPO, having authority to determine the size of the proposed structure, voted in favor of a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that people from Longboat and Lido Keys were bused to an MPO hearing held several years ago at the Sarasota Fairgrounds, at which the overwhelming majority favored the high- level, 65-foot bridge and few people supported a low-level bridge; that the Director of the MPO informed him on Friday, May 2, 1997, that the FDOT's approval would be required for a low-level bridge even if the MPO reversed their decision. Mayor Pillot stated that the MPO vote was 10 to 4 in favor of a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that two Sarasota County Commissioners who voted in favor of the high-level bridge have reaffirmed their opposition to any low-level structure. Charlie Griggs, 4708 Pine Harrier Drive (34231), stated that he has been a practicing architect for 43 years; that although Figg Engineers, Inc., has designed a fabulous structural solution, both the design and location of the proposed bridge are inappropriate for Sarasota; that the existing bridge was built by John Ringling to assist development of St. Armands Keyi that any new structure should be designed to land at Ken Thompson Park; that the Commission should not allow the FDOT to blackmail the City over $200,000. Scott Black, 5509 Forester Pond Avenue (34243), stated that the City is about to build a Goliath of a bridge in a small-town community; that the distance from the water surface to the underside of the bridge may be 65 feet, but an additional 15 feet to the top of the bridge will make the total height 80 feet; that the concept of a high-level, 65-foot bridge was promoted by Longboat Key residents opposed to waiting for an open drawbridge; that the general public would vote against building a monstrosity; that a request to develop a 15-story condominium in the Golden Gate Point area was denied based on the inappropriate scale of the proposal relative to existing buildings; that the FDOT proposes to build a bridge completely out of scale for that same area; that a tremendous amount of beauty will be obliterated by a bridge which is too large; that the Commission should pursue a reversal of the MPO's decision. Commissioner Patterson stated that the MPO will meet again on May 19, 1997, at Sudakoff Hall at the University of South Florida (USF) /New College; that the Commission's vote on whether the $200,000 charette fee is paid by the City or the FDOT is irrelevant; that the primary issue is whether the MPO will vote to reverse their decision; that on May 19, 1997, the MPO can vote against allowing the issue to be placed on the agenda; that this is the second or third time a large number of people have appeared before the City Commission; however, the Commission is not the appropriate body to petition; that individuals feeling strongly about the issue should address the MPO on May 19, 1997, during the public input portion of the meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that most of the public speakers are preaching to the choir this evening; that the Commission is unanimously on record as opposed to the construction of a high-level, 65-foot high bridge; that in 1993, members of the Ringling Bridge Aesthetic Task Force were told to locate the bridge; that at no time was anyone on the Task Force advised that the structure had to be a high-level, 65-foot bridge across a short span of water; that various locations from Selby Gardens to Tenth Street were reviewed; that the Task Force decided to place the bridge as close as possible to the existing bridge since the traffic and roads already exist in that location and no major land purchase would be required; that the announcement that the structure would be a high-level, 65-foot bridge came later; that the high-level bridge was rejected by the Commission; but supported at the MPO level. Harvey Rothenberg, 433 Meadow Lark Drive (34236), stated that he lives on Bird Key; that several other Bird Key residents who are seated in the audience desire a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that a barge was moving slowly under the existing drawbridge as his wife drove him to the hospital in excruciating pain during a kidney stone attack a few years ago; that he is flexible regarding the width, but a high-level, 65-foot bridge is necessary as the 21st Century approaches. Jacqueline Phillips, 4891 Peregrine Point Circle East (34231-2340), stated that she faxed a letter to the Commission on May 3, 1997, regarding a proposal to establish two marinas on either side of the newly-introduced, loop bridge designed by her husband, architect Tony Ngai; that the marinas will generate sufficient revenue to fund maintenance of the structure; that she and her husband relocated to Sarasota from Los Angeles one year ago because of the spectacular, natural, unspoiled beauty of the Bay; that she is an attorney but does not wish to litigate; that a loop bridge has the potential of making everyone in the City happy; that the Commission should postpone action tonight to consider the new idea; that government officials rarely have the opportunity to approve a project which will satisfy both sides of an issue. Ms. Phillips continued that the loop bridge allows one bridge to remain constantly open to vehicular traffic; that the potential exists to generate revenue to pay for maintenance and perhaps make a profit if marinas are constructed in the boat "holding" area; that the Classic, Contemporary design proposed will ruin the Bay for generations; that closing the existing bridge to pedestrian traffic would minimize the cost of the necessary renovations; that Chuck Woods of the FDOT informed her the State is open to new ideas BOOK 41 Page 14568 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14569 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. and found the loop-bridge design interesting; however, the State has already expended $200,000 for a charette; that the City will have to pay for any new designs. Commissioner Patterson asked Mr. Woods's position at the FDOT? Ms. Phillips stated that Mr. Woods is the FDOT project manager for the John Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement project; that Mr. Daughters indicated the loop-bridge design has potential but should have been presented a year ago and that new concepts are no longer being accepted for review; that the City should not stop fighting; that City attorneys are employed on Staff; that the City can demand an environmental impact statement or a supplemental impact statement to study the Ngai loop-bridge design, the Kuykendall steel-bridge design, and the Classic, Contemporary 65-foot-high bridge design; that the City should not build a bridge which will ruin the Bay for generations; that the City has a fiduciary responsibility to take additional action; that the issue should also be pursued further by the citizenry. Anthony Ngai, 4891 Peregrine Point Circle, East (34231), stated that he has been an architect for 24 years; that the proposed bridge will ruin Sarasota; that the City should not accept a self-destructive decision in order to save time and money. Ned Parsekian, 460 North Washington Drive (34236) representing the St. Armands Residents Association, stated that the distance from the water surface to the underside of the bridge is estimated at 65 feet; that an additional 20 feet from the underside of the bridge to the top railing will result in a total height of 85 feet from the water surface; that a great concern exists regarding the locating of a massive structure on beautiful, natural Sarasota Bay; that the width of the proposed bridge is 10 feet greater than the width of Bee Ridge Road; that the FDOT imposed strict parameters regarding the structural design; that only 72 people attended the first charette held in January; that the team which selected the Classic, Contemporary design were part of a select group invited out in the harbor on a boat; that little opportunity for public input was provided at the design charettes. Mr. Parsekian continued that the proposed bridge does nothing to alleviate traffic between the Downtown, and St. Armands, Lido, or Longboat Keys; that the proposed and existing bridges have four lanes; that the St. Armands Residents Association request that the Commission disapprove the Classic, Contemporary design and petition the MPO and the FDOT to reconsider the appropriateness of a high- level bridge; that the $200,000 charette fee distributed among the 56,000 residents of the City equals $2.50 per person and is a negligible cost for release from an unwanted proposal. Mr. Parsekian further stated that the Commission's unanimous rejection of a high-level, 65-foot bridge was appreciated by the public and should not be abandoned at this point; that the Commission should not join the MPO and the FDOT in the decision to impose a high-level, 65-foot bridge on Sarasota residents but take whatéver small chance is available to reverse their decision. Richard Storm, 707 South Gulf Stream Avenue, #103 (34236), representing the Bridge Too High Committee, thanked the Ringling School of Art and Design for providing the contextual visualization unavailable during the design charette; and stated that Mr. Figg is commended for a handsome design derived from an impossible situation; that Mr. Figg was severely limited and produced an acceptable design for an inappropriate bridge; that the community will support Commissioners Patterson and Merrill before the MPO; that the community will attend the May 19, 1997, MPO meeting and do whatever needs to be done to get the issue placed on the MPO agenda; that the Commission's leadership is required; that the community will support the Commissioners. Ila Preti, 775 John Ringling Boulevard (34236), representing the Coon Key Residents Association, stated that everyone wishes the sleepy Sarasota fishing village could have remained intact; however, the village is gone and residents must learn to live with the growth which has and is occurring; that more than four years have passed since November 1993 when the MPO voted on the bridge type and height; that many studies were conducted and much public input was received prior to the MPO vote; that the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge continues to deteriorate; that the sleek, sophisticated design of the proposed bridge will grace the beautiful Bay and provide spectacular views; that the 65-foot, seven-story bridge will not be out of scale with 22-story buildings located in the area of the landing points; that the proposed bridge is far more beautiful than the Daytona Beach bridge, which was described as "gorgeous" by two Commissioners; that further delay should not be allowed; and requested that the Commission approve the Classic, Contemporary design selected by the charette. Duchess Tomasello, 777 John Ringling Boulevard (34236). representing the Coon Key Residents Association, stated that she was a member of the original Ringling Bridge Aesthetic Task Force and supports the high bridge; that she lives close enough to see the existing bridge open 24 times per day and breathes all the fumes from the idling vehicles; that the theaters lose a great deal of money if an actor does not appear by curtain time; that when she was appearing in a play Downtown, a neighbor used to stand by with a boat in case the existing bridge got stuck; that a high-level, 65-foot bridge is the only choice; that Mr. Figg has designed a gorgeous bridge which provides a panoramic view of the Bay. Heather Schoonheim, 539 Bird Key Drive (34236), stated that the Commission is being requested to help the community and not be bullied into building a $30 million structure which the Community BOOK 41 Page 14570 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14571 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. does not want; that she and her husband chose Sarasota in which to start their life, a family, and a business together; that over $250,000 was spent on a home on Bird Key because of the ambiance created by the quaint bridge and the beautiful views of the Bay. Ms. Schoonheim continued that an ordinance to control noise problems was just passed for the benefit of a certain number of people who reside Downtown; that the Commission determined that those people should be protected; that the Commission should do the same for residents on Bird and St. Armands Keys; that the view from a condominium unit owned on the fourth floor at 888 Boulevard of the Arts will be of the underside of the proposed Classic, Contemporary bridge; that $30 million should be expended only on a bridge design loved by the entire community; that an automobile or a home would not be purchased unless absolutely desired; that the number of people in the community opposed to the bridge is sufficient justification to find a way to stop the FDOT; that power exists in the voice of the people; that she first learned about the plans to build the proposed bridge on a recent report on Sarasota News Network (SNN), prior to which no knowledge existed that such a quaint, pretty bridge would become a superhighway. Ms. Schoonheim further stated that people who do not wish to wait for the drawbrdige need only to leave 10 minutes earlier or 10 minutes later; that calculating a traveling schedule should not be difficult as the bridge opens every half hour; that Longboat Key residents requiring a better evacuation route should not involve the city but try to find alternative solutions to their problem; that the City should love and embrace any bridge design which will cost $30 million; that the MPO meeting is scheduled on May 19, 1997, a Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. when most residents will be at work; and asked where the meeting will be held? Commissioner Patterson stated that the MPO meeting will be held at Sudakoff Hall at USF/New College; that the City Commission does not determine the time or place of MPO meetings. Ms. Schoonheim stated that she understands the Commission is not responsible for scheduling the MPO meeting; however, the meeting before Commissioners who are powerless to take any action is scheduled in the evening; whereas the MPO meeting at which the public must request a reversal of the decision for a high-level, 65-foot bridge is arranged at a time when most residents are at work. Gary Majer, 201 Seaqull Lane (34236), presented to Commissioner Patterson 200 signatures of Bird Key residents opposed to a high-level, 65-foot bridge. Monty O'Neal, 613 South Avenue Drive (34236), stated that he is a resident of Bird Key and participated in the design charettes; that enormous limitations regarding the significant structural elements of the proposed bridge were imposed by the FDOT; that the existing bridge is adequate as a transportation conduit and evacuation route;. that the size and scope of the proposed bridge is inappropriate. Thomas Huseby, 217 Seagull Lane (34236), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Mark Smith, 5562 Cape Aqua Drive (34242), representing the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA, stated that the AIA has consistently opposed a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the AIA sponsored the charette at which the Kuykendall Bridge Design was developed in response to the unattractive design produced by the FDOT. Mr. Smith thanked the Ringling School of Art and Design for providing a visualization of the proposed Classic, Contemporary bridge; and stated that a scale was placed on the drawing in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that no discrepancy is discerned in the scale used in the video created by the Ringling School of Art and Design; that Dr. Linehan suggested in his letter that Figg Engineers, Inc., should provide their visualization for the citizens of Sarasota; that the contract between the City and Figg Engineers, Inc., notes that three views of the proposed bridge were to be presented to the City after Design Charette I; that ideas and a photograph of the site were to be developed for the charette discussions as well as other visuals and presentation drawings; that the contract also states that final selected features for the signature bridge will be prepared and a computerized drawing and a photograph of the size considering three views would be provided during Design Charette II; that 200 hours were to be spent on a Computer Assisted Design (CAD) demonstration in Design Charette I and 160 hours in Design Charette II. Mr. Smith further stated that the City paid $3,900 for three views of the proposed bridge from the site and $3,200 for 200 CAD hours for a total of $7,100 for visualizations in Design Charette I; that the City spent $2,600 for three views of the proposed bridge on the site and 160 CAD hours in Design Charette II; that ultimately, the City was charged $12,260 for visualizations which the Ringling School of Art and Design produced at no charge; that the Commission should request the correct visualization from Figg Engineers, Inc.; that the MPO should be petitioned to reverse what is a wrong solution; that the AIA will support the Commission when the bridge issue is brought before the MPO. Bob White, 435 L'Ambiance Drive (34228), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Javier Suarez, 5651 Creekwood Circle (34233), stated that he reçently wrote a letter - to the editor opposing the scale of the proposed bridge; that in 1993, he represented local architects before the MPO as the President of the AIA which unanimously BOOK 41 Page 14572 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14573 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. opposed the high-level, 65-foot bridge; that David Mills, Commissioner, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners and Chairman of the MPO, recently stated that opposition to the high-level, 65-foot bridge has been raised too late; that the public should have appeared at public hearings when the MPO previously addressed the bridge issue; that the public and the City Commission have voiced constant opposition to a high-level, 65-foot bridge at public hearings for years; that the City has been railroaded; that over 100 Sarasota County architects have declared the proposed bridge an atrocity; that local rather than FDOT architects know what is best for the community. Mr. Suarez continued that the public has never been informed regarding the impact of the structural design; that the public may have previously supported the high bridge due to an inability to visualize its impact; that an architect must communicate a design concept visually to a client who is not trained to understand the impact of a structure; that the proportions and scale of the proposed bridge are all wrong. Mr. Suarez further stated that the MPO will have the last word if the Commission gives up the fight; that the Commission has unanimously opposed a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that although the Commission may feel no power exists to stop the MPO, the fight should not be abandoned; that the AIA will assist the Commission's efforts to convince the MPO to reverse the decision to impose an unwanted structure on the community. Alfred Winslow, 108 South Warbler Lane (34632), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Irwin Cooperman, 552 South Spoonbill Drive (34236), stated that the patience of the Commission and the enthusiasm and intelligence of the local community are a source of constant amazement; that nothing justifies the FDOT's insistence on building a bridge from which only boaters will benefit; that a petitioner requesting approval of a condominium development is required to prove that the environment will not be injured and the community will benefit from the project; that engineering statistics or answers to wind resistance issues have not been provided to the city; that environmental impact studies have not been provided; that a developer wanting to build a high-rise office building in Chicago or New York must prove people will not be swept off the sidewalk; that $30 million should not be expended to construct a structure which will benefit virtually no one; that being stuck on the existing bridge for three to five minutes is a charming experience, far different from sitting in traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike; that the expenditure of $30 million will not serve a compelling, useful, significant need; that $30 million could be saved; that the only inconvenience to the public is a three to five minute wait for the drawbridge to close. Marcelle Wolf, 445 McKinley Drive (34236), representing Lido Key Residents Association, stated that she has been involved with the bridge design process since 1992 and represented the Lido Key Residents Association as a member on the Ringling Bridge Aesthetic Task Force; that the Association unanimously supported a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the existing bridge is ugly underneath and obstructs views; that the Classic, Contemporary is a beautiful bridge which will allow panoramic views between spans; that she took a boat trip to Mobile, Alabama, and observed that all bridges built recently were designed with a fixed span; that low- span bridges are no longer built. Ms. Wolf continued that spending $200,000 unnecessarily is financially irresponsible; that the absence of a drawbridge on John Ringling Causeway will expedite the movement of the increased traffic volume expected from additional development and population growth; that the City must come to a decision; that the MPO's decision will not be reversed; that the Commission should approve the Classic, Contemporary bridge resulting from the design charette and allow the construction of a bridge replacement to move forward. Todd Yeomans, P.O. Box 1701 (34230), representing the AIA, stated that he is an associate member of the AIA and participated in the previous AIA and recent Figg Engineers, Inc., design charettes; that the recent design charette which produced a majority consensus from 72 residents was not the appropriate method of determining a bridge design and produced no original or inspired designs; that the Classic, Contemporary design is neither beautiful nor appropriate and completely out of scale with the area; that the proposed bridge design is the wrong structure in the wrong location. Mr. Yeomans continued that a competition sponsored by the City may be the best way to produce a successful bridge design; that the Commission, has a responsibility to provide leadership for the community; that the Commission is urged to take action necessary to stop construction of a high-level, 65-foot bridge, to investigate proper methods of design and determine an appropriate location at which to construct a new bridge. Dick Angelotti, 228 Seagull Lane (34236), stated that he has been involved in the bridge design process since January 1992 when the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Task Team was assembled; that in September 1993, the Task Team recommended a 21-foot-high replacement drawbridge; that in October 1993, four of the current Commissioners voted to reject the 65-foot-high bridge replacement and requested the FDOT to either repair or replace the existing bridge with a 21- or 28-foot-high drawbridge; that the Task Team and City recommendations were presented to the MPO; that in November 1993, buses of Longboat Key residents who were opposed to a drawbridge for security reasons were transported to a public hearing before the MPO; that the MPO voted in favor of a BOOK 41 Page 14574 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14575 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. high-level, 65-foot replacement bridge; that in April 1994, the Ringling Bridge Aesthetic Task Force, on which he served as a member, was created; that the FDOT encouraged the City to design a bridge empathetic with Sarasota's architecture and informed the Task Force that cost was not an issue; that the MPO subsequently voted against the gothic design recommended by the Task Force. Mr. Angelotti continued that in October 1995, participants of the bridge design charette sponsored by the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA chose the Kuykendall Bridge Design; that in January 1996, the Task Force also chose the Kuykendall Bridge Design which was approved by the Commission in February 1996, but rejected by the FDOT in March 1996. Mr. Angelotti further stated that the design charette held in January and March 1997 produced the Classic, Contemporary high-level, 65-foot bridge; that Mr. Figg's charette did not explore all phases of the bridge as he has claimed; that the charette team was not allowed to choose either the height of the bridge, nor the height of the structure at the landing points on Golden Gate Point and Bird Keyi that Mr. Figg is a talented architect capable of designing a 21-, 28- or 33-foot-high drawbrdige. Mr. Angelotti stated further that of 28 speakers this evening, he is the 21st speaker who has opposed a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that two of the Commission's defining principles for Sarasota 2001 are: 1) to be a City of urban amenities with small town living and feeling, 2) to be an attractive, clean and aesthetically pleasing City; that the Commission is requested to prevent the FDOT and the MPO from destroying Sarasota's defining principles; that a recent editorial in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune encouraged the community to collaborate and stop construction of the proposed bridge; that Sarasota Magazine published an editorial last week reaffirming that the proposed bridge is inappropriate; that the Commission which voted unanimously in 1993 to reject a high-level, 65-foot bridge is asked to be true to their conscience and stand firm on that position; that the mandate of City residents should be delivered to the MPO; that the MPO should be informed that the Classic, Contemporary bridge design will not be approved and be requested to place the bridge issue on the agenda of their May 19, 1997, meeting. Dr. Lawrence Ludwig, 122 Seagull Lane (34236), stated that most of the residents on Longboat, Lido, St. Armands, and Bird Keys are retirees; that the majority of residents on the Keys moved to Sarasota to pursue a leisurely lifestyle absent time constraints; that the retirees can still reach the beauty parlor or the dentist on time by planning for travel time. Eunice. Connors, 111 North Gulf Stream Avenue, #9D, (34236) representing One Watergate and Bay Front Condominium Association, was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Tramm Hudson, 1549 Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that he supports the 1993 Commission vote against a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the Commission is requested to accept the report of the charette team, pass a resolution reconfirming the City's opposition to a. high bridge, and authorize Commissioner Patterson and Commissioner Merrill to represent the City's wishes and to lobby the. MPO to formally readdress the bridge issue; that the community will support the Commission's request for a low-span bridge before the MPO. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission could consider contacting Governor Chiles and FDOT Secretary Watts in Tallahassee if all else fails. Mr. Hudson stated that a blue-ribbon panel of citizens could be assembled to accompany the Commission to lobby the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation; that the Commission's hard work is appreciated. Michael Tuschkowski, 226 Golden Gate Point (34236), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. John Cookerly, 1944 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way (34236), stated that. he represents many people unable to attend this meeting, including his six children; that people of his generation and older generations in all areas of citizenship and leadership in government and in private institutions have been - extremely irresponsible to the children in the community who cannot speak for themselves; that future generations will be obligated to meet the financial burden of decisions made at this time; that a $30 million bridge should be built only if necessaryi that the City should pursue more cost-effective alternatives to restore the existing bridge; that the economic climate has changed dramatically since 1993; that decisions made in 1993 by State or local governments should be reconsidered due to changing economic conditions; that construction of a $30 million bridge is neither necessary nor appropriate. Donald Blivas, 143 Beach Road (34242), representing the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture (The Foundation), stated that the Commission in 1993 voted against a high-level, 65-foot bridge and in favor of a bascule bridge; that the John Ringling Causeway Bridge is a State bridge on a State highway; that the FDOT and the MPO are trying to design the finest bridge available for Sarasota; that a bridge has three major functions: to move traffic, to move pedestrians, and to operate safely and economically; that repair and maintenance of a bascule bridge will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more per year than a fixed-span bridge. BOOK 41 Page 14576 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14577 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Blivas continued that people have recommended the Commission stop construction of the proposed bridge; however, the City has no alternative than to select a bridge design; that the FDOT has determined the existing bridge is totally functionally obsolete and requires replacement; that choosing between a high-level, 65-foot bridge or a 45-foot bascule bridge has been presented as an option; that he is an architect and a member of the AIA; that discerning any difference between a 45-foot bascule bridge and a high-level, 65-foot bridge is impossible when standing on the shore; that promoting the demise of the 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge to be replaced by a 45-foot bascule bridge is ludicrous; that State legislatures are releasing funds only for construction of fixed-span bridges; that Transportation Departments throughout the U.S. are receiving funding to build bascule bridges only in areas which are physically constrained. Mr. Blivas further stated that the City can petition the MPO to reverse their decision; however, the MPO voted against a bascule bridge in 1993 due to the increase in population growth and the volume of vehicular and marine traffic; that far more boats and vehicles exist today, four years later; that if the City intends to request the MPO to reverse their decision approving a high-level, 65-foot, fixed-span bridge and, instead, approve construction of a 45-foot bascule bridge, the City will be requesting approval of a style of bridge no longer built in America and for which no specific design is available for presentation to the MPO; that for the past four years, the City has assembled task forces including the AIA and the Ringling Bridge Aesthetic Task Force whose members were instructed to develop a design for a bridge 65 feet high and approximately 100 feet wide; that the Commission directed The Foundation to bring in Figg Engineers, Inc., to design a 65-foot- high, 100-foot-wide bridge; and asked if the Commission is now saying that they have changed their minds? Tollyn Twitchell, 1445 Flower Drive (34239), stated that the life span of the proposed bridge is estimated at 50 years; that Mr. Figg has attempted to minimize the impact of a high-level, 65-foot bridge; however, the length over the Bay is too short for a high-bridge and the location inappropriate; that in 1992, the FDOT released a cost analysis which included figures buried in the statistical report showing that repairing the existing bridge was more economical than building a new one; that the FDOT revised those figures two years later following the discovery by the local community of the enormous amount of money which would be saved; that the FDOT revised those figures two years later after the local community had discovered the statistical evidence proving just how much money would be saved; that the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge will last 20 years if repaired; that two years' worth of interest payments on the proposed $30 million bridge would finance the cost of repairs on the existing bridge. Mr. Twitchell continued that the FDOT is proposing construction of a new bridge in the wrong location; that the FDOT informed the City in 1992 that Sarasota was next in line for funding set aside for bridge construction and convinced the MPO and many others including himself initially of the necessity for a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that he became aware that supporting the high-level bridge was a mistake during the first phase in 1992; that the only place at which a bridge could be located with the alternatives provided by the FDOT was in its present, inappropriate location; that the existing bridge was located in its current location to provide an inexpensive way for John Ringling to reach his properties on St. Armands Key. Mr. Twitchell further stated that a charette was conducted at the MPO level to review the feasibility of a third bridge for Longboat Key; that no good location exists for a third bridge; that the same problem exists with the bridge on the southern end of Anna Maria Island which lands at a "T" intersection and lacks sufficient space; that the City will have 20 years to argue about where to locate a new bridge if the proposal to build a new bridge is terminated and the existing bridge repaired. Mr. Twitchell distributed a drawing showing placement of a proposed bridge to Longboat Key; and stated that a bridge beginning at 12th Street and : landing on the south end of Longboat Key would cross over U.S. 41 and enable easy access to U.S. 301 and Interstate 75; that traffic will still be required to maneuver through Golden Gate Point and St. Armands Circle if a bridge is built in the location of the existing structure; that Longboat Key would benefit by having two efficient bridges to handle traffic volume; that building a bridge on the south end of Anna Maria could offer additional solutions. Mary Quillin, President, Growth Restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO) 2304 Ringling Boulevard, #213 (34237), stated that her family moved to Sarasota in 1956; that : a member of GEO contacted the FDOT three years ago and was told the existing bridge could be repaired; that Mr. Twiddy is a public employee; that reports from FDOT may not be accurate; that the FDOT insists the bridge is archaic and requires replacement; that many functioning bridges in Europe are much older than the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that Europeans repair all the gears of centuries-old bascule bridges; that parts can be manufactured. Ms. Quillin continued that the FDOT admits the existing bridge could be repaired to last another 30 years for a fraction of the funds required for the new bridge; that the Commissioners were elected by the citizens; that the public is depending upon Commissioner Patterson and Commissioner Merrill, the City's two representatives on the MPO, to lobby the other MPO members to place the bridge issue on the MPO agenda; that the public must attend the MPO meeting to support the Commission; that in Sarasota, as in BOOK 41 Page 14578 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14579 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. another harbor in which an American legacy was created, a tea party should be thrown for the MPO. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve and notify FDOT of selection of the Classic Contemporary bridge concept and the "no theme" pedestrian railing as developed by the charette process and designed by Figg Engineers, Inc. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to: 1) tentatively accept the Classic Contemporary bridge design restating the original unanimous Commission opposition to a high-level, 65-foot bridge, 2) request Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to present the City's statement to the MPO and request reconsideration of their vote, 3) accept the offer by David Twiddy, District One Secretary, FDOT, to work with the community, and 4) approach Ben G. Watts, Secretary of Transportation, FDOT, and Lawton Chiles, Governor, to assist Sarasota in finding an appropriate solution. Commissioner Patterson requested clarification of "tentatively accept the design. 1 Mayor Cardamone stated that the issue had been discussed with the city Attorney previous to this meeting. City Attorney Taylor stated that the contract between the City, FDOT, and Figg Engineers, Inc., was based on achieving an aesthetic design concept for a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the City is required by the terms of the contract to reimburse the FDOT for all payments made to the City by the FDOT, not to exceed $182,700, if the City fails to choose an aesthetic design concept; that the contract does not require the Commission to approve the proposed bridge design at this meeting nor prohibit the Commission from choosing an alternative design; that the contract simply indicates that the design charette process was instituted for the purpose of choosing an aesthetic design concept for a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the City is required to select a design at the 65-foot height but is not obligated to accept the proposed design as the only alternative; that the Commission is attempting to postpone a final decision; that he recommends the Commission take formal action; that "tentative" acceptance is probably preferable to outright rejection. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion is interpreted as specifically accepting the proposed design for a high-level, 65- foot bridge but also indicating that a high-level bridge is not acceptable; and asked if her interpretation of the motion is accurate? City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed bridge design, upon Commission approval, will be the only design the City can use if a high-level, 65-foot. bridge is constructed; however, the motion includes broader direction than just tentative acceptance of a bridge design; that the motion includes reiterating the Commission's historical, unanimous objection to the high-level, 65-foot bridge and directs Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to request the MPO to reverse their decision. Commissioner Cardamone stated that included in the motion is acceptance of Mr. Twiddy's offer to work with the community and, in the event the MPO declines to reverse their decision, an appeal to the Secretary of the FDOT and the Governor. City Attorney Taylor stated that nothing in the contract between the City, FDOT, and Figg Engineers, Inc., requires the decision to be made at this meeting; that the motion may be simplified by omitting any mention of the bridge design and, instead, formalizing the Commission's intention to request reconsideration of the MPO vote on May 19, 1997. Commissioner Merrill stated that he and Commissioner Patterson will not be taken seriously at the MPO if the Commission tentatively accepts the design and simultaneously reiterates their historical, unanimous opposition to a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the City will stand a chance of winning the tough battle expected only if the public appears in masses before the MPO; that he and Commissioner Patterson have previously argued strongly against the high-level, 65-foot bridge to the MPO members. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City has argued against the high-level, 65-foot bridge for years. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission should request the MPO to reconsider the bridge issue and postpone action on the proposed bridge design until the MPO reaches a decision regarding the City's request. Commissioner Merrill continued that one of . this evening's speakers referenced the FDOT's contention that the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge is totally functionally obsolete; that the FDOT can classify any bridge without a breakdown lane as functionally obsolete; that the existing bridge is not structurally obsolete; that $3 million in repairs will produce a perfectly good bridge with a 30-year life span; that the speaker also referenced that no difference can be discerned between a 45-foot-high bascule bridge and a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that 20 feet in height would produce a dramatic change specifically in the length of the structure. Commissioner Merrill further stated that some members of the public are of the opinion that decreasing the width of the bridge BOOK 41 Page 14580 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14581 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. by seven feet will provide a major effect on the visual impact; that an increase of 20 feet in height is not viewed as having a major impact but a decrease of seven feet in width will; that the primary problem with the proposed bridge is the 65-foot height from the water surface to the bottom of the bridge; that those who support construction of a high-level, 65-foot bridge may suggest a reduction in width by narrowing the sidewalks; that the City requested one of the 10-foot-wide breakdown lanes be converted into a 6-foot-wide sidewalk; that parents will not allow children to ride bicycles on a bridge with a 5% grade; that bicyclists moving at 25 to 30 miles per hour (mph) will be coming upon retirees from Sunset Towers who are walking their dogs; that arguments for and against decreasing the width were debated at the recent design charette; that the charette team determined wide sidewalks are necessary to connect the pedestrian access to the mainland and the Keys for the life of the proposed bridge; that the mistake of constructing the proposed bridge will be compounded if proper pedestrian access is not provided; that the issue of sidewalks should not be reintroduced except to lobby for widening the sidewalks further; that strong Commission support will be necessary for him to argue against the high-level, 65- foot bridge at the MPO. Commissioner Cardamone, as maker of the motion, and Vice Mayor Dupree, as seconder, agreed to remove from the motion tentative acceptance of the proposed bridge design. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the new Fort Lauderdale bridge under construction is a bascule bridge, which indicates the FDOT is currently building bascule bridges in the State of Florida; that scale has been addressed in many areas of decision-making including land use and development standards; that the Commission's first defining principle of being a City of urban amenities, small town living and feeling was developed at the first goals workshop at which Commissioner Merrill introduced the concept of human scale; that major roadways traversing the rooftops of residential dwellings and small business districts, e.g., as in St. Petersburg, are out of scale and should not be allowed in Sarasota. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the reference to the proposed bridge as a superhighway across the Bay is accurate; that a high-level, 65-foot bridge will not expedite evacuation; that vehicles could not even reach the bridge during a recent rainstorm; that the FDOT has classified the proposed structure as a replacement bridge with no increased capacity to address population, motor, and marine vehicular growth; that the proposed bridge will not accommodate one more vehicle than the existing bridge. Commissioner Cardamone further stated that she has raised the wind resistance issue many times without receiving an answer from anyone; that during the recent design charette, a gentleman informed her that many people will avoid the proposed bridge on windy days. Commissioner Cardamone stated further that the City Attorney advised any action regarding acceptance or rejection of the Classic Contemporary bridge design could be postponed; therefore, the motion is to: 1) restate the City Commission's original unanimous opposition to the high-level, 65-foot bridge, 2) request Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to present that statement to the MPO and request reconsideration of the MPO vote, 3) accept the offer by District Secretary Twiddy to work with the community, and 4) approach FDOT Secretary Watts and Governor Chiles to find a solution appropriate for Sarasota. Commissioner Patterson stated that the result of the motion will be a $200,000 charge-off to the City, an angry MPO, and no positive accomplishment; that the FDOT will claim the City has welched on the deal if the Commission restates their unanimous opposition to a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the vote regarding the Classic Contemporary bridge design should be postponed by motion until after the issue has been discussed with the MPO. Commissioner Patterson continued that the City should not state an intention to lobby the Governor and the Secretary of FDOT; that the public speakers at this meeting do not necessarily constitute a public mandate against the high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the Bird Key Residents Association is divided equally on both sides of the bridge issue; that Lido Key is 100 percent behind a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the Governor, if petitioned to approve a low-level bridge, will request evidence of community consensusi; that a referendum on the bridge issue which at one time was discussed as an option by the Commission never occurred; that no way exists to prove consensus in the community. Commissioner Patterson further stated that the MPO's perception of public opinion is exactly the opposite of the Commission's; that the MPO should be informed of the Commission's continued opposition to the high-level, 65-foot bridge and counseled that the electorate now realizes the enormity of the proposed structure and wishes to express their feelings to the MPO; that the MPO should have the opportunity, without pressure or threats, to consider reversing the vote taken in 1993. Commissioner Patterson stated further that two of the three Sarasota County Commissioners who serve on the MPO support a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the three Manatee County Commissioners can be expected to follow the vote of the Sarasota County Commission unless Manatee County residents lobby in BOOK 41 Page 14582 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14583 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. opposition to the high-level bridge; that the issue has been argued sO many times that she knows where the votes will fall; that the public must attend the meeting and lobby the MPO if the will of the community is to stop the high-level bridge project. Commissioner Merrill stated that Commissioner Patterson's comments are correct; that the City Commissioners will be the underdogs; that the previous MPO vote approving the high-level, 65-foot bridge was 10 to 4; that although new members are seated on the MPO, the votes may not change; that the most prudent action may be to request that the Chairman of the MPO add the bridge issue to the agenda at the May 19, 1997, MPO meeting; that the MPO will be informed the vote on the aesthetic design concept will be postponed until the community is heard before the MPO; that members of the MPO should not be alienated; that the MPO should be petitioned to place the bridge issue on the agenda to provide an opportunity for public input. Commissioner Merrill continued that the community is divided on the bridge issue; that an appropriate motion would request the MPO to agenda the bridge issue at the May 19, 1997, MPO meeting; that the request for approval of the Classic Contemporary bridge design can be returned to the Commission at the regular Commission meeting following action by the MPO. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the intent of the motion was to determine a course of action; that Mr. Twiddy's offer to work with the community should be taken into consideration; that contacting FDOT's Secretary of Transportation and the Governor will be the logical step if the MPO refuses to reverse its decision and the City wishes to continue opposing a high-level, 65-foot bridge. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to substitute for the main motion a motion to postpone action on the Classic Contemporary bridge design and to direct Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to request the MPO to schedule the bridge issue on the next MPO agenda. Commissioner Patterson continued that Mr. Twiddy freely offered to be flexible to the audience at Tiger Bay Club; however, he informed her after the meeting that the flexibility was limited to reducing the width of the sidewalks; that the Sunshine Skyway Bridge does not have six feet between the roadway and the concrete barrier and lacks 10 feet of breakdown lanes on the sides, both which are required for the proposed bridge in Sarasota; that Mr. Twiddy stated that the Sunshine Skyway is obsolete and no longer meets FDOT's standards. Commissioner Patterson continued that the City will not prevail if a large showing of residents do not appear before the MPO at the May 19, 1997, meeting; that in 1993, City residents opposed to a high-level, 65-foot bridge appeared at the regular Commission meeting prior to and not at the MPO meeting at which the deciding vote was taken to approve a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that residents in favor of the high-level, 65-foot bridge who attended the MPO meeting included the Longboat Key Commissioners and their city manager; that the entire City Commission should appear at the May 19, 1997, MPO meeting to support Commissioner Merrill and her. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a scheduling conflict exists; that the attorney arguing the case against the City for the Sarasota Mobile Home Park intends to call all five City Commissioners to testify on Monday morning, May,, 19, 1997; that a joint workshop between the City/County Commissions is scheduled at 1 p.m. followed by the regular City Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m.; that all five City Commissioners will be required at the trial to present testimony. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office will resolve the scheduling conflict; that all five Commissioners cannot be required to provide testimony at the same time; that the Sarasota Mobile Home Park case simply reconvenes on May 19, 1997; that all witness are subpoenaed for the first day of trial but will present testimony over a period of time; that the City Attorney's Office will take the necessary steps to preserve the Commission's options. Mayor Pillot restated the substitute motion as to postpone action on the Classic Contemporary bridge design and to direct Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to request the MPO to schedule the bridge issue on the next MPO agenda. Commissioner Patterson stated that the issue will not be scheduled on the MPO agenda of May 19, 1997; however, residents may address the MPO for two minutes each during the citizens' input portion of that meeting; that following citizens' input, she and Commissioner Merrill will request the bridge issue be placed on the agenda of the next meeting to enable the, MPO to hear the opposition to the high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the matter becomes moot if the MPO refuses to place the bridge issue on the agenda. Commissioner Cardamone asked the subsequent action which will be taken if the substitute motion passes this evening? Commissioner Patterson stated that further action will be determined based on the outcome of the next MPO meeting. Commissioner Merrill stated that County Commissioner David Mills, Chairman of the MPO, can elect to place the bridge issue on the MPO agenda for the May 19, 1997, if a sufficient number of citizens contact him; that he and Commissioner Patterson will BOOK 41 Page 14584 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14585 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. request a vote of the MPO to place the bridge issue on the MPO agenda for the June 1997 meeting if Commissioner Mills refuses to agenda the item on May 19, 1997. Commissioner Cardamone asked what will occur if the MPO votes against placing the bridge issue on the agenda? Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission will readdress the Classic Contemporary bridge design if the MPO votes against placing the bridge issue on agenda for discussion. Commissioner Cardamone stated that included in the original motion was direction to contact the Secretary of the FDOT and the Governor; that a course of action should be planned in the event the MPO refuses to reverse their decision. Commissioner Merrill stated that the substitute motion is preferred. Mayor Pillot stated that residents in favor of the high-level, 65-foot bridge will also contact Commissioner Mills and/or the MPO members; that little public input was received this evening from proponents of the high-level bridge who may feel the issue has already been finalized; that community consensus does not exist; that the public input presented tonight in opposition to the high-level, 65-foot bridge may not represent the sentiments of the majority; that responses received to the advertisement placed in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune by Mr. Waters shows a significant majority in favor of the high-level, 65-foot bridge. Mayor Pillot continued that many prominent, long-time residents are found on both sides of the bridge issue; that little reason exists to believe the MPO will reverse its decision or even agenda discussion of the bridge issue; that a vote to postpone a decision is politically convenient; that action and controversy will be delayed with little likelihood of a reversal in the MPO's position; the MPO members have made political commitments in favor of a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that the high-level, 65- foot bridge will probably be built regardless of any Commission action taken this evening. Mayor Pillot further stated that he was elected with a responsibility to make decisions; that inferences have been made to the Commission's abrogating responsibility unless a vote to deny the Classic Contemporary design is cast; that his responsibility is not to agree with everyone but to vote his conscience. Mayor Pillot stated further that on August 19, 1996, the Commission voted 4 to 0 to accept the following six items, none of which include any reference to size or height: 1. The Joint Project Agreement between the FDOT and the City which stipulates the FDOT agrees to pay $182,700 of the $192,000 cost of the professional services of Figg Engineers, Inc. 2. Adoption of Resolution No. 96R-918 allowing the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Joint Project Agreement. 3. Appropriation of $192,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to fund the hiring of Figg Engineers, Inc. 4. Agreement for Consultant Services between Figg Engineers, Inc., and the City. 5. Inclusion of language in the contract to specify the Commission's authority to make the final decision regarding the aesthetic design concept. 6. Confirmation by Staff that the City's decision on the aesthetic design concept will not be overridden by the MPO. Mayor Pillot stated that the height of the bridge was not considered in the motion referenced; that August 19, 1996, would have been the appropriate time to reject a high-level, 65-foot bridge; that he will not vote for the motion on the floor and supports moving forward with the City Manager's recommendation to select the Classic Contemporary bridge design. Commissioner Patterson stated that she agrees with much of what Mayor Pillot has stated; that she may not continue to fight against the high-level, 65-foot bridge if the MPO rejects placing the bridge issue on the agenda or places the issue on the agenda and votes once again in favor of a high-level, 65-foot bridge; however, the Commission has been requested by the public to make one final attempt at reversing the MPO's decision; that the request should be honored. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission has been asked by most of the public speakers tonight to make one last attempt to change the MPO vote; however, the majority of residents who contacted him previously and who are in favor of building the proposed bridge did not address the Commission this evening; Vice Mayor Dupree stated that a number of residents avoid crossing the Sunshine Skyway because of the extensive height above the water surface; that many City residents are concerned about crossing a high-level, 65-foot bridge. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restate the substitute motion. BOOK 41 Page 14586 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 41 Page 14587 05/05/97 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the substitute motion as to postpone action on the Classic Contemporary bridge design and to direct Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to request the MPO to schedule the bridge issue on the next MPO agenda. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a vote to replace the main motion with the substitute motion is necessary before the Commission can vote on the substitute motion. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to replace the original motion with the substitute motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, no; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Commissioner Merrill stated that he and Commissioner Patterson will be undermined before the MPO if the Commission is divided with a 3 to 2 vote. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is recording her position as opposed to replacing the original motion with the substitute motion; that a subsequent vote will be cast in favor or against the content of the substitute motion. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as to: 1) postpone action on the Classic Contemporary bridge design and 2) direct Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to request the MPO to schedule the bridge issue on the next MPO agenda. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion should include a third item: to forward a letter to Chairman Mills requesting placement of the bridge issue on the May 19, 1997, MPO agenda. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the motion shall include the writing of a letter to MPO Chairman Mills. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to: 1) postpone action on the Classic Contemporary bridge design, 2) forward a letter to Chairman Mills requesting placement of the bridge issue on the May 19, 1997, MPO agenda, 3) direct Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to request the MPO to schedule the bridge issue on the next MPO agenda, if Chairman Mills does not respond favorably to the City's request. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. 10. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #6 (0431) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the regular meeting of May 5, 1997, at 1:56 a.m. SCTA ohe GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: 9 I I 3ly E Robustoon BILLY, E. dKOBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 41 Page 14588 05/05/97 6:00 P.M.