MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2003, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT : Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Mary J. Quillin, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:30 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED CD 2:30 through 2:31 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IV-A-11, Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed revised Ordinance No. 03-4457, amending Chapter 24, Article II, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of the City of Sarasota, amending Section 24-34(c), City Code, and pertaining to distribution of available funds to certain retired or terminated firefighters or their surviving spouse; and amending Section 24-45, City Code, pertaining to the applicability of amendments to Chapter 24; etc., per the request of City Manager McNees. B. Add under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IV-A-12, Approval Re: Contract to allow temporary access to the City owned Lemon Avenue parking lot for the purpose of conducting a subsurface soils geotechnical investigation, per the request of Planning and Development Director Robinson. C. Move Unfinished Business (Items remaining from afternoon session), Item No. XIII-1, Discussion Re: 100th year Sarasota Anniversary logo and time capsule, to BOOK 53 Page 24872 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24873 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Unfinished Business, Item No. VI-1, per the request of City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Servian, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:31 There was no one signed up to speak. 3. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2003 = APPROVED AS CORRECTED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) CD 2:32 through 2:33 Mayor Mason asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Commissioner Servian stated that the name of the conterence indicated under Agenda Item VI, Remarks of Commissioners, as the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) conterence should be changed to the Florida Neighborhoods Conference to read as follows: Commissioner Servian stated that the Florida Neighborhood Association conference was recently attended in Clearwater, Florida; Mayor Mason asked if the Commission had any other changes to the minutes? Mayor Mason stated that hearing no other changes, the minutes of the February 18, 2003, Regular Commission meeting are approved as corrected by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS RE: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2003 RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM III-1) CD 2:33 through 2:40 Kenneth Shelin, Chair of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), and Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, came before the Commission. Mr. Shelin presented the following item from the February 12, 2003, Regular PBLP meeting: Rules of Procedure: Order of Presentations Mr. Shelin stated that the PBLP discussed the order of the presentations for quasi-judicial matters and the desire to avoid redundancy by both the Applicant and Staff; that the PBLP reached a consensus to leave the order of presentations unchanged with the Applicant presenting first and instruct Staff to minimize redundancy based on the following reasons: Staff can adjust their presentation to assure completeness and avoid redundancy; - The burden of proof to make the case is the Applicant's, not the City's; The first presenter is the perceived maker of the case which is an uncomfortable role if the case is controversial; If Staff presents first, Staff will rebut first and therefore the Applicant will rebut last; - Being the last to present in controversial cases has some value. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that expediting the PBLP hearings was the motivation for personally indicating a re-evaluation of the order of presentations may be beneficial; that she is in agreement with the PBLP's desire to maintain the current order of presentations based upon the rationale provided by the PBLP. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to receive the report of the February 12, 2003, meeting of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Commissioner Servian stated that at a previous meeting, the PBLP discussed proposed changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Code, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), including the deletion of the requirement BOOK 53 Page 24874 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24875 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. to develop a Barrier Island Chapter for the City's Comprehensive Plan and asked the reason the PBLP decided not to recommend approval to delete the requirement to develop a Barrier Islands Chapter as recommended by Staff? Mr. Shelin stated that Staff recommended the requirement to develop three new Chapters for the City's Comprehensive Plan be deleted; that the Chapters are Public Safety, Barrier Islands and Design Standards; that testimony objecting to the removal of the requirement to develop the Barrier Islands Chapter was received at the January 22, 2003, Regular PBLP meeting; that the PBLP voted unanimously to retain the requirement to develop all three Chapters; that the problems associated with the barrier islands are transportation, stormwater drainage, and development; that the problems on the barrier islands are unique and require special attention which a specific chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan would insure; that design standards are an issue; that the City traditionally does not encourage design standards; that design standards should be considered and can hopefully prevent mediocre architecture and encourage quality architecture if the requirement to develop the Design Standards Chapter is retained; that homogenous architecture is not desired; that rather, creative architecture is the goal. Commissioner Servian referred to the minutes of the February 12, 2003, Regular PBLP meeting indicating Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 02-ZTA-04 concerning the overnight parking of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts had been considered; and asked the outcome of the deliberations concerning commercial vehicle parking? Mr. Shelin stated that the public hearing concerning commercial parking lasted two hours; that concerns were raised pertaining to the enforceability of various provisions of the amendment; that at its February 12, 2003, Regular meeting, the PBLP voted unanimously to find Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 02- ZTA-04 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and satisfies the Standards for Review in Section IV-1206, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), and to recommend Commission approval subject to the following changes: Remove all mention of tarps from the proposed Ordinance; Establish a height limitation of 6 1/2 feet on all vehicles; - Establish a height limitation of 6 1/2 feet on all trailers; and Establish no limitation as to the size of signage on a buffered vehicle provided such signage is not visible. Mr. Shelin continued that an interesting comment was made by the Executive Director of the GulfCoast Builder's Exchange who indicated the amendment could have a positive effect on certain portions of the City but may have a negative effect Citywide; that the suggestion was a Citywide regulation may not be appropriate. Commissioner Quillin stated that the same suggestion was previously personally made. City Manager McNees stated that the previous discussion regarding the order of presentations was of interest to the Commission as improvements to presentations to the PBLP could also be applied to presentations to the Commission; that an effort will be made to eliminate redundancy and apply the recommendation of the PBLP concerning presentations to the Commission. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the assumption was the recommendation of the PBLP would be implemented for presentations to the Commission. City Manager McNees stated that the assumption is verified. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7,8,9, AND 10 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A) CD 2:40 through 2:41 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Funding Agreement between Manatee County and the City of Sarasota on behalf of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre- Annexation Agreement for Catherine Moran, Trustee of Morley Family Trust for the purpose of connecting to BOOK 53 Page 24876 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24877 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. the City's potable water system for a developed site located at 2927 Arlington Street. 3. Approval Re: Housing Program Policy Guidelines for Water/Sewer Connection. 4. Approval Re: Sale of two City properties acquired by the Office of Housing and Community Development in a foreclosure sale, located at 2104 Banneker Way, Sarasota, Florida and 7675 Price Blvd., North Port, Florida, to the Laurel Civic Association; and to authorize the City Manager, or designee to sign all documents necessary to sell these properties to the Laurel Civic Association. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Kuxhausen Construction, Inc., for the Citywide Sewer Pipe Replacement (Annual Contract) Bid #02-18M. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Neighborhood Development Department to use $7,500 from the Neighborhood Grant Program to fund scholarships to the Neighborhoods U.S.A. (NUSA) 2003 conference in Chattanooga, Tennessee. 7. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Jon F. Swift, Inc., (Bid #03-11M) for the completion of the Allen Play Area at Island Park. 8. Approval Re: Final report from Sarasota Court Watch for their grant awarded during fiscal year (FY) 2001/02. 9. Approval Re: Final report from The Downtown Association of Sarasota for grant funds awarded from FY 1999/00 through FY 2001/02. 10. Approval Re: Final report from the Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team for their grant awarded during FY 2001/02. 11. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed revised Ordinance No. 03-4457, amending Chapter 24, Article II, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of the City of Sarasota, amending Section 24-34 (c) and pertaining to distribution of available funds to certain retired or terminated firefighters or their surviving spouse; and amending Section 24-45 pertaining to the applicability of amendments to Chapter 24; etc. 12. Approval Re: Contract to allow temporary access to the City owned Lemon Avenue parking Lot for the purpose of conducting a subsurface soils geotechnical investigation. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian I it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 through 12, inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO. 1 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4416) - REMOVED AND CONSIDERED UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS AT THE EVENING SESSION AS AGENDA ITEM NO. XII-1; ITEM NO. 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4422) - ADOPTED ; ITEM NO. 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4440) = ADOPTED ; AND ITEM NO. 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 03- 4438) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 2:41 through 2:45 Commissioner Martin requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1, will be considered under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item No. VI-2. City Attorney Taylor stated that Item No. 1 is being removed for practical considerations; that the permitting procedures for the sound regulations being considered in Item No. 1 should be consistent with the park permitting procedures included in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 which is the subject of the public hearing as Agenda Item X-A-3. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that therefore Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1, will be considered under Unfinished Business at the evening session as Agenda Item No. XII-1. 2. Adoption Re: : Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4422, amending the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); to provide for the repeal of various definitions pertaining to sound in Article II, BOOK 53 Page 24878 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24879 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Section II-201, Detinitions and Rules of Construction; to repeal Article VII., Division 10, Section 1002 pertaining to noise; providing for the severability of parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) (Application No. 03-ZTA-01, Applicant City of Sarasota 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440, amending the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, in general, by the addition thereto of a new Section 2-5, Administrative Approval of Contracts, setting forth the contractual matters which shall be exempt from the Charter requirement of City Commission approval and specifying the policies to be followed to approve and execute such contracts; providing for the severability of parts hereof are declared invalid; etc., (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4438, to rezone real property located on the east side of the South Tamiami Trail, now part of the Southside Baptist Church and having a street address of 3233 South Tamiami Trail, from the Multiple Family Residential 2 (RMF-2) Zone District to the Office, Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District, as more particularly set forth herein; providing for conditions of the rezoning; providing for the severability of parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) (Application Nos. 02-RE-19, 02-SP-55, and 02-OSP-01, Applicant Brenda L. Patten, Esquire, as agent representing Rodney Dessberg, as contract vendee) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proposed Ordinance Nos. 03-4422, 03-4440, and 03-4438 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 2 through 4, inclusive. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. 7. BOARD APPOINTMENT RE : CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTED ROBERT BRACHLE (AGENDA ITEM V-1) CD 2:43 through 2:45 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a vacancy exists on the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board due to the removal of a Board Member for attendance reasons; that two applications for the vacancy have been received. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to appoint Robert Brachle to the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board. Commissioner Quillin stated that Mr. Brachle is very active in the community and previously served on the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board; that Mr. Brachle will bring a wealth of information to the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board. Mayor Mason called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Mason stated that Mr. Brachle has excellent qualifications and will serve the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board well. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : 100th YEAR SARASOTA ANNIVERSARY LOGO AND TIME CAPSULE FOR POSSIBLE PLACEMENT IN THE CITY OF SARASOTA FEDERAL BUILDING = APPROVED THE INSTALLATION OF THE CITY SEAL IN THE FLOOR OF THE LOBBY AREA OF THE FEDERAL BUILDING; REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION AND A RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING IF THE CITY SEAL EMBEDDED IN THE TERRAZZO FLOOR OF THE FEDERAL BUILDING WILL MEET THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT ; REQUESTED THE CELEBRATE SARASOTA COMMITTEE CONSIDER FUNDING A PORTION OF THE INSTALLATION COST AND REFERRED THE POSSIBLE PLACEMENT OF A TIME CAPSULE BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE CELEBRATE SARASOTA COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND TO BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 2:43 through 3:21 Nancy Carolan, Director of General Services, and Peter Horstman, Architect, Barger and Dean Architects, Inc., (Barger and Dean) came before the Commission. BOOK 53 Page 24880 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24881 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Ms. Carolan stated that Barger and Dean is the architect responsible for the Federal Building restoration and renovation project; that Mr. Horstman will discuss the possibility of locating the 100th Year Sarasota Anniversary Logo and the placement of a time capsule in the Federal Building. Mr. Horstman referred to an architectural diagram of the Federal Building and the City Seal with the 100th Year Sarasota Anniversary Logo (logo) included in the Agenda backup material and displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the City Seal with the logo was reviewed with the terrazzo tile installer for placement in the Federal Building entrance lobby floor; that the installer is experienced with similar installations in numerous public buildings and universities across the State; that the recommendation is to place a four color logo with a diameter of eight feet or a five color logo with a diameter of ten feet on either the north/south axis of the center of the main entry or in the floor of the open areas to the north or east of the reception desk; that the cost to install the logo is approximately $13,250; that the form for the logo will be laser cut using a computer graphic; that hand formed and welded zinc strips will be attached; that the form will be shipped to the project site and anchored to the floor; that color chips will be hand mixed and inserted in the five different color keyed areas of the pattern; that the following four possible locations for the logo are indicated in the diagram and are shown in relationship to other items planned for the entrance lobby: - near the east wall of the lobby; - near the north wall of the lobby; center of the lobby; and in front of reception desk in the lobby. Mr. Horstman continued that the ideal space for the logo would have been in the floor of the lobby entrance on the south side of the building; however, an historic stone floor is already in place; that the historic stone floor and the existing sunburst pattern embedded in the location should not be disturbed. Mr. Horstman further stated that placement of a time capsule is also a consideration; that the Federal Building is constructed with a raised floor over a crawl space underneath the building; that a dead space exists underneath the first landing of the ornamental staircase which leads to the second floor; that the dead space is fully enclosed and is not accessible; that the dead space has been constructed sO a panel can be cut into the wall from the storage room under the lobby staircase; that a four hour fire rated safe for the time capsule could be installed in the dead spacei that the time capsule will only be accessible by cutting through the wall of the storage under the staircase; that the recommended safe is a 3 foot by 3 foot by 3 foot box at an estimated cost of $2,500. Ms. Carolan stated that the costs to fund the City seal and the time capsule are not in the Federal Building budget; that possible funding sources to consider are: 1) the Celebrate Sarasota Committee budget, or 2) the Public Art Fund which received a $15,026 contribution from the Federal Building project to fulfill the public art requirement of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that direction from the Commission is requested. Commissioner Servian asked if the 3 foot by 3 foot by 3 foot box is the size of the safe or the item which is housing the memorabilia being placed inside? Mr. Horstman stated that the safe would house the memorabilia; that the suggestion is to use a safe as the time capsule. Commissioner Servian asked if the recommended size for the safe is necessary? Mr. Horstman stated that the recommended size is considered small. Commissioner Servian stated that the recommended size for the safe seems too large for a time capsule; that the thought was a time capsule was more the size of an urn. Mr. Horstman stated that placing the original set of construction documents for the Federal Building into the time capsule was considered; that the construction documents are in good condition and would be an interesting addition to the time capsule; that the construction documents would probably be the largest items placed in the time capsule. Commissioner Servian stated that the concept of placing the logo in the terrazzo floor is wonderful; however, something different may be desired 100 years in the future; that commemorating the 100th Year Anniversary as a permanent installation on the floor of BOOK 53 Page 24882 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24883 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. the Federal Building may not be a good idea; that the City Seal without embellishment may be more appropriate. Commissioner Quillin stated that the original intent was to install a reproduction of the City Seal in the Federal Building. Commissioner Servian stated that the 100th Year Anniversary is a point in time but does not represent the City overall. Mr. Horstman asked if the logo is actually the City Seal with the phrase Celebrate Sarasota 100th Anniversary surrounding the perimeter? Commissioner Quillin stated that is correct. Mr. Horstman stated that removing the Celebrate Sarasota 100th Anniversary wording surrounding the perimeter of the seal would reduce construction and installation costs. Commissioner Quillin stated that centering the City Seal in the entrance way would be pleasing and would provide a view of the City Seal from all heavily trafficked areas. Mr. Horstman stated that an eight foot diameter seal will fit anywhere within the entrance lobbyi that the City Seal should not be placed too close to the entrance of the Office of Housing and Community Development. Commissioner Quillin stated that the reception area is to the right of the entrance lobby; that the seal should be placed in the floor of the middle of the lobby entrance from the reception area towards the back wall; that people walking up the stairway will be able to view the City Seal if looking down. Mr. Horstman stated that the three color pattern of the remainder of the floor has been finalized; that the historical accuracy of the scale of the floor has been determined; that further analysis can be performed to determine the best place for the City Seal; that originally, the seal was planned as eight feet in diameter which included the Celebrate Sarasota 100th Anniversary wording surrounding the perimeter of the seal; that the City Seal is actually six feet in diameter which provides for more flexibility; that a decision should be made regarding the Celebrate Sarasota 100th Anniversary wording surrounding the perimeter of the City Seal prior to determining placement on the floor. Commissioner Quillin stated that the preference is to have the City Seal in an area in which an office will never be constructed; that the size of the City Seal should be the decision of the architect. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the installation of the City Seal in the floor of the lobby area of the Federal Building. Commissioner Quillin stated that the belief is the Federal Building will still exist in 100 yearsi that the Federal Building is an appropriate building for the display of the City Seal. Commissioner Servian agreed. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the cost for placing the City Seal on an entry wall rather than the floor could be considerably less and would provide a better view for people entering the Federal Building; and asked if placing the City Seal on an entry wall has been considered? Mr. Horstman stated that an estimate for placing the City Seal on an entry wall was not requested; that a plaque could be mounted on an entry wall in the lobby; that two blank walls exist at the east and west entrance of the lobby. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that an analysis of the cost for placing the City Seal on the wall has not been performed; that placing the City Seal on the wall would be considerably less expensive; that the funding issue is a concern; that considering funding sources from the Celebrate Sarasota Committee budget is a concern since available funding is not significant; that allocating funding from the Public Art Fund without the Public Art Committee providing input is a concern; that the timing problem is understood; that a quick decision is required if the City Seal is being embedded in the floor; however, the costs and location are a concern. Commissioner Martin stated that the issue requires more discussion and thought; that a concern is if the City Seal will be an exact replica of the City's official seal; and asked if the laser cut will provide an exact copy of the City's official seal? BOOK 53 Page 24884 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24885 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Horstman stated that examples of work of other seals were examined; that every minute detail is perfectly displayed in the work. Commissioner Martin asked if the City Seal could be constructed out of terrazzo as planned for the floor installation but alternatively mounted on the wall? Commissioner Servian stated that seals constructed from terrazzo have been seen mounted on walls. Mr. Horstman stated that a wall installation is possible; that a mold for the design will be made and then laser cut; that the mold will then be formed in the factory and sent to the location for installation; that installing the City Seal vertically may be more difficult. Mayor Mason stated that costs are a concern since funding is not available in the budget; that the Administration should provide recommendations for funding. City Manager McNees stated that the Administration recommended requesting funding from the Public Art Fund which received a $15, 026 contribution from the Federal Building project to fulfill the public art requirement; that the Public Art Committee has not recommended any art actually be placed in the building; that considering the Public Art Fund as a source of funding is fair; that the costs of $13,750 originally identified by the architect will now be lower since the Celebrate Sarasota 100th Anniversary lettering is being removed from the perimeter of the City Seal. Mayor Mason stated that the idea for placing the City Seal on an entry wall will provide a better view and is supported. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission is reminded of events which took place at Sarasota High School during renovation; that the items on the lobby walls disappeared; that embedding the City Seal into terrazzo will ensure the City Seal will not be lost or removed regardless of future situations; that the intent of the motion is to embed the City Seal in terrazzo on the floor; that the Public Art Committee should be involved in the process; that the City contributed $15,026 to the Public Art Fund; that the Public Art Committee should come back with a recommendation indicating if placement of the City Seal into the terrazzo floor meets the public art requirement. Mayor Mason asked for clarification of the intent of the motion. Commissioner Quillin stated that the intent is not to include the issue regarding funding in the motion; that the desire is for a second motion to address funding; that a second motion could be to refer the matter to the Public Art Committee to determine if embedding the City Seal in the terrazzo floor meets the public art requirement. City Manager McNees stated that different options should be considered in addition to terrazzo if the Commission prefers a wall installation; that terrazzo is heavy; that a considerably more attractive, functional, and practical option may be available for a wall installation; that an interior second floor catwalk in the Federal Building would provide an attractive view if the City Seal is installed in the terrazzo floor. Commissioner Servian stated that installing the City Seal in the floor is still supported; that seals installed in terrazzo floors have been seen and are stunning; that the concept of viewing the City Seal from the second floor is excellent; that installing the City Seal on an entry wall will not provide a view for other people in the building; that a view will only be provided for visitors entering and leaving the building; that referring the matter to the Public Art Committee for a recommendation is supported. Commissioner Quillin asked if the original motion is being amended? On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to amend the main motion to refer the matter to the Public Art Committee for consideration and a recommendation as to if the City Seal which will embedded in the terrazzo floor of the Federal Building will meet the public art requirement. Commissioner Martin asked if time is available to wait for consideration by the Public Art Committee? Ms. Carolan stated that the Public Art Committee meeting is March 12, 2003; that the Public Art Committee could bring the recommendation back at the March 17, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. BOOK 53 Page 24886 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24887 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that the matter is time sensitive; that the terrazzo floor will be installed soon; that a commitment should be made sooner. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission usually takes the Public Art Committee's recommendation concerning expenditures from the Public Art Fund; that spending funds without the Public Art Committee's recommendation is not a good idea. City Manager McNees stated that the suggestion is to send the matter back to the Public Art Committee for approval; that rather than the Public Art Committee bringing the issue back before the Commission, the matter could move forward if approved. Mr. Horstman stated that a final decision is necessary by the middle of March 2003; that the concern is if the Commission will still desire to move ahead with placing the City Seal in the terrazzo floor if the Public Art Committee does not indicate the City Seal meets the public art requirement; that the City Seal takes a significant amount of time to fabricate and deliver to the job site which is a five to six week process. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Administration has also indicated funding is available in the Celebrate Sarasota Committee budget; that the issue should also be referred to the Celebrate Sarasota Committee which is also meeting on March 12, 2003. Commissioner Quillin stated that both the Celebrate Sarasota Committee and the Public Art Committee could contribute to the costs. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that costs could at least partially be funded by both; that the motion should be amended to include referring the matter back to the Celebrate Sarasota Committee for a recommendation. Mayor Mason stated that a vote is required on the amendment on the floor and called for a vote on the amendment to refer the matter to the Public Art Committee for consideration and a recommendation concerning if the City Seal embedded in the terrazzo floor of the Federal Building will meet the public art requirement. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Mason, yes. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to amend the motion to request the Celebrate Sarasota Committee consider funding a portion of the installation of the City Seal in the floor of the lobby area of the Federal Building. Commissioner Martin stated that a concern is if the Celebrate Sarasota Committee and the Public Art Committee decline funding the installation of the City Seal in the Federal Building. Mayor Mason stated that the matter could be discussed at the March 14, 2003, Special Commission meeting in the event funding is declined. Mr. Horstman stated that an answer must be provided by the March 17, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the amendment. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the main motion as amended to approve the installation of the City Seal in the floor of the lobby area of the Federal Building, to refer the matter to the Public Art Committee for consideration and a recommendation concerning if the City Seal embedded in the terrazzo floor of the Federal Building will meet the public art requirement, and to request the Celebrate Sarasota Committee consider funding a portion of the installation cost. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. City Manager McNees stated that for clarification, the Administration will take a scaled back cost for the project to the Public Art Committee and the Celebrate Sarasota Committee requesting consideration of each Committee to fund half of the cost of the project; that the process will move forward and will not be brought back to the Commission if the two Committees agree; that the matter will be placed on the Agenda of the March 17, 2003, Regular Commission meeting for further discussion if the two Committees decline funding. Commissioners Servian and Quillin agreed. BOOK 53 Page 24888 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24889 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Commission Quillin stated that the concept of a time capsule came from the original Celebrate Sarasota Committee; that a time capsule was planned in 1986 during the Centennial Celebration of the founding of Sarasota but never came to fruition; that the Celebrate Sarasota Committee felt a time capsule was a good concept for the celebration of the City's 100th year anniversary of incorporation; that a compact disc (CD) was suggested for use in the time capsule; however, CDs may no longer exist 100 years in the future; that a time capsule is a significant item; that a plaque should be placed on the exterior of the time capsule; that time is available for more research regarding the time capsule; that the space has been identified for the time capsule in the Federal Building; that more work can be performed; that special paper which does not deteriorate is required if being placed in a time capsule; that the matter concerning the time capsule should be referred back to the Administration to bring back additional information. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Celebrate Sarasota Committee has been discussing a time capsule; that the City's recommendation for a time capsule should also be referred to the Celebrate Sarasota Committee. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to refer the possible placement of a time capsule back to the Administration and the Celebrate Sarasota Committee for further research and to bring back a recommendation. Commissioner Martin asked if a determination has been made for the date to open the time capsule? Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commissioners will no longer be around at the time the time capsule is opened; that the plan is the time capsule will be opened 100 years in the future. Commissioner Martin stated that locking away original documents relating to the Federal Building in a time capsule is not supported; that original documents should remain accessible; that the concept of using a safe as a time capsule is not supported; that a container which is traditionally used for a time capsule is likely available. Mr. Horstman stated that identifying a container for the time capsule is not critical at the present time; that a space for the time capsule has been identified which is more important. Commissioner Quillin stated that a plaque should be included at the location of the time capsule. Commissioner Martin agreed and stated that the Celebrate Sarasota Committee should work with the Historical Society of Sarasota County regarding the time capsule. Commissioner Quillin stated that the original Celebrate Sarasota Committee suggested each City employee should sign a document for placement into the time capsule at the time of installation; that genealogy is interesting. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to refer the possible placement of a time capsule back to the Administration and the Celebrate Sarasota Committee for further research and to bring back a recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Commissioner Martin stated that the architect could determine placement of the City Seal in the floor of the lobby area in the Federal Building. Commissioners Servian and Quillin agreed. Mr. Horstman stated that the Federal Building is accessible and can be visited; that exciting things are happening; that a date of May 15, 2003, has been determined as a substantial completion date. 9. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VII) CD 3:21 through 3:21 There was no one signed up to speak. The Commission recessed at 3:21 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. BOOK 53 Page 24890 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24891 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. 10. PRESENTATION RE: : EMPLOYEE OF MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2003, LEE "1 BUBBA' " SHAWVER, SR., ROOFING INSPECTOR, BUILDING, ZONING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) CD 6:00 through 6:07 Mayor Mason requested that City Manager McNees, Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and Employee of the Month, Lee "Bubba' IT Shawver, Sr., join her and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation. City Manager McNees stated that presenting the award to the Employee of the Month is enjoyed; that the public may not always agree with the decisions made concerning the City; however, everyone generally agrees life, safety, and health issues are the responsibilities of City government; that recognizing an individual who plays a key role in some of the City's safety and life issues is a pleasure. Mr. Litchet stated that Mr. Shawver, Sr., known as "Bubba, n has been with the City for 17 years as a roofing and building inspector; that he is one of the top inspectors of a group of seven employees responsible for assuring buildings are constructed properly; that he has been "rock solid" in the City's incredible building boom. Mr. Litchet continued that Mr. Shawver, Sr., is recognized as the inspector who knows the codes, is fair, but tough, uses common sense in applying the codes, and communicates in contractor language; that he has received many compliments from contractors in the field and the general public; that he is the type of employee who quietly and without fanfare performs his job every day in a very efficient and thorough manner; that he maintains all necessary certifications for his position and has been cross-trained in numerous other technical disciplines which is valuable to the Department. Mr. Litchet further stated that Mr. Shawver, Sr., cannot be kept down; that he has been known to show up for work even after a major surgery; that he is also known to take individual days rather than weeks of vacation to avoid inconveniencing other employees; that Mr. Shawver, Sr., is known for enjoying desserts; and presented Mr. Shawver, Sr., with a homemade Key Lime pie. Mayor Mason presented Mr. Shawver, Sr., with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the February 2003 Employee of the month in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated Mr. Shawver, Sr., for his outstanding efforts and unquestionably serving the City with excellence and pride. Mr. Shawver, Sr., thanked Mr. Litchet, City Manager McNees, David Waugh, Deputy Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and the Commission for the recognition; that seven years ago on March 6, 1996, his fifty-third birthday, he underwent open heart surgery and six artery and vein by-passes; that surviving the surgery is his greatest achievement in life; that receiving the Employee of the Month recognition is his second; and recognized his wife, Karen Shawver, present in the audience. Mayor Mason stated that Agenda Item No. VIII-2 regarding the Proclamation on Sexual Assault Awareness Month for Safe Place And Rape Crisis Center of Sarasota (SPARCC) presented to SPARCC Executive Director, Stephanie Woods and Agenda Item No. VIII-3 Proclaiming March 3, 2003, as Tampa Bay Buccaneers Day in the City of Sarasota have been moved to the March 17, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. 11. ADOPTION RE: : MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1598, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF POLICE SERGEANT ROBBIN G. HINESLEY, 26-YEAR EMPLOYEE OF THE SARASOTA POLICE DEPARTMENT ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) CD 6:08 through 6:14 Mayor Mason requested that Peter Abbott, Chief of Police, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), and Gail Hinesley, join her and the Commission at the Commission table. Police Chief Abbott request that James Schultz, Police Captain, SPD, and George "Bo" Potter, Jr., Police Officer First Class, SPD, come forward for the presentation; that Police Captain Schultz worked very Closely with Sergeant Hinesley in the Support Services Department of the SPD; that Police Officer Potter was the best friend of Sergeant Hinesley. Mayor Mason stated that Memorial Resolution No. 03R-1598, recognizes the February 13, 2003, passing of Police Sergeant Robbin Hinesley, an outstanding 26-year employee of the SPD and read Memorial Resolution No. 03R-1598 in its entirety. BOOK 53 Page 24892 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24893 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 03R-1598. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mrs. Hinesley stated that her husband deeply admired Police Captain Schultz and his best friend Mr. Potter; that although their relationship was brief, Chief Abbott was well-liked; that the support from the SPD and the City is appreciated. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 12. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1584, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-09 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN ALLOWING SECONDARY SCHOOLS ON PROPERTIES CLASSIFIED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS MULTIPLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY, MULTIPLE FAMILY MODERATE DENSITY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, i ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-09, APPLICANT BRUCE FRANKLIN, LAND RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC., AS AGENT REPRESENTING THE DIOCESE OF VENICE) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM X-A-1 (a)) CD 6:14 through 6:24 Mayor Mason passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Palmer and left the Chambers at 6:14 p.m. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that proposed Resolution No. 03R-1584 pertains to an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) to allow secondary schools in certain areas in the City; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan throughout the presentation; and stated that six amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are before the Commission to consider authorizing transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comments prior to holding adoption public hearings. Vice Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing. Mayor Mason returned to the Chambers at 6:17 p.m. Vice Mayor Palmer passed the gavel back to Mayor Mason. City Attorney Taylor stated that most of the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan on the current Agenda are City- initiated; however, proposed Resolution No. 03R-1584 involves a privately initiated proposal. Mr. Smith stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-09 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 03R-1584 is a privately initiated proposal to amend the text of the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposal is to allow secondary schools as Planned Secondary Uses in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classification; that currently the Multiple Family Land Use Classifications allow only elementary schools; that the amendment will allow locating either public or privately operated middle and high schools in the Multiple Family Future Land Use Classification; that Staff recommends the secondary school use be extended to the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) and Multiple Family (High Density) Land Use Classifications; that the proposed new text for all three Multiple Family Land Use Classification indicates allowable secondary uses as follows: BOOK 53 Page 24894 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24895 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. churches, daycare, elementary and secondary schools, parks, and retirement centers. Mr. Smith further stated that secondary schools are defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan as middle and high schools which are either public, private, or charter schools; that at its January 22, 2003, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency voted unanimously to approve transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-09 to the DCA for review and comment; that Staff recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 03R-1584 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-09 to the DCA for review and comment; that the Applicant is Bruce Franklin, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., as agent representing The Diocese of Venice. Mayor Mason stated that requested that the Applicant come forward. Bruce Franklin, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., as agent representing The Diocese of Venice stated that another client, the Westcoast Center, will also benefit from the proposed change; that the proposal was introduced during 2002 to permit Cardinal Mooney High School to expand; however, the proposal was withdrawn due to the complexities of traffic issues evaluated during the process to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan; that changing the text as opposed to changing the Future Land Use Map is a more appropriate method to provide for secondary school uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Classifications; that the proposal is consistent with recent State legislation which encourages communities to locate schools proximate to urban- residential areas to the extent possible; that the proposal is an appropriate change to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and requested the Commission favorably consider transmittal of proposed Resolution No. 03R-1584 to the DCA for review and comment. Vice Mayor Palmer referred to the document entitled Possible Review Criteria for Secondary Schools in Residential Areas, Attachment "A," Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-09, and Illustration 1, Multiple Family Future Land Use Map Sites within the City, included in the Agenda backup material, and stated that possible criteria for review have been identified in residential areas; that the Multiple Family Future Land Use Classification includes a large portion of the Cityi and referred to the following proposed review criteria: 10. The proposed location is not within a velocity flood zone, a floodway, or the Coastal High Hazard Area, as delineated in the applicable Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Palmer continued that secondary schools will not automatically be allowed in certain areas; that the suggestion is to establish criteria which can be used to decide if secondary schools will be allowed. Mr. Franklin agreed; and stated that the proposal is to permit secondary schools in the Multiple Family Land Use Classifications; that each school should be addressed on a case by case and site by site basis. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that secondary schools would be a conditional use and the Commission would establish review criteria. Mr. Franklin stated that is correct. There were no interested persons signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1584 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1584 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-09 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the recommendation is to hear for the remaining five amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan separately. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the remaining five public hearings regarding amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be heard separately. BOOK 53 Page 24896 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24897 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. 13. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1585, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-05 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECENTLY ADOPTED PARKS + CONNECTIVITY MASTER PLAN AND PROVIDE FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND TO FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMPLETION OF THE GULF COAST HERITAGE TRIAL SYSTEM AND EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-05, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM A-X-1(b)) CD 6:24 through 6:28 Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) throughout the presentation; and stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-05 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 03R-1585 is a City-initiated proposal to amend the text and maps of the Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the amendment proposes two revisions to the text to acknowledge: The recently adopted Parks + Connectivity Master Plan and provide for its implementation; and The completion of the City's continued support of the "Gulf Coast Heritage Trail System." Mr. Smith continued that Action Strategy 1.2, Park and Open Space Master Plan, and Action Strategy 1.4, Bayfront Corridor, Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, will be deleted; that the Parks + Connectivity Master Plan has been completed; that a new Objective 6, Parks + Connectivity Master Plan, with ten Action Strategies will be added. Mr. Smith further stated that Action Strategy 1.5, Sarasota Bay Heritage Trail System, Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, is complete and will be revised to recognize the new name of Gulf Coast Heritage Trail System as follows: Action Strategy 1.5, Gulf Coast Heritage Trail System: The City, in conjunction with the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP) and other agencies, shall continue to support and promote the Gulf Coast Heritage Trail System for Sarasota and Manatee Counties. Mr. Smith stated further that at its January 22, 2003, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency voted unanimously to approve transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-05 to the DCA for review and comment; that Staff recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 03R-1585 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-05 to the DCA for review and comment. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1585 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1585 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA- 05 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yesi Palmer, yes. 14. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1586, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-06 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN TO UPDATE THE PLAN REFLECTING THE ADDITION OF THE NEW ZONE DISTRICTS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON APRIL 29, L 2002 AS IMPLEMENTING ZONES WITHIN APPROPRIATE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-06, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM A-X-1(c)) CD 6:28 through 6:31 BOOK 53 Page 24898 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24899 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) throughout the presentation; and stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-06 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 03R-1586 is a City-initiated proposal to amend the text of the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposal will update the implementing zoning districts for each of the Future Land Use Classifications to reflect the new districts approved by the Commission at its April 29, 2002, Special meeting; that the intent is to make the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) consistent. Mr. Taylor continued that at its January 22, 2003, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency voted unanimously to approve transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-06 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comment; that Staff recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 03R-1586 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-06 to the DCA for review and comment. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1586 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1586 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-06 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. 15. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1587, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-07 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN DELETING ACTION STRATEGIES 8.2, 8.3 AND 8.5 FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ; SAID ACTION STRATEGIES PROVIDE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PUBLIC SAFETY CHAPTER; A BARRIER ISLAND CHAPTER AND A DESIGN CHAPTER TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN; AND FURTHER AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN TO DELETE ACTION STRATEGY 3.2 FROM THE HOUSING PLAN i SAID ACTION STRATEGY ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PUBLIC SAFETY CHAPTER TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN; AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 02-PA-07 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-07, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - ADOPTED WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE DELETION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP THE BARRIER ISLAND CHAPTER AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-07 TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DELETION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP THE BARRIER ISLAND CHAPTER (AGENDA ITEM A-X-1 (d)) CD 6:31 through 6:54 Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) throughout the presentation; and stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-07 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 is a City-initiated proposal to amend the text of the Future Land Use and Housing Chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposal will delete the requirements to develop certain optional chapters such as the Public Safety, Barrier Island, and Design Chapters and incorporate the tenets of such optional chapters into other chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the four Action Strategies which call for the development of the three optional chapters being deleted are: Action Strategy 8.2, Public Safety Chapter, Future Land Use Plan, City's Comprehensive Plan; Action Strategy 3.2, Public Safety Chapter, Housing Plan, City's Comprehensive Plan; BOOK 53 Page 24900 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24901 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Action Strategy 8.3, Barrier Island Chapter, Future Land Use Plan, City's Comprehensive Plan; and Action Strategy 8.5, Design Chapter, Future Land Use Plan, City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor continued that the City can address relevant issues related to public safety, the barrier islands, and design within existing chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Commission can initiate action to make a desired change occur; that public safety is addressed in the Emergency Evacuation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Pan; that a separate chapter is not necessary and would be subject to State agency review and approval if amended; that barrier islands are addressed throughout the City's Comprehensive Plan such as in the Transportation, Environmental, and Future Land Use Chapters; that the Commission has the ability to take specific action for a specific area; that for example, Sarasota County has prepared a Siesta Key Community Plan; that a similar plan can be developed within the City without a chapter to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that certain design standards and guidelines have been adopted in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.). Mr. Taylor continued that at its January 22, 2003, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) voted unanimously not to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 03R-1587 nor transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-07 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comment; however, Staff recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-07 to the DCA for review and comment. Commissioner Servian stated that the understanding is the PBLP recommended adoption of proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 and transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-07 to the DCA for review and comment with the exception of the deletion of the Barrier Island Chapter; and asked if the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan could be transmitted to the DCA separately? Mr. Taylor stated yesi that the language of the proposed Resolution may require modification; that the Commission can remove the deletion of the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter by motion. Commissioner Servian stated that several residents of the City's barrier islands have expressed a concern regarding the deletion of the requirement to develop a Barrier Island Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a Town Hall meeting is scheduled on April 3, 2003, at City Hall for leaders from the barrier islands including the commercial interests to express the needs of the barrier islands and receive input from Staff. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 is for transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-07 to the DCA for review and comment; that the Commission is not obligated to adopt the amendment. Commissioner Quillin stated that the logic of deleting the Design Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is a result of the City's adoption of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 does not address changes to older neighborhoods of the City; that design standards are necessary for residential zone districts; and asked if Staff has heard similar concerns? Mr. Taylor stated that certain neighborhoods have requested certain changes; that the specific changes are unknown; that the neighborhood changes can occur without developing a Design Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Quillin stated that creating Special Overlay Zone Districts to address design standards for neighborhoods is possible. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that Staff would prefer to draft regulations for a Special Overlay Zone District rather than drafting a chapter to the City's Comprehensive Plan to indicate the City will complete the task. Commissioner Martin stated that the discussion regarding deleting the three chapters of City's Comprehensive Plan during the May 6, 2002, Regular Commission meeting is recalled; that the Commission supported the deletions; however, such chapters signal a sense of commitment to the community for areas to be addressed; that the concerns of the barrier islands can be addressed through the Neighborhood Action Strategies process; that eliminating the requirement of the State to review and approve changes in specific chapters to the City's Comprehensive Plan which could be handled at a local level is desired. BOOK 53 Page 24902 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24903 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that changes have occurred since the City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998; that the City did not have design criteria standards; that design criteria standards have since been added to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that public safety is addressed in the Peace Time Emergency Plan, the Hurricane Evacuation Plan, and the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) program; that a number of City plans address public safety; that a Public Safety Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is not necessary; however, public safety should be incorporated in the City's Land Development Regulations. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Carol Krohn, 132 North Washington Drive (34236), President, St. Armands Residents Association, stated that proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 which deletes certain Action Strategies from the City's Comprehensive Plan is before the Commission; that deletion of the requirement to develop a Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is part of the proposed Resolution; that the request is for the Commission not to delete the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter and for the Commission to receive additional information from City Staff prior to taking action on the deletion; that at its January 22, 2003, meeting, the PBLP voted unanimously not to delete the requirement to develop a Barrier Island Chapter; that more information from Staff is necessary; that Commission Servian has agreed to host a Town Hall meeting for Staff to receive public input; that the request is for the Commission to delay taking any action regarding the deletion of the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan until after the Town Hall meeting. Vicki Fry, 178 North Washington Drive (34236), representing the Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands, Inc., stated that the reason the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is being considered for deletion is unknown; that St. Armands Key was left out of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that traffic plans of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 greatly affect St. Armands Key; that the Town of Longboat Key is adding hundreds of new residential units which will affect the barrier islands in terms of traffic, pedestrian safety, and evacuations; that the request is for the Commission to reconsider the deletion of the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. George Peter Ryan 241 Garfield Drive, (34236) President, Lido Key Residents Association, stated that on January 18, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Lido Key Residents Association voted in favor of the retention and completion of the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Commission is encouraged to incorporate the Barrier Island Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that agreeing with those who believe the Barrier Island Chapter is not necessary is difficult; that the countless attributes and circumstances which make the barrier islands unique are well known; that the special needs of the barrier islands should be considered; that the request is for the Commission to consider the PBLP's recommendation to retain the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 eliminating the deletion of the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter and authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-07 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment with the exception of the elimination of the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the concern of the residents of the barrier islands is understood; that Staff may have answers to several of the questions posed; that a community plan should be developed; that the Commission can initiate a requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan at a later date; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Servian stated that deleting the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter from the City's Comprehensive Plan has been considered and discussed for some time; that the PBLP unanimously rejected the deletion of the Barrier Island BOOK 53 Page 24904 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24905 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Chapter and is aware of the Town Hall meeting scheduled for April 3, 2003, to address the needs of the barrier islands which are different than the needs of the mainland; that the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan should remain in the event the needs of the barrier islands are not met. Commissioner Martin stated that the Commission identifies specific areas of primary concern in the City's Comprehensive Plan which has worked; that developing a chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan may be a way to address the needs of an area in a holistic wayi that the timelines in the City's Comprehensive Plan are a concerni and asked if the language regarding completion of the Barrier Inland Chapter in 3 years from the effective date of the City's Comprehensive Plan can be deleted. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the 3 year time line has elapsed; that deleting the language is supported; that the Commission should be cautious in the future regarding deadlines. Commissioner Quillin stated that removing the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter from the City's Comprehensive Plan was previously supported; that developing a plan to address various issues regarding the barrier islands is the recollection of previous discussions; that the study to develop a plan of the Bee Ridge area conducted by Sarasota County was excellent; that the study addressed the needs of the commercial and residential areas; that the hope is City Staff intends to develop a plan to address various issues regarding the barrier islands; that the motion is supported; that the City's Comprehensive Plan includes several items which are not being addressed and should be reviewed by Staff. Commissioner Servian stated that deleting the language regarding a timeline is a concerni that the development of the Barrier Island Chapter should not languish for years without being addressed. Mr. Taylor returned to the Commission table and stated that more than a couple years is necessary to address the Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a three to five year timeline is recommended. Commissioner Martin stated that the timeline can be addressed during the Strategic Planning Process. Commissioner Servian agreed. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1587 eliminating the deletion of the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter and authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA- 07 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment with the exception of the deletion of the requirement to develop the Barrier Island Chapter. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. 16. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1588, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION 02 -PA-08 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CHAPTER OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN REVISING ACTION STRATEGY 3.4. SHORELINE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ACTION STRATEGY 3.2, SHORELINES : AMENDING THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN, ACTION STRATEGY 1.7, GULF AND BAY ACCESS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-08, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 17, 2003, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM X-A-1(e)) CD 6:54 through 7:07 Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) throughout the presentation; and stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-08 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 03R-1588 is a City-initiated proposal to amend the text of the Environmental Protection and the Recreation and Open Space Chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan to remove mandates requiring the land development regulations include provisions for: 1) non-residential development to provide pedestrian access to shorelines and 2) performance standards for shoreline development. BOOK 53 Page 24906 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24907 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Taylor continued that Action Strategies 3.4, Shoreline Pedestrian Access, Environmental Protection Chapter, and 1.7, Bay and Gulf Access in Non-Residential Development, Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, will be revised as follows: 3.4, Shoreline Pedestrian Access: The City encourages property owners to provide for public, pedestrian access parallel to the shore (through easements and appropriate walkway structures), in the event that shore hardening is permitted and constructed along the shore. In the event that public access is not provided, the City may consider acquisition of property(s) or easement (s) in order to provide access. 1.7, Bay and Gulf Access in Non-Residential Development: Public pedestrian access to Sarasota Bay and the Gulf of Mexico shall be encouraged in the development of non- residential proposals in coastal areas. In the event that public access is not provided, the City may consider acquisition of property(s) or easement (s) in order to provide access. Mr. Taylor further stated that developers are encouraged to provide beach access; however, most are reluctant to provide such access donations to the City; that individuals walking along private property is a security concern for private property owners; that developing a regulation which could be construed as an actual taking of property is not desired; that the City will continue to encourage developers to provide access to shorelines and waterways; that the City should consider purchasing access points or easements which are necessary to provide public access. Mr. Taylor stated further that Action Strategy 3.2, Shorelines, Environmental Protection Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, will be revised to delete the requirement of additional performance standards for shoreline development as follows: 3.2, Shorelines: The City shall coordinate with the appropriate federal, state, and county agencies to retain primary authority over private docks, seawalls, and shoreline alteration, pursuant to the Land Development Regulations. Appropriate members of City staff will communicate as necessary with officials from federal, state, and local agencies as needed to determine whether the City's Land Development Regulations should be revised in order to retain the primary authority. Mr. Taylor continued that at its January 22, 2003, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency voted unanimously to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 03R-1588 and transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-08 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comment; that Staff recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 03R-1588 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-08 to the DCA for review and comment. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that eliminating a requirement to provide access to the shoreline is a concern; that a waiver provision should be included if a criterion is established to require a developer provide public access to the shoreline for a waterfront project; that the amendment will place a burden on the City to purchase public access to the shoreline if necessaryi that deleting the requirement of access for properties which are close to an established beach access is acceptable; however, deleting the provision entirely which will place - a burden on the City is a concern. Mr. Taylor referred to the Future Land Use Map displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that a large amount of public shoreline access exists; that the City meets a high standard for public access to the waterways; however, the City has the ability to obtain additional shoreline access through requiring a development to provide the access or by purchasing the access; that obtaining additional shoreline access is a policy decision for the Commission. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. City Manager McNees stated that the City has the ability to exact public access from a specific developer if the access is in the public interest; that conversely, exacting public access from all developers, collecting the money, and using the money for one acquisition is called an impact fee; that strict legal guidelines exist regarding exacting property from a developer; BOOK 53 Page 24908 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24909 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. therefore legal issues could develop; that deleting the provision to avoid potential legal ramifications is recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff is recommending transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-08 to the DCA for review and comment; that the Commission is not taking action to adopt the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan at this time. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, and stated that the adoption public hearing regarding Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-08 will not occur until July or August 2003. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposal could be modified prior to the adoption public hearing; however, substantial modifications may require waiting until the next cycle of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that several legal issues surround exacting property; that the City Attorney's Office is not in a position at this time to manipulate the language of the proposal before the Commission; that the recommendation is to continue the issue to the March 17, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that placing extraordinary hardship on private developers is not desired; that the City and the public should not be placed in the position with having the burden of purchasing land for public access; that a method which is more than encouraging a developer but not an actual taking of land is desired; that the proposed amendment places the burden of obtaining public access to the shoreline on the City and the public. There were no interested persons signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1588 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to continue the discussion regarding proposed Resolution No. 03R-1588 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-08 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment to the March 17, 2003, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that continuing the discussion without suggested language changes from Staff. is not desired. Commissioner Martin stated that the intent of the motion is for Staff to bring back suggested language changes at the March 17, 2003, Regular Commission meeting; that the City has adequate public access to the shoreline; that future public access needs are unknown; that the City has the power of eminent domain or friendly negotiation; that a better method of addressing the issue should be identified and brought back to the Commission. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 17. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1589, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION 02-PA-10 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN RECLASSIFYING A 2.29 ACRE SITE ON LIDO KEY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY ROOSEVELT DRIVE, THE SOUTH BY TAFT DRIVE, THE WEST BY BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE AND THE EAST BY SOUTH BOULEVARD OF PRESIDENTS FROM RESORT RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY (MEDIUM DENSITY) AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-PA-10, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) DENIED (AGENDA ITEM X-A-2) CD 7:07 through 8:06 Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, came before the Commission; referred to the proposed Future Land Use Map of the proposed site on the Chamber monitors; and stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 is a City-initiated proposal to amend the Future Land Use Classification for a t 2.29-acre site located on Lido Key and bounded by South Boulevard of the Presidents, Taft Drive, Benjamin Franklin Drive and Roosevelt Drive from the Resort Residential to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classification; that the main difference between the Resort Residential and Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use BOOK 53 Page 24910 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24911 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Classifications is the allowable hotel/motel use in the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District which is an implementing zone district of the Resort Residential Land Use Classification; that the WFR Zone District will be precluded as an implementing zone district by changing the site to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classification; that the site is currently in the Residential Multiple Family 3 (RMF-3) Zone District; that the RSM-3 Zone District is an implementing zone district in both the Residential and Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classifications; that two hotel/motels exist on the southern side of the site and are non-residential uses in a residential zone district. Mr. Taylor continued that during the 1998 creation of the City's Future Land Use Map, Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Land Use Classification be applied to the site; that the Commission applied the Resort Residential Land Use Classification to the site prior to the adoption of the Future Land Use Map in 1998 which was incorporated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the site includes existing hotels which have been grandfathered in under another ordinance; that the existing hotels in residential zone districts were allowed to continue to exist indefinitely with the condition the existing building footprint, density, and intensity of use would be retained; that at the time, property owners desired some incentive to redevelop and sought the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the understanding was the WFR Zone District would not be an automatic approval if an application for rezoning to the WFR Zone District was made. Mr. Taylor further stated that only two sites designated in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification exist on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that one site is the Lido Holiday Inn on the north end of Lido Key; and the other is the subject area; that Staff evaluated the site based on the policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan and recommended the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification for properties abutting water or with direct access to water such as the Lido Holiday Inn which is across the street from direct access to a public beach; that the subject site does not abut water and can only access water through the Lido Beach public pavilion; therefore, Staff has determined the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification is not appropriate for the site. Mr. Taylor stated further that Commission consideration of the transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the Florida Department of Community Affair (DCA) for review and comment in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, prior to holding an adoption public hearing is requested; that at its January 22, 2003, Regular meeting, the PBLP voted unanimously to approve transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment; that Staff recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA. Commissioner Martin asked the location of the closest public access to the Gulf of Mexico from the site? Mr. Taylor stated the closest public beach access is the Lido Beach/Pavilion area. Commissioner Martin asked if Core Development, Inc., is providing public beach access with the development of the Ritz Carlton project? Mr. Taylor stated that an answer is unknown. Commissioner Quillin stated that Core Development, Inc., has agreed to provide public beach access. Mr. Taylor stated that he was unaware Core Development, Inc., would be providing public beach access; that the understanding was the issue was only discussed and not finalized. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that Core Development, Inc., agreed to provide public beach access. Commissioner Martin stated that public beach access provided by Core Development, Inc., will be closer to the site than the Lido Beach/Pavilion area. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; however, the site still does not abut water or have direct access to water. BOOK 53 Page 24912 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24913 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. The following people came before the Commission: Bill Weiffenbach, 1104 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), President, Lido Surf and Sand Condominium Association, distributed and read in its entirety a February 28, 2003, letter to the Commission from the Board of Directors of the Lido Surf and Sand Condominium Association as follows: Today at our monthly Board of Directors meeting on behalf of our 107 owners, we reaffirm our support for Resolution No. 03R-1589. We commend the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency for its unanimous support of the Resolution and we respectfully request the Commission approve Resolution No. 03R-1589. We firmly support the zoning east of Benjamin Franklin Drive and west of South Boulevard of Presidents remain in the Residential Multiple Family 3 (RMF-3) Zone District and not be changed to Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District. Our condominium is immediately west of the subject parcel. Mr. Weiffenbach stated that he has a notarized affidavit authorizing him to speak for the 107 owners of the Lido Surf and Sand Condominium Association for the Commission if required. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the affidavit is not necessary. Mr. Weiffenbach continued that he retired from the US Military in 1978 and visited Sarasota in route to Key West, Florida, in which a home had been previously purchased; that the Key West area was not well liked; that he subsequently moved to Honolulu, Hawaii; that he never forgot Sarasota; that he resided in Honolulu for 21 years and witnessed the effects of over development to a City; that the ambiance, sense of community, and neighborhood are the reasons he moved to Lido Key; that high rise development will inevitably occur along Lido Beach; that the hope is the center of Lido Key will retain its old Florida ambiance; that living on Lido Key is a pleasure; that developers in Honolulu always desired more than allowed by taking the development to the maximum setbacks and heights; that the area became ugly and not enjoyable; that he has been content since moving to Lido Key; that the 107 owners of the Lido Surf and Sand Condominium Association want to retain the feeling of old Florida and request the Commission support the recommendation of the PBLP. Stephen Rees, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., and Marjorie Beg, 520 Keith Pointe Drive (34236), President, MEB Capital, Inc., and owner of SurfView Beach Resort on Lido Key, came before the Commission. Attorney Rees stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to reclassify the site is opposed; that he is a senior land use attorney and has practiced law in Sarasota since 1972; that he has been through the drafting and adoption process of the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District and participated extensively on several properties during the 1998 adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in which the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification was established; that his comments are based on hands-on representation of affected persons during such proceedings; that he was engaged by MEB Capital, Inc., approximately three weeks ago to represent the rights and the interests of the owners and to accomplish the following tasks: 1) review and analyze the Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10, 2) discuss the adverse impact of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 upon the property rights of MEB Capital, Inc., and 3) identify remedies available to MEB Capital, Inc., if Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 is transmitted to the DCA and subsequently adopted; that the current proceeding is governed by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; that MEB Capital, Inc., is a statutorily recognized Affected Person; that the Commission is advised he will represent MEB Capital, Inc., as an Affected Person in the pursuit of every remedy available if Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 is transmitted at the end of the current proceedings. Attorney Rees continued that the standard for review is if the action taken by the Commission to adopt is fairly debatable; that reasonable persons could not find adoption fairly debatable; that Staff analysis does not demonstrate the present classification is detrimental to the public welfare; that the current Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification was approved in 1998 and deemed internally consistent in the Commission's legislative determination; that neither discussion nor demonstration of any change has occurred since the adoption in 1998 to make the classification of the property no longer BOOK 53 Page 24914 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24915 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. internally consistent; that no factual changes with governmental regulations or physical changes to the property to warrant legislative reconsideration have occurred; that no rational basis to change the property of MEB Capital, Inc., yet leave the equally situated property of the Lido Holiday Inn with the same classification exists; that Staff proposed a logic which causes selective enforcement to de-market property of MEB Capital, Inc.; and quoted from the Planned and Existing Locations Section, Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: Planned and existing areas embraced by this classification are reflected on the "Future Land Use Plan Map. I Developed areas currently with this classification would include but are not limited to: Lido Beach Attorney Rees further stated that the provision does not indicate a specific portion of Lido Beach, along a certain road, or on or not on a particular beach but rather indicated the entire Lido Beach; that any assertion of a rational distinction between the Lido Holiday Inn and the MEB Capital, Inc., parcels is not accepted; that both parcels were legislatively determined in 1998 by the Commission to fit the criteria and the characteristics for the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the proposed reclassification has substantial adverse impact on the property rights of MEB Capital, Inc.; that to reclassify and doom the parcel to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification will no longer permit the existing hotel use and structures; that the parcel has suffered since 1974 as a non-conforming use; that Staff has indicated expansion is prohibited; that the properties have been maintained in a bandaged approach; that the value of the land warrants a high and better use than the existing structures; that the Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5) Zone District offers the highest use available if the property is reclassified to the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the RMF-5 Zone District provides for a density maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre compared to 18 dwelling units per acre of the WFR Zone District; that a pending rezoning application has been filed by a contract purchaser for the property which seeks a substantially lesser density and height than permitted in the WFR Zone District under a proffer statement; that the Commission is requested not to rush to judgment; that the fairness and the integrity of the process suggest denying the request to transit proposed Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment; that the Commission is also requested to allow fair consideration of the pending rezoning application for the WFR Zone District. Ms. Beg distributed written comments to the Commission and stated that she is the owner of SurfView Beach Resort; that she and her children are full-time residents of Lido Key; that her two children also own homes on Lido Key; that in 1998, the Commission approved the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification for the SurfView Beach Resort site after a very careful and deliberate discussion; that she has spent considerable time, effort, and expense to evaluate various development options since 1998; that development options have been delayed due to the Terrorist Attack of September 11, 2001, and the City's intent to consider reclassifying the properties of the Lido Holiday Inn and the SurfView Beach Resort; that subsequently, Staff did not recommend a future land use classification change for the Lido Holiday Inn property, but recommended changing the SurfView Beach Resort from the Resort Residential to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification. Ms. Beg continued that understanding the rationale and motivation regarding the City-initiated change is difficult; that two questions are: 1) What has changed since 1998, and 2) Why is SurfView Beach Resort property being singled out? Ms. Beg further stated that the rationale in the minutes of the January 22, 2003, PBLP meeting, included in the Agenda backup material, indicates the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification is for properties which abut water or have direct access to water; that neither the Lido Holiday Inn nor the SurfView Beach Resort abut water or have direct access to water; that the Holiday Inn is located across two lanes of traffic from public access to water; that the SurfView Beach Resort is located across Benjamin Franklin Drive from the public access to water; that the SurfView Beach Resort enjoys a unique location as being the southern most property on the corner of Benjamin Franklin Drive, Taft Drive, and South Boulevard of the Presidents with no properties on either the east or south side except Lido Park and Sarasota Bay; that no single family homes are within two blocks; that the SurfView Beach Resort should not BOOK 53 Page 24916 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24917 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. be singled out for such harsh treatment which would cause devastating personal financial implications; that the motives for the unusual City-initiated reclassification are difficult to understand. Attorney Rees stated that compatibility is not the issue; and quoted from the General Characteristics section, Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: This classification preserves the basic characteristics of multiple family living while at the same time providing for new residential accommodations and new and existing hotels and motels and recreation activities which provide opportunities for public access and views of the Gulf of Mexico or Sarasota Bay Jim Cooney, 720 Garfield Drive (34236), distributed a copy of a Petition in Opposition to the SurfView Beach Resort at Lido Beach (Petition) to the Commission, and stated that the Petition contains over 314 signatures; that over 300 of the signatures are from residents of Lido Key; that the remaining signatures are from residents of St. Armands Key; that the Petition is in support of proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment; that in 1998, Brenda Patten of the Esquire, law firm of Kirk-Pinkerton, represented the owners of the SurfView Beach Resort; that Attorney Patten indicated in 1998 the Commission's ability to either rezone the property to the WFR or the RMF-4 Zone District or deny the rezoning sO the property would remain in the RMF-3 Zone District; that either option would be legally supportable and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the reasons provided to support the position of the SurfView Beach Resort at that time included the units were small, non conforming, in need of renovation; that a loss of more than 50 percent of value would prohibit reconstruction as a motel; that the inability to rebuild following a major storm or fire prevented further investment in the properties; that the SurfView Beach Resort obviously intends to rebuild with condominiums and not for a motel use; that designating the SurfView Beach Resort site as in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification in 1998 was a mistake; that the opportunity to rectify the matter is before the Commission; that threats of litigation are being posed against the City; that the designation as the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification in 1998, was done sO the SurfView Beach Resort could continue to operate after damage from a storm; that in 1998 Attorney Patten indicted either the WFR or RMF-4 Zone Districts would be legally supportable and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that legal counsel for the SurfView Beach Resort has indicated such a statement is not true; that he is one of several individuals who do not desire a WFR Zone District across Benjamin Franklin Drive which is not appropriate and inconsistent with the developments on Lido Key. Brenda Patten, Esquire, law firm of Kirk-Pinkerton, 720 South Orange Avenue (34236), representing Core Development, Inc., stated that the previous speaker is commended for making an excellent argument as to the flexibility of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification for the site; that the SurfView Beach Resort is located on the southern half of the site bounded by South Boulevard of the Presidents, Taft Drive, Benjamin Franklin Drive, and Roosevelt Drive subject to the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that in November 2002, an application was filed to rezone the SurfView Beach Resort from the existing RMF-3 to the WFR Zone District; that the purpose of the rezoning application is to allow the development of a residential condominium on the property; that the Commission will unfairly prejudice the ability to have a fair and impartial hearing on the rezoning application of SurfView Beach Resort if proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589, authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment is approved; that adoption of the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan prior to completing the rezoning application process will eliminate the legal ability for the Commission to approve the rezoning to the WFR Zone District, which has been confirmed with the City Attorney's Office; that she represented Ms. Beg in 1998 to achieve the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the designation was consistent with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding land uses; that nothing has changed since 1998; that the rezoning application proposes to replace the existing 50 unit SurfView Beach Resort with a 20 unit residential condominium with a proffer statement indicating the site will never be developed with a hotel/motel or commercial uses; that the proffer statement also proposes a height of 72 feet, 4 inches, measured in accordance with the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the proposed rezoning application is less height than the 100 feet allowed in the WFR Zone District and the 90 feet allowed in the BOOK 53 Page 24918 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24919 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5) Zone District of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification. Attorney Patten continued that several consequences will occur if proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment is approved; that the public will be confused; that holding public hearings concerning a rezoning application to the WFR Zone District after the current transmittal hearing which eliminates the possibility of rezoning to the WFR Zone District will confuse the public and does not make sense; that Staff has already received calls from the public concerning such confusion; that two parallel processes of rezoning and amending the City's Comprehensive Plan simultaneously is confusing; that the rezoning application will not have a fair hearing if the PBLP members are aware the Commission approved proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589; that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 conflicts with the rezoning application filed in November 2002; that the knowledge of the transmittal will create an unfair prejudice and deny a fair and impartial hearing; that transmittal at this time will also raise procedural and substantive due process questions. Attorney Patten further stated that the site does not conform to the General Characteristics section, Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan; and quoted from the General Characteristics section, Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: This land use Classification can serve as a "transition" or buffering function by providing a "step-down" in land use intensity between more intensive uses, such as commercial retail, and the less intensive single-family residential use. Attorney Patten stated that the SurfView Beach Resort is not adjacent to anything as intensive as commercial retail; that the nearest single-family home is two blocks away; that the property to the north of the proposed site is in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that Lido Park is on the south and east side of the site and in the Open Space- ecreationrComservation Future Land Use Classification; that high rise condominiums to the west of the site are in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the SurfView Beach Resort will not serve as a buffer to any less intensive uses; that the recommendation is to defer the amendment to the next cycle for proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that Staff indicated one rationale to reclassify the site is to eliminate hotel/motels; however, the pending rezoning application proffers a statement to eliminate commercial and hotel/motel use which will affect the property indefinitely; that Staff also indicated beach access is a major distinction; that the Lido Holiday Inn does not have direct beach access; that public beach access is across Benjamin Franklin Drive; that similarly, the SurfView Beach Resort has a public beach access across Benjamin Franklin Drive through the Ritz Carlton project and Lido Beach Club site which was proffered for the Ritz Carlton project; that the SurfView Beach Resort and the Lido Holiday Inn are similar properties, similarly situated, and should be treated equally. George Peter Ryan 241 Garfield Drive, (34236), President, Lido Key Residents Association, stated that the public beach access for the SurfView Beach Resort is between the Mark Twain Apartments and the property being developed for the Ritz Carlton project; that the amount of Gulf frontage of the Ritz Carlton project is several hundred feet in addition to the additional footage which must be transversed from the SurfView Beach Resort to get to the public beach access which is estimated at 1,000 feet; that comparing the SurfView Beach Resort to the Lido Holiday Inn in ludicrous; that nothing is in front of the Lido Holiday Inn except the Lido Beach; that on November 9, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Lido Key Residents Association voted unanimously to circulate a petition among residents and owners in support of the City-initiated Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10; that at the November 16, 2002, membership meeting of the Lido Key Residents Association, a motion to support the City's request to amend the Future Land Use Map was passed unanimously; that the City is commended for the character displayed by being willing to correct the mistakes of the past; that eliminating the WFR Zone District and the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification on the property is desired; that the Lido Key Residents Association supports the City's desire to limit the parcel to the designation of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the Commission should not be swayed by tactics designed to mislead and misinform; that the efforts of the Commission are BOOK 53 Page 24920 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24921 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. supported; that the request is for the Commission to approve proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment. Commissioner Martin asked if the individuals supportive of the Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 are aware the rezoning application with the proffer statement would limit development to less than allowed if the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan were approved? Mr. Ryan stated yes; that the pending rezoning application and upcoming project for the site is general knowledge. Commissioner Martin stated that the change to Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification could potentially result in a more intense project than if the rezoning application were approved and the proposed development occurred. Mr. Ryan stated that people are aware of the consequences of the change. Terry Purcell, 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), President, Lido Beach Club Association, stated that the preference is for the proposed site to remain in the RMF-3 Zone District; however, if not possible, the RMF-4 Zone District is preferred to the WFR Zone District; that most of the Lido Key residents are aware of the action occurring regarding the site; that the concern is the property could be sold to someone wishing to building a hotel on the property. Commissioner Quillin stated that the rezoning application for the site includes a proiier limiting height and uses. Mr. Purcell stated that the concern is if the current property owner sells the property to another developer. Commissioner Quillin stated that the buyer would be purchasing the property with the limitations to height and uses; and asked if the proffer would be acceptable to allow for the rezoning of the site? Mr. Purcell stated that the preference is still for the RMF-4 Zone District as opposed to the WFR Zone District; that the request is for the Commission to support the recommendation of the PBLP and approve proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment. Mr. Taylor and Attorney Fournier returned to the Commission table. Mr. Taylor stated that a previous speaker indicated the site would be devaluated if the site is reclassified from the Resort Residential to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that such a statement is a matter for debate; that the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District is the most intense implementing zone district of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the WFR Zone District allows 18 dwelling units per acre with a building height of 110 feet; that the WFR Zone District also allows 36 hotel/motel units per acre depending on the size of the property; that the Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5) is the most intense implementing zone district of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the RMF-5 Zone District allows 25 dwelling units per acre and a building height of 90 feet; that substantial value exists under the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the Staff and PBLP recommendations to change the site to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification have been consistent since 1998; that the recommendations to the Commission have not wavered; that the Commission acts in a legislative manner to decide the most appropriate Future Land Use; that denying the rezoning application is in the discretion of the Commission; that the Commission can leave the property in its current RMF-3 Zone District since the RMF-3 Zone District is an implementing zone district of the Resort Residential and the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that any bias regarding the pending rezoning application will not occuri that Staff will evaluate the pending rezoning application under the existing City's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan will not be effective until October 2003; that the pending rezoning application is far along in the process; that adequate time exists for Staff to review the pending rezoning application prior to adoption of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan in October 2003; that the proffer accompanying the pending rezoning does not preclude the current or future property owner from seeking an amendment to the proffer. Attorney Fournier stated that his statement to Attorney Patten should be clarified; that if the Commission adopted the amendment BOOK 53 Page 24922 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24923 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the pending rezoning application could not be entertained subsequent to the adoption public hearing; that the WFR Zone District being requested is not an implementing zone district of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification. Commissioner Servian asked if the pending rezoning can continue to move forward if the Commission approves proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the DCA for review and comment at this time? Attorney Fournier stated that the pending rezoning application is scheduled to be heard by the PBLP on March 12, 2003; that the public hearing before the Commission for the pending rezoning will be heard in April or early May 2003. Vice Mayor Palmer that the understanding is the pending rezoning will be considered under the City's current regulations at the time of filing and will not be affected; and asked if the pending rezoning application would be considered if the change in the land use classification occurred. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct with most, if not all, applications filed for rezonings as a result of the transitioning rules applicable to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that language which reflects the grandfathering in of property must be included in the text of the amendment to a City's Comprehensive Plan; however, Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 is an amendment to the Future Land Use Map; that the Commission could not subsequently entertain the pending rezoning application if the amendment to the Future Land Use Map is adopted even though the rezoning application was filed prior to the effective date of the adoption. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that a public hearing for the pending rezoning application will be heard before the Commission prior to the adoption public hearing for the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Fournier stated that a public hearing before the Commission for the pending rezoning application prior to the adoption of the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is highly probably and a reasonable expectation. Commissioner Quillin asked the time the property owner of SurfView Beach Resort was notified of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Taylor stated that a neighborhood meeting was held in July 2002 at which time the property owner was officially notified. Commissioner Quillin asked if all property owners in the area were notified of the neighborhood meeting? Mr. Taylor stated that all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel and neighborhood associations were notified of the neighborhood meeting by mail. Commissioner Quillin stated that having the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan run parallel with the pending rezoning application is a concern and sends mixed messages to the public; that the situation could cause a certain amount of bias through the rezoning process; that Staff was aware of the pending rezoning and still proceeded with the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the concern is understood; however, Plan Amendment Application No. No. 02-PA-10 was filed prior to the pending rezoning application. Commissioner Quillin stated that Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 should be postponed until the next cycle of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission approved proceeding forward with Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 in July 2002. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission was unaware of the pending rezoning application. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff was unaware of the rezoning application as well; that the rezoning application was submitted after Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 was filed. BOOK 53 Page 24924 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24925 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Commissloner Quillin asked which zone districts are implementing zone districts of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification? Mr. Taylor stated that the RMF-3, RMF-4, WFR, and Governmental Use (G) Zone Districts are implementing zone districts of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the RMF-3, RMF-4, RMF-5 and G Zone Districts are implementing zone districts of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the main differences are the allowable uses and maximum height limits between the WFR Zone District of the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification and the RMF-5 Zone District of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification. Attorney Fournier stated that the WFR and the RMF-5 Zone Districts are the two most intensive implementing zone districts of Resort Residential and Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classifications. Commissioner Quillin stated that Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District is the most intensive zone district. Attorney Fournier stated that CCBD Zone District is not an implementing zone district of the Resort Residential or Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classifications. Commissioner Quillin stated that is correct; however, the CCBD Zone District is personally not liked. Commissloner Martin asked the consequence if the pending rezoning application is approved? Attorney Fournier stated that the Commission must decide whether to proceed with the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the site would become a zoning enclave if the Commission adopted the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and then approved the pending rezoning; that the intent was to limit zoning enclaves at the time of the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the goal is to reduce the number rather than increase of zoning enclaves; however, the Commission is not prohibited from creating a zoning enclave; that the Commission also has the option of denying the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the current RMF-3 Zone District of the site can remain and will not create any non-conformities for the property owner. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City's Comprehensive Plan specifies the prohibition of zoning enclaves? Attorney Fournier stated that the policy is to reduce rather than create zoning enclaves. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan will not affect the pending rezoning application; that the adoption of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan can be denied if the pending rezoning application is approved. Attorney Fournier stated that transmitting the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the DCA does not obligate the Commission to later adopt the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that transmittal of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the DCA should not have any influence on the pending rezoning application; that the potential bias expressed by a previous speaker is understood; however, Staff will attempt to curê any potential bias of the pending rezoning application if the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is transmitted to the DCA by instructing the PBLP of the issues which should or should not be considered. Commissioner Servian asked if the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be delayed for another year if the Commission does not approve transmitting to the DCA at this time? Mr. Taylor stated yes; however, the Commission has the ability to authorize a special amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan cycle if desired. Commissioner Servian stated that transmitting the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the pending rezoning application are two separate issues; that the pending rezoning application is Clouding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and is not relevant. Attorney Fournier agreed. BOOK 53 Page 24926 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24927 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1589 authorizing transmittal of Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment. Commissioner Quillin stated that transmitting the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the DCA with a pending rezoning application is not supported; that the possibility of establishing a zoning enclave is not desired; that deferring the issue to the next cycle of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan is preferred. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion failed (3 to 2): Mason, no; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Servian, yes; Martin, no. On motion of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved defer Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-10 to the next cycle of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Motion died for lack of a second. The Commission recessed at 8:06 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m. 18. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4433, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO CREATE ARTICLE II, PARK PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROHIBITING THE USE OF PUBLIC PARKS BY A GROUP OF 50 OR MORE PERSONS WITHOUT A PERMIT; SETTING FORTH A PERMIT PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS, ; AMENDING CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE III. CLOSING OF PUBLIC PARKS DURING DESIGNATED HOURS, SECTION 22-28 TO ALLOW THE USE OF A PUBLIC PARK WHEN CLOSED PURSUANT TO A PERMIT TO BE ISSUED ACCORDING TO THE PERMIT PROCESS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE II; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = REFERRED THE ISSUE TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CONSULTATION WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, THE GILLESPIE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, - AND SARASOTA COUNTY, AND TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE TIME PERIODS, AND BRING THE REVISION BACK TO THE COMMISSION. (AGENDA ITEM X-A-3) CD 8:18 through 11:08 City Manager McNees stated that specific services such as social and religious services are being conducted on a regular basis in Gillespie Park; that several residents of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood began to petition the Commission for relief regarding conflicts with the use of the park; that the conflicts have taken two forms : 1) the activity itself and the inability for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood to enjoy the quietness of their homes with the activity in Gillespie Park occurring, and 2) the weekly use of the facility in the park and the inability for other people to use the same facility; that the Commission directed Staff to attempt to codify rules or regulations for the activities in the City's parks which would provide a formal method to handle such a conflict; that resolving such a conflict may infringe upon one or the other party's ability to use the public space and may infringe on the right to free speech and public assembly protected under the US Constitution; that the City Attorney's Office has warned the Commission of the protected rights; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 is an attempt to provide a method to handle such conflicts as in Gillespie Park and at the same time protect one's Constitutional rights. Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that at its October 21, 2002, Workshop, the Commission directed the City Attorney's Office to draft a proposed Ordinance prohibiting the use of the City's public parks by a group of 50 or more persons without a permit and establishing a permit process for the issuance of permits to such groups; that a significant amount of concern has been raised by the general citizenry regarding the perceived effects of such regulations on First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Expression, particularly the Freedom of Political Expression if enacted; that he has resided in Sarasota for 25 years; that the timing of the proposed Ordinance during a time in which citizens are concerned with the threat of war may affect a person's perception regarding the ability to assemble in large numbers within the City; that he cannot recall another single occurrence BOOK 53 Page 24928 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24929 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. in the City with such a large number of persons as the recent peace rally protesting the possibility of the war in Iraqi that the issue before the Commission is regulating parks; that the right to gather and express oneself politically or otherwise in other public places sO long as the gathering does not impede vehicular traffic is not the issue before the Commission; that protests have occurred in the City for years regarding a number of controversial issues such as the protesting of the Women's Health Center on North Tamiami Trail; that the City has experienced protest marches along US 41 and across the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the proposed regulations for parks will have no impact on the rights of the citizenry to gather in an appropriate manner for expression in the City; that a concern is the impact of the proposed Ordinance on the ability for a large group to congregate; that the ability for a large group to congregate is a problem for the City Manager's Office, the Sarasota Police Department (SPD), and for the Public Works Department; that the manner in which to handle a large group of people who wish to gather spontaneously in the City and a location in which the City can recommend the gathering be held must be determined; that a large gathering may involve street closures for marches; that the proposed Ordinance is not intended to address such a situation. Attorney Singer continued that a local government may enact ordinances or rules for protection, use, and occupation of parks sO long as the regulation has some rational relationship to a legitimate government purposei however, if an ordinance has the effect of impinging upon First Amendment freedoms, the courts will consider whether or not the ordinance is Constitutional according to well established judicial principles; that a fundamental right is guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions; that if an ordinance impairs a fundamental right, the ordinance will be strictly scrutinized and must be shown to promote a compelling governmental interest narrowly tailored to advance the interest. Attorney Singer further stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 creates a new Article II, Chapter 22 of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code); that Section 22-22, City Code, will require a special event park permit for any public assembly, picnic, or other event in a public park involving 50 or more individuals or to use a public park during closed hours; that the use of a public park during closed hours will be addressed under Section 22-25, City Code; that the administrative process for considering special event park permits is the same as special permits proposed for Chapter 20, Noise, City Code, incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416; that Section 22-22(c), City Code, sets forth the criteria for the approval or disapproval of a special event park permit; that Section 22-22(a), City Code, authorizes the City Manager to adopt administrative regulations as deemed necessary to implement the provisions of the proposed section; that the proposed Ordinance is modeled after the Code of Chicago Park District, Illinois, in which the regulations were upheld by the United States (US) Supreme Court in 2002; that the regulation which requires a special event permit for groups of 50 persons or more desiring to use the parks was upheld by the US Supreme Court since the permit method did not involve censorship and was a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation of the use of a public forum; that the Code of Chicago Park District regulations, similar to proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433, does not authorize the licensor of the permit to pass judgment based on the content of speech; that the grounds for denying a permit are not related to what a speaker might say; that the proposed Ordinance is not directed toward communicative activity but rather to all activity conducted in a public park; that the nature of the communication itself will not be evaluated but rather the activity which surrounds the communication; that the rare unanimous opinion written by US Supreme Court Judge Scalia in the case of Thomas et al. V. Chicago Park District, 534 U.S. 316(2002), indicates the following: The picnicker and soccer player, no less than the political activist or parade marshal, must apply for a permit if the 50-person limit is to be exceeded. And the object of the permit system (as plainly indicated by the permissible ground for permit denial) is not to exclude communication of a particular content, but to coordinate multiple uses of limited space, to assure preservation of the parks facilities, to prevent uses that are dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible under Park District's rules, and to assure financial accountability for damage caused by the event. As the Court of Appeals well put it: "[T]o allow unregulated access to all comers could easily reduce rather than enlarge the park's utility as a forum for speech. 227 F. 3d 921, 924 (CA7 2000). BOOK 53 Page 24930 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24931 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Attorney Singer stated further the proposed Ordinance is intended to protect all uses in City parks; that regulations of the use of a public forum which ensure the safety and convenience of the people are not inconsistent with civil liberties, but are a means to safeguard the good order upon which civil liberties ultimately depend; that even content- neutral time, place, and manner restrictions can be applied in such a manner as to stifle free expression; that the criteria for consideration of a permit does not create a risk in which the Administration will favor speech based on content in determining the issuance of a permit; that the standards for consideration are substantially similar to those of the Code of Chicago Park District which were found to include adequate standards to guide the official's decision and to render the subject to effective judicial review; that the standards in the proposed Ordinance are narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards similar to Code of Chicago Park District regulations; that the proposed Ordinance provides for an appeal before a local Special Master appointed by the Commission; that the Special Master will have a hearing and provide a decision; that the Special Master will hear from the Administration regarding the basis for the decision which resulted in the appeal as well as from the people who wish to obtain the permit; that the Special Master will allow for other testimony, cross examination of witnesses, and accept documents; that the appeal process is a significant due process protection to the party not happy with the initial decision made for the permit. Attorney Singer further stated that legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the permit process of the proposed Ordinance; that one issue is a permit application must be filed 45 days in advance of the event; that the Code of Chicago Park District regulations do not include a deadline to file a permit application except in certain instances such as athletic events for which a permit application must be filed 60 days in advance; that the General Superintendent of the Chicago Park District has 14 days to make a decision which can be extended another 14 days if necessary. Commissioner Martin asked if 14 days are considered working days or calendar days? Attorney Singer stated that Code of Chicago Park District regulations do not specify 14 working or calendar days; however, normally, 14 days are considered 14 calendar days in the Cityi that a timeframe is necessary for the appeal process; that the City Manager's Office has recommended the 45 day time period which can be modified by the Commission if desired; that the proposed Ordinance provides for the City Manager's Office to make a decision within 30 days and then issue the permit; that the Chicago Park District issues a conditional approval based upon receipt of insurance certificates, indemnity agreements, and security deposits; that a final decision is made subject to the receipt of the necessary items; that the question is who will bare the burden of the time period; that for example, if the City has a 14 day time period and someone waits 10 days before the event to apply for a special event permit, the person may have foreclosed their ability to make a prompt appeal of the decision if the decision is made immediately prior to the event occurring; that if the Administration fails to make a decision within the requisite time period, the special event permit is deemed granted; that the government must act on special event permit applications. Attorney Singer stated that legitimate concerns have been raised by the citizenry regarding the apparent restrictions to what has been referenced as spontaneous political expression; that recent discussions with the City Manager's Office has resulted in amended language to Section 22-22, City Code, as follows: A special event permit shall not be required, however, for activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, sO long as the use of the park is limited to streets, parking lots and sidewalks located therein, in such a manner sO as not to impede or interfere with the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traific, as prohibited by Section 30-3 of the Sarasota City Code. Attorney Singer continued that the City Manager's Office has regulations for demonstrations currently in place which are distinguishable from obtaining a special event permit; that the regulations provide for use of sidewalks, streets, and roadways sO long as traffic is not obstructed; that the proposed language will not solve the issue of a large group of individuals desiring to use City parks for spontaneous political expression; that the City Manager's Office has been advised to communicate to the public an alternative appropriate place for a large group of people to gather for spontaneous political expression; that a BOOK 53 Page 24932 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24933 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. significant amount of resources have been utilized in recent years by the City to renovate Bayfront Park; that Bayfront Park is sensitive to significant repeated activities; that as result, the City Manager's Office has not authorized special events for Bayfront Park with the exception of the traditional events such as the annual Fourth of July Fireworks Event and the Christmas Boat Parade; that the threat of significant damage to Bayfront Park from large groups of people is a concern; that an alternative location is the Selby Five Points Park; that exception language to allow for First Amendment activities at Selby Five Points Park can be incorporated in the proposed Ordinance if necessary; that the City may experience large demonstrations in the near future with the threat of a possible war with Iraq looming. Attorney Singer stated further that the Commission can make adjustments to the time periods of the proposed Ordinance; that for example, a 30 day time period for an appeal can be reduced to 7 days; that the time period for which a hearing must be held before a Special Master can be reduced to 10 days with a decision in 3 days. Vice Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding suggested time periods. Attorney Singer stated that the time period to file an application can be reduced to 25 days. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the time periods can be reduced to 25 days to file an application prior to the event, 7 days for the City Manager to make a decision, 10 days to appeal to the Special Master, and 3 days for a decision from the Special Master. Attorney Singer stated that is correct. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that a demonstration is the use of public sidewalks, streets, and roadways for the purpose of expressing freedom of speech; that a demonstration is an exercise of the right of free speech; therefore, a permit is not necessaryi that a form must be completed by anyone wishing to hold a demonstration; that the demonstrators are requested to complete the form 72 hours in advance; that the form provides the City with the knowledge of the activity and the location of the event; that a permit is not required; that the form is voluntary and the demonstration can occur with or without the form; that the 14 day time period for review indicated in the Code of Chicago Park District commences at the time a completed application is submitted; that several issues should be considered if shortening the time periods is desired; that the sponsor must obtain insurance and provide a copy of the insurance coverage to the City; that an permit application is not considered complete until a copy of the insurance coverage is provided; that a special event may require the scheduling of off-duty police officers; that scheduling Staff from the Public Works Department may be necessary if barricades are involved; that the greater the compression of time periods, the greater the difficulty in coordinating the special event. Commissioner Martin stated that a public demonstration cannot be held on grass according to the Demonstration Rules form obtained from the City Manager's Office; that the recent peace rally demonstration held in the City would have impeded pedestrian traffic had the demonstrators not been on the grass; that the origin and the reasons for prohibiting a demonstration from being on grass are unknown. Mr. Schneider stated that prohibiting a demonstration from being on grass has been a City regulation for over 10 yearsi; that the belief is the prohibition originated from a group of protestors demonstrating at the Sarasota County Courthouse; that prohibiting the protestors from the grass was thought the best method of handling the demonstration; that the same process had been utilized in dealing with demonstrations since that time; that the City will attempt to work with the sponsors of a demonstration with a significant number of people to find an appropriate location; that places to hold a demonstration exist in the City other than Bayfront Park. Commissioner Martin asked if public speakers are the determining factor between a demonstration and a special event? Mr. Schneider stated that yes; that the activities of a demonstration must be confined to public sidewalks, streets, or roadways and comply with all City ordinances including sound, with no other rights or privileges provided. BOOK 53 Page 24934 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24935 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that public speakers are not prohibited in the demonstration rules. Mr. Schneider stated that sponsors of the recent peace rally completed a demonstration form and did not indicate speakers or music would be part of the demonstration; that a special events application should have been filed had the City known the details of the peace rally. Commissioner Martin stated that people are allowed to have a demonstration but are prohibited from having anyone speak at the demonstration. Mr. Schneider stated that setting up a speaker system is the determining threshold between a demonstration and a special event. Commissioner Martin stated that the weekly Gifts from God event in Gillespie Park is the main reason the proposed Ordinance is before the Commission; and asked the manner in which the proposed Ordinance will impact the weekly Gifts from God event in Gillespie Park. Attorney Singer stated that Gifts from God would be required to apply for a special event permit; that allowing Gifts from God to apply by using a single application for multiple days must be determined by the City Manager's Office and applied equally to all applicants; that repeated weekly use of the pavilion in Gillespie Park may be found inconsistent with the use of the park by the City Manager's Office; therefore, another location within Gillespie Park may be suggested; that the City Manager's Office will evaluate the historical use of the park by Gifts from God to determine if additional requirements such as proper litter cleanup, portable toilets, and insurance must be imposed; that the intent is to find an accommodation which fits with the identification of the uses for the park and is consistent with allowing for the use of the park by all people; that the intent is not to restrict speech; that the citizenry desires the ability to protest; that protesting is only one form of First Amendment expression; that Gifts from God is exercising another form of expression; that unlimited ways in which people can express themselves exist under the First Amendment; that the proposed Ordinance is designed to regulate park use sO all persons can express themselves; that expression upheld under the US Supreme Court and Federal cases is not limited to verbal communication; that the giving of food could be deemed an expression; that a communicative message occurs between a panhandler and the person from whom the panhandler is seeking to solicit funds from; that the City was very cautious in developing regulations for panhandling. Attorney Singer continued that the concern regarding the use of Bayfront Park is the protection of the park from damage which will hinder the use of the park by the public; that if First Amendment expression in a park is not limited to public sidewalks, streets, and roadways without obtaining a special êvents permit, the park must be utilized for all other First Amendment expressions regardless of the use of the public sidewalks, streets, and roadways; that the result will be a definitive impact on the park; that damage may occur to sprinklers, grass, and facilities in the parks; that other potential locations at which the impact on the City's facilities may be less but not so remote from the location in which the protesters wish to express should be determined. Attorney Singer further stated that adequate appeal time is available if a decision regarding a special event permit is made 25 days prior to the event; that the Code of Chicago Park District regulations does not provide a deadline to file a special event permit which places the burden of allowing sufficient time for filing and a possible appeal prior to the event on the applicant; that the Commission should consider not providing a deadline for a special event permit. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is the Administration will have 25 days to make a decision; and asked for clarification regarding the time periods. Attorney Singer stated that submitting a special events permit application 45 days prior to the event would allow for a 20 day time period for the City Manager to make a decision 25 days prior to the event. BOOK 53 Page 24936 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24937 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the time periods are 20 days for an administrative decision, 7 days for an appeal, 10 days for the Special Master, and 3 days for the decision of the Special Master. Attorney Singer stated that is correct; that 5 days would remain prior to the event for the applicant to appeal to the Courts. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the previous discussion regarding the time periods was a reduction to 25 days to file an application prior to the event, 7 days for the City Manager to make a decision, 10 days to appeal to the Special Master, and 3 days for a decision from the Special Master; that the time periods must have been misunderstood. Attorney Singer stated that the time periods are 20 days for an administrative decision, 7 days for an appeal, 10 days for the Special Master, and 3 days for the decision of the Special Master Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested the following people came before the Commission: Jeanie Carroll, 1153 Highland Street (34234), stated that time is usually not available to attend the Commission meetings; however, the issue before the Commission at this time is very important; that she is thankful not to live in Chicago, Illinois, which served as the model for the proposed Ordinance; that the difficult job before the Commission of attempting to solve the problems in the community is understood; that the Gillespie Park problem is not known in detail; that the issue seems solely related to Gillespie Park; that the scope of the park situation is Citywide; that the fear is the problem may exist in one park and not in others; that a Citywide regulation may not be necessary; that nuisance, disturbance, and littering ordinances currently in place may alleviate the problem in Gillespie Park; that proposing new ordinances which address issues close to peoples' hearts during trying times should be avoided; that the scope of the proposed Ordinance is far too limiting to the majority of people; that existing laws which can be enforced must be available without enacting such broad new regulations. Ms. Carroll continued that the proposed Ordinance threatens her rights to assemble peacefully with more than 49 of her friends and neighbors; that a conscious choice is made every day to abide by the laws of the Countryi that the proposed Ordinance basically indicates she cannot be trusted to make correct choices; that the requirement to receive permission of the City Manager in advance and to pay additional fees above taxes which are already paid to use public facilities is not supported; that the US has become a nation of automobiles and gated communities; that getting together is a way to create and maintain communities which is required by all during difficult times; that most people have limited time; that the time parameters in the proposed Ordinance are difficult for people with busy schedules to meet; that the Commission is requested not to let fear of possible consequences be the basis of the decision; that passing the proposed Ordinance would be considered a loss of liberty; that the US Constitution is clear in the intent to allow for peaceful assembly; that the US Constitution is a document which has served the Country well for the past 200 years; that a question is if the City is aware of some reason the US Constitution should be dismantled. Ms. Carroll stated further that the Commission is urged to reconsider the proposed Ordinance; that times are difficult enough without feeling the local government does not trust citizens to behave in public places; and quoted Benjamin Franklin, a great patriot of the Country and a signer of the US Constitution who spoke to the issue in 1759 as follows: A man that is willing to give up his liberty to gain temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security. Viola Bernstein, 1697 Brookhouse Circle (34231), representing the Sarasota Alliance for Voter Education (SAVE), stated that SAVE is an alliance of eight citizen organizations consisting of Planned Parenthood, Common Cause, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, The Democratic Club, The Green Party, The Unitarian Church, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); that she is also a Board member of the ACLU; that letters from the ACLU and from the Venice Anti-War Coalition were sent to the Commission which is also part of her alliance; that the proposed Ordinance is similar to using an atomic bomb to take care of a flea; that the local situation in Gillespie Park is small; that realizing Chicago was used as a model for revising the proposed Ordinance was amazing; that Chicago is a large urban City which has had a history of a significant amount of disturbances; that Sarasota is a large, small town which has no history of real disturbances; that SAVE has a considerable BOOK 53 Page 24938 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24939 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. amount of questions concerning the broadness of the proposed Ordinance; that the fact is a small Gillespie Park disturbance has created a proposed Ordinance which is wide range; that the use of grass is something which speaks to her personally; that she comes from New York; that demonstrations were held in Central Park; that people are urged to use the grassy areas; that people are urged to use the grassy areas in the Bois de Boulogne park in France; that a request to table and reconsider the proposed Ordinance is respectfully submitted. Noel Smith, 3027 Willow Green (34235), stated that the onerous procedures and time delays heard in the proposed Ordinance simply for a group of people to meet in a public park in peaceful assembly are appalling; that little justification for the proposed Ordinance in Sarasota exists; that using Chicago as a model is a concern; that Chicago is known as a City with police riots; that a better model for Sarasota could have been found; that the procedure for people to peacefully assemble is long and onerous; that the matter should not be trivialized by indicating the problem is only in the parks; that public parks are mainly used for public assembly; that streets are not used for public assembly; that public property cannot be used for public assembly without special permission; that public parks are the main venue for use for public assembly; that the Commission should be given more time to consider the matter; that the problem in Gillespie Park should not be addressed in an overly broad manner, potentially trampling on the Constitutional rights of peaceful assembly. Leslie Druckenmiller (34234), stated that he has been demonstrating for peace for a significant amount of time, mostly alone except for the large peace rally which was held at Bayfront Park on February 15, 2003; that the church bells were rung for half an hour during the peace rally; that the ringing of the church bells provided a feeling of living in the land of liberty; that the experience was as if being in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, home of the Liberty Bell; that the timing of the proposed Ordinance is questioned; that the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001 is running rampantly over the rights of citizens; that additional language is planned which will remove remaining rights; that the timing of the proposed Ordinance is frightening; that the public parks are necessary for citizens to assemble; that the belief is many more assemblies will take place due to disagreement with decisions being made by the Federal government; that the hope is a nice place can be identified for citizens to assemble; that unfortunately, assemblies will likely become larger which is not the desire; that the hope is the current world conflict can be resolved peacefully; that the Commission began addressing the problem in Gillespie Park in October 2002; that the issue being brought before the Commission for a decision during such trying times is frightening; that the hope is the Commission will not approve the proposed Ordinance. Lisa French, 2303 Bougainvillea Street (34239), stated that she is thankful for coming before the Commission and sharing personal thoughts; that the thoughts raised by previous speakers are shared; that the proposed Ordinance is a concern and is frightening; that the First Amendment of the US Constitution was reviewed and indicates the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Ms. French continued that the proposed Ordinance which provides people may only stand on the sidewalks and not on the grass which is part of public property and which prohibits the gathering of a large crowd is not supported; that the assumption is a large crowd will not be peaceable; that a significant number of people regularly join together and are not violent simply due to the numbers involved; that the indication people must provide a particular purpose to obtain a permit is a concern; that the type of activity was indicated earlier as a criterion which may affect the City Manager's approval of a group meeting which is a concern; that an implication was also made speakers with microphones or musical instruments or who provide social services may be inappropriate in some manner; that the understanding is the proposed Ordinance requires the payment of fees to obtain a permit; that the fees may be arbitrary based upon the activity which is a major concern; that the situation in Gillespie Park was not previously known; that an awareness now exists; that the issue is of great concern; BOOK 53 Page 24940 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24941 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. that society is seeking to de-fund social services provided by public sources and leaving social services open to private voluntary efforts; that the problem in Gillespie Park is due to the social services being provided by private parties; that the private parties use public space; that the people most interested in providing social services are those with the fewest funds; that the City plans to charge volunteers desiring to provide social services; that providing social services or any activity in public space is not profit making; that commercial business is different; that charging fees to volunteers using public space to help people is a great concern; that the fees may not be considered high by some; however, the fees may limit some parties from providing necessary services. Ms. French further stated that she is a fairly new resident to Sarasota; that a significant amount of public space is not seen which is a concern; that the proposed Ordinance which allows the use of only certain places for protests or any other activity seems unfair; that the indication is protests or gatherings will only be allowed in parks which are not seen by tourists, are not maintained as well as others, or are older; that maintenance, trash, and sound ordinances which provide for methods of ensuring people are responsible must presently exist; that if not, the areas which are considered public space should be maintained by public funds; that the hope is the Commission will not vote in favor of the proposed Ordinance as currently written; and thanked the Commission for listening. Marvin Mills, 4517 Ascot Circle South (34235), representing Sarasota/Manatee Farmworker Supporters, stated that he is astounded and appalled concerning the equanimity and the reasonableness of the Commission in commencing to embark upon the issue of freedom of assembly; that approving the proposed Ordinance would be the wrong move; that the view of the relationship between the public and the parks is wrong; that he attended the February 15, 2003, peace rally at Bayfront Park; that the rally provided something beautiful; that people, children, and a sense of optimism were seen at the peace rally; that a movement for peace and the desires of the American public were expressed; that he is proud of Sarasota's cultural, religious, and social activities; that he is proud of the peace movement; that the idea of the efforts of the rebel public being contained, guided, and thwarted to promote good behavior is a concern; that violence did not occur at the peace rally; that the area was left clean after the peace rally; that the situation was ideal; that the Commission may not be aware of the context in which the proposed Ordinance is being considered; that the USA Patriot Act is the law of the land; that citizens have wrestled as a nation with having personal liberties limited to protect national security; that personal liberties are already in decline; that a question is if acting on the proposed Ordinance is fortuitous. Mr. Mills continued that the Commission is considering furthering the limits imposed on the liberties of the citizens of Sarasota; that a danger of doing sO is evident in every editorial and newspaper; that the fact the US which champions liberty may be at the same time creating limitations on liberty to gain liberty is being questioned and is a danger being faced; that the proposed Ordinance which is perhaps innocuous and designed to protect City parks from citizens trampling on the grass affects a significantly greater issue which concerns democracy and freedom of expression; that reducing democracy and freedom of expression is a concern; that 30 to 45 days to wait for approval of an application for a permit is too long; that wars can last 7 days; that the potential war in Iraq may be over in one week; that the devastation could occur at any time while the City is considering if a rally concerning peace will be allowed; that time is not available for a 30 to 45 day waiting period; that the Commission is urged not to approve the proposed Ordinance; that the concepts in the proposed Ordinance are abominable. Joele Jaffe, 3901 Center Gate Circle (34233), stated that the previous speakers have eloquently expressed her thoughts; that the Commission is pleaded not to approve the proposed Ordinance which will quiet the voices which should be heard and to ensure freedom exists in Sarasota and in the rest of the Country. Julia Aires, P.O. Box 32108 (34239), stated that the opportunity to speak is appreciated; that she personally completed the demonstration form for the peace rally and the walk; that the fact the demonstration was planned as a peace rally was clearly indicated on the form; that any rally will possibly have speakers and music; that the beautiful park, the use of the park, and the cooperation of the Sarasota Police Department were appreciated; that abridging the right to demonstrate is a concerni that having the right to demonstrate is gratifying; however, speakers demonstrating in support of a peace rally on BOOK 53 Page 24942 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24943 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. the sidewalk at the corner of Gulf Stream Avenue and US 41 would be impossible; that a small park such as Selby Five Points Park is not an acceptable venue for a rally of 2,200 people or more; that prohibiting the public from using the grass in a public park is totally unreasonable and unacceptable; that the Commission is requested not to create further hardships by creating requirements for insurance, fees, and extended time periods for applying for permits; that the process could potentially take 90 days if a permit is denied and appealed; that establishing a time period for issuance of a permit creates hardship on a group which desires to respond quickly to an event or action taking place in the Country; that other groups are inhibited by the existing regulations which is a concerni that the problem not only lies with the proposed Ordinance; that the entire process requires review; that existing regulations should be reviewed to determine the effects on groups desiring to hold an event such as a peace rally; that an event involving speakers or music falls out of the demonstration category; that the event would still be subject to the 30 day advance application requirement which currently exist; that the requirements in the existing regulations are objectionable; that the Commission is requested to reexamine the entire issue of public park use. Timothy McKenna, 2843 Bay Street (34237), stated that he has resided in Sarasota for 47 yearsi that walking with his family to Bayfront Park for the peace rally was exciting and interesting; that he felt proud of Sarasota for providing the opportunity to use Bayfront Park for the peace rally; that Bayfront Park was used for a peace rally 37 years ago; that the same message and experience was shared; that the same regulations for use of Bayfront Park existed 37 years ago; that comparing Sarasota to Chicago, Illinois, in any reference is incredible; that regulations and laws regulating the sound level of music in parks, noise ordinances, and all kinds of different regulations are currently in existence; that the multi-faceted existing regulations should be examined to determine application to the political and social environment which currently exists; that some great thoughts have been expressed throughout the evening; that prohibiting people from gathering on the grass in the parks is a concern and is ludicrous; that gathering on the road, side of the road, or sidewalk will be a safety hazard particularly if the crowd is large. Mr. McKenna continued that the appeal time is not supported; that the world is changing; that 30 to 45 days to obtain a permit to assemble in response to an event is ludicrous; that the event will have come and gone by the time the permit to demonstrate is issued; that an advantage of living in the US is citizens can gather together and express views; that freedom of speech is not being impeded; however, the process of being able to express freedom of speech is being abridged by the proposed Ordinance; that the opportunity to speak before the Commission is appreciated; that further discussion and review is necessary; that the Commission is requested not to make a decision regarding the proposed Ordinance at this time; that the citizens and the Commission do not have knowledge of all the issues and possible regulations; that Bayfront Park is used for highly Commercialized uses such as the Fourth of July celebrations and the Boat Parade; that liquor is sold at some events taking place in parks; that all sorts of concessions and activities take place at parks which bring funds into the City to assist in offsetting the cost of parks; that existing regulations provide appropriate policing of parks; that more regulations are not necessary. Jason Boehk, 2303 York Drive (34238), representing the Sarasota County Green Party, stated that he is a resident of Sarasota Countyi that the opportunity to speak before the Commission is appreciated; that the Commission is urged to consider the views of residents of the County as well as the City; that the capitol of the County is the City of Sarasota; that a very bad precedent which may be followed by other areas in the County may be set by passing the proposed Ordinance; that the notion grass does not grow again if being stood on by people for a couple of hours is striking; that the Scotts Company has brilliant plant scientists who breed durable, resilient, hybrid grass seed which grows into turf and then into sod; that no facetiousness is meant; that the individuals representing the City are respected; however, the proposed Ordinance as written could be used by a Draconian bureaucrat; and quoted a portion of the proposed Ordinance as follows: except for events of a governmental agency, a special event permit shall be required for any public assembly, picnic, or other event in any public park involving 50 or more individuals or to use a public park during hours it is closed pursuant to Article 3 of this Chapter BOOK 53 Page 24944 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24945 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Boehk continued that the proposed Ordinance does not indicate an exception for political speech or family reunions of over 50 individuals; that many families with more than 50 individuals are personally known and may come out on a beautiful Sunday afternoon to assemble in a public park; that if the proposed Ordinance were passed and enforced, the family of 51 people could be fined or otherwise penalized for assembling in a park; that the grass areas in parks are perfect as a meeting place for large groups of people. Mr. Boehk read in its entirety a Petition signed by more than 30 people as follows: Whereas, the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Florida guarantee freedom of speech and assemby, and, Whereas, the City Commissioners of Sarasota have taken a solemn oath to "support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States, and the State of Florida"; and Whereas, the City Attorney has drafted the proposed Ordinance #03-4433, "to require groups of 50 or more persons to obtain a special event permit to use a park"; and Whereas, we believe that the proposed Ordinance is arbitrary and capricious in the manner it would interfere with the right of peaceable, well-intentioned individuals to spontaneously-or with short notice- organize large groups of people to assemble in public parks, for whatever purpose; and Therefore, we the undersigned call on the Sarasota City Commission to act in the spirit of our state and federal Constitutions by NOT approving this proposed Ordinance #03- 4433. Mr. Boehk stated that the Commission is urged to read the text of the proposed Ordinance; that many elements are too difficult on which to make a comment; that the feeling is the elements in the proposed Ordinance are a moving target; that an earlier indication was changes and amendments could and should possibly be made; that a decision is being made concerning the proposed Ordinance as written at the present time; that the Commission is urged to bring any proposed or revised proposed Ordinance back for further public comment to provide an opportunity for comment concerning concrete language which is specific and clear; that commenting on moving targets should be avoided; that the Commission is requested not to criminalize the situation of homelessness; that Gillespie Park residents have valid concerns which are understood; that existing Ordinances may provide for enforcement or may be revised to address the problems expressed by the Gillespie Park residents without invoking the broad brush which affects all freedom of assembly. Charles McKenzie, 2497 22nd Street (34234), stated that he is a resident of Sarasota County and a concerned citizen; that as an ordained associate of an international Christian ministry, a State liaison of a national civil rights organization, a Board member of the State Board of the ACLU, and an Associate Director of Development for the Florida Council of Churches, he is often called away to address concerns of citizens around the State. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to extend the meeting beyond the scheduled time of 9:30 p.m. to the end of the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mr. McKenzie continued that the proposed Ordinance is alarming enough and potentially dangerous enough to merit time and attention in the Cityi and quoted the First Amendment of the Constitution as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Mr. McKenzie continued that the First Amendment provides for citizens to have the right to gather peacefully and parade or demonstrate to express one's views or to support a stand in opposition to a public policy; that a public policy proposal is based on the fundamental guarantees of the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. BOOK 53 Page 24946 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24947 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. McKenzie stated further that public parks are for the use and enjoyment of all citizens; that access to public parks for spontaneous use is a vital component in maintaining healthy neighborhoods, communities, and civic life in Sarasota; that parks are a necessary and invaluable amenity to sustain the quality of life enjoyed; that the provisions of the proposed Ordinance will stifle the vitality of the citizens and abridge the guaranteed protection covered by the First Amendment to the US Constitution; that some provisions in the proposed Ordinance are especially onerous; that the threshold to obtain a permit for gatherings of 50 or more people is arbitrary; that one person seeking to do harm to public facilities could potentially do more damage than thousands of well meaning citizens; that the 45 day advance application is unreasonable; that a special event permit if necessary should be minimally intrusive and time sensitive; that discretionary granting of permits by the City Manager based on potentially adverse affects places far too much interpretive authority in the hands of the City Manager; that granting the City Manager authority to designate an appropriate location for planned events does not give citizens equal access to public parks; that a six month waiting period after the permit denial further stifles the initiative and abridges the freedom of citizens; that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to a "paralyses of analyses," which is the direction in which the proposed Ordinance is heading. Mr. McKenzie further stated that the intent of the proposed Ordinance may be to facilitate the respectful and orderly usage of parks; however, the proposed Ordinance extends beyond the original intent and would have the ultimate result of granting too much authority to one individual and too little free access to the citizens of the community; that the proposed Ordinance is perceived as hostile and is driven by motives which cannot be discerned; that the Commission is urged to work diligently and to seek alternative methods to solve the problems identified by citizen complaints and to create solutions which will continue to foster community vitality. Travis MacArthur, 933 Sirus Trail (34232), stated that he is a student and resides in Sarasota County; that certain events could not be accommodated by the proposed Ordinance; that the belief is certain events will be essential to the continuing vitality of the City; that a peace demonstration is planned in the County for the day the Federal government possibly attacks Iraqi that the day of the attack on Iraq cannot be predicted; therefore, the 45 day processing time would effectively cancel the planned demonstration; that the understanding is protests are similarly planned in hundreds of cities around the US on the day of the attack on Iragi that understanding the reasons the City cannot handle spontaneous protests is difficult if the police and civil servants can handle spontaneous protests in other cities; that an example is people perceiving a case of police brutality would certainly not wish to wait 45 days to let the issue cool off; that the desire would be to pressure officials and express outrage promptly in a public park; that the proposed Ordinance would likely prohibit such spontaneous demonstrations; that the prohibition could inflame passions and cause greater problems than a demonstration without having the proposed Ordinance in effect; that the affected persons could even decide to hold the demonstration anyway, perhaps leading to arrests and disorder. Mr. MacArthur continued that citizens will undoubtedly wish to express personal grief publicly perhaps in a vigil in a public park if another terrorist attack similar to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack in New York City, New York, takes place; that a vigil would be impossible under the proposed Ordinance if more than 50 people attended; that a vigil would likely have more than 50 people in attendance; that the Commission likely * does not wish to prohibit a vigil in the park during a sorrowful time in the Nation's history; that a recent vigil was held for a student who lost his life in a vehicle accident; that the vigil was held at a beach and was attended by over 50 people; that the recent vigil for the student would not have been allowed if the proposed Ordinance was in effect; that the proposed Ordinance is overly restrictive, unnecessary, and could harm the political and social vitality of the City. John Francis 9302 71st Avenue East, Palmetto (34221), stated that the reason the City chooses to create a regulation limiting the activities taking place in parks is a concern; that a few people have been able to influence the City Manager and City employees; that the proposed Ordinance appears to restrict people from gathering to publicly express personal views concerning current National events, which is not right; that the proposed Ordinance is a burden; that having gatherings in close proximity in time to events which prompted the public gathering will be impossible; that the City seems willing to change peaceful gatherings into confrontations with law enforcement BOOK 53 Page 24948 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24949 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. officers who would be required to enforce the law if more than 50 people illegally gathered to express the right to free speech; that abridging the rights of fellow citizens also imposes restrictions on everyone; that some rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution; that citizens should be careful to protect the rights; that the proposed Ordinance does not have a legitimate governmental purpose. Grissim Walker, P.O. Box 15726 (34277), representing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated that he is a resident of the County; that he holds an Occupational License in the City; that the ACLU has many members who are City residents; that the suggestion of willingness to address the 30 to 45 day advance application requirement is welcome; that responding to, fast moving events would not be practical under the structure of the proposed Ordinance; that the proposed Ordinance even with an exception for designated First Amendment activities places the City in the position of making an impermissible content based decision on which type of speech receives the benefit of the demonstration rules and which type of speech must suffer through the regular procedures; that a reason exists for feeding the homeless in a public area; that feeding the homeless in a public area allows for expressive content; that expressive content exists in virtually any large gathering. Mr. Walker continued that the US Supreme Court did not specifically address 50 people as constituting a large gathering; that the number of people constituting a large group was a facial challenge to the Chicago, Illinois, Ordinance; that the group which challenged the Ordinance was a marijuana legalization groupi that previous events were held in Chicago and had drawn 10,000 people; that the focus at the time of the litigation was not the legitimacy of the restrictions as applied to groups of 50 and under; that the number of people was not a focus of the litigants in the case; that the US Supreme Court has not addressed the question of reasonableness as applied to groups as small as 50, 100, or for any particular number; that the proposed Ordinance would have a chilling affect on smaller groups. Mr. Walker further stated that the legal standard for group gatherings was provided earlier; that the legal standard must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest; that the Chicago Ordinance chose 50 people as constituting a large group and is the reason for indicating 50 people in the City's proposed Ordinance; that the proposed Ordinance is far from being narrowly tailored; that the proposed Ordinance is designed for application to all groups; that 50 people is not an appropriate number; that the burden for smaller groups is greater if a requirement exists for insurance and a filing fee; that all the standards are more significant for groups under 50; that the impact on City parks is reduced with smaller groups; that the City's focus should be special events which actually have the potential for special danger. Mr. Walker stated further that the proposed Ordinance does not provide for grounds of denial which makes judicial review much more difficult; that the timeframe for the appeals process is far too long; that the City has a different appeals process than Chicago; that the City is inviting Federal Court litigation seeking injunctions if an adequate remedy is not identified; that the proposed Ordinance indicates the City can force a permit applicant to hold a gathering in an alternative location if the City deems the location indicated in the application as unacceptable; that an additional requirement is the same request cannot be made within six months; that the City has the ability to deny an application based on location; that the process outlined in the proposed Ordinance will not work; that Chicago was found to have a record of never denying spontaneous political permits in the judicial review by the Appellate Court; that the proposed Ordinance has language which refers to any gathering; that the City may already have an existing demonstration provision; that the existing demonstration provision will be superceded by the proposed Ordinance if approved unless the City Manager is instructed to ignore the new Ordinance and continue to apply a portion of a previous Ordinance; that any public assembly will be affected if the Commission passes the proposed Ordinance. Frances Eckstein, 3606 Clark Drive (34234), stated that she has lived in Sarasota since 1965; that the proposed Ordinance is not supported; that the thoughts presented by the previous speakers are shared. Joy McIntosh, 1865 Fifth Street (34236), stated that the thoughts expressed by previous speakers concerning rights to organize on park grassy areas and to utilize the parks for demonstration purposes have been heard; that as a citizen, she should be able to spontaneously utilize the parks for all BOOK 53 Page 24950 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24951 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. purposesi; that the problem in Gillespie Park could occur in all parks; that the rights of other citizens to use a park are lost if one particular group uses a park every Sunday on a weekly basis; that the problem in Gillespie Park has necessitated the requirement of a permit if other small groups wish to use the park; that Gillespie Park cannot be used spontaneously since a group of people are using the park every Sunday; that the proposed Ordinance is supported for one particular issue which is public health; that people will urinate all over the park if large groups of people who are known to gather every week are not provided public bathroom facilities; that food is served at the weekly gathering; that the groups responsible for the event taking place in the park should take responsibility by at least providing temporary bathroom facilities and by cleaning the area afterwards; that the groups responsible should remain throughout the duration of the event until everyone participating in the event leaves the park; that the people attending the event should not be left alone in the park for four or more hours prior to or after the event; that requiring a permit for 50 or more people to use the park will prevent one single group from weekly weekend use, thus allowing other groups the enjoyment of City parks; that people are reminded one day other parks in the City may be used on a regular basis which will make the parks unavailable for spontaneous gatherings. Eva Smith, 3364 Tallywood Court (34237), stated that she has been a City resident for 13 years and a homeowner in the County since 1979; that she is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church which has existed in the City for more than 50 years; that she is 80 years old with limited walking ability; however, the proposed Ordinance is considered overkill and dangerous to civil liberties which is the reason for coming before the Commission at this time; that the desire for details concerning the proposed Ordinance were also reasons for attending the meeting; that the understanding is one reason for the proposed Ordinance is the problems in Gillespie Park; that the frustration of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association leaders who have worked sO hard and long to free Gillespie Park from drug sellers and users and prostitutes is understood; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood consists of many hardworking families who only have time to use the park on weekends. Ms. Smith continued that a group came to the Unitarian Universalist Church a couple of years ago with a request to use the Church kitchen to prepare meals which would be served to all comers in Gillespie Park; that the Church's Social Concerns Committee contacted the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association for input; that the Church's Social Concerns Committee subsequently voted to deny the request for use of the Church kitchen but began to volunteer at the Salvation Army serving meals every Wednesday evening; that the recent rally for peace was not attended; that the rally for peace drew more than 2,000 citizens to Bayfront Park; that significant damage was not heard to have occurred; however, some wear and tear must have occurred; that many citizens clearly felt the desire to peacefully protest against going to war and to do sO on short notice; that citizens should have the right to demonstrate; that the Salvation Army which will be opening soon on Tenth Street will be able to serve 1,000 meals per day; that the site is only a few blocks from Gillespie Park; that a suggestion in the spirit of cooperation to those who have provided food in Gillespie Park is to offer services through the Salvation Army and to bring those who have been coming to Gillespie Park for food to the Salvation Army; that the Commission is requested to deny the proposed Ordinance or send the proposed Ordinance back for revision to hopefully produce a better document. Verna Tomasson, 1820 University Place (34235), stated that she is a member of the League of Women Voters and the Social Concerns Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Church; that she has come before the Commission at this time as a concerned citizen to protest against the proposed Ordinance; that the proposed Ordinance is probably unconstitutional by abridging the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution; that the proposed Ordinance is reminiscent of the poll tax; that a right to vote existed but was abridged as people were required to pay a tax for the privilege to vote; that people have the right to assemble; that people should not have to pay money to assemble in a public place; that the 30 to 45 day application process prevents people from spontaneously responding to current events which is abusive; that the proposed Ordinance places too much power into the hands of the City Manager; that the City Manager will have the sole discretion of who should receive a permit; that the decision will likely be content based; that Ordinances concerning maintaining the cleanliness of the parks already exist; that a new Ordinance which addresses cleanliness of the parks is not necessary; that the proposed Ordinance could be potentially expensive; that the proposed Ordinance will bring BOOK 53 Page 24952 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24953 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. forth a significant number of legal challenges; that the proposed Ordinance should be cancelled which would save the citizens and the City a considerable amount of money. Tammy Burns, and Alex Burns 2936 Dick Wilson (340/representing Gifts from God, came before the Commission. Ms. Burns stated that she has worked with Gifts from God for the past two yearsi that the problem began at the time Gifts from God began providing social services to the homeless people in Gillespie Park; that food is the social service being provided; that four years ago a meal was not provided for the homeless on Sunday evenings; that many homeless people were hungry on Sunday evenings; that the homeless people can now receive meals in air conditioning from the Salvation Army; however, 200 to 300 homeless people still come to Gillespie Park every Sunday; that the homeless people do not come to Gillespie Park every Sunday just for food; that the reason is someone from Gifts from God has been in Gillespie Park for the homeless people every Sunday for the last four years; that the names of the homeless people are known; that Gifts from God is aware if certain homeless people are not in attendance; that Gifts from God has taken homeless people by vehicle to restoration facilities in Fort Myers, Florida, the Salvation Army, and to hospitals; that medication has been provided; that the homeless people do not come to Gillespie Park every Sunday for social services but rather to receive care from individuals representing Gifts from God; that hugs and conversation are provided to the homeless people; that the homeless people come to worship and have fellowship with individuals representing Gifts from God; that Gifts from God desires to spend time with the homeless people. Ms. Burns continued that the work with the homeless people is not the entire work performed by Gifts from God; that formerly homeless people who previously attended the Sunday social services provided by Gifts from God now have jobs and homes and still come to Gillespie Park on Sundays to assist and serve with Gifts from God; that insight concerning ways to cease living on the streets is provided to existing homeless people; that Gifts from God volunteers give up every weekend; that her family comes to Gillespie Park every Sunday to spend time with the homeless people; that giving up every Sunday is not a problem for her family; that some people in the Gillespie Park neighborhood come and spend time with Gifts from God; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood consists of a mix of different people; that some people living in Gillespie Park are borderline poverty, will not go to the Salvation Army to receive a free meal, but will come to the park and sit, worship, fellowship, and eat with Gifts from God; that bags of food may be taken home by some Gillespie Park neighbors; that Gifts from God packs up food to go if food is left over; that to indicate Gifts from God is taking over the park to the point the park cannot be utilized by others is not true; that a group of men has played soccer at the park every weekend for the past two years; that the group of men no longer play soccer but rather sit and listen to the service provided by Gifts from God; that children are able to play and walk all through the park during the social services provided by Gifts from God; that Gifts from God will attempt to assist the Gillespie Park neighborhood; that trash is bagged and removed from the park; that the park is walked to ensure trash is not left behind; that recently six homeless people remained in the park after the services provided by Gifts from God were over which is not excessive; that the park is for homeless people as well; that the hope is the Commission does not pass the proposed Ordinance; that the time constraints outlined in the proposed Ordinance will wrap the process up in red tape; that the proposed Ordinance will succeed in the original intent which is to basically shut down the social services provided by Gifts from God; that Gifts from God has the same goal as the City which is to have the homeless people off the street and to provide a new direction in life. Mr. Burns stated that he is 13 years old and he has been working in Gillespie Park every available Sunday for the past two years; that he was afraid of homeless people due to appearances prior to working in the park; that after working in the park, he realized homeless people speak and are nice; that the inability to afford nice things does not make homeless people second class citizens; that people are judged on money, looks, and possessions; that people should look deeper into the person inside; that homeless people are not all drug addicts or alcoholics; that some homeless people are normal; that homeless people are neglected by society; that conversations can be held with homeless people; that a sense of love is felt from homeless people; that the Salvation Army provides meals for homeless people, but Gifts from God provides love and attention; that homeless people are considered friends. BOOK 53 Page 24954 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24955 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Margaret Taylor, 850 South Tamiami Trail (34236), stated that she is a resident of the City; that Gillespie Park does not have any public restrooms; that opening some restrooms will solve some of the sanitation problems; that the understanding is open restrooms will create crime; that New York City, New York, has open restrooms; that New York City has significantly more crime in parks than Sarasota; that the restrooms are closed and locked at dark; that homeless people being outside and seen by people is great; that forgetting about homeless people would be easy if homeless people were kept hidden from society; that anyone can become homeless especially considering the fluctuating economy; that people should be able to exercise the right to gather peacefully without time restrictions; that people should be able to gather on grass at public parks; that any body of government or individual denying the freedom of speech is unconstitutionalz that the right to freedom of speech and freedom to hold public rallies is fundamental to all in a free nation; that a permit requirement would be unconstitutional and take up time which can be devastating for political or urgent social causes; that the Commission is requested to allow citizens to gather in public parks on the grass in peaceful waysi that parks are for everyone's use; that a permit to obtain freedom of speech should not be required. Ted Smith, 3110 Bispham Road (34231), representing Gifts from God, stated that he is the President of the Board of Directors of Gifts from God and a volunteer at the Sunday afternoon social services provided by Gifts from God at Gillespie Park; that a significant amount of hurt and lack of hope is seen as a volunteer; that at the time human hope ends, hope in God begins; that Gifts from God brings hope to Gillespie Park every Sunday; that he has a personal ministry in saving soles; that he looks at soles; that the men, women, and children, especially the men, who attempt to obtain jobs cannot get work without proper foot wear; that he obtains shoe sizes and shops at Goodwill or at Kmart at the time of a good sale to obtain shoes and boots for the homeless people. Mr. Smith continued that a story about a young man named Steve is offered; that Steve is a young man seen sober for the first time during Thanksgiving of 2002; that Steve broke down on Christmas Eve of 2002; that Steve desired to go back to Chatanooga, Tennessee, to visit his two children of ages 3 and 4 years; that through a significant amount of prayer and work, Steve will be able to go back to Chatanooga to see his children; that prayers are being said for Steve to remain with his children in Chatanooga; that the homeless people are loved until the homeless people ask the reason for being loved; that the time the homeless people ask the reason for being loved is the time Gifts from God realizes help can be provided; that the Commission is requested to deny the proposed Ordinance; that Gifts from God meets in Gillespie Park as good neighbors and to help people; that the video tape which has been provided to the Commission shows litter being picked up in the park before and after the services Gifts from God are provided; that Gifts from God does the best possible job; that the hope is to continue to provide the services in Gillespie Park until a permanent home is found; that the hope is a permanent home will be found soon. Michael Butterfield, Pastor, Executive Director, Gifts from God of Sarasota, Inc., 369 Dolphin Shores Circle, Nokomis (34275), representing Gifts from God, stated that the complaints presented to the Commission regarding the activities in Gillespie Park on Sunday are untrue; that the Commission has previously been begged not to judge or to proceed with developing new regulations; that the Commission is busy and is responsible for addressing major issues; that he is thankful for not being a Commissioner; that Gifts from God arrives in Gillespie Park at 3:30 p.m. every Sunday; that the talk of people loitèring in the park for days after the Sunday services or the talk of totally occupying the pavilion in the park are not true; that proof can be provided; that the Commission is invited to attend the services in the park provided by Gifts from God; that the Commission and the public are invited to come to Gillespie Park to say hello, drink lemonade, and spend two hours with Gifts from God; that the truth will be known if the services provided by Gifts from God are personally viewed; that the message has been brought before the Commission for years; that Gifts from God has been branded due to false comments and untruths; that the people Gifts from God meets in the park include some of the 150 people who have been supplied free furniture; that the people Gifts from God meets at the entry of Gillespie Park include some of the single mothers who have been provided 60 vehicles; that the people Gifts from God meets in the park have been provided with free furniture and vehicles; that a total of nine tons of food has been delivered; that volunteers deliver food to the people in the park; that Gifts from God has received a bad reputation which breaks his heart. BOOK 53 Page 24956 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24957 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Reverend Butterfield continued that prayers are said to avoid becoming angry over the situation; that thoughts were expressed by the previous individual speakers who have never been to the Sunday services provided by Gifts from God; that he is aware of who has attended the services; that people have been very kind during the Commission meeting for a change but have never attended the services; that people are basing opinions on hearsay; that the Commission is implored to deny the proposed Ordinance; that an entire team of volunteer attorneys are in disbelief about the proposed Ordinance; that the Commission is requested to come to Gillespie Park on Sunday if the proposed Ordinance is in response to the services provided by Gifts from God; that Gifts from God is not comprised of outlaws as has been portrayed; that Gifts from God has been following the Commission's advice in a continuing attempt in being good neighbors; that Gifts from God is searching for new property; that the services provided have grown; that the people involved can be better served in another location; that the services provided must take place in an area to which the people requiring the services can walk; that vehicles are not used. Reverend Butterfield further stated that Gifts from God desires a different location to provide services; that the Commission is urged to allow the services being provided by Gifts from God to continue in another more desirable location if the proposed or similar Ordinance is passed. Jim McIntosh, 1865 Fifth Street (34236), stated that he is a resident of Sarasota; that the understanding is the objective which many people seem to not understand or forget is simply to establish an equitable framework to ensure all parks are available to more of the community all of the time; that the proposed Ordinance goes a long way towards the objective; that the Commission is urged to adopt the proposed Ordinance. Tina Riggle, 1743 Eighth Street (34236), stated that she is a resident of Gillespie Park; that over the past three years, she has observed the negative effects of large groups using the neighborhood park in Gillespie Park; that the negative effects include overflowing trash cans, giving away clothes which are scattered on picnic tables, men urinating on trees while families with children are in the vicinity, and food thrown in trash cans which cause maggots to crawl out and into the police substation; that a requirement should be established to ensure large groups are responsible for behavior of this type; that the proposed Ordinance will assist in ensuring responsibility, that the proposed Ordinance is supported. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), stated that she is President of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association; that very different views of the same situation have been heard; that she has lived in the Gillespie Park neighborhood for 22 years; that she and fellow neighbors have been negatively impacted by large groups coming in and having events in Gillespie Park; that the time has come to regulate the events relative to litter, noise, and restroom facilities; that a difference of opinion is evident; that documents provided to the Commission in October 2001 substantiated a significant amount of the problem and requested relief; that the desire is for the community to understand the problems the Gillespie Park neighborhood has had to endure over the last four years; that pictures have been taken to prove the trash is not removed; that strolls are taken through the park each morning; that every Monday morning trash is strewn throughout the park as a result of the Gifts from God gathering; that Reverend Butterfield indicated he is a good neighbor; that she must contradict as the Sarasota Police Department is telephoned every Sunday since her home cannot be enjoyed due to the excessive amplified noise coming from Gillespie Park; that the telephone calls to the Sarasota Police Department are substantiated; that Reverend Butterfield is aware of the complaints; that the Gillespie Park neighbors have requested Gifts from God to abstain from using amplified music sO homes can be enjoyed on Sunday afternoon; that the amplified music continues every Sunday afternoon; that the trash continues and the public urination continues; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood is requesting large groups be regulated sO trash is properly disposed and public restrooms are provided; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood is requesting the community respect the beautiful green space in the park and the neighbors of Gillespie Park; that the Gillespie Park neighbors have a right to the quiet enjoyment of homes and property; that City parks must be preserved and protected; that the issue is simple; that the request is to protect not only the community's City park but all City parks and for people to be respectful while participating in activities in City parks; that the proposed Ordinance was developed since groups have not been respecting Gillespie Park or other parks; that the proposed Ordinance or some kind of regulation and permitting process is supported; that the hope is the green spaces in the parks will remain BOOK 53 Page 24958 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24959 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. beautiful for all citizens to enjoy; that the Commission's consideration concerning the issue is appreciated; that the evening has been difficult; that the proposed Ordinance is confusing; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood has been requesting relief for a long time; that the hope is the Commission will respect the desires of the Gillespie Park neighbors which is to live in quiet surroundings. Judy Belt, 1706 Ninth Street (34236), stated that she has come before the Commission at this time to request the adoption of the proposed Ordinance for many of the reasons previously outlined by Ms. Holland; that almost all the speakers who are opposed to the proposed Ordinance do not reside or have financial or personal interest invested in Gillespie Park; that people who have a vested personal and financial interest in Gillespie Park request a permit to utilize the Gillespie Park pavilion; that any group coming from another location in the City should be expected to apply for a permit; that a requirement to apply for a permit does not infringe on Constitutional rights; that Gillespie Park has been abused by one particular group for four years; that the time has come for the group abusing Gillespie Park to move on; that she is not against homeless people; that a piece of land should be located if Gifts from God desires to provide social services on a weekly basis; that the 200 people attending the Gifts from God services every Sunday prevent other citizens from using the park pavilion; that a smaller group of 25 people cannot use the pavilion on Sunday; that the park is a neighborhood park. Ms. Belt continued that the people attending the Gifts from God services do not belong in the neighborhood and should find their own neighborhood; that the weekly services provided by Gifts from God should not be taking place in any City park; that the time has come for a permitting process for use of any park in the Cityi that the belief is the problem will move to another park; that permits are required to fish and hunt; that a permit to assemble in a park is no different. Wayne Genthner, 629 Payne Parkway (34237), stated that he is familiar with the parks in the Downtown area; that the concerns of the Gillespie Park neighborhood are shared; that the concerns could be addressed with more surgical tactics rather than painting the issue with a broad brush; that the proposed Ordinance is not painting with a broad brush but rather with a hammer; that Sarasota is known as a cultural center for expression; that Sarasota displays the Statue of David; that Sarasota has a long history of arts and entertainment; that public art is placed in the City's public parks for people to enjoy; that a legacy is people are invited into Sarasota to enjoy the public parks; that a question is if people are being uninvited from using the City's parks. Mr. Genthner stated that the proposed Ordinance carries a perception which does not seem appropriate; that the proposed Ordinance is not an appropriate act to address the problems in Gillespie Park or anywhere else; that the economics of the situation should be examined; that money is brought into area businesses by drawing people into public parks; that the money brought into area businesses assists in paying taxes which nurture the parks and the park grass; that allowing rather than preventing enjoyment of the parks is more appropriate; that the legislation should be revisited in the future and edited. Peter Burkard, 7614 Linden Lane (34243), stated that he has been an area resident since 1964, conducts business within the City, and has family with significant property holdings in the City; that the Commission is urged to reconsider any action which would deny or restrict citizens' ability to gather in the public commons in a peaceable and nondestructive manner; that the restriction of political events is of primary concerni that the Commission is sworn to uphold the US Constitution; that the US Constitution explicitly allows citizens to gather to petition the government for a redress of grievances; that any local action which would restrict peaceful, political gatherings in public areas is blatantly unconstitutional and should not be under consideration; that the Commission should honestly divulge to the public the reasons the proposed Ordinance is being considered; that appropriate laws should already exist which assure certain activities in public parks are illegal such as commercial activities or activities which damage public property; that a regulation which addresses the specific problem activity should be enacted if an existing regulation does not address the problem; that the suggestion to preapprove any activity involving 50 or more people is onerous and absurd; that spontaneous gatherings which are part of the life and blood of a civicly engaged community should not be declared illegal; that doing sO is difficult to imagine. BOOK 53 Page 24960 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24961 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Burkard continued that the likelihood the proposed Ordinance will pass judicial review was part of an earlier discussion; that merely passing judicial review does not make a law fair, reasonable, or appropriate for the City; that being inviting and exceptional is a theme for which the City strives; that the Administration indicated earlier a permit for demonstrations is not required as long as no one actually speaks or sets foot off of a hard surface, which makes him nervous; that the understanding is fees will be required to obtain permits; that the City may be looking for an additional revenue source during fiscally difficult times; that the concern is for groups less able to afford imposed fees; that a question is if Constitutional rights are now only available to those able to afford to pay fees. Mr. Burkard further stated that better methods to raise money are surely available rather than breaching the US Constitution; that citizens are living through a period in time which already represents a serious challenge to Constitutional rights and civil liberties; that new attempts at repression and secrecy now flow from the Federal government in a daily stream of frightening implications; that the terrorists have already won if citizens give up cherished freedom of speech and assembly; that the role of local government is to serve as a bulwark of protection for the citizens against such abuses rather than being a willing accomplice in an assault on Constitutional rights; that the Commission is requested not to abandon the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights by proceeding with the proposed Ordinance. Dick Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that the proposed Ordinance is not supported; that action can be taken by the Commissioners and the Administration with regard to the existing problem in Gillespie Park; that he lived in Chicago, Illinois, on the north side; that people could sit on an orange crate, sing and strum a guitar, or stand on the orange crate and discuss any topic; that the Chicago Police Department protected the area; that a significant amount of freedom has come out of Chicago; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood has a legitimate complaint; however, the complaint should not be addressed by the proposed Ordinance; that the belief is the Commission should vote against the proposed Ordinance at this time; that Staff and the Administration should craft a proposal which will address thé problem in Gillespie Park. Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive (34237), stated that he is a member of the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association and a neighborhood association; that he is wearing the 2nd Infantry Division patch which he earned in the US Army fighting for the rights of all citizens to assemble and protest peacefully or give out food or minister; that the issue has caused personal emotion; that the chilling effect of the proposed Ordinance is real; that more than 55 people have illegally assembled in the Commission Chambers at this time without a permit; that the City has a history of dealing with situations severely; that the Sarasota Police Department has shot quite a few people; that the hope is the Commission will discuss the matter with the Chief of Police to ensure the Sarasota Police Officers responsible for enforcing the proposed Ordinance, if approved, have rubber bullet guns in lieu of 9mm pistols. Mayor Mason stated that the comments regarding the Sarasota Police Department are inappropriate; that Mr. Senf is requested to refrain from making such comments. Commissioner Quillin and Vice Mayor Palmer agreed. Mr. Senf stated that he moved to Boca Raton, Florida in 1970; that the girlfriend of the week was taken to the Beach; that fires were made and stars were watched; that Boca Raton grew; that the public beach was improved; that one of the improvements was a 6 foot tall sign; that the sign indicated the following: no ball playing - no glass bottles no empty containers Mr. Senf continued that an idea was to visit the sign company and to add one more plaque to the sign which would read as follows: anyone found enjoying themselves at this park will be shot Mr. Senf stated that the impression is people in Gillespie Park on Sunday are no longer neighbors; that people coming to the park desiring to step on the grass or concrete are fellow neighbors; that the Commission has expended a considerable BOOK 53 Page 24962 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24963 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. amount of funds to encourage development of neighborhood associations; that the desire is for a small town feeling but with Chicago regulations; that the Chicago regulations will not work and are unfriendly; that the feelings being expressed at the table at this time are reasons for songs such as "America the Beautiful" being written. Mr. Senf continued that Jesus would be violating the law if he came with his 12 apostles to Gillespie Park and drew 37 people; that the President of the United States indicates local governments should be supporting religious organizations to perform work such as being attempted by Gifts from God; that Gifts from God is attempting to assist the community; that an earlier speaker indicated the trash cans in Gillespie Park were overflowing; that a park maintenance contract exists with the County; that the County should be contacted to request additional trash cans; that people have been seen urinating in the park; that funding should be provided for public restrooms. Attorney Singer returned to the Commission table and stated that the requirement of a special event permit for a group of 50 or more persons was not based on the Code of Chicago Parks District; that the number is considered the minimum threshold which might require concern for the use occurring in a City park; that insurance or an indemnity hold harmless agreement may be necessary if the group were greater than 50 people; that the owner of the City's parks is the City; that for example, if a group of people setup a stereo system with wires running all over the park, and someone falls and gets hurt, the City will be a defendant in a lawsuit from the injured person; that the City is duty bound to insure such an event is set up in accordance with the applicable regulations and in a manner in which all citizens will be safe; that opening the parks for an unlimited number of people to set up a stage, etc., is a liability for the City; that the question is if the City should continue to allow unfettered uses of City parks or should some park restrictions be implemented; that the issue is a difficult political question; that one option is to adopt an ordinance to authorize the Commission to provide by resolution certain parks will be subject to special event permit requirements similar to park closing times; however, the Commission previously indicated a desire to apply regulation equally throughout the City. Commissioner Servian asked the difference between a political rally, a vigil, and a spontaneous gathering verses park use? Attorney Singer stated that no difference exists; that a political rally, a vigil, and a spontaneous gathering are protected First Amendment expressive activities; that much of the City's park use involves First Amendment expressive activities; that certain activities such as picnics or football games are an activity which would not involve expressive activity; that determining the difference between expressive and non-expressive activity protected under the First Amendment is difficult; that the basis for approving or denying a special event permit is not determined by the type of activity of the event, but rather the physical impact on the park; that all the activities are treated the same; that a football tournament will be treated differently in the special event permit process than a candle light vigil due to the impact a football tournament will have on the park. Commissioner Servian asked if all activities will require a special event permit under the proposed Ordinance? Attorney Singer stated that all activities will require a special event permit for groups of 50 or more; that requiring a special event permit for only certain activities which does not impinge upon First Amendment rights cannot be accomplished; that a method to determine which activities do not impinge upon First Amendment rights without considering the content of the activity would be difficult; that the issue is similar to regulating signs; that regulating non-commercial signs would require reading the sign to determine which sign would or would not be permissible; however, the size of a sign can be regulated. Commissioner Servian stated that everyone is aware of the reason the proposed Ordinance is before the Commission; that a single group has been using a single City park in the middle of a neighborhood every Sunday for four years; that the neighborhood cannot utilize the pavilion at Gillespie Park on Sunday's; that the activity in Gillespie Park is disturbing the peace of the neighborhood; and asked if one group abusing one City park can be regulated without requiring other groups to obtain a permit to express their freedom of speech? Attorney Singer stated that the recommendation is to adopt an ordinance which regulates special event permits on a park by park basis similar to the regulations for park closings; that BOOK 53 Page 24964 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24965 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. years ago, all City parks were open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week; that the City began experiencing problems in some but not all of the parks; that the Commission passed an ordinance which allows the Commission to establish park closing hours on a park by park basis by resolution rather than establishing fixed hours of operation for all City parks; that specific regulations can be passed for Gillespie Park; that for example, the Commission can require by resolution a special event permit is required for activities involving groups of more than 50 people in Gillespie Park; that other parks could be addressed in a similar manner. Commissioner Servian stated that the Commission is faced with a timing issue; that America is on the verge of going to war with Irag; that the PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act of 2001 has been imposed requesting Americans give up certain civil rights in the name of freedom; that the public's perception of the proposed Ordinance as one more way to eliminate a right is understood; that Americans should be expressing themselves at this time; however, a serious negative impact is occurring for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the Commission is obligated to address the abuse of Gillespie Park; that addressing one negative issue by restricting all groups is a concern; that immediate relief is necessary for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the Commission is being placed in a position of infringing upon a individual's rights across the board due to one group abusing a City park; that the issue creates a dilemma. Vice Mayor Palmer asked the manner in which regulations for a particular park will avoid discriminating against particular groups and First Amendment rights? Attorney Singer stated that the proposed Ordinance will allow specific parks to be regulated; that any group over 50 will be subject to the regulations for the specific park. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the regulations could be applied to a specific park as opposed to being applied Citywide? Attorney Singer stated that a general ordinance would allow the Commission by resolution to require a special event permit for use of a certain park for a group of more than 50 persons. Commissioner Martin stated that regulating a specific park may be a solution to the issue similar to regulating park closings and dogs in parks, etc., without blanketing the regulation Citywide; that the proposed Ordinance should be referred back to the City Attorney's Office; that addressing the activity in Gillespie Park is supported; however, the proposed Ordinance is not the right solution; that time periods set forth in the proposed Ordinance seem ridiculous; that for the Administration to require so much time to review a special event permit application is disturbing; that previous discussions regarding similar time periods for regulating sound indicated the excessive amount of time is for the benefit of the applicant, not the City; that a conditional approval within five days is suggested; and asked if the proposed Ordinance was reviewed with the County since the County maintains the City's parks and handles the reservation system for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gillespie Parks? Mr. Schneider stated that the issue has been discussed with the County; that the reservation system of the County is different than the City's reservation system; that the City and County have agreed to cooperatively work together to regulate parks; that the County is in an awkward position as a result of managing Gillespie Park. Mayor Mason stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has been trying to develop a process with the County which would regulate the use of Gillespie Park for four years; that the County is aware of the situation in Gillespie Park. Commissioner Martin stated that the intent of the question was to determine if the proposed Ordinance has been reviewed with the County; that the reason the County has not reviewed the proposed Ordinance is unknown. Mr. Schneider stated that the proposed Ordinance has been discussed with the County; that a representative from the County was present in the audience earlier; that the last meeting held with the County to discuss the issue was on February 27, 2003. Commissioner Martin stated that an individual he spoke with at the County was unaware of the proposed Ordinance; that empowering the City Manager to establish unknown administrative rules is a BOOK 53 Page 24966 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24967 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. concern; that the Commission should be aware of the parameters of the administrative rules; that the grounds for a denial should be specified; that a matrix of the issue with concerns and responses addressing the concerns is desired. Commissioner Quillin stated that regulating activity in the City's parks similar to the regulations of park closings may be the solution to the abuse to Gillespie Park; that $250,000 worth of improvements are occurring in Arlington Park; that the Staff recommended a gazebo for Arlington Park as part of the improvements; however, the Arlington Park Neighborhood does not desire a gazebo due to the possibility of abuse similar to Gillespie Park; that the abuse in Gillespie Park is denying the people in the Arlington Park Neighborhood the opportunity to have a gazebo and other amenities for fear of abuse; that Gifts from God was supported until social services became part of ministering; that the Gifts from God activity in Gillespie Park has been observed; that Gifts from God was a smaller group without amplified music pertorming a much needed service four years ago; that Gifts from God refused to partner with other organizations such as the Resurrection House and the Salvation Army, Sarasota Corps; that the result is the duplication of services in the area; that the City has several fine organizations which could be working with Gifts from God sO Gillespie Park is not burdened; that the proposed Ordinance should be referred back to the Administration; that the language of limiting "any public assembly" is not supported; that she would have been in violation of the proposed Ordinance for holding neighborhood meetings in Poinsettia Park; that 50 or more people in the neighborhood attended the meetings; that the Administration should provide a reason for the grass prohibition regarding public vigils and rallies; that reason for limiting the ability to demonstration only on public sidewalks, streets, and roadways is unknown. Mayor Mason stated that relief for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is necessary; that the abusive activity in Gillespie Park has been occurring for four years; that referring the proposed Ordinance back to the Administration with a time limit is suggested; that a neighborhood meeting was recently attended in which Gifts from God discussed the future of property recently purchased for ministering; that the future plans of Gift from God are commendable; however, the question is who will be next to abuse Gillespie Park once Gifts from God leaves; that similar abuse could happen in other City parks; that the City is not trying to stop public assembly; that some type of process for allowing public assembly should be developed. Commissioner Servian asked the amount of time necessary for the Administration to bring back a revised ordinance? City Attorney Taylor stated that a legal element and an administrative element are part of revising the proposed Ordinance; that a recommended reasonable time frame for revising the proposed Ordinance will brought back to the Commission at its March 17, 2003, Regular meeting. Mayor Mason stated that defining a reasonable period of time is desired. Commissioner Quillin stated that 30 days is suggested. City Attorney Taylor stated that 30 days is acceptable. Commissioner Servian stated that representatives from Gillespie Park and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should meet with the Administration and Staff of the City Attorney's Office to discuss some of the issues prior to bringing the revised Ordinance before the Commission; that working together may resolve the issue in a short period of time. Mayor Mason stated that the County should also be involved in the meeting. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to refer the issue to the Administration for consultation with representatives from the City Attorney's Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Gillespie Park BOOK 53 Page 24968 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24969 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Neighborhood, and Sarasota County, to specifically address the time periods, and to bring the revision back to the Commission. Commissioner Martin stated that sending the proposed Ordinance back to the Administration is the best way to address the situation; that several concerns have been raised; that the time periods represent a major flaw of the proposed Ordinance and should be revised. Commissioner Servian stated that citizens - input concerning the proposed Ordinance is appreciated; that the Commission must protect the rights of the citizens; that passing a regulation which might infringe on a person's right to speech or of assembly is a serious undertaking and should not be taken lightly; that the hope is the citizenry will support the Commission's decision to address the abuse occurring in one neighborhood. Vice Mayor Palmer concurred; and stated that the concept of protecting the City's park lands should be considered; that several concerns raised regarding the proposed Ordinance are serious; that the Administration has made an attempt to try to resolve the abuse in Gillespie Park in a manner which was Constitutional in another State; that determining similarities between Sarasota and Chicago was not the intent; that the Code of the Chicago Park District was utilized as a starting point; that the Code of the Chicago Park District is not satisfactory to the community; that handling the abuse occurring in Gillespie Park in a restrictive way rather than globally is preferred; however, the Commission should ensure all City parks as well as the public are protected; and thanked the citizens of the community for providing input on the subject. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to refer the issue to the Administration for consultation with representatives from the City Attorney's Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, and Sarasota County, to specifically address the time periods, and to bring the revision back to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 19. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4441, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, I CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, BY DELETING THEREFROM ARTICLE IX, SARASOTA MOBILE HOME PARK; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; : PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM X-A-4) CD 11:08 through 11:09 Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4441 repeals the Rules and Regulations of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park from the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) ; that the Article IX, Chapter 2, City Code, sets forth the Rules and Regulations applicable to tenants of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park; that the Sarasota Mobile Home Park is closed with no tenants; that the Rules and Regulations are moot; that the recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4441 on first reading. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4441 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4441 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Servian, yesi Martin, yes; Mason, yes. 20. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY PLANNING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF SARASOTA COUNTY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, THE TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, THE CITY OF NORTH PORT AND THE CITY OF VENICE = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM X-A-5) CD 11:09 through 11:15 BOOK 53 Page 24970 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24971 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Douglas James, Chief Planner, Planning Department, and Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. Attorney Schenk stated that the public hearing pertains to the proposed Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning between Sarasota County, the School District of Sarasota County, the Town of Longboat Key, and the Cities of Sarasota, North Port, and Venice; that the 2002 amendments to the Florida Statutes require the county, the cities in the county, and the local school district to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning; that all the local governments involved have held their respective public hearings; that the proposed Interlocal Agreement before the Commission is the result of several Staff level meetings with Staff of the Sarasota County, the School District of Sarasota County, the Town of Longboat Key, and the Cities of Sarasota, North Port, and Venice. Attorney Schenk referred to the February 20, 2003, memorandum, to Michael McNees, City Manager, regarding the Proposed Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning included in the Agenda backup material and continued that the memorandum provides an outline of the requirements for exchange of data, school siting, development review procedures, co-location and shared use of facilities, oversight process, resolution of disputes, and amendment/termination of the agreement; that the City Attorney recommended two revisions which are noted in Section 6.2, Development Review Procedures, and Section 11, Effective Date of the memorandum; that subsequent draft changes may be submitted from one of the other parties of the proposed Interlocal Agreement; that all subsequent draft changes will brought back before the Commission; that the recommendation is to approve the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and the City Auditor and Clerk to attest to the execution, inclusive of the revisions to Section 6.2 and 11 recommended by the City Attorney. Mayor Mason stated that language regarding a periodic review should be incorporated in interlocal agreements; and asked if such a provision is included in the proposed Interlocal Agreement. Mr. James stated that no; however, recent State Legislation requires local governments to examine their existing and proposed interlocal agreements for detrimental effects upon their respective communities and duplications of service; that a February 28, 2003, memorandum to City Attorney Taylor, City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, from Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, regarding Interlocal Service Delivery - Report to Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was distributed requesting a list of interlocal agreements identifying deficiencies and duplications; that Staff will be working with the special districts, other jurisdictions, Sarasota County, and a regional agency if appropriate to conduct an analysis to present to the Commission prior to January 2004; that a series of meetings sponsored by the regional planning counsels will be conducted in the summer of 2004 to address identifying deficiencies and duplications of the interlocal agreements. Attorney Schenk referred Section 9, Oversight Process, of the February 20, 2003, memorandum as follows: The committee shall meet at least annually, and report to participating local governments, the School Board and the general public on the effectiveness with which the interlocal agreement is being implemented. Attorney Schenk referred Section 1, Joint Meetings, of the February 20, 2003, memorandum as follows: A staff working group from the County, School Board, and Cities will meet on an as needed basis, but at a minimum of twice per year, and discuss issues regarding coordination of land use and school facility planning Mayor Mason stated that all interlocal agreements should be reviewed; that for example, the Whitaker-Gateway Park is a concerni that the interlocal agreement concerning parks should be evaluated. City Manager McNees stated that previous direction to the Administration regarding review of the interlocal agreements is clear; that the other interlocal agreements will be reviewed as soon as the issue regarding the interlocal agreement concerning fire services is resolved. BOOK 53 Page 24972 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24973 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to approve the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and authorize its execution by the Mayor and attestation by the City Auditor and Clerk, inclusive of the revisions to Section 6.2 and 11 recommended by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 21. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS CD 11:15 There was no one signed up to speak. 22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4416, AMENDING CHAPTER 20, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS; TO PROHIBIT UNREASONABLE SOUND; TO SET FORTH SPECIFIC ACTS WHICH SHALL CONSTITUE UNREASONABLE SOUND ; TO SET FORTH MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE DECIBEL LIMITATIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS BY PERMITS; TO SET FORTH A PERMIT PROCESS AND FOR APPEAL : TO PROVIDE FOR WARNINGS BEFORE BEING CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION : PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED AS REVISED (AGENDA ITEM XII-1) CD 11:15 through 11:33 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 1, regarding proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 was removed for discussion from the afternoon session by Commissioner Martin. Commissioner Martin stated that adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 was removed from Consent Agenda No. 2 for discussion as the 45 day permit application deadline is a concerni that a similar concern regarding the permitting time periods was presented in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 concerning the use of public parks which was the subject of a public hearing as Agenda Item No. X-A-3; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 was referred back to the Administration; that also referring proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 back to the Administration seems appropriate. Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that Commissioner Martin was requested to remove proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 as the Commission could have decided to change the permitting time periods for proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 in which case a recommendation would have been made to change the permitting time periods for proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416; however, proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 concerning sound is different than proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 concerning the use of public parks; that the City currently has regulations concerning sound; that the permitting process allows for enhanced or amplified sound under certain circumstances; that the time periods in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 are not as time sensitive as in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 which establishes regulations concerning the use of public parks by groups of 50 or more people; that at the afternoon session, the Commission adopted proposed Ordinance No. 03-4422 repealing the existing regulations concerning sound in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); therefore, the Commission is strongly recommended to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416; that the time periods can always be changed in the future if necessary. Commissioner Martin referred to the following from Section 20-6, Exceptions by Permit, City Code: Section 20-6(a) A fully complete special permit application must be submitted at least forty-five (45) days before the special permit is needed. Commissioner Martin stated that the Commission's instruction was to make obtaining an exemption to the sound regulations of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 easy and user friendly; that Section 20-6(a) makes obtaining an exemption more difficult; that eight or nine exemptions have been requested since the beginning of 2003; that the exemptions were requested for private property; that often, the decision has been made within 48 hours; that establishing a 45 day permit application deadline is exactly the opposite of the wishes of the Commission; that no negative feedback has been received concerning the exemptions which were granted; that including a 45 day permit application deadline seems unreasonable and as ridiculous as the same provision in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 regarding the use of public parks. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Administration should provide a response as to the rationale for the time periods; that the concern is shared; that the Administration is currently processing permits if received after the permit application deadline; that BOOK 53 Page 24974 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24975 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Section 20-6(a) would prohibit processing permits after the 45 day permit application deadline; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 could be changed to allow the current practice without creating a hardship. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the Administration makes an effort to obtain as much information as possible from anyone who applies for a special event permit or an exception to the sound regulations; that the attempt is to make obtaining a special event permit or an exception to the sound regulations as easy and as unobtrusive as possible; that any initial uncertainty by the individual seeking the permit is alleviated at the time of initial application; that Staff in the City Manager's Office provides guidance as to the types of activities allowed; that an individual leaves with a permit form, completes the form, and returns the form once completed; that the City Manager's Office works with the City Attorney's Office, which has advised the permits for exceptions to the sound regulations should be approved until such time as criteria are established; that the Administration reviews the permit application to assure the hours are reasonable; that individuals are advised the sound levels must be reasonable; that the most recent permit application was for an activity on private property; that Staff of the City Manager's Office works with the individuals applying in an effort to provide assistance sO the process is not difficult. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the language in Section 20-6(a) requires the submission of a permit application 45 days prior to the event, which is the problem; that the permit applications are processed quickly. Mr. Schneider stated that an amount of time for the appeal process which was not required previously is included in the time period; that normally, the permit application for a special event is requested 30 days in advance of the event; that a $100 fee is charged if the permit application is submitted less than 30 days in advance of the special event; that the $100 fee has only been charged once or twice in the last 10 to 12 years; that the time periods were established as 30 days for the permit application, which is the current time period, plus 15 days for the appeal; that the City Attorney's Office is more familiar with the time periods and may care to comment. City Attorney Taylor stated that the time periods, whether 24 hours or 45 days, is an administrative issue; that the language can be changed to allow the Administration to issue a permit as soon as possible; that the City Attorney's Office cannot dictate to the City Manager's Office the required length of the review for an exemption to the sound regulations; that insurance is not involved; therefore, the process is probably relatively quick; that a right of appeal of a denial of a permit must be provided; however, the right of appeal should have no affect on the application deadline; that applicants can proceed on an individual basis to obtain approval; that language in the proposed Ordinance can be changed accordingly. Attorney Singer stated that the phrase "at least forty-five (45) before the special permit is needed" can be deleted from Section 20-6(a) sO no deadline would be established for submittal of the application; that the proposed Ordinance has other deadlines as well; that a deadline has been established for the City Manager to act; however, the City Manager can act sooner if desired; that an individual who applies 30 days prior to an event may not have the time available to appeal if the City Manager takes 30 days to act; that application could be made 10 days prior to an event. Commissioner Martin stated that several things are wrong with the proposed Ordinance; that taking 30 days to review and to either grant or deny a permit is not understood; that something is wrong with the administrative process if 30 days is required; that 30 days is not currently required in actual practice; that the reason for requesting 30 days to approve a permit is beyond comprehension. City Manager McNees stated that the Administration is not currently requesting 30 days; that 30 days in total including the appeal process is acceptable. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification. City Manager McNees stated that the time period can be changed from 45 days to 30 days. Attorney Singer quoted Section 20-6(c) as follows: Section 20-6(c) The City Manager shall grant or deny an application for a special permit within thirty (30) days BOOK 53 Page 24976 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24977 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. from the date of the filing of a fully complete application Attorney Singer stated that a different time period will be required. City Manager McNees stated that the time period should be changed to 15 days. Attorney Singer stated that any appeal could be taken within 7 days resulting in a change from 30 to 7 days in the following Section 20-6(f) (1) : Section 20-6(f) (1) An appeal of a decision of the City Manager may be made by the applicant, in writing filed with the City Auditor and Clerk, within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the decision to the Special Master Attorney Singer stated that the Special Master can hear the appeal within 10 days resulting in a change from 15 to 10 days and make a final decision within 3 days resulting in a change from 7 to 3 days in the following Section 20-6(f) (2): Section 20-6(f) (2) The Special Master assigned to hear the appeal shall conduct a hearing thereon within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the notice of appeal, and shall make a final administrative decision within seven (7) days thereafter. Vice Mayor Palmer asked the total length of the process? City Attorney Taylor stated that the total time period is therefore 35 days. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that 35 days is better than 45 days. Commissioner Martin stated that the rationale for the following Section 20-6(e) is not understood: Section 20-6(e) Denial of an application for a special permit shall preclude consideration of a substantially similar request for a period of six (6) months Attorney Singer stated that the City Manager may receive an unreasonable request for a permit; that the same request could be resubmitted on numerous occasions; that Section 20-6(e) allows for the submission of a substantially different request as follows: Section 20-6(e) The City Manager may determine that this preclusion does not apply to a request if a substantially different request is submitted which addresses the grounds for the previous denial.. Attorney Singer stated that for example, a permit application could be received to set up loud speakers at St. Armands Circle at 11 p.m.i that a subsequent permit application for a different time is a substantially different request; that denial of the previous permit application will not preclude approval of the subsequent permit application; that the desire is to avoid the administrative problem of having the same request made repeatedly. Commissioner Martin stated that realistically, an individual knows better than to submit a permit application for a request which was previously denied. Attorney Singer stated that Section 20-6(e) concerns administrative detail; that the question is the number of times the same request should be reviewed. City Attorney Taylor stated that Section 20-6(e) is not required in the proposed Ordinance. Attorney Singer stated that Section 20-6(e) is not critical to the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Martin stated that Section 20-6(e) is not considered necessary or critical. City Attorney Taylor stated that deference is given to the decision of the City Manager. City Manager McNees stated that eliminating Section 20-6(e) is acceptable. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 by title only. BOOK 53 Page 24978 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24979 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 on second reading with the deletion of Section 20-6(e) and the changes discussed. Attorney Singer stated that for the record, the revised sections with the changes discussed are: Section 20-6(a) Delete the phrase: "at least forty- five (45) days before the special permit is needed" Section 20-6(c) The City Manager shall grant or deny an application for a special permit within fifteen (15) days from the date of the filing of a fully complete application . Section 20-6(f) (1) An appeal of a decision of the City Manager may be made by the applicant, in writing filed with the City Auditor and Clerk, within seven (7) days of the rendition of the decision to the Special Master . Section 20-6(f) (2) The Special Master assigned to hear the appeal shall conduct a hearing thereon within ten (10) days of the filing of the notice of appeal, and shall make a final administrative decision within three (3) days thereafter. Attorney Singer continued that Section 20-6(e) will be deleted and the subsequent paragraphs renumbered. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes. 23. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURSUE THE LIDO BEACH FEDERAL PROJECT VIA SECTION 206 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT OF 1992 (WRDA-92) TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM XIII-1) CD 11:33 through 11:50 Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Richard Spadoni, Senior Vice President, Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE), and Richard McMillen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the Lido Beach Shore Protection Project (Lido Beach Project) was originally authorized by Congress on December 31, 1970, was deauthorized by USACE on January 1, 1990, and reauthorized on August 10, 1999, subject to completion of an approved Feasibility Studyi that receiving authorization for a USACE project is a major step; that the funding authorization for the Lido Beach Project was at 65 percent financial participation by the Federal government; that many steps are required to receive authorization; that two major steps have been completed, i.e., the required Reconnaissance Study which was completed some time ago and the Final Feasibility Report which was recently completed by USACE and is available for public review; that the Final Feasibility Report recommends a specific plan providing for initial restoration and periodic nourishment of an 80 foot wide beach berm with a top elevation of + 5.0 foot National Geodetic Verified Datum (NGVD) over 2.1 miles of shoreline from 100 feet north of John Ringling Boulevard to Big Sarasota Pass with a groin field at the southern limit of the Lido Beach Project; that the identified sand source is 7 to 9 miles offshore and is of similar quality and color as the sand placed in 1998 and 2001; that based on October 2002 prices, USACE's estimated cost of the initial Lido Beach Project is $12,632,200 of which $7,769,500 is the Federal share while $4,862,700 is the City's share; that the next steps are preparing the design drawings and the permitting acquisition for the Lido Beach Project. Mr. Daughters stated that the City has a choice of having USACE or the City administer the Lido Beach Project; that either USACE or the City would likely hire a consultant to perform the work; that the City is still required to perform a significant amount of the work regardless of the agency administering the Lido Beach Project; that Staff recommends the Commission authorize the City to pursue approval to administer the Lido Beach Project in accordance of Section 206, Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA-92); that the request is initiated by submittal of a Request for Authorization for the City to administer the Lido Beach Project in accordance with Section 206, WRDA-92, to the Assistant Secretary of the Army. Mr. Daughters stated that one reason for the recommendation for the City to administer the Lido Beach Project is the cost to the Federal and State government will be lower, estimated at $10 million compared to $12.6 million; that 50 percent of the City's BOOK 53 Page 24980 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24981 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. share will be reimbursed by a grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); therefore, the cost savings will inure to both the Federal and State governments; that the cost estimate of $10 million if the City administers the Lido Beach Project is based on an actual analysis conducted by Manatee County for a project on Anna Maria Island, which was similar to the Lido Beach Project; that additionally, the City will have greater control over the Lido Beach Project; that an example of the benefit of greater local control is a project recently completed in Jacksonville, Florida, which would have been a better project if administered by the local agencyi that USACE has provided significant assistance and is supporting the City in pursuing the request; however, risks are associated with the City's administering the Lido Beach Project; that the US Congress may not fund the Federal share of the Lido Beach Project, which could be true regardless of the agency administering the Lido Beach Project; that the City will be required to provide advance funding regardless of the agency administering the Lido Beach Project; that the City will be required to advance the City's portion of $4,862,700 if USACE administers the Lido Beach Project; that the funds would be required in approximately one year, which is the time required to develop an agreement; that funding will only be required as expenditures are made if the City administers the Lido Beach Project; therefore, money would be spent at a slower rate; that the City would pay for the design and permitting acquisition over a one year time period, during which time some Federal funds would be received as reimbursement; that after construction, the Federal auditors would take approximately one year to conduct the analysis to assure the expenditures were appropriate, after which the balance of the Federal funds would be reimbursed; that the City would have expended a large amount of funds if the US Congress does not fund the Lido Beach Project; however, two checkpoints are in place; that first, the City currently has the funds for the design work; that the City's allotment from the Tourist Development Fund is sufficient to accomplish the design work; that the City would have to borrow the funds for the construction work which is estimated at $8.7 million; and referred to the Lido Beach Cash Flow spreadsheet included in the Agenda backup material indicating $5,014,000 will be required to pay the contractor over the five to sis month period of construction which will be reimbursed by the Federal government approximately one year later. Mr. Daughters stated that second, another checkpoint is the City cannot legally advertise or issue a request for bid unless funds are available to pay for the Lido Beach Project; that a request for bid would not be issued unless the City was assured the US Congress had appropriated the funds and the President had approved the budget; that an additional concern is if the US Congress does not approve the Lido Beach Project or funds the Lido Beach Project at a later time; that the schedule would be adjusted if the Lido Beach Project is funded at a later time; that the City would be required to cut back the scale of the Lido Beach Project, which would be difficult, or seek additional funding if the Lido Beach Project is never funded by the US Congress; that the State's share is 50 percent of the approximately $10 million cost sO the City's share would be $5 million rather than $1.8 million if the Federal funding is provided; that efforts to complete the required agreement must begin immediately to have the Lido Beach Project constructed in fiscal year 2004/05; that money will be saved long term and the City will have better control over the Lido Beach Project if the City administers it; that Commission approval is requested to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Army requesting the City administer the Lido Beach Project. Commissioner Martin asked if the City Manager concurs with Staff's recommendation? City Manager McNees stated that checkpoints are in place sO the City can choose not to proceed prior to making expenditures for construction for which the City will not be reimbursed; therefore, a degree of comfort is felt with recommending the City administer the Lido Beach Project, particularly considering the Lido Beach Project can be completed at significantly less expense. Commissioner Quillin stated that beginning the process is not a concern; however, the Lido Beach Project must be incorporated into the budget process; that Tourist Development Funds are available; that the Lido Beach Project should be incorporated in a financial plan, including the available funds and the funding which must be sought. Mr. Daughters agreed; and stated that the funding for the Lido Beach Project has been discussed with the Director and Deputy BOOK 53 Page 24982 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24983 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Director of Finance; that discussing the funding alternatives has been incorporated in the proposed Project schedule. John Kirker, Sr., 1700 Benjamin Franklin Drive (34236), Vice Chair of the Lido Residents Association, came before the Commission and stated that the Lido Residents Association has provided him the authority to speak to the Commission on behalf of the Association; that the Lido Residents Association unanimously endorses the Lido Beach Project and hopes the Commission will support the Lido Beach Project. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to approve the submittal of the Request for Authorization to pursue administering the Lido Beach Federal Project in accordance with Section 206, Water Resource Development Act of 1992, to the Assistant Secretary of the Army and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter requesting the authorization. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the motion includes authorization for the City to pursue approval to administer the Lido Beach Project? Mr. Daughters stated that the motion has the effect of authorizing the City to pursue approval by the Assistant Secretary of the Army to administer the Lido Beach Project. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Commissioner Servian left the meeting at 11:47 p.m. 24. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM XIV) CD 11:47 There were no Commission Board or Committee reports. 25. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A REPORT CONCERNING CURRENT ACTIVITY AND PROPOSED INITIATIVES REGARDING SPEEDING AND RUNNING OF RED LIGHTS (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 11:47 through 12:10 VICE MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that considerable concern exists regarding the speeding and running of red lights in the City; that Commission support for a report in writing concerning current activity and proposed initiatives from the Administration is requested. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the Administration is requested to provide a report in writing concerning monitoring and enforcement of violations of speeding and running red lights. B. stated that the future of the original Sarasota High School (SHS) building is becoming a major issue; that the possibility of utilizing the SHS building as a police station has been briefly mentioned; that discussions have been held with representatives of the School Board of Sarasota County as well as the Chief of Police of the Sarasota Police Department; that Commission support to investigate the possibility of utilizing the location for a police station to preserve the SHS building in partnership with the School Board and the City is requested. Mayor Mason stated that investigating the possibility of utilizing the SHS building for a police station is supported. City Manager McNees stated that the idea was previously presented and may be worth discussing. Commissioner Martin agreed. Commissioner Quillin stated that the SHS building would be ideal as a museum. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: A. stated that a State grant of $9,000 to $10,000 was received by The Players Theatre for an exchange trip for a delegation of six representatives to travel to China; that a representative of The Players Theatre inquired as to his interest; that he is interested in participating if the Commission agrees; that the Arts Council, the Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, the School Board, and the BOOK 53 Page 24984 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24985 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. Ringling School of Art and Design are committed to sending representatives and to contributing funds to match the grant funds; that two positions remain, one of which he would gladly fill and use City travel funds to match the grant; that agreeing to participate in the exchange trip is time sensitive; that a letter should be directed to The Players Theatre as soon as possible if the City is to participate. City Manager McNees stated that the original application indicated a special revenue generating event would be held to create the local match; that the special event will not take place; that the alternative is the six members of the exchange delegation would be asked to contribute $1,000 each towards the travel expenses; that The Players Theatre will contribute the remaining portion of the local match which is approximately $3,500; that the composition of the exchange delegation was recommended by the Sarasota Sister Cities Association; that the four agencies have agreed to send a delegate; that two positions have been allocated to accommodate City officials if the Commission chooses to send two people with the understanding a match of $1,000 for each delegate is required; that the exchange trip is from May 3 through 12, 2003. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City representatives should be a Commissioner and a Staff member; that the Staff member should be selected based on any objectives of the trip concerning governmental affairs; that she spent time during her trip to Dunfermline, Scotland, exchanging ideas concerning governmental affairs. Mayor Mason stated that the emphasis of the exchange trip is arts and culture. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the opportunity should be provided to another Commissioner if interested; that if not, a Staff member should participate. Mayor Mason agreed. Commissioner Martin stated that a suggestion was made to include a representative from Sarasota Memorial Hospital in the delegation; that another possibility is a representative of the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art; that the City Manager is a Staff member who could participate. Mayor Mason stated that Commissioner Martin's participation is supported; that an invitation was extended to her; however, she declined due to the length of the airline trip. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that she is unable to participate due to other travel plans; that Commissioner Servian may have an interest in participating. Commissioner Martin stated that the City Manager could consider the other position. Commissioner Quillin stated that the suggestion was to determine if another Commissioner wishes to participate; that she is not interested in participating. Commissioner Martin stated that the interest of Commissioner Servian could be determined; that the interest of the City Manager could be determined if Commissioner Servian is not interested or cannot participate. Commissioner Martin stated that the commitments must be made quickly as a letter announcing the participants is required. * B. stated that the rules concerning demonstrations, specifically use of the grassy areas of public parks and speakers, should be reviewed; that the public comments received during the Public Hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 03-4433 regarding the use of public parks were favorable to allowing the use of the grassy areas of public parks and allowing public speakers. C. stated that the scheduling of a joint meeting with the Commission of the Town of Longboat Key was postponed; that Longboat Key is now interested in scheduling a joint meeting. D. stated that a discussion was held with Albert Hogle, Chief of Police for the Town of Longboat Key and former City Commissioner and Mayor; that interest was expressed in arranging a special event for the completion of the John Ringling Causeway Bridge (Ringling Bridge) scheduled for August 2003; that scheduling a special BOOK 53 Page 24986 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24987 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. event for the reopening of the Ringling Bridge has been discussed by the Commission in the past. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that using a special event as a fundraiser for the City has been discussed; that funds are required for the reconstruction of the Lido Beach Pool; that a run-walk over the Ringling Bridge has been discussed; that advantage should be taken of the opportunity to raise funds for a major project or projects in the City. Commissioner Martin stated that several individuals have expressed interest in a running event; that the hope is the City will be the host for any special event; that utilizing the special event as a fundraiser is an excellent idea. MAYOR MASON: A. referred to the Winter 2002 Edition of the Newsletter published by the Department of Neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Newsletter is wonderful. Mayor Mason stated that the Newsletter is wonderful to a degree; that the cover page indicates the Newsletter is published by the City Commission and also indicates the name of the City Manager; that the City has two other Charter Officials; that people do not seem to acknowledge the existence of three Charter Officials; that a question is if a policy must be developed; that not indicating two of the Charter Officials is not inclusive; that the exclusion is not intentional but continues to occur; that opportunities could have been presented for Staff members to write articles for the Newsletter. City Manager McNees stated that the Winter 2002 Edition is Volume 1; that Volume 2 is certain; that both of the suggestions will be incorporated as improvements are made for Volume 2. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission should review drafts of similar documents prior to distribution; that drafts of the Newsletter and the Organizing Neighborhood Association Booklet (Booklet), which was received prior to the current meeting, have been requested since the fall of 2002; that the telephone number for the Commission Office is not included in the Booklet; that additional review can make projects better; that a private discussion concerning the Newsletter will be held with the City Manager; that publishing the Newsletter is pleasing; however, the product is not pleasing. COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. referred to correspondence dated February 19, 2003, to the Chief of Police, indicating the City's speed trailer had been out of service for repairs and stated that a discussion was held with the Chief of Police due to concerns regarding speeding and running red lights and the use of the speed trailer for enforcement; that the necessary repairs have been made to the speed trailer which will once again be parked on key roads to advise drivers of the speed being traveled; that the memorandum indicated the speed trailer could only be used every other day as the battery required recharging; that the recommendation was made to purchase a second battery sO the speed trailer could be utilized every dayi that speeding in the neighborhoods is a serious problem. B. stated that procedures for appeals of decisions of the Board of Adjustment through the Special Master had previously been discussed; that the Special Master process of Hillsborough County has been reviewed; that Hillsborough County uses the Special Master process for rezonings, appeals to decisions of the Board of Adjustment, etc.; that the City should consider the use of the Special Master for appeals of decisions of the Board of Adjustment; that Commission support to refer to the Administration the possibility of utilizing the Special Master process for appeals of decisions of the Board of Adjustment is requested; that utilizing the Special Master process could resolve some issues presented by decisions of the Board of Adjustment. C. stated that a rumor is a cut-through street to the south will be constructed through the Sarasota County Fairgrounds; that the rumor is incorrect; that numerous telephone calls have been received from the area residents; that a letter is being sent to the area residents including the proposed design for the project at the Fairgrounds to dispel the rumors. BOOK 53 Page 24988 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24989 03/03/03 2:30 P.M. D. referred to pictures of signs for a walking tour and anniversary banners in Portsmouth, Virginia, received from a City resident; and stated that a wayfinder program has been personally suggested for a long time; that the belief is funds were budgeted for a wayfinder program; that receiving a report concerning the status of the wayfinder program from the Administration would be appreciated. E. stated that she will be walking on the Bayfront for AIDS Manasota on March 15, 2003; that sponsors are required. Commissioner Quillin stated that the sponsorship envelop will be in the Commission Office; that the funds will be utilized to support programs for people living with AIDS and their families; that the cause is worthy. 26. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XVI) CD 12:06 through 12:08 CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: A. stated that a mediation was held concerning the appeal of the case of Dr. Murray Klauber versus the City of Sarasota; that an out-of-sunshine, attorney-client meeting will be scheduled to discuss a settlement proposed at the mediation which must be presented to the Commission; that discussion must be held at an out-of- sunshine, attorney-client meeting for reasons of confidentiality. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: : A. stated that Commissioner Servian will be hosting a Town Hall meeting to discuss the proposed Barrier Island Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 edition, at 6 p.m., April 3, 2003, in the Chambers. B. distributed two flyers published by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and stated that Pamela Dorwarth, a former member of the City's Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board, has been appointed to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and requested the flyers, which include useful contact information, be distributed to the Commission. 27. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVII) CD 12:08 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of March 3, 2003, at 12:08 a.m. CadldMaan CAROLYN . MASON, MAYOR ATTESTO 1uE Robensen BILLY E.ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 53 Page 24990 03/03/03 2:30 P.M.