BOOK 37 Page 11103 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 1994, AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner Fredd Atkins PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 7:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Patterson stated that the City of Sarasota 50 Year Vision Plan is the subject of this special meeting; that the presentations of the Vision Plan and Small Area Plan will follow a structured schedule prepared by the Administration. 1. PRESENTATION RE: DOWNTOWN VISION PLAN - ACCEPTED AS GUIDANCE FOR FUTURE POLICY DECISIONS WITH REVISIONS TO PAGE 73; APPROVED ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION NOS. 1 & 2 WITH WORDING REVISIONS : APPROVED ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 (AGENDA ITEMS I = VII) #1 (0002) through #2 (2763) Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, Comprehensive Division, Planning and Development Department, explained the structure and intent of the meeting and the roles of the audience, Staff, and Commission. Ms. Carter stated that the overall Vision Plan and the Small Area Plan will be addressed as two separate items and as follows: 1) overview presentations will be made by Staff, 2) questions from the audience and then the Commission will be answered by Staff, 3) public input will be received by the Commission, and 4) the Commission will discuss and determine whether a community vision has successfully been developed. Ms. Carter stated that public processes are by nature long and difficult; that meaningful contributions have been made by all parties involved in the Vision Plan process, including citizens, City employees, and consultants. Ms. Carter continued that a stringent agenda of which audience participation is a part has been prepared; therefore, Staff intends to request that the Commission limit final public input to two minutes; and asked if anyone in the audience was opposed to such a limitation. There was no opposition voiced by the audience at this time. Ms. Carter requested that the Commission take the necessary action to waive the standard 5 minute time limit. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to waive the 5 minute time limit and limit public input to two minutes. Mayor Patterson stated that time has been allotted during both of the presentations for the audience to ask questions and receive answers; that the public will have adequate time to interact with the Staff and Commission on the subject. Dan Lobeck questioned whether the Commission would take comments from the public prior to passing a motion which may be illegal? Mayor Patterson responded, "no". Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, joined Ms. Carter as she gave the following definitions for the vision: A sense of sight, something perceived in a dream state An imaginative contemplation The ability to perceive something not actually visible Intelligent foresight Ms. Carter stated that there are two pragmatic reasons for developing a Vision Plan: 1) to develop an identity that sets a city apart in the world and attracts like-minded individuals and companies, and 2) to provide an overall idea that directs the multiple public and private decisions made daily toward a desired future; that a Vision Plan is the City's desired future; that the City has developed a 50 Year Vision; that all decisions which will be necessary over the next 50 years cannot be foreseen; that the Vision Plan is a starting point and will be modified several times, similar to the private initiate effort of Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) ten years ago which evolved into multiple public and private efforts successful revitalization to the downtown. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the Vision Plan will provide what has been missing in the City's planning process; that the Vision Plan gives the City the knowledge BOOK 37 Page 11104 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11105 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. to direct proposals and opportunities presented toward the community's desires. Ms. Robinson commended the Planning Staff, especially Sherry Carter and Pamela Hower, for their efforts in this endeavor. Ms. Carter stated that the concepts of the Vision Plan, if accepted, will be integrated into the normal intergovermmental processes, including the Comprehensive Plan update, Land Development Regulations, budget decisions, and public/private partnerships; that all of the concepts will require further research and development and will involve a public process; that the document is not a legal document, but is a basis for legal changes; that, hopefully, the Vision will be used for multiple private decisions; that the Vision Plan is not just a City plan, but a community plan that requires shared responsibility to become a reality. Ms. Carter gave a brief overview and slide presentation on the elements of the Vision Plan and the overall vision. Ms. Carter stated that the two areas of opportunity for substantial change are as follows: 1) the Rosemary District, and 2) the Fruitville Road realignment of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) area. Ms. Carter stated that studies are being conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to determine how to increase the capacity on U.S. 301; that FDOT has preliminary plans to make U.S. 301 six lanes; that this would create seven lanes for pedestrians to cross at intersections; that members of the task team involved with the Fruitville Realignment concept preferred the edestrian-friendly environment which currently exists on U.S. 301 since the County has substantial plans for improvement in U.S. 301 area and that area is such an important part of the downtown area. Mr. Mohammed stated that in development of alternatives for U.S. 301 traffic studies completed over the past few years were reviewed; that a charette of architects, citizens, and City Staff was formed; that the alternative most favorable to meet the objectives of the Vision Plan was to develop a bypass east of U.S. 301 along the right of way of the existing railroad corridor which would tie in at Myrtle Street; that such a bypass would eliminate the need for widening of U.S. 301 in the downtown area and would provide additional north/south access; that a four-lane road with medians and little or no access to the abutting properties has been envisioned; that the bypass would serve as a boundary line between the downtown and the residential areas to prevent the creep of commercial development into the residential areas. Mr. Mohammed gave a brief overview and a slide presentation on the Transportation element of the Vision Plan which included: 1. Electric-powered Jitney service and a surface-based transportation system; 2. Connecting Fruitville Road into the Ringling Causeway A. to ease congestion in the Gulf Stream Avenue and U.S. 41 area; B. to provide additional north/south capacity which is needed to successfully redevelop the area. 3. Connecting Ringling Boulevard to Fruitville Road east of downtown. Ms. Carter stated that the Fruitville Road realignment to the Ringling Causeway Bridge would make the adjacent site desirable for a conference center; that the condominium owners view would be of a lushly landscaped Fruitville Road rather than of high rise buildings. Ms. Carter concluded her presentation and stated that Staff would now field questions from the audience; that Pamela Hower, Senior Planner, will be addressing the Rosemary District as a separate presentation; and requested that the issues particular to the Small Area Plan be retained for the question period during that presentation; that input at this time should be limited to the overall Vision Plan. Thomas Price: How much land would the City need to purchase for a the proposed six-lane Fruitville Road extension from U.S. 41 to the Islands? Mr. Asim stated that 120' of right-of-way would need to be purchased to construct a four-lane road with a median, sidewalks and bicycle paths; that Fruitville Road west from U.S. 41 is currently and will remain a four-lane road. Thomas Price: How many residences will have to be relocated in connection with the realignment? Ms. Carter stated that the land is currently vacant; that the realignment will not impact any of the existing building; that the parking area at the Sarasota Quay and the newly constructed "wings" building would be the only property impacted; that Fruitville Road is a State road, therefore, the State would become involved in the decisions. Miles Gillot: How much will the Fruitville Realignment cost? Ms. Carter stated that cost estimates will not be examined until the concept is approved. BOOK 37 Page 11106 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11107 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Dan Lobeck: How can a conceptual decision be made to proceed forward with a project without first knowing how much it will cost the taxpaying public? Ms. Carter stated that developing reasonable suggestions was part of the Vision Plan process; that the other alternatives reviewed, i.e., building a second bridge or creating major highways in other areas, would be more costly than the alternative chosen. Bill Couch: Is there sufficient right-of-way available to construct the U.S. 301 bypass? Ms. Carter stated that the bypass could occur with or without using the right-of-way; that the cost of purchasing the land along the existing right-of-way may be less expensive than the cost of making U.S. 301 six lanes through the downtown; that the concept was developed without the basis of gaining the right-of-way; that a determination on the necessity of the rail must be made; that the community may want to retain an active rail corridor. Anthony Picciano: What will be done with the public housing project on Sixth Street and Lemon Avenue? Ms. Carter stated that subject will be addressed during the Small Area Plan presentation. Dan Lobeck: The initial draft of the Vision Plan called for replacement of the Planning Board/ Local Planning Agency (PBLP) with a group of architects, planners, builders and developers. What is meant by the development of enhanced, qualification criteria for advisory board members?" Ms. Carter stated that an existing entity has the responsibility for review; that some members may be required to have an educational or public service background in land use issues; that the exact interpretation of that language would be determined at the time the provision was pursued; that, for example, the criteria for members of the Public Art Committee includes experience in the arts. Dan Lobeck: The Vision Plan calls for development of higher densities, up to 35 units per acre, along the downtown area, the placement of a conference/conyention center and a large hotel behind the JRT, locating a library in the downtown core, and using the Mission Harbor site and surrounding acreage for massive commercial development. What will be done with the generated traffic and who will pay for the overtrained traffic system? Mr. Mohammed stated that based on the elements included in the Small Area Plan of the Vision Plan the current road system and improvements recommended to that system are designed to handle the change in traffic; that in addition to the recommendations mentioned earlier, the Vision Plan anticipated using available right-of-way to realign and expand Tenth Street away from Gillespie Park; that Staff feels confident the traffic network will be sufficient for the changes proposed. Gil Waters: Did Staff feel it was necessary to prepare cost estimates of the long-range concepts prior to a discussion with the public? Ms. Carter stated that Staff was unable to determine cost estimates on all the options reviewed; that financial issues were kept in mind, however, developing a vision that all parties involved could support was the main focus; that funding from numerous sources was found to finance and make R/UDAT a reality; that making a vision happen depends on how much the community wants it to happen. Ms. Robinson stated that the Vision Plan has no legal authority at this time; that Staff will proceed to take steps to place the concepts into the correct legal documents if the document is accepted by the City Commission. Dan Lobeck: He is inclined to litigate this approval process. Major policy decisions that will affect the future of the community in terms of land use, taxation, etc., fall under Section 163.3167 (11) Florida Statutes which specifically requires that a Vision Plan be adopted in the same manner as the Comprehensive Planning process, through meaningful public hearings. Two minutes of public comment is absurd. The only public hearing on the Vision Plan document is being held on the same night the Commission plans to adopt it and advertisement similar to that of the Comprehensive Planning process was not conducted. How can these important public decisions be made without complying with the Growth Management Act? Ms. Carter stated that she is familiar with the statutes referenced; that the Vision Plan will help the City with the Comprehensive Plan Update; that the State has encouraged communities to develop a vision; that the Vision Plan does not become part of the Comprehensive Plan; that a vision statement will be fashioned as part of the Comprehensive Plan during the Comprehensive Plan Update; that properly advertised, multiple, public meetings will be conducted during the Comprehensive Plan Update process; that individuals on the Vision Plan mailing list will be notified; that an evaluation and appraisal report of the BOOK 37 Page 11108 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11109 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. existing Comprehensive Plan will be performed prior to proceeding with the update; that the Vision Plan document will be used as guidance for policies developed; that the evaluation and appraisal report is due in Tallahassee by March 1995; that the Comprehensive Plan Update will begin subsequently. Mayor Patterson stated the City Attorney may be asked to provide an opinion to this question during the Commission's question/answer segment of the meeting. Harold Block: Many people in the areas north and south of Fruitville Road do not have vehicles. How will the population shift in those areas and Fruitville Road as a line dividing residents from the downtown area be addressed? Will people be displaced by the proposed endeavors? Ms. Carter stated that displacing individuals is not planned; that the problem of Fruitville Road creating a dividing line is recognized and could possibly be addressed from a design perspective; that the need for jobs to be brought closer to those people in the area who are unemployed, without telephones, vehicles, etc., has been recognized; that the envisioned employment center would be less than a 0.5 mile walk away; however, a further developed mass transit is also envisioned. Robert Pulver: A vision for the future of this community is being suggested and was the reason he and his wife moved to Sarasota. He thinks the idea is great. Frank Folsom Smith: He agrees with Mr. Lobeck that two-minutes is not adequate time to make a presentation to the Commission and one brief evening is not enough time to approve a Vision Plan which took in excess of two years to complete; however, Mr. Lobeck seems not to understand the planning and visioning issues with which he and many of the people who spent time developing the Vision Plan are familiar. The document is a vision; a vision is a dream; we have to dream before we can plan; we have to plan before we can design; we have to design before we can budget; budgeting occurs before the Commission is asked to approve specific items that will cost the taxpayer's money. Ms. Carter stated that the audience question/answer segment of the meeting has concluded. Commissioner Pillot asked for a comment on the impact that would accrue to the existing, two condominiums between the Holiday Inn and the proposed rerouting of Fruitville Road. Mr. Mohammed stated that he and Ms. Robinson met with the representatives from several of the condominiums, including Watergate and those on Golden Gate Point; that the representatives were enthusiastic about the City attempting to alleviate the congestion and safety concerns at the intersection of Gulf Stream Avenue and U.S. 41 by realigning Fruitville Road. Commissioner Pillot asked if a reaction was obtained by those representatives regarding the potential of a hotel and conference center being constructed in that area. Mr. Mohammed stated that the plan including the hotel and conference center was presented to the representatives; that the proposal was perceived as a beneficial alternative to constructing high rise buildings on the site which would block their view of Sarasota Bay. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Vision Plan is a dream to which the community should aspire; that many of the R/UDAT dreams envisioned 10 years ago, although slightly modified, have become reality. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Mr. Smith that two- minutes is not enough time to make a presentation; however, a great deal of input from the public will be received during each of the following stages outlined and prior to any decisions being made; that tonight's meeting is not an end product. Mayor Patterson stated that the public input received tonight is a small portion of the public input devoted to the Vision Plan process; that parts of the Vision Plan, i.e., the transportation elements, will be dependent on funding sources outside of the City's ability; that there is a question of timing; that the FDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is reviewing an expansion of U.S. 301 capability on which the MPO, not the City Commission, will have the final vote; that the Vision Plan is a dream which can be used for guidance as Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan changes are implemented; that the City Attorney should address the question posed earlier by Mr. Lobeck. City Attorney Taylor stated that legal development within the City of Sarasota has to proceed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan process and follow State Law requirements as it relates to the necessity of enacting ordinances and conducting public hearings to gather required public input; however, the City Attorney's Office feels that nothing has taken place at this early stage of the BOOK 37 Page 11110 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11111 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Vision Plan process that would require following the detailed land planning processes which have binding results as referred to by Mr. Lobeck. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission is not incurring future obligations for this Commission or future Commissions by adopting the Vision Plan or subsequently implementing ordinances in support of the individual concepts of the plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that is his interpretation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission would not be obligated to follow the Vision Plan since the plan will not be adopted; that the Administration's recommendation is to "accept the downtown Vision Plan as guidance for future policy." Mayor Patterson stated that the U.S. 301 diversion plan has not formally been presented prior to tonight's meeting; and asked on which City streets the two alternative options would begin and end? Mr. Mohammed stated that the options developed were on a strictly a conceptual basis; that the actual north and south City streets to be used for tie ends were not determined; that the possible tie ends should be addressed as part of the $0.5 million U.S. 301 study being conducted by FDOT. Mr. Mohammed continued that the concept perceives the bypass being constructed mainly along the railroad corridor; that Alderman Street at U.S. 41/U.S. 301 or an area south of Wood Street are two, possible points for tie end at the south end; that U.S. 301 just north of Tenth Street or just north of Myrtle Street are two, possible points for tie end at the north end. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the proposal will be submitted to the FDOT for consideration during the study? Mr. Mohammed stated that it would be; that two groups, other than the Vision Plan charette, met together and came up with a similar option. Ms. Robinson stated for the record that 37 public meetings have been held regarding the Vision Plan. Mayor Patterson stated that public hearing input is the next item on the agenda. The following people came before the Commission: Bruce Franklin, representing the Bridge Too High Committee, Inc., stated that Bridge Too High Committee, Inc., (BTHC) is a non-profit corporation formed to establish a community-based group of people in the City of Sarasota to evaluate the opportunities for challenging the FDOT in their decision to proceed with a 65-foot high, fixed-span bridge as replacement for the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the BTHC retained council to evaluate potential legal opportunities for a point of entry for such a challenge; that an initial set of recommendations the BTHC would like to pursue with the city has been drafted to affirm the City Commission's position taken during the Ringling Causeway Bridge public hearings. Mr. Franklin distributed a proposal of draft language for inclusion in the Vision Plan to affirm City Policy on the Ringling Causeway Bridge. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission voted unanimously in favor of a low bascule bridge of a height not to exceed a three percent grade; that the MPO outvoted the Commission; that the probability of the BTHC's success is unknown; that she would be interested in supporting the BTHC in their attempt to further what was previously the will of the City Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would be willing to reaffirm the Commission's position. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission is being requested to place language in the Vision Plan on specific pages to affirm that a low bridge is the City's vision. Commissioner Cardamone requested that the language be read. Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Franklin clarify the information. Mr. Franklin read the proposed draft language which included proposed sections and various components of the Vision Plan where language should be inserted to affirm the City's policy. Mr. Franklin stated that the purpose of requesting inclusion of the language is to establish a broad public policy statement for consistency and continuity regarding the Ringling Causeway Bridge. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission should afford the public an opportunity to respond to the request proposed; that a motion should not be made until the public input segment has concluded. Ron Annis, 1934 Datura Street, stated that the Vision Plan has had a long and unfortunate development path which has culminated in an attempt to save portions of work started some time ago; that the result is a plan with limited vision and a useful day-to-day work list; that the plan contains conceptual flaws with a lack of understanding regarding implications of the text and drawings; that "to recommend principals and policies for guiding action affecting development of the City and its environs" is among the powers and duties described for the PBLP; that to-date, with the exception of the one joint meeting with the City Commission, the PBLP has been bypassed in the Vision Plan process; therefore, he cannot make a representation on behalf of the PBLP which he currently chairs; however, from his personal and professional position, he recommends BOOK 37 Page 11112 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11113 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. that the Commission should not accept the Vision Plan in its current form; that the existing process and boards should be used as intended if the Commission wishes to pursue the plan; that the Vision Plan which is suppose to provide guidance for 50 years is not ready to serve as a basis for making or causing changes in the Comprehensive Plan or to order a number of planning projects to be engaged. Dr. Murf Klauber, 1620 Gulf of Mexico Drive, read a prepared statement which stated that a triad of events must occur to prepare Sarasota for the future; that this meeting references the Mission Harbor site; that he recently visited Mizner Park in Boca Raton which is a beautiful shopping/office facilities in conjunction with condominium rental apartments; that he heard comments that Mizner Park had created a high, upper-level city, an action place where people want to go, and an upper-end South Miami Beach for Boca Raton; that he purchased 14 parcels in downtown Sarasota and developed the Hyatt Hotel and One Watergate; that there are five fundamental necessities for a successful, residential area: 1) a 12-month season, 2) beach and water, 3) good transportation, 4) culture, 5) shopping; that a Mizner Park could be created in Sarasota and named "Ringling Park" where Saks Fifth Avenue and other major stores could be located; that "Ringling Park" would add the final ingredient for the finest community and destination resort area in the United States; that a conference center is needed to attract scientific, scholastic, professional meetings and other sundry, quality group engages; that he recommends a "Ringling Cultural/Educational/Conference Center" on the JRT site with or without the present JRT building; that this endeavor would be undertaken with a good portion of private funds. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the two-minutes time limit had been reached. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission should stick to the two-minutes time limit; that he likes what Dr. Klauber is saying, but the Commission has to be fair. Mayor Patterson stated that she feels uncomfortable "chopping" citizens off midstream; that enormous latitude should not be granted; however, people should be allowed to wrap-up their statements. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that latitude should be extended to the citizens who prepared text not knowing the time limit would be reduced to two-minutes. Commissioner Cardamone agreed. Dr. Klauber continued that the combination of fine shopping and a cultural/educational conference center will attract proper types of businesses for the City, i.e, printing, publishing, research, and a myriad of firms that are directly related with education and culture; that the third necessity for Sarasota requires affordable housing for employed citizens who are being trained and educated for jobs, families who are drug free, and for those families that are community co-operative; that six, 20,000 square foot vocational schools would be included in this housing; that the teachers would travel to satellite schools to reach all vocational students; that this concept was successful in the 1930s and 1940s in Buffalo, New York, and can work in Sarasota. Dr. Klauber further stated that a forward plan to accomplish what the community would like and must have for the 21st Century should be started. There was a majority consensus of the Commission to allow citizens to wrap up their prepared statements when the two-minute time limit is announced. Frank Folsom Smith, 330 South Pineapple Ave, stated that he has been an architect/planner in Sarasota for over 30 years; that a lot of effort was made by the citizens to vision the City's future and by the Staff and consultants to document it; that a number of important issues were addressed, and important principals proposed; that prior to the acceptance of the Vision Plan as guidance in the Comprehensive Plan and future land-use decisions, the Commission should receive further civic input. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson announced the two-minute time limit. Mr. Smith continued that he was personally involved along with the planners and other citizens on the following three Vision Plan items: 1. The Fruitville Road/Ringling Causeway connection with the conference center located behind the JRT. Mr. Smith stated the committee was originally skeptical of this concept, but liked it more and more each time it was reviewed. 2. The U.S. 301 bypass Mr. Smith stated that the committee was unanimously opposed to widening U.S. 301 to six lanes which would destroy the adjacent buildings and businesses; that a reduction in scale of the adjacent buildings was supported to make U.S. 301 a community business street; that the Myrtle Street option for the bypass will impact few neighborhoods while providing a huge benefit. 3. The Rosemary District Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that she has been involved in the visioning process from the start; that citizens are concerned with the variances that can happen if the Vision Plan BOOK 37 Page 11114 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. M BOOK 37 Page 11115 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. proposed is accepted. Ms. Quillin cited the following excerpts from an editorial in the Longboat Observer: The City Commission represents the ultimate client. The citizens of Sarasota need someone who is exceptionally talented to guide the translation of the raw material of a design program into graphic form that can inform and excite Sarasotans, form the basis for some sort of dialog about the City's physical future The missing link at the moment, the talent, is available to the City. Richard Lamb and Stephen Carr could return to Sarasota on a per diem basis to provide the experience and insight to the City Planning Department to make a first-rate, viable plan one which won't become merely another plan on a shelf. The City Planners do not feel they need help, but in this they are mistaken, because this plan is for all Sarasotans. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of the Downtown Association, stated that the citizens and the Commission made the decision to develop a Vision Plan; that many public meetings have been held as well as meetings with consultants from Boston, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., Clearwater and Tallahassee, Florida; that the citizens have had enormous input into the process; that round table discussions were held on transportation, economics, arts & culture, housing, downtown, building structure, etc., to develop the Vision Plan presented tonight; that the Downtown Association was exasperated with the results of the graphics prepared by Design Studios West; that he is impressed with the product prepared by City Staff; that the Vision Plan is dream which includes a lot of "could be's" and a direction which could be taken; that R/UDAT was formed and a fantastic package was developed in five days; that all the elements of R/UDAT were not completed; that the Vision Plan does not need further study; that the Commission should approve the document prepared by the Planning Department and the citizens of the City who worked with them. Gil Waters, 1580 Hillview Street, stated that he is in favor of a grade separation and extension of Fruitville Road to reduce the congestion occurring on U.S. 41 between Tenth Street and Gulf Stream Avenue and help traffic on the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that people are talking about developing a hotel/parking garage/convention center/upscale retail facility in the area between Sixth and Tenth Street which would be the most feasible location for this development. Mayor Patterson stated that comments relating to the Mission Harbor site should be expressed during the public input portion of the Rosemary District presentation. Mr. Waters stated that extending Fruitville Road to the Ringling Causeway bridge is a superb idea, but could create significant, practical difficulties for locating a hotel/conference center behind the JRT. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson announced the two-minute time limit. Mr. Waters continued that the Ringling Causeway Bridge issue should not be addressed in this forum; that many organizations and individuals in the community support a clean, modern, safe, fixed- span bridge; that the issue should not be reopened without significant, new input. Linda Holland, representing Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA), stated that she is Vice President of the GPNA and has been involved in the Vision Plan process since inception; that she concurs with Paul Thorpe that the process should proceed and supports the overall plan; that the Planning Staff's response to the GPNA's desire to protect its neighborhood is appreciated; that the members of GPNA will continue to envision the closure of 10th Street to reconnect both portions of Gillespie Park; that the GPNA does not feel the new 10th Street proposed in the Vision Plan along the right of way north of the existing 10th Street is necessary; that 12th Street has been redeveloped to provide east/west access; that the consideration given in the Vision Plan for the wishes of the GNPA is appreciated. Dan Lobeck, 450 S. Shade Avenue, representing himself and the Groxth-restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO), stated that Mr. Thorpe and other pro-growth, pro-development interests have contributed much input into the Vision Plan process; that most of the 37 public meetings referenced were with small groups of people who have an interest in the overgrowth of the community; that establishing a process which provides other citizens only two- minutes to share their thoughts with the Commission is an outrage; that the Growth Management Act says when a local vision of the future has been created by a local government, after meaningful public participation, a local government should review its Comprehensive Plan, LDRs, and Capital Improvement Program to ensure that those instruments will help move the community towards a vision in a manner consistent with the State Law and the State Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has decided to extend some courtesy and latitude to speakers regarding the two-minute time limit; and requested that Mr. Lobeck continue with his comments regarding the Vision Plan. Mr. Lobeck stated that potential, legal action may follow; that two-minutes and holding only one public hearing on the night the BOOK 37 Page 11116 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11117 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Commission intends to adopt the Vision Plan, without providing the broad public advertisement required, is a breach of the Growth Management Act. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson announced the two-minute time limit. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson reset the timer for three minutes to provide Mr. Lobeck with an entire five minutes; that Mr. Lobeck's time to speak will expire when the five-minute time limit is announced. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Mayor's decision is accepted under protest. Mr. Lobeck continued that the proposal to add up to 35 units per acre and increase residential density is a massive increase in the use of public facilities in terms of traffic generation, water consumption, etc.; that solutions to accommodate the traffic have not been included in the Vision plan; that Pamela Hower publicly acknowledged that a large hotel/convention center behind the JRT will add additional traffic to this area equal to the amount being relieved by the rerouting of Fruitville Road; that the traffic impact associated with the proposals included in the Vision Plan have not been addressed; that the Planning Board should not be changed sO that all the members, instead of being citizen representatives, are people with background in development; that many of the people who have had input in the Vision Plan process will profit handsomely from its content; that the Vision Plan is not a dream for the community but a dream for developers; that it is a nightmare for the neighborhoods and taxpayers that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions being made without an abundance of public hearings that this kind of policy-making clearly deserves. Mr. Lobeck further stated that the Vision Plan contains strategies for community growth; that the underlying premise to say this can be paid for is blind face in the premise that growth will pay its own way through an expansion of the tax base; that Tampa and Miami are indications that as communities pursue pro-growth plans and policies are amended to "jam more and more people into cities like a sardine can", the consequence has been higher not lower taxes; that he is outraged the City Commission will consider going forward with the Vision Plan after only one public hearing. Bart Cotten, 451 Woodland Drive, stated that some citizens are energetically against growth; that he would not like to see growth similar to that of Tampa occur in Sarasota; however, the city is competing with the County for growth; that the City will not continue to exist if an enlargement of the tax base is not generated; that he hopes the Vision Plan will bring about the controlled growth which is necessary to attract the type of people who will invest in the City to generate the tax base necessary to keep the City running. Bill Couch, representing the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, 1819 Main Street, stated that Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce applauds the work done thus far in the development of the City of Sarasota's 50 Year Vision Plan; that the Chamber supported the development of R/UDAT in the early 1980s and participated in the public process leading to the development of this Vision Plan; that the Chamber recognizes the importance of downtown Sarasota to the civic, business, and cultural features of the community; that downtown Sarasota is a key ingredient in the implementation by the Committee of 100 of the County's Economical Development Master Plan; that the businesses in downtown Sarasota make a major, financial contribution to this effort; that the Chamber has been a major contributor to the economic well-being of the City's downtown business core; that the Chamber has been instrumental in recruiting major employers such as London International, the Jesup Group, and the U.S. Census Group and locating them in the downtown area which created 100s of quality jobs for City residents. Mr. Couch continued that a particular interest to the Chamber is the improvement shown in the Vision Plan of north/south traffic flow along the downtown portion of the U.S. 301 corridor; that the Chamber encourages the City to continue exploring the feasibility of a parallel traffic corridor to relieve traffic congestion without undue disruption to downtown businesses and government facilities along Washington Boulevard. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson announced the two-minute time limit. Mr. Couch further stated that the City Staff involved with the Vision Plan should be thanked for dedicating their hard work and showing the community how to dream without being put to sleep. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street, stated that the document presented is not a City of Sarasota Vision Plan; that it is a downtown Sarasota plan which has taken three years to complete and totally ignores the rest of the City; that the impacts to the rest of the community have not been addressed; that an outdated Zoning Code was used as the basis to address what the community wants in the future; that the Vision Plan presented attempts to partially remediate current problems with short term goals; that the plan does not discuss or relate to what the City or the City government will be like in 50 years. Mr. Babb continued that City Attorney Taylor made the comment that what the Commission will be approving tonight really doesn't make that much difference because other hearings will be held. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson announced the two-minute time limit. BOOK 37 Page 11118 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11119 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Mr. Babb further stated that City Attorney Taylor had fashioned a particular plan for the City to follow with regard to the JRT project which outlined the necessary changes to the code, etc.; that the members of the public who came forward at subsequent public hearings to oppose a particular portion of that plan had no impact on the changes to the code which were preordained; that a similar architectural plan should not be put into place by the Commission tonight. William Campbell, 4520 Webber Street, stated that the Housing Authority Board which is the largest landlord in the City of Sarasota was not brought into the Vision Plan process to provide input; that the members of the community who stand to gain the most from the proposed redevelopment have not considered the voice of the residents of public housing; that he urges the Commission to include the Housing Authority Board in the process from this point forward for the benefit of those constituents whom the Housing Authority represents. Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street, stated that most of the citizens of Sarasota are hard working people, businessmen, or retirees who pay a large amount in taxes to keep the City running with services which are also provided to the unfortunate; that the unfortunate citizens should not continue to express their wants without considering. the taxes hard working citizens have to payi that the taxes of the citizens could be reduced if the Vision Plan is implemented. Mayor Patterson recognized State Representative Shirley Brown who was present in the Commission Chambers. Commissioner Pillot apologized to Mayor Patterson for his comment and protest of her decision when Mr. Lobeck was speaking; that under the circumstances the Mayor's decision was both wise and proper. City Manager Sollenberger stated that there are strong parallels between the Vision Plan presented and R/UDAT plan developed in November 1983; that costs estimates of the proposed improvements contained in the R/UDAT were not included; that a dream was set forth; that the City developed a Redevelopment Plan subsequently with more particular strategies for implementation; that the Redevelopment Plan contained staggering cost estimates; however, the necessary financing programs were sought and developed to make the dream a reality; that the specific plans required substantial, additional planning beyond that contained in the Redevelopment Plan; that the redevelopment of the downtown core has been an open process during which a great deal of public input has been received and a variety of public hearings were held. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Administration's recommendation is to accept the Vision Plan as guidance for future policy decisions including the Comprehensive Plan Update, LDRs, other associated ordinances, public/private partnerships, and resource allocations. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the right-of-way for the realignment of U.S. 301 has not been thoroughly studied and is an item on which limited public input has been received; that the item will have the opportunity for full public input during the U.S. 301 study; that the Commission may want to consider excluding that item from approval. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the Commission has previously discussed instituting criteria for members of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that a decision was made that the Commission would choose members from the general public rather instituting restrictions that would limit those who could serve; that professionals have been chosen to serve on the PBLP and the process for appointing members should not be altered. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not disagree with Vice Mayor Merrill; however, the example given by Ms. Carter with regard to the Public Art Committee members makes a certain amount of sense; that certain skills are necessary but criteria should not be implemented to specify that the members must be architects or planners. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Vision Plan recommendation is to, "develop professional qualification criteria." Mayor Patterson stated that the Vision Plan did not take the path she had expected; that Staff and members of public contributed enormous amounts of time; that the Vision Plan contains items of value that should be pursued; that the Vision Plan doesn't have the significance that many of the speakers have chosen to invest it with; that the Vision Plan is a dream for the downtown area with guidance the Commission can choose to follow or not to follow in the future; that Mr. Babb is correct that the plan is not a 50 year Vision Plan; however, attempting to predict a city 50 years in the future was the weakest part of the exercise. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she participated in the Vision Plan process in the early stages as a member of the task force for Neighborhood Protection; that she thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity for dialog with the many people involved and the experience she gained from her endeavor; that she has been a promoter of getting the Vision Plan completed quickly so the dream can continue to the next step; that the people who are disenchanted with portions of the Vision Plan will have the opportunity to be heard during the processes necessary to implement those portions. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the Downtown Vision Plan as guidance for future policy decisions including the Comprehensive BOOK 37 Page 11120 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11121 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Plan Update, LDRS, other associated ordinances, public/private partnerships and resource allocations. Mayor Patterson asked for the Commission's wishes with regard to the proposal received by Mr. Franklin regarding the John Ringling Causeway Bridge. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission voted unanimously in favor of requesting a low-bascule bridge; however, the MPO has decided differently; and asked what purpose amending the Vision Plan would serve. Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Franklin come before the Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that a point of entry found to challenge the decision made by the FDOT notwithstanding the action taken by the City Commission, FDOT Advisory Board, and the MPO Technical Advisory Board is to challenge the fact that the FDOT did not find consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the public policy is not clear; that the Vision Plan is a planning document and a broad basis for public policy; that an affirmation of the policy adopted by the City Commission regarding the John Ringling Causeway Bridge should be included in the Vision Plan to establish continuity. Mr. Franklin continued that Protection of Sarasota Bay on page 116 addresses stormwater and water quality management; that affirmation in this section was suggested in terms of protecting the visual, aesthetic quality and character of Sarasota Bay as a "world class" vista. Commissioner Pillot stated that since the Vision Plan does not counter the action taken by the Commission to support a low bascule bridge replacement for the John Ringling Causeway bridge and page 108 contains the following two statements, he is reluctant to change the Vision Plan document: Increase efficiency (reduce resistance) for traffic to and from the keys. Increase efficiency for travel to and from the keys to enhance evacuation capability. Mr. Franklin stated that the Vision Plan provides an opportunity to affirm a prior decision; that the Vision Plan does not address the City Commission's prior action with respect to its clear decision on the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the proposed language is a list of suggestions for enhancements or clarifications which can be considered individually by the Commission for inclusion; that the Commission's support is necessary for the BTHC to be able to mount a proper challenge. Commissioner Cardamone requested comment as to why the issue was not addressed in the Vision Plan. Ms. Robinson, Ms. Carter, and Mr. Mohammed came before the Commission. Ms. Carter stated that the bridge is outside the boundaries of the study area; that the specific topic did not surface during the process and therefore was not discussed or included in the Vision Plan document; however, the importance of visual and physical access to the bay was expressed. Ms. Robinson stated that including affirmation of the Commission's position in the Vision Plan would at most add acknowledgment; that the issue could be addressed through the Comprehensive Planning process. Mr. Franklin stated that the BTHC would request the item to be included during the Comprehensive Plan Update; that affirmation in the Vision Plan provides another building block to support the challenge; that the proposed language is consistent with the policy statements already included in the document. Mayor Patterson asked if a section of the document is devoted to addressing the aesthetics of the area? Ms. Carter stated that the Urban Design element under Natural Environment may be an appropriate place for the language. Mayor Patterson stated that the community was divided on this issue, but the Commission was not; that she recently discovered that the FDOT policies now require an opaque barrier between the vehicle lane and the pedestrian lane on a bridge which will hinder a view of the water. Commissioner Pillot suggested adding a 5th bullet to the Through Traffic section on page 73 which would state: Continue to pursue replacement of the Causeway Bridge with a low bascule span. Commissioner Pillot stated that his compromise uses a portion of the proposed language, but would provide reaffirmation without getting into reasons, aesthetics or judgements about mobility, traffic movement or efficiency. Mr. Mohammed stated that the suggestion would fit nicely with the intent to beautify the City's transportation corridors. BOOK 37 Page 11122 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11123 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he has mixed feelings since the issue has surfaced sO late in the process; that the "world class" vista is part of the Sarasota experience; that a high-rise bridge may resolve traffic problems, but could also eliminate that Sarasota experience; that due to the final decision made by the MPO the issue was not addressed during the vision planning process; however, the Vision Plan is a dream of what the City wants to be; that the bridge whether inside or outside of the downtown area will be viewed by people in the downtown and experienced by people who travel to and from the downtown over the next 50 years; that the Commission's dream for the bridge should be incorporated in the Vision Plan document. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and. second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to include adding the statement, "continue to pursue replacement of the Causeway Bridge with a low bascule span" as a fifth bullet under Through Traffic on page 73 of the Vision Plan document. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the amendment. Amendment carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he has concerns with the amount of public input received on the proposed U.S. 301 bypass. Mr. Mohammed stated that the Commission is not being requested to approve the bypass concept; that a comprehensive, public involvement process relating to the U.S. 301 study is currently being conducted by the FDOT. Mayor Patterson stated that she requested that the Administration develop recommendations so the City could be in a leadership position with regard to U.S. 301; that she understands Vice Mayor Merrill's concern. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the map shows a road going through the Lutheran Church Sanctuary, Pelican Ford Dealership, houses and condominiums on Wood and Bay Streets. Mayor Patterson stated that the map should be eliminated; and asked Vice Mayor Merrill if that would alleviate his concern. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the verbiage describing the map should also be eliminated. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion changing the language of the fourth bullet under Through Traffic on page 73 to state, "Explore the development of a U.S. 301 bypass east of existing U.S. 301 in the Downtown area to avoid six-laning U.S. 301 through the downtown." Mr. Mohammed stated that was the intent of the Administration's recommendation. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the intent of the amendment included removing the map. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the second amendment. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone requested that Mr. Annis' concern that the PBLP had been left out of the visioning process be addressed. Ms. Robinson stated that the PBLP was invited to all of the initial meetings; that the first formal meeting on the Vision Plan was held in October with the City Commission and the PBLP; that many of the PBLP members participated on the task teams; that the PBLP will be involved in all the public hearings relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments resulting from the Vision Plan. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the main motion as twice amended. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson cited the following Administration recommendations: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: Authorize Staff to amend the Thoroughfare Plan to realign Fruitville Road with Ringling Causeway as indicated on the Transportation plan of the Downtown Vision Plan. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: Direct Staff to pursue the addition of the Fruitville Road realignment with Ringling Causeway with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Five Year Work Program RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: Authorize Staff to amend the Thoroughtare Plan to indicate a preference for the development of a U.S. 301 bypass and the pedestrian enhancement of existing U.S. 301 in the Downtown Area. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that more public input is necessary; that this concept should be presented to the PBLP; and asked for the intent of the recommendation. Ms. Robinson stated that the intent of the recommendation is to begin the public process. BOOK 37 Page 11124 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11125 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that the concept has been reviewed by many citizens' groupi that the Thoroughfare Plan will receive intensive public input during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process; that preparing the item for the Commission to make a decision will take over one year. Mayor Patterson stated that the concept will no longer be practical if an Adult Care Living Facility is constructed on the property behind the JRT. Mr. Mohammed stated that road construction has become an eight-year process; that the process can be altered, halted, or modified at various times; however, beginning the process as early as possible is beneficial. Mayor Patterson stated that the Staff should be responsive to remove the concept from the Thoroughfare Plan if it becomes impractical. Commissioner Pillot stated that Recommendations 1 & 2 are interrelated. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Recommendation Nos. 1 & 2 as cited. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the wording on "Authorize staff to amend" needs to be clarified. Mayor Patterson stated that the statement should read, "Authorize Staff to begin the amendment process to amend . n The maker, Commissioner Pillot, and the seconder, Vice Mayor Merrill, agreed to the modification of the wording. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to approve Recommendation Nos. 1 & 2 with the wording "to amend" and "to pursue the addition of" modified to state, "to begin the amendment process." Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Recommendation No. 3. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 2. PRESENTATION RE: SMALL AREA PLAN (ROSEMARY DISTRICT) OF THE VISION PLAN = ACCEPTED THE NINE ADMINISTRATION REÇOMMENDATIONE WITH WORDING REVISIONS MADE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 (AGENDA ITEMS VIII - XIII) #2 (2763) through (3538) Pamela Hower, Sr. Planner, Comprehensive Division, Planning and Development Department, and Bruce Rankins, Vice President, Manager of Landscape Architecture, from the Fort Myers office of Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek, Inc., came before the Commission. Ms. Hower stated that Mr. Rankins, and Kenneth Natoli from the Sarasota office of Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek, Inc., were instrumental in developing the City's land-use plan from the redevelopment framework. Ms. Hower referenced an area map and displayed slides on the overhead projector as she explained the various conceptual land-use areas in the Rosemary District Plan, including the Central Avenue mixed use, Theater & Arts mixed use, Commercial Redevelopment, Single-family and Multi-family Residential areas. Ms. Hower stated that code enforcement, the police department and a number of public and private efforts have contributed to the tremendous clean-up experienced in the Rosemary District recently; that a sign making a statement that the City has taken an interest and the area is slated for redevelopment has been posted; that cluster-housing and projects similar to those recently completed in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood are envisioned for the Single Family Characteristic area bordering Lemon and Orange Avenues. Ms. Hower continued her slide presentation by showing and describing the following, specific assets located in the Rosemary District: Development south of Fourth Street Hood Dairy building "Church Walls" The renovated Rosemary area Antique Warehouse former Horne Grocery Colsen Hotel Cohen Way McCown Towers the Boxing Club Ms. Hower stated that with their great architecture, good structure, and/or historical significance many of these buildings provide an excellent opportunity for renovation. Ms. Hower further stated that Commission approval is sought of the plan so that necessary changes to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments can be made; that the Planning Department with the BOOK 37 Page 11126 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11127 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. assistance of a group of local architects and business owners, has developed the Urban Design Principles suggested for use at the Mission Harbor site which are: A unified development plan, not intended to promote strip commercial, which must utilize the 28.5 acres; An upscale project with regional appeal; Sensitive buffering or integration of the cemetery and adjacent residential; Integration or relocation of all significant historic structures, if feasible; Enhancement of the U.S. 41 profile through site design, landscaping and streetscaping; Respect for the transition of the Central Avenue corridor; Traffic circulation controlled through access points; Site design providing pedestrian connections and promoting pedestrian activities; A reflection of the profile and spirit of the Cultural Park and Theater and Arts District; Landscaping and streetscaping treatment for all streets; external and internal, within proposed development plan; Bulk, scale and open space consistent with general structure height in area. Ms. Hower stated that a picture of the anticipated development has been avoided; that the respondents to a Request for Proposal (RFP) will indicate how these principles will be addressed which will give the City more latitude and power. Ms. Hower concluded her presentation and stated that Staff would now field questions from the audience. Barry Lorie: As Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Players Theatre, what happens to the Players Theatre? Ms. Hower stated that she has heard through several sources first, that the Players Theatre did not want to be involved in the redevelopment and second, that the Players Theatre was interested; that the City's intention is not to force the Players Theatre out and the plan is only conceptual at this stage; that she would be pleased to discuss the issue at length with representatives of the Players Theatre if there is an interest. Zeta Hayes: What is the first thing to be changed? Ms. Hower stated the first change will be in the comprehensive plan in conjunction with the streetscaping plan. Joe Marconi: What is the proposed size and scope of the complex for the Mission Harbor site? Ms. Hower stated that the proposed site will be about 250,000 square feet of space due to site and parking constraints; that the site will have to be scaled down if the Players Theatre is not included; that the proposed Courtelis development was 300,000 square feet but problems existed with parking; that the actual site size and number of required parking spaces were never determined, although some rough calculations were done which indicated space would be tight. Dan Lobeck: Will this massive commercial development degrade the level of service on U.S. 41? Ms. Hower stated that a response cannot definitively be given without evaluating a specific development proposal; that modeling for the John Ringling Towers and bridge alternatives included a hypothetical commercial number and the level of service was not degraded on that basis; that the burden of showing no decrease in the level of service will be on the developer. Dan Lobeck: Will the City consider amending the minimum level of service for U.S. 41 to permit a service degradation? Ms. Hower stated that she does not know; that she has not evaluated the issue thoroughly; that redevelopment is desired in the downtown, but the decision ultimately rests with the City Commission. Dan Lobeck: What is the negative or positive impact of 250,000 square feet of additional commercial, upscale, retail development in the area on other upscale, retail merchants within a half mile or mile radius? Ms. Hower stated that a similar experience occurred in Naples with the Third Street Shopping development which is similar to St. Armands Circle; that prior to the Courtelis development, Third Street was down in sales overall; that a marketing person was hired, an extensive public relations campaign began, street festivals were initiated, and within two years sales were up; that the nature of what is occurring in Naples could be different. Dan Lobeck: Is the Mission Harbor site redevelopment considered part of the Vision Plan and a proposal to the City Commission? BOOK 37 Page 11128 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11129 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Ms. Hower stated that the proposal is one of the implementations of the Vision Plan; that any changes in land use will have to go through an extensive public process, Comprehensive Plan amendments, and Zoning Code amendments; that the changes would all be reviewed under public hearings. Mayor Patterson stated that she would like Ms. Hower to allow everyone to have an opportunity to ask questions and return to Mr. Lobeck if he still has a question so that he will not be cut off but will also not dominate the entire process. Mary Quillin: What is the source of the demographic profiles contained in Book I of the Rosemary District Plan and did staff go into the neighborhoods to gather the information from the neighborhood associations? Ms. Hower stated that staff paid the Census Department for the information which is from the 1990 census data. Ms. Quillin stated that some of the information is erroneous, i.e., persons enrolled in college, median monthly rent of $146; that she is offended her neighborhood is represented in this way. Ernest Babb: What is the status of the negotiations between the City, the County, and RISCORP to "swap" the Mission Harbor property with parcels needed for the new library in the downtown core? Ms. Hower stated that she understood the "swap" will not occur until January. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the transaction is complex with many properties involved so a conclusion will probably not be reached until Januaryi that one of the property owners does not appear to be totally willing to sell which has delayed the appraisal process; that the City must preserve its options in order to provide for the parking needs well into the future; that the parking issue is a separate negotiation with RISCORP which must be resolved in conjunction with any recommendation to the Commission; that the objective is to bring a recommendation to the Commission in January. Robert Stueber: How will the CRT (Commercial Residential Transition) zoning be impacted once the plan is adopted? Ms. Hower stated that the proposal for the Rosemary District plan is to amend the Comprehensive Plan so that the Commercial Residential Transition (CRT) zoning will not be used as it has not worked in the area and is a barrier to redevelopment; that a mixed use zone district such as Commercial Business District-Newtown is being recommended to replace the CRT zone; that the district is envisioned as storefronts right on the street and a combination of storefronts, office and residential above the first floor which is a more relaxed zone district; that the Florida Avenue area is located in the identified redevelopment area and adjustments can be made if those property owners decide not to be part of the redevelopment plan; that the CRT zone would evaporate and be replaced with something more meaningful and accessible. Lloyd Mobley: Has it been decided that the Mission Harbor site will no longer be used for the library and/or convention center but rather commercial development? Ms. Hower stated that the City Commission decided last year to ask Sarasota County to relocate the library so the Mission Harbor site and adjacent areas would be available for economic development; that the City is proceeding on the basis that the library will be downtown at Five Points; that the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) would not preclude a conference center; that the development community has indicated the market is ripe for upscale commercial development; that the RFPS would not preclude anything meeting the criteria. William Campbell: Will the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners be asked to provide input? Ms. Hower stated that the plan provides that all public housing projects within the district should be closely coordinated with redevelopment activities to ensure consistency with both efforts; that the plan is the beginning of a process; that the intent is not to keep the Housing Authority out of the processi and that redevelopment and public housing must be closely coordinated. Mayor Patterson stated that anything happening with public housing must be coordinated with the Housing Authority Board as they have ultimate authority over their properties. Joe Marconi: What is the meaning of the following quote from the plan: "Staff and downtown merchants believe there will be little competition for retail due partly because mall developers tend to establish contacts with retailers; therefore, retail on Main Street will tend to be independent." Ms. Hower stated malls typically have a set formula for which merchants will be with them and retailers tend to follow one mall developer; that Main Street is lean on retail at the present time, although retail will develop; that Main Street retail will tend to be comprised more of local artisans and merchants; that a mall in the Mission Harbor area will probably not have many chains but BOOK 37 Page 11130 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11131 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. rather more independent owners; that the statement was made in the context of a specific development configuration; that several alternatives were presented to the Commission in an October Workshop; that one of the alternatives was a commercial configuration mimicking Hyde Park, Tampa, and the other was a mall- type environment with a contained mall and surrounding parking; that the comment reflects the latter development scheme. Jensy Davis: The Planning Department has drawn terrific patterns which, if implemented, will be a great asset to the community. Mayor Patterson stated that public hearing input is the next item on the agenda. The following people came before the Commission: Joe Marconi, owner of Nello's Clothing Store in the Sarasota Quay, stated three items should be highlighted concerning the vision of a shopping center on the Mission Harbor property: 1. The retail group of which he is a member provided two studies from reputable firms showing that the development of an upscale mall or shopping center on the property would result in a 39 percent negative impact on the sales revenue of existing area retail business in the least worse-case scenario; and 2. The County's officially adopted study of population- growth projections through the year 2020 prepared by the University of South Florida shows the City of Sarasota will grow by approximately 2 percent in the next ten years; and 3. Using this data, it is not possible that any of the existing businesses will return to today's sales volume if the center is developed. Mr. Marconi stated that developers have said the shopping center is needed but no study has been prepared by the Planning Department to attest to the fact that a shopping center is needed and can be supported; that the retail community provided the information to the City at a previous Commission meeting; that he encourages the development of the property as a conference center. Mayor Patterson stated that the next speaker is Mary Quillin; that Ms. Quillin has also signed up to speak to read a statement of Harriet Oxman. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that Ms. Oxman's 96-year- old mother is very ill. Mayor Patterson stated that Ms. Quillin will not be permitted to read Ms. Oxman's statement. Ms. Quillin asked if the Clerk could read the statement into the record as Ms. Oxman is part of the Friends of the Selby Library Board. Mayor Patterson stated that she will ask the Clerk to make the statement part of the record and Ms. Quillin may take a couple of moments to summarize Ms. Oxman's statement; however, anyone could multiple their speaking time many fold by bringing prepared statements of others to present to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the result would be a filibuster if everyone brought statements from others to read. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports the Mayor's position. Mayor Patterson asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to enter Ms. Oxman's statement into the record. Ms. Quillin asked that the statement be read into the record. Mayor Patterson stated that the request has been respectfully refused. Ms. Quillin stated that she is resubmitting the information on the impact of the mega-mall impact on retail sales in the community; that the General Manager of the Sarasota Square Mall was asked about the retail community and his response as reported in Monday's paper is: "I probably voice the sentiments of other mall managers when I say I think there is enough retail here (in Sarasota) and I would not like to see another mall go up. We would just like to strengthen what we have here instead of adding on. Another mall would be potentially harmful to somebody. . Ms. Quillin continued that she has problems with the process the small area plan went through; that no public meetings were held, except one on January 13, 1994, at which time the public said they did not want a mega- mall but rather wanted the library in the area; that the County still owns the Mission Harbor site property and it would be appropriate to work cooperatively with the County and build the library as planned on the property; that the library was a $12 million project for the neighborhood which was taken away; that since January 1, 1994, over $20 million in projects have left the Mission Harbor neighborhood; that the Mission Harbor site should be viewed as a catalyst for the library, and an educational process can be continued for the neighborhood. Mayor Patterson stated that the statement by Harriet Oxman is basically that the public has waited long enough for a library on the Mission Harbor site, the public does not want a mall at that site, and it is time to go ahead and build the library. BOOK 37 Page 11132 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11133 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Dan Lobeck, representing himself and the Growth Restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO), stated that he takes offense as a member of the public for this Vision Plan to be represented as a Vision Plan which identifies the "desires of the community" and the preferences of the people who participated in the process; that this assertion is a lie; that the people of the community do not want a mega-mall or an intensification of development at Mission Harbor which is what is before the Commission for a vote; that the people have told the Commission that fact, time and time again; that the document states the development will be a regional facility with regional appeal, not only increasing local traffic but drawing traffic from the Interstate to Fruitville Road and U.S. 41; that he hopes the Commission will not vote to accept the document and will listen to the public instead of the special interests who want to get rich off the project; that Mayor Patterson stated a year ago in a newspaper article that the only way to keep traffic away from a neighborhood is "to make the main road flow as smoothly as possible because, otherwise, people will take shortcuts"; that if U.S. 41, Fruitville Road, and other roads are overcrowded as a result of this development, people will cut through and hurt neighborhoods; that he suggests this is a violation of Chapter 163.3167, Florida Statutes, since Vision Plans are part of the comprehensive planning process and are subject to the same publication requirements, including adequacy; that the Commission started the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. and constrained the public to unreasonable time periods for comment; that the decision involves directing the start of the comprehensive plan amendment process to intensify development on this parcel; that the wording of the document is such that it is a policy determination; that City residents prefer a central library on U.S. 41 between 6th and 10th Streets to improve the area rather than paving over 28.5 acres; that the City is on the verge of losing the library or at least half the library because of a reluctance to go along with what the people want and of going along with the big mall developers; that the people of the community believe Sarasota is a jewel which should be polished, not something which should be tossed away and replaced by a big city; that 54% of County residents said Sarasota County is growing too fast and only 4% said it is growing too slowly; that the attitude and philosophy of the Commission to date has been directly contrary to the public opinion, saying cram in more people and a mall the City of Sarasota because a few people will get wealthy, including a few friends of a few City Commissioners who financed Commissioners' campaigns. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Lobeck is over his time limit. Mr. Lobeck stated that he wished there were more time as the time is not sufficient if the Commission votes for this plan. Mayor Patterson stated that in the future Mr. Lobeck should not direct remarks at people at the table as it is not acceptable and is out of order. Barbara Cherry, representing the North Trail Association, stated that the North Trail Association wants to see economic development in the area; that the North Trail Association worked on the Gateway 2000 Project and the proposed Rosemary District Plan coordinates the Gateway 2000 Project and the North Trail rezoning with the downtown restoration and is a nice plan; that the Association has supported the Mission Harbor plan due to the economic development and has also supported the conference center; that the plan is a good plan. Robert Levy, 1391 Sixth Street, stated that he supports the Planning Department's recommendation; that he would not like to see a rigid plan with specifics of what should be developed on every corner; that the Rosemary District should be called an enterprise zone; that the private sector will develop the area as the private sector will risk the money and develop the area; that the private sector should decide what is good for them; that what is good for a business person is what is good for non-business people as people require services; that business people should be supported in their activities in the area; that a few people who are strongly against development of the area should be forced to buy a property in the area, live in the area, and have their business in the area, but they only come to the area occasionally to get some of the services. Captain Lloyd Mobley, 1300 Sixth Street in McCown Towers, stated that he owns a business and his landlord is Robert Levy; that the aesthetics of downtown Sarasota would be enhanced by a beautiful library which would create a lot of traffic, and the property values would be enhanced; that he was present at the recent pharmaceutical convention and the attendees said they had to move to Ft. Lauderdale due to a lack of space; that the Mission Harbor site is a beautiful property which overlooks the bay and will overlook the new bridge; that the property is valuable to the City of Sarasota, and he resents a decision being made on the property without consulting those who border the property. Paul Thorpe, representing the Downtown Association, stated that the Downtown Association supports the plan, including the land use, as presented by the Planning Department; that the Association does not support a mega mall or an upscale shopping center but does support economic development; that a hotel conference center or residential units could be located on one of the commercial sites; that these possibilities are pointed out in the plan and a mega mall is not recommended in the plan but is rather an option; that the Planning Department has done a great job; that the naysayers did not come forward with any other ideas or plans; that the plans were put BOOK 37 Page 11134 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11135 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. together with a group of people who live in the area, and he has never seen anything from any of the other groups; that the Downtown Association supports what the Planning Department has done and suggested and the possible land uses. William Campbell, 4520 Webber Street, stated that the plan is not a task which can be accomplished over night; that a tremendous amount of work went into the plan, and he commends everyone involved to this point; that this plan will affect a number of people, and the Housing Authority constituents he represents will also be affected; that he is concerned about the zoning on Cohen Way and around McCown Towers; that the Housing Authority wants to make the public housing projects conducive with the plan so the entire area is attractive; that he requests the Commission consider the public housing properties as development is considered; that he is not satisfied with Cohen Way in its current condition; that the Housing Board can bring the property to a very acceptable condition and make it attractive; that he is aware of models in other parts of the county, i.e., in St. Louis where a downtown housing project became the anchor for redevelopment as the housing complex was developed into an 18-story, tenant-owned complex which became the showplace of downtown St. Louis; that the property attracted convention centers and hotels; that another place to go shopping in Sarasota is not needed but rather the need is for a convention center; that a convention center will develop the needed revenue as well as jobs for the community; that a convention center will bring hotels to the area and is supported by the Housing Authority; that he requests the Commission consider the Housing Authority's properties to make them cohesive with the vision; that he commends the work and effort; that "Without a Vision People Parish" and Sarasota has a vision which is to be commended. Mayor Patterson stated that it is great that Mr. Campbell came to the Commission meeting and the Housing Authority will be considered and consulted throughout the process. Michael Judson, representing the Players Theatre, stated that he and his wife moved to Sarasota many years ago to enjoy the small city atmosphere, the education, the public schools, and the cultural life of the City; that he has spent the last year full time as a trustee of the Players Theatre; that no one seems to be considering the Players Theatre; that the Theatre is a 65-year-old institution which was started about the same time as the City; that the Theatre is an amateur, theatrical proposition attended by 50,000 people annually and has been an anchor for the neighborhood; that he supports the City progressing and a special reaching out with the Players Theatre is appropriate; that the Players Theatre should be considered in the plan. Mayor Patterson stated that there may have been misunderstandings in terms of the future of the Players Theatre; that at the time the process started, she understood the Players Theatre was planning to move; that there is no intent to take over the Players Theatre and there is nothing but appreciation for the Players Theatre as a great facility. Jennifer X, representing. the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (MLK) Neighborhood Association, stated that the black community wonders what has happened; that it appears someone has taken an eraser to the historical preservation of the community and wiped it out; that there is no consideration for the low income people in the area; that the black community was initially located east of Interstate 75, then in Philippi Shores, and then moved to what is now being called the Rosemary District today; that the black community is now in Newtown and feels it is being pushed and pushed; that the old community is being renamed as the Rosemary District and the streets will be renamed which will disconnect the black community; that Newtown and Old Town have a connection at the present time but Old Town will be wiped out totally and completely and replaced by an upscale, upwardly mobile community; that she wonders where the black community fits and what the Commission is planning to do with the natives; that historic preservation of the community is a must; that the black community must be involved in the planning process; that the black community had a vision plan which was discussed with the Commission but which seems to have been lost in the shuffle; that the vision was to connect the two communities via Central Avenue, which will no longer be called Central Avenue; that a wall will once again separate the black community from the upscale and upwardly mobile artsy communities. Donna Smith, representing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (MLK) Neighborhood Association, stated that she has an interest in preservation; that she has noticed people in the Cohen Way area are being encouraged to move out; that people have been given notices to move for reasons they felt unjust and no one has been placed into the vacant units; that people are slowly being moved out with no one seeing it; that the plan looks nice, but she would like to see the old black community included in the plan by connecting Central Avenue; that eventually the area will be like a ghost town; that the following items should be reviewed: 1) people being moved out of Cohen Way, 2) preservation of the old black community with some of those people getting into business and being part of the development, and 3) connecting Central Avenue from MLK Way to downtown; that the name of Central Avenue should not be changed to Mango Avenue as proposed; that an invisible wall would be created; that the street should retain the name of Central Avenue and consideration given to naming the district "Central District" instead of the Rosemary District. Jennifer X stated that the MLK Neighborhood Association supports the name of "Central District." BOOK 37 Page 11136 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11137 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has seen numerous changes in the north side of Sarasota and saw the old black community move to Newtown; that part of the reason Central Avenue looks as it does is because it was abandoned by the black community when it moved to what is now known as Newtown; that few single family residences exist in the area, which is mostly vacant land; that she looks at this plan as a rebirth, renewal, or rejuvenation of an area and she supported, until now, the name change to give the area a "jump start" of something new and exciting; that she is concerned with the response of Jennifer X since she is located quite a distance from the area and left the area for someone to come along and do redevelopment; that she may have missed a major point in Jennifer X's conversation, however, the area residents who are active in trying to see good things happen have been involved; that residents of Cohen Way and McCown Towers have been represented at many of the meetings she attended recently; that whatever is determined tonight may not fit in with what Ms. X feels should happen, but it is good that positive changes are being considered; that the Central Avenue creep will occur as the cleanup of 10th Street is completed and spills over to 11th and 12th Streets until it deadends at MLK Way; that everyone will feel the benefit of the plan; that she wanted to explain her different point of view. Jennifer X stated that she suspects the Commissioners have already made up their minds, however, if not, the MLK Neighborhood Association can be contacted and will be there for assistance; that she did not live in Old Town but her mother and grandmother did; that she cares about the area. Mayor Patterson stated that the majority of the residents, at least those who spoke out, have chosen the name Rosemary District; that she recognizes concern with the splitting of Central Avenue into Mango Avenue and Central Avenue; that Central Avenue has traditionally been one street and is a backbone in the community; and asked if the Central Avenue name is not changed, would that answer Jennifer X's main concern. Jennifer X stated yes. Roy Smith, 5149 Boca Raton Avenue, representing the Sarasota North Action Group (S.N.A.G.), stated that the betterment, improvement and development of the north end of town will result from the plan; that 5 to 6 years of work has been put into the plan; that he can finally see progress, the end is about to come, and something will be accomplished soon; that he is the President of S.N.A.G. which voted unanimously to back the concept of the small area plan for Rosemary District; that S.N.A.G. agrees with the proposed land use as being conducive to the future redevelopment and resurrection of Central Avenue; that S.N.A.G. encourages the Commission to vote favorably on the plan so as to release the funds necessary to finally get the show on the road; that a lot of work went into the plan by the Planning Department; that the naysayers have said no meetings were held, but meeting after meeting was held. Robert Stueber, Architect, stated that he relocated into the area for business purposes and sees other professionals coming into the area; that he is taking advantage of the low overhead in the area; that the plan is a basis for rejuvenation and a force to attract development; that he supports the plan as designed and finds it attractive to be in an area where a lot of new things will be designed and come into existence; that he would like to acknowledge the work done; that as a professional himself, the work is very professional; that the plan is a beginning, not an end; that the possibility exists for an organic growth process, and he hopes the vote is positive. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the staff report has been provided to the Commission; that nine recommendations, as revised, have been made to implement the plan; that he supports the recommendations. Commissioner Pillot stated that Recommendation No. 6 is as follows: "Direct the administration to prepare a streetscaping plan for Central Avenue, from Fruitville Road to 10th Street"; that he hopes that language will be sufficient to lay to rest the question of changing the name of Central Avenue at this time as the recommendation speaks about Central Avenue only; and asked if the name would remain unchanged if the recommendation is adopted? Mayor Patterson asked if the plan implies or actually states that the name of Central Avenue will be changed? Ms. Hower stated no; that changing the name of Central Avenue was a suggestion emanating from the October Commission Workshop; that it is not necessary that the name be changed and there is nothing in the plan which states the name will be changed. Commissioner Pillot asked if any recommendations should be modified as a result of this evening's meeting? Ms. Hower stated no. City Manager Sollenberger stated that if the recommendations are adopted as submitted, the Administration's interpretation would be that the name of Central Avenue has not changed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Recommendation No. 1 is to: "Adopt 'Rosemary District' as the formal name for the redevelopment plan, D however, there is no explicit recommendation for the name of Central Avenue; that she has supported the name of Rosemary District as the formal name but has not supported changing a portion of Central Avenue to Mango Avenue; and asked for an explanation of Recommendation No. 4. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Recommendation No. 4 pertains to the Mission Harbor site; that the recommendation is to: "Direct the Administration to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the BOOK 37 Page 11138 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11139 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. Mission Harbor and associated lands as soon as feasible and incorporate urban design principals into the RFP"; that the RFP would outline what the city would like to see happen on the site and would invite proposals which meet the criteria and list the respondents' qualifications and ability to get the job done; that the proposals would be evaluated on the basis of how well the respondents address the criteria and the financial aspects established by the City; that the recommendation also calls for inviting proposals on property which the City does not own; that the City does not currently own any of the property; that if the library transaction comes to pass, which must be determined, the City would own approximately 11 acres and the recommendation relates to a 28.5 acre location which includes a number of locations the City does not own; that this type of proposal is done by redevelopment agencies, notably the City of Daytona Beach, with considerable success; that the Marriott Hotel at the City of Daytona was developed on the basis that the City owned some land and other land was in private ownership; that the particulars of the proposal will have to be discussed with the Commission as this initiative represents a distinct change in philosophy which the City has followed in redevelopment. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the recommendation for an RFP limits the use of the property to retail, a mall, or similar uses? City Manager Sollenberger stated it does not; that the Commission has indicated a preference for retail but the proposal can be structured to meet whatever the Commission wants; that the preferred option under the plan is a regional shopping center but the plan does not rule out other uses. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission indicated economic development at the last meeting as determined by interested parties; that any of the outlined uses, including hotel and/or residential development, would be acceptable; that she did not hear from the Commission an expressed preference for a regional shopping area; that the Commission vote was not specifically for a regional shopping center. Commissioner Pillot stated that the wording of the vote was "e economic development." Commissioner Cardamone stated that the intent was for economic development purposesi that the Commission unanimously indicated the property should be sold rather than the City's developing the property; that she would like to leave all the options open for economic development on the land. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the discussion has occurred; that he would like to add under Recommendation No. 4 the phrase "economic development" so that the recommendation will read: "Direct the administration to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the economic development of Mission Harbor for the Mission Harbor and associated lands as soon as possible. . 1 Mayor Patterson stated that the wording of the recommendation appears to indicate the plan is a "done deal"; that she has received several calls from reporters who have said the plan is a done deal but the Commission is not telling the public the details; that her answer has been that the plan is not a done deal; that the details are not known, no definitive votes have occurred, and until the details are known, it is difficult to know if the purchase is feasible; that she would like the wording to be "associated lands if the City is able to acquire the property." city Manager Sollenberger stated the wording is a good clarification. Commissioner Cardamone stated that nothing is fixed. Mayor Patterson stated that Recommendation No. 5 puts any staffing to be hired for this property in the context of a budget process which is where the discussion belongs, however, the recommendation is fairly open-ended; and asked what the recommendation means. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he anticipates no more than one additional staff member. Mayor Patterson stated that private investment will come to the area if an initiative is made to acquire problem properties, if the area is kept clean, and if the City demonstrates it cares about the area; that the property will become desirable as a private sector development opportunity within 1 to 5 years if a redevelopment staff is hired; that if staff is not hired, the same scenario will develop; that staffing is not the key but rather what the City has to offer. City Manager Sollenberger stated that some additional staff will be necessary for a period of time to deal with the follow-up activities if the Commission were to decide to request proposals for development of the Mission Harbor site and to consider a broader area; that a number of activities would have to be administered. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration will have time to clarify the staffing needs if the Commission approves the recommendation. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to extend - the meeting in order to complete the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 37 Page 11140 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11141 11/30/94 7:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to accept the nine recommendations presented to the Commission. Mayor Patterson restated the motion to accept all nine recommendations which includes adoption of the plan and implies inclusion of the several changes made by the Commission in Recommendation No. 4. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that he had a tremendous amount of appreciation and pride in the staff for the quality of the product as well as the quality of the manner in which this evening's meeting was conducted; that top talent was demonstrated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that some Commissioners have been trying to push the plan through for a number of years and she would like to say thank you to Director Jane Robinson and her staff who have worked beyond the call of duty in completing the plan; that the staff has done a fine job. Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to thank those who stayed to provide input to the Commission; that the Commission has heard and listened to those people; that the Commission appreciates their participation. 3. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM XIV) #3 (3538) There was no one signed up to speak. 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVI) #3 (3540) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the Special Meeting of November 30, 1994, at 11:34 p.m. Loea NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: - BiilE Ralunsen BILLY E.CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK