BOOK 44 Page 16831 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT : Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone and David Merrill, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen McGowan, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: : Commissioner Gene Pillot and City Manager David Sollenberger PRESIDING: Mayor Jerome Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the meeting is not being televised at the present time due to a camera malfunction. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0049) through (0098) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-6, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County providing for the cooperative administration of City and County Housing and Community Development Programs, per the request of Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development. B. Remove Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1, Approval Re: Assignment of the New Pass Bait Shop lease to Matthew Dellecave and Ken Rottman with no changes in terms, conditions or uses, per the request of V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager. C. Add New Business, Item No. VIII-3, Approval Re: Proposal to refund the General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1990, and issue approximately $9.9 million of General Obligation refund bonds, Series 1998, per the request of Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance. D. Add New Business, Item No. VIII-4, Approval Re: Request for Proposals for Lemon Avenue Mall, per the request of Gregory Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. The Commission recessed at 6:08 p.m. into a special session of the City of Sarasota Road Facilities Service District Advisory Committee and reconvened at 7:15 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson left the Chambers at 6:30 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 26, 1998, AND REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1998 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1,-2) #1 (0130) through (0141) Mayor Dupree asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the special Commission meeting of March 26, 1998, and regular Commission meeting of June 1, 1998, are approved by unanimous consent. 3. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, AND 10 - APPROVED: ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVED WITH CHANGES; ITEM NO. 6 - REMOVED; ITEM NO. 8 NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0147) through (0692) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Item Nos. 1 and 3 be removed for discussion. Mayor Dupree requested that Item No. 8 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County for the distribution of Local Option Gas Tax Revenues for the period September 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Engineering Services between the City of Sarasota and Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., Sarasota, Florida (R.F.P. #95-56) for completion of the design of BOOK 44 Page 16832 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16833 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. the emergency interconnect and expansion of the scope of the design for the water main on Myrtle Avenue east to North Osprey Avenue. 5. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Paragon Electric Service, Inc. Sarasota, Florida (Bid #98-68H), in the amount of $28,150.00, for the Traffic Signal Loop Installation Project. 7. Approval Re: Upgrade to the telephone system at Water Utilities and Public Works at an estimated cost of $31,857.40. 9. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4066, amending the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 2, Boards, Commissions and Committees, so as to allow the City Commission to extend the expiring term of a board member under special circumstances; repealing ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County providing for the Cooperative Administration of the City and County Housing and Community Development Programs. . On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Joint Project Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County to implement the inclusion of City utility work in a County drainage project at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Courtland Street. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Item 3 concerns a County drainage project which requires relocation of a utility line funded by the City; that Item 1, the Interlocal Agreement for consolidation of stormwater management, was pulled for discussion to ensure that City funding for relocation of utility lines or digging up streets or sidewalks is not required for all County stormwater projects. William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, came before the Commission and stated that the City utility bears the cost of upgrading and relocating utility lines when in conflict with road projects, stormwater projects, etc. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the County bears the cost of upgrading and relocating County utility lines disturbed within the County? Mr. Hallisey stated yes; that State Statute requires relocation of utility lines in a right-of-way, under the control of another jurisdiction; that relocating utilities at the cost to the jurisdiction's utility is common practice to facilitate the jurisdiction'srown road projects. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the City bears the cost of relocating the utility lines when the State widens a State road requiring the relocation of City utility lines? Mr. Hallisey stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the County bears the cost of relocating County utility lines under similar circumstances? Mr. Hallisey stated that is his understanding. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that is his understanding also. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the same is not applicable to rebuilding a sidewalk or repaving a road; and asked if the City has the burden of repaving a street when a City street is dug up as part of a County drainage project? Mr. Hallisey stated no. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the requirement is peculiar to utilities. Mr. Hallisey stated yes. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County regarding total consolidation of Stormwater Management. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that a minor language change to the Interlocal Agreement is requested; that paragraph 2 (A) of the Interlocal Agreement should be revised to read as follows: (A) COUNTY, as the Stormwater Management entity for CITY, shall assume all responsibilities as indicated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (hereafter N.P.D.E.S.) Permit Stormwater Management Plan (S.W.M.P.) within the scope of Stormwater Management. Scope of N.P.D.E.S. responsibilities as provided by the Stormwater Utility shall be essentially BOOK 44 Page 16834 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16835 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. the same within the municipal limits of CITY as in the unincorporated area of the COUNTY. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 and 3 with the Administration's requested language change to the Interlocal Agreement regarding total consolidation of stormwater management. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. 8. Approval Re: Waiver of Rules of Procedure to allow no time limits for speakers at the June 17, 1998 public hearing on proposed changes to the Sarasota City Plan. Mayor Dupree stated that an explanation for eliminating time limits for speakers at the public hearing of the June 17, 1998, special Commission meeting is requested. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Staff recommends the update of the Comprehensive Plan be handled differently than the regular public hearing process; that the Comprehensive Plan document and supporting material consist of over 600 pages; that eliminating the 5-minute restriction on public input is appropriate; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) imposed no restrictions on speakers' time; that approximately 100 people attended the two public hearings conducted by the PBLP; that the number of speakers is unknown as several citizens came down simultaneously; that the procedure worked well at the PBLP meeting; that the PBLP listened during the public hearings which was an important component of the process; that PBLP discussion took place in a series of meetings to formulate PBLP recommendations following the public hearings. Mayor Dupree stated that having no specified time limit is a concern; that a 10-minute time limit rather than a 5-minute time limit may be more appropriate. Mr. Taylor stated that the majority of speakers at the PBLP public hearing spoke for approximately 5 minutes; that a few speakers spoke for 10 to 15 minutes; that the PBLP Chairman urged speakers to move on if the speakers became repetitive; that 5 minutes may be inadequate for addressing such a large document. Mayor Dupree stated that 5 minutes may be inadequate; however, the concern is to avoid lengthy presentations taking considerably more time. Commissioner Merrill stated that an announcement could be made at the beginning of the public hearing recognizing that speakers may require more time; that speakers could request a time extension from the Commission; that the Commission can limit speakers to 5 minutes and suspend the rules for a particular speaker if more time is necessary; that the Mayor should be given the latitude to allow more time with the consent of the Commission; that the procedure can be handled at the time of the public hearing; that special action in advance is not necessary. Commissioner Cardamone agreed; and stated that speakers should be asked to keep presentations under 5 minutes; however, an announcement could be made prior to the public hearing that speakers can request additional time if necessary. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the schedule is very time consuming with public hearings on June 17 and 18, 1998, beginning at 6 p.m. and deliberations on June 19, 22, and 24, 1998, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 to 5 p.m. and on June 23, 1998, from 6 to 11 p.m.i that she may be unable to attend all the scheduled meetings. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission also agreed to consider the proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRs) if all the scheduled meeting times are not required for the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that considering the LDRs during the meeting times scheduled for the Comprehensive Plan was protested; that the time schedule is too demanding. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the public hearing on Wednesday, June 17, 1998, will provide a gage as to the amount of public input expected; that the time necessary for Commission deliberations will be determined following the public hearing; that meetings to consider the LDRs will then be noticed if desired by the Commission. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0693) through (0970) Mayor Dupree requested that Item No. 3 be removed for discussion. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1089 in its entirety and proposed Resolution Nos. 98R-1064, 98R-1073, 98R-1087, 98R-1088 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1064, recognizing the outstanding contributions of Annamae Sandegren in support of the activities of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall as a volunteer; setting forth findings; declaring that an appropriate area of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall shall be named in honor of Annamae Sandegren; referring the matter of the designation to the Van Wezel Foundation Executive Board BOOK 44 Page 16836 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16837 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. for a recommendation to the City Commission; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1073, providing a program for the recognition of substantial monetary contributors to the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall Capital Campaign; setting forth findings; urging citizens to financially support the Capital Campaign; approving a plan for the recognition of major financial donors to the Capital Campaign; authorizing the Van Wezel Foundation to make the final determination as to naming opportunities for areas within the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1087, authorizing an amendment to an Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County formulating a consortium pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990; setting forth findings; approving the Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement; authorizing its execution by the Mayor; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1088, authorizing the submission of Local Housing Assistance Plan for the Sarasota County State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP); setting forth findings; authorizing its execution by the Mayor; etc. (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1089, appropriating $5,500 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund the purchase of a Rescue Phone CNT System for use by the Crisis Negotiation Unit; *etc. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Mayor Dupree requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. Adoption Re: : Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1086, authorizing an Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County formulating a consortium pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990; setting forth findings; approving the Interlocal Agreement; authorizing its execution by the Mayor; etc. (Title Only) Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1086 by title only. Mayor Dupree requested an explanation of the relationship of Item No. 3 to Items Nos. 4 and 5. Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that Item No. 3 is the Consortium Agreement for Fiscal Years (FY) 1999 through 2001; that a new Consortium Agreement is required to receive HOME Partnership Investment Act (HOME) funds each three-year period; that failure to enter a new Consortium Agreement results in forfeiting the funding sourcesi that Item No. 3 is to approve an Interlocal Agreement for the three-year period beginning in FY 1999; that Item No. 4 is to approve an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for FY 1996 through 1998 to change the lead agency from Sarasota County to the City of Sarasota in conformance with previously approved administrative program changes; that Item No. 5 is to approve submission of the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) plan which is submitted every three years; that three SHIP plans, i.e., amended 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-2000, Local Housing Assistance Plans, are being submitted together as the SHIP program is now being administered by the City; that the SHIP application must be formally submitted under the City's name; that a resolution is required to apply for SHIP funds. Mayor Dupree asked if proposed Resolution No. 98R-1086 is governed by the affordable housing maximum amount of $94,995? Mr. Hadsell stated that the HOME Investment Partnership program has a maximum of approximately, $115,000; that the HOME program requires a 25 percent match; that SHIP funds are used to match the Federal HOME funds; that the State has a maximum figure of $94,995; that the lower figure is adopted for consistency between the programs. Mayor Dupree asked if the housing provided is affordable housing rather than low income housing? Mr. Hadsell stated yes. On motion of Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 3. Mayor Dupree requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Dupree requested Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan to explain the public hearing process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that at this time petitioners have 15 BOOK 44 Page 16838 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16839 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. 5. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4015, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE BY DELETING AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING REGULATIONS AND PROVIDING NEW REGULATIONS OF ADULT BOOKSTORES, ADULT PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIOS, ADULT THEATERS, ADULT VIDEO STORES, ADULT MODELING STUDIOS SPECIAL CABARETS, AND PHYSICAL CULTURE ESTABLISHMENTS, COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS ADULT USES; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS : REGULATING THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN ADULT USES AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN ADULT USES; REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR ADULT USES; PROVIDING FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF APPLICATIONS: PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND DENIAL OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR A PERMIT FEE; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTIONS OF PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS: PROVIDING FOR THE EXPIRATION OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR THE SUSPENSION OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REVOCATION OF PERMITS; PROVIDING IN-STORE VIEWING BOOTH REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR HOURS OF OPERATION; PROHIBITING PRIVATE PERFORMANCES PROVIDING PENALTY PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS OF PERMIT DENIALS; PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR CHANGE OF BUSINESS NAME; PROVIDING A PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH NONCONFORMING ADULT USES MUST OBTAIN A PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENTI PROVIDING FOR CONSENT; PROVIDING FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION: PROVIDING FOR NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - 1) ADOPTED ON SECOND READING, AND 2) DIRECTED CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT BACK WITHIN 60 DAYS ON OTHER POSSIBLE AVENUES OF GRANDFATHERING AND TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WITH A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF NUDITY (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0971) through #2 (3437) Michael Connolly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that this is the second of two required public hearings for proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that the Commission passed proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 on first reading at the first public hearing held at the regular Commission meeting on June 1, 1998; that the City Attorney's Office was requested to consider modifying the definition of nudity relating specifically to the female breasts and whether such modification could be made without reducing the effectiveness of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that all available definitions of nudity were considered; that the City Attorney's Office recommends adopting the definition of nudity as presented in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 at first reading; that the recommendation is based on the following: 1. The proposed definition is Constitutional and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. 2. The proposed definition is the most enforceable. 3. The proposed definition provides the strongest ordinance which is reasonably defensible. Attorney Connolly stated that other definitions of nudity have also been upheld by the courts; that other options discussed include the definition of nudity in Sections 5-28 and 21-91, Sarasota City Code, which addresses nudity in establishments serving alcoholic beverages and in other business or commercial establishments and is as follows: a fully opaque covering of the areola of the female breast or any portion of the female breast above the top of the areola but shall not include any portion of the cleavage of the human female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, shirt, leotard, bathing suit or other wearing apparel provided the areola is not exposed. Attorney Connolly stated that several years ago, the City was involved in litigation with The Score Board lounge, which sent a photograph of a dancer to a Commissioner asking for an opinion on compliance with the City's definition of nudity; that a definition based on opinion is difficult to enforce; that the depositions in The Score Board lounge case were cumbersome as defining the term "cleavage " was difficult; that the definition of nudity in the ordinance adopted by St. Johns County, Florida, is frequently referenced as the model to pursue; that the St. Johns ordinance requires coverage of the areola and 25 percent of the remainder of the breast; that the St. Johns ordinance has been upheld by the courts; however, enforcement is difficult; that the definition of nudity in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is the most objective, simple, and enforceable definition. Attorney Connolly continued that the different definition of nudity provided in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 which applies to adult use businesses is recommended over the definition of nudity provided in Ordinance No. 92-3599 which applies to establishments serving alcoholic beverages and Ordinance BOOK 44 Page 16840 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16841 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. No. 93-3649 which applies to commercial establishments; that modifying the definition of nudity in the two previously adopted ordinances is not recommended; that the more liberal definition of nudity in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 will apply to adult use businesses and the stricter definition of nudity will apply to other businesses; that the three adult uses permissible under proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 are: adult bookstore/video stores adult theaters physical cultural establishments Attorney Connolly stated that only adult theaters permit live entertainment; that a business owner must obtain an adult use permit from the City if the business owner desires to - be governed by the definition of nudity in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that other businesses would be regulated by the nudity definition in Sections 5-28 and 21-91, Sarasota City Code. Vice Mayor Patterson stated the applicability of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 in regulating nudity in adult bookstores/video stores is unclear unless the employees of the bookstore were to dress in a provocative manner. Attorney Connolly stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 does not regulate nudity in adult. bookstores; that the proposed ordinance will regulate the location of adult bookstores and actions of owners and operators. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the grandfathering of Pleasures II Adult Video, Inc. (Pleasures II), North Washington Boulevard News and Blue Video, Sarasota, Inc. (Blue Video). Attorney Connolly stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 grandfathers the three businesses as to location only; that the three adult book stores/video stores must comply with all regulations of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 other than the 600-foot disbursal requirement; that only four adult bookstore/video stores are located in the City; that one of the four existing adult bookstores/video stores is on 17th Street, and meets all location requirements and would be conforming under the proposed ordinance; that the other three adult bookstores/video stores set forth in proposed Ordinance No. 97- 4015 do not meet the location requirements but have vested rights; that adult bookstore/video stores, adult theaters, and physical cultural establishments will be permitted in the City if proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is adopted; that no adult theaters or physical cultural establishments are now known to exist within the City; that adult modeling studios will no longer be a permitted use in the City; that adult stores with nudity must cease business or modify the businesses to eliminate exposure of specified anatomical areas; that the grandfathering issue is not relevant for businesses which will not be granted a permit. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if any existing business is being forced out of business? Attorney Connolly stated no. Mayor Dupree stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4014 does not address the material available in adult bookstores. Attorney Connolly stated that is correct; that regulations must be content neutral; that regulating the type of book is in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution; that obscenity regulations under Federal law determine if material is obscene; that obscene materials are not protected. Commissioner Merrill stated that Section 5-43.2(a) of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 provides that management staff must have an unobstructed view of the viewing booths; that restrooms may not contain video equipment; that a viewing booth could be designated a restroom and avoid the unobstructed-view requirement. Attorney Connolly stated that attempting to classify a viewing booth as a restroom cannot be controlled and would become an enforcement issue; that the courts should have a reasonable interpretation of a restroom. Vice Mayor Patterson referenced an article in the Metro Section of the June 4, 1998, issue of The New York Times regarding the efforts of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City in addressing adult use businesses in New York City; and stated that the ordinance adopted by New York City did not grandfather adult use businesses but was still upheld by the courts. Attorney Connolly stated that the Federal courts are not allowing enforcement of the New York City ordinance for one year which is an amortization period; that amortization periods have been upheld by the courts but open the door to legal challenge; that the City Attorney's Office was assigned to prepare the strongest ordinance which is reasonably defensible; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is the strongest ordinance reasonably defensible considering the issue of vested rights, which has been established by the courts. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that grandtathering establishments with nudity and serving alcohol for an amortized period was not a concern in the past; and asked why amortization is a concern now? Attorney Connolly stated that grandtathering the three establishments. eliminates a major element in the proposed ordinance which would be attacked by the adult use businesses. BOOK 44 Page 16842 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16843 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City Attorney's Office was directed to develop an ordinance which is reasonably defensible and not an ordinance which cannot be legally challenged. Attorney Connolly stated that is correct; that the three reasons to avoid legal challenge are: 1) time and money spent in litigating, 2) the opportunity, to raise every possible issue, and 3) the risk of preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of an ordinance for 2, 3, or 4 years; that Ordinance No. 94-3792 was adopted on October 3, 1994; that the court ruling concerning Ordinance No. 94-3792 was based on a procedural technicality and was not received until April 30, 1997. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: the record of the proceedings of the public hearings of February 4 and March 4, 1998, before the PBLP the 21 adult entertainment reports entered into the record at the public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 at the June 1, 1998, regular Commission meeting the presentation of the City Attorney's Office at the public hearing at the June 1, 1998, regular Commission meeting The following people came before the Commission: Jeff Spaulding, 607 Mecca Drive (34234), referred to proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 and stated that the Commission makes certain findings in the proposed ordinance of the affect of adult use businesses on the public health, safety and welfare; that three neighborhoods are at serious risk for urban blight, prostitution, sexual crimes, etc.; that the residents of the affected neighborhoods will not mind opening the door to legal challenge; that legal risks are worth taking as the neighborhoods are getting worse; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 must be strictly enforced; that funds should be budgeted for enforcement; that unannounced inspections or sting operations should be planned; that enforcement authorities should have plans to enforce vigorously the provisions of the proposed ordinance; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 may prohibit activities; however, establishments may continue illegal activities if routine checks are not conducted; that an adult use permit cannot be revoked unless two crimes have occurred on the premises and the adult use store is found guilty twice; that closing adult use businesses once the businesses are established encounters many obstacles; that the activities which proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 prohibits will continue absent aggressive law enforcement. Bill Joyner, 731 42nd Street (34234), stated that he lives on the same street as one of the businesses which will be grandfathered under proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that grandfathering adult use businesses is opposed; that residents of the area are attempting to raise young children; that one adult use business is directly across the street from the Ringling School of Art & Design; that a bus stop is in front of one business; that students walking in the area have been raped; that adult use businesses are degrading not only to women but to the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Joyner read into the record a letter from a neighbor living in the affected area: Dear Mayor and Fellow Commissioners: For the record, my name is Sarah Blanchard. I am a property owner in the affected area and am unable to attend tonight's public hearing because of medical reasons. I am concerned about the approval of the City's proposed adult entertainment ordinance because the ordinance grandfathers three businesses at specific locations. I am opposed to an ordinance that includes this clause. Grandfathering encourages existing uses to remain instead of relocating to appropriate areas. Such encouragement is contrary to the City's and residents' effort to improve the northern neighborhoods of Sarasota. Thank you. Sarah W. Blanchard Andrew Cunningham, Jr. 1311 Rhodes Avenue (34239), stated that he is a nurse, a proud father of twins and a homeowner in the City; that adult entertainment theaters are opposed; that he was molested as a result of pornography at the age of six and again at eight by prominent men in the community in which he lived; that adult use businesses are sores in the community; that allowing the location of adult use businesses in such close proximity to the downtown area will affect the progression and growth of the City; that adult use businesses should not be allowed. Mr. Cunningham referred to the Bible, Romans 6-18, and stated that some of the Commissioners are believed to be strong believers in good and righteousness; that the Commission was elected to make changes for the betterment of the City and to uphold all the laws. Dawn Byrd, 2100 Sarasota Mobile Home Park #1946 (34237), stated that the goals for Sarasota 2000 are being compromised; that the goal of having a City which is aesthetically clean with safe BOOK 44 Page 16844 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16845 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. neighborhoods is hypocritical; that grandfathering the adult use businesses allows blight to come into the City; that grandfathering any of the adult use businesses is opposed; that grandfathering such businesses is the same as condoning and approving the businesses; that something is wrong with the picture being presented; that the picture needs to be reframed. Lorraine Verbeke, 714 42nd Street (34234), stated that her family purchased a home across the street from a music store in 1993; that the music store became an adult pornographic establishment a year or so later; that the home would not have been purchased if the existing establishment had been in place; that a real estate agent is attempting to sell the house; that prospective buyers love the house but do not desire to live down the street from a pornographic establishment; that prospective buyers with children do not desire a house at that location; that listening to the attorneys speak of vested rights of the adult use businesses is frustrating; that placing the vested rights of pornographic businesses ahead of the rights of the residents is difficult to understand; that the residents were in the area before the pornographic businesses; that the homes were purchased prior to the businesses locating in the neighborhood; that the homes have decreased in value; that a grandfather clause should exist for the residents so pornographic businesses would stay out of the neighborhood; that grandfathering the adult use businesses is senseless and against the rights of the neighborhood and homeowners. Burt Polishook, 39311 Bay Shore Road (34234) Vice President, Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association, stated that 1,200 homeowners in the northwest area of the City are represented; that the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association supported proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 at the first public hearing on June 1, 1998; that issue was taken with the grandfathering clause as two of the establishments are located in the neighborhood; that an ordinance without the grandfathering clause may not be defensible in court; nevertheless, the stand taken by the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association against the grandfathering provision at the first public hearing should have been stronger. Mr. Polishook referred to an article entitled "Federal Court Upholds City Zoning Law to Curb Sex Shops " in the June 4, 1998, edition of The New York Times; and stated that the United States (U.S.) Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld New York City's adult use ordinance; that the New York City ordinance was raised in discussion at the public hearing on June 1, 1998; that a statement was made that civil and criminal proceedings may delay implementation of the ordinance by one year; that the New York City ordinance becomes official within 21 days; that the key points made in the article are as follows: no grandfathering clause 164 adult businesses in New York City 500 alternative sites 500-foot dispersal requirement Mr. Polishook stated that comparisons between New York City and the Sarasota area can be made; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 grandfathers three locations; that the New York City ordinance grandfathers none; that New York City has 164 adult businesses for a population of 8 million; that Sarasota should have one adult business if the same ratio were applied; however, Sarasota has several adult businesses; that New York City has 500 alternative sites for 8 million people; that Sarasota should have 3.25 sites based on the New York City ratio; that Sarasota has 35 sites which are more than necessary; that grandtathering existing adult use businesses is opposed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated the newspaper article indicates that some shop owners will adapt rather than close; that an owner of a bar is quoted as saying bikinis would provide his pertormers with the legal cover to dance uninterrupted; that the implications of New York City's ordinance and the issues which have been upheld by the courts should be researched. Kafi Benz, Box 1669, Tallevast (34270), Director, Indian Beach/Sapphire Shore Association, stated that support is given to Mr. Polishook's statements; and read the following statement by Robert Blanchard, a property owner in Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores: I am unable to attend tonight's City Commission meeting and public hearing on the City's proposed adult entertainment business ordinance. Although I support the prohibition of adult entertainment businesses and ban of nudity within these businesses within 600 feet of schools, churches, child care centers and residences, I oppose the grandfathering of any existing businesses under the proposed ordinance. I would prefer no ordinance to the approval of the ordinance with such grandfathering. Ms. Benz stated that realizing how polarized the residents of the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shore neighborhoods are on the grandfathering issue is important; that the residents living with two adult use businesses in the neighborhood object to grandfathering the businesses; that the neighborhood is reacting strongly as the businesses will continue to exist in close proximity to the residential area; that the third adult use businesses is in a location removed from residential neigaborhoods. Bart Cotten: 451 Woodland Drive (34234), stated that implementation of an adult use ordinance has been supported since BOOK 44 Page 16846 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16847 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. 1993; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is good; however, an ordinance was sought to rid the neighborhood of the adult use businesses which has not been accomplished; that the adult use businesses will remain at the present locations due to vested rights; that understanding the vested rights of the businesses is difficult as the businesses were not in existence when an adult use ordinance was initially considered; that grandfathering the adult use businesses is an affront to the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores neighborhood which worked the hardest towards implementation of an adult use ordinance. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Ordinance No. 94-3792 was adopted due to the existence of certain adult use businesses and to avoid the proliferation of adult use businesses; and asked if the two adult use businesses, Blue Video and Pleasures II, were at the present location in 1993? Mr. Cotton stated that Pleasures II was a music store; that Blue Video did exist; that another adult use store, Sheer Sensations, is not grandfathered under proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015. Attorney Connolly stated that Sheer Sensations is not a bookstore but rather an adult modeling studio which by definition has nudity; that Sheer Sensations would be prohibited and is not grandfathered under proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if Sheer Sensations can continue to operate if the specified anatomical areas are covered? Attorney Connolly stated that Sheer Sensations could operate in a manner which is not an adult use business which means covering the specified anatomical areas; that Sheer Sensations would then be covered by Section 21-91, Sarasota City Code, rather than proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how the businesses can be in existence now if prohibited by other ordinances? Attorney Connolly stated that the issue concerns enforcement. Commissioner Cardamone asked how long the City has been without an adult use ordinance? Attorney Connolly stated that on April 30, 1997, the Circuit Court found Ordinance No. 94-3792 invalid based on issues of notice with regard to the particular plaintiffs in the action; that the ruling of the court did not technically apply to adult use businesses which were not plaintiffs in the action; that enforcement efforts during the interim period are unknown. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Sheer Sensations is regulated by one of the other two ordinances currently in effect; and asked why the business is still operating? Attorney Connolly stated that the answer is not known; that the business would be legal if nudity is not involved; however, a violation of the Sarasota City Code has occurred if performers expose specified anatomical areas as defined in Section 21-91, Sarasota City Code'. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the businesses are not grandfathered and yet are not required to cease business. Attorney Connolly stated that grandfathering is not the issue; that using the term may be causing confusion; that businesses presently operating as adult modeling studios are not grandfathered in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that the businesses can either comply with the regulations or cease operations. Esther Rachwal, 4975 Southern Wood (34241), Florida Family Association, distributed news articles from The Cincinnati Inquirer, the Miami Herald and The New York Times to the Commission and stated that an ordinance which will be upheld on Constitutional grounds is desired; however, tinkering with proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 should not be feared; that the time for scrutiny is now; that the City's desire to avoid opening the door to further litigation is understood; that the ruling against the City was not based on Constitutional issues but on wording and advertising which are considered technical flaws; that the recommendation to adopt the definition of nudity allowing pasties is disappointing; that the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance is preferred; and asked if the existing City ordinances, with the different definition of nudity, will remain in effect? City Attorney Taylor stated that the current ordinances dealing with nudity in bars and all other businesses except adult uses will remain in effect as currently written. Ms. Rachwal stated that the differences in the City's ordinances in the definition of nudity causes confusion; that the St. Johns definition of nudity has been upheld by the U.S. Middle District Court of Florida, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court; that the St. Johns definition of nudity is considered a strong legal definition; that the implication that the door for litigation will be opened by using the St. Johns definition of nudity is not understood; that attorneys for adult use businesses badgered the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners during hearings on an amended adult use ordinance for the County, threatening lawsuits if amortization was not granted to all existing adult use businesses; that the County Commission Chairman responded that the County is sued all the BOOK 44 Page 16848 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16849 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. time, fearing lawsuits would prevent accomplishing anything, and questioned whether the attorneys were threatening the Commissioners; that the County won the lawsuits despite the threats; that accepting a perpetual grandfathering clause for the three adult businesses is difficult to understand; that grandfathering for an amortization period could be understood but not in perpetuity; that the businesses continue to operate without encumbrance despite previous ordinances adopted beginning in 1992 which is six years; that the businesses have recuperated any losses by now; that zoning restrictions have been shortened from 1,000 feet to 600 feet; that the arguments for lack of available sites is no longer a factor; that XTC Super Center of Sarasota, Inc. (XTC), is to be grandfathered; that XTC has violated existing ordinances several times; that the violations should be reason to deny XTC an adult use permit. Ms. Rachwal referred to an article in the April 5, 1998, edition of The Cincinnati Inquirer which outlines the efforts of Cincinnati, Ohio, in cleaning up Cincinnati and stated that Cincinnati has eliminated all adult businesses over the past 20 years by constant enforcement. Linda Royall, 1520 Glen Oaks Drive East #344C (34232), stated that restrooms should be defined in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 to prevent business owners from calling viewing booths restrooms; that scrub parlors were not addressed; that the definition of nudity used in Ordinance No. 94-3792 is preferred to the definition of nudity in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that the definition of nudity in Ordinance No. 94-3792 is Constitutional and enforceable; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 refers to intentional touching; that the word "intentional" should be eliminated; that the age requirement of 18 for an applicant of an adult use business permit should be raised to 21; that an applicant convicted of domestic violence would not be denied an adult use permit under the proposed ordinance; that evidence of domestic violence should be a basis for denial of a permit; that an applicant would be permitted to open an adult use business after two years from the date of conviction of a misdemeanor or five years after a felony; that grandfathering the adult use business near the Ringling School of Art & Design is opposed; that an adult use permit should be subject to current applicable laws as well as any future laws deemed necessary in the interest of the protection of the safety, health and welfare of the community. Donald Cunningham, 4538 Hamlets Grove, stated that the increase in adult entertainment over the last eight years is appalling; that an adult use ordinance must be both strong and enforceable; that periodic reports reflecting the commitment of resources and frequency of visits to adult use businesses are suggested for community awareness concerning enforcement; that permanently grandfathering the three adult use businesses is opposed; that an amortized period should be considered; that the Cheetah Lounge in the County was amortized; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 should be strong and enforcement should be strong; that the Commission is commended for moving ahead in adopting an adult use ordinance. Betty Milan, 6710 Anchor Way (34231), stated that grandfathering the existing adult businesses is opposed; that the problem lies with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution which should be challenged; that the disease is the U.S. Supreme Court; that children suffer; that adopting the best possible ordinance is desired. Douglas Booth, 453 Lords Avenue (34231), stated that the task before the Commission is complicated; that as a resident of Sarasota for 38 years and growing up in the City, he visited various adult establishments in the area, which contributed to his divorce; that frequenters of adult establishments will be attracted to Sarasota as nearby cities eliminate adult use businesses; that adult use businesses contribute to the decay of the community and are driven by greed and lust. Dan Bush, 2504 Waneta Drive (34231-4944), stated that many visitors to the City are surprised, amazed and disappointed to see the blight associated with adult use businesses; that victims of pornography are all around the City; that the Sarasota 2000 goals are commendable; that the Commission's efforts are appreciated; that the reasons for selecting the more liberal definition of nudity and grandfathering the businesses are difficult to understand; that the strongest possible ordinance which can be drafted, adopted and defended is desired. Russell Franz, 5353 Harold Avenue (34235) stated that the definition of nudity should include "the areola of the female breast" and the additional wording from Ordinance No. 94-3792 which is "or any portion of the female below the top of the areola"; that allowing pasties is undesirable; that the reason for the difference in the definition of nudity applying to the public in general or to a pornography shop is unclear; that a female employee wearing pasties may not be defined as live entertainment but is in actuality live entertainment; that whether an employee wearing pasties in an adult establishment is prohibited is unclear; that the court decision regarding Ordinance No. 94-3792 did not address the definition of nudity; that allowing pasties is not the answer. Michael Menokian, 3317 Prudence Drive (34235), representing Rock of Sarasota, stated that the City should not take the easy way out; that citizens have the right to live free of torment and fear; that disasters caused by pornography have been witnessed as the outreach minister of the Rock of Sarasota; that four different places advertising adult theaters have been found; that BOOK 44 Page 16850 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16851 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. pornography is as addictive as drugs; that pornography brings destruction to the community; that the community should take a stand to do everything possible to preserve the community; that a court battle should be a righteous fight. Jessie Johnson, 919 Goodrich Avenue (34236), stated that people should fight for what is right; that the City should be willing to go to court and fight for the beliefs of the City; that 30 arrests were made recently relating to prostitution on U.S. 41; that the adult bookstores have various on-going activities; that the businesses should not be grandfathered. Debbie Muller, 5200 Bay Shore Road (34234), stated that an ordinance is desperately required to protect all neighborhoods from adult entertainment businesses; that grandfathering adult use businesses is opposed; that Sheer Sensations is located on the corner of Mecca Drive and U.S. 41 and was in business when Ordinance No. 94-3792 was draited; that Intimate Lifestyles was located adjacent to Sheer Sensations but was forced to closed as two such businesses could not be located in such close proximity; that Pleasures II is located on 42nd Street and U.S. 41; that the businesses create a blight on the neighborhood; that the secondary effects of the businesses were evidence on June 11, 1998, when a large number of prostitutes and johns were arrested. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 by title only. Attorney Connolly addressed the speakers concerns as follows: 1. Mr. Spaulding asked why adult businesses which create blight are allowed to exist. Attorney Connolly stated that Federal courts have ruled that adult use businesses must be permitted to operate. 2. Ms. Milan stated the disease is the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney Connolly stated that the City Attorney's Office is reporting the law rather than making policy decisions; that having the strongest reasonably defensible ordinance is the goal; that the key to the findings of blight are the concentration and character of adult uses; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 will require a 600-foot dispersal and prohibit adult uses with total nudity. 3. Ms. Byrd addressed the City's goals and not allowing blight to come in to the City. Attorney Connolly stated that the Federal court has protected adult uses; therefore, the City cannot prohibit adult use businesses; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is a stronger ordinance than Ordinance No. 94-3792. 4. Ms. Verbeke discussed the failure to grandfather residents' rights. Attorney Connolly stated that the Federal courts have granted rights to adult businesses and have not granted any rights to the neighborhoods. 5. Mr. Polishook discussed the New York City ordinance and pointed out that the ordinance becomes official in 21 days; however, enforcement of the ordinance may be delayed by one year due to civil litigation. Attorney Connolly stated that one year is a short-term estimate; that a court ruling on Ordinance No. 94-3792, which was based on a technical procedural matter rather than a substantive issue, was not received for three years after adoption. 6. Ms. Royall stated that the scrub parlors are not addressed, and asked why an adult use permit does not state the business is subject to the law? Attorney Connolly stated that only three adult uses are permitted in the City, i.e., adult bookstores/video stores, adult theaters and physical cultural establishments; that nudity is not permitted in any business establishment; that adult use permits are subject to existing law and any amendments regardless of whether or not the wording is included on the permit. 7. Mr. Cunningham addressed the increases in adult entertainment since he has lived in the City and commented on the Cheetah Lounge establishment. Attorney Connolly stated that passing an adult use ordinance is critical to prevent additional businesses from starting up; that the adult use business can continually come into existence until regulations are in effect; that the amortization period for the Cheetah Lounge was 10 years. 8. Ms. Milan addressed the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance. Attorney Connolly stated that the definition regarding the female breasts in the St. Johns ordinance is as follows: BOOK 44 Page 16852 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16853 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. A portion of the human female mammary gland (commonly referred to as the female breast) including the nipple and the areola (the darker colored area of the breast surrounding the nipple) and an outside area of such gland wherein such outside area is 1) reasonably compact and contiguous to the areola, and 2) contains at least the nipple and areola and one-quarter of the outside surface area of such gland. Attorney Connolly stated that discussion has ensued regarding how the definition has been upheld; that having a Constitutional ordinance is of no consequence if not functionally enforceable; that the intent is to implement an ordinance which can be enforced. 9. Mr. Booth stated that the adult use businesses attract transient clients. Attorney Connolly stated that the 21 studies placed into the record at the June 1, 1998, public hearing established that people do travel to adult use businesses; that adult businesses in the City support people from other areas of the region. 10. Mr. Franz stated that the nudity definition regarding the female breast should include the area below the top of the areola. Attorney Connolly stated that the courts have construed that definition in two different ways' i.e., horizontal and vertical lines; that the courts do not know the intent; that the exact intent is known if the definition is as clear and objective as stated in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015. 11. Mr. Menokian stated that the City should not be timid regarding litigation and fight for the desired results; that the issue is money related. Attorney Connolly stated that the City is not timid about litigation and has litigated and fought for issues in the past; that the goal is achieving an effective ordinance which is enforceable; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 achieves that goal. 12. Ms. Muller addressed the recent arrests involving prostitution. Attorney Connolly stated that the 21 studies placed into the record from the June 1, 1998, public hearing established a correlation of adverse secondary effects resulting from the concentration of adult businesses; that implementing an enforceable ordinance immediately rather than an ordinance requiring years of litigation before being enforceable is necessary. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the ordinance which grandfathered the Cheetah Lounge for 10 years was challenged in court? Attorney Connolly' stated yes; that the out-of-court settlement resulted in the 10-year amortization. Commissioner Cardamone asked the methods of policing which will be used to enforce proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015? Attorney Connolly stated that a meeting is scheduled for June 16, 1998, with representatives of the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department and the Police Department; that administrative decisions will be initiated tomorrow if proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is adopted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that emphasizing the Commission is not granting approval of the adult use businesses by grandfathering existing adult use businesses is necessary. Attorney Connolly stated that grandfathering absolutely does not mean the City is granting approval of the businesses; that the grandfathering is as to location only and in recognition of the vested rights acknowledged by the courts; that grandfathering does not grant approval of illegal conduct at the establishments. Commissioner Cardamone asked for an explanation of the term "vested rights. Attorney Connolly stated that court litigation has resulted in various opinions; that the courts have generally provided that a business owner has a reasonable expectation for the business to continue to operate at a given location when making a reasonable investment; that the vested right is the reasonable expectation. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of court rulings regarding grandrathering Clauses and if an entire ordinance containing various issues would be unenforceable if only one issue was ruled invalid. Attorney Connolly stated that an adult use business would likely seek a temporary injunction which would render the entire ordinance unenforceable; that a temporary injunction would mean an ordinance could not be implemented until the conclusion of the litigation which averages two years. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the entire ordinance would be thrown out if the grandfathering issue is thrown out? BOOK 44 Page 16854 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16855 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Attorney Connolly stated that the ordinance's severability clause provides that only the grandfathering issue would be thrown out if the decision is against the grandfathering issue; however, no ordinance will be on the books in the interim two-year period while the matter is in litigation. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification concerning businesses established during the interim period. Attorney Connolly stated that the businesses established during the interim period gain vested rights. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City Attorney's Office stresses the grandfathering issue to ensure implementation of an enforceable ordinance; and asked the costs of legal fees during the Ewo-and-a-half year litigation of Ordinance No. 94-3792? City Attorney Taylor stated that approximately $20,000 was spent in legal fees. Commissioner Merrill asked if eminent domain may be applied to the three adult businesses considered for grandfathering? Attorney Connolly stated that local governments must establish a necessary public purpose to take property by eminent domain. Commissioner Merrill asked if elimination of the source of blight is grounds for the exercise of eminent domain? Attorney Connolly stated that elimination of blight is not recommended as a legal basis for the exercise of eminent domain; that case law addressing blight deals with a larger area than one parcel of property. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if taking a lease by eminent domain is possible? Attorney Connolly stated that a lease is an interest in real property and can be condemned. Commissioner Merrill asked if such a lease buy-out could be structured. Attorney Connolly stated yes, provided a public purpose exists; that for example, a police station needed in the area is an appropriate public purpose in an eminent domain context. Commissioner Merrill stated that grandtathering is opposed; however, the businesses will file suit without the grandfathering provision resulting in no ordinance being in effect; that no one would be satisfied even if a 10-year amortization period were to be adopted; that the possibility of declaring eminent domain should be considered; that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled eminent domain is defined by the government. Attorney Connolly stated that the government defines eminent domain unless an abuse of discretion is shown which is a difficult standard to meet. Commissioner Merrill stated that going after slum and blight is not considered an abuse of discretion. Attorney Connolly stated that cases involving slum and blight takings have been upheld; that for example, property was taken for the new arena built for the Miami Heat Basketball Team in Miami, Florida; however, the taking involved many acres of property for a redevelopment plan covering an entire area. Commissioner Merrill asked if the grandfathering provisions of the proposed ordinance can be renounced if the proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is adopted now? Attorney Connolly stated yes. Commissioner Merrill asked if amortizing or eliminating the grandfathering can be done subsequently if proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is adopted. Attorney Connolly stated yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that elimination of the uses through amortization would be considered by the courts on a case-by-case basis; that determining the number of years to amortize is difficult; that obtaining the records necessary to determine an appropriate amortization period is difficult as the business owners have possession of the records; that amortization was not pursued due to the lack of background records; that getting an ordinance on the books now is desired; that other issues including eliminating grandfathering completely can be considered later; however, litigation will follow once amortization is imposed or grandfathering eliminated. Commissioner Merrill asked if grandfathering the three adult use businesses can be undone in the future if proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is adopted now? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; however, the three adult use businesses can be expected to make a strong argument against any type of amortization based on the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 which contains grandfathering provisions. Commissioner Merrill stated that his intent is to ensure that other alternatives to grandfathering can be pursued at a later date if grandfathering is approved now in order to implement an ordinance effective immediately; that the St. Johns definition of nudity or the definition of nudity in Ordinance No. 94-3792, which are more conservative is preferable; that not fully BOOK 44 Page 16856 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16857 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. retreating is desired; that using the definition of nudity in Ordinance No. 94-3792 would be the simplest solution. Attorney Connolly stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 has taken one year to draft following numerous meetings with Staff; that a police officer cannot make a case unless the areola is exposed using the definition of nudity in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that the use of definitions in the ordinance which cannot actually be enforced places the police officer in a difficult position; that an objective analysis is not subject to the same scrutiny as a subjective analysis in judicial proceedings. Commissioner Merrill asked which definition would be easier to enforce, the St. Johns definition or the definition in Ordinance No. 94-3792? Russell Pillifant, Deputy Chief of Police, came before the Commission and stated that the definition in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 would be easier to enforce than either the St. Johns definition or the definition in Ordinance No. 94-3792; that he is aware of the depositions in The Score Board lounge litigation and the definitions are very subjective; that the definition in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is objective and very enforceable. Commissioner Merrill asked if a person wearing only pasties would be in violation of the St. Johns definition of nudity? Deputy Police Chief Pillifant stated yes. Commissioner Merrill asked why the St. Johns definition is not supported? Attorney Connolly stated that convicting someone of driving under the influence (DUI) is far more difficult than convicting someone of murder; that DUI is a subjective opinion. Commissioner Merrill stated that the St. Johns definition of nudity, which stipulates a minimum of 25 percent coverage of the female breast, is not subjective; that a person just wearing a pasty is obviously not within the law; that a police officer may only enforce the law under proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 if a person is wearing less than a pasty; that some businesses will attempt to operate within the law to avoid police harassment. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if taking the real property or just the lease would be recommended in the exercise of eminent domain? Attorney Connolly stated that a recommendation would depend on the ultimate necessity and public purpose proposed. Vice Mayor Patterson asked is another owner can operate a similar adult business at the same location if the existing operator goes out of business rather than sells the business? Attorney Connolly stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 provides that all rights cease once the existing adult use ceases. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the owner of the property could lease the property to another adult bookstore/video store when the current Blue Video lease expires? Attorney Connolly stated no; that the City could also buy the leasehold interest; that the City would become the lessee for the remainder of the leasehold interest; that a cessation of business for the required time would result, assuming the City does not operate the adult use business during the period; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 provides as follows: If the operation of the adult use is terminated for any reason, except when governmental action impedes access to the property for nine consecutive months at any time, the adult use shall no longer be deemed to have nonconforming use status but shall be deemed to have ceased to exist and terminated. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the nine consecutive months can be changed to one month? Attorney Connolly stated that the nine consecutive months for governmental intervention comes from appropriate case law; that termination means the voluntary or involuntary cessation of business operations for a period of thirty consecutive days or more. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the business can be changed from Blue Video to a lingerie shop? Attorney Connolly stated no; that the only use that is grandfathered is the adult bookstore/video store; that the business is grandfathered as to location only; that the grandfathering provides no rights beyond the ability to operate the adult bookstore/video store at that specific location. City Attorney Taylor stated that the most restrictive ordinance which could be legally defended was desired when Ordinance No. 94-3792 came before the Commission; that litigation of Ordinance No. 94-3792 never reached the point of having the important issues decided; however, a general feeling was received from the judge on how the arguments were received; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is the strongest ordinance reasonably defensible; that the article regarding the New York City ordinance indicates that the ordinance has been before 16 or 17 judges, mostly at the BOOK 44 Page 16858 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16859 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. appellate court level; that the intent was not to put the City through the expense of a legal challenge to obtain a positive result; that the City Attorney's Office will bring back a more restrictive ordinance if desired. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to: 1) adopt proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 on second reading and 2) direct the City Attorney to report back within 90 days addressing the concerns regarding the grandfathering provisions. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the instructions given the City Attorney's Office was to produce the strongest possible defensible ordinance; that the City Attorney's Office indicates that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is the strongest possible defensible ordinance; that the Commission and the public have expressed concerns regarding the grandfathering of three existing adult use establishments; that she is anxious to get proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 on the books and proceed with discussions on the grandfathering alternatives within 90 days; that the motion is a compromise to address both the concerns of implementing the ordinance and the grandfathering issue. Commissioner Merrill stated that an attempt by other adult use businesses to open immediately is not anticipated; that deleting the grandfathering provisions and opening the door to litigation may be preferred; that the eminent domain issue can be researched; that getting an ordinance on the books is desired; however, grandfathering adult use businesses is not supported; that using the St. Johns definition of nudity is desired. On motion of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to delete the reference to grandfathering the three adult use businesses. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that grandfathering in perpetuity is opposed; that grandfathering typically is for a specified time period; that a provision setting a time limit should be added. Commissioner Merrill stated that a one-year amortization period would be supported. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the intent of the motion is to implement proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 immediately and allow 90 days for the City Attorney's Office to provide recommendations on amending the ordinance to address the grandfathering provisions. City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 must be adopted as advertised without substantive changes or re- advertising will be required; that the grandfathering provisions and nudity definition changes being discussed are substantive changes; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 can be changed as suggested; however, re-advertising and additional public hearings will be required. Commissioner Cardamone asked if changing the motion to include only adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 and continuing discussions regarding grandfathering after the ordinance is adopted would be preferable? City Attorney Taylor stated that the discussion concerning grandfathering is a separate process. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 as presented by deleting the direction that the City Attorney report back in 90 days addressing the concerns regarding the grandfathering provision. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City Attorney raised a concern regarding defense of a second ordinance eliminating the grandfathering provision after adoption of such a provision in the first ordinance; that the concern is troublesome. City Attorney Taylor stated that earlier comments regarding approving the ordinance containing the grandfathering clause and eliminating the grandfathering later should not be construed as automatic failure of the second ordinance; however, the issue will be argued in court; that the modifications discussed are substantive and must be advertised. Vice Mayor Patterson asked which would be the preferable legal move: 1) approving proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 now and adopting a separate ordinance eliminating the grandfathering provisions at a later date, or 2) not adopting proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 and preparing a new ordinance with the proposed modifications for a new public hearing process? Attorney Connolly stated that adopting proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 now and adopting a second ordinance later is preferred; that adopting proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 and charging the City Attorney's Office with the responsibility for conducting a study to determine the criteria for an appropriate amortization period and preparing another ordinance addressing grandfathering only is the better mechanism; that the court may focus on the second ordinance and the grandfathering issue alone; that his recommendation is to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015. City Attorney Taylor concurred; and stated that earlier comments were not intended to dissuade the Commission from taking action on proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015; that adopting proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is recommended if the City Attorney's BOOK 44 Page 16860 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16861 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Office is charged with addressing the grandfather issue as a next step. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission should proceed with the motion on the floor; that amortizing the grandfathering provisions through peaceful negotiations with the three existing adult use businesses is supported; that a substantial cost is involved in litigation; that negotiating with the grandfathered businesses should be attempted before litigation ensues. Commissioner Merrill stated that speakers indicated a more conservative definition of nudity is desired. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to substitute the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance for the definition of nudity in Section 5-41(q) (3) of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue of enforcement is understood; that the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance is more restrictive; however, the more lenient definition of nudity requiring coverage of only the areola could still be enforced; that using the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance which is stricter than in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 has no disadvantage. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if changing the definition of nudity will require additional public hearings. City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commission Merrill stated that having additional public hearings is acceptable; that delaying action addressing the grandfathering and definition of nudity issues is a concern; that the public perception would be that the Commission is sweeping the issues under the table; that the public's lack of trust in the Commission to follow through is troublesome; that a motion containing a grandfathering provision for the three adult use businesses will not be supported; that passing an ordinance containing the actual intent of the Commission is more important than attempting to get an ordinance on the books immediately. City Attorney Taylor stated that the matter can be referred back to the City Attorney's Office with direction to resubmit another version of the ordinance; that a public hearing process addressing the two changes, i.e., the grandfathering and nudity definition, would follow. Mayor Dupree stated that Attorney Connolly indicated proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 could be adopted now and direction given the City Attorney's Office to report back to address the grandfathering provisions; that the grandfathering provisions are not supported; however, Attorney Connolly's recommendation is acceptable; that adopting proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 would prohibit other adult use businesses from being established in the interim. Attorney Connolly stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 could be adopted on second reading; that the City Attorney's Office could then' be directed to prepare a separate ordinance amending the grandtathering provisions and amending the nudity definition specifically regarding the female breasts; that future public hearings would focus on those two issues; that an argument may be made that an ordinance addressing grandfathering contradicts proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 which will be dealt with in litigation; that a subsequent ordinance amending proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 is not viewed as a problem from a legal perspective. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if amending the proposed ordinance will be a handicap? Attorney Connolly stated that the issue of an ordinance amending and possibly contradicting proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 will be raised but can be overcome. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 will still stand if an ordinance addressing grandfathering is denied by the courts? Attorney Connolly stated that the plaintiffs will argue all issues; that the court will decide which issues are relevant; that arguing both ordinances simultaneously will depend on the timing of any litigation; that an opportunity would exist to channel the court's view only on the second ordinance addressing the grandfathering issue; that the court's agreement is not guaranteed; however, the opportunity exists. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the discussion regarding the definition of nudity would be included in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015? Attorney Connolly stated that the definition of nudity will be addressed in a separate ordinance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City has been without an adult use ordinance for over a year which is a concern; that the publicity and news generated may encourage potential adult use operators to start up a business before an ordinance is in place; that the market will drive the adult use businesses from the area as the North Tamiami Trail renovation and revitalization proceeds; that buildings in the area will command higher rent; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 should be adopted. BOOK 44 Page 16862 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16863 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that his motion to amend can be withdrawn to expedite the decision-making process. Commissioner Merrill, as the maker of the motion, with the approval of the seconder, Commissioner Patterson, withdrew the motion to amend the motion to substitute the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance for the definition of nudity included in Section 5-41(q) (3) of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015. Commissioner Merrill stated that the main motion is to adopt Ordinance No. 97-4015 with the City Attorney's Office to report back within 90 days addressing the concerns regarding the grandfathering provision; that bringing back the grandfathering issue within 30 days would be preferable. City Attorney Taylor stated that an expert would be required in a legal challenge on the elimination of the grandfathering provision; that preparation time is required. Commissioner Merrill asked if grandfathering means amortization? Attorney Connolly stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 contains a grandfathering provision; that the charge would be to determine if amortization, condemnation, lease buy-out, or any other option would be appropriate in lieu of grandfathering. Commissioner Merrill stated that amending the motion for the City Attorney to report back within 60 days is suggested. Commissioner Cardamone stated that, with the approval of the seconder, Commissioner Merrill, the motion directing the City Attorney to report back will be changed from a period of 90 to 60 days. Commissioner Merrill stated that grandfathering is not the only issue for review; that the City Attorney's Office should also return with an ordinance adopting the St. Johns definition of nudity. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to have the City Attorney's Office return with an ordinance amending the definition of nudity in Section 5-41 (q) (3) of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 and adopting the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance. Mayor Dupree requested the Deputy City Auditor and Clerk to restate the motion to amend. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that the motion to amend is for the City Attorney's Office to: 1) report back within 60 days on other possible avenues to grandfathering such as amortization, condemnation, lease buy-out or eminent domain, and 2) bring back an ordinance amending the definition of nudity in Section 5-41 (q) (3) of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 and adopting the definition of nudity in the St. Johns ordinance. Motion to amend carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Dupree requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan to restate the motion as amended. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan restated the motion as to: 1) adopt proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 on second reading and 2) direct the City Attorney to report back within 60 days on other possible avenues to grandfathering such as amortization, condemnation, lease buy-out or eminent domain and to bring back an ordinance amending the definition of nudity in Section 5-41 (q) (3) of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4015 and adopting the definition of nudity in the St. Johns Ordinance. Mayor Dupree requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. The Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4053. AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 4, GENERAL EMPLOYEES, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, AMENDING SECTION 24-103, PENSION BENEFITS, TO AMEND MAXIMUM PENSION: AMENDING SECTION 24- 107, DISABILITY BENEFITS; DELETING SECTION 24-108; COMMENCEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS; AMENDING SECTION 24-109, CLAIMS PROCEDURES AMENDING SECTION 24-110, EXEMPTIONS FROM EXECUTION NOMASSIGNABILITYI EXECUTIONS: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #2 (3438) through (3854) Michael Taylor, Chairman, General Employees' Pension Board, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 amends the General Employees' Pension Plan; that the major changes are to: Provide for an offset to disability payments so that the total monthly amount received by the retiree for BOOK 44 Page 16864 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16865 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Social Security Disability, Workers' Compensation benefits and disability payments do not exceed 100 percent of the member's salary. Prohibit a member from filing for a disability pension if normal retirement eligibility has already been achieved. Amend the section on maximum pensions which is a requirement of the Tax Code of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). . Delete the section on commencement and distribution of benefits which is a requirement of the IRS Tax Code. Delete the section on "Claims Procedures" and add a statement that the Board shall establish administrative rules. -= Allow the City to withhold a pension refund from a non- vested employee if the employee owes money to the City. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission requested at the May 18, 1998, regular Commission meeting that a provision be incorporated stipulating the benefit multiplier revert from the proposed 2.18 to 2.0 percent if the stock market falls below 30 percent; that proposed Ordinance 98-4053 indicates the benefit multiplier as 2.0 rather than 2.18 percent as recommended at the May 18, 1998, regular Commission meeting; therefore, no cost will be added to the City for proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053; that the Pension Board's actuaries and attorneys are examining language to incorporate a provision that the benefit multiplier will revert from 2.18 to 2.0 percent if the stock market falls below 30 percent. Mayor Dupree asked if other pensions which may be received are included in the maximum total monthly retirement benefit? Mr. Taylor stated no. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 by title only. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4053 on first reading. Mayor Dupree requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yesi Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4064, PERTAINING TO THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP) AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 93-3710 TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY OF SARASOTA WILL BE THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SHIP PROGRAM AND THAT THE CITY IS NOW DESIGNATED AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF. IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING; SET FOR SECOND READING AT THE JUNE 17, 1998, SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #3 (3854) through (0244) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4064 amends Ordinance No. 93-3710 pertaining to the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) and is required for the City to administer the SHIP Program and receive SHIP funds directly from the State of Florida. Mr. Hadsell distributed a revision of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4064; and stated that proposed Ordinance 98-4064 was sent to the State for review; that the State requested certain additional provisions which have been incorporated in the revision and are as follows: An. annual audit will be conducted of the Local Housing Assistance Trust Fund established in proposed Ordinance No. 98-4064 pursuant to the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Act. The interest generated by the Local Housing Assistance Trust Fund will be used for eligible program expenditures. SHIP funds will be invested in accordance with City policy. SHIP expenditures will be eligible for program purposes only. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. BOOK 44 Page 16866 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16867 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4064 on first reading and scheduling the second reading at the June 17, 1998, special Commission meeting. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4064 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4064 on first reading and schedule the second reading at the June 17, 1998, special Commission meeting. Mayor Dupree requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (0245) through (1082) The following people came before the Commission: Paul Thorpe, 1818 Main Street (34236), Chairman of the Downtown Parking Advisory Board Committee, distributed copies of the following: 1. A June 12, 1998, letter from Nathalie McCulloch, President of The Friends of the Selby Public Library, Inc. 2. A June 15, 1998, letter from Deane Allyn, Executive Director of the Sarasota Opera Association, Inc. Mr. Thorpe stated that The Friends of the Selby Library and the Sarasota Opera Association support building the new Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) transfer station on Lemon Avenue between First and Second Streets; that the letters are endorsements from both organizations in support of the site. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the new SCAT transfer station will have parking? Mr. Thorpe stated yes; that the Downtown Association and the Downtown Parking Advisory Board Committee also support building the new SCAT transfer station on Lemon Avenue between First and Second Streets; that three possible locations for the SCAT transier station have been identified; that Commission support of locating the new SCAT transfer station on Lemon Avenue between First and Second Streets is requested. Victoria Main, 1300 Sixth Street (34236), Sarasota Housing Authority, and Melodee Melin, 1250 Eye Street, Washinqton D.C. (20007), Ouadel Consulting, came before the Commission. Ms. Main stated that the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) is submitting a Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI application for the redevelopment of the public housing on Cohen Way; that' the only program the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) currently has to redevelop severely distressed public housing and surrounding neighborhoods is HOPE VI, which is a program to help people living in public housing developments become self sufficient; that the SHA is required to submit a concept plan for H.U.D. review; that Ms. Melin was hired to assist with the HOPE VI application. Ms. Melin stated that the HOPE VI grant application process includes a requirement to provide an indication of how the development plan addresses neighborhood and public housing needs, general community needs and support services, and the general needs of the community and community improvement planning, including the specific neighborhood in which the development will be located; that the development plan proposes that current Cohen Way public housing development, consisting of 72 public housing units, be demolished and replaced by a larger development consisting of approximately 150 units; that 48 units would be designated for public housing; that the SHA wishes to retain an inventory of 72 public housing units; therefore in addition, the development plan proposes the acquisition of additional properties on which an additional 24 units will be constructed; that the remaining units will be comprised of both tax credit units serving persons of moderate incomes and market-rate units; that the proposed development plan includes one- to four-bedroom units and play areas for small children; that the other physical details of the site have not yet been determined; that 1.5 parking spaces per unit will be provided; that the community concerns in terms of preserving housing resources and cooperation in improving surrounding neighborhood areas such as the public improvements made on Central Avenue have been addressed on a preliminary basis in the proposed development plan for the HOPE VI grant application; that the proposed development will be a major compliment to the other public improvements underway on Central Avenue, including the proposed police sub-station. Ms. Main stated that the proposed development plan will continue to evolve and will be presented at the June 16, 1998, SHA Board of Directors meeting; that the proposed plan will be explained to the Commission in more detail in the future; that Commission support will be requested. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission has supported changes at the Cohen Way public housing development for many years; that public housing is viewed differently in the U.S. than BOOK 44 Page 16868 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16869 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. in other areas of the world; that public housing has evolved to serve the needs of the lowest income levels; that public housing had a great philosophy and theory but has not been handled well in the U.S.; that the SHA Board of Directors may attempt to combine mixed-income levels which can result in a variety of problems; that the existing 72 units of problems becoming 150 units of problem is not desired; that most households contain two vehicles; that 1.5 parking spaces is not adequate unless the unemployed are the targeted market, which is not the goal; that the proposed development is a wonderful idea; however, details must be addressed. Ms. Melin stated that a HOPE VI grant has many stages of development; that the current development plan is. part of the preliminary stage which accompanies the submission of the HOPE VI grant application; that a more developed and detailed development plan will be prepared at a later stage if the HOPE VI grant is received; that housing authorities cannot afford to provide the necessary level of detail until assurance is received that the funding will be forthcoming. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that attention must be focused on the details; that people with other housing choices will not be convinced to move into a development which does not have two parking spaces even with low rental rates; and asked if the HOPE VI grant will cover the entire construction cost of the proposed development? Ms. Melin stated that the proposed development plan includes 48 public housing units which will be subsidized by the HOPE VI grant; that the expectation is to develop a partnership with a private developer who will finance the balance of the units in return for tax credits. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the private developer will become liable for the housing loans? Ms. Melin stated yes; that the proposal is for a mixed-finance and a mixed-income development. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the SHA must guarantee large loans on the development? Ms. Melin stated that H.U.D. gives the HOPE VI grant to the SHA and requires the SHA to consider the HOPE VI funds as a loan to the developer of the proposed development; that the funds are below market rates; that the terms and conditions of the loan are better than would be obtained through a bank or a conventional lender; that a portion of the rent charged tenants will be considered as loan repayment to the SHA. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City must assume responsibility for properties which have been inadequately maintained for a period of years; that a market-rate analysis of rental rates and the financing plan should be presented to the Commission for review. Ms. Melin stated that the rental rates for public housing units must be 30 percent of a tenant's income; that a market survey of rental rates is being conducted to determine the cost of the non- public housing units in the proposed development plan; that people with an expertise in tax credits and affordable housing programs are also assisting with the market survey of rental rates. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a feasible plan must be submitted to assure her supporting vote. Ms. Melin stated that as many details as possible concerning the proposed development plan will be presented when the Commission is requested to approve the HOPE VI grant application; that the SHA must conduct an extensive public review process concerning the proposed development plan if the HOPE VI grant is obtained; that extensive project details must be submitted if the SHA is selected to receive the HOPE VI grant; that the SHA will be required to prepare a revitalization plan, which details the physical and financial aspects of the proposed development, for submission to H.U.D. for review. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the submission of the HOPE VI grant application imposes a substantial obligation to the SHA to complete the proposed development. Mayor Dupree asked the extent of the Cohen Way resident involvement? Ms. Melin stated that several meetings have been held with residents; that different residents attended each meeting; that the meetings were held on different dates at different times to ensure all interested residents could attend; that ideas were presented and received; that a survey was delivered to each unit requesting resident ideas and concerns about the existing property and the future development plans; that the proposed development provides for the future whether residents return to the redeveloped property or choose another housing alternative; that residents will be beneficiaries of community and support services provided by HOPE VI grant funding. Mayor Dupree asked the percentage of residents who participated in the meetings? Ms. Main stated that approximately 75 percent of residents participated. BOOK 44 Page 16870 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16871 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree asked the feedback received from participating residents? Ms. Melin stated that the residents' primary concerns are when construction on the new Cohen Way development will begin and if current residents will be forced to relocate; that an incorrect rumor circulated that residents would be forced to leave Cohen Way by November 1998; that choosing a H.U.D. Section 8 certificate or voucher rather than returning to public housing is an alternative; that another resident concern is whether HOPE VI grant funds can be used for security and utility deposits; that relocation benefits are provided for in the grant application sO residents can cover relocation costs. Mayor Dupree asked if the possible difference in rent in the proposed development was discussed? Ms. Melin stated that many changes occur once the HOPE VI project is begun; that family benefits remain the same as long as residents remain eligible for public housing; that residents' financial situation remains unchanged but the physical environment and other benefits accrue in terms of support services; that residents will go through the disruption of being temporarily relocated. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the goal is to integrate public housing recipients with residents paying full rent in one large apartment development? Ms. Melin stated that the goal is to create a neighborhood with a natural mix of incomes; that tax-credit rental units serve people with limited incomes, i.e., people earning 50 to 60 percent of the median income; that public housing usually serves people whose income is 30 percent" or more below the median income. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a development with mixed- income levels close to downtown should be a success; that the details must addressed; that 1.5 parking spaces per unit is probably not adequate. 9. NEW BUSINESS: DESIGNATION RE: VOTING DELEGATE AT THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUGUST 13-15, 1998 VICE MAYOR PATTERSON DESIGNATED VOTING DELEGATE WITH COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE AS FIRST ALTERNATE AND MAYOR DUPREE AS SECOND ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (1083) through (1120) Commissioner Cardamone nominated Vice Mayor Patterson as the City's voting delegate at the Florida League of Cities (FLC) Annual Conference in Miami Beach, Florida, on August 13-15, 1998. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she typically attends the FLC Annual Conference; however, a political forum which she must attend is being held on one of the conference dates; therefore, attending the delegate voting session at the FLC Annual Conference may not be possible; that designation of another person as the City's voting delegate may be appropriate. Commissioner Merrill nominated Commissioner Cardamone as the City's alternate voting delegate to the FLC Annual Conference if Vice Mayor Patterson cannot attend. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she usually attends the FLC Annual Conference but does not stay throughout the entire conference; that the nomination as the City's alternate voting delegate to the FLC Annual Conference is accepted if the voting session is attended. Commissioner Merrill nominated Mayor Dupree as the City's second alternate voting delegate to the FLC Annual conference if neither Vice Mayor Patterson nor Commissioner Cardamone can attend the voting session. Mayor Dupree stated that consensus has been reached to designate Vice Mayor Patterson as the City's voting delegate to the FLC Annual Conference with Commissioner Cardamone as the first alternate and Mayor Dupree as the second alternate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a form must be completed and sent to the FLC designating the City's voting delegate. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk will complete and return the form to the FLC. 10. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: POSTING OF SIGNS FOR "NO ALCOHOL, I "PARKING IN DESIGNATED SPACES ONLY, I AND HOURS OF OPERATION AT WHITAKER GATEWAY PARK = APPROVED; DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO: FIX THE LIGHTS, THE RETENTION POND, AND THE SPRINKLING SYSTEM, TURN OFF ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, DEVELOP BETTER BUFFERING, POST A SIGN TO KEEP VEHICLES OFF THE GRASS; REFERRED OTHER ISSUES INCLUDING COMFORT STATIONS AND THE DENSITY OF PICNIC TABLES AND GRILLS TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO RETURN WITH A RECOMMENDATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (1121) through #4 (0340) BOOK 44 Page 16872 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16873 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the residents adjacent to Whitaker Gateway Park have questioned whether the park amenities installed are consistent with the approved site plans. Duane Mountain, Manager of Streets, Landscape Maintenance and Solid Waste, came before the Commission; distributed a copy of the final Whitaker Gateway Park development plan and Agenda Requests concerning plans for the park dated January 30, May 1, and June 5, 1995; and stated that the approved and implemented Whitaker Gateway Park site plan is dated June 5, 1995. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how the 14 barbecue grills are depicted on the site plan? Mr. Mountain stated that the 14 barbecue grills are not identified in the site plan; however, the budget always included barbecue grills. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the park was built in accordance with the approved site plan? Mr. Mountain stated yes; that the comfort station, i.e., restrooms, washing station, etc., and the canoe launching ramp are part of the final phase, for which bids will be solicited in July 1998. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if each pavilion has a barbecue grill? Mr. Mountain stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked the number of existing barbecue grills? Mr. Mountain stated that the park has 14 barbecue grills. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the comfort station and the canoe launching ramp have already been approved? Mr. Mountain stated yes; that the funding is available; that the final phase will begin after the Request for Proposal (RFP) is distributed, bids received and the contract finalized. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the grant application submitted for partial funding of development of the park included the 14 barbecue grills? Mr. Mountain stated that the grant application included 10 barbecue grills; that 4 large barbecue grills were placed in the main pavilion or gazebo. Gregory Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment, came before the Commission and stated that residents adjacent to Whitaker Gateway Park have voiced concerns regarding the level of activity and noise occurring at the park on Memorial Day; that many complaints about the noise, smoke and odors from the barbecue grills and inappropriate activity have been received; that the Commission directed Staff to formulate recommendations addressing Whitaker Gateway Park issues; that Staff recommendations are as follows: Post "No' Alcohol" signs at the park per Sections 5-21, 5-25, and 5-27 of the Sarasota City Code. Post "Parking in Designated Spaces Only" per Sections 10-6, 30-3, and 33-108 Sarasota City Code. Post hours of operation (proposed closing from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.) per Section 22-25 Sarasota City Code. Mr. Horwedel stated that residents adjacent to Whitaker Gateway Park would like to see the following réalized: music and noise monitored electrical outlets removed radios banned buffer area such as landscaping or wall installed barbecue grills removed or reduced restrooms locked at park closing hours or not installed park closed from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. park changed from passive to open space use detention basin adequately drained lights dimmed or turned off at park closing time Commissioner Cardamone asked the location of the lights? Mr. Horwedel stated that lights are located around the park perimeter and in the interior of the park. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the problem with the retention basin? Mr. Horwedel stated that the retention basin does not drain adequately and remains moist; that the basin is close to the pavilion area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that residents do not want park visitors to urinate on property fences or trees but also do not want a restroom facility installed; that an appropriate resolution for this issue is not known; that passive park use as a picnic area rather than a defined baseball field was envisioned; that the park receives little use even on weekends except for heavy use on holiday weekends; that 12 cars were counted in the parking area on Sunday afternoon, which is not park capacity; that the park was quiet; that efforts to control the problems should be focused on holiday weekends and not every day of the entire year; that some barbecue grills should be BOOK 44 Page 16874 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16875 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. removed; that radios should not be plugged into the pavilions; that a reasonable and calm decision can be reached; that policing the park was not adequate over the Memorial Day weekend; that the public has not been given an adequate understanding of Whitaker Gateway Park usage, which the Commission should address. Mr. Horwedel stated that two police officers will monitor Whitaker Gateway Park during the July 4th weekend. Commissioner Merrill stated that Staff's recommendations are supported; that electrical outlets should be removed; that barbecue grills close to residents' homes should be moved; that the issue of building comfort stations in the park causes conflict; that the problem is the level of intensity in the park; that all parks have some problems; that parks and neighbors naturally conflict; that no parking should be permitted on the grass; that paved parking spaces can be reduced to limit the level of intensity; that park usage must be controlled. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the comfort station can be locked at dusk if installed; that a wall could be constructed along the north and south sides of the park; that the interest of the Bay's Bluff condominium residents in a wall on the south side is not known; that a cost estimate of constructing an 8-foot wall along the north side of the park next to the single-family residential homes is requested. Commissioner Cardamone stated that caution should be exercised in considering the construction of a wall; that surrounding property values increased when the site was cleared and a park with landscaping and sidewalks was created; that constructing a wall is supported if residents desire a wall. Commissioner Merrill stated that constructing a wall around the park will cost approximately $50,000. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the height regulation in the Zoning Code is six feet; that a variance from the Zoning Code is required for a wall above six feet. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that many people do not wish to live next to a park. Mayor Dupree stated that no more than six visitors at any given time were witnessed when recently visiting the park; that more problems are caused on a holiday or during weekends than during the week; that changes are necessary to address the neighbors' concerns. The following people came before the Commission: Beverly Scott, 1050 Hampton Road (34236), displayed a large rendering of the Whitaker Gateway Park site plan including the surrounding residential houses; and stated that her house, porch and pool are easily seen when walking on the path in the park; that children shout to people on her property, climb over the fence to her property, swim and jump on the trampoline located on her property; that three covered pavilions and a playground have been placed very Close to her property line; that considerable noise comes from 'the pavilions and the playground even when a small group of people are present; that the noise is a major problem; that the pavilions and the playground should be moved further away from the property line; that the landscape buffer does not provide privacy; that her property is very visible from the park; that a very uncomfortable feeling is created as park users can easily see into her property. Commissioner Cardamone asked if constructing a wall between her property and the park would give some relief? Ms. Scott stated that a wall is not desired; however, a wall would help solve some complaints since the problem is escalating; that privacy to near-by residents must be restored. Commissioner Cardamone asked if more landscaping is preferred to building a wall? Ms. Scott stated that people will still climb over the fence even with landscaping; that people presently climb the fence to retrieve balls, etc. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the height of the fence? Ms. Scott stated that the fence is six feet high; that Whitaker Gateway Park is the only City park surrounded by a residential neighborhood; that Whitaker Gateway Park has more picnic tables and grills than Gillespie, Island and Ken Thompson Parks combined; that Gillespie Park has 14 picnic tables, Island Park has 3 picnic tables and Ken Thompson Park has 5 picnic tables; that the number of picnic tables at Whitaker Gateway Park should be reduced; that the extra picnic tables could be given to the other parks; that the lights should be dimmed and covered with shields; that picnic tables and grills should be moved away from residential property lines; that the seawall has encroached on her property by two feet; that her property is affected by the drainage problem in the park; that comfort stations should not be built into the park. Charles Kuykendall, 1130 Hampton Road (34236), stated that the landscaping designed for and planted in the park is inappropriate for the intended use; that many flowers and a minimum landscaped buffer was planted between his home and the park; that the landscaped buffer does not provide the intended relief; that the landscape irrigation system is either poorly designed or not BOOK 44 Page 16876 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16877 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. maintained properly; that most of the landscaping intended to provide a buffer between the park and his house is dying; that some park areas with a dense buffer are next to vacant properties with no homes or buildings; that his home was built to the required elevation; therefore, a wall is not desired; that heavy landscaping is desired; that the playground is double the size of the original plan; that children play until 11 p.m. on many occasions; and requested the following changes: picnic pavilions relocated away from property lines noise reduced loud music banned - alcohol banned = parking restricted - parties limited landscaping buffer increased comfort stations not built park closed at 9 p.m. barbecue grills moved or eliminated lighting reduced picnic tables moved Carol Kuykendall, 1130 Hampton Road (34236), stated that the good intentions of the Commission are appreciated; that residents have not complained to allow the City sufficient time to correct the situation; that residents were promised comfort stations would not be included in the design; that the park was only intended for passive uses; that certain compromises were made; that residents have given up privacy; that the noise level has greatly increased; that a major problem exists when residents must leave their homes to enjoy peace and privacy; that the level of intensity is the major problem; that too much park apparatus such as playground equipment, barbecue, grills and picnic tables has been placed in a small area surrounded by residences; that a large empty area exists closer to U.S. 41; that seven picnic tables and a playground were placed behind her home. Doug Means, 1100 Hampton Road (34236), stated that the intensity of the use at the park is the major problem; that weekends have been less noisy since Memorial Day; that weekends prior to Memorial Day were very noisy; that Staff's recommendations have not addressed radios or intense lighting; that lights shine in many residents' bedroom windows; that a wall around the perimeter of the park will not help due to the proximity of the park to the residences; that the water of Sarasota Bay carries the noise; that more buffering is necessary; that the amplified music is a major problem. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved extend the meeting past 11:30 p.m. to complete this agenda item, Agenda Item VIII-2, and the agenda item concerning the Refunding of the General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Agenda Item VIII-3. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. Philip Des Marais, 1100 Imperial Drive Apartment #104 (34236), stated that his apartment is within 18 feet of Whitaker Gateway Park; that a new park light, placed directly on the property line, shines directly into his bedroom; that a lighting shield should be installed; that the previously installed lights at Bay's Bluff Condominium are shielded and, therefore, do not cause the same problem; that noise is also a main concern; that people park cars on five curbed parking spaces adjacent to his apartment, open the door and play loud car stereos; that a car radio was playing very loudly at 11 p.m. last night; that the retention pond on the southwest side of the park has a foul smell; that many people take morning walks around the park which is nice. Scott Storm, 1050 Hampton Road (34236), displayed a video tape of typical noises heard on his porch from Whitaker Gateway Park; and stated that the noises were recorded 20 feet from the property line on a Friday afternoon. Commissioner Cardamone stated that $3 million was spent developing a park which causes many disturbances. Mr. Storm stated that the police were called on the evening of recording the video taping due to the noise level. Commissioner Merrill asked if a pavilion with picnic tables is close to his property? Mr. Scott stated yes; that a small group of people can make a considerable amount of noise. Don Rainone, 1155 Hampton Road (34236), stated that the park has created a disastrous situation; that the park was planned, implemented and facilitated incorrectly; that a wall should be built along U.S. 41 closing the park unless major changes are made to alleviate the problems; that many City Commissions try to minimize mistakes instead of rectifying problems; that the adjacent residents' complaints are being minimized rather than rectified; that "park closing time, "no alcohol" and "park in designated spaces" signs are in place; that 50 parking spaces exist; that restricted parking has been discussed but not implemented; that the proposed comfort station should not be built. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of restricted parking? Mr. Rainone stated that parking spaces were not built according to plan; that the original plan did not extend parking to the BOOK 44 Page 16878 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16879 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. Bay's Bluff Condominium; that the environmental effect of the picnic tables on Sarasota Bay is detrimental; that the wind carries debris to the Bayi that people do not clean up properly; that property values have decreased; that adjacent residents would be remiss if park issues were not discussed while showing prospective buyers their houses; that most people show homes on weekends which is when noise levels are considerably increased; that the park has not increased property values; that residents adjacent to the park will not stop complaining until all problems are rectified. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236) President of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, and Tina Riggle, 1743 Eighth Street (34236) Vice President of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association Ms. Holland stated that the compatibility of park users and neighborhood residents requires mutual cooperation and consideration; that balancing neighborhood preservation and protection with open space is critical and often difficult; that Gillespie Park neighborhood residents also desired a passive park; that Gillespie Park is large enough to host events; that extra park amenities were not affordable when Gillespie Park improvements were planned in 1993; that Gillespie Park has one grill; that any extra picnic tables grills and pavilions from Whitaker Gateway Park would be greatly appreciated; that Gillespie Park has one pavilion and one small gazebo. Ms. Riggle stated that signs should be posted and strictly enforced in Whitaker Gateway Park; that comfort stations should not be installed in Whitaker Gateway Park; that the lack of comfort stations in Gillespie Park makes the park family oriented. Ms. Holland stated that comfort stations can be misused for uncontrolled and inappropriate activities; that comfort stations may induce improper or illegal activity. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if most Gillespie Park visitors are from the Gillespie Park neighborhood? Ms. Holland stated no; that a large diversity of people visit Gillespie Park; that business people drive to Gillespie Park and bring a lunch. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if lunchtime visitors bring children? Ms. Holland stated that some people bring children; that the lunchtime crowd attracts business people for a peaceful lunch. Mayor Dupree stated that Gillespie Park is a versatile park. Beth Steele, 1513 Palmetto Lane (34236), submitted for Commission viewing photographs depicting unkempt barbecue areas, barbecue ash and leftovers thrown in a garbage can and ash and coals thrown on the ground; and stated that Whitaker Gateway Park is very visible from U.S. 41 and attracts people from near-by cities; that a constant smell of barbecue fumes and smoke lingers in the park and surrounding residences even on the quietest weekends; that smoke and barbecue fumes are intense even from the furthest barbecue grill; that a constant smell of barbecue lingers throughout the weekend; that visitors barbecue during weekday evenings and the smell lingers; that a park visitor used landscaping in the park to start a barbecue; that smoke filters into her home; that air-conditioning was not previously necessary in her home; however, now all doors and windows must be shut and the air-conditioning used; that smoke collects in the porch which is windowed; that smoke lingers in her home and porch even after the smoke has dissipated in the yard; that the fumes and smoke in and around her property are severe. Commissioner Cardamone stated that park usage is being abused. Ms. Scott stated that the barbecue areas are dirty and filled with left-over ashes and cigarette butts; that a concern is the comfort station will not be maintained as the barbecue areas are not maintained; that only four, double-sized barbecues were cleaned after several complaints; that the breeze comes from the water and channels the smoke into the residences; that the suggested wall between residences and playgrounds may alleviate noise and property invasion problems; that her house is raised 3 feet off the ground; therefore, a wall will not keep invasive lights and smoke from entering the house; that the Commission is invited to her home to experience the barbecue fumes and smoke. On motion of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer the issue to the Administration for specific recommendations. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the following are obvious, non- controversial and can begin immediately: fix the lights disconnect the electrical outlets fix the retention pond develop better buffering fix the sprinkler system post a sign to keep vehicles off the grass On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to direct Staff to immediately fix the above mentioned problems and refer the issues of including comfort stations and determining the number of picnic tables and BOOK 44 Page 16880 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16881 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. barbecue grills to be removed to the Administration to return to the Commission with new recommendations. Deputy City Manager Schneider asked if a wall estimate is desired? Mayor Dupree stated that increasing buffering, fixing the lights, disconnecting the electrical outlets, fixing the retention pond, fixing the sprinkler system and posting a sign to keep vehicles off the grass should be implemented first; that many residents do not desire a wall. Commissioner Cardamone stated that radios should be banned; that some picnic tables and grills should be eliminated; that Staff should return with a report regarding the proposed comfort stations. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed; and stated that the proposed action includes alleviating complaints which are not controversial to park users or residents adjacent to the park. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that comfort stations present a potential management problem and a liability for the City as the park is not staffed; that the Administration will report on the positives and negatives of building a comfort station and present a recommendation as soon as possible. Commissioner Merrill stated that a negative vote will be cast on building a comfort station; that the Administration should include in the report the. potential effects of installing one port-o-let at the park. Mayor Dupree asked that the motion be restated. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan restated the motion as to fix the lèghts, post "no alcohol" signs, post a park-hours sign, turn off electrical outlets, fix the retention pond, improve the buffering, fix the sprinkler system, post "no vehicles on the grass" signs and to refer the other issues including comfort stations and the density of picnic tables and grills to the Administration to return with a recommendation as soon as possible. Mayor Dupree stated that the motion should include moving or removing barbecue grills and picnic tables. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the barbecue grills and picnic tables complaints should be referred to the Administration for recommendations. Mayor Dupree agreed. Commissioner Merrill stated that a negative vote will be cast on the current motion because the motion is not addressing the major complaints, i.e., barbecue grills, picnic tables and noise. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her motion should not be misinterpreted as attempting to solve the major complaints; that her motion includes the obvious, non-controversial and inexpensive solutions which can begin immediately; that residents should not wait for one month to have lights shielded, for example. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the current posted park closing time is 11 p.m.i and asked if the park closing time should be changed to 9 p.m.? Commissioner Merrill stated that the Administration was asked to provide a recommendation designating a park closing time for all City parks; that the Administration's recommendation designating a park closing hour for all City parks is desired before changing park closing hours for Whitaker Gateway Park from 11 p.m. to 9 p.m. Mayor Dupree called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 1): : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. 11. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSAL TO REFUND THE GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1990, AND ISSUE APPROXIMATELY $9.9 MILLION OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUND BONDS, SERIES 1998 APPROVED TO PROCEED TO ISSUE APPROXIMATELY $9.9 MILLION OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUND BONDS, SERIES 1998 (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (0341) through (0384) Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends a motion to proceed to issue approximately $9.9 million of General Obligation Refund Bonds, Series 1998. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to proceed to issue approximately $9.9 million of General Obligation Refund Bonds, Series 1998. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0 ): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Deputy City Manager Schneider asked if the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Main Street Depot can be rescheduled to the June 17, 1998, special Commission meeting. Mayor Dupree stated that consensus has been reached to reschedule the RFP for the Main Street Depot to the June 17, 1998, special City Commission meeting. BOOK 44 Page 16882 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16883 06/15/98 6:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (0383) There being no further business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the regular meeting of June 15, 1998, at 12:06 a.m. Cion Bhpnee JEROME DUPREÉ, MAYOR ATTEST: Billy E Roberson BILLY E. COBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK