MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot, Commissioners Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION RECOGNIZING DR. ARLAND F. CHRIST-JANER. PRESIDENT OF THE SARASOTA RINGLING SCHOOL OF ART AND DESIGN #1 (0041) through (0163) Mayor Cardamone stated that Dr. Arland F. Christ-Janer, who has been the President of the Sarasota Ringling School of Art and Design since 1984, is retiring; and read in its entirety a Mayor's Citation which summarized: Dr. Christ-Janer's educational background; history of academic administration; involvement with numerous professional organizations, advisory councils, and commissions; and membership in Phi Delta Theta and Sarasota/Manatee Phi Beta Kappa Honor Societies. Mayor Cardamone presented Dr. Christ-Janer with the Mayor's Citation framed on a plaque and extended, on behalf of the City Commission and citizens in the community, an expression of appreciation and a sincere wish for continued success in his future endeavors. 2. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION RECOGNIZING PAUL WOLFE, CONDUCTOR AND ARTISTIC DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA WEST COAST BTAPHONY/BARASOTA MUSIC FESTIVAL #1 (0165) through (0289) Mayor Cardamone stated that Paul Wolfe, who has been the Conductor of the Florida West Coast Symphony since 1961, is retiring but will continue as Artistic Director of the Sarasota Music Festival and violinist in the Florida String Quartet; and read in its entirety a Mayor's Citation which summarized Maestro Wolfe's commitment to the performance of chamber music and to the next generation of young performers through education programs and by founding the Book 40 Page 13240 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13241 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. prestigious Sarasota Music Festival which was designated by the State Legislature in 1984 as "The Official Teaching and Performing Music Festival of Florida." Mayor Cardamone presented Maestro Wolfe with the Mayor's Citation framed on a plaque and extended, on behalf of the city Commission and citizens in the community, an expression of appreciation and a sincere wish for continued success in his future endeavors. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0312) through (0340) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-3, Recision Re: Adopted motion of April 15, 1996, to place a charter amendment with three options on the ballot: 1) retaining the existing system, 2 changing to a mayor elected to a two-year term, and 3) changing to a mayor elected to a four-year term, per the request of Commissioner Patterson. B. Add under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-4, Formal of adoption of guiding principals, goals, and targets for action, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 30, 1996 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0346) through (0551) On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the minutes of the special City Commission meeting of April 30, 1996. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 1, 1996 - RECEIVED; DENIED SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION NO. 96-SE-02 (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0360) through (1070) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Robert Lindsay, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Lindsay presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of May 1, 1996: A. Petition No. 96-SE-02 Mr. Lindsay stated that Petition No. 96-SE-02 is a request for a special exception to permit a healing arts center in historically designated structures; that the parcel is located at 636 South Osprey Avenue in a Residential Multiple-Family (RMF-3) Zone District; that the PBLP found 96-SE-02 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission affirmation of the PBLP resolution to approve 96-SE-02 subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation be limited to 8 a.m. until 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Saturday. 2. The number of practitioners be limited to three. 3. The uses be limited to those defined in the memorandum dated April 26, 1996, from Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's office, to Debbie Marks, Senior Planning Technician, as follows: Low intensity uses such as body work and massage therapy which involve practitioners using hands-on techniques to manipulate the bones, muscles, or other tissues such as acupressure, geriatric massage, muscular therapy and reflexology, counselling involving practitioners using verbal techniques and other expressive communication techniques t encourage psychological and emotional healing; energy techniques involving practitioners using their hands to redirect the flow of body energy release energy blocks or send healing energy such as healing touch, mediation techniques an therapeutic touch; holistic health including anthroposcopic medicine, ayurvedic medicine, Chines medicine, holistic therapy, naturopathic medicine, osteopathic medicine, and women's holistic health; movement therapies involving practitioners leading clients through movements, body awareness exercises, and/or breathing exercises designed to improve their health; natural healing therapies; and health specialties such as holistic medical specialties, pain management, and stress management. Book 40 Page 13242 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13243 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. 4. The total building area devoted to commercial use between the main structure and the single-story cottage immediately to the west of the main structure (not including the duplex which is located on the site) shall be limited to a combined total of 860 square feet. Ms. Robinson stated that on May 20, 1996, the City Commission, after holding a public hearing, denied the request for historic designation; therefore, the site is not eligible for special exception; that a letter dated May 30, 1996, was received from Stephen Rees, attorney for the petitioners, requesting a continuance of Commission consideration regarding Petition No. 96-SE-02. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to receive the PBLP report of May 1, 1996. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone requested discussion regarding Petition No. 96-SE-02. City Attorney Taylor stated that approval of an historic designation is required for approval of the special exception; that Attorney Rees is requesting the Commission refrain from denying the special exception and, based on his inability to represent his clients at the May 20, 1996, public hearing when the historic designation petition was denied, reopen the public hearing on the historic designation; that the historic designation process appears to be a quasi-judicial process; that although the petitioner did not represent that legal counsel could not attend the meeting and presented the matter on their own behalf, Attorney Rees is indicating additional information should have been presented. Commissioner Merrill stated that the petitioners have been meeting with representatives of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association regarding the propertyi and asked if the Commission has the ability to continue consideration of the special exception? City Attorney Taylor stated that the action of the PBLP on a special exception takes effect after 45 days if no action is taken by the Commission; however, this situation is unique; that the special exception approved by the PBLP would not go into effect because the historic designation was denied; that a procedural problem could occur if the Commission takes no action and historic designation is granted in the future; that the Commission has the ability to reverse, affirm, or modify the recommendation of the PBLP on a special exception; that continuing consideration of the special exception to a date certain would qualify as taking action. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to postpone action regarding 96-SE-02 until the regular City Commission meeting of July 1, 1996. Commissioner Patterson stated that proper notice and a vote for recision would be required to reopen the historic designation public hearing regarding Petition No. 96-HD-01; that three votes are required for a recision; that the Commission could be in the same situation at the July 1, 1996. City Attorney Taylor stated denial of Petition No. 96-SE-02 would be the better course of action procedurally if the Commission does not intend to reopen or further consider 96-HD-01 or a modified historic designation petition. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Attorney Rees has requested to speak under Citizens' Input Concerning City Topics regarding Petition 96-HD-01. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Commission's decision could be overturned based on a challenge that a petitioner voluntary proceeded without legal counsel? City Attorney Taylor stated that the petitioner making the decision to proceed without legal counsel would not be a determining factor viewed by the Court; that deciding whether as a matter of fairness and due process the petitioner is afforded the opportunity to be heard for a second time through counsel is within the discretion of the Commission; that legal advise on other items which may be of issue is not available as the presentation from Attorney Rees has not been heard. Commissioner Patterson stated that a precedent should not be set which would allow petitioners who are not represented when appearing before the Commission to come back in the future with legal counsel. City Attorney Taylor that people who experience virtually identical circumstances could request and expect to receive the same treatment afforded to Attorney Rees' clients if the request is granted by the Commission; however, information offered by Attorney Rees may support a unique circumstance. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission could err by either allowing too much opportunity for the petitioner to speak or not allowing enough time; that the motion will be supported to postpone action and allow further input from representatives of the petitioner. Commissioner Dupree asked if the Commission has the authority to grant the continuance as requested by Attorney Rees? Book 40 Page 13244 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13245 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that special exception decisions have been delayed on numerous occasions; that continuing this matter would be appropriate if the Commission wishes to consider reopening the public hearing on the historic designation; that the historic designation could be reheard in the future and approved; that the special exception could go. into effect without being heard by the Commission if the historic designation is reheard and approved at a future date without continuance or denial of the special exception being addressed at this time. Commissioner Dupree asked if the continuance can be based on use rather than on the historic designation? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that the historic designation is essential and required prior to the special exception being granted. Mayor Cardamone asked if an alternative attorney from the same firm normally represents a client in the absence of the primary attorney? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that substitution of legal counsel could be expected to happen unless the subject matter is specific in nature and alternative counsel could not adequately represent the client. Mayor Cardamone cited the following from Attorney Rees dated May 30, 1996: Due to my attendance at my daughter's college graduation in Philadelphia, I had advised the petitioners of my inability to attend and represent them at the May 20, 1996, public hearing. Upon return on May 21, 1996, I learned from (the) petitioners of the surprising and disappointing denial and of their understandable confusion at the hearing resulting in their failure to have informed this Commission of my representation, my absence, and need to continue the hearing to permit my subsequent participation. Mayor Cardamone stated that another attorney could have appeared on behalf of the petitioners or the petitioners could have informed the Commission of Attorney Rees' inability to appear and asked for a continuance; that Commissioner Patterson raised a valid concern regarding setting a precedent by continuing the special exception. Commissioner Merrill asked the implications of continuing the special exception. City Attorney Taylor stated that the historic designation has been denied; that continuing the special exception would delay final action by the Commission until an historic designation were approved. Commissioner Merrill stated that addressing the special exception is predicated upon reconsideration of the historic designation; therefore, notice of a Commissioner's intent to rescind the previous Commission action taken to deny the historic designation would be required - - which has not occurred. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Administration would again recommend denial of the special exception if this item is postponed to July 1, 1996, and approval of an historic designation is not granted prior to that date. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Commissioner Merrill asked if an official denial by the Commission is required within 45 days to prevent the approval recommended by the PBLP from becoming effective? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Commission action is required within 45 days; that the 45-day time period would be suspended by the Commission's taking action to continue the item. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that citizens' comments are not permitted under Board Actions; that Attorney Rees has signed up to speak under Citizens' Input Concerning City Topics; that the Commission's erring by being too flexible would be more appropriate than erring by not being flexible enough; that after hearing input from Attorney Rees and based on the input received, he would be prepared to give notice of an intent to call for a rescission at the July 1, 1996, meeting of the Commission's previous vote regarding denial of 96-HD-01. Commissioner Patterson asked if the public hearing for 96-HD-01 could have been rescheduled if the petitioner or Attorney Rees had informed the City of the conflict? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that notice is published 10 days in advance; that a rescheduling could have been easily accommodated if the conflict was disclosed prior to advertising the public hearing; that a continuance of the public hearing could have been announced at the Commission meeting under Changes to the Order of the Day if the conflict was disclosed after the notice had been published. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion to postpone action regarding Petition No. 96-SE-02 until July 1, 1996. Motion Book 40 Page 13246 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13247 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. failed (3 to 2): Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, no. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to deny Special Exception Petition No. 96-SE-02 based on the denial of Historic Designation Petition No. 96-HD-01. Motion carried (3 to 2): Dupree, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Cardamone, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, AND 4 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (1070) through (1085) 1. Approval Re: Ratification of Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Sarasota and the Southwest Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (PBA) dated May 8, 1996, to implement the provisions related to the PBA Base Rate of Pay, Off Duty/Second Weapon and Promotional Procedures 2. Approval Re: Application for Federal Assistance (Cooperative Agreement) between the City of Sarasota and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre-An- nexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Cynthia A. Cavallaro - 3857 Camino Real (Site 11--35), a single family residence 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre-An- nexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Thomas Bozek - 1735, 1743 and 1803 Hansen Street (Site 11-22, 23 and 24) three residential duplexes On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 4 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3840) - ADOPTED WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION CHANGED TO 8 A.M. TO 11 P.M.; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3932) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 96- 3934) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-2936) = ADOPTED: ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3938) = ADOPTED; AND ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3944) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1085) through (1677) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 96-3932, 96-3934, 96-3936, 96-3938, and 96-3944 by title only. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3932, to rezone the following two (2) City owned parcels of real property from RMF-1 Zone District to G Governmental) Zone District for continued use as a parking lot, said parcels being described as follows: Site A: Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block A, revised plat of Oak Park having a street address of 1521 Stringfield Avenue and Site B: Lots 9 through 16, Block F, revised plat of Oak Park having a street address of 2621 12th Street, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 215, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 96-RE-02, petitioner City of Sarasota) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3934, to rezone a parcel of real property known as Laurel Street Neighborhood Park, from RMF-R Zone District to G Governmental) Zone District, said parcel lies on the north side of Laurel Street approximately 500 feet east of south Orange Avenue, with a street address of 1725 Laurel Street; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 96-RE-04, petitioner City of Sarasota) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3936, to rezone a parcel of City owned real property from G (Government) Zone District to CI Zone District, said property described as the east 1 of Lots 17 and 18, and all of Lot 19, and that portion of an east to west alley lying between Lots 17 and 18, and the northerly portion of said alley that lies south of and abutting Lot 19, Block 24, plat of Sarasota (original) as recorded in Plat Book A, Page 30 of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; said parcel has a street address of 1445 Fourth Street; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 96-RE-06, petitioner City of Sarasota) - Planning and Development Director Robinson 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3938, to rezone a parcel of real property from RMF-2 Zone District to OPB-1 Zone District; said property is currently used as a Migrant Education Facility by the State of Florida Department of Education; said parcel has a street address of 3135 N. Washington Blvd. (U.S. 301); more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Book 40 Page 13248 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13249 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Only) (Petition No. 96-RE-05, petitioner City of Sarasota) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3944, to historically designate the structure situated on the following described property: Lot 21, Block 8, plat of Sarasota, as recorded in Plat Book A, Page 30, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; said property known as "The Russell Building" with a street address of 1490 First Street, Sarasota, Florida; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 96-HD-02, petitioner Mikki Hartig for The Russell Building) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3908, to vacate Adams Lane (60 foot right-of-way) approximately 333.71 feet in length commencing at the east right-of-way line of south Washington Boulevard and traveling to the east; and also vacating the northerly 2.45 feet of the 20-foot alley lying between Lots 1 and 12, Block B, Plat of Washington Center; providing for the relocation of Adams Lane to the south to consist of a 40- foot wide right-of-way approximately 333.71 feet in length commencing at the east right-of-way line of south Washington Boulevard and traveling to the east; as more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-SV-03, Stewart Barger, Barger & Dean Architects, representing Sarasota County) = City Manager Sollenberger On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 2 through 7 inclusive. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 1. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840, to conditionally rezone the following described real property from MCI and RSF-2 Zone Districts to COP Zone District; said property is located on the west side of South Tamiami Trail extending from Bahia Vista Street to Prospect Street for a distance of approximately 630 feet with a depth of approximately 260 feet; and, ap- proving Final Site & Development Plan 94-K in order to permit the construction of a Walgreen's drugstore and a commercial building; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-CO-06, petitioner William W. Merrill, III, as agent for Olympia Development Group, Inc., and authorized agent for BVP Associates) Commissioner Patterson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 has hours of operation for the drugstore in Phase I as 9 a.m. to midnight; that William Merrill, the attorney representing Olympia Development Group, Inc., and BVP Associates, Petitioners, has forwarded a letter to the Commission proffering 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. as alternative hours of operation. Commissioner Patterson continued that representatives of the neighborhood were contacted for input; that Richard Ulrich, President, Prospect Street Homeowners Association, after surveying the seven residents on Prospect Street, indicated unanimous support for the proffer; that Ernest Babb, Bahia Vista Street, expressed support; that Rob Patten, a neighbor who was actively involved throughout the process, expressed support; that Georgia Nicholson, President, Avondale Residents Association, responded by submitting a listing of hours of operations associated with various Walgreens operating throughout the County; that the list indicated one Walgreens was opened 24 hours but the majority of Walgreens close at 9 p.m. on weekdays and 6 p.m. on weekends; that Ms. Nicholson stated that the Avondale Residents Association would not endorse the proffer because other Walgreens in the County have shorter hours of operation but indicated that 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. was preferable to 9 a.m. to midnight. City Attorney Taylor stated that although the issue of the operation of hours was part of the public hearing process and therefore is part of the basic ordinance which went through litigation and subsequent appeal, acceptance of the proffer would be considered a minor change between first and second readings as the commencing and ending times change but the length of hours remains consistent. Commissioner Patterson stated that although she asked, the petitioner was not willing to have the proffered hours apply to Phase III of the project. Mayor Cardamone stated that the letter submitted by Ms. Nicholson indicated hours of operation at various Walgreens' locations as follows: Cattleman Road Monday - Saturday: 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Bee Ridge Road 24-hour operation Clark Road Monday - Saturday: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Ringling Blvd. Monday - Saturday: 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Lockwood Ridge Rd. Monday - Saturday: 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Book 40 Page 13250 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13251 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that the proposed hours of operation for a Walgreens at Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41 are the most intensive except for the 24-hour operation at Bee Ridge Road; that the Walgreens listed are not located close to residential; that delaying second reading of the ordinance to discuss with the petitioner hours of operation similar to those at other Walgreens locations should be considered. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that court action resulted from litigation regarding proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840; and asked for the rights the petitioners have at this time regarding a change in the hours of operations. City Attorney Taylor stated that the petitioners have the prerogative to proffer and/or consider changes in the hours of operation; that the Commission cannot demand a change in the hours of operation. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission is required to accept the proposed ordinance as set forth when reviewed by the Court if the proffer set forth by the petitioner, which would further mitigate impacts to the neighborhood, is not accepted; that he is not willing to delay action. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, Attorney Merrill is requested to come before the Commission and express the petitioners' position. William Merrill, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, representing. Olympia Development Group, Inc., and BVP Associates, came before the Commission and stated that the petitioner is not willing to proffer additional changes in the hours of operation at this time; that 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. would be the maximum hours of operation; that the hours of operation of the Walgreens referenced most likely are not the result of zoning restrictions; that the Walgreens at Stickney Point Road has a 24- hour operation; that the petitioners have proffered a change in the hours of operation as a conciliatory measure towards the neighborhood; that the Commission's acceptance or rejection of the proffer is acceptable to the petitioners. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to adopt on second reading proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 with the hours of operation for Phase I modified to reflect 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3945, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1630 MORRILL STREET, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS "THE DUNNEBACKE HOUSE, : AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-HD-03, PETITIONER MIKKI HARTIG REPRE- SENTING TOBEY HOCKETT, JUDITH HOCKETT, JOHN SLATER, BONNIE SLATER AND JAMES SLATER) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) AND 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3946, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 1631 LOMA LINDA STREET, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS "THE RICHARDSON HOUSE," AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-HD-04, PETITIONER MIKKI HARTIG REPRESENTING BERNARD J. VROOM) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) AND 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3947, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 129 EDMONSON AVENUE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS "THE SPRAGUE HOUSE," AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-HD-05, PETITIONER MIKKI HARTIG REPRESENTING CHASE K. BRYON AND THOMAS H. BRYON, JR.) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (1746) through #2 (0313) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommend approval of the following ordinances which designate structures of historical significance: Book 40 Page 13252 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13253 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Ordinance No. 96-3945 designating the structure located at 1630 Morrill Street, historically known as The Dunnebacke House (96-HD-03) Ordinance No. 96-3946 designating the structure located at 1631 Loma Linda Street, historically known as The Richardson House (96-HD-04) Ordinance No. 96-3947 designating the structure located at 129 Edmonson Avenue, historically known as The Sprague House (96-HD-05) Ms. Muldowney stated that the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources recommends approval to the Commission as follows based on criteria set forth in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. Petition No. 96-HD-03 (d) Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style or period, or a method of construction. Petition No. 96-HD-04 (c) Is associated with the life of a person who has played a significant role in our local, state, or national history. (d) Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style or period, or a method of construction. Petition No. 96-HD-05 (a) Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, the State of Florida, or the United States of America. Commissioner Merrill cited the following from Section 15-14(1) of the Zoning Code: A structure is of historic significance if it possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship and association and if it: (a) = (f) Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of the integrity of location associated with Petition No. 96-HD-03, the Dunnebacke House (Ordinance No. 96-3945).. Ms. Muldowney stated that various changes and removal of other historic structures have occurred in the area surrounding the Dunnebacke House; however, the integrity of the subject site has not changed, i.e., the orientation of the building to the street and the way the building is/was entered has remained the same; that the house was built in 1920 and relocated onto the Morrill Street site in 1944; that the 1940s is the period of architectural significance identified by the petitioner. Commissioner Merrill stated that the structure has been viewed; that architectural style of the 1940s is visible, but the structure does not appear as a classical, best-case example; and asked for clarification of the term "embodies" in criterion (d). Ms. Muldowney stated that criteria (d) is included in the City's historic preservation ordinance and is also a criterion used to designate structures to the National Register of Historic Structures; that embodiment requires more than a representation of an architectural style; that the saw-tooth pattern around the porch as a simple decorative element to the building and the simple wood- frame construction throughout the house embody the frame vernacular style which was common to early Florida architecture; that no part of the structure was found inconsistent with the period style; that the structure meets the definition of embodies. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Historic Preservation Designation Report including: Photographs of the structure for Petition No. 96-HD-03, 96-HD-04, and 96-HD-05; The Agenda, Minutes, and Agenda Packet for the Historic Preservation Board Meetings held on April 9, 1996; and the Petitions for historic designation. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearings on proposed Ordinance Nos. 96-3945, 96-3946, and 96-3947 simultaneously. The following people came before the Commission: Mikki Hartig, Historical and Architectural Research Services, came before the Commission and stated that she represents the petitioners on all three proposed ordinances. Ms. Hartig displayed photographs of the Dunnebacke House on the slide projector to explain: the integrity of location, design, Book 40 Page 13254 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13255 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. setting, materials, workmanship, and association with frame vernacular residences; the original and present location of the house; the original windows; the various screen porch designs; the changes to the front wall, which contain wood french doors; and the brick chimney that was reconstructed after 1944. Ms. Hartig stated that the structure constructed in the 1920s was relocated from its original location, but has been located at its present site for over 50 years; that the owners of the Dunnebacke House intend to apply for a special exception to permit an office use in the structure and to accommodate the required parking on the property. Commissioner Merrill referred to one of the photographs displaying the structure and site; and stated that the City encourages historic preservation in neighborhoods; however, the appearance of the Dunnebacke House does not exemplify something which should be preserved. Ms. Hartig stated that the trees and house on site are original; that the integrity of the subject site has not changed; that the integrity of the sites surrounding the subject site has changed. Commissioner Merrill stated that the original location of the house is not known. Ms. Hartig stated that the relocation of the house was not documented; however, the son of the original owner indicated the house was relocated from an orange grove in Bradenton to Morrill Street; that the structure is nominated as an example of architectural style predating the post Boom-Time era. Commissioner Merrill stated that the photograph reflects a poor and unattractive example of construction; and asked how the structure embodies the architectural style of frame vernacular? Ms. Hartig stated that the gabled roof, the metal-roof covering (composite metal shingles), the drop siding, the wood double-hung sashed windows, the elevation set on piers, the brick used on the chimney, the simple rectangular plan, and the full-width front screen porch are all identified with the frame vernacular architectural style. Commissioner Merrill stated that a book entitled Style of American Homes reflects features and excellent examples of particular styles; that embodiment, in his opinion, refers to a good example. Ms. Hartig stated that the Dunnebacke House is similar to other houses in the Laurel Park Neighborhood which have been designated historic under criteria (d). Commissioner Merrill stated that the other houses designated historic in the area are not relevant; that his question specifically related to whether or not the subject structure embodies historic architectural style. Ms. Hartig stated that the term embodies implies elements of a particular architectural style are provided in a structure. Ms. Hartig explained the significance of the Richardson House, Petition No. 96-HD-04, for its association with Ray Richardson, a prominent 1920s realtor who served as a City Commissioner from 1930 to 1932; and displayed various photographs on the slide projector to explain: the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship of craftsman style bungalows built in 1925; the various elevations; the original windows and shutters; the bedroom and bathroom addition; the garage; and the removal of the gingerbread and the rehabilitated porch. Ms. Hartig stated that historic designation of the Richardson House was before the Commission five or six years ago at which time the issue was raised with the modifications to the front porch; that the current owner has removed the victorian front work and returned the porch to its original architectural style. Ms. Hartig displayed various photographs of the Sprague House, Petition No. 96-HD-05, on the slide projector to explain: the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association with the second stage of resort development to year- round residency on Siesta Key; elements of the Cape Cod style and Neo-colonial movement; the various pointed elevations; the original portions of the building and the addition; the interior walls; the influx of summer and semi-permanent residences to the area; and the adjacent, shared garage not requested for historic designation. Ms. Hartig stated that the sprague House is recommended for historic designation based the economic significance of the times, not for architectural significance. Martha Hafner, 1841 Oak Street, representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), stated that the LPNA, when contacted by Ms. Hartig for comment, indicated historic designation of the Dunnebacke House, Petition No. 96-HD-03, and the related special exception petition would not be opposed; that at the time, the LPNA was focused on issues related to Coastal Recovery, Inc.; that subsequently, the LPNA determined historic designation of the Dunnebacke House could not be supported; that the Laurel Park neighborhood has become an attractive area to a variety of people; that numerous petitions for conversion of residential structures to commercial uses have been filed; that petitioners, developers, and City officials seek support from the LPNA; that reviewing on a case-by-case basis historic designations which would allow Book 40 Page 13256 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13257 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. commercial uses in residential homes within or surrounding the Laurel Park neighborhood has become difficult; that the LPNA supported the Towles Court Development; however, Towles Court currently has two buildings devoted entirely to commercial uses, which the LPNA does not support; that the LPNA supports live/work opportunities which benefit and enhance the neighborhood; that buildings entirely devoted to commercial use are vacant and dark during the evening hours, cannot participate in the neighborhood watch program, and do not benefit the neighborhood; that the LPNA is developing a policy for consistency throughout the neighborhood regarding conversion of residential structures; that the LPNA will not support any wholesale conversion from residential to commercial; however, support for percentages of commercial uses in a residential structures is being considered. Ms. Hafner continued that the LPNA intends to speak in favor of Petition No. 96-HD-01 as the petitioner, William Baumgartner, agreed to limit the commercial use to 30% of the entire square- footage of the property. Commissioner Patterson stated that the subject property was visited; that the Dunnebacke House is essentially surrounded by parking lots with virtually no residential properties in close proximity. Ms. Hafner statèd that the Dunnebacke House is an isolated building; however, the property is within the boundaries of the Laurel Park neighborhood; that preventing commercial intrusion from creeping into the neighborhood is the basis for the LPNA's developing an areawide policy; that picking and choosing which properties will be supported and which properties will be opposed place the LPNA in a difficult position. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission picks and chooses uses permitted by a special exception based on the particular circumstances of each propertyi that under the Snyder Decision, the Commission is obligated to take the setting of a property into consideration and determine if a requested use will have negative impacts on surrounding uses; that particularly with historic structures, the fate of the property if an incentive by special exception is not provided to preserve a structure must also be considered; that the square-footage of the structure appears minimal; and asked the future use of the property viewed by the LPNA if historic designation is not approved. Ms. Hafner stated that the Commission has the authority to pick and choose uses; that a live/work use on the property would be ideal. Commissioner Merrill stated that the LPNA would consider commercial use as a percentage of the total square-footage of the subject property but desires residency as a requirement. Ms. Hafner stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone stated that the LPNA has been requesting, a Conservation District; and asked if the concept of a Conservation District would address the needs of people applying for historic designation as well as the needs of the neighborhood. Ms. Hafner stated yes, in concept. Mayor Cardamone requested that the Administration report back on the status of drafting the Conservation District. Devin Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street (34236), stated that foundational issues of a Conservation District are being explored; that research materials have been compiled from which language is being excerpted; that the neighborhood should be categorized into two distinct areas: 1) Osprey Avenue and abutting properties and 2) the side streets, i.e., Morrill, Laurel, and Oak Streets, Ohio Place, and Madison and Columbia Courts; that development of wholesale commercial along Osprey Avenue and development of more relaxed commercial/residential uses on the side streets can be expected based on the physical makeup of the neighborhood; that the concept for a Conservation District envisions suggesting acceptable, commercial uses along Osprey Avenue which will benefit the neighborhood; that the LPNA is composing a survey for potential developers which includes questions such as these: How did you hear about Laurel Park's live/work district? What type of business is being proposed? Will you produce a product or a service? Does your business relate to or enhance the character of Laurel Park? Please indicate why your home-based business would be a plus for Laurel Park; that Laurel Park, as the neighborhood potentially impacted, should benefit from the commercial uses which are permitted to abut residential; that nonresidential uses should be separated into two categories: those dealing directly with the public and those which do not deal directly with the public; that a special exception is an incentive for preserving an historic structure; however, the commercial use which will be requested after historic designation is granted and/or if the property is subsequently sold is often unknown; that a special permit which would expire upon the closing of a business or the sale of the property would be more appropriate. Mr. Rutkowski continued that the subject property could easily and inexpensively be relocated to Towles or Morrill Courts; Mr. Rutkowski cited the following language being considered for the Conservation District: Office uses not dealing directly with the public would be allowed only by special use permit; such office uses would only be allowed on properties abutting other Book 40 Page 13258 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13259 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. properties with similar uses and only in conjunction with a residential use. Mr. Rutkowski stated that substantial restrictions would be imposed on specially permitted uses, i.e., permitting the use only on the first floor or to occupy no more than 50% of the gross area, limiting the number of employees, and requiring the historic and residential character of the building to be maintained. Mr. Rutkowski continued that various commercial uses will not benefit or enhance a residential neighborhood; that for example, a Pool and Spa business neither detracts from or contributes to the neighborhood; that a coffee shop or bicycle repair shop would contribute to the neighborhood; that the LPNA should be afforded an opportunity to suggest the type of commercial uses, signage, dumpster location, and the hours of operation which will be acceptable; that the LPNA will be working diligently with the City Staff on the development of a Conservation District for the Laurel Park neighborhood. Kafi Benz, 13084 Air Gate (34242), stated that issues presented are irrelevant to the historic designation of the Dunnebacke House; that the special exception process is separate from the historic designation process; that the concerns of the neighborhood regarding special exceptions for historically designated properties should be raised during the special exception process; that the Commission should be focusing on the historic designation of three properties; that the Historic Preservation Board approved the structures based on the criteria outlined in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance; that denial of historic designation based on a desire to prevent commercial intrusion into a neighborhood would not be appropriate. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. Ms. Hartig came before the Commission; and stated that she agrees with the statements made by Ms. Benz; that the historic designation request for the Dunnebacke House is not contingent upon special exception approval; that the requests before the Commission tonight are for historic designation of three structures and should be considered as such. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3945 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3945 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3945 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that the input heard during the public hearing indicates the Commission should consider including a live/work component for historic designation prior to the completion of the updated Land Development Regulations (LDRs) or development of a Conservation District. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he agrees with the statement made by Commissioner Patterson and the concerns raised by the LPNA representatives; however, historic designation is the issue being considered by the Commission tonight. Commissioner Dupree stated that input from neighborhood representatives should be encouraged regarding the characteristics of a neighborhood; that any rights granted to the LPNA should also be granted to other neighborhood representatives within the City of Sarasota; that the standards referenced by Mr. Rutkowski are intriguing but could create difficulties for the Commission when varied requests from neighborhoods are received. Commissioner Merrill stated that he has continually objected to the City's provision which permits by special exception commercial uses in historically designated structures; that the primary goal of many petitioners in applying for an historic designation is to obtain a totally commercial use in a residential neighborhood; that people reside above commercial buildings in downtown areas; that some people prefer to live in an urban environment; that the property at 1630 Morrill Street, although surrounded by parking lots, would be viable with some component of live/work which allowed a percentage of pure commercial; that the historic designation and special exception processes are related; therefore, properties for which the petitioner is perceived as requesting historic designation only to obtain commercial zoning are reviewed more closely to verify the intent of historic designation is met; that, in his opinion, historic structures should symbolize the best example of a particular characteristic; that he questions the integrity of location for the property located at 1630 Morrill Street; that the structure also has metal louvers; that the structure is not viewed as historic but rather as a run-down, old building; that a structure he perceives will be used as commercial should exemplify a better example of historic significance and embody the style of the period of time for which the structure has been nominated; that the standards referenced by LPNA representatives are encouraging; that he will not support the motion. Book 40 Page 13260 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13261 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, no; Dupree, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3946 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3946 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3946 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3947 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3947 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3947 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. CITIZENS I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS = RECONSIDERED VOTE TO DENY PETITION NO. 96-SE-02; POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF PETITION NO. 96-SE-02 AND SET REOPENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PETITION NO. 96-HD-02 FOR JULY 1, 1996 (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0315) through (1710) The following people came before the Commission: Stephen Rees, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg; Barbara Best and William Baumgartner, 636 South Osprey Avenue. Attorney Rees stated that he represents Ms. Best and Mr. Baumgartner, petitioners, who appeared before the Commission on May 20, 1996, seeking an historic designation for the property located at 636 South Osprey Avenue (Petition No. 96-HD-01) which the Commission denied; that the Commission discussed his continuance request under Board Actions earlier in this meeting; that he is requesting the Commission rescind the action of denial and reopen the public hearing at a date certain. Attorney Rees continued that he was originally engaged by Ms. Best and Mr. Baumgartner in April 1996 for the purpose of providing a legal opinion as to an issue concerning a special exception which had been filed and was concurrent with an historic designation request approved by the Historic Preservation Board in January 1996 for designation of three structures; that his clients modified the historic designation to exclude the duplex structure and again obtained approval from the Historic Preservation Board in April 1996; therefore, the historic designation for the structures on the property was not before him as an issue when he agreed to representation; that the cost for his appearance at the public hearings was a concern; therefore, his role primarily included reviewing applicable codes and ordinances of the City, reviewing his clients' work product, and providing recommendations as to the manner in which to proceed; that, consequently, his clients proceeded before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) on the special exception request and received a recommendation of approval; that he met with his clients on May 17, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the following: the result of the PBLP consideration, the proceeding scheduled before the Commission on June 3 when the PBLP report would be received and presumably a future hearing on the special exception set for consideration of the Commission's approval or denial of the special exception, and for the first time, the dependency of approval by the Commission on the historic designation as a requirement for approval of the special exception; that his clients were informed that he would not be available to attend the public hearing on Petition No. 96-HD-01; that based on his review of the work product, he advised that the criteria set forth in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance had been met; and therefore, his Clients decided to proceed without representation; that his clients were cautioned to inform the Commission of his representation and inability to attend and to request a continuance so upon his return he could appear and assist in the presentation if for any reason an issue was created or the process became difficult to handle; however, his clients got flustered, confused with the process, and forgot to request the continuance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the five-minute time limit had expired. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he would support providing Attorney Rees, as counsel, with the time allotted for Ms. Best or Mr. Baumgartner. Commissioner Dupree agreed. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would support extending Attorney Rees' speaking time by less than five minutes. Commissioner Patterson stated that she does not support allotting the time of one of the other speakers, but could support providing Attorney Rees the courtesy of finishing. Book 40 Page 13262 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13263 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that Attorney Rees is granted one additional minute to finish his presentation. Attorney Rees stated that the application presented to the Historic Preservation Board and the PBLP identified the structures qualified for historic designation based on the criterion of displaying visible characteristics of a distinctive style, period, or method of construction; that the work product prepared by his clients, which included a very detailed description of the interior, exterior, and physical attributes of the structures and the association with the prairie house form of architectural style, was made part of the record at the Historic Preservation Board and PBLP hearings, and was included in the agenda material for the May 20, 1996, Commission meeting. Mayor Cardamone stated that Ms. Best and Mr. Baumgartner gave a good presentation; that the difficulty the Commission had was with the contingency of the historic designation on approval of the special exception. Commissioner Merrill stated that subsequent to the Commission's denial of the special exception, the president of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) referenced a discussion held with the petitioner; and asked the proffers which had been made by the petitioners. Mr. Baumgartner stated that the proffers were made at the PBLP hearing to limit the commercial use to 30% of the entire square- footage of the property; that 70% of the property would remain residential. Ms. Best stated that she and Mr. Baumgartner reside with her elderly parents; that the 30% commercial use is a maximum which will be achieved in phases as space becomes available; that retaining the residential character of Laurel Park is strongly supported. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to reconsider the denial of Petition No. 96-SE-02. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission's interpretation of the presentation by the petitioners may not have been clear; that the opinions of a neighborhood association are not relevant during consideration of a special exception which is a quasi- judicial process; that basing a decision for reconsideration on the acceptance of a petition by a neighborhood association makes her uncomfortable, but the motion will be supported to provide an opportunity for clarification of issues raised previously by the Commission. Commissioner Merrill stated that a meeting was held between the neighborhood and the petitioners to address concerns identified; that the motion was made to reconsider denial of Petition No. 96-SE-02 based on the proffer made by the petitioners to limit the commercial use to 30%. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion to reconsider the vote taken to deny Petition No. 96-SE-02. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to postpone consideration of Petition No. 96-SE-02 until the July 1, 1996, regular City Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission took no action regarding Petition No. 96-HD-01; therefore, a rescission is not necessary. City Attorney Taylor stated that he recommends reopening and rehearing Petition No. 96-HD-01 to establish a record which properly compiles the facts. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to reopen the public hearing on Petition No. 96-HD-01 at the July 1, 1996, regular City Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Robert Town, President; Daniel Delahaye, Vice Chairman; and Lorrie Muldowney, representing the Historic Preservation Board, 149 Cocoanut Avenue (34236). Mr. Town stated that the Commission's reopening of the public hearing on Petition No. 96-HD-01 is appreciated; that the Historic Preservation Board voted unanimously on two occasions to approve 96-HD-01; that the Board is comprised of highly qualified individuals; that Mr. Delahaye is Vice Chairman of the Board and a senior architectural historian with a background and degree in architecture; that Ms. Muldowney is the Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist who serves as staff to the Board; that the historic designation and special exception processes are two issues which should be addressed separatelyi that the Board focuses on the merits of the property and designation without consideration of potential application for special exception. Book 40 Page 13264 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13265 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone asked if the Historic Preservation Board was aware the historic designation was contingent upon special exception approval? Mr. Town stated that the Board focuses on preserving some of the City's history; that subsequent special exception issues are not considered when votes are taken in favor of or against historic designation of a structure. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board should not ignore the special exception process; that the provision in the City's ordinance allows a petitioner who receives historic designation to apply for a special exception to operate a commercial use in a residential neighborhood; that Commission denial for such uses has become difficult under the quasi-judicial requirements; that the association of the special exception impacts his votes regarding historic designation requests since approval of an historic designation may result in allowing a commercial use at the location. Commissioner Patterson asked Mr. Town's tenure on the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Town stated that his four-year term will expire in November 1996. Commissioner Patterson stated that the individuals on the Historic Preservation Board are dedicated to preserving historic structures remaining in the City; that a special exception, provided as an incentive for people to preserve historic structures, often is viewed by a neighborhood as a sacrifice; that the quasi-judicial nature of the special exception process makes denying commercial use in historically designated structures difficult; and asked if the Board has ever turned down a request for historic designation during Mr. Town's tenure? Mr. Town stated that he has voted against only one petition for historic designation during his tenure on the Board; that the petition concerned a property on Hillview Street which did not meet any of the criteria in the Historic Preservation Ordinance and was unanimously denied by the Board; that requests for historic designation of structures are not numerous; that only about 15 or 20 requests have been denied by the Board over the past 10 years. Commissioner Patterson stated that the potential of obtaining approval for a commercial use is an incentive established to encourage designation of historic structures; that providing the commercial use incentive for a structure which meets the criteria set forth in the ordinance but appears as a poor example of historic significance does not seem appropriate; that the Historic Preservation Board should discuss developing levels of desirability. Mr. Town stated that the special exception process is a great incentive and encourages preservation of historic property; that he had supported the Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would have allowed the creation of conservation districts similar to that being discussed for the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that levels of desirability are needed; that, for example, the property on Hillview Street qualified as a contributing structure but not as an historic structure; that the City has no ordinance to address the various distinctions. Mayor Cardamone asked if the Historic Preservation Board is aware of the special permit provision being discussed for inclusion in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) ? Mr. Town stated yes; that a workshop with the City Staff is being scheduled. Commissioner Merrill stated that the LDRS consultant indicated that a member of the Historic Preservation Board had referenced the special exception process as the only incentive available to encourage application for historic designation; that during his five-year tenure on the City Commission, the special exceptions granted for historic designations have been few; that the incentive is not necessary as restored, attractive historic structures have a strong market value; that incentives are needed to encourage restoration of the boring, ugly structures throughout the City; that the special exception process, which has been an insignificant incentive to many people applying for historic designation, is detrimental to the historic process, creates controversy, is not necessary to save historic buildings, and should be eliminated. Kafi Benz, 13084 Air Gate (34242), stated that historic structures are not necessarily attractive; that the structures are characteristic of a particular period of time or the former property of someone very important in the history of the community; that, for example, Abraham Lincoln's cabin may not be considered attractive and would not meet code requirements. Ms. Benz continued that she is involved with Lorrie Muldowney coordinating an historic designation public awareness brochure that the Historic Alliance has received grant funding to publish; that the issue of incentives has been discussed during meetings with City and County Staffs; that the brochure will explain the requirements and process undertaken and indicate special exceptions may be granted with Commission approval. Ms. Benz further stated that she attended the Historic Preservation Board meeting at which Petition No. 96-HD-01 was reviewed; that the Book 40 Page 13266 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13267 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Commission received misleading information at the May 20, 1996, public hearing; that a speaker implied a second doorway was recently added to the entrance of the structure; that based on the Historic Preservation Board discussion, the doorway has been part of the structure for many years and the floor plan is based on two- door front accessi that additions should be clearly delineated and not blend into the historic structure; therefore, the handicapped ramp would not deter from the historic significance of the structure; that the changes to the porch can be documented; that the only windows essential to the structure which were changed are located on the porch; that the referenced details should be taken into consideration when the Commission reopens the public hearing for 96-HD-01 on July 1, 1996. Martha Hafner, 1841 Oak Street (34236), deferred from speaking. Lucinda Brazel, 908 Myrtle Street (34234), stated that she is appearing against the advise of her attorney who is licensed but does not reside in Florida; that Mayor Cardamone is respectable; that the remaining Commissioners have not been supportive regarding her police harassment complaint reported to the Commission on April 15, 1996; that numerous attempts were made to obtain the report of the police investigation which was purportedly conducted in December 1995; that the report finally received was dated May 1996; that the report should have been dated December 1995; that Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, discussed a resolve with her but reported otherwise to the Commission on April 16, 1996; that Police Chief Jolly has turned her complaint of police harassment into a racial issue; that the man is not competent to be a Police Chief; that her report of the incidents has been written; that her attorney has forwarded copies of the her report and a copy of the Police Chief's report to Jesse Jackson, the NAACP in Washington, D.C., the American Civil Liberties Union, the City Commission, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Ms. Brazel continued that Friday evening a City police vehicle bumped the rear of her vehicle. Ms. Brazel further stated that discussions were held with Commissioner Dupree on three occasions; that her brother's name and phone number was provided to Commissioner Dupree as a contact in case something happened to her as a result of the police harassment. Commissioner Dupree stated that is correct. Ms. Brazel stated that the phone number was be kept confidential; however, Commissioner Dupree provided City Manager Sollenberger with her brother's name and phone number; that City Manager Sollenberger, in turn, wrote a memorandum to the Police Chief Jolly requesting an investigation of her brother; that she has a copy of the memorandum. City Manager Sollenberger stated that no such memorandum exists; that he was not aware Ms. Brazel had a brother; that a citizen stating the Police Chief is incompetent should not be permitted to continue speaking before the Commission; that Gordon Jolly is extremely competent; that Police Chief Jolly has scheduled two appointments to meet with Ms. Brazel; that Ms. Brazel has not kept either appointment; that Ms. Brazel has made a number of allegations which have not been substantiated. Ms. Brazel stated that she has no respect for or a desire to meet with Police Chief Jolly. Mayor Cardamone stated that a person making allegations before a public body in a public forum should be prepared to follow-through with an obligation to meet with the Police Chief and attempt to reach a resolve; that failure to do so has placed the Commission in an awkward position; that a malfunctioning answering machine was reached when an attempt was made to return phone calls received from Ms. Brazel. City Attorney Taylor stated that Ms. Brazel has made similar presentations on more than one occasion; that reference was made to representation by legal counsel; and recommended Ms. Brazel's attorney contact him and the issue be treated as the claim which it apparently is becoming. Mayor Cardamone stated that Ms. Brazel is encouraged to have her attorney contact City Attorney Taylor if she intends to carry this issue further. The Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:32 p.m. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT = DESIGN THEME SELECTION; DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO REEVALUATE AND REFINE PROCESS AND RETURN TO COMMISSION WITH NEXT PHASE (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (1710) through #3 (0188) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the Administration has prepared recommendations regarding the roles of the City's Aesthetic Task Team, the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture, and the Gulf Coast Chapter of American Institute of Architects (AIA) relative to the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement design theme; that the Administration spoke individually with each of the seven Aesthetic Task Team members, Charles Kuykendall, the Architect whose design was chosen by the Commission, Book 40 Page 13268 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13269 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. representatives of the AIA, the Foundation, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and interested citizens; that the recommendation is based upon their collective input. Mr. Daughters continued that Mr. Kuykendall provided the Administration the credentials of Dean Van Landuyt, a structural aesthetics designer, employed bby the Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT) who has designed several segmental box bridges and is considered an expert in the field; that this designer suggests the City build a coalition with the FDOT's consulting engineers; that the project's structural engineers must be involved throughout the design phase due to the continuously evolving nature of the aesthetics design process; that TDOT has given authorization for the designer, who is very interested, to work with the City. Mr. Daughters further stated that a letter, dated May 20, 1996, from Nan Plessas, representing the Foundation, informed that the Foundation will neither take a position nor offer criticism but will provide participatory support and possibly finance an exceptional architectural consultant; that FDOT must comply with the legal requirements of the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act before contracting with another consultant; that FDOT will not pay another design consultant's fee as no justification exists to terminate Kunde, sprecher and Associates (KSA), FDOT's design consultant; that the City also must comply with the requirements of the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act before hiring consultants in engineering or architecture. Mr. Daughters stated that the recommended process consolidates the concept of a charette, an intensive group planning effort in open format used primarily by architects to elicit creative solutions, and the partnering process, commonly used during construction projects; that FDOT's history of partnering will encourage State acceptance of the process; that each participating individual signs a morally binding agreement which commits the partnership to channel decisions towards a common goal; that partnering is very successful in achieving a quality product in the adversarial atmosphere prevalent during construction projects; that the Task Team, the AIA, the Foundation, FDOT and consultants, the Commission, and the public will be invited to participate; that the recommendation adopts a charette/partnering process to be realized within the framework of one or two meetings; that an essential component is a strong, neutral facilitator or coordinator who will organize the principals, prevent the commandeering of the process by any one individual or group, and assure realization of a common goal; that the charette fosters positive feelings of involvement by providing a brainstorming method of generating and prioritizing ideas; that the perception of a design created by a group facilitates community acceptance; that the Administration recommends approval of the aesthetic design selection process. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if Staff has identified a facilitator? Mr. Daughters stated no. Mayor Cardamone asked for Claritication of FDOT's refusal to contract a bridge designer? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT cannot contract with a consultant other than KSA outside the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act process which mandates advertising for the services, receiving proposals or qualifications, and selecting the consultant based on qualifications. Mayor Cardamone asked if the pre-existing consultant is the basis for the complicated process? Mr. Daughters stated that all government agencies are constrained by Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act requirements; that FDOT perceives no requisite to contract another firm as the KSA staff has an architect experienced in structural engineering; that no reason exists to terminate the current FDOT consultant who will work with the charette or individual who develops the theme selected by the City; that conformity to the design theme is sustained throughout the structural design process by means of constant revision. Mayor Cardamone asked if FDOT will accept a design but not the architect responsible? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT will accept the architect in the capacity of coordinating and communicating the project, but will pay no money. Commissioner Patterson asked if FDOT will reimburse an AIA member selected by the City? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT will accept input from the architect and receive clarification of the theme throughout process, but will reimburse no fee. Mayor Cardamone asked if FDOT expects the designer to surrender a design to the State and receive no payment? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Mayor Cardamone asked if an architect would consider participating under these circumstances? Mr. Daughters stated that the purpose of a charette is to decrease individual authorship and increase group authorship of a design. Book 40 Page 13270 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13271 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that the segmental box structural system originated as an individual concept and the exclusion of the designer appears unusual. Mr. Daughters stated that the charette will include FDOT's consultants who will contribute input from the inception of the process. Commissioner Dupree asked what directive or supervisory authority will be wielded by FDOT? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT will function as another member participating in the charette and will be responsible for detailed design of the construction drawings after the theme is developed. Commissioner Dupree asked if FDOT will have final approval of the collaborative result? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Mayor Cardamone asked if FDOT is honor bound to abide by the rules of the charette and the partnering agreement? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT will be bound by the partnering agreement. Mr. Daughters stated that a strong facilitator will make the process successful as the community is already represented by a design consultant hired by FDOT. Mayor Cardamone asked who will choose the facilitator? Mr. Daughters stated that the Foundation may share the cost with the City or pay the cost in full. Mayor Cardamone asked if FDOT will participate in the selection of a facilitator? Mr. Daughters stated that the issue has not been addressed. Mayor Cardamone stated that FDOT should share the cost of the facilitator. Mr. Daughters stated that a strong message of intent will be sent if the City pays for the facilitator. Mayor Cardamone stated that the City's strong interest is evident. Mr. Daughters stated that a large expenditure is not required; that money spent by FDOT on consultants is money deducted from the cost of construction of the bridge; that FDOT has a limited amount of funds to spend on the bridge. Mayor Cardamone stated that amount fluctuates from $20 million to $28 million. Commissioner Patterson stated that a facilitator cannot be arbitrarily chosen and must possess the capacity to design a bridge independently; and asked if a process equivalent to a Request for Proposal (RFP) is necessary? Mr. Daughters stated that a similar process will occur if the facilitator is an engineer, architect or landscape architect; that a candidate can also be chosen who possesses leadership qualities. Commissioner Patterson stated that the concept of design by committee raises a concern regarding the quality of the final product; that a skilled bridge designer, commissioned by the City, can accept input from a group and make the necessary design modifications to receive majority acceptance; and asked how much time is needed to choose a candidate? Mr. Daughters stated that two weeks are required to choose a facilitator following Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act guidelines. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the charette process enables a design professional to gain consensus by receiving input from a variety of people; that a similarly intensive process produced a redevelopment plan which has since come to fruition when the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) was conducted in 1983; that the facilitator role can be defined in two ways: 1) a facilitator strong in communications skills who will lead the process while the FDOT creates the design, 2) an independent designer who will act as a facilitator whose design concept is implemented by FDOT; that the FDOT consultant whose previous design was rejected was told to avoid creation of a segmental box bridge; that Mr. Van Landuyt advises that engineering requirements may necessitate ongoing changes in the bridge design which could generate additional expense or personality conflicts; that additional consultation should be undertaken with FDOT to facilitate a collegial relationship with an outside consultant; that the City must decide if the designer will be FDOT or independent; that the letter from the Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation, copied to the Governor, provided FDOT with impetus to cooperate with the City; that the City is asked to decide between the segmental box or beam and girder structural systems by September 1996. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the charette/partnering process is the key to building the bridge properly and the strong facilitator is the key to administrating the charette properly; that a facilitator must possess engineering/design talent, strong management skills directed towards group interaction, and an Book 40 Page 13272 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13273 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. objective focus; and asked if the process would be uncomplicated by relinquishing the search for a facilitator to the Foundation which is not bound by the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that the key to a successful charette is a leader with experience in constructing segmental box bridges; that the desired spacing of the columns dictates the segmental box structural system; that a person whose strength is communication skills will lose control of a room full of ideas; that a designer who understands the segmental box structural system will display pictures illustrating variations on the theme; that the Foundation may feel the choices are too restricted to provide any room for excellence in architecture; that a facilitator must be chosen before his support is given. Mayor Cardamone stated that construction of a segmental box structural system should not be a foregone conclusion; that a beautiful bridge was built in Daytona, Florida, which is approximately the same length as that proposed for Sarasota; that the distance of the body of water spanned in Daytona is not known; that the two land ends of the Sarasota bridge could be very different than what has been proposed in the past; that Sarasota's bridge requires a 65 foot clearance; however, the bridge designed by FDOT had a 74 foot road bed above the mean tide mark; that a segmental box bridge will require a considerably higher bridge road bed to achieve a 65-foot clearance; that questions remain to be answered prior to choosing the segmental box structural system, as the grade may change and the span of the higher bridge is unknown. Mr. Daughters stated that research shows that the beam and girder and segmental box structural systems fulfill the criteria of cost; that the space between columns thickens when the columns are spaced further apart. Mayor Cardamone asked how the bridge lands on the mainland side? Mr. Daughters stated that only one side is controlled by the 5% maximum grade or touchdown point which must extend farther as the bridge is to be positioned off-center. Commissioner Patterson asked how far the touchdown point must extend? Mr. Daughters stated that factual information cannot be given without an in-depth analysis. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a similar bridge design to that of the Daytona bridge referenced earlier is desirable. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City must decide if the segmental box structural system is the proper choice; that answers must be provided before the decision can be made. Mayor Cardamone stated that the purpose of the charette was assumed to make the decision regarding the structural system; that the charette's purpose must be defined; and asked for clarification of the proper terminology to reference the style of bridge? Mr. Daughters stated that the proper term is "type of structural system". Mayor Cardamone stated that the charette must determine the type of structural system and then the style of bridge on the structural system; and asked if such direction is an acceptable starting point? Mr. Daughters stated that was the intent of the recommendation. Commissioner Patterson asked if R/UDAT was a group of highly skilled architects and planners? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the R/UDAT process brought in experts from throughout the country who worked with a variety of citizens over several days. Commissioner Patterson asked if the citizens were local AIA members? City Manager Sollenberger stated that photographs exist of local citizens participating in the R/UDAT. Commissioner Patterson asked if the R/UDAT process was similar to that being recommended by the Administration? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that the only charette she has witnessed was the beginning of the project at Hillview Street and Osprey Avenue; that citizens gathered around a number of different tables led by a skilled architect generated conclusive action; that nothing will be accomplished without a talented facilitator in charge; that FDOT must be willing to work with a person selected and financed by the Foundation or the City; that an individual skilled exclusively in group coordination will not be adequate. Commissioner Merrill stated that all questions could have been answered and all debate and hypothetical limited if a facilitator with bridge design experience had been present at this meeting; that the Commission should decide if the structural system will be beam and girder or segmental box before the charette process begins; that a suspension bridge or other options could be raised Book 40 Page 13274 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13275 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. if the Commission does not decide upon a structural system prior to initiating the charette. Mayor Cardamone stated that there was a consensus of the Commission for the Administration to base a review and reevaluation of the process after hearing the Commission's comments and to return to the Commission with the next stage of the process. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act can be legally and ethically avoided if the City Attorney concurs that an outside agency such as the Foundation can choose the facilitator; and asked if the City is legally permitted to share the cost of the facilitator if the Foundation becomes the selecting agency? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the presentation was excellent. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: STATUS RE: NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AT THE 888 /HYATT/QUAY BASIN = DIRECTED CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE NOISE ORDINANCE WITH MEASURABLE STANDARDS WHICH WILL PASS COURT MUSTER AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF AFFECTED RESIDENTS; DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ADVISE WHEN THE NOISE ORDINANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AT THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1996 (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (0189) through (2990) John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, came before the Commission and stated that a Management Response Team, comprised of himself, City Attorney Taylor, Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, Police Captains Stan Carter and Al Hogle, and Police Lieutenants Jeff Palmer, Al Woodle, and Tom Laracey was established to examine concerns raised by residents at the Quay Basin regarding: 1) noise from Sarasota Quay, 2) boat noise in the Quay basin, and 3) crime in the area. Director Lewis continued that the Management Response Team has met with representatives from 888 Boulevard of the Arts, the condominiums on El Vernona Avenue, and Dolphin Tower; that the following items were discussed: Ban Teen Night. Director Lewis stated that the city Attorney's Office will assist in preparing an enforceable ordinance requiring Teen Nights to close at 11 p.m.; that the ordinance may require the sponsors of Teen Night to hire an appropriate number of public/private security personnel on site when the activities close; that the City Attorney's Office has been asked to review City Code Section 5-18 which is based on Chapter 562.48, Florida Statutes, and to draft an ordinance to prohibit underage persons from legally attending bars where alcohol beverages are served while permitting underage persons to attend events at hotels and restaurants; that a meeting has been scheduled with the Quay management on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, at 10 a.m.i that the City Attorney's Office has been asked to file an injunction against any additional Teen Nights at the nightclub In Extremis until a full judicial hearing can be scheduled; that a meeting was held with the attorney for In Extremis on Thursday, May 30, 1996, and an outline presented listing actions necessary to abate the nuisances caused to residents of the condominiums on El Vernona Avenue; that In Extremis was informed that activities of Teen Night patrons will be videotaped by the Police and maintained as a record for future legal action; that a zero-tolerance policy will be enforced at and around the Quay; that the midnight shift Police Commander will provide a report to the Police Chief the day following each Teen Night; that the Police Chief will provide weekly written notice to In Extremis management which will be retained in the file for use in any future legal action against the Quay or In Extremis; that the Police will pursue all available legal actions including filing suit for injunction relief if the management of In Extremis does not take conclusive action to abate the ongoing problems; that two supervisors and ten Police Officers were assigned to the location on Teen Night, June 2nd, at which a low turnout was noted as many schools are still in session; that the first test will be Teen Night, Sunday, May 9th; that In Extremis has been asked to consider limiting the number of teens and to reduce the hours of Teen Night; that no response has been forthcoming. Require appropriate security to eliminate concerns by residents of condominiums on El Vernona Avenue. Director Lewis stated that residents of the condominiums on El Vernona Avenue have endured serious public safety concerns including crowd dispersal problems created by depositing 1,100 to 2,000 children at 1 or 2 a.m. into the parking lot; that the City Attorney has been asked to review Statewide ordinances requiring establishments to hire Police Officers based on a certain ratio; that In Extremis and the Quay will be required to increase the number of off-duty Police Officers from five Police Officers and one Supervisor to ten Police Officers and two Supervisors. Prohibit outdoor amplified music. Director Lewis stated that the City Attorney's Office will be asked to draft an noise ordinance banning outdoor amplified music in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District to address the problems experienced by residents of Dolphin Tower; that the record demonstrates complaints from Dolphin Tower have skyrocketed since the Lemon Coast Bar began amplifying music. Director Lewis stated that the following items were also discussed: Book 40 Page 13276 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13277 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. 1. Requiring mufflers on boats - The Police Department recommends enforcement of Section 327.65, Florida Statutes, which requires that every vessel be effectively muffled in a reasonable manner. The State Attorney's Office will give input concerning prosecution of the statute. 2. Developing a noise ordinance with meter reading rather than a subjective ordinance - The validity of two meter reading tests done at the Quay was not accepted by the Quay residents. The Engineering and General Services Departments are preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a certified firm to take noise level readings and explain the results. 3. Establishing a Police sub-station in the Quay area The Management Response team eliminated the proposal as too expensive and unnecessary if other recommendations are successful. 4. Eliminating outdoor dining in the area - The Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement will review and provide a recommendation. 5. Increasing fines for violations - The Management Response Team is reviewing City noise ordinances and the amount of fines and will make a recommendation. 6. Moving the no-wake zone further out - The Management Response Team recommends moving the no-wake zone further out into the Basin at the Quay and strictly enforcing the ban. 7. Installing video cameras at the end of the seawall and adding a decibel meter to record violations - This recommendation has been eliminated as too costly and unnecessary if other recommendations and enforcement activities are successful. 8. Reviewing the ordinance for outdoor activities for possible revisions The Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement and the City Attorney's Office will give an opinion on what outdoor activities are permitted at the Quay and what is prohibited. Commissioner Patterson stated that interior music from structures improperly designed to dampen sound will cause a disturbance; that a unique situation exists in the Quay area because water carries sound to the proximity of the residences; and asked if a reasonable limit on noise decibel level can be established outside the Quay? Director Lewis stated that solving the noise problem at the Quay is more difficult because the music is generated from inside rather than outside amplified music; that revolving doors may keep the sound inside; that the Management Response Team addressed the decibel measurements to enforce a noise ordinance; that the City's earlier noise ordinance was changed from decibel to general prohibitions because of court rulings and because decibel readings require meters, certification of meters and Police Officers trained to use the equipment; that the City Attorney's research demonstrates the lack of success of the "loud-and-raucous" standard spelled out by the Supreme Court; that loud and raucous is determined differently by citizens impacted by the noise, night after night, month after month than by a Police Officer who responds to a call and listens to the sound for three to five minutes. Commissioner Patterson stated that a decibel level must be chosen as the loud and raucous standard does not relieve the problem; that very loud bands play music inside enclosed structures in large cities which may be faintly heard on the street but never disturbs the sleep of residents in nearby apartments; that the difficulty of measuring decibels must not prevent the City from determining what constitutes a reasonable amount of sound emanating from within a structure. Director Lewis stated that the Management Response Team is investigating solutions; that the residents are in consensus that the sound is acceptable when the doors and windows of the Quay establishments are closed. Commissioner Dupree stated that closed doors do not prevent the beat-thumping sounds from disturbing the neighbors. Director Lewis stated that the RFP will address the noise in all ranges, including the beat-thumping sounds; that the beat-thumping sounds is included in the criteria for determining disturbance. Commissioner Merrill asked if the noise ordinance targeting outdoor amplified music at the Lemon Coast Bar will affect the Main Street Depot? Director Lewis stated that all outside amplified music will be banned. Commissioner Merrill asked if special events can receive permitting? Director Lewis stated that special exceptions can be written into the noise ordinance. Book 40 Page 13278 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13279 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked what action would be taken if music is played inside a tent? Director Lewis stated that Code Entorcement would have to make that determination. Commissioner Merrill stated that all amplified music should not be banned in the C-CBD Zone District; that a determined decibel level can be enforced without a universal ban. The following people came before the Commission: Peter Hickman, 101 South Gulfstream Avenue, #16K (34236). President, Dolphin Tower Condominium Association, stated that the noise from Lemon Coast Bar requires the enforcement of a Citywide noise ordinance to control excessive noise; that the source of noise is primarily from the Lemon Coast Bar which plays loud and raucous music outdoors on Friday and Saturday until 2 or 3 a.m.; that the residents of Dolphin Tower who live in the units which face the City filed complaints; that the problem started six months earlier when the Lemon Coast Bar opened; that Dolphin Tower is eager to help with decibel measurements; that the Directors of Dolphin Tower recognize the need to revitalize Downtown and the great progress which has been made; that raucous music in a residential area may affect property values. Eleanor Harris, 101 South Gulfstream Avenue (34236), stated that she has lived in an apartment on the penthouse floor facing Palm Avenue at the Dolphin Tower for nine years; that the Lemon Coast Bar plays loud music outdoors until 2 a.m making sleep difficult even with the windows closed; that nothing of this nature was experienced during years of living in the heart of New York City; that help is sought to enforce an existing noise ordinance which bars noise after 10 p.m.; that property values and desirability of living on the Bayfront will diminish if no action is taken. Georgiana Strauss, 101 South Gulfstream #14I (34236), stated that no objection is raised to the occasional amplified music from the Main Street Depot; that music from the Lemon Coast Bar can be distinctly heard on the fourteenth floor, southeast corner of Dolphin Tower; that the City is urging people to move into Downtown and yet on Friday and Saturday nights, the loud, raucous music and the beat-thumping sounds can be heard until 2 a.m.; i that a new noise ordinance is needed either to ban outdoor amplified music or to require entertainment establishments to be enclosed within four walls. Joyce Mintzer, Dolphin Tower (34236), stated that no previous problem ever compared to the loud music coming from Lemon Coast Bar on Fridays and Saturdays until 2 a.m.; that amplified music is additionally played on Wednesday and Thursday nights and Sunday from noon until 9 or 10 p.m.; that a print-out of telephone complaints was obtained from the Police Department indicates that 24 noise complaints were filed in all of 1995; that since January 1996, 46 of the 79 noise complaints filed with the Police Department referenced outdoor amplified music from the Lemon Coast Bar and 14 from the Main Street Depot; that residents pay a City tax for the luxury of living Downtown; that businesses have the right to make money but not to conduct business operations in a manner which robs the residents of their rights; that business owners on Palm Avenue are following suit by leaving establishment doors open to attract customers with loud music; that appreciation is extended to Director Lewis and Mayor Cardamone for their efforts. Philip M. Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34230) President, Marina Suites Association, stated that the Commission heard complaints of residents of Lawrence Point, 888 and 988 Boulevard of the Arts, Marina Suites, and the condominiums on El Vernona Avenue at the Regular Commission Meeting of April 8, 1996; that Director Lewis was asked to develop a long-term, permanent and a short-term, immediate solution to the problems; that the short-term solution has not been forthcoming; that two months of horrible noise have been endured culminating in a situation so severe during Memorial Day Weekend, that the Police were forced to use mace and arrest people in large numbers on Sunday, May 26; that Anthony's was contacted, a meeting held with the comptroller, and agreement reached to work collectively to solve the problems; that Police Officers who responded to the noise complaint exhibited such hostility that the City Manager was telephoned; that the noise ordinance passed two years ago states that open-air facilities will not be open between 12 midnight and 6 a.m., with the provision that the City may further restrict hours of operation and specifically addresses the C-CBD Zone District; that citizens have been told for two years that residential properties in the Hyatt/Quay Basin do not abut or are situated across an intervening street or alley; that the Quay directly abuts the condominiums on El Vernona Avenue and the property to the south is zoned Multiple-Family Residential (RMF-7); that Lawrence Point directly abuts the Quay and Condo on the Bay is across a canal; that the City will not enforce the noise ordinance because of a technicality involving a six-foot-high masonry wall; that residents never objected to outdoor dining which ceases at the Quay by 11 p.m.; that outdoor drinking until 2 and 3 a.m. accompanied by loud voices and property damage is the problem; that during a two-part trial at which the now-defunct Caribbean Zone was found guilty, the Judge asked the residents to keep a record of the noise; that the Caribbean Zone installed an internal meter and started playing the music at 85 decibels, diminishing the music in relation to telephone complaints; that although Anthony's has placed baffles on the windows, the band plays so loudly that the music comes through the baffles and the open doors. Book 40 Page 13280 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13281 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Tony Roberts, 424 El Vernona Avenue (34236), Board Member, El Vernona Condominium Association, stated that the alley which serves as the driveway for the residents of the condominiums on El Vernona Avenue and garbage pick-up for the City was ten deep with cars during Teen Night on May 26, 1996; that one In Extremis patron avoided the crush in the alley by driving between the condominium buildings on El Vernona Avenue; that the City should allow residents of condominiums on El Vernona Avenue to block the alley; that a detailed plan is required to control entering and exiting traffic; that crowd dispersal would be facilitated if. the large parking area underneath the Quay building were utilized on Teen Nights. Mayor Cardamone asked if any driveway or sidewalk exists between the buildings on El Vernona Avenue? Mr. Roberts stated that no driveway exists; that the driver drove between the buildings. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the beat-thumping. sounds heard while visiting Mr. Dasher's home is highly irritating; that the Commission must give authority to Staff to resolve the problem; and asked what can be done to eliminate the abuses without violating the rights of the businesses? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City can prosecute any City ordinance or State law which is violated; that clear and convincing proof must be presented to the Judge to obtain the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; that the new program instituted by the Management Response Team will document the evidence necessary for an assured outcome; that the City must directly contact the owners of the establishments, represented by legal counsel; that the Teen night dilemma must be addressed with a request for compliance under severe and strict terms; that the club owners will have the opportunity to execute immediate corrective actions and the City will have time to document the club owners' response; that the Zoning Code devised one noise ordinance which addressed complaints with a decibel reading and then a second ordinance which relied on the loud and raucous standard; that the Court stated that the City must choose one or the other because the two systems are mutually exclusive; that the City adopted the loud and raucous noise standard beçause the decibel system requires adequate machines which are properly calibrated and extensive training of Police Officers; that the appropriate equipment and calibrations were not evident to the Court when the city tried to prosecute violations of the noise ordinance; that the City must present testimony to support a noise ordinance which no Court will be able to overturn; that a consultant will help establish appropriate noise level standards to protect properties as unique as those in the Hyatt/Quay Basin. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the lack of results in addressing the noise problem is a source of shame; that his vote will support whatever the Administration requires to eliminate the violations; and asked what resources will be required to supervise the Lemon Coast Bar and Quay problems? Director Lewis stated that the RFP will provide the necessary technical background to enforce any ordinance brought before the Commission; that the noise ordinance banning outdoor amplified music will solve the problem at Dolphin Tower; that the Quay and the nightclub will be asked to effect solutions to eliminate problems at the condominiums on El Vernona Avenue; that Staff will develop a traffic study for the El Vernona alley and the Quay; that establishments should be required to install meters to monitor the music levels; that the establishments will be offered the choice to police themselves or face prosecution from the Police Department and the City Attorney. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the outdoor amplified music can be immediately stopped? Director Lewis stated that the noise ordinance gives the Police the authority to issue a citation but not to stop the music; that confiscating the amplification equipment as evidence is a desirable alternative. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the Police have authority to confiscate the equipment? Director Lewis stated that the City Attorney's Office has been asked to confirm the right of the Police to confiscate the equipment as evidence. Commissioner Patterson stated that a citizen reported that on Sunday, May 26, 1996, twelve Police Officers attempted to control one thousand children generating chaos in the Quay area; that neither Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, nor Director Lewis expressed surprise at the report; that an entire shift of Police Officers assigned to control children outside of one nightclub is an egregious waste of the taxpayers' money; that support is promised to any noise ordinance which will resolve the problem; that annoyance is expressed at the unresponsiveness of the newly-opened Lemon Coast Bar as their very existence was conferred by special permission granted by the City's Board of Adjustment (BOA) i that she may have to exclude herself from voting on the issue because the operator of the Main Street Depot is a client of her husband; that New York City controls the sound of music from disturbing residents; that the residents' complaints have not been fully addressed in the past; that the large number of complaints from Mr. Dasher, in the capacity of President of Marina Suites Association, has conveyed the false Book 40 Page 13282 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13283 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. impression to the Police that only one person is irritated; that the Commission must address the steadily deteriorating problem; that Staff is asked to move rapidly on the noise ordinances. Commissioner Dupree stated that the noise ordinance on the books make clear that the law will not tolerate unbearable noise in any neighborhood; that the failure of the Police to enforce the existing noise ordinance is incomprehensible; that citizens registering complaints about being startled awake by boom boxes in cars report that warnings and citations given by Police do not stop the intrusions; and asked why violators are not arrested in accordance with the noise ordinances? Mayor Cardamone stated that personal experience confirms the intrusive manner in which the Lemon Coast Bar disturbed the entire Downtown area with loud music on the previous Sunday; that a beautiful Sunday in the city should enable the residents to open their windows; that a neighbor of hers regularly has a party on Friday nights and the Police are regularly and anonymously called to tell them to be quiet; that such abuse of neighbors is unconscionable; that the area in the vicinity of the Lemon Coast Bar was blanketed with motorcycles from outside the City; that residents who pay the bills for the City are being abused by people from outside; that a noise ordinance must be drafted immediately as noise from the Lemon Coast Bar is impacting both the Dolphin Tower and the Laurel Park neighborhood. City Attorney Taylor stated that an noise ordinance protecting the C-CBD Zone District will be easier to prepare than one for the establishments at the Quay which do not produce outside music; that complications will arise with provisions for exceptions to accommodate business and events exempt from regulation. Mayor Cardamone stated that amplified music does not eliminate music played outdoors. City Attorney Taylor stated that no problem is foreseen for a musician to play a guitar outdoors. Mayor Cardamone stated that outdoor music is part of the ambience of downtown districts and, to some extent, at the Main Street Depot. Commissioner Patterson stated that the music at Main Street Depot is always amplified; that a noise ordinance shutting down the Main Street Depot creates mixed feelings. Mayor Cardamone stated that a noise ordinance should solve the problem without closing down all the businesses. Commissioner Patterson asked the zoning of the Main Street Depot? City Attorney Taylor stated that he would verify the zoning of the Main Street Depot. Mayor Cardamone stated that a noise ordinance could be drafted which restricts music to certain hours. City Attorney Taylor stated that the first part of the corrective action will be taken with input and assistance from the Management Response Team. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chamber at 10:25 p.m. Commissioner Dupree stated that the noise ordinance appears to address amplification as well as other noises; that the City may already have the necessary rules in place. City Attorney Taylor stated that the noise ordinance addresses the standard of loud and raucous noise which is difficult to enforce because each individual interprets loud and raucous differently; that the Management Response Team wants to eliminate that standard and return to the decibel readings. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that an environment to protect the residents' rights should be provided; that the Staff previously prepared the strongest noise ordinance to regulate adult facilities; that the City Attorney is directed to draft the strongest possible noise ordinance which will pass court muster to protect the rights of the residents who are affected. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to direct the City Attorney to draft the strongest possible noise ordinance incorporating measurable standards which will pass court muster and protect the rights of the residents who are affected by the noise; that the City Attorney will report the date at which the noise ordinance will be presented to the Commission at the regular Commission meeting of June 17, 1996. Commissioner Patterson stated that the intent is not to shut down the entire Downtown district. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the intent of the motion is to protect the rights of the residents. Mayor Cardamone stated that a public hearing will be held on any ordinance brought to the table; and asked if the noise ordinance will refer to amplified music? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the motion targets anything which violates the rights of the residents. Book 40 Page 13284 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13285 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Dupree stated that clarification is requested to specify any ordinance brought to the table will have standards which can be measured. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the importance of measurement is inherent in the instructions and the understanding of the City Attorney; that the City cannot enforce what cannot be measured. Mayor Cardamone stated that several ordinances may be necessary to solve the problems; and asked if the motion is understood? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone asked if further input will be torthcoming? Director Lewis stated that Staff will proceed in a timely manner; that appreciation is extended to the Commission and to the citizens who have become involved. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: GUIDING PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND TARGETS FOR ACTION = ADOPTED; APPROVED DISPLAYING THE GUIDING PRINCIPALS, GOALS, AND TARGETS FOR ACTION IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (2991) through (3245) City Manager Sollenberger stated that a Commission consensus was reached after two workshops and a Neighborhood Forum led by a facilitator to adopt the following guiding principles and goals which are expected to create an environment in which urban amenities blend with small town living and feeling: A A safe place for people. Viable neighborhoods working together as a community. An attractive and clean city - aesthetics. A financially responsible city government providing high quality services and infrastructure. Economic vitality - healthy business and job opportunities. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the targets for action in 1997 are divided into top and high priority; that the top priority targets for action are: 1) Neighborhood preservation/ revitalization strategy, 2) Public safety needs assessment and plan, 3) Code enforcement program: enhancement, and 4) North and East development plan; that the high priority targets for action are: 5) Annexation strategy and action plan, 6) Drainage services and funding, 7) Aesthetic plan, and 8) Traffic: direction. City Manager Sollenberger recommended approval of a motion to adopt the guiding principles, goals, and targets for action; that a team development process will implement the goals according to a plan devised by the Neighborhood Forum in an intensive, brainstorming session; that the Administration recommends graphic presentation of the items in the Commission Chambers. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt the guiding principles, goals, and targets for action. Mayor Cardamone stated that the list of the goals should be given to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for publication; that the language should be elaborated and refined prior to public display. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 0): : Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: RECISION RE: ADOPTED MOTION OF APRIL 15, 1996, TO PLACE A CHARTER AMENDMENT WITH THREE OPTIONS ON THE BALLOT: 1) RETAINING THE EXISTING SYSTEM, 2) CHANGING TO A MAYOR ELECTED TO A TWO-YEAR TERM, AND 3) CHANGING TO A MAYOR ELECTED TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM = RESCINDED; APPROVED PLACING ON THE SEPTEMBER BALLOT AN OPTION OF AN ELECTED, FOUR-YEAR "WEAK" MAYOR; DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO REFINE THE DEFINITION OF "WEAK" MAYOR FOR INCLUSION IN THE REFERENDUM (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (3246) through #4 (0191) Commissioner Patterson stated that disagreement was expressed whether an elected mayor should serve a two-year or a four-year term; therefore, a decision was reached at April 15, 1996, regular Commission meeting to place both the four-year and two-year mayoral term options on the September ballot; that on May 30, 1996, the City Commission held a joint workshop with the Charter Review Committee (CRC); that the CRC expressed strong concern that the voters will be confused by two options; that notice was given of her intent to make to rescind the April 15 vote. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chamber at 10:36. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to rescind the motion of April 15, 1996, to place both two-year and four-year mayoral term options on the September ballot. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that placing both the two-year and four- year mayoral term options on the ballot was previously supported; Book 40 Page 13286 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13287 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. however, a strongly unified position by the Commission should be presented to the public. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to place the option of an elected, four-year "weak" mayor on the September ballot as an alternative to retaining the existing rotational mayoral system. Commissioner Patterson stated that the definition of "weak" mayor should be refined. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that refinement of the term "weak" must indicate that the mayor will take one of the at-large seats and have no greater authority in voting than any other Commissioner; that the commission/manager form of government will be retained; that Staff should present specific verbiage on the ballot preceded by distinct information, publicly disseminated to the citizenry prior to the September vote. Commissioner Dupree stated that retaining the existing system is supported; that the public must be apprised of the right to retain the existing system with a rotational mayor. Commissioner Patterson stated that the CRC initially reached a split decision regarding an elected mayor and instead recommended presenting the electorate with a choice; that a recent elected mayor referendum in Gainesville received 75% approval of the electorate; that an elected mayor option will most likely pass if included on the ballot. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission has the option of excluding a change in form of government from the ballot; that long-term residents prefer the rotational mayor system; however, questions are constantly received from the public for clarification of the system. Commissioner Dupree stated that continuity does not lie in the Mayor but rather in the City Manager. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that an elected mayor option is pre- determined to pass; that the Commission determines whether or not the referendum is included on the ballot. Commissioner Patterson stated that a supporting vote will be cast; that although the choice of a four-year elected mayor is not a momentous occasion in the history of the City, a better system may result. Mayor Cardamone stated that a supporting vote will be cast for the four-year elected mayor due to constant public demand for the rationale of the rotational system; that many people have requested an elected mayor; that she will advocate retaining the present system if asked to address the subject in a public forum; that the four-year mayoral term is preferred; that time spent campaigning during office will be continuous if a mayor is elected to a two- year term. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion to place the option of a four-year, elected, "weak" mayor on the ballot as an alternative to retaining the existing, rotational mayor system. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the classical description of "weak" mayor versus "strong" mayor is more accurately defined by describing one as a legislative mayor and the other as an administrative mayor. Mayor Cardamone stated that "legislative" implies no special powers. Commissioner Patterson stated that some legislative mayors have a veto power. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objections, the Administration is directed to refine the definition of a "weak" mayor for inclusion in the referendum for the September ballot. 16. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATIONS - APPROVED THE DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.. WAY STREETSCAPE PROJECT AS THE CITY OF SARASOTA'S CDBG PROJECT; AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE THE 1996 ACTION PLAN AND TO ADVERTISE THE PLAN FOR CITIZENS' COMMENTS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (0191) through (0456) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing & Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that the City of Sarasota Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement for Fiscal Year 1996 is $691,000, a slight reduction from the $723,000 received for Fiscal Year 1995; that a total of ten applications, with requests totaling $1,684,750, were submitted; that three projects are exclusively eligible for City entitlement funds based on project location and named beneficiaries of the project; that seven applications have been submitted for consideration by both the City and County; that the eligible applications have been evaluated by Housing and Community Development Staff and by the Administration; that $450,000 is recommended to fund the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way Streetscape Project which will provide for Book 40 Page 13288 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13289 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. street, sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting improvements to the street between the City limits to the east and Coconut Avenue to the west. Mr. Hadsell continued that the Commission is requested to select the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way Streetscape Project as the City's 1996 CDBG project and to direct Staff to prepare the 1996 Action Plan, advertise the Plan for the required 30-day comment period; that a public hearing on the item will be scheduled for July 15, 1996. Commissioner Patterson stated that CDBG funds are received for City and for County projects. Mr. Hadsell stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson asked for clarification regarding the request for funding submitted by the All Faiths Food Bank. Mr. Hadsell stated that the application submitted by the All Faiths Food Bank is eligible for funding through both the City and the County; that the applications recommended for County CDBG funding will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on June 4, 1996; that the County Administrator is recommending $100,000 of County CDBG funding be allocated for the All Faiths Food Bank. Vice Mayor Pillot asked for the process undertaken to reach the recommendation made regarding the City's CDBG funds? Mr. Hadsell stated that the applications were reviewed by Staff and with representatives of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to determine eligibility of the projects; that Staff discussed the eligible projects with City Manager Sollenberger; that the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way Streetscape Project was the project selected for recommendation. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the overall benefit to the City was considered? Mr. Hadsell stated yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would support allocating City funds toward the All Faiths Food Bank. Commissioner Patterson stated that she also could support allocating City funds toward the All Faiths Food Bank if an appropriate funding source is identified. Mr. Hadsell stated that a reduction in the funding allocated for the Streetscape Project would be necessary if the Commission were to allocate funding for the All Faiths Food Bank. Commissioner Dupree stated that reducing the funding allocated for the Streetscape Project would not be acceptable. Commissioner Patterson stated that taking funding from the Streetscape Project and replacing that funding with ad valorem dollars would not be acceptable. Mayor Cardamone stated that the County's providing funding for the All Faiths Food Bank is appropriate; that the CDBG funding is received on a Countywide basis; that the City's entitlement should be allocated toward a City project. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City has aided business districts in other areas, i.e., St. Armands, the Downtown, and Hillview/Osprey Avenue; that funding was allocated for improvements to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way last year with the intent of acquiring an Economic Development Administration Grant for further improvements; that the grant process has become cumbersome and timeconsuming; that the Administration has determined more timely improvements are necessary to achieve a maximum impact and thus recommend approval of CDBG funding for the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way Streetscape Project. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and seconded by Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve the selection of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way Streetscape Project as the City's 1996 CDBG project, to direct Staff to prepare the 1996 Action Plan based on the CDBG selection, and to advertise the plan for the required 30-day comment period. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 17. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: CIVIL SERVICE/SENERAL PERSONNEL BOARD - REAPPOINTED REVEREND DESI ECHOLES; APPOINTED BERNARD SALMON (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (0462) through (0560) Mayor Cardamone stated that the Civil Service/Ceneral Personnel Board terms of Reverend Desi Echoles, Clinton Jones, and James Smith expired in May; that Reverend Echoles has expressed an interest in reappointment; that Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith are not eligible for reappointment. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to reappoint Reverend Desi Echoles to the Civil Service/Ceneral Personnel Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that there are three applicants, two of whom reside in the City of Sarasota, both of whom are well- qualified. Book 40 Page 13290 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13291 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to nominate Daniel Major and Bernard Salmon for appointment on the Civil Service/General Personnel Board. Mayor Cardamone stated that she has been informed Daniel Major intends to relocate residence out of the City limits; and requested that the appointment of Mr. Major be delayed until verification can be obtained regarding future residency. Commissioner Patterson stated that she agrees; that she had been informed Mr. Major was moving to Manatee County. The motion was amended by the maker, Vice Mayor Pillot, with consent of the seconder, Commissioner Patterson, striking the name Daniel Major. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion to appoint Bernard Salmon to the Civil Service/General Personnel Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 18. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK REGARDING YOUTH ACTIVITIES; ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A REPORT AT THE JUNE 5, 1996, SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING STATE FUNDING OFFERED FOR THE SIESTA DRIVE DRAINAGE PROJECT; COMMENTS OR PHONE CALL FROM LUCINDA BRAZEL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (0560) through (0939) COMMISSIONER DUPREE: A. requested that the City Administration initiate development of programs and offer activities, i.e., on- the-job training, career development, recreational outlets, and other meaningful activities in which young adults and teenagers can participate over the summer and during the following school year. Mayor Cardamone stated that a list of programs available to youths should be compiled and eligible funding for youth-related programs identified. Commissioner Dupree stated that information on recreational activities is being compiled; that several businesses have expressed interest in participating in an on-the-job training program; that some businesses expressed interest in providing transportation for youths to access recreational activities available during the summer; that perhaps, David May, President, Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, could be contacted for input. Commissioner Patterson stated that Thomas Gaul, Superintendent of Schools, indicated during a recent conversation that an enhanced tutoring program within the school system is being pursued. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will prepare a report. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that the issue of utilizing $250,000 of the remaining State funds from the Bay Crossing Study to grant design and construction funds to the City of Sarasota for construction of the Siesta Drive Drainage Project was discussed at the last Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting; that the next MPO meeting is scheduled prior to the next regular City Commission meeting; and requested a recommendation from the Administration regarding the feasibility of the funding offered accomplishing the improvements necessary. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, has reviewed the issue; that a brief report and an Administration's recommendation will be provided at the onset of the June 5, 1996, special City Commission meeting. VICE MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that he will not be in attendance at the June 17, 1996, regular City Commission meeting; that on June 10, 1996, he and his wife, Beverly, are leaving for a seven- day trip to Athens, Greece, to participate in a ballroom dance competition and show celebrating anticipated entry of ballroom dance into the olympics; that the following eight days will be spent in Italy. MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. requested that the Administration report back regarding the commercial uss in Towles Court. B. stated that continued presentations by Lucinda Brazel are of concern. City Attorney Taylor stated that the entire story has not been presented; that Ms. Brazel has become accusatory and confronting at the Commission table; that with Commission endorsement the issue can be treated as a claim against the City for mistreatment which could at some future point equate to settlement for damages; that the issue could be addressed through the attorney Ms. Brazel indicated she has engaged. Book 40 Page 13292 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13293 06/03/96 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission could inform Ms. Brazel that the issue can no longer be addressed at the Commission table because of the circumstances? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that numerous phone calls received from Ms. Brazel have been returned; however, she has had no personal conversations with Ms. Brazel; that messages have been left on an answering machine. City Attorney Taylor stated that Ms. Brazel has been dealt with and dismissed by other enforcement agencies which leads him to believe the issues being raised are for a potential claim. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission can deny Ms. Brazel input under Citizens' Input Concerning City Topics? City Attorney Taylor stated that Ms. Brazel could be informed that legal counsel has advised her issue should be treated as a claim against the City; and that all comments should be referred to the City Attorney through her directly or through her attorney. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he agrees with the recommendation put forth by city Attorney Taylor. Commissioner Dupree asked if personal telephone calls should also be referred to the City Attorney? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. 19. OTHER MATTERS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (0939) through (0979) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the public hearing on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been scheduled as a special City Commission meeting on June 5, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. 20. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (0980) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of June 3, 1996, at 11:12 p.m. lelet, Lave MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR FA ATTEST: Ritl e Robensen BILLY EGROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Chays