Book 35 Page 9297 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1993 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson; Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone, and David Merrill; city Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor. ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10, of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 7:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0000) through (0475) Mayor Pillot briefly reviewed the process of the meeting and stated that the City Manager will give opening comments and then a staff report will be given; that the petitioners will have 15 minutes to present their proposals; that the Commissioners may ask questions at the end of the 15 minutes; that the public hearing will then be opened and closed; that the petitioner will have an opportunity for 5 minutes of closing comments or rebuttal; and that the City Manager will then give his recommendation; that the City Commission will then discuss the matter as necessary; that the Commission will then take action on the matter. City Manager Sollenberger stated that approximately 1,027 responses for saving the John Ringling Towers (JRT) had been received; that there were 76 responses for tearing it down; that also a letter has been received from Mr. George Percy, the State Preservation Officer, which was addressed to Attorney George Dietz; and that he passes this along to the Commissioners for their information. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that a recap of the evolution of this process dating back to the fall of 1990 to current times was drafted. Ms. Robinson read the recap of events letter. (A copy of this letter is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk.) The recommendations outlined by Staff were stated in the recap letter as follows: Adopt the Historic Preservation Board recommendation on first reading with the following modifications: 1. Limit the application of the Zoning Code amendment to parcels of at least 10 acres. 2. In the event of demolition of the historic hotel, the approved site and development plan continues in full force and effect provided a building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the approval of the site and development plan and at the discretion of the City Commission, the site and development plan may be extended for two (2) additional years. 3. Add a provision that the Planning Board shall hold a public hearing on any site and development plan. 4. Add a provision that allows the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) to review the design, location and appearance of any new structures located within 200 feet of the historic hotel for compatibility with the historic hotel. 5. Add a provision that the Planning Board shall consider any new structures above the existing permitted height for compatibility with adjoining properties. 6. In addition, the City Commission adopts a preservation incentive ordinance on first reading, second reading should be contingent upon execution of a three-party agreement between the city, the property owner, and the Foundation, which would provide for a letter of credit to assure that the bank or its successors as property owner would demolish the JRT in the event it is declared an unsafe structure. Mayor Pillot stated that there is more than one party involved in this petition; that the petition request will be represented by the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc. (JRCF); that the Huntington Bank, the owners, and many others are equally involved; and that they will be represented at this time by the JRCF. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3693, AMENDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS OF AT LEAST 10 ACRES INCLUDING A HISTORIC HOTEL, AS SET FORTH HEREIN; SPECIFYING REGULATIONS AS TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE SAME PARCEL AS THE HISTORIC HOTEL AS AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE THE HOTEL; REQUIRING AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF INCENTIVES THAT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE HISTORIC HOTEL BE PLACED IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY NEW Book 35 Page 9298 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9299 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME SITE AS THE HISTORIC HOTEL, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - NO ACTION TAKEN OR PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3694, AMENDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS INCLUDING A HISTORIC HOTEL, AS SET FORTH HEREIN; SPECIFYING REGULATIONS AS TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE SAME PARCEL AS THE HISTORIC HOTEL AS AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC HOTEL; PROVIDING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF SAID INCENTIVE SHALL NOT CAUSE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE DENSITY WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED IF THE ENTIRE PARCEL WERE VACANT LAND; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH CHANGES (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0475) through #4 (0555) Mr. Don Smally, President of the John Ringling Centre Foundation (JRCF); Ms. Deborah Dart, Vice President; and Board Members Mr. Jim Clark; Mr. M. R. (Rod) Macon; and Mr. Ron Royal, representing the John Ringling Centre Foundation (JRCF), came before the Commission. Mr. Smally stated that the remaining JRCF Board members are present in the audience; that approximately two years ago a three-way partnership between the JRCF, Huntington Bank (through a subsidiary of First Sunset Development, Inc.), and the City of Sarasota was created; that the JRCF was to review the building for its structural integrity and the feasibility of creating a cultural center; that if both proved favorable, the JRCF was to develop a plan to use the John Ringling Towers (JRT) and Bickel House, to raise the funds necessary for their restorations, and to identify broad community support for the project. Mr. Smally continued that the City of Sarasota was to provide appropriate incentives to First Sunset Development, Inc. and the JRCF to accomplish the project without expending city funds; that the JRCF is asking the Commission to accept the Ordinance (93-3694) as recommended by the City's Historical Preservation Board. Mr. Macon stated that the JRCF is prepared to and capable of successfully restoring and operating the John Ringling Towers (JRT) and Bickel House; that over the past year the JRCF has grown; that a project planning and construction committee is in place; that there are detailed plans for the stabilization of the JRT and it is the intention of the JRCF to implement these plans this summer; that the grant request for fund assistance for the stabilization was recently approved by the State of Florida; that the construction committee has also developed preliminary plans for the entire restoration project; that a program development committee is in place; that a marketing and promotion committee exists; that there are 250 volunteers actively working within the JRCF and several hundred more volunteers willing to help; that there is a fund development committee which has developed a six-part campaign plan to raise the $3 million to completely restore the exterior and first two floors of the JRT; that necessary funding will come from national foundations, State grants, local foundations, corporate contributions, a major gifts campaign, and a grass roots campaign. Mr. Ron Royal stated that he has been a contractor for 33 years; that the first question was the feasibility of restoration; that a registered architect with the Division of Historical Resources of the State of Florida reported conclusively that despite vandalism and water damage that the JRT is in reasonably good condition and is consistent with other historic buildings of its age, type and construction that have been rehabilitated by both public and private sectors; that damaged finishes can readily be repaired or replicated; that the localized structural deterioration appears to be repairable by routine measures. Mr. Royal continued that a structural engineering firm was hired to examine the structure; that the report summary states that their preliminary opinion is that it is feasible to restore the existing structure; that the primary structural framework and foundations have and still are performing as intended; that it is the JRCF's conclusion that the building is not only restorable, but it is also economical and less costly to restore than to build a new one of similar size and height; that thorough cost estimates have been received; and that the JRCF feels that they have a very economical and feasible package for the JRT. Mr. Clark stated that he has been willing to donate his services in the negotiation process and in developing a successful project; that First Sunset Development, Inc. and the JRCF has at all times considered the interests of the community; that one of the interests very important to the JRCF is their legal right to the property; that the JRCF cannot raise funds until a legal right to acquire the property is obtained; that First Sunset Development, Inc. is concerned with addressing the issues in the eventual outcome of the property if it is transferred to the JRCF and the funds are not raised. Mr. Clark continued that First Sunset Development, Inc. has been looking for a certain incentive to transfer the property (2 acres), the Bickel House, and the JRT to the JRCF, along with $500,000; that those issues have been dealt with and a series of agreements have been arrived at as follows: that by December 7, 1993 there are contributions of $1 million dollars; Book 35 Page 9300 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9301 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. that the lease will then be extended until December 7, 1994 at which time the JRCF is required to raise $3 million dollars in contributions and also the City would approve the development plan for First Sunset Development, Inc.; that, if those occur, the property will be transferred to the JRCF and First Sunset Development, Inc. will donate $500,000 towards the project; that an attempt to address all of the issues has been made. Mr. Clark also stated that, with regard to traffic, this property is presently zoned for 281 multi-family units; that the JRCF is asking First Sunset Development, Inc. to give the JRCF 2 acres and asking the City to transfer the existing zoning density to the back 9 acres and raise the height limitations for the buildings; that the JRCF is not asking for additional density; that the only additional density perhaps would be the historical use of the JRT itself. Ms. Dart stated that more than a building is being saved; that this is the City's heritage and the most significant historic landmark; that the JRT is strategically located; that the community is being given an opportunity to control and benefit from its reuse; that if the project is allowed to move forward, the community will retain its link with the past and gain an exceptional asset; that one of the finest historic resources will serve as a multi-purpose facility, a compatible mixing of public, private and not for profit uses, and expand and enhance the City's artistic, educational, tourism and not for profit communities. Ms. Dart continued that new jobs will be created, new businesses formed, the tax base increased, tourism stimulated, and a genuine sense of community pride will develop; that it is a treasure the City can realize; that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the State of Florida Department of Historic Resources, the Florida House of Representatives Committee on Tourism and Economic Development, the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources, the Committee of 100, and thousands of local business, organizations and individuals support this proposed project. Ms. Dart stated further that one single incentive, an increase in the height for new construction, to the owner of the Ringling tract will allow the JRCF the opportunity to move forward. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that approximately 67 people have signed up to speak; that he will time the speakers and each speaker will be advised when there is one minute remaining in the five minutes that they have to speak. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission has been asked to waive the 5 minute rule for a number of people who will not speak if a representative may be permitted to have 15 minutes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a motion and a second, without debate, is required to suspend the rules. On motion of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to suspend the rules if the two unidentified persons would acknowledge their names and withdraw their requests to speak. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following individuals came before the Commission: Mr. John Meshad, Attorney, 1390 Main Street, representing One Watergate, stated that he was the phantom that requested the waiver of the rule; that he represents the LeChateau and the Watergate Condominium Associations; and that it was felt that it would be beneficial for him to speak rather than the 20 other representatives. Attorney Meshad continued that it is unfortunate that the homeowners are being cast as being opposed to the renovation of the JRT and Bickel House; that this is not true; that the issue is the price being extracted by the bank that they disagree with; that he thinks that is important since the petitioner, through his team, made a point of trying to establish what they are now entitled to do; that the City lost a lawsuit in the past that allowed essentially for this property to be developed on 8.53 acres with 383 units with 427 rooms; that 383 multi-family units have kitchens; that the 8.53 acres would have only been allowed to develop at 213 units had there not been a lawsuit; that the City immediately amended its Zoning Code to plug the loophole but the court order required the City to approve the site plan; that through the negotiation process 383 units was the end result. Attorney Meshad stated further that since that time a building permit was pulled for 203 units; that the City Commission has on 15 occasions granted 15 extensions to the variances, site plans, and building permits; that the City had 15 opportunities to win the lawsuit by denying one of those requests and the property owner would have been back to the existing Code; that he is curious why Book 35 Page 9302 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9303 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. the City Commission would, after going through a lawsuit to defend its zoning, take a position, amend the Code to substantiate that position, and ignore 15 opportunities to win the lawsuit by rolling back the density and didn't do it; that it is his belief that, currently, because there is only a building permit for 203 units, that the Commission has continued to extend, the site plan for 383 units with 427 sleeping rooms is no longer valid. Attorney Meshad continued that under the existing Historic Preservation (HP) Code and proposed amendments, the entire parcel may be developed as if the historic structures did not exist; that the bank is being relieved of approximately $7 to $10 million dollars of renovation costs; that if the structures were entirely demolished and not have the benefit of the transferred density, then they would at least have to demolish the existing buildings for an estimated $1 million dollars; that the bank is being relieved from restoration or demolition costs; that the bank will be vested with the density of 383 units acquired through a lawsuit; that they are being given a height of 180 feet; that if they were told to stay with 75 feet they could develop this in a marketable condition for about 225 units. Attorney Meshad also stated that he is not arguing about the 69 units; that First Sunset Development, Inc. is willing to pay $500,000 for only 69 more units; that that is not why everyone is here; that everyone is here because First Sunset Development, Inc. can't build some 200 units without this height variance; that the units would not be bankable, financeable, or sellable; that he is not talking about 69 units, but a lot more; that the issue is that First Sunset Development, Inc. cannot market approximately 200 units without the height variance. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved that Attorney Meshad, who is representing a number of people, be allowed an additional three minutes to conclude his remarks. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Attorney Meshad also stated that he is not faulting the bank for wishing to maximize their profit; that the bank made a bad loan to begin with, to the wrong group of people; that the Commission has constantly been asked to bail them out; that taking $10 million out of this community will have a negative effect on other community charities; that he sees a scenario in which the bank receives the height and the additional units, the bank stays vested, and avoids the concurrency issue which is major at that intersection, the bank avoids the restoration and/or demolition costs; that pursuant to the JRCF not raising the money, the JRCF might return to the Commission with a vacant piece of land and pressure the Commission to do something with it; that the neighbors lose, the city loses, and the bank wins; and that that is a huge price. Attorney Meshad continued that to relieve the bank of the restoration and/or demolition, they would be thrilled to give the JRCF this 2 acres and have 383 multi-family units, which is more than they could build on the full 11.72 acres at 25 units per acre; and that there are questions that he believes need to be answered: 1. If the JRT is not restored, who demolishes, what is the time frame, what is the guarantee that the demolition monies will be available? 2. If the JRT is restored, who funds the maintenance since it is known that this is not a profitable, private venture? 3. Are the uses of the Bickel House and the JRT limited, and to what? 4. What happens when the revised site plan is processed? Are all or some of the units vested as to concurrency and zoning? They have asked for 563 rooms. How many multi-family units/how many hotel or ACLFS (Adult Congregate Living Facility)? 5. Will additional land be added to take advantage of the 18 story height limitation? 6. What about concurrency on the Bickel House and the JRT? How can they ever be deemed concurrent when the bank has priority on available capacity? If the historic structures are exempted and given concurrency, does that go into the basket first prior to review of the developer's request? Does that become added to the traffic? 7. What affect will there be on the charities? 8. What about the Bickel House restoration monies? Attorney Meshad stated that the Bank should be told that it is a great idea to give the property away but the price is too high; that if the permits are to be renewed, a condition of that renewal should be to make this conveyance. Ms. Anna Fogelman, 1320 N. Lakeshore Drive, stated that she is eight years old and in the second grade at Pine View School; that she likes the JRT because she imagines it as a beautiful hotel where famous people go; that she likes the architecture very much; Book 35 Page 9304 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9305 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. that the man who designed John Ringling's home also designed the JRT. Ms. Fogelman continued that the towers should be saved because there is not much history left in the City; and that it would be really cool if the towers were saved; that all the children in her class signed a petition to save the towers. Ms. Jacqueline McGinty, 3478 Bekman Place, stated that she wished to read a poem that will express her feelings on the JRT. Ms. McGinty read a poem about the beauty of the JRT. Ms. Angela Salvatore, Novus Street, stated that she is a sophomore at Sarasota High School; that the JRT is a symbol of Sarasota's history; that effort needs to be placed into preserving what is left; that this building was very special to Sarasota at one time and should not be torn down; and asked that the JRT be restored. Ms. Jackie Metcalf, 2411 Teal Avenue, stated that she is in the eighth grade at Sarasota Middle School; that she would like to see the JRT restored because it is part of Sarasota's history; that she is a third generation Sarasotan; that over the years a great deal of Sarasota's past has been destroyed; that the JRT gives the City the opportunity to stop this tragic demise of the City's past; and asked that the Commission please save the JRT. Ms. Sara Dart, 1765 Cherokee Drive, stated that she is an eight year old student at Pine View School; that the Dart family moved to Sarasota in the 1920s; that her father, grandparents, and great grandparents all enjoyed the hotel; that the building is her heritage; that it reminds everyone what Sarasota was like; that the building was there when the neighbors moved there and it should be there when they move away. Mr. Charles 0. Murphy, President of and representing South Trust Bank, 240 N. Washington Boulevard, stated that the JRCF's proposal to reuse the JRT is a $10 million dollar restoration and redevelopment project for downtown Sarasota; that it will have a tremendous impact on downtown Sarasota in the next decade; that the multiplier effect will bring 258 new jobs, over $5 million increase in local household incomes, and demand for other goods and services in the community; that this project is in keeping with the City's efforts to revitalize and should be encouraged to move forward; that property values and the City's tax base will be increased; that private investment will be stimulated and new businesses formed; that community pride and quality of life will be enhanced; and that tourism will be stimulated. Mr. Douglas Laird, representing ASAP, Inc.. 402 Murillo Drive, Nokomis, Florida, stated that he is interested in seeing the JRT rehabilitated; that he has volunteered with the JRCF and there are thousands of people that feel the same way; that there are thousands of petition sheets he has to present to the Commission; that if the JRCF is unsuccessful in assembling the funds it will have cost nothing except their time and effort; that no public or municipal monies will be spent or jeopardized. Mr. Laird continued that the City fathers will be exhibiting an enormously powerful message regardless of the outcome of the JRT; that moving forward with the project will make everyone proud to say they are from Sarasota. Ms. Judy Ball, President, and Bob Town, Vice President and representing the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation, 1859 Lincoln Drive, came before the Commission. Ms. Ball stated that they are pleased to speak in support of the Historic Preservation Board's recommendations for the Code amendments to the Historic Preservation section of the Zoning Code; that the Alliance has been actively involved in the rehabilitation of the JRT since 1985. Mr. Town stated that the Alliance feels that this is the window of opportunity for the JRT; that the State of Florida has called this one of the most important historic restoration projects in Florida; that it is a good candidate for a grant; that the National Trust has called the JRT one of the most significant public and private partnership preservation projects in the nation; that he was told tonight that this issue was on national public radio; that this rehabilitation project can make a significant contribution to the downtown revitalization and the local economy as a cultural arts and historic center. Ms. Ball continued that their 350 member organization has pledged $100 per member to the JRT restoration project; that they have committed to major fund raising efforts; that this is their number one restoration project for the next three years; and that, as a not-for-profit organization, they may apply for grants and special funding for the towers; that they have committed a number of hours of volunteer effort to this project; and that they urge the Commission to adopt this amendment. Mrs. Jean Kern, Pine View School, stated that she has worked as a Sarasota County public school teacher for 16 years; that the students and her teaching colleagues view the JRT as a slice of Sarasota's life, and a testimony to uniqueness and a link with yesterday in its history and architecture; that to demolish it would mean a loss for everyone; that nothing of equal importance can stand it its place; and urged the Commission to save the towers and make a gift to the future. Book 35 Page 9306 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9307 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Mr. Doug Driscoll, 1511 Hudson Road, Venice, Florida, stated that he is the principal of the Venice Design Group in Venice, Florida, that he is also the Vice Chairman of the Venice Historical Commission and the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Driscoll stated that downtown Sarasota is important to the entire county; that the aftermath of abandonment of central business cores has been clearly demonstrated many times in the past decade; that architectural heritage is very important to most communities, particularly landmark and institutional buildings such as the JRT; that, as a citizen of Sarasota County, he urges the Commission to seriously consider this proposal. Mr. William Korp, 333 S. Tamiami Trail, Venice, Florida, stated that a similar situation took place in Venice regarding the Kentucky Military Institute (KMI) building and the Venice Hotel which was about to be torn down; that a proposal was made to amend the Zoning Code to permit a mixed use of commercial on the ground floor and apartments on the second floor; that there was much opposition to expansion of the commercial section of Venice; that there was not sufficient parking; that the density was greater than the current Zoning Code permitted; that the City Council voted in favor of it; and that today those two buildings set the tone for that entire area of downtown Venice. Mr. John Schaub, III, 1938 Ringling Boulevard, stated that there is a well thought out fund-raising plan for this project; that the old Windsor Hotel in Americas, Georgia, was recently restored and now is the key building in that city; that there are funds available in the Sarasota community to fund this project and fund-raising should not be a problem. Ms. Nancy Wilke, representing the Historic Preservation Coalition. 653 S. Orange Avenue, stated that the Historic Preservation Coalition is composed of 11 city and county preservation organizations and approximately 1,500 members; that the Coalition was formed to work towards enhancing and sustaining the cultural life of the community through the preservation of historic resources; that the Coalition supports the plan of the JRCF to rehabilitate the JRT and accepts the recommendation of the City Historic Preservation Board; and that they would like the Commission to implement their goal to protect historic resources for community benefit. Ms. Valerie Rowe, 4141 Augustine Avenue, stated that she is a teacher at Southside School; that all of the 4th and 5th graders would appreciate the Commission holding onto the JRT for them; that they would not contemplate destroying a building that is history to them; that the Towers holds tremendous curiosity for children; and that this is a fabulous opportunity to reuse this building to benefit young people; that she supports the efforts of the JRCF; and that she is submitting numerous postcards from the children in support of this project. Ms. Sandy Slaminko, 1571 Hillview, stated that she and her husband live in the City and own four businesses in the area; that she has been a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation for over 15 years and she has been asked to read their letter written to the Commission. Ms. Slaminko continued that the National Trust for Historic Preservation supports the preservation of the JRT; that the mission of the Trust is to foster an appreciation of the diverse character and meaning of the American cultural heritage and to preserve and revitalize the livability of communities; that the Trust represents the preservation interests of more than 250,000 members nationwide; that the Trust awarded funds for the assessment of nonprofit organizations to determine the need of community initiated development of the JRT; that the study yielded a community wide willingness for participation and backing for the adaptive use of the JRT as a central arts complex; that these results confirmed a May, 1991 consultant's report that a realistic and effective rehabilitation strategy for the JRT must involve a public/private partnership. Ms. Slaminko continued that the City Commission is urged to fulfill its role by allowing what is reasonably needed to make this project move, forward; that the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning Board should come to terms with concessions and agreements necessary to enable the site's long term protection and use; that the National Trust recommends that the City of Sarasota give the JRT every consideration, but ensure a quality project for the community; and that the Commission may request further information from the National Trust. Mr. Mark Smith, AIA, 2846 Riverside Drive, representing the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, stated that he works for Carl Abbott; that the JRT is an important building which deserves attention for preservation; that this building deserves a chance; that there is a series of old photographs on display in the chambers; that there seems to be a tendency to photograph old landmarks, destroy them, then look back upon them in photos as being beautiful; that he asks the Commission to give the JRT a chance. Mr. David Eicher, 4131 Bahia Vista Street, stated that this is a love affair; that the Commission should listen to the people prior to him; that he asks the Commission to please keep the JRT. Mr. Bill Merrill, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, 1830 Lincoln Drive, stated that the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) held a special meeting this evening to discuss specifically the Book 35 Page 9308 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9309 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. recommendations from the City Staff; that the HPB recommendations are concerning the April 22, 1993 memorandum from City Manager David Sollenberger; that the HPB endorses the HPB'S recommended ordinance as drafted by the City Attorney, including Mr. Sollenberger's recommendation Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in his April 22, 1993 memorandum; that, in addition, the HPB supports item No. 4 with the stipulation that adequate criteria be written for the review; that the HPB supports the proposal by Mr. Sollenberger as follows: 1. agree with the recommendation of the HPB's version of the ordinance; 2. agree with item No. 1 of Mr. Sollenberger's memorandum (on page 3 of the recommendations); 3. agree with item No. 2 which is a very good compromise on the issue of building permit; 4. agree with item No. 3; 5. and also support item No. 4, provided there is adequate criteria for review of the item when it returns to the HPB. Mr. Merrill stated that they would also support item No. 6 if that is something the Commission would like to do; that they would recommend that the words, "it is declared an unsafe structure" be deleted and replaced with the words, "the JRCF does not meet the required funding provisions of the agreement between itself and the property owner"; that they do not support item No. 5; that there should not be that limitation on the approval because the Planning Board will already be reviewing any revised site plans or any site plans pursuant to public hearing and pursuant to the stipulation included as item No. 3; Mr. Merrill also stated that finally there is a recommendation, in paragraph 3 of the new language of the HPB ordinance, the second ordinance in the package, that the third paragraph regarding height, the recommendation is that the word "any" on the third line be stricken and the word "the" be added; that after the word "permitted" add the word, "or "built" so that the new language would say, "the maximum height of the new residential structures may be equal to but may not exceed the maximum height permitted or built in the adjacent zone district." Mr. Milton S. Gurvitz, 1111 North Gulf Stream Avenue, stated that a miracle is needed to help the JRT; that he is the 19th person to come before the Commission and he is the first person to speak in opposition; that he lives and works in sight of the JRT; that he has spent over 100 hours examining the area and plans to demonstrate the utter unfeasibility of the bank's offer and the JRCF's acceptance, because what is there is not related to what is being discussed. Mr. Gurvitz stated that there is an example of what the restored JRT would look like in the lobby; that it is not real; that it has been moved back 15 feet from U.S. 41; that there is a sidewalk and trees and unless the building is moved back 15 feet it will not look like that; that the parking lot indicated in the example will not be owned by the JRCF but will be retained by the bank for its own purposesi that there will be no entrance from U.S. 41; that section B will be owned by the bank; that the only entrance will be on First Street. Mr. Gurvitz continued that First Street is very narrow; that there is a very busy restaurant located there; that on Sunday both sides of First Street has cars parked on it; that when the bridge closes traffic is tied up all the way to U.S. 41 and there will be a tremendous gridlock when the traffic backs up; that the JRT will be a white elephant. Ms. Zeta Hayes, 1160 Florida Avenue, stated that she is a native Sarasotan and past resident of the JRT; that a proposed benevolent gift of the JRT has turned into a political nightmare; that a stubborn out of town land developer has put everyone over a barrel; that all Sarasotans should learn a lesson from this confrontation; that all older structures should be kept in good repair throughout their existence; that the City and County of Sarasota should play a protective role in acquiring older landmarks, be responsible for their upkeep, and preserve them for future generations. Ms. Lillian Burns, 555 S. Gulf Stream Avenue, #1501, stated that she urges the Commission's acceptance of the recommendations of the HPB. Mr. Tollyn Twitchell, 1445 Flower Drive, stated that he has been here over 60 years; that his father worked for Dwight Baum in the days when he worked for Mr. Burns and John Ringling; that his family has been here ever since; that he also is an architect; that if this building is demolished, what may replace it may be worse; that this is one of the best historical structures remaining; that money has been raised in the past for the Van Wezel and the Opera House which has not been a problem. Mr. Twitchell stated further that the increased density will create only one more car a couple of times per day which will not significantly affect traffic; that the build up on Longboat Key will affect the traffic; that with regard to the City's long range plans, the Commission may consider eliminating U.S. 41 from 10th Street to U.S. 301, and tying the whole town to the waterfront; that one way of doing this is to build the new bridge at 10th Book 35 Page 9310 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9311 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Street within the next 10 years and land it on Longboat Key; and that he believes that the JRT will not create a traffic problem. Mr. Philip M. Dasher, representing 888, 988, and Marina Suites Condo Associations. 926 Boulevard of the Arts, stated that he represents the condo associations at 888; that one of the problems is the economic viability of the JRT once it is restored and the parking problem; that the Holiday Inn and Denny's restaurant in the vicinity are shy 49 parking spaces; that there are economic problems with The Quay; that the Hyatt Hotel is shy 411 parking spaces; that each proposal by the bank has resulted in less and less land and it is questionable how people will visit and enjoy the JRT; that perhaps the City should have a public referendum and buy the entire parcel. Ms. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that her son was not present when the Commission gave the order to demolish the Lido Casino; that that was her haven as a child; that many were upstaged tonight by the children speaking; that they would like some place for their grandchildren; and asked that the Commission please give the JRT a chance; that there is still plenty of room for discussion to resolve the problems. Mr. Philip C. Zimmerly,1111 Gulf Stream, #1A, stated that he hopes the Commission will consider the history of the JRT in considerable detail; that this process began in 1983 when the entire 11 acres was acquired; that the owners at that time stated they needed more density to preserve the towers; that they were given the density but did not preserve the towers; that the problem with this partnership is that the developer acquires vested rights and everyone else is stuck; that it is not financially feasible unless subsidized by somebody; that the fund-raising project should raise the money; and that he urges the Commission to allow the chance to raise funds but defer vesting any rights until so done. Ms. Berta Lefkovich, 4805 Rilma Avenue, stated that the Planning Board wants to guarantee restoration of the JRT by requiring that money sufficient for restoration be placed in escrow before any concession for height is permitted; and that this is a very important part of the recommendations. Ms. Jeanne Nunn, representing One Watergate 1111 Gulf Stream, stated that a number of artists feel that the JRT cannot be made suitable to be used by them; that they feel the rent would have to be too high in order to provide for maintenance of the building; that such a program would have to be underwritten to succeed; that they feel the rooms would be too small for studios without consolidation of several, which would also increase the rent costs; that the floors would not be strong enough to hold heavy sculpture and printing presses; and that the industrial sized elevator for heavy works of art would take up a great deal of space; that a loading platform will be needed at the back, as well as driveways conducive to traffic of large trucks; that they all prefer ground level studios with cement floor. Ms. Nunn continued that the Arts Council which has been touted as the anchor establishment for the JRT has already moved into new quarters on Fruitville Road; that the Commission should ascertain whether the restoration of the JRT will even serve the purpose for which it is intended. Mr. Jack Barlass, representing One Watergate, 1111 N. Gulf Stream, stated that he has been a Sarasota resident for 17 years; that he is currently the association president of One Watergate; that there are basically four groups here with a common interest; that no experienced real estate person believes that the JRT is an economically feasible enterprise; that the. Commission must ask themselves if the City and its taxpayers should be eventually saddled with maintaining the JRT and the Bickel House; that there is no evidence that a restored JRT or Bickel House will be self-sustaining, any more than the Ringling Museum and Ringling Home and other State treasurers. Mr. Barlass continued that they have no quarrel with restoration or retirement homes, but rather the trade off creating horrendous density and choking traffic; that Cedar Point, First Street, and Sunset are three short streets; that the Commission is being asked to approve adding to the already "zone-busting" density with the addition of more and more; that the proposal calls for more units; that the neighbors should not be the "patsy" for this tradeoff regardless of the purpose of the structure; and that the association respectfully asks the Commission to reject the proposal. Mr. Ernie Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista, stated that he does not see a specific proposal for an ordinance before the Commission tonight; that he does not see which of these ordinances could possibly be voted on tonight because they are not in an order that an ordinance could be voted on; that normally a sector study and determination of the facts is usually undertaken prior to voting on an ordinance; that he strongly recommends that a sector study be taken which speaks to all of the problems that have been referred to; and that the Commission could then arrive at recommendations for requirements to be waived to accomplish the project without subverting the remainder of the Zoning Code; that special exceptions should be made in a finite and defined manner. Mr. Babb continued that the City should provide a method to preserve the structures if the JRCF is unable to secure funding; that one way to do this is to provide a referendum to the city electors and allow them to determine whether this should be undertaken. Book 35 Page 9312 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9313 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Mr. Adam Ouinn, 5424 Duncanwood Drive, stated he is a sophomore at Sarasota High School; that he supports saving the JRT; that cost is not a problem because Sarasota County is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation and it should not be hard to obtain the money; that there would be increased jobs, income, and service fees; that the City should think in terms of long term growth; and that this is a possible economic gold mine. Mr. Quinn continued that people are the electors; that petitions show overwhelming popular support for this project; that no referendum is needed because overwhelming popular support is clearly present; and that he urges the Commission to affirm this proposal. Mr. James M. Boyle, representing Roger Compton, President of Sunset Towers, 1111 N. Gulf Stream Avenue, stated that Mr. Compton is now working with committees regarding the new Ringling Causeway Bridge; that he is speaking for him on this occasion; that, as a resident he strongly objects to the petition of Huntington Bank to further increase the density of their proposed ACLF development; that he also supports the recommendation of the Planning Board; that densities of other local retirement facilities are much less. Mr. Boyle continued that the bank is asking the City to place itself in a lose-lose situation and itself in a win-win situation; that if the JRCF raises enough money to repaint and reroof the JRT and Bickel House, the bank will be free to develop the property with 563 units; that if the JRCF is unable to fully restore the buildings for commercial use, the City and its taxpayers will be stuck with a crumbling eyesore that will raise no taxes but require massive public funding to demolish; that if the JRCF were entirely successful in raising sufficient funds for restoration, the combination of the banks's ACLF and historic building would produce 770 units on 11 acres which would be by far the most densely populated and traffic congested neighborhood in Sarasota; and asked the Commission to please reject the petition. Ms. Roxann Boesin, no address given, representing LeChateau Condominiums, stated that she is president of LeChateau Condominiums; that there are many people who chose to live here because they love Sarasota; that they are not against saving the JRT; that there seems to be a lot of John Ringling in Sarasota already; that the towers was not one of his originals; that it would not be so bad to lose the JRT; that she would rather see the JRT there than another high-rise condominium; that she has a letter written ten years ago by Christy Payne who was and continues to be a prominent Sarasotan. Ms. Boesin continued that Mr. Payne stated that the residents of LeChateau are opposed to zone busting in general; that there are already traffic problems in the area; that she respectfully requests that the Commission not bust the zone; that Mr. Payne's letter applies as much today as it did ten years ago. Vice Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 9:15 p.m. Blinko the Clown, 3099 8th Street, stated that he came in full make-up and regalia because he spent so much time in the JRT; that he was in the Greatest Show on Earth; that he and his wife performed in the Ringling Towers; that he has been to Russia for the State Department and represented Sarasota and the State of Florida; that he was also in Japan for the State Department; that he would not like to see the JRT destroyed; and urged that the JRT be restored and kept for generations to come; that there is much history behind it and a lot of ghosts in the JRT. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:17 p.m. Mr. Greg Best, 130 Loquat Lane, stated that he has some old pictures depicting the John Ringling Hotel; that he was born here in Sarasota; that he has watched the demise of many landmarks; that once it's gone it cannot be brought back; that there will be a building and more traffic regardless of whether the JRT is torn down; that the JRT is one of the few buildings left in the neighborhood that is nice; that this is a major landmark. Mr. John McCarthy, 850 S. School Avenue, stated that he has been involved in the study of Sarasota's history for half of his life; that he is in favor of protecting this particular building; that he remembers the destruction of a number of his favorite buildings in the 1980s; that Sarasota is known primarily for its mediterranean revival style of architecture; that he prefers to call the JRT the mother of all historic structures in Sarasota and perhaps should be viewed as such; that the question here is the preservation of Sarasota's identity; that saving this one building will tie together some of the other smaller historical projects; and that it might heal some of the wounds of the destruction of the Hover Arcade, the Acacias, and the Lido Casino. State Representative Shirley Brown, representing herself, 508 Pineapple Avenue, stated that she came tonight to listen as well as to speak; that she serves on the State Committee for Tourism and Economic Development; that this committee oversees some of the dollars to be spent for historic preservation; that she would like an idea from the Commission and the community on what they want, and if they want to see the JRT restored; that she has been asked to support and has supported the $17,000 grant that was recently requested; that if the Commission can overcome the problems addressed this evening, her organization will work to obtain the funding from the State; that she works very closely with the Book 35 Page 9314 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9315 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Chairman of the State Committee; that he has supported her on this; that they are looking for clear direction on this. Representative Brown stated that she would like to see the JRT in its "splendor"; that there are many problems needing to be addressed such as parking and transportation; that funding must be provided before grants can be given; that grants will not be given out unless they are certain the City is behind them; that if a clear direction can be given she will work with the State to obtain extra funding such as matching grant programs; that she will also work with U.S. Senator Graham's office for obtaining funding because the JRT is a national treasure also; that she will also work toward obtaining funds from other sources so that City residents will not have to cover the entire bill. Ms. Margi Nanney, 2104 53rd Avenue, East, Bradenton, stated that she is Vice President of Basketville Advertising; that she is a former art teacher at Cardinal Mooney High School, and a 1972 graduate of Sarasota High School; that she wonders how the past is sO easily destroyed to make way for the future; that her uncle, Zeke Messer, was the oldest City of Sarasota employee at the time that City Hall was torn down at the foot of Main Street; that he was presented with the first brick taken from the first blow; that she appeals to the City, as mirrored in a united grass roots effort, to save the JRT; that the consensus has always been to save the JRT; that the present proposal is a sound plan and it must go forward; that the funds can be raised; that the multi-use facility can work; that the community can be proud; and that the next generation can have a shining example of Sarasota's cultural richness. Ms. Nathalie McCulloch, President, Historical Society of Sarasota County, 740 N. Casey Key, stated that the members of the Historical Society of Sarasota County have asked her to speak for them; that they wholeheartedly support the efforts of the JRCF to rehabilitate the JRT; that they are proud and grateful for the accomplishments of the JRCF; that the JRT is historically and architecturally significant; that it is structurally sound and an economically viable project; that these facts have been verified by local, state, and national experts; that almost every city has reaped enormous cultural and economic benefits due to their efforts to save a landmark; that the increase in height on the adjacent property would bring it to the height of One Watergate and 888 condominiums; that this is an extremely common planning tool used throughout the country to encourage preservation; that this incentive is the key to the JRT's future. Ms. McCulloch stated further that she too owns property on Golden Gate Point; that the difference in what is currently allowed and what is requested is negligible; that what is requested is for the greater good of the entire community for both present and future generations. Mr. Devin Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street, stated that a constant erosion of the city's historic resources has brought a realization that that process needs to be stopped and work begun to preserve them; that the JRT is worth saving; that there is room for compromise; that he would like to see the process move forward; that the City is considering an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan which would mandate historic preservation; that that is called the Historic Preservation Element; that he urges everyone to become involved and to support it and to see that historic preservation becomes a priority in Sarasota. Mr. Douglas W. Minturn, no address given, stated that he has resided in Sarasota for approximately 34 years; that he has seen considerable development take place; that to say that John Ringling does not have a developmental influence in the City is ludicrous; that tearing down the JRT would tear out a part of Sarasota; that he is disabled and has been living with his disability for 18 years; that he knows what a disability is; that John Ringling was a major influence to the area and he hopes that the JRT is not torn down because that would be a big disability to Sarasota. Ms. Catherine Cross, representing the Downtown Sarasota Antiques Directory, 1834 Bougainvillia, stated that she is fairly new to Sarasota; that she traveled through Sarasota approximately 13 years ago; that she most remembered the JRT; that she comes from a town in Michigan in which almost every building of historical value is gone; that she would hate to see that happen here; that she is now a resident for the past 10 years; that she is active in the antique field; that she is speaking on behalf of the antique dealers in downtown Sarasota; that the consensus of all of them is to please save the JRT. Mr. Jordan J. Corwin, 120 Davis Boulevard, stated that he has lived in Sarasota for seven years; that he previously visited his son who lived in a fine old historic house which was sold and the property upon which the Sarasota City Center presently stands; that the JRT was originally the El Vernona Hotel and John Ringling was not involved until a later time; that the hotel was erected to make money but it later fell on hard times; that when U.S. Route 41 was widened he remembers thinking that the JRT could not succeed because of this. Mr. Corwin continued that Pine View School doesn't have its own building; that no one is discussing a public/private partnership for Pine View School; that people put a town on the map and not buildings; that the JRT did not put Sarasota on the map, John Ringling did; that the Arlington Park is put to good use and well Book 35 Page 9316 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9317 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. worth taxpayers' money; that additional taxes should not be used for the JRT. Mr. Bruce Franklin, representing Huntington Bank, Mr. George Dietz, and Susan Hanson, came before the Commission. Mr. Dietz, Attorney with Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz and Getzen, stated that he is representing First Sunset Development, Inc. which is the actual owner of the subject property; that he is accompanied by Ms. Susan Hanson, Vice President of First Sunset Development, Inc., and Mr. Bruce Franklin, the land planner advising First Sunset Development, Inc.. Attorney Dietz stated that First Sunset Development, Inc. fully supports the proposal to restore the JRT and the Bickel Home, as presented by the JRCF; that they are a willing participant in the project and will continue to support it; that copies of the agreement entered into with the JRCF are included in the materials furnished to each Commissioner; that the agreement sets goals for fund-raising, the first of which would be by December 1993; that the second would be by December, 1994; that the agreement contemplates the deeding of two acres of land which would include the JRT and the Bickel House to the JRCF on or before December 1994. Attorney Dietz stated that, contrary to information displayed on the television monitor earlier in the evening, First Sunset Development, Inc. is not holding back any Tamiami Trail frontage; that a map will clearly show that the outparcel indicated in black is not actually owned by First Sunset Development, Inc., but rather a third party, and is not a part of the proposed plan of development by the JRCF; that the JRCF will receive all of the Tamiami Trail frontage currently owned by First Sunset Development, Inc. which includes the Bickel House as well as the JRT property. Attorney Dietz continued that he wished to stress that First Sunset Development, Inc. is not requesting a density increase; that he requests that disincentives not be applied to the property owner; that he is suggesting that the Commission, as proposed by the Historic Preservation Board, allow First Sunset Development, Inc. to develop the remaining acres after deeding the two acres in the same fashion and with the same density as could currently be developed if the JRT and the Bickel House were to be torn down; that the incentive is the height of the building; that this contemplates the deeding of two acres of land; that this is approximately 87,000 square feet of land; and that for that reason, First Sunset Development, Inc. feels that increased height is a reasonable request. Mr. Franklin stated that to clarify comments made throughout the evening, this proposal is one of the most concise, complete presentations on such an extensively controversial issue; that it clearly shows that the issue is not increased density; that it permits one incentive to be derived by the bank, which is the increased height permitted pursuant to a site plan; that tonight's consideration is an amendment to an ordinance that establishes a framework within which a site plan will be presented as an implementing mechanism; that that will implement every single "if" question brought up by Attorney Meshad; that it will answer every question regarding concurrency; and that it will answer every question of a technical nature; that this framework will address all matters of question; that the recommendation to the Commission, as summarized in Mr. Sollenberger's memorandum is concise, direct, and provides the necessary protections to move this matter forward. Ms. Hanson stated that she is here on behalf of First Sunset Development, Inc.; that it is time for the Commission to make a decision and that she hopes that it will be in support of the JRCF petitions to save the history of Sarasota. Mr. Charles Golding, 736 N. Jefferson Avenue, stated that for six years he was a Senior Commercial appraiser with the Sarasota County Property Appraiser's office; that he has entered the JRT which resembled a disaster; that he wonders how many Commissioners have been inside the building; that he attempted an economic approach to assessing the property value of the JRT; that it was impossible to arrive at a viable economic plan to make this property payi that the income generated by this property will not be enough to cover expenses; and that the taxpayers of the City of Sarasota will have to come up with the difference; and that parking is a problem here also and he has seen no plans that provide parking. Mr. J. Whitcomb Rylee, 1622 9th Street, stated that in 1910 Mrs. Potter Palmer came to this area; that she was very well known in America; that Mr. Owen Burns was also impressed with Sarasota; that by 1910 there was a small town beginning to thrive and Mr. Burns purchased the downtown neighborhood area from Florida Mortgage Investment Company and began developing; that Mr. Burns arrived in Sarasota as a single man and met a lady by the name of Vernona Freeman from Tampa, whom he subsequently married; that he has met a number of their children; that the JRT was the largest project ever and was built as a hotel named after his wife, Vernona; that he sees this building as a commitment and a monument to one of Sarasota's most important business leaders; that Mr. Burns made a tremendous contribution to this community, one which will never be equaled; and that he hopes it will receive the respect it deserves. Ms. Kafi Benz, representing Friends of "Seagate" Inc.. 653 South Orange Avenue, stated that this matter has been passionately discussed for quite some time; that she is the President of the Friends of Seagate which is a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Sarasota area; that buildings Book 35 Page 9318 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9319 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. presently being constructed will not stand up to the scrutiny or become as historically important as these old buildings are; that they are very important to the community; that throwing away the past gives no right to look to the future because the future is built on the past; that she encourages the Commission to accept the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board; that even if the JRT is torn down the neighbors will still have to suffer with the problem of the development of this land; that it is much too valuable to be left undeveloped; that it will be developed; that the Commission should work on resolving the problems brought about by the development on this property and find solutions to it. Ms. Paula Twitchell, 100 Ogden Street, stated that she is the widow of Ralph S. Twitchell who came to Sarasota to assume the architectural supervision for Dwight James Baum's work; that he worked with Mr. Burns and Mr. Bickel; that she supports restoration of the JRT; that it is part of the City's architectural heritage and that it is important to save; that one of her husband's designs was the Lido Beach Casino which was torn down; that her husband established the Sarasota School of Architecture; that what is left of significance should be maintained. There was no one else to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Mr. Jim Clark, Mr. George Dietz, Mr. Bruce Franklin, Mr. Rod Macon, Ms. Susan Hanson, and Mr. Don Smally returned to the Commission table for rebuttal comments. Mr. Clark stated that he wished to emphasize that the Commission is here to make a determination on a historical preservation ordinance; that with regard to Attorney Meshad's questions his responses are as follows: that if the building is not restored the demolition is supported with the amendment that First Sunset Development, Inc. will support the demolition; that, if vested, the JRCF will maintain the JRT; that the Bickel House/JRT use limitation is a site and development plan consideration; that regarding vesting as to concurrency, this is a site and development plan consideration; that regarding "mix" on the back of the property, this also is a site and development plan consideration; A that the effect on other properties is also a site plan consideration as well; A that parking and access are problems but are also dealt with in the site and development plan. Mr. Clark stated that absolutely no Sarasota ad valorem taxes are being requested or will be utilized in the process; that they ask consideration for adopting the ordinance (93-3694) as proposed by the Historic Preservation Board with the amendments suggested by Mr. Sollenberger, but with an additional amendment relating to the demolition, as proposed by Mr. Merrill of the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Macon stated that this community has a unique opportunity to save an important part of its history and create an important part of its future; that First Sunset Development, Inc. has offered to give both of these buildings to the community along with the 2 acres upon which they sit, as well as $500,000 to help with the restoration process; that the property will be developed one way or the other; that the Commission needs to decide if the decision will be to demolish the historic buildings so that all 11 acres can be developed or to allow the community to save the historic structures and allow the developer to develop 9 acres in a reasonable manner. Mr. Smally stated that the State of Florida has been very generous with monies for historic preservation projects; that there is State money available and will certainly be applied for with this project. Attorney Dietz stated that he wished to emphasize two sentences from Mr. Sollenberger's memo to the Commission of April 22, 1993 stating that, "issues such as traffic circulation, design, and drainage would be handled through the site plan process, and "neither of the proposed ordinances would allow an increase in the density but each would allow an increase in the height"; that these two comments are worthy of consideration during the deliberations. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 10:15 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there seems to be some conflict in what is presented by the Staff and what is already permitted on the property; that one of the major points of the petitioners and the Staff has been that the requested density is already permitted; that the single thing that makes a sleeping room a unit is the kitchen; that that was preserved in the existing site plans due to a lawsuit that the City lost and that subsequently changed the City's Zoning Code; that she thinks any totally new petition would not include kitchens in ACLFS; that page 3 of Mr. Sollenberger's April 22, 1993 memo to the Commission states that an existing option for development is 50 units per acre per ACLF without kitchens; that on page 5 of the General Overview, the subtraction of 11 guest units, which are not asterisked as allowing kitchens, makes a total of 416 units permitted on this site with kitchens; that there is a conflict here; that it is definitely not 563 units with kitchens; that she would like to ask the petitioners if in their request for transfer of density from that which is permitted in the towers itself, are they asking for 563 units with kitchens, without kitchens, or a combination, and to please be specific. Book 35 Page 9320 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9321 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Mr. Franklin stated that the reference to the JRT site means the entire property that is zoned RMF-5 is permitted for 50 units per acre for an ACLF as defined; that under the General Overview, the 427 sleeping rooms in 383 units is with kitchens on 8.53 acres as approved in the site and development plan; that the development will be what is reflected in the site and development plan that is submitted pursuant to this public hearing. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 10:20 p.m. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to know the building potential because it is not known for a fact what is going to be placed there; that First Sunset Development, Inc. is asking for a specific maximum development potential; and asked what the maximum potential is that the Commission would be giving in the ordinance and whether that would be interpreted with or without kitchens. Ms. Hanson stated that the way she interprets this information is that it is not conflicting; that the 427 sleeping rooms shown on page 5 of 7 in the General Overview is based on what is currently approved with the permits that have been extended to September 1993. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that her concern is the bottom line request for approval; that if a new site and development plan is brought in, which would be necessary because the old site and development plan does not address an 18-story building, and if it were for the maximum density for an ACLF, is First Sunset Development, Inc. requesting the right to put 563 units with kitchens? Ms. Hanson stated the answer is no. Vice Mayor Patterson stated further that any new development should address what would be achieved by the transfer of density requested, with the saving of the JRT becoming a reality, were First Sunset Development, Inc. to go for an ACLF, those would not be 563 units with kitchens; and that if First Sunset Development, Inc. was to modify that in any way there would be a sacrifice in density to achieve kitchens. Ms. Hanson stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether First Sunset Development, Inc. would abide by the City's new Zoning Code, which states that if a room has a kitchen, it would be at half density? Mr. Franklin stated that the answer is "Yes"; that the reconfigured site plan that will be submitted will conform to the present Code; that if an ACLF is to be the use, then the density will conform to the unit mix base whether there are kitchens or not. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether Mr. Franklin's answer was based on the current Zoning Code and not the old Code that was in place when the City lost its litigation? Mr. Franklin stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that that is of major significance because if First Sunset Development, Inc. were requesting to build out to a density of 563 rooms without any kitchens other than a communal kitchen; that if First Sunset Development, Inc. decided that they wanted 100 units to have kitchens, that would subtract 200 from the 563 and asked if that was correct? There was no verbal response given to Vice Mayor Patterson's question. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a double density would be achieved if it qualified under the City's Zoning regulations for an ACLF; that a double density would not be achieved in the current Zoning regulations if there is a kitchen in every sleeping room. Mr. Franklin stated that he is not sure he understands Vice Mayor Patterson's question. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether he agreed that if First Sunset Development, Inc. conforms to the current Zoning Code and build 563 sleeping rooms if the Commission agrees to everything that is being requested and grants the transfer of density from the property First Sunset Development, Inc. is giving away, they would have to present a new site and development plan or an 18-story building will not be achieved. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that if she understands correctly, the Zoning Code has been revised since the litigation where the court ruled that a kitchen could be allowed in every sleeping room; that if First Sunset Development, Inc. were to build to maximum density, which is double that of a multi-family residence, and put 563 sleeping rooms in place, First Sunset Development, Inc. would not be allowed to put kitchens in the sleeping rooms; and asked whether First Sunset Development, Inc. is requesting something different than this? Ms. Hanson stated that something different is not being requested; however, as it deals with the potential for the submission of a modified site plan for a retirement, it is her understanding based on previous discussions with the City Staff, that First Sunset Development, Inc. would be modifying the approvals that are in place so that "potentially" there could be 427 rooms with kitchens, and the additional rooms would be on the 4 to 1 basis. Mr. Franklin stated that under the definition of ACLF in the Code today, that any additional units that were shifted over would be under the ACLF is what Ms. Hanson is trying to express. Book 35 Page 9322 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9323 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. city Attorney Taylor stated that he has submitted an opinion that the 8.54 acres that has the benefit of the litigation and adding to it the remaining acreage to bring it up to 11.27 acres, then anything additional must conform to current Codes; that the lawsuit did not say that density could be added to this property and have density in accordance with an opinion that came up in the mid '80s. Attorney Taylor continued that, subsequent to the ruling on this case, the City's Zoning Code changed; that what is legally important is that the owner of the property received from the City a site plan approval for a certain number of units pursuant to a court order prior to the Zoning Code change; that a building permit was issued which solidified the site plan as long as the building permit was in effect; that as soon as that building permit and site plan no longer exist and there is a new site plan and a new building permit, then he believes it must conform to what exists under the current Codes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she may not object to the petitioner's request under the definition given; that her only objection is that she is not thrilled with the potential density of 563 units on the busiest corner in Sarasota; that if she is certain of conformity to current zoning in this transfer, she will probably be willing to give the height incentive because economic realities will drive the subtraction from the density in order to provide units with kitchens. Commissioner Merrill asked the City Manager what he feels the Commission is being asked to approve tonight? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he has relied principally on the ordinance wording of Sec. 15-29 (2) which states that there will be no increase in density and any new residential structures may not exceed the density which is permitted if the land were entirely vacant. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the copy the Commission has of the Agreement between First Sunset Development, Inc. and the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc. is not signed; therefore, it is not a legally-binding agreement, and asked when this Agreement will be signed. Mr. Smally stated that the Agreement has been signed; that when the City asked for a copy of the Agreement for the Commission to review, the copy that was sent happened to be an unsigned file copy. Vice Mayor Patterson asked that a signed copy of the Agreement be given to the City to be made part of the record. Attorney Dietz stated that a copy of the signed Agreement had been sent to the City Manager within a week after it was executed. Mayor Pillot recessed the meeting at 10:40 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Attorney Dietz stated that in response to Vice Mayor Patterson's earlier question regarding density that he does not believe it is a question of density; that if the 8.53 acres is multiplied by 50 units per acre if the ACLF path is chosen, there is a total of 427 units; that paragraph 4B of City Attorney Taylor's November 5, 1992 memorandum to Mr. Sollenberger, has been relied upon up to this point in time and states, under Development Considerations, that "...although 427 sleeping rooms, with kitchens, may be developed on the 8.53 acre site by virtue of prior litigation, any additional units would be allowed only in conformity with existing provisions of applicable Codes; that if the 2.74 acres on which the Bickel House and the JRT are located were rezoned to RMF-5, the development could include additional ACLF units subject to the limitation of sub-paragraph C; that the ACLF units allowed would be calculated at 25 units per acre with kitchens, 50 units per acre without kitchens, or a combination thereof." Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether Attorney Dietz means that First Sunset Development, Inc. was expecting 427 units to be with kitchens? Attorney Dietz stated that it would be 427 less 11 or 416; that potentially 383 units or 427 sleeping rooms. Mayor Pillot asked whether Attorney Dietz was referring to the data on page 5 of 7 of the General Overview that recites the court ruling that would allow 427 allowable units on 8.53 acres? Attorney Dietz stated that was correct. Mayor Pillot continued that in addition, the remaining 2.74 acres, at the existing 1993 density of 50 per acre without kitchens multiplied by 2.74 allows 137; that the 427 plus 137 totals 564. Attorney Dietz stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the problem with that is that the only thing that allows the kitchens is the existing site and development plans, the building permits, et cetera; that if First Sunset Development, Inc. does not intend to build according to the current plans, this would not be the case because the proposed ordinance (93-3694) states that the land could be developed to the density allowable by the current Zoning Code; and asked what was intended when this ordinance (93-3694) was drafted? City Attorney Taylor stated that the computation is academic because if the language in the ordinance (93-3694) is applied to the current situation, he views the density that would be allowed is within one unit of what Attorney Dietz just stated. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether it would be units with kitchens or without kitchens? Attorney Taylor stated that it would be without kitchens. Mayor Pillot asked Attorney Taylor if it is true that under the action of the court, that for the 8.53 acres, does the developer have the right to place 427 rooms, including kitchens? Attorney Taylor stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Book 35 Page 9324 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9325 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. the number should be 416 because 11 were asterisked as guest rooms. Mayor Pillot stated that was correct. Mayor Pillot continued that the remaining 2.74 acres would be subject to the existing Code which would be 50 units per acre without kitchens; that if the developer chooses to apply the court ruling, the developer may then install 416 units with kitchens, 137 without kitchens, and 11 guest roomsi that this would be presuming that the entire 11.27 acres would be allowable. Attorney Taylor stated that he agreed that this would be the allowable density today with the kitchen situation as stated; that when this proposed ordinance (93-3694) becomes effective, from that point forward the density and the kitchen calculations relating to ACLFS are as they exist in the present Code; that that is the purpose of this ordinance (93-3694); that the current building permit will have to be replaced; that the site plan approval will have to be replaced in the sense that it represented rulings that came out of a court in 1985; that his office has processed this transaction from this point forward; that the density would be applied and the kitchen calculations related to ACLF as they exist in the present Zoning Code. Attorney Dietz stated that if Vice Mayor Patterson is asking whether the property owner is ready tonight to waive any rights it has under the existing litigation, the answer is No. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that is not what she is asking; that she is asking if the property owner takes advantage of this ordinance (93-3694), what is the owner's interpretation of the meaning of the ordinance because she does not want the City to face this issue later in litigation. Attorney Dietz stated that if the property owner waived the building permit, waived the existing site plan approval, and takes full advantage of this ordinance (93-3694) as proposed, he feels it would be saying that the owner has a new site plan; that the density will not change but the issue of kitchens will change; however, the owner is not ready tonight to commit to give up what it now has. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the owner would be committing, if the Commission passes this ordinance (93-3694), to give the JRCF an opportunity at restoring the JRT. Attorney Dietz stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that that could potentially subtract the 2 acres from the land on which First Sunset Development, Inc. could build. Attorney Dietz stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that if First Sunset Development, Inc. was minus the 2 acres, First Sunset Development, Inc. would have a choice of building a total of 427 units, 416 of which will have kitchens, and 11 which will not have kitchens to seven stories, which First Sunset Development, Inc. has permission to now do; that if First Sunset Development, Inc. decided to take advantage of this ordinance (93-3694), they could choose to use what she regards as a substantial economic incentive in the viability of developing, whether a condominium or an ACLF, this property because it would provide views and a more upscale avenue for recouping monies that the Bank has involved. Vice Mayor Patterson stated further that would limit First Sunset Development, Inc. to either 563 sleeping rooms without kitchens or any combination of what the City's current Zoning Code allows in condominiums or sleeping units; that she wants to make sure that there is not misunderstanding on either the City's or First Sunset Development, Inc.'s part. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that what this would mean to the residents of this area is that the JRT would be restored, but there will not be 563 units, there will be 427 unless First Sunset Development, Inc. chooses to follow the relatively new City ordinances. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission has heard the petitioners tonight endorse the Historic Preservation Board's proposed ordinance (93-3694) with changes; that he cannot find a provision in the ordinance (93-3694) that grandfathers in the court's ruling and asked whether that was correct. Attorney Taylor stated that was correct. Mayor Pillot stated that if there is no grandfathering in of the court's ruling, and because the petitioners, Attorney Dietz, and Ms. Hanson have stated that they endorse the Historic Preservation Board's proposed ordinance (93-3694), he asked whether by failure to do otherwise, those aforementioned were in fact doing what Attorney Dietz stated they were not doing (giving up any contingent rights to the former court hearing). Attorney Taylor stated that this ordinance (93-3694) does not put anything into effect; that the petitioners could reject following this ordinance (93-3694) as Vice Mayor Patterson had pointed out; that the petitioners could choose to proceed to develop the site under rights they have without the ordinance; however, the intent of the ordinance (93-3694) is that once the owner of this property decided to come within the ordinance, this would be the standard that applies, not some grandfathered standard. Attorney Taylor stated that his feeling was that this ordinance (93-3694) sets the tone for the parameters within which the site plan can be structured to be brought back for approval; that he does not know what the site plan will consist of by way of a use mix, but this ordinance (93-3694) gives the petitioners one option. Attorney Dietz stated that in his opinion the adoption of this ordinance tonight does not vitiate the approvals previously received by First Sunset Development, Inc.; that it provides an alternative route that may be followed; that there would be three Book 35 Page 9326 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9327 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. different routes that could be followed by First Sunset Development, Inc. as follows: 1. remain with what they presently have (427 total units, 416 units with kitchens, on 8.53 acres); 2. accept the benefit of this ordinance for ACLF's at 50 units per acre times 11.27 acres, or 563 sleeping ACLF units (without kitchens); 3. or 281 condominium units. Mayor Pillot asked whether it would make sense to include this wording in the ordinance so there would not be any doubt left as to the intent? Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance does not go into this degree of detail because it was not structured to only apply to this one particular site because the Zoning Code is not drafted site specific. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it might be appropriate for Attorney Dietz to provide a memo prior to second reading which would outline the alternatives given so that future misunderstandings are forestalled. Attorney Dietz stated that First Sunset Development, Inc. feels the same way; therefore, he has no problem with providing such a memo. Commissioner Cardamone asked whether Attorney Dietz's answers included the JRT property whether the JRT stays or not? Attorney Dietz stated that the 416 with kitchens plus 11 without kitchens includes the JRT property, but the other two options do not; that the petitioners only want to preserve what is allowable today if the JRT and Bickel House were not on the 11.27 acres. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Sollenberger's provision that the property owner and the JRCF provide a letter of credit to assure that the Bank or its successors would demolish the JRT in the event it is declared an unsafe structure; that she has a commitment to save the JRT but does not want to see it in its present condition for the next 10 or 20 years and does not want the City to have to pay, to tear it down; and that the JRCF should determine whether this is acceptable to them. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the parameters the JRCF placed on the table provide fairly strict guidelines although there is some flexibility with in-kind contributions; and asked if it all fails, will the JRCF accept an agreement from First Sunset Development, Inc. that protects the City if the City decides that the JRT must come down. Mr. Clark stated that he believes that the John Ringling Centre Foundation is generally in favor of Mr. Bill Merrill's presentation tonight; that the JRCF does not receive the deeded property until approximately $3 million in contributions or grants have been received; that this must be done by December 1994; that contributions will be on hand to make the initial restorations; that he recommends deleting the language Mr. Sollenberger used, "...in the event it is declared an unsafe structure" and change to "in the event the Foundation does not meet the required funding provisions of the Agreement between itself and the owner"; that this wording would be satisfactory to the JRCF. Attorney Dietz stated the obligations as he envisions them assuming that the JRCF will approve the posting of a letter of credit or a bond for this purpose, will be in effect only from the point of time of the adoption of this Zoning Amendment up until the time that First Sunset Development, Inc. deeds the property to the JRCF; that at that point it would be the JRCF's responsibility. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there needs to be sufficient insurance that, while the building is in the bank's hands, if the building cannot be restored, then the bank must take it down; that in the event the building passes to the Foundation, even though the JRCF raises the monies, if there was some unforeseen event that the JRCF could not perform, then there needs to be a guarantee to the City that the building will come down. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she suggests that the City not define that when $3 million is raised the City no longer needs to worry about the demolition because it is not known whether $3 million is sufficient to do the first stage of the renovation; that the City needs to know it is protected until there is sufficient money contributed to do the first stage of the restoration. Attorney Dietz stated that Mr. Sollenberger suggested that a three-party agreement be negotiated between first and second reading; that he believes this is an excellent suggestion; that he believes a satisfactory document can be arrived at. Commissioner Cardamone stated that, between first and second reading, she would like to see some conversation take place regarding the time frame of such demolition if it should be necessary; that the citizens should not have to view the old building or rubble for a couple of years while someone decides when to demolish the building; that she would like to see this as part of the three-party agreement. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Attorney Dietz what he saw as the City's guarantee that if the JRT is torn down that its development potential will not be added to that which First Sunset Development, Inc. has already agreed to tonight and in this ordinance (93-3694), if First Sunset Development, Inc. decides to take advantage of the ordinance. Attorney Dietz asked whether Vice Mayor Patterson was Book 35 Page 9328 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9329 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. referring to before or after the JRT is deeded to the Foundation? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she was referring to both before and after the JRT is deeded to the Foundation. Mayor Pillot stated that this ordinance (93-3694) proposes the whole 11.27 acres so First Sunset Development, Inc. could not gain anything additional whether the JRT is there or not. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she wanted to hear from the petitioners that that is their clear understanding of this that no matter what happens to the JRT, if this ordinance (93-3694) is passed and the petitioners take advantage of its provisions for the entire 11.27 acres. Attorney Dietz stated that it was correct that the petitioners would have used up all development rights. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission. At the request of Commissioner Cardamone, Ms. Robinson, gave a brief explanation of the site and development plan procedural process. Attorney Taylor stated the site and development plan is looked at according to standards such as the development and design has to be in keeping with the Code; that adequate provisions must be made for access, internal traffic circulation, further amenities of light, air, recreation, and beautification; that the appearance shall be compatible and harmonious with properties in the general area and not be so at variance with other development within the area as to cause a substantial depreciation of property values; that the proposed development design and layout shall meet the purpose and intent of the tree protection ordinance; that in Chapter 5 of the Code it lists standards for ingress and egress, the location in relationship to off-street parking and off-street loading facilities to further pedestrian safety, traffic flow, control access in case of fire or catastrophe, screening and landscaping buffers are important to ensure compatibility with uses inside and outside the development; that drainage, sanitary sewers, recreation or open space are specified. Attorney Taylor continued that a lot of things come about as part of the site and development process; that the Code also allows for approval of site and development plans with conditions which specifically implement standards in ordinances of the City. Mayor Pillot asked Attorney Taylor what height is stated under the existing court ruling as allowable? Attorney Taylor stated that it is the height that was in existence under the City's old Adult Care Home. Ms. Robinson stated she thought it was still RMF-5 at that time, so that would be 75 feet. Mr. Sollenberger stated that, with regard to earlier questions regarding figures presented, the Staff agrees with the figures that have been presented by Attorney Dietz; that the Staff's recommendation is that the Commission adopt the Historic Preservation Board's recommended ordinance (93-3694) with the following six modifications (five of which have been lifted from the Planning Board's recommendation). : 1. limit the application of the Zoning Code amendment to parcels of at least 10 acres; 2. in the event of the demolition of the hotel, the approved site and development plan continues in full force and effect, provided a building permit has been issued within two years from the approval of the site and development plan; and that at the discretion of the City Commission, the site and development plan may be extended for two additional years (this provides a sunset provision to avoid perpetuity); 3. add a provision that the Planning Board shall hold a public hearing on any site and development plan; 4. add a provision that allows the Historic Preservation Board to review the design, location, and appearance of any structures located within 200 feet of the historic hotel, for compatibility with the historic hotel; 5. add a provision that the Planning Board shall consider any structures above the existing permitted height for compatibility with adjoining properties; and 6. that a letter of credit be provided in the event that the hotel is not restored that there would basically need to be, between first and second reading, assuming adoption of this ordinance, that the City would negotiate a three-way agreement providing for posting of a letter of credit by whoever owns the JRT at the time, providing that in the absence of restoration the JRT would be taken down and the site cleared. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3694 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 93-3694; approve the City Manager's recommendation, which is essentially, the Historic Preservation Board's recommendation, with the stipulations to be resolved between first and second reading, with the suggestion of using the time specific for the JRCF to meet their deadline for the first stage monies collected to make the letter of Book 35 Page 9330 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9331 04/26/93 7:00 P.M. credit time specific based on approximately two years past that date. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to specify that prior to second reading the Commission should be provided with an estimate of demolition costs of the JRT, at the expense of First Sunset Development, Inc., who would ultimately have to bear the costs of demolition. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that he cannot agree that the only consideration here is a difference in height; that emphasis has been made that there will be no increase in density; that though that may be technically correct he believes it is also pragmatically incorrect; that he feels it is actually an increase in density and he will vote against this motion. Commissioner Atkins stated that he does not believe that taxpayers should have to support this project; that he believes that, in spite of the neighborhood impact, this is an opportunity to try one more time to save the two structures and he is willing to take this chance because he sees no dollars coming directly out of the City's hand and that he is hoping that progress can be made to add tax dollars to the city of Sarasota; and that he will support this motion. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she came prepared to take the Mayor's position and vote against this proposal unless the density was reduced to 280 condominium units which could be constructed on the vacant land today; that the reality is that, any increase in density is quite theoretical because First Sunset Development, Inc. would have the ability with the building permits having been renewed a week ago to pour a foundation in the next three months and have 427 units, 11 without kitchens, and 416 units with kitchens, and then at some later date approach the Commission for demolition of the JRT, who may vote against demolition and the City may fight First Sunset Development, Inc. in the courts and may ultimately lose, and then there would be vacant property of approximately 2 acres where the JRT once stood with development rights for 150 sleeping rooms. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that in reality an increase in density is not being granted and that it is probable that if the height is taken advantage of, the developers will likely opt to substantially reduce that density because 563 ACLF rooms without kitchens is not really going to be viable for something that has a land value of over $20,000 per unit; that she believes there will ultimately be less density or she would not support this. Mayor Pillot stated that the court case does allow the 427 units, but only to a 75 foot height and not to 180 feet; and that is a major factor here; that this is a very congested intersection; that the site vacant north of the JRT and in the proximity of 13th and 14th Streets also have rights to development; and that this will exacerbate congestion in this area; that to allow the full 11.27 density on the 9 acres and add to it both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, for the JRT and the restaurant, is simply not reasonable in that area. Commissioner Merrill stated that he believes Vice Mayor Patterson is right in that the developer will trade height for reduced density; and that he supports this ordinance because he supports saving the building. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. 3. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM III) There was no Citizens' Input. 4. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM IV) There were no Other Matters. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) #4 (0555) through (0560) On motion of Commissioner Merrill, and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. > SCTA - Mz GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: Robeisen HopbE BILLY ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 35 Page 9332 04/26/93 7:00 P.M.