MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 2, 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Albert F. Hogle, Vice Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson (arrived at 6:14 p.m.), Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen D. McGowan, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Hogle The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:04 p.m. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE 2001, KIM G. LAMBERT, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT I, PUBLIC WORKS /UTILITIES DIVISION #1 (0035) through (0128) Mayor Hogle requested that William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, and Kim Lambert, Preventive Maintenance Assistant I, Utilities Division, join him before the Commission; and requested that City Manager Sollenberger join him at the Commission table to make the presentation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that presenting the award for Employee of the Month for June 2001 is an honor. Mr. Hallisey stated that Ms. Lambert serves with excellence and pride and is a dedicated and hardworking employee; that Ms. Lambert is a Preventive Maintenance Assistant I which is a unique position, works with the managers of the Utilities Division to identify, schedule, and document the preventive maintenance for $150 million in infrastructure and the thousands of pieces of equipment owned by the City, and has facilitated a more effective use of personnel and resources; that Ms. Lambert continually strives to improve personal abilities and job performance, is a graduate of the Public Works Academy, and has completed many computer courses at Manatee Community College (MCC) ; that Ms. Lambert has qualified for a promotion to Preventive Maintenance BOOK 49 Page 21320 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21321 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Assistant II which will be effective Friday, July 6, 2001; that Ms. Lambert is congratulated for her excellent service. Mayor Hogle presented Ms. Lambert with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the June 2001, Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique pertormance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. Ms. . Lambert stated that working for the City is a pleasure and thanked the Employee of the Month Review Committee. 2. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO MARIE SELBY BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. FOR BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE FLORIDA WITH THE LEADERSHIP AWARD FOR THE UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE FLORIDA STANDARDS WITH DEMONSTRATED EXAMPLES OF LEADERSHIP #1 (0137) through (0286) Mayor Hogle requested that Dr. Margaret "Meg" Lowman, Executive Director of Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, Inc., (Selby Gardens) join him before the Commission for the presentation; stated that Selby Gardens is a private, non-profit organization which has been conducting research and providing education on epiphytes and forest canopy systems as a habitat for 25 years; that Selby Gardens was originally donated by Ms. Marie Selby in 1970, occupies 13 acres of waterfront property south of Downtown, and hosts approximately 160,000 visitors each year; that the programs of Selby Gardens are at the leading edge of survival issues for the world's tropical forests; that the live collections of native Florida plants and the specialized research library of the Selby Gardens are a source of significant economic benefit to the State's horticultural businesses, plant growers, and garden shops; that Selby Gardens continues to exemplify a commitment to "green" design and architecture by utilizing reclaimed water and a retention pond which captures runoff water from US 41 for irrigation purposes; that Selby Gardens has also supported historic and cultural preservation through the painstaking rehabilitation and restoration of the Christy Payne Mansion as a public museum; read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation to the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, Inc., for being recognized by the Council for Sustainable Florida with the Leadership Award for the Understanding and Implementation of Sustainable Florida Standards; and presented the Mayor's Citation to Dr. Lowman. Dr. Lowman stated that Selby Gardens received an award from the Council for Sustainable Florida for 25 years of contributions to Sarasota; that the award is not just for Selby Gardens but rather for all of Sarasota; that Selby Gardens staff is grateful to Sarasota for the constant support; and thanked the Commission and the Mayor for the recognition. 3. PRESENTATION RE: CERTIFICATES RECOGNIZING THE 2001 GRADUATES OF THE NAACP YOUTH LEADERSHIP ACADEMY #1 (0295) through (0415) Mayor Hogle requested that Vice Mayor Mason join him at the Commission table for the presentation. Vice Mayor Mason stated that recognizing the 2000-2001 NAACP Leadership Academy graduates is a pleasure; that the students meet as a group to learn leadership skills; that the students are the future and will one day be City and County Commissioners and State legislators; that the students can achieve anything personally desired; and requested that Judy Wilcox, volunteer with the NAACP of Sarasota County, join her before the Commission table. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson arrived at 6:14 p.m. Vice Mayor Mason continued that the NAACP Leadership Academy represents a difficult and challenging program to the young people of the City; that while speaking to the 2000-2001 NAACP Leadership Academy graduates, the dedication, hard work, enthusiasm and leadership of each graduate was observed; that each graduate represents a beacon of hope for current and future generations; that the efforts of each are appreciated by the community; and on behalf of the Commission, presented each of the following graduates with a signed certificate embossed with the City Seal: Shanna Douglas Booker Middle School Latelia Douglas Booker High School Dwight Cherry Riverview High School Whitni Bryant Cardinal Mooney High School Vice Mayor Mason stated that Zakia Atkins, Crystal Chapman, Whitney Reed, and Tyree Sumpter are also 2000-2001 NAACP Leadership Academy graduates and were unable to attend; however, the certificates will be presented at a later time; that congratulations are offered to all 2000-2001 NAACP Leadership Academy graduates; that challenging days are before the BOOK 49 Page 21322 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21323 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. students; that personal support will always be offered to the students. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0438) through (0453) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Discussion Re: Enterprise Zone Application immediately following Approval of Minutes, per the request of Vice Mayor Mason B. Remove Special Presentation No. 3, Presentation Re: : Recognition of the City's assistance in the planning design and construction of the St. Armand's Improvement/John Ringling Statue Installation project, per the request of Martin Rappaport, St. Armands Property Owner's Association On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 5. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 11, 2001, AND THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1) #1 (0461) through (0468) Mayor Hogle asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Hogle stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the June 11, 2001, Special Commission meeting and the June 18, 2001, Regular Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 6. DISCUSSION RE: ENTERPRISE ZONE APPLICATION - REFERRED BACK TO ADMINISTRATION. FOR A REPORT AT THE JULY 16, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING #1 (0469) through (0743) Vice Mayor Mason stated that a great deal of work remains on the application for the Enterprise Zone (application) prior to submission in December 2001; that the Florida Sunshine Law prohibits discussion of the Enterprise Zone between Commissioners unless at the Commission table; that a concern is the application will be forgotten following the resignation and departure of the City's Director of Redevelopment and Development Services; that the application is too important to the City and the County for forgetfulness; that the discussion of the application has been added to the current Agenda for consideration by the Commission; that Staff is overburdened and will not be able to complete the application without help; that partnering with the County to hire a consultant to assist in the completion of the application is desired; that the application should not be submitted on the last date possible. Commissioner Palmer stated that many questions are held concerning Staff responsibility and funding; that the Administration should make a recommendation to the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to refer the application for the Enterprise Zone back to the Administration for a recommendation during the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Commissloner Quillin stated that the application should be submitted prior to December 2001. Vice Mayor Mason stated that December 31, 2001 is the last day for application submission. Commissioner Quillin stated that the application should be submitted prior to December 31, 2001 to assure the most positive consideration; that the City should submit the application no later than November 2001. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Administration will provide a report at the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Paul Mercier, Commissioner, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC), came before the Commission and stated that an expeditious completion of the application is supported; that a Joint City/County Commission meeting will be held on July 31, 2001, at which time both Commissions can better discuss the application; that the application is a County-driven process; that, along with himself, Vice Mayor Mason will be the Co-Chair of a committee to oversee the application process; that the BCC will search for a consultant as the City has an BOOK 49 Page 21324 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21325 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. overburdened Staff; that appreciation is extended to Vice Mayor Mason for supportive efforts. Mayor Hogle thanked County Commissioner Mercier for his efforts. Commissioner Quillin stated that Karen Hartman, Downtown Redevelopment Director, has experience with enterprise zones; that help can also be solicited from the State. Mayor Hogle requested that the City Auditor and Clerk restate the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to refer the application for the Enterprise Zone back to the Administration for a recommendation during the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Mason stated that Staff will be required to assist with the completion of the application; however, Staff is overburdened; that a consultant should be considered. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS RE: REPORT RE: : PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE'S MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2001 - ACCEPTED THE DONATION OF THE SCULPTURE ENTITLED "THE OLYMPIC WANNABES"; RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0746) through (1056) Pamela Sumner, Chair of the Public Art Committee, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Ms. Sumner presented the following items from the June 12, 2001, meeting of the Public Art Committee: A. "The Olympic Wannabes" by Glenna Goodacre Ms. Sumner stated that the sculpture entitled "The Olympic Wannabes" (sculpture) by Glenna Goodacre is presently located at the Galleria Siecchia on Main Street; that Glenna Goodacre is a world-renowned artist who designed the Golden Dollar Coin portrait of Sacajewa and sculpted the Vietnam Women's Memorial in Washington, D.C., as well as many other pieces; that Art in the Park, a volunteer organization, is attempting to raise the necessary funds to purchase the sculpture by August 31, 2001; that the sculpture would then be donated to the City; that the sculpture is bronze and is valued at $180,000; that the figures of the sculpture are slightly larger than life-size; that at the June 12, 2001, meeting, the Public Art Committee recommended the City accept the donation of "The Olympic Wannabes" and locate the sculpture at Five Points Park. Mr. Burg stated that the sculpture is 6.5 feet high and 11.5 feet wide. Commissioner Quillin asked for clarification of the installation of the sculpture. Ms. Sumner stated that the sculpture is built on a solid bronze base which is buried in the ground sO the figures appear to be at ground level. Commissioner Quillin asked the name of the volunteer organization? Ms. Sumner stated that Art in the Park is organizing the donation of the sculpture and intends for the donation will be the first of many. Commissioner Palmer stated that the sculpture is wonderful; that art in Sarasota is appreciated; and asked a cost estimate for maintenance of the sculpture? Ms. Sumner stated that the sculpture is bronze which requires waxing twice a year; that the Public Art Committee is currently developing a plan to maintain all public art; that a survey is being conducted of every public art piece owned by the City; that sub-contractors are being solicited to maintain the public art pieces. Commissioner Martin stated that the sculpture provides great joyi that vandalism is a concern; and asked if the sculpture will be lit? Mr. Burg stated that lighting is key; that lighting and night surveillance of all public art pieces is a long-range plan; that the lighting issue does not have a quick and easy solution; that lighting will be key in protection of public art pieces from vandalism. BOOK 49 Page 21326 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21327 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin asked if the sculpture will be lit at night? Ms. Sumner stated that lighting the preferred location at Five Points Park is a viable option if the Commission desires. Mr. Burg stated that the Public Works Department can offer assistance in lighting the sculpture. Commissioner Martin stated that the lighting for the sculpture should be referred back to the Administration. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends accepting the donation of the sculpture entitled "The Olympic Wannabes. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to accept the donation of the sculpture entitled "The Olympic Wannabes." Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the donation of public art such as "The Olympic Wannabes" is always welcomed by the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends receiving the report of the June 12, 2001, Public Art Committee meeting. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to receive the report of the June 12, 2001, Public Art Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 8. BOARD ACTIONS RE: : REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2001 - SET HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPLICATION NOS. 01-HD-04, 01-HD-05, AND 01-HD-06 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; APPROVED THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO EXPEND $3,700 TO UPDATE THE LEGAL APPENDIX TO THE CLARION REPORT; AND RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (1058) through (2322) Thorning Little, Chair of the Historic Preservation Board, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Little presented the following items from the June 12, 2001, meeting of the Historic Preservation Board: A. Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-04 Re: The Mabel Nabona Woodhull House 1325 Cocoanut Avenue Mr. Little stated that Staff from the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources determined that the structure located at 1325 Cocoanut Avenue, historically known as the Mabel Nabona Woodhull House, is of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board unanimously recommends historic designation of the structure located at 1325 Cocoanut Avenue, which meets the following criteria listed under Section IV-806 (A) of the Zoning Code (1998): 1. Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the City of Sarasota, particularly the early development of Valencia Terrace subdivision; and 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of the Mediterranean Revival Style of Architecture as exemplified by its rough stucco exterior, barrel clay tile roof and asymmetrical plan. Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification of the interior elements which are also included in the historic designation report? Mr. Little stated that Mikki Hartig, agent for the applicant, provided a concise list of the interior features which are historic; and quoted the interior features which are historic as indicated in the Agenda backup material as Eollows: The house contains some exceptional features, most notably its arched board on board doorways with wide dark wood casings and the house's beautiful original wood floors. Additionally two original masonry fireplace mantles, one in the dining room and the other an upstairs bedroom, are uncommon. The living room has a vaulted ceiling and dark wood moldings. Wide, dark wood interior window casings, including those highlighting the two oculi windows in the room remain unpainted and are in excellent condition. The existing concrete fireplace mantle was installed in 2000, BOOK 49 Page 21328 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21329 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. but the quarry stone hearth is original to the house. The oak parquet floors in the living room are also original. The dining room has a dark stained wood coffered ceiling and dark wood wainscotting on each of the walls in the room. An original decorative masonry fireplace is located in the southwest corner of the room. The wood flooring in this room is also original, laid in a herringbone pattern. Both this original bedroom and the second original first floor bedroom have arched doors and doorway openings with wide dark wood casings. An original telephone niche is recessed into the north wall of the hallway Commissioner Palmer stated that a concern is designating the interior features as historic is too intrusive; that the interior features are beautiful and should be preserved; and asked if the recommendation is to adopt Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-04 only if the interior features are included? Mr. Little stated that interior elements can be approved as part of the historic designation; that policing and control over interior features is a concern; that a softer approach may be taken to the enforcement of maintaining interior features designated as historic; that the importance of maintaining historic interior features is emphasized to homeowners and building owners by specifying interior features as historic. Mayor Hogle asked if including interior features is new to historic designations? Mr. Burg stated that designating interior features as historic is fairly recent; that a concern is the ability of Code Enforcement to maintain and review the interior features designated as historic in a private home as well as previous communications consistently indicating homes and buildings are only designated externally; that honesty and consistency with the public are necessary. Mayor Hogle stated that Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-04 is only being set for public hearing; that the Commission may choose to include or exclude the interior features as part of the historic designation during the public hearing. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-04 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to set Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-04 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. B. Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-05 Re: The Appleby Family House 1958 Adams Lane Mr. Little stated that the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources determined that the structure located at 1958 Adams Lane, historically known as the Appleby Family House, is of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board unanimously recommends historic designation of the structure located at 1958 Adams Lane, which meets the following criteria listed under Section IV-806 (A) of the Zoning Code (1998): 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of a craftsman style bungalow as demonstrated by its simple wood knee braces and exposed rater trails. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-05 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to set Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-05 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. D. Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-06 Re: The Brazil/Clark House 1660 Seventh Street Mr. : Little stated that the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources determined that the structure located at 1660 Seventh Street, historically known as the Brazil/Clark House, is of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board unanimously recommends historic designation BOOK 49 Page 21330 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21331 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. of the structure located at 1660 Seventh Street, which meets the following criteria listed under Section IV-806 (A) of the Zoning Code (1998) : 4. Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of a simple Craftsman style bungalow as evidenced by its double front gable end and simple wooden knee braces City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting Historic Designation Application No. 01-HD-06 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to set Historic Designation Petition No. 01-HD-06 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. E. Request for funding by Clarion Associates (Clarion) Mr. Burg stated that at the May 8, 2001, meeting, the Historic Preservation Board recommended $3,700 be appropriated from the Historic Preservation Fund for Clarion to update one of the legal appendices to the 1993 drait Historic Preservation Chapter to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) ; that Clarion originally drafted the 1993 Historic Preservation Chapter for the City; that the Historic Preservation Board recommended Clarion revise the legal appendices; however, Staff indicated the legal appendices could be updated by the City if necessary; that Staff has not discovered case law in other historic preservation chapters in other cities' comprehensive plans; that the City Attorney's Office indicated a legal appendix is unnecessary and is also inconsistent with other chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that Staff can create an adequate support document which would be parallel to and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Administration recommends the Commission weigh the differing views of the Historic Preservation Board and Staff; that Staff has included information in the Agenda backup material and the Historic Preservation Board has not; that Staff previously indicated an inability to complete a support document due to lack of time; that Staff's mind has changed; that the Historic Preservation Board is requesting Clarion update the appendix in the format required by the City. Mr. Little stated that the Clarion proposal does not stipulate providing the appendix in the format required by the City but does stipulate submission of the draft appendix to the Historic Preservation Board which will review the appendix with Staff; that Staff will submit revisions and comments to Clarion; that a final legal appendix will be redrafted and resubmitted; that the Historic Preservation Board will work with Staff to present the appendix in a format required by the City. Mr. Burg stated that the Historic Preservation Board did not provide information for inclusion in the Agenda backup material; that the City Attorney's Office has advised the Planning Department concerning the type of data which should be included in the support document such as the number of historic buildings, the number of potential structures, the number of historic districts, and the number of buildings over fifty years old; that Clarion produced a study of case law relating to historic preservation issues nine years ago which is not parallel with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the first part of the 1993 Clarion Report was the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter for the City's Comprehensive Plan at the time developed; that a chapter concerning historic preservation is optional in the City's Comprehensive Plan and is not required by State Statute; that no specific criteria for an historic preservation chapter are established by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) ; that only general criteria, i.e., data is required to support the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, is established; that only a portion of the Clarion Report is required for the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter plus support documentation; that Staff prepared a revision to the portion of the Clarion Report which will become the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the question is the amount of necessary additional work to complete the process in accordance with the previously developed schedule; that the Historic Preservation Board proposed a comprehensive approach by updating the existing supplemental information contained in the Clarion Report, i.e., the legal analysis and a draft ordinance; that the only requirement pursuant to the State Statutes is the support data, which could be specific data such as the data contained in the Master Site BOOK 49 Page 21332 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21333 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. File, historic properties within the City, or any other applicable data; that census data can be utilized; that not updating the supplemental information in the Clarion Report will facilitate and expedite the approval process; that the expense is not required; that the time and expense of $3,700 to update the legal and historical portion of the analysis included in the Clarion Report is a concern; that the update of the legal and historical portion of the analysis of the Clarion Report is not legally required. Mr. Little stated that the Historic Preservation Board has $18,000 for bronze plaques, etc.; that an expenditure of $3,700 is recommended from the Historic Preservation Fund; that the Historic Preservation Board is not relying on the City for funding; that Clarion is a specialist in the industry; that the original Clarion Report should be updated and brought into current standing; that legal case studies are recommended as support documents by leaders in the historic preservation community; that the June 4, 2001, interoffice memorandum from David Smith, Senior Planner, Planning Department, to Attorney Singer included in the Agenda backup material outlines the types of data used in the support document and does not include incentives; that future reviews of applications for historic designation will be better understood legally if the appendix is updated. Attorney Singer stated that sufficient data is the only necessary information to support the approval of an Historic Preservation Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the State Statutes do not require the support documentation be incorporated in the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that incentives for historic preservation have no bearing on the Commission's determination to implement an Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Palmer asked if updating the appendix will delay the approval process of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan? Attorney Singer stated that Clarion will require time to update the appendix which may not coincide with Staff's estimated timeframe for completion of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Quillin asked the length of time required by Clarion to update the legal appendix? Thomas Luzier, Member, Historic Preservation Board and Chair, County Historical Commission, came before the Commission and stated that approximately three weeks would be required by Clarion to update the appendix; that Clarion anticipated beginning July 2, 2001; that Staff requested information from the Historic Preservation Board be submitted by the middle of July 2001 which may delay the process by one week; that Commissioner Palmer, as a former member of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), expressed concern of allowing ample time to prepare the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan completely and carefully; that internal deadlines have consistently been met; that a delay is not of concern. Commissioner Quillin asked the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board? Mr. Little stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends Clarion update the appendix to the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan at a cost of $3,700. Mayor Hogle stated that the Administration recommends weighing the two views of updating the appendix and offer direction to Staff. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve the Historic Preservation Board's recommendation to expend $3,700 for an update of the Clarion Report. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Historic Preservation Board is utilizing Historic Preservation Funds for the Clarion Report update. Commissioner Martin stated that clear information has not been presented; that saving the $3,700 for use in implementation of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is desired; that Staff should bring a report with more detailed information back to the Commission. Commissioner Quillin stated that the $3,700 will be funded by the Historic Preservation Board; that the Historic Preservation Board's budget is not intended for use to implement the Historic BOOK 49 Page 21334 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21335 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City considers historic preservation of great importance; that Staff has consistently indicated a lack of time and money to complete the support documentation and now claims otherwise. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Clarion Report should be fully updated if an update is going to occur; that a complete update will cost more than $3,700; that Staff has indicated only a small portion of the Clarion Report will be updated; that only updating a portion of the Clarion Report is not desired and will create problems in the future; that Staff indicated a committed approach to completing the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a delay is not desired. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the Clarion Report update has been discussed at length prior to the election of Commissioners Martin and Palmer; therefore, the concerns expressed by Commissioners Martin and Palmer are understood; that delay is not desired. Mayor Hogle stated that Staff is generally always supported; however, the Commission has previously promised to support an update to the Clarion Report. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to approve the Historic Preservation Board's recommendation to expend $3,700 to update the Clarion Report. Motion carried (3 to 2): Martin, no; Mason, yes; Palmer, no; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to receive the report of the June 12, 2001, Historic Preservation Board meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 2 - REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT BACK; ITEM NO. 9 - APPROVED WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONSI ITEM NO. 10 - APPROVED AS MODIFIED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (2325) through (2938) Commissioner Quillin requested that Item Nos. 2 and 9 be removed for discussion. Commissioner Mason requested that Item No. 6 be removed for discussion. City Manager Sollenberger requested that Item No. 10 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Designate the City's voting delegate for the Florida League of Cities' Annual Conference 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Amendment to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Grant Contract for the Lido Beach Erosion Control Project 4. Approval Re: Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Action Plan outlining the proposed expenditure of CDBG HOME and State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) program funds for five years 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Project Grant Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, in the amount of $90,000 for improvements to Ken Thompson Park in accordance with the Master Plan 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Quitclaim Deed between the City of Sarasota and the Center of Arts, Philanthropy and Commerce (Center-APC, L.L.C.), for extinguishment of a City Utility Easement 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Renewal Lease between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Flotilla, Inc. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 2. Approval Re: Funding the Mayor's trip to Scotland with the Sister Cities Association (SCA) in August 2001 from the remaining funds in the Sister Cities' line item budget for 2000-2001 Commissioner Quillin stated that utilizing funds from the Sister Cities Association (SCA) for Commissioner travel is not desired; that a precedent should not be set for utilizing funds designated for the SCA; that the allocation of funds to the SCA should be reviewed to ensure the City is meeting the commitment made to the SCA; that the City must be participatory to be an BOOK 49 Page 21336 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21337 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. integral part of the SCA; that Commissioners should be present at SCA functions; that funds are available from the training and travel budgets which are utilized for Commission travel; that utilizing funds designated for the SCA is not desired; that necessary funding can be found elsewhere. Mayor Hogle stated that Commission travel already arranged for business and education should not be forfeited. Commissioner Quillin stated that forfeiture of established travel is not necessitated. Mayor Hogle stated that funds are not available elsewhere to the best of his knowledge. City Manager Sollenberger stated that funds can be utilized from the Commissioner travel budget; that funds will be transterred from other budgets if funds are not available in the Commissioner travel budget; that the City will provide funding for the Mayor to travel to Scotland with the SCA; that the specific fund utilized can be specified to the Commission if desired. Mayor Hogle stated that the opportunity to travel to the Dunfermline, Scotland, is declined; that Commissioner Quillin should travel to Dunfermline, Scotland, in his place. Commissioner Quillin stated that funds are available in her Commission travel budget for travel to Dunfermline, Scotland. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the appropriation of funding for Commission travel to Dunfermline, Scotland, should be determined by the Administration; that information concerning available funding should be reported back to the Commission. On motion of Vice Mayor Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to refer Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 2, back to the Administration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Neighborhood Development Department to use approximately $2,520 from the Neighborhood Grant Program to fund bus transportation for neighborhood representatives to attend the Florida Neighborhoods Conference 2001, as well as to pay the conference registration fees for one person per neighborhood association Commissioner Quillin stated that authorization of funds for the Florida Neighborhoods Conference 2001 (conference) to be held in Orlando, Florida, has been discussed previously; that the schedule for the conference includes a mobile workshop which takes conference attendees into neighborhoods during the evening; that grant opportunities for conference attendees to stay overnight should be investigated. Commissioner Palmer stated that funding is provided from the Neighborhood Grant Program which may not have sufficient funds to provide overnight accommodations to conference attendees; that other funding may be necessitated to provide overnight accommodations. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Neighborhood Grant Program has sufficient funds to provide overnight accommodations; that the Neighborhood Grant Program has over a $60,000 budget of which approximately $32,000 has been allocated; that adequate funds are available to provide overnight accommodations for conference attendees. Commissioner Palmer stated that previous conversations with Staff indicated a concern for funding in 2002; that a determination of funding for overnight accommodations should be referred to the Administration. Vice Mayor Mason stated that both views are supported; that the Administration should determine if funding is available. City Manager Sollenberger stated that funding is available for overnight accommodations during the conference. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to authorize the Neighborhood Development Department to use approximately $2,520 from the Neighborhood Grant Program to fund delegates from the 32 invited neighborhoods to attend the Florida Neighborhoods Conterence 2001 in Orlando, Florida, and include funding for hotel reservations for the Eirst night. Commissioner Palmer stated that rooms should be shared by same- sex occupants to reserve and conserve funds. BOOK 49 Page 21338 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21339 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that delegates from 32 neighborhoods are invited to attend the conference; that delegates from all neighborhoods did not attend the previous conference; that few rooms will be required if only half of the invited delegates attend the conference. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the "Peace Pole" donated to the City of Sarasota by Les Druckenmiller be installed in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park Vice Mayor Mason thanked Mr. Druckenmiller for the donation and stated that the "Peace Pole" is wonderful; that Accesssarasota, Channel 19, should provide a program on City parks containing new art. On motion of Vice Mayor Mason and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to approve placement of the "Peace Pole" in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Park. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. Commissioner Martin thanked Mr. Druckenmiller for the donation of the artwork entitled "Peace Pole. 11 Commissioner Quillin stated that the "Peace Pole" should be placed on the soon-to-be-developed inventory of public art. 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County regarding design and management services for the St. Armand's Drainage Improvement Project City Manager Sollenberger stated that Paragraph 3 of the Interlocal Agreement should be amended to read as follows: In consideration for COUNTY entering into this Interlocal Agreement; CITY agrees to advance funding forward .on a monthly basis to COUNTY for costs incurred in the design of the PROJECT and for PROJECT design management subject to the following conditions. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve the Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County regarding design and management services for the St. Armand's Drainage Improvement Project with the language changes provided by the City Manager. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1385) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 01-4316) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (2940) through #2 (0164) Commissioner Palmer requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 01-4316, relating to requiring and collecting permit fees from providers of communications services and increasing the local communications services tax; providing for intent; providing for an election not to require and collect permit fees; providing for an election to increase local communications services tax; providing for notice to the Department of Revenue; providing for compliance with other laws and the City's exercise of its police powers; providing for severability; providing a savings clause; providing for a reservation of rights; etc. (Title Only) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4316 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 2. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Hogle, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes, Quillin, yes. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1385, adopting a schedule to process a City-initiated amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (a/k/a Sarasota City Plan [1989]) adopting an Historic Preservation Element; authorizing the Planning Department Staff to BOOK 49 Page 21340 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21341 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. commence preparation of said amendment; setting forth findings; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification of the last sentence of Section 1, proposed Resolution No. 01R-1385, as follows: The Planning Department staff is hereby authorized to commence preparation of such Comprehensive Plan amendment, and the initial draft of such Plan amendment shall be based on the most recent available (unadopted) preliminary draft of the Historic Preservation Element. Thorning Little, Chairman, and Thomas Luzier, Member, Historic Preservation Board, and Douglas James, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. James stated that at the January 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, the Planning Department was instructed to prepare and process an Historic Preservation Chapter for the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) for review and approval; that the 1992 Report by Clarion Associates (Clarion Report) is the basis for the recommended Historic Preservation Chapter. Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification of the term "unadopted preliminary draft." Mr. James stated that the unadopted preliminary draft was submitted in 1992 for processing and adoption; however, final action was never taken. Commissioner Palmer asked if the unadopted preliminary draft is the same document recently prepared by the Historic Preservation Board? Mr. James stated that the document prepared by the Historic Preservation Board which was the subject of a recent Development Review Committee (DRC) review was based on the Clarion Report with revisions in accordance with the desires of the Historic Preservation Board. Commissioner Palmer stated that a May 21, 2001, joint workshop with the Historic Preservation Board was held; that a number of issues were raised concerning the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and asked for clarification in relation to Section 1, proposed Resolution No. 01R-1385. Mr. Luzier stated that the document prepared by the Historic Preservation Board is the draft which will be submitted as the recommended Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. James stated that the draft of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan will become part of the of the application for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that once the application is filed and found complete according to City regulations, the DRC will review the application for substantive issues; that a meeting will be held with the Historic Preservation Board after the DRC review; that subsequently, Staff will review the application and prepare a recommendation to the PBLP; that Staff has not presently taken a position concerning the document submitted by the Historic Preservation Board. Commissioner Palmer stated that the document is not in final form and is not presently being adopted. Mr. James stated that a final draft, support document, and Staff recommendation will be presented to the Commission for approval at a future time. Mr. Luzier stated that the basis for the document is the Clarion Report; that the City's Historic Preservation Board and the County's Historic Preservation Committee met several times to develop the document; that City Staff was in attendance at the meetings; that the understanding of the Historic Preservation Board is the proposal is the result of previous meetings which have involved members of the local organizations involved with historic preservation and City Staff; that information concerning a formal opinion by City Staff is not known; that the proposal is based on the document prepared by the Historic Preservation Board and other interested organizations. Commissioner Palmer asked if the document includes the concerns raised by the Commission at the May 21, 2001, joint workshop with the Historic Preservation Board? Mr. Luzier stated yes. Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification of Item No. 3, Assumptions associated with this schedule, in the BOOK 49 Page 21342 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21343 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. January 9, 2001, interoffice memorandum from Jane Robinson, Director, Planning Department, to the Commission as follows: . when needed and if necessary, staff time and fiscal resources will be made available to focus upon this work even at the expense of other "priorities" Mr. . James stated that the Planning Department understands the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is a priority; that previous activities concerning preparation of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan have been conducted without interference with other priorities; that the Planning Department has identified preparation of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as a top priority if other projects require equal attention; that July 15, 2001, is the in-house deadline for completion of the support document. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is a priority. Mr. James stated yes; however, projects which were priorities in January 2001 at the time the interoffice memorandum was written are not priorities currently. Commissioner Palmer referred to the following from Section B, Budget and Implementation, of the January 9, 2001, memorandum: Creating a duplicate of this organization [the County's Division of Historical Resources] within City government does not seem appropriate. Commissioner Palmer stated significant discussion may not be required; that some conflict concerning the City's direction regarding historical preservation seems to exist; that the issue of historic preservation efforts in the City and the County will be discussed during the July 31, 2001, joint meeting of the City Commission and the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) ; that the positions of Staff and the Historic Preservation Board are not known at this time. Mr. Luzier stated that the future of historic preservation efforts has been discussed in general terms. Commissioner Palmer stated that an evaluation from the Historic Preservation Board would be appreciated and asked if information can be provided to the Commission prior to the July 31, 2001, joint Commission/BCC meeting? Mr. Luzier stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the current information is confusing; and asked for clarification of the update of the Clarion Report. Mr. Little stated that Clarion has indicated the legal and incentive appendices of the original Clarion Report require updating. Commissioner Quillin asked for clarification of the unadopted preliminary drait referenced in Section 1, proposed Resolution No. 01R-1385. Mr. James stated that the unadopted preliminary draft is the 1992 Clarion Report. Commissioner Quillin stated that no action was taken on the unadopted preliminary draft. Mr. James stated that is correct. Mr. Little stated that the original unadopted preliminary draft was rewritten to accommodate all parties involved; that the material is confusing; that completion of the final support document is planned for July 2001; however, an update of the Clarion Report will be prepared; that the sequence of events may be out of sync; that the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is being prepared; that the update to the Clarion Report may be contrary or alternatively may provide valuable information to Staff for use in the preparation of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Quillin asked if the update of the Clarion Report should be completed first while still achieving the August 1, 2001, deadline. Mr. James stated that Clarion will provide the legal portion of the support document. Mr. Luzier stated that Clarion will also provide the incentive portion of the support document. Mr. James stated he is unfamiliar with the incentive portion; that the document for submission to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will be completed by July 15, 2001; that necessary BOOK 49 Page 21344 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21345 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. attachments and incorporations will be made to the completed document at the time the update to the Clarion Report is received. Mr. Luzier stated that the support document prepared by Staff does not mirror the original attachments to the 1992 Clarion Report; that the legal and incentive appendices were omitted; that Clarion will update of the legal and incentive appendices to compliment the support document provided by Staff. Mr. James stated that the Historic Preservation Board will be supplying more information for the support document; that the support document will be completed in July 2001; that Staff will wait for the update to the Clarion Report. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1385 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 01R-1385. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Affected Persons and other interested persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 11. NON QUASI - JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4315, AMENDING SARASOTA CITY CODE CHAPTER 36, ARTICLE II, REGARDING TAXICABS AND OTHER VEHICLES FOR HIRE; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS PROVIDING FOR PROHIBITIONS FOR DRIVERS: PROVIDING FOR MINIMUM INSURANCE COVERAGE; PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES FOR THE APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE BY THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK OF CERTIFICATES TO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS, PERMITS FOR VEHICLES FOR HIRE AND LICENSES FOR DRIVERS; PROVIDING FOR CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SAME; PROVIDING FOR SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF SAME BY THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK; PROVIDING FOR APPEAL; PROVIDING FOR DISPLAY OF PERMITS, LICENSES AND STICKERS ISSUED BY THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) #2 (0165) through (0624) Karen McGowan, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk, came before the Commission and stated that the Vehicles-For-Hire Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) was established in October 2000 to consider the current regulations of the City regarding vehicles for hire in Chapter 36, Vehicles for Hire, Sarasota City Code (City Code) ; that the Committee held bi-monthly meetings as well as a public input session on March 1, 2001, prior to making final recommendations to the Commission; that at the May 21, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, the Committee provided a report concerning proposed revisions to Chapter 36, Vehicles for Hire, City Code; that the Commission directed the preparation of an ordinance to amend Chapter 36, Vehicles for Hire, City Code; that the following major changes are recommended as indicated in an Executive Summary included in the Agenda backup material as follows: Issuing permits for drivers of vehicles for hire including picture identification cards Changing the term "certified" as related to mechanics who perform inspections to "qualified" following the definition of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) Enforcing regulations for signage on limousines Revising the upension/revocation procedure for organizations and drivers to assure adequate due process protections Increasing the insurance requirement from the State minimums of $10,000/920,000/510,000 or $30,000 combined to $100,000/9300,0,000/9100,000 or $500,000 combined Designating the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to receive reports of violations on newly developed forms BOOK 49 Page 21346 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21347 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Prohibiting non-registering vehicles-for-hire organizations from registering for a period of six months after the violation Adding a non-discrimination requirement as recommended by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Requiring vehicles-for-hire organizations adopt a drug-free workplace policy Mayor Hogle asked for justification of the increase in the insurance requirement? Ms. McGowan stated that representatives from the Risk Management Department sat on the Committee; that the professional opinion of the Risk Management Department and the recommendation of the Committee was to increase the insurance requirements to protect the public. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing. The following person came before the Commission: Dan Claire, 2177 13th Street, (34237), Royal Carriage Transportation, came before the Commission and referred to Section 26-721(b), Driver registration and licensing, as follows: Each person holding a certificate must register with the City Auditor and Clerk the name, address, and drivers license number of each person who will be licensed by the City Auditor and Clerk and permitted by the certificate holder to drive a for-hire vehicle or taxicab in service as a public vehicle in the City. At the time of registering and at the time the certificate is annually renewed, as provided for in Section 36-28, the certificate holder must provide the City Auditor and Clerk a copy of each driver's Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) criminal history and each driver's Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles driver license history. Mr. Claire stated that receiving the FDLE criminal history requires six to seven weeks; that waiting six to seven weeks before beginning a job discourages potential driver applicants; that allowing temporary permits while waiting for a full criminal history is suggested; that the Sheriff's Department offers a criminal record for $3 which can be obtained prior to issuing a temporary permit. Mr. Claire continued that insurance requirements are raised considerably; that large companies can easily pay for such high insurance coverage; however, small companies find paying for high insurance coverage difficult; that the City has a very low incidence of accidents involving vehicles for hire; that smaller companies will be forced out of business by the high insurance requirement; that the owner of a vehicle-for-hire company in the City pays the same insurance rate as an owner in Daytona Beach, Florida; that the incidence of loss in Daytona Beach, Florida, is much higher than in the City; that the insurance rate requirement is unfair. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Hogle closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4315 by title only. Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that he was a voting member of the Committee; that the City has no liability for accidents involving vehicles for hire; that the Committee recommended the insurance increase as a precaution for visitors to the State who do not own vehicles or have liability insurance; that health insurance, liability insurance, and the insurance of the owner of the vehicle for hire are the only forms of insurance a visitor utilizing a vehicle-for-hire company may have; that the individual would be relying on the insurance coverage of the vehicle-for-hire company to cover the costs of injury in the event of an accident; that the safety of the passenger is the reason for establishing all regulations, including certification and licensing of drivers and vehicle-for-hire companies. Commissioner Palmer asked if a temporary permit could be issued while a complete criminal history is being obtained from FDLE. Attorney Singer stated that sufficient background checks must be obtained prior to issuing a permit to a driver; that obtaining a complete criminal history from the FDLE can take several weeks to arrive; however, the same intormation can be obtained immediately through the FDLE website if payment is made with a credit card online; that the Committee determined the benefits BOOK 49 Page 21348 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21349 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. of acquiring a complete criminal history report far outweigh the extra time and expense required for compliance with the new regulation. Vice Mayor Mason stated that public safety is a high priority; that the number of accidents involving vehicles for hire has been few but serious; that obtaining a complete criminal history from the FDLE is desired and supported. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4315 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4315 on first reading. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes; Martin, yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Administration should explore the possibility of having vehicle-for-hire companies join Neighborhood Watch programs; that a report back to the Commission at a later date would be appreciated. 12. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4314, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 3, POLICE; AMENDING SECTION 24-76, CREDITED SERVICE FOR MILITARY SERVICE PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENTI AMENDING SECTION 24-77, PRIOR POLICE SERVICE; AMENDING SECTION 24-91, DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-2) #2 (0625) through (0710) Vice Mayor Mason left the Chambers at 8:05 p.m. Benita Saldutti, Pensions Plan Administrator, Office of the City Auditor and Clerk, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4314 is to amend the City of Sarasota Police Officers' Pension Plan (Pension Plan) to accept lump-sum rollover distributions to purchase prior military or police service credits and to allow Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) participants to change individual investment options once during the period of participation; that the proposed changes will not result in a significant cost to the Pension Plan; that the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) has agreed to the proposed changes and has waived all bargaining rights related to the proposed changes. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Hogle Closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4314 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4314 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4314 on first reading. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes; Martin, yes. 13. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-4313, AMENDING SARASOTA CITY CODE (1986) CHAPTER 33, ARTICLE IV, STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING, DIVISION 4, FINES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS, SECTION 33-167, FINE SCHEDULE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES PAYABLE FOR THE VIOLATIONS ENUMERATED HEREIN; AMENDING SECTION 33-168, FORM OF CITATION FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS, SO AS TO REFLECT THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES ESTABLISHED HEREBY; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED AND REFERRED RESEARCHING ALTERNATE PARKING STRATEGIES DOWNTOWN TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A RECOMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-3) #2 (0710) through (1700) Vice Mayor Mason returned to the Chambers at 8:10 p.m. Mikel Hollaway, Captain, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), came before the Commission. BOOK 49 Page 21350 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21351 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Captain Holloway stated that a $5 increase for the majority of the City's parking fines is requested; that an increase is not requested for overtime or handicap parking violations; that the expenses incurred by the City's Parking Management Program have and continue to increase; that in particular, utilities and maintenance fees and equipment costs have significantly increased; that the City has not significantly increased parking fines since 1990; that proposed Ordinance No. 01-4313 will increase the City's parking fines as follows: From: To: Parking in restricted areas $20.00 $25.00 Double parking 20.00 25.00 Parking in wrong direction 20.00 25.00 Illegal parking in an alley 20.00 25.00 Illegal parking in an area designated 20.00 30.00 as a fire or emergency lane Habitual parking violators receiving 25.00 30.00 5 or more tickets for parking violations within any 30-day period Captain Holloway continued that the recommendation is also to increase the fine for any other offense regulated or controlled by Chapter 33, Article IV, Stopping, Standing or Parking, Division 4, Fines for Parking Violations, Sarasota City Code (City Code), in regard to the parking of motor vehicles on the streets of the City and on the metered parking lots operated by the City from $20 to $25. Commissioner Quillin stated that a letter was recently received from a citizen who is currently working Downtown; that the citizen left her car parked longer than the parking time restriction and received a citation; that she moved her car to another space but received a second citation; that the citizen was unaware of the City's requirement to move parked vehicles at least 15 parking spaces from the site of the citation; and asked if signage Downtown informs citizens of the requirement to move parked vehicles at least 15 parking spaces from the site of the citation? Captain Hollaway stated that the City requires parked vehicles be moved at least 15 parking spaces from the formerly occupied space; that there is no signage indicating the regulation. Commissioner Quillin stated that the citizen discussed the lack of signage with the SPD; that she was informed ignorance of the City's laws is not an excuse to rescind a citation; that the citizen had received a third ticket on the same day after relocating the vehicle approximately a block and half from the site of the second citation; that the citizen's vehicle still had not been relocated 15 parking spaces according to the SPD; that the public should be notified of the City's parking regulations; that a significant shortage of parking exists Downtown; that the City should install signage indicating pertinent City regulations. Captain Hollaway stated that the SPD Public Information Officer could be directed to prepare a press release for the print and broadcast media to advise of the changes and the City's current parking regulations. Commissioner Quillin asked if signage could be installed Downtown indicating the City's parking regulations? Captain Hollaway stated that SPD will research the type and location of signage for Downtown and develop a recommendation. Commissioner Quillin stated that the proposed increase in parking fines is supported; however, approving increases to the City's parking fines is not supported if the public is not properly informed of the City's parking regulations; that the public should be properly informed of a City regulation which significantly affects business Downtown; that the fines may only be $25; however, citizens are often fined an additional $25 or $50 for failing to move a vehicle the proper distance. Captain Hollaway stated that SPD will examine installing the appropriate signage Downtown. Commissioner Martin asked if the fines for parking too long in a one-hour or Ewo-hour space will be increased? Captain Hollaway stated no. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: BOOK 49 Page 21352 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21353 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Gary Dickinson, 1765 Cunliff Lane (34239), and Owner, Five-Star Luxury Cruises, 1310 Main Street (34236), distributed copies of a July 2, 2001, letter to Commissioners concerning parking in Downtown, and stated that operating a small business Downtown is difficult due to the significant shortage of parking; that on April 10, 2001, his wife attempted to Cross US 41 at Main Street from the additional public parking located at the Bayfront near Marina Jack, was struck by a vehicle, and injured; that the City allows public parking free of charge at the Bayfront during the summer months commencing in April; that the City's parking regulation concerning the requirement to move a parked vehicle at least 15 spaces should be revised; that objective criteria for counting the 15 spaces is not specified; that a vehicle could be moved two blocks or across the street and still not comply with the regulation; that the majority of parking along Main Street and Gulf Stream Avenue is two-hour parking only; that he and his wife park at the Bayfront near Marina Jack during the summer to avoid receiving a citation; that additional parking is required Downtown for small business owners. Mr. Dickinson referred to the July 2, 2001, letter to Commissioners and stated that the information provided to the Commission includes photographs of the available Downtown parking at certain hours; that one photograph depicts only three vehicles among 20 to 25 empty parking spaces on Main Street; that the photograph was taken during the summer; that during the summer, significant parking space is only required during the lunch hour, which occurs between 11:45 a.m. and 1:45 p.m.i that three-hour parking should be allowed on Main Street and Gulf Stream Avenue prior to and after the lunch hour; that the parking regulations should be revised to allow Downtown businesses to operate efficiently; that business owners and employees must frequently relocate a personal vehicle during business hours to observe the City's parking regulations; that the majority of illegally parked vehicles are ticketed due to the efficient work of City Staff; that a compromise should be developed to facilitate business operations and to continue the revitalization Downtown; that local business owners should not be penalized. Mayor Hogle stated that hearing no objections, the consensus of the Commission is to refer researching alternate parking strategies Downtown to the Administration for a recommendation. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director, the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc (Downtown Association), stated that a significant shortage of parking exists Downtown; that he has worked for the betterment of Downtown for over 20 years; that the shortage of parking has been a significant concern for over 20 years; that half of the complaints received from business owners and citizens concerns the shortage of parking Downtown; that the City's parking regulations should be revised and should include logical criteria for relocating parked vehicles; that the Downtown Association was not informed an increase in parking fines would be discussed at the current meeting; that significant input should be received to formulate an effective resolution to the shortage of parking Downtown; that the $5 dollar increase should be utilized to fund the construction of a parking garage to provide extra parking space Downtown; that the City's Parking Management Program should be funded with tax revenues; that parking citation revenues should be utilized to create a positive solution to the parking shortage such as funding the construction of a parking garagei that Downtown business owners receive citations much too frequently; that the City should review the use of parking citation revenues. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Hogle closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 01-4313 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 01-4313 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4313 on first reading. Commissioner Palmer stated that the City should review the parking shortage Downtown immediately; that creative solutions such as extending the time allowed for parking in certain areas could be developed; that the parking fines have not been increased for over 10 years; that the proposed increase represents a cost-of-living issue; that operational costs have increased significantly while revenues have not increased; that the City's Parking Management Program should be self sufficient and funded with parking citation revenues; that parking fines are not desirable; however, the City has a responsibility to administer the City's operations as well as to enforce the BOOK 49 Page 21354 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21355 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. appropriate parking regulations; that the Administration should research alternate solutions to facilitate parking Downtown; that many citizens indicated the shortage of parking Downtown as an important issue during her campaign for election to the Commission; that the Administration previously examined the parking shortage Downtown but did not produce a resolution; and asked the result of the Administration's previous examination of the shortage of parking Downtown? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that Downtown business owners previously requested the City allow employees to park at the Bayfront near Marina Jack during business hours for the entire year; that the Administration informed the business owners of the City's obligation in the City's lease agreement to provide parking for Marina Jack; that the City is contractually bound to Marina Jack and could not provide the requested parking near Marina Jack during the tourist season; that Marina Jack agreed to allow parking during the summer, during which significant parking space is not required; that long-term parking is now allowed near Marina Jack during the summer but reverts to two- or three- hour parking during the tourist season. Commissioner Palmer asked if an adjustment can be made to the on-street parking requirements Downtown such as providing logical criteria for moving parked vehicles which have exceeded the time limitation? Mr. Schneider stated that the City's parking regulations will be examined; however, an important consideration is the enforcement of the City's regulations; that enforcing the City's parking regulations will be extremely difficult if many differing parking regulations are created for Downtown; that allowing differing parking requirements for the same parking space at different times of the day will be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that the City's parking regulations should be logical and easy for citizens to understand and Parking Management Staff to enforce; that the proposed increase is required to continue funding of the City's Parking Management Program; that the shortage of parking Downtown is not a result of an increase in the enforcement efforts of the City's Parking Management Program; that adequate funding should be provided to the City's Parking Management Program to help alleviate the shortage of parking Downtown by enforcing parking restrictions, ; that the City must enforce the parking regulations but must also pursue strategies to alleviate the shortage of parking Downtown; that many citizens, business owners, and business employees are negatively affected by the shortage of parking Downtown; that the Administration should strive to develop alternate strategies for alleviating the shortage of parking Downtown. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the Administration should coordinate efforts to the resolve the shortage of parking Downtown with the Downtown Association; that the efforts of the Downtown Association to coordinate the concerns of Downtown business owners and to revitalize Downtown are commended; that the proposed increase is not supported; that the City's Parking Management Program should be a volunteer program; that the City of Delray Beach, Florida, utilizes volunteer staff to enforce parking regulations; that utilizing volunteers would allow the City to utilize parking citation revenues for other purposes such as alleviating the parking shortage Downtown. Commissioner Quillin referred to the photographs included in the July 2, 2001, letter to Commissioners and stated that Mr. Dickinson's wife was struck by a vehicle partially resulting from the shortage of parking Downtown; however, the concern is not for the reason the particular accident occurred; that the concern is the shortage of parking Downtown and the resulting parking burden for citizens and businesses; that the parking regulation concerning requiring parked vehicles to move 15 spaces to a new parking space is illogical and should be clarified; that the bases for determining the 15 spaces should be explained; that the criteria for determining the 15 spaces should also be clarified for the public; that a conversation occurred with Mr. Dickinson's wife after the accident; that she explained to Mrs. Dickinson the City does not want employees of Downtown businesses parking on Main Street; that parking on Main Street should be reserved for patrons and visitors to Downtown; that many personal discussions were held with Downtown business owners concerning the shortage of parking; that the majority of Downtown business owners indicated rational parking regulations and areas should be established for employees; that employees are required to move vehicles every two or three hours; that employees are not always able to move a vehicle due to the operations of the business. Commissioner Quillin continued that the City should promote the establishment of Park'N'Ride facilities; that many vacant lots exist near or in Downtown and could be utilized as Park'N'Ride facilities; that the Downtown Association, as coordinator of the BOOK 49 Page 21356 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21357 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Transportation Management Organization (TMO), could establish the development of Park'N'Ride facilities as a foremost priority; that Downtown business owners should be encouraged to purchase parking permits for employees; that the schedule of the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) trolleys should be coordinated to provide additional service Downtown and at the Bayfront; that the citizen who received three citations on the same day was asked if parking had been attempted at the Bayfront near Marina Jack; that the citizen responded an attempt to park at the Bayfront had occurred; however, the traffic signal at US 41 and Main Street did not allow sufficient time for pedestrians to Cross US 41 from the Bayfront; that the citizen also indicated she was trapped on the median of US 41 while attempting to cross due to the insufficient time allowed; that being isolated on the median of US 41 is dangerous for pedestrians during peak vehicular traffic; that SCAT trolleys should provide service to the Bayfront or other important parking facilities Downtown every 10 or 15 minutes. Commissioner Quillin Eurther stated that another citizen recently attempted to purchase an annual permit to park in a City-owned parking lot; that the City only allows citizens to purchase monthly permits to park at City-owned parking lots; that requiring citizens to purchase permits each month is not logical; that the permits must be purchased at the Police Station, at which parking is limited; that citizens should be allowed to purchase annual parking permits if desired; that she illegally parks at the Police Station frequently due to the lack of sufficient parking space; that the City could realize significant revenues by allowing citizens to purchase annual parking permits for City-owned parking lots; that Downtown business owners have indicated support for parking at satellite lots; that the Administration should propose revisions to the parking regulations allowing additional parking on Main Street and Gulf Stream Avenue at the Bayfront; that the shortage of parking Downtown will increase as the construction of the Palm Avenue Parking Garage project commences; that the construction of the new Ringling Causeway Bridge will further intensify the shortage of parking and vehicular congestion Downtown. Commissioner Quillin stated further that the parking fines should be increased as recommended; however, the increase will not be supported until proactive measures are adopted to alleviate the parking shortage Downtown; that the parking regulations should be revised and should be easily understood; that the 15-space requirement should be revised; that citizens should be allowed to purchase annual parking permits; that the City should encourage the establishment of Park'N'Ride facilities; that an increase in parking fines will not be supported until the public is assured the City is attempting to alleviate the shortage of parking Downtown. Mayor Hogle stated that the proposed increase is supported; that two separate issues are being discussed; that the first issue concerns the shortage of parking Downtown; that the consensus of the Commission was to refer researching strategies for alleviating the shortage of parking Downtown to the Administration; that the agreement concerning the Palm Avenue Parking Garage project is almost finalized and will provide significant parking space Downtown upon completion; that the second issue concerns the solvency of the City's Parking Management Program, which is the sole subject of proposed Ordinance No. 01-4313; that the majority of the discussion concerned the lack of sufficient parking space Downtown and citizens' being fined for utilizing a parking space too long; however, the fines for overtime parking will not be increased; that the proposed increases in parking fines concern parking in restricted areas or in the wrong direction, double parking, illegal parking in an alley or an area designated as a fire or emergency lane, and habitual parking violators; that such offenses would occur whether or not a parking shortage exists; that the proposed increase should be supported to fund the City's Parking Management Program; that the concern of the lack of parking Downtown is understood; however, the City should firmly enforce the appropriate parking regulations; that the proposed increase is supported. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 01-4313 on first reading and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Quillin, no; Hogle, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, no; Palmer, yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the entire Commission is committed to reducing the shortage of parking Downtown; that the Administration should strive to produce as many strategies for increasing available parking space as possible; that a significant burden is placed upon the City to provide public parking; that the Palm Avenue Parking Garage project will significantly increase the available public parking; however, existing parking space will be lost during construction of the Palm Avenue Parking Garage and the new Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the shortage of parking Downtown will increase regardless BOOK 49 Page 21358 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21359 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. of any increase in parking fines; that the City must increase the available parking Downtown. City Manager Sollenberger concurred and stated that the concerns of the Commission and the public are noted; that appropriate recommendations to reduce the shortage of parking Downtown will be developed. 14. CITIZENS I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (1700) through (2130) The following people came before the Commission: Paul Thorpe, 1818 Main Street (34236), distributed copies of a brochure entitled The City With No Limits Sarasota with accompanying flyers; that the brochure has been accepted throughout the community, has been updated, and has been reprinted by the Downtown Association; that the brochure contains information about the entire City; that a new flyer entitled 21st Century Sarasota is included with the brochure and includes information concerning recent and future development; that the brochure with the accompanying flyers is used by real estate professionals, is shipped throughout the State and abroad, and is excellent public relations material for the City. Mr. Thorpe distributed copies of a map of Downtown Sarasota which is a business district map and restaurant and entertainment guide. Commissioner Quillin asked if available parking is indicated? Mr. Thorpe stated yes; that the cover photograph of the brochure is current sO the new development in the City is pictured; that the Commission's assistance in supporting the upcoming Fourth of July celebration is appreciated; that advertisements regarding the activities have been run in the newspaper; that an event called Jazz on the Bayfront will be held the evening of July 3, 2001; that a group of high school and middle school student musicians who are participating in a summer program will be pertorming; that the Fourth of July celebration will be spectacular; that the City's assistance in sponsoring the activities is appreciated. Vice Mayor Mason referred to the flyer entitled 21st Century Sarasota and stated that the brochure entitled The City With No Limits Sarasota with the accompanying flyers is excellent; however, the existence of African-American citizens in the City would not be realized from seeing the flyer, which is a concern expressed by Atrican-Americans considering relocation to the City; that the concern is being brought to the attention of the Downtown Assoclation for future consideration. Commissioner Quillin referred to the map and stated that receiving new, updated maps is exciting; however, information concerning the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) trolleys is not included. Mr. Thorpe stated that an advertisement for the SCAT trolleys is on the back of the map. Commissioner Quillin asked if identifying the SCAT trolley or bus stops on the map is possible? Mr. Thorpe stated that the SCAT trolley stops are being revised; that the location of the SCAT trolley stops will be incorporated in the next printing of the map. Commissioner Quillin stated that the SCAT trolley route along Main Street should be indicated on the map if the route will be maintained; that indicating the exact stops is not required as the stops can be on demand. Commissioner Palmer stated that the location of the SCAT bus stops should be indicated on the map. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the map is impressive; that congratulations on the excellent job are offered. Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive (34237), stated that two concerns are presented: 1) a listing of City-owned properties and 2) the rewrite of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations; that the apparent lack of employee participation in the process of rewriting the Personnel Rules and Regulations is a concern; that no representative of the employee unions or of employees in general was present at the June 4, 2001, Commission workshop at which the Personnel Rules and Regulations were discussed; that the rewriting of the Personnel Rules and Regulations would be an ideal time for management to employ the Quality Improvement Program (QIP) process for which the City spent sO much money; that the City's Director of Human Resources and the City's legal counsel for employee relations seemed most interested in eliminating the five-member Civil Service/Ceneral BOOK 49 Page 21360 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21361 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Employees Personnel Board, which serves as the Commission's appointed oversight for employee rules and regulations, preferring a retired judge, with or without experience as an employee, who would serve to arbitrate any appeal of the rules which indicate the decision of the City Manager is final; that the City maintains a distinction between general employees and uniformed police officers; that a Parking Enforcement Specialist is a general employee; however, a police officer is under rules concerning civil service employees; that a question previously posed to at least one Commissioner as to the rationale for the distinction has not been answered; that the benefit of treating employees differently is not understood. Mr. Senf continued that a list of City-owned properties was requested and received; that the initial response to the request for the list was to provide a list prepared by the State; that subsequently, a list in electronic format was provided by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk via e-mail which is appreciated; that the City's cost basis for any of the 245 City- owned properties on the list is not indicated; that the Departments of General Services and Finance were asked the assessed value, the cost basis, the zoning, and any improvements to the property; that the response was extensive research would be required to provide a response; that a problem would result if decisions are necessary concerning the disposition of City- owned property. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO SECURE A TENANT FOR THE LEMON AVENUE MALL - APPROVED WITH REVISIONS AS DISCUSSED (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) #2 (2130) through (3400) City Manager Sollenberger stated that a proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals to secure a cenant for the Lemon Avenue Mall has been developed for the Commission's consideration, Pamela Hayes, Purchasing Manager, General Services, came before the Commission and stated that RFP No. 01-64H concerns the City- owned property consisting of a building located at One Lemon Avenue and the southern half of the Lemon Avenue Mall; that the Commission's comments and approval of RFP No. 01-64H is requested. Commissioner Quillin referred to Section A, Summary, of the draft lease agreement included in the Agenda backup material as follows: Entertainment of some sort is desirable (although music volume must abide by the City's recent adopted noise ordinance) Commissioner Quillin stated that non-amplified music only should be allowed. Mayor Hogle asked if the recently adopted Ordinance No. 00-4180 concerning noise (noise ordinance) includes a pronibition against amplified music? Commissioner Quillin stated that one concern was amplified music at the time of entering into the lease agreement with the current tenant at the Lemon Avenue Mall; that the City's intent was to have, for example, quartets playing music; however, complaints continue specifically concerning amplified music; that any tenant will be required to abide by the noise ordinance; that amplified music continues as a contention at the location; that recently, a musical group brought in by the current tenant played very loud music; that bringing in amplified music will result in a citation. Mayor Hogle asked for legal comment concerning Ordinance No. 00-4180. City Attorney Taylor stated that the noise ordinance is applicable to the Lemon Avenue Mall, just like any Downtown location; that the Commission had the opportunity to view Downtown operations during a recent visit to West Palm Beach, Florida; that West Palm Beach took charge of the music played on City-owned property Downtown and imposed additional regulations; that amplified music and the loudness of the music is addressed in the current noise ordinance; however, the lease agreement presents an opportunity for the Commission to accomplished a desired outcome on City-owned property; that for example, a provision not to allow music after a certain time could be specified in the lease agreement if desired. Commissioner Martin stated that the section in the draft lease agreement as presented is acceptable; that amplified music not exceeding the allowable noise decibel level could be allowed. BOOK 49 Page 21362 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21363 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that information concerning all the complaints received regarding amplified music at the Lemon Avenue Mall should have been provided to the Commission; that the Commission should be honest with any prospective tenant; that the previous RFP concerning the Lemon Avenue Mall caused problems. Mayor Hogle, Vice Mayor Mason, and Commissioners Martin and Palmer stated that the section in the draft lease agreement as presented is acceptable. Commissioner Palmer quoted Section A, Summary, of the draft lease agreement as follows : A food & drink establishment which would include an ice cream parlor or sandwich shop is a favorable use for the site Commissioner Palmer stated that the interpretation should not be an ice cream parlor or sandwich shop is the only favorable use. Ms. Hayes stated that deleting the following from Section C.2, Existing Conditions, of the draft lease agreement is recommended as the tenant has agreed to allow a site visit on July 12, 2001, for prospective respondents to the RFP: Photographs of the building and its immediately surrounding environment are included for reference. Ms. Hayes stated that an on-site visit will be beneficial; that including the photographs with the RFP is not necessary. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City has given the current tenant notice to vacate the property? Ms. Hayes stated yes; however, the date by which the tenant is required to vacate is July 31, 2001; therefore, permission from the tenant for an on-site visit was necessary. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a 30-day notice was provided to the current tenant; however, the notice is not effective until the end of June 2001; therefore, July 31, 2001, is the earliest date possible to require the tenant to vacate the property. Commissioner Quillin stated that the current tenant could voluntarily vacate the property; that the property should be cleaned prior to the on-site visit; and referred to Section C.2, Existing Conditions, of the draft lease agreement as follows: Note: The City owns all existing kitchen equipment and fixtures. A list of those fixtures - and their current appraised value - is included in this RFP. Commissioner Quillin continued that most of the existing kitchen equipment and fixtures are beyond use; that a list of usable equipment and fixtures should be developed; that the current tenant identified viable equipment which can still be used; that the grill has been redone; that the grill hood is in place; that requiring the purchase of the existing kitchen equipment and Eixtures is a concerni that some equipment was previously removed and placed in storage. Ms. Hayes stated that purchasing the existing kitchen equipment and Eixtures is not required. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City will store the gas grill and hood or include the items with the leasehold on an as-is basis? Commissioner Palmer quoted Section C.2, Existing Conditions, of the draft lease agreement as follows: RFP respondents must propose a sales price to acquire those items from the City if their proposal desires the use of these items. Commissioner Quillin stated that the grill hood is in the building; that certain equipment and fixtures are affixed to the building; that a decision has not been made if the City will change or allow a tenant to change the interior of the building; that the RFP is unclear; that the grill hood is expensive; that the tenant should bear the cost if removing the grill hood is desired; that some equipment on the list is no longer in existence; that the language in the draft lease agreement should be revised. Ms. Hayes stated that all the assets have been located; that the section will be reviewed to take into consideration the grill and the hood. BOOK 49 Page 21364 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21365 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer referred to Section D.1, Eligible Activities, in the draft lease agreement which indicates retail and professional office are the among the most easily adaptable uses for the site; and stated that a retail restaurant is sought but not a professional office. Commissioner Quillin stated that a retail use is not sought. Commissioner Palmer stated that a restaurant or similar use is sought; that the concept is for a use which will provide activity; and asked the reason for including retail and professional office use? Ms. Hayes stated that the types of businesses which would submit proposals is not known; that retail and professional office are uses which are allowable under the Zoning Code (1998). City Manager Sollenberger stated that retail and professional office use can be deleted if desired. Commissioner Quillin stated yes, unless a food service use which also sells cups, mugs, etc., may be interested. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the use would not be primarily retail. Commissioner Quillin stated that is correct; that primarily retail use is not desired at the Lemon Avenue Mall. Commissioner Palmer stated that retail could be an accessory use; that retail and professional office should be eliminated from the list of most easily adaptable uses. Vice Mayor Mason agreed. Ms. Hayes stated that retail and professional use will be eliminated. Commissioner Martin referred to Section D.2, Limitations, as follows: Note: No tables, chairs, or other fixtures will be permitted on the northern portion of the Mall during Market time. Commissioner Martin stated that the leasehold is the southern rather than the northern, portion of the Lemon Avenue Mall; and asked for clarification. City Manager Sollenberger stated that reterence to the southern portion of the Lemon Avenue Mall is intended. Commissioner Martin asked if the intent is no outdoor setup will be allowed on Saturdays during the Farmers' Market? Ms. Hayes stated that is correct. Commissioner Quillin asked at whose request the limitation was directed? Ms. Hayes stated that the limitation is due to logistical restrictions; that the streets are barricaded; that room is required for the vendors booths. Commissioner Quillin stated that if open, the current tenant placed tables in the Lemon Avenue Mall area during the Farmers' Market which were welcomed by the public; that the number of tables could be limited during the Farmers' Market; that the public could have breakfast, have coffee, and sit and talk at the tables during the Farmers' Market; that the tables provided a gathering place; that the tenant could work with the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), to determine an appropriate number of tables. Commissioner Palmer stated that incorporating language for the tenant to work with the Downtown Association is preferred. Vice Mayor Mason agreed. Commissioner Quillin stated that an arrangement may be made not to put tables out during the Christmas holidays, for example, if other activities are taking place; that the previous RFP included the northern portion of the Lemon Avenue Mall; and asked if including the northern portion of the Lemon Avenue Mall in the RFP for a tenant was considered? City Manager Sollenberger stated that RFP No. 01-64H is for the southern portion of the Lemon Avenue Mall; that the previous RFP was for the entire Lemon Avenue Mall. Commissioner Martin stated that Saturdays during the Farmers' Market is one of the most important times for a tenant to set up operations and make money; that the Farmers' Market is crowded BOOK 49 Page 21366 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21367 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. and increasingly popular; that the opportunity for the vendor to operate on Saturdays should not be limited. Commissioner Quillin stated that the vendor also maintains the keys for the restrooms at the Lemon Avenue Mall. Commissioner Palmer stated that the successful respondent to the RFP should coordinate activities with the Downtown Association; that language concerning a cooperative, collaborative effort between the Downtown Association and the successful respondent should be incorporated into the lease agreement. Ms. Hayes stated that such language can be developed and incorporated into the lease agreement. Commissioner Palmer quoted the following from Section 5, Leaseholder Responsibilities: The City will not consider funding any portion of any renovation or construction work. Commissioner Palmer stated that vendors may be required to make renovations to the building; that the City is not interested in an extended lease due to the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) and the anticipated improvements in the vicinity on Main Street; and asked the probability of obtaining a vendor interested in a lease term of one year with additional annual renewals considering the area may be altered based on the Downtown Master Plan 2020? Mayor Hogle stated that some businesses have expressed a high degree of interest in leasing the Lemon Avenue Mall. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the premises will be leased in an as-is condition; that major capital investment is not encouraged; that minor modifications could be made subject to City approval but will be at the vendor's expense which is consistent with the intent of issuing the RFP. Commissioner Palmer stated that nothing in the RFP indicates the City's future plans for the area; that an indication of the City's plans should be provided to potential respondents. Commissioner Quillin quoted Section D.1, Eligible Activities, of the draft lease agreement as follows: Note: The City Comimission has stated that it wishes to be Elexible in considering proposals for the property. Entrepreneurial proposals are encouraged. Commissioner Quillin stated that potential respondents to the RFP may be of the opinion the building could be redesigned. Commissioner Palmer stated that clarification could be provided that alterations to the building are not anticipated; that entrepreneurial proposals may not deal only with the building. Mayor Hogle stated that the note should be deleted; that hearing the Commission's agreement, the note will be deleted. City Manager Sollenberger quoted Section A, Summary, as follows : The City Commission has stated that it will be Elexible in considering leasehold proposals. City Manager Sollenberger asked if the sentence should be removed in view of the deletion of the note in Section D.1? Commissioner Martin stated that the sentence is not necessary; that the Commission will be Elexible for the right proposal. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the sentence will be deleted. Ms. Hayes referred to Section E.2, Selection Schedule, for the dates of the presentations, ranking, and permission to negotiate which should be August 7 through September 1, 2001, rather than August 7 through October 1, 2001, as presented. Ms. Hayes referred to Section E.2, Selection Schedule, as follows: The Evaluation Team will recommend at least three (3) proposals to the City Commission for their consideration. Those three (3) RFP respondents may be required to make an oral presentation to the City Commission. Ms. Hayes stated that the Commission could receive presentations from all respondents if desired. BOOK 49 Page 21368 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21369 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that language to assure not limiting the Commission's discretion in interviewing will be incorporated. Commissioner Quillin referred to Section L.5.a, Hazardous Waste Transportation, and Section L.6, Builder's Risk; and asked if the stipulations are legally required? Ms. Hayes stated no; that the provisions are included on an as = applicable basis; that the sections could be eliminated if desired. Mayor Hogle asked if Section L.6, Builder's Risk, should be included? City Attorney Taylor stated that the language, which is often utilized in major construction contracts, is not required; that the lease agreement will be reviewed; that the non-applicable sections will be deleted. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving the RFP with revisions as discussed and authorizing issuance; that the language will be revised immediately sO the schedule can be maintained. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve RFP No. 01-64H with the revisions discussed. Commissioner Martin asked if the Downtown Association is in agreement with the proposed lease agreement as revised. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of the Downtown Association, came before the Commission and stated yes. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED MEDIATION AGREEMENT WITH DOOLEY & MACK- - FORRISTALL CONCERNING THE VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL - APPROVED WITH REVISIONS; THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK WILL POST THE JUNE 26, 2001 DEMAND LETTER CONCERNING THE CITY'S CLAIMS AGAINST TALIESIN TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) #2 (3400) through #3 (1540) City Attorney Taylor stated that approval of a proposed agreement resulting from mediation concerning the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) renovation project is requested; that permission is requested to file a lawsuit against Taliesin Associates, Inc. (Taliesin), who served as the architect for the VWPAH renovation; that the current item represents the first opportunity for the Commission to discuss the events which resulted in excessive costs involving the VWPAH renovation; that the presentation has not been previously discussed with the Administration, which can provide further input as desired; that the events associated with the VWPAH renovation have been reviewed; that significant problems occurred at the commencement of construction; that timing was the primary problem; that a VWPAH season was cancelled to allow for the renovation; that performing artists were booked for the next season; that completion of the VWPAH renovation prior to the commencement of the next season was critical; that another concern regards the status of the architectural renderings for the VWPAH renovation provided to the City and the contractor, Dooley & Mack-Forristall (DMF), by Taliesin. City Attorney Taylor continued that the Commission has indicated particular concern for the management and supervision of the construction processi that procedures to supervise the construction were implemented; that Taliesin was responsible for approving payments for construction; that DMF served as the contractor and provided a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the construction to the City; that the City, as owner, was responsible for supervising construction; that the Van Wezel Foundation, Inc. (VWF), provided assistance during construction; that William Mitchell, the former Executive Director of the VWPAH, provided daily supervision of the renovation; that approval of any expenditure was subject to the City's internal review procedures, which included review by Taliesin, National Constructors, Inc. (NCI), which served as the project manager, the VWPAH Executive Director, and the Finance Department. City Attorney Taylor stated further that the actions of an oversight committee for the VWPAH renovation have been BOOK 49 Page 21370 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21371 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. particularly criticized by the media and the public; however, the oversight committee was not appropriately named, possessed only a limited role in the VWPAH renovation, and reviewed only expenditures requested from the contingency fund for the VWPAH renovation; that the contingency fund should have been utilized only for any necessary additions to the VWPAH renovation; that the role of the oversight committee was to determine if the requested additions were required and should be recommended for funding. Vice Mayor Mason asked the amount of the contingency fund? Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the contingency fund was approximately $1.357 million. City Attorney Taylor stated that the contingency fund was for construction of any required additions or further improvements to the original design of the VWPAH renovation; that the oversight committee was not responsible for supervising or approving all requests for payment or change orders, supervising the progress, or scheduling construction; that adequate supervision of the construction was not exercised; that payments were authorized for additions which should have been submitted for approval by the oversight committee; that in particular, two change orders totaling $700,000 should have been submitted to the oversight committee but were not; that the $700,000 represents costs to complete the VWPAH renovation on schedule; that the excess costs were incurred as construction did not proceed as scheduled; that the City had contractual arrangements with several pertorming artists to open the VWPAH at a certain date; that the expenditures were approved to ensure the City's contractual obligations to the pertorming artists were observed. City Attorney Taylor continued that significant design flaws in the VWPAH renovation have been discovered and are the fault of Taliesin; that permission is requested to file a lawsuit against Taliesin to recover damages incurred by the City for the delay in the construction schedule and to correct the design flaws; that a punch list remains outstanding to finalize the VWPAH renovation; that according to the terms of the proposed mediation agreement, DMF has agreed to complete the remaining items on the punch list; that the proposed agreement was the result of mediation between the City, DMF, and NCI as well as Taliesin, which participated only on a limited basis. City Attorney Taylor stated further that excess. costs were incurred during the VWPAH renovation project but should not be incurred on other City projects; that additional procedures for supervision of the City's construction projects should be instituted to ensure excess costs are not incurred in the future; that a particular concern is ensuring excess costs are not incurred to renovate the Federal Building; that the City should hire a professional, reputable project manager to supervise the entire construction process for the Federal Building; that additional financial procedures should be implemented to ensure any excess expenses are properly documented, reviewed, and ultimately approved by the Commission; that regular status reports for important construction projects should be provided to the Commission and the Administration; that conducting an internal investigation of the excess costs to determine the responsible City employees is desired but is not currently recommended; that conducting an internal investigation would not be in the best legal interest of the City at the present time; that permission is only requested to file a lawsuit against Taliesin for multi- million dollar damages; that any internal parties responsible for the excess costs will be determined as the lawsuit against Taliesin proceeds. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the excess costs for the VWPAH renovation were tremendous; that the costs of litigation may also be significant; and asked an estimate of the cost to file and pursue a lawsuit against Taliesin? City Attorney Taylor stated that mediation continues; that the specific items subject to the mediation process cannot be publicly discussed; that Commission approval for two costs is requested in the proposed mediation agreement; that the first cost concerns authorization to pay DMF $158,565 for construction services; that the second cost concerns an estimate of the costs to proceed with filing a lawsuit against Taliesin; that a demand letter was sent on June 26, 2001, to the law firm of Bush, Ross, and Gardner, who serves as the legal representative of Taliesin; that a lawsuit will be filed against Taliesin if a timely response is not received; that the proposed litigation will be complicated and will require significant time of legal Staff and the hiring of expert witnesses; that the cost of litigation could approximate $350,000. Commissioner Quillin asked if the City's contract with Taliesin includes a provision to recover legal costs if a lawsuit is filed? BOOK 49 Page 21372 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21373 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City's contract with Taliesin specifies the prevailing party is entitled to legal fees; that a court award for legal expenses and other assoclated costs will be sought. Commissioner Quillin asked if municipalities can recoup legal expenses for similar circumstances under the State Statutes? City Attorney Taylor stated that an applicable provision in the State Statutes is not known; however, the provision in the City's contract with Taliesin is sufficient to recoup legal expenses. Douglas Lawless, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that DMF discovered significant design flaws at the commencement of renovations; that the architectural plans for the VWPAH renovation were designed and provided by Taliesin; that the construction schedule was very ambitious to ensure only a single VWPAH season was lost; that although ambitious, the proposed construction schedule was practical and could have been accomplished; that DMF exerted significant efforts to ensure the construction schedule was achieved; however, DMF required repeated clarification of the architectural plans provided by Taliesin; that numerous Requests for Information (RFIs) were submitted to Taliesin; that projects of similar size to the VWPAH usually require a substantial number of RFIs; however, DMF submitted over 400 RFIS to Taliesin; that DMF is a national renowned and respected contractor; that the architectural plans provided by Taliesin were of poor quality; that architectural supplemental instructions are frequently required for large renovation projects; that 50 to 75 architectural supplemental instructions are typically requested for similar large renovation projects; however, over 200 architectural supplemental instructions were provided to DMF; that 20 construction bulletins were also required. Attorney Lawless continued that the architectural supplements consist of both minor and major revisions to the original architectural plans provided by Taliesin; that many revisions were not submitted to DMF until many days after the initial request for assistance; that many days were then required to complete construction of the necessary revisions; that an example is the construction of a new entranceway; that DMF discovered a beam not indicated in the architectural plans upon commencement of construction of the new entranceway; that Taliesin was hired to plan the renovations due to previous service as the original architect for the VWPAH and should have possessed the original architectural plans; that the architectural plans provided by Taliesin for the renovation had many flaws; that the flaws required architectural supplements; that the architectural supplements required days to design and were also flawed in some instances; that delays due to the flawed plans further delayed the efforts of DMF and subcontractors hired to complete construction; that Taliesin did not provide an on-site representative at all times; that architectural concerns were frequently submitted to the Taliesin office in Madison, Wisconsin; that the distance between Madison and Sarasota resulted in further construction delays. Attorney Lawless further stated that by June 2001, significant delays had been incurred in the VWPAH renovation project; that DFM was concerned the construction schedule could not be met unless accelerated; that accelerating any construction schedule increases costs; that observing the bidding process to hire subcontractors is not possible; that the lowest bid for construction services may not be obtained in a short period of time; that subcontractors were hired immediately to ensure the renovations were completed as scheduled; that hiring subcontractors on short notice to work unusual hours is expensive; that Change Order Nos. 8 and 9 for subcontractors to complete the renovations as scheduled were authorized during July and August 2001; that Change Order No. 8 was for $500,000; that Change Order No. 9 was for $200,000; however, Change Order Nos. 8 and 9 were not submitted to the oversight committee for approval; that the $700,000 was utilized to hire subcontractors immediately and to purchase or rent the required materials and equipment to facilitate the accelerated construction schedule; that the subcontractors worked at the VWPAH 24 hours a day for seven days a week for several weeks to complete the renovations; that the excess costs and accelerated construction schedule were required due to the poor architectural plans provided by Taliesin. Attorney Lawless stated further that the excess costs attributable to Taliesin are at least $1 million; that a lawsuit will be filed against Taliesin to recoup the excess costs if necessaryi; that the June 26, 2001, demand letter to Taliesin's legal representative is included in the Agenda backup material; that additional costs will be incurred to correct existing design flaws and are attributable to and will be sought from Taliesin; that the orchestra shell cost the City $600,000 but must be replaced; that the City was promised the orchestra shell would only require 1.5 hours of two people's time to either erect or take down; that in reality, the orchestra shell BOOK 49 Page 21374 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21375 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. requires seven people for four hours to either erect or take down; that paying additional stagehands to erect or take down an orchestra shell is expensive; that the costs to use the orchestra shell have tripled as a result; that the City requested an orchestra shell which allowed usage at an afternoon performance and storage for a night performance on the same day; that such use is currently not possible; that the VWPAH can only schedule performances on the same day which either all require or do not require use of the orchestra shell; that significant revenues could be lost. Attorney Lawless stated that the City requested the installation of additional seating in the VWPAH; that seating was actually removed; that a portion of the existing seating was removed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to provide seating for disabled patrons; however, a sound lift was installed in the central portion of the seating near the front of the stage resulting in removal of 27 of the best seats in the VWPAH; that the City did not request removal of the seating; that the estimated costs of the 27 lost seats is $160,000 per season; that the amplification and sound system installed in the VWPAH is only suitable for a club or similar small use; that the cost to install an amplification and sound system appropriate for the VWPAH will cost $250,000; that theatrical; engineering, and architectural sub-consultants were utilized by Taliesin to design certain elements of the VWPAH renovation; that Taliesin only participated in the mediation sessions on a limited basis; that Taliesin may not have participated meaningtully in the mediation as the sub- consultants may not be supporting Taliesin's position versus the City; that lawsuits may be filed against the sub-consultants in the future. City Attorney Taylor stated that a significant amount of evidence developed by the City Attorney's Office can be presented at this time if desired; however, the current meeting has already gone late; that questions regarding the proposed mediation agreement can be asked or the details of the excess costs can be presented depending upon the wishes of the Commission; that the current Agenda item primarily concerns the proposed mediation agreement. Vice Mayor Mason asked if a funding source for the payment to DMF has been identified? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the payment to DMF can be funded from the original budget for the VWPAH renovation. Vice Mayor Mason asked if a funding source has been identified for the costs to file a lawsuit against Taliesin? City Manager Sollenberger stated no; that a funding source has only been identified to provide the requested payment to DMF. Commissioner Quillin stated that Commissioners have met individually with Staff of the City Attorney's Office to discuss the reasons for the excess costs; however, the reasons and details of the excess costs should be provided at this time to inform the public; that the proposed mediation agreement would be better understood by the public if the details regarding the mistakes and excess costs for the VWPAH renovation are revealed; that the excess costs resulted from a complex situation; that each cause for the excess costs should be carefully explained to the public. Commissioner Palmer concurred and stated that the public has been waiting patiently to hear and understand the reasons for the excess costs of the VWPAH renovation; that the details should be explained carefully to the public; that concern for the VWPAH renovation was repeatedly raised by the public during the recent campaign for Commission election; that due to the confidentiality of the mediation involving the VWPAH, the Commission did not have information to provide to the public at that time; that the public should be informed of as many details as possible; that public's right to information must be balanced with City's ability to recoup the excess costs incurred during the VWPAH renovation; that the advice of the City Attorney's Office must be heeded as a lawsuit may be filed against Taliesin to recoup at least a portion of the excess costs. Mayor Hogle stated that the more alarming excess costs should be discussed for the benefit of the public; that the June 26, 2001, demand letter to Taliesin should be made available to the public. Attorney Lawless concurred. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the funding source for the costs to file a lawsuit against Taliesin will be the General Fund reserve; that the Administration expects to recover the legal expenses of the City Attorney's Office as part of any settlement with Taliesin. BOOK 49 Page 21376 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21377 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Attorney Lawless stated that the orchestra shell is too large; that a goal of the VWPAH renovation was to increase the available stage and storage areas to allow use for performances such as Broadway productions requiring large size props; that Taliesin was supposed to design a storage area for the orchestra shell; that a sufficient storage space for the orchestra shell was not designed; that the orchestra shell is currently stored at the back of the stage area and consumes significant stage and storage area; that the height of the stage was supposed to be 70 feet; that the designed height of the stage varies between 68 and 69 feet; that drawing the stage curtains is complicated by the shortened stage height; that Taliesin previously indicated the orchestra shell could not be stored near the stage ceiling space, which is required for production purposes; however, the orchestra shell was designed to hang vertically and consumes a significant portion of the ceiling space. Attorney Lawless continued that the most significant potential loss sustained by the City concerns seating at the VWPAH; that Taliesin indicated seating would be added to accommodate large Broadway productions; that the original design plans for the VWPAH indicate additional seating could be installed; that other architects have also indicated between 200 and 400 additional seats could be added to VWPAH without major structural changes; that the City will incur a significant future loss due to Taliesin's Eailure to provide for the requested additional seating; that Taliesin designed the VWPAH renovation to accommodate use only as an opera house or orchestra facility; that the VWPAH is a performing arts hall which should accommodate many uses; that the VWPAH was not renovated as requested by and promised to the City. Commissioner Quillin asked for clarification of the lack of a cold air return at the VWPAH. Attorney Lawless stated that a whistling noise which did not exist prior to the renovation can be heard near the doors of the VWPAH; that gaps in the new doors of the VWPAH are apparent; that the assumption was the whistling noise was a result of air entering the VWPAH through the gaps in the doors; however, the whistling noise is actually resulting from air-conditioned air leaving the VWPAH through the gaps in the doors; that additional architectural consultants were hired to examine the VWPAH after the renovation; that the architectural consultants did not find a cold air return for the alr-conditioning system; that increased air pressure frequently results at the VWPAH due to the lack of adequate cold air returns; that a window exploded as a result of the increased air pressure; that only a single air duct was installed and is located directly above the stage area; that one end of the air duct is four feet wide although the other end is only two feet wide; that the resulting venturi or funneling effect increases the noise level of the air- conditioning system above the sound levels recommended by Taliesin for the stage; that air traveling through the air duct produces a wind force which shakes stage scenery and the stage curtains. Commissioner Quillin stated that installing an adequate cold air return is basic to the renovation; that the failure to install an adequate cold air return indicates the extent to which Taliesin failed the City. Vice Mayor Mason stated that the efforts of the City Attorney's Office to provide the details of the mistakes and excess costs of the VWPAH renovation are appreciated; that the public has been waiting for the information for a long time; that the City was criticized for not providing the details of the excess costs immediately; that the presentation provided by the City Attorney's Office will alleviate much of the public concern; that the City did not effectively manage and supervise the VWPAH renovation; however, Taliesin holds a disproportionate share of the responsibility for the mistakes and the excess costs; that the efforts of DMF to complete the VWPAH renovation as scheduled are commended and appreciated; that the City would have had to pay more than $700,000 if the VWPAH was not opened as promised to the contracted performing artists; that significant problems and mistakes occurred which should be avoided in the future; that the oversight committee was inappropriately named; that proper oversight should be exercised for future projects; that future oversight committees should be appropriately named and possess significant responsibilities. Mayor Hogle referred to the June 26, 2001, demand letter and asked if the demand letter could be posted on the City's website for public viewing? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the June 26, 2001, demand letter will be posted to the City's website. Commissioner Martin stated that the efforts of the Administration and the City Attorney's Office to remedy the mistakes and problems of the VWPAH renovation are appreciated; that the proposed BOOK 49 Page 21378 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21379 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. mediation agreement is a fair solution; that the City's lack of oversight should not be repeated for future projects; that the City must move forward, not repeat similar mistakes for future projects, and seek remedies for the current deficiencies at the VWPAH; that damages should be recovered from Taliesin to fund the required improvements; that the City should ensure the VWPAH is renovated to the best possible condition; that in particular, additional seating should be installed in the VWPAH. Attorney Lawless stated that the June 26, 2001, demand letter includes a demand for the maximum amount of Taliesin's professional liability policy which is $2 million; that more than $2 million is required to reimburse the excess costs incurred during the VWPAH renovation; however, the $2 million could be utilized to install additional seating and remedy some of the current deticiencies at the VWPAH. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed lawsuit is only against Taliesin; that future lawsuits may be filed against other parties to the VWPAH renovation; that an examination of the possible culpability of other parties to the VWPAH renovation will continue; that the goal is to recover as much of the excess costs as possible; that reopening the VWPAH as scheduled was not just a public relations issue; that the City was bound by significant contractual obligations to the scheduled pertorming artists; that the City would have been required to pay significant damages to the performing artists if the VWPAH did not reopen as scheduled; that delaying the reopening of the VWPAH could have cost the City more than $1 million in damages; that DMF authorized a portion of the excess costs to reopen the VWPAH as scheduled and to save the City the greater potential cost of the damages. Attorney Lawless stated that the City would have been contractually obligated to pay the scheduled performing artists approximately $1.3 million if the VWPAH did not open by January 2001; that the proposed mediation agreement contains two parts; that the first part concerns the mediation agreement, which is dated June 26, 2001; that a mediation agreement was required between the City and DMF prior to June 27, 2001, according to Paragraph 2 of the mediation agreement as follows: 2. Respective counsel for the City and DMF shall meet and conclude an agreement on or before June 27, 2001, to determine how best to proceed in advancing their damage claims against the design team. Attorney Lawless continued that the second part of the mediation agreement concerns a legal agreement between the City, DMF as the construction manager, and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America (Travelers) according to Paragraph 4 as follows: 4. Construction Manager reserves the right to pursue separately any and all claims it may have against the Architect [Taliesin] or design professionals and will do sO within six months of the execution of this Agreement should the City not resolve its disputes within that time frame. Attorney Lawless further stated that the phrase ". and will do so within six months of the execution of this Agreement should the City not resolve its disputes within that time frame' " should be deleted from the legal agreement; that DMF may have a desire to participate in the City's lawsuit against Taliesin in the future; that the six-month time limit is also not sufficient to allow the City Attorney's Office to complete the necessary requirements for filing and executing a lawsuit; that six months may not be sufficient for DMF to determine if participating with the City in the lawsuit against Taliesin is desired; that the City should not preclude DMF's participation in the lawsuit against Taliesin; that the City Attorney's Office and DMF agreed to strike the phrase from the legal agreement. Commissioner Quillin stated that recovering as much of the excess costs as possible is desired; that the June 26, 2001, demand letter has been filed with the legal representative of Taliesin; and asked if the City is filing a lawsuit against Taliesin's insurance carrier? Attorney Lawless stated yes; that Taliesin's insurance carrier for the VWPAH renovation will be named as a party to the lawsuit; that Taliesin purchased a liability policy for the VWPAH renovation; that Taliesin's liability policy is a declining limits policy which will pay less as Taliesin incurs further legal costs; that Taliesin's legal expenses will be similar to the City's estimated legal expenses. City Attorney Taylor stated that Commission approval of the proposed mediation agreement is requested. Commissioner Quillin asked if Commission approval is required for the proposed mediation agreement and authorization of the payment to DMF? BOOK 49 Page 21380 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21381 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that authorization of the payment to DMF is included in the proposed mediation agreement. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City Attorney's Office provided an excellent presentation of the events surrounding the VWPAH renovation and the proposed mediation agreement; that the Administration recommends approving the proposed mediation agreement with DMF which also authorizes the payment to DMF with funding from the original project budget for the VWPAH renovation. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to approve the mediation agreement with Dooley & Mack-Forristall (DMF) with the following phrase struck from the legal agreement: and will do so within six months of the execution of this Agreement should the City not resolve its disputes within that time frame. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that DMF finished the VWPAH renovation on schedule as desired despite adverse circumstances; that DMF's efforts to finish the VWPAH renovation are appreciated and commended; that DMF finished the VWPAH renovation despite public criticism and significant potential for litigation; that DMF is personally thanked for completing the VWPAH renovation; that definite procedures should be established to properly supervise future City projects; that the funding for any project should not be authorized without the approval of the Commission; that all funding requests should be reviewed and authorized by the Commission. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concept of accountability is important; that common sense should have been exercised as the additional costs were incurred; that the Administration and the Commission should have been regularly informed of any mistakes or problems during the VWPAH renovation; that someone will eventually be held accountable for the mistakes which occurred during the VWPAH renovation; that the mistakes and problems were not immediately brought to the Commission's attention; that the reasons for the problems with the VWPAH renovation will be discovered in due time. Mayor Hogle concurred. The Commission recessed at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:05 p.m. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: STATUS RE: : UPDATE ON THE CITY MANAGER SEARCH - REPORT GIVEN; SCHEDULED THE FOLLOWING: 1) INDIVIDUAL SESSIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS TO RECEIVE APPLICATIONS FOR CITY MANAGER ON JULY 30 AND 31, 2001, 2) AN AUGUST 1, 2001, SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING TO SELECT FINAL CANDIDATES FOR CITY MANAGER, 3) AN AUGUST 17, 2001, PUBLIC RECEPTION FOR FINAL CITY MANAGER CANDIDATES, AND 4) AN AUGUST 18, 2001, SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING TO INTERVIEW FINAL CANDIDATES FOR CITY MANAGER (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) #3 (1540) through (1780) Commissioner Quillin returned to the Chambers at 10:10 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson referred to a June 26, 2001, memorandum to the Commission concerning a status report of the search for a new City Manager included in the Agenda backup material and stated that a status report concerning the City Manager search will be presented at each future Regular Commission meeting until a new City Manager is hired; that the City Attorney, the Director of Human Resources, and he are coordinating the City Manager search and hold weekly meetings with representatives of DMG-Maximus (DMG), the firm hired to conduct the City Manager search; that the deadline for applications for the position of City Manager is July 6, 2001; that DMG indicated 75 applications have been received to date; that 20 applications were received from candidates with the desired background and skills for the position of City Manager; that the applicant pool contains a representative group of female and minority candidates. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson continued that all applications will be reviewed by DMG, which will deliver a selection of approximately 12 to 15 candidates to the Commission during late July 2001; that DMG will conduct background investigations of the selected candidates; that sessions will be held with each Commissioner to review the candidates' backgrounds; that a Special Commission meeting will be scheduled to select five or six candidates who will be invited for on-site interviews on a Saturday during August 2001; that either August 11 or 18, 2001, are possible dates for on-site interviews, which will be BOOK 49 Page 21382 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21383 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. conducted during the entire day; that a public reception for the candidates would be held on the Friday evening preceding the interviews; that the reception could be held at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH), ; that specific community leaders and organizations would be invited to the reception to meet the candidates. Vice Mayor Mason asked the date of the 2001 Annual Conterence of the Florida League of Cities (FLC)? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the upcoming FLC Conference is August 23 through 25, 2001. Mayor Hogle stated that a parade is already scheduled for August 11, 2001, to celebrate "China Smith Day"; that August 18, 2001, is the preferred date for the interviews with the selected City Manager candidates. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that with the Commission's agreement, on-site interviews will be scheduled for August 18, 2001; that representatives of DMG will meet individually with Commissioners to provide any assistance in reviewing the selected applications on July 30 and 31, 2001; that a Special Commission meeting and Joint Commission and Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting are scheduled for July 30 and 31, 2001, respectively; that individual Commissioner meetings with DMG will be arranged to accommodate the Commissioners' schedules. Commissioner Palmer asked the time Commissioners would meet with representatives of DMG on August 1, 2001? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a 2 p.m., August 1, 2001, Special Commission meeting can be scheduled to select the final five or six candidates for City Manager; that only Mayor Hogle has a potential scheduling conflict. Mayor Hogle stated that a groundbreaking ceremony for construction of the new Ringling Causeway Bridge may be scheduled for August 1, 2001; that a time for the groundbreaking ceremony has not been established but will be arranged to accommodate a 2 p.m., Special Commission meeting; that the exact date and time of the groundbreaking ceremony will be provided to the Commission; that all Commissioners are invited to the groundbreaking ceremony. Commissioner Quillin stated that the individual sessions should be posted to Commissioners' schedules as soon as an exact date and time are determined. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the information has been provided to the Commission Office Staff. Commissioner Quillin stated that she is willing to meet with City Manager candidates after regular business hours. Commissioner Martin stated that community leaders and organizations should receive invitations to the August 17, 2001, reception for the City Manager candidates; that public input should be a factor in selecting a City Manager. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Commissioners could provide a list of community leaders and organizations if desired; that each leader or organization indicated on the lists will be provided an invitation to the August 17, 2001, reception. Commissioner Palmer stated that the reception should be open to the public. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the intent was to allow any member of the public to participate. Commissioner Martin stated that invitations should be extended to specific community leaders and organizations; that the reception should also be publicly noticed and the public invited. Mayor Hogle stated that the efforts of City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and City Attorney Taylor in coordinating the City Manager's search are appreciated. 18. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1384, TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION 99-CU-09 FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF SAID APPROVAL TO ALLOW A DRIVE THROUGH BANK FACILITY AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A BANK IN A PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING IN THE COMMERCIAL, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (C-CBD) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE IS LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY FIRST STREET, ON THE SOUTH BY MAIN STREET, AND ON THE WEST BY CENTRAL AVENUE, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1401 MAIN STREET, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SAID MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SITE PLAN BOOK 49 Page 21384 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21385 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. APPLICATION 99-SP-F; SETTING FORTH TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE EXTENSION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO DENY A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE NO. 99-CU-09 AND SCHEDULE FOR ADOPTION UNDER CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 AT THE JULY 16, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (1780) through #4 (1100) Karin Murphy, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, and Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Ms. Murphy stated that at the August 16, 1999, Regular Commission meeting, the applicant, Wynnton Sarasota II Limited Partnership (Wynnton), / requested adoption of Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201 to approve Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F, and Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09; that Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201 were adopted; that Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04 was approved pursuant to adoption of Ordinance No. 99-4159 but has not become effective as a building permit has not been issued for the Five Points Tower. Commissioner Palmer asked if Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04 pertains to the vacation of a street or an alley? Ms. Murphy stated that Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04 pertains to the vacation of an alley adjoining the propertyi that Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F was approved by the Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 99R-1201 and allows the construction of a 14-story, 197,750-aquare-roos professional office building named the Five Points Tower and a 6-story parking garage; that Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 concerns the construction of an accessory drive- through facility for a proposed bank; that an application for development approval is not currently pending; that a May 18, 2001, letter was received from Wynnton requesting a two- year extension of approval of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F and a one- year extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the City Manager is authorized to approve a two-year extension of any site plan after review and recommendation by the Planning Department by Section IV-509, Expiration or revocation of approval, Zoning Code (1998), as follows: upon application submitted to the City Auditor and Clerk's Office at least fifteen (15) days prior to the automatic expiration of site plan approval, the City Manager may extend approval for one (1) additional two (2) year period after receiving the recommendation of the Director of Planning thereon. The application shall address the necessity for the extension and shall demonstrate that the extension is warranted under the circumstances. Ms. Murphy referred to the June 28, 2001, memorandum from Mark Hess, Chief Planner, Planning Department, to the Administration concerning an extension of site plan approval for the Five Points Tower included in the Agenda backup material and continued that the Planning Department reviewed and determined the request for site plan extension was appropriate; however, the review did not concern the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 or consistency of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F with the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that Section IV-910 (A) (2), Expiration or revocation of approval Expiration, Zoning Code (1998), indicates a major conditional use may be extended as follows: The original approving authority may grant an extension of time [for the major conditional usel for a period not to exceed one (1) year. Ms. Murphy referred to the June 29, 2001, memorandum to the City Manager concerning an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 included in the Agenda backup material and further stated that approval of an extension of a major conditional use is subject to any changes to the applicable City codes subject to original approval; that the characteristics and impact on surrounding areas of the proposed major conditional use are examined during the review to grant approval of the requested extension; that the Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), and the Commission are responsible for reviewing the consistency of the major conditional use with the affected area's future land use designation, the goals, objectives, action strategies, and standards of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), any adopted special area plan, and the pertinent regulations of the Zoning Code (1998). BOOK 49 Page 21386 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21387 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Ms. Murphy stated further that the City adopted the Downtown Master Plan 2020 since approving Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was adopted at. the January 22, 2001, Special Commission meeting; that approval of the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is affected by following provision of the Downtown Master Plan 2020: The entire City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan is a pedestrian plan, with provisions for creating a comprehensive, efficient network for pedestrian travel with the Study Area. Design features incorporated into the Thoroughfare Standards discussed in the document, ensure that for designated streets, walkability remains the most important goal of design. Ms. Murphy stated that within the study area of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, streets were designated as either A streets, concerning which walkability is of prominent importance, or B streets, concerning which undesirable uses for A streets could be established such as a prominent automobile use; that a Staff meeting was held to discuss the affect of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 on approval of the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the Five Points Tower site is bordered by Main Street, Central Avenue, and First Street, which are designated as A streets by the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the street frontages depicted along Main Street and Central Avenue by Site Plan No. 99-SP-F are consistent with the A-street designation; however, the drive-through accessory and multiple driveway entrances and exits depicted for First Street are not consistent with the A-street designation; that at the August 19, 1999, Regular Commission meeting, Wynnton indicated additional striping, mirrors, and signage would be installed to alleviate any concerns for pedestrian safety; however, the proposed mitigation measures do not address the interruption of the continuity of sidewalk and street wall along First Street; that the impact will not allow the section of First Street between Central and Lemon Avenues to fuliill an A-street function; that walkability is the foremost priority for A streets. Attorney Schenk stated that the Commission adopted Resolution No. 01R-1336 approving the Downtown Master Plan 2020 at the January 22, 2001, Special Commission meeting; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is a pedestrian plan which assigns priority to walkability and pedestrian travel on A streets; that Resolution No. 01R-1336 indicates the A-street designation within the Community Development Area will not occur until the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted and become effective; that the City is currently in a transitional stage; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has been adopted; that the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and approval; however, the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will probably not be approved and become effective until February 2002; that the City must still adopt a final version of the City of Sarasota SmartCode, Draft, January 2001 (SmartCode); that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 establishes a policy direction to promote walkability and pedestrian travel Downtown; that the policy direction should be considered in the request to grant approval of an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that Wynnton will argue the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan have not been adopted and are not effective; therefore, Wynnton may also argue the provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 should not be considered an approval of an extension to Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09. Attorney Schenk referred to the July 2, 2001, memorandum to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk concerning potential Commission motions for proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384 and continued that a potential for litigation exists if the extension to Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is not approved; that the courts may view a lack of approved amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan in favor of Wynnton; that potential litigation could consume three years; that approval of the extension is for one year; that the property could remain vacant during the litigation; that Wynnton could also be granted the extension as a result of the litigation; that four years could pass before any construction commences; that the Commission indicated a desire for development of the property, which is located at a prominent position Downtown; that the City Attorney's Office recommends adopting one of the following potential motions to: Approve the one-year extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09: Motion to adopt Resolution No. 01R-1384. Approve an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 for less than one year: Motion to adopt Resolution No. 01R-1384 amended to extend Major Condition Use No. 99-CU-09 for the desired period of time. BOOK 49 Page 21388 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21389 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Deny any extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09: Motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying any extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 to be scheduled for adoption under Consent Agenda No. 2 at the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Attorney Schenk further stated that the Commission should explicitly indicate the reasons for extending for a period of less than one year or denying Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the Commission's action will be reviewed and considered by the court if litigation results. Commissioner Martin stated that the indication was the property will not be developed for several years if the requested extension is denied and litigation results; however, Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 concerns approval of only the drive-through facility and not the proposed Five Points Tower. Attorney Schenk stated that Site Plan No. 99-SP-F was extended for an additional two years; that Wynnton has two years to receive a building permit to construct the Five Points Tower; that the one- year extension period of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 would not commence until litigation was concluded. Commissioner Martin asked if Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 concerns only the drive-through facility? Attorney Schenk stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that Wynnton could proceed to construct the Five Points Tower if Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is not extended. Ms. Murphy stated that the drive-through facility is indicated on Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; that Wynnton would be required to amend Site Plan No. 99-SP-F if Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is not extended; that Site Plan No. 99-SP-F would no longer be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan if Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is not extended; however, Wynnton could also amend Site Plan No. 99-SP-F to replace the drive-through facility with a use supported by the City's Comprehensive Plan which could be approved administratively, that Wynnton could also apply for another major conditional use if desired; that .a new transportation concurrency study would be required if a new major conditional use is desired by Wynnton; that a bank with a drive-through facility generates more traffic than most potential uses; that major conditional uses can be revised; that amending a site plan for a new use or major conditional use is allowed; that the goal of walkability is an important goal which should be preserved. Commissioner Quillin stated that Wynnton has many options if the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is denied; that the Five Points Tower could still be constructed; that a different use could be proposed to replace the drive- through facility. Ms. Murphy concurred but stated that Wynnton may disagree with Staff's interpretation of the potential options. Commissioner Palmer stated that Wynnton cannot proceed to construct the Five Points Tower if Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 which is an element of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F is not extended; that Wynnton would be required to submit a revised site plan for approval. Ms. Murphy concurred and stated that Wynnton would be required to amend Site Plan No. 99-SP-F. Commissioner Palmer stated that an amendment to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F would not be a minor change and would require resubmission to the entire development review process. Attorney Schenk stated that Section IV-508 (A), / Minor Revisions to Site Plan, Zoning Code (1998), allows the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement to allow a minor revision to site plans which: 1. Does not alter the location of any points of access to the site; [and] 2. Does not change the use of the property; Attorney Schenk stated that removing the drive-through facility from Site Plan No. 99-SP-F may alter the location of points of access to the site and would change the use of the property. Commissioner Palmer asked if Wynnton would be required to resubmit to the entire development review process if Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is not extended? Attorney Schenk stated that only the PBLP's approval of any amendments to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F would be required. BOOK 49 Page 21390 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21391 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 concerns a proposed drive-through facility, which is only an accessory use to the Five Points Tower; that Wynnton could proceed with constructing the Five Points Tower; that the drive-through facility is not required to complete the Five Points Tower; that many uses are proposed for the Five Points Tower; that the drive-through facility is included in Site Plan No. 99-SP-F as approved; however, Site Plan No. 99-SP-F may involve more than one phase of construction; that Wynnton could construct the Five Points Tower without the drive-through facility and seek approval of a different use after construction is completed. Attorney Schenk stated that Wynnton may indicate the drive- through facility is essential for the financial success of the Five Points Tower. Commissioner Quillin stated that removing the drive-through facility would not be considered a major revision to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; that the drive-through facility is only attached to the proposed parking garage. Ms. Murphy stated that the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement is responsible for determining if a revision to a site plan is minor or major; that the required parking spaces are calculated according to the proposed use and would be recalculated if the drive-through facility is removed; that a major revision to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F could be determined if additional parking is required for a new, more intense use; that a new transportation concurrency study might also be required; that the original and revised Site Plan No. 99-SP-F would be compared at the time Wynnton applied for a building permit for the Five Points Tower; that the revisions would be examined individually; that the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement would determine the nature of the revised use and provide advice to Wynnton. Commissioner Palmer stated that Section IV-910 (A) (2), Expiration or revocation of approval Expiration, Zoning Code (1998), indicates a major conditional use may be extended for a period not to exceed one year; that the term "may" is utilized; that clarification of the term "may" should be provided; that the term "may" appears to allow flexibility to deny or approve any extension of a major conditional use. Attorney Schenk stated that case law has been researched to determine the potential positions of the court concerning a decision to deny an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the court will examine if the Commission abused its approval authority, the facts supporting the Commission's actions, and if the Commission acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner; that a resolution specifically indicating the reasons for denying an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 should be prepared and adopted by the Commission for the benefit of the court; that the burden of proof to demonstrate the appropriate criteria were not considered in denying an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 will fall upon Wynnton and not the City. Commissioner Palmer asked the reason the Commission would approve an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 for less than one year? Attorney Schenk stated that the Commission could approve an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 until the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan to implement the Downtown Master Plan 2020 with the street designations are adopted and become effective during February 2002; that the SmartCode should be adopted shortly after February 2002. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Zoning Code (1998) is contradictory as the City Manager is allowed to approve the extension of a site plan administratively for two years but not an extension to a major conditional use necessary to validate the site plan; that only a single one-year extension of a major conditional use is allowed; and asked if an approved major conditional use can only be extended for a single, one-year period? Attorney Schenk stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that Site Plan No. 99-SP-F will be valid for one additional year after the validity of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 expires, if approved. Attorney Schenk concurred and stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384 indicates the validity of Major Conditional use No. 99-CU-09 would expire one year after August 16, 2001, if approved. Commissioner Palmer asked the rights of ynnton to develop and construct the Five Points Tower if an extension to Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is denied? BOOK 49 Page 21392 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21393 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Attorney Schenk stated that Wynnton would be required to submit revisions to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F for PBLP approval if the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement determines removing the drive-through accessory from Site Plan No. 99-SP-F constitutes a major revision; that approval of revised site plans is not subject to a review of consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a review is only required of a revised site plan's compliance with the applicable technical requirements of the Zoning Code (1998). Commissioner Palmer stated that the concern is not revising Site Plan No. 99-SP-F but rather the expiration of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; and asked the basis for a review of the technical requirements of the Zoning Code (1998)? Attorney Schenk stated that eliminating the drive-through accessory use from Site Plan No. 99-SP-F may change the points of access to the Five Points Tower and the associated parking garage; that the access points indicated on Site Plan No. 99-SP-F may also be altered if a new use is proposed to replace the drive-through facility. Commissioner Palmer asked if Wynnton can be required to submit a new major conditional use for approval? Attorney Schenk stated yes. Commissioner Quillin asked the expiration date of Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04? Attorney Schenk stated that Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 is related to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F and expires at the time Site Plan No. 99-SP-F expires. Commissioner Quillin asked if Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 is also related to Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09? Attorney Schenk stated that Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 is related to the issuance of a building permit to commence construction according to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F. Commissioner Quillin stated that Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 was necessary to construct the required utilities and infrastructure improvements for the Five Points Tower; and asked if Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 is related to Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09? Attorney Schenk stated no. Commissioner Quillin stated that Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 allows access to the proposed parking garage of the Five Points Tower; that Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 affects different access points to the parking garage; that Wynnton could proceed with construction of the Five Points Tower. Attorney Schenk concurred and stated that Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 is only related to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F. Commissioner Quillin stated that Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 only concerns the construction of a drive-through facility. Ms. Murphy stated that is not correct; that Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 is also required to provide the necessary right-of- way to allow access for the drive-through facility and may be affected; that the drive-through facility affects the potential configuration of the vacated alley; that changes may be required to Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 if an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is denied. Commissioner Quillin stated that Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 and Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 are related; that the design of the drive-through facility affects the alley vacation; that the alley provides access to the proposed parking garage; that the access points to the parking garage may be reconfigured if the drive-through facility is removed from Site Plan No. 99-SP-F. Ms. Murphy concurred and stated that the effective date of Street Vacation No. 99-SV-04 is related to Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; however, the drive-through facility required the vacation of the adjoining alley to allow additional access points into the parking garage. Attorney Schenk concurred. Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street (34237), and representing Wynnton, came before the Commission. City Attorney Taylor asked the time required for the presentation? BOOK 49 Page 21394 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21395 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Attorney Furen stated that 10 minutes will be sufficient for the presentation. Mayor Hogle stated that the consensus of the Commission is to allow the applicant 10 minutes for presentation. Attorney Furen stated that Wynnton is requesting an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 allowing a drive-through facility; that the drive-through facility is an essential element of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; that the Commission does not possess the legal authority to deny the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the May 18, 2001, letter from Wynnton to the Administration included in the Agenda backup material indicates the Zoning Code (1998) does not contain objective criteria for use by the Commission which would allow denial of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that an extension of a major conditional use should be approved if filed with the City in a timely manner; that the only valid concern expressed by Staff is related to the City's adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; however, the provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 are not presently in effect; that the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan have not been adopted and implemented and may never be adopted; that adoption of the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan transmitted to the DCA is assumed but may not occur; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will not be legally effective until the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted in final form by the Commission; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 should not be utilized to determine if the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 should be approved. Attorney Furen continued that no legal authority exists to deny the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that a two-year extension of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F was approved according to the applicable standards of the Zoning Code (1998); that the drive-through facility is an essential element of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F, the extension of which was approved; that the approval of the extensions for both Site Plan No. 99-SP-F and Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is reciprocal; that approval of one is meaningless without the other; that Site Plan No. 99-SP-F and Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 were originally approved together as part of Resolution No. 99R-1201; that the City cannot legally separate Site Plan No. 99-SP-F from Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that any provision contained in either the Downtown Master Plan 2020 or the SmartCode does not preclude the proposed drive-through facility; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 only indicates the desire to promote walkability and. pedestrian- friendly streets; however, walkability is not a controlling principal of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Attorney Furen further stated that the provisions of the Zoning Code (1998) concerning the approval of site plans and major conditional uses are contradictory; that the Zoning Code (1998) indicates an extension of a major conditional use could be denied if not attached to particular site plan; however, a major conditional use must be extended if attached as an essential element to a site plan; that Site Plan No. 99-SP-F has been extended pursuant to a request by Wynnton; that the Commission cannot arbitrarily deny the requested extension; that a May 18, 2001, letter from Planning Department Staff to the Administration indicates support for approving the extension of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F as follows: : Planning Staff supports the requested extension, which, if approved, will extend the approval of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F until August 16, 2001. Attorney Furen stated further that the two-year extension of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F was approved and executed by the City Manager; that denying the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 would result in the revocation of the extension of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; that the duly delegated authority of the City Manager would be usurped if the Commission denied the requested extension; that Wynnton could still proceed to construct the Five Points Tower and the drive-through facility as indicated on Site Plan No. 99-SP-F even if Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is not extended; however, the drive-through facility could be constructed but not used if the requested extension is denied; that theoretically, Wynnton could proceed with construction of the Five Points Tower; that realistically, however, the elimination of the proposed drive- through facility would eliminate the potential for Wynnton to secure a financial institution as a major tenant; that the economic viability of the Five Points Tower would be destroyed if a financial institution cannot be secured as a major tenant; that Wynnton has spent $1.5 million to acquire the land and finance the development of the Five Points Tower; that prohibiting the use of the drive-through facility would render the construction of the Five Points Tower impossible; that the Commission may desire to deny the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; however, Staff should not be required to explain the reasons for the denial after a decision BOOK 49 Page 21396 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21397 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. has been made; that factual evidence for a denial must be provided. Commissioner Palmer asked if the indication is the Commission does not have the authority to deny the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 if Site Plan No. 99-SP-F has already been extended? Attorney Furen stated yes; that the language of the Zoning Code (1998) indicates applicants are only required to apply for an extension of a major conditional use by the established deadline to receive approval; that Wynnton has filed the extension request by the established deadline; that Major Conditional Use No. 99-C0-09 should be extended; that the Zoning Code (1998) does not provide objective criteria allowing the Commission to deny the requested extension; that the only reasons the Commission could deny the requested extension would be arbitrary, capricious, and subjective; that Wynnton is entitled to due process; that the Commission should not provoke a legal confrontation; that Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 should be extended for the one-year period; however, the one-year period is inconsistent with the two-year extension of site plans; that the language of the Zoning Code (1998) is inconsistent and illogical; that the symbiotic relationship between Site Plan No. 99-SP-F and Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 cannot be circumvented. Commissioner Palmer stated that only a one-year period is allowed for the extension of any major conditional use; and asked . if a one-year extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 would be acceptable? Attorney Furen stated that the Zoning Code (1998) allows only a single, one year extension of major conditional uses; however, the one-year extension of a major conditional use which is essential to a site plan granted a two-year extension is illogical and will not be supported as a valid provision of the Zoning Code (1998). Commissioner Quillin stated that Section IV-910, Zoning Code (1998), indicates the Commission may extend a major conditional use up to one year. Attorney Furen concurred. Commissioner Quillin stated that a site plan and a major conditional use are two separate elements of the City's development review process; that the City must ensure proposed developments are completed as promised. Attorney Furen stated that a logical relationship does not exist between extending a site plan two years but only extending its most critical elements one year. Commissioner Martin stated that the legal authority of the Commission to deny or approve extensions of major conditional uses has been questioned and requires clarification; that the indication was the Commission is required to approve a major conditional use associated with a site plan which has already been extended. Attorney Schenk stated that she disagrees with Attorney Furen's comments; that Section IV-910, Zoning Code (1998), would not have been developed if the Commission did not possess the legal authority to approve extensions of major conditional uses; that the Commission should articulate the specific evidence utilized to deny or limit the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 if sO desired; that the absence of criteria does not prohibit the Commission from denying the requested extension; however, an arbitrary or capricious decision should not be made; that factual evidence must be provided for the record. City Attorney Taylor concurred and stated that the language of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code (1998) is awkward; that the City was responsible for drafting the language of the Zoning Code (1998); that the Commission possesses the legal authority to deny or approve extensions of major conditional uses; that factual evidence supporting the denial of the requested extension must be provided; that the evidence provided for the original quasi- judicial public hearing to consider approving Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201 can be reexamined; that the Commission should consider if any events have occurred or new goals or standards developed which significantly change the Commission's previous decisions concerning Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201; that criteria exist by which to allow the Commission to deny or approve Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the Commission is responsible for reviewing the consistency of a major conditional use with the affected area's future land use designation, the goals, objectives, action strategies, and standards of the City's Comprehensive Plan, any adopted special area plan, and the pertinent regulations BOOK 49 Page 21398 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21399 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. of the Zoning Code (1998); that any decision should be based upon the examination of factual evidence consistent with the designated responsibility of the Commission to review major conditional uses. Commissioner Palmer stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384 indicates the following: WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that the written request submitted by the Applicant set forth sufficient justification for approving the extension.. Commissioner Palmer continued that Attorney Furen indicated requesting an extension is sufficient for approval; that the proposed language also indicates sufficient justification is required to approve the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that Wynnton has not pre-leased adequate office space in the Five Points Tower to proceed with construction. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City and not Attorney Furen was responsible for drafting Ordinance No. 99-CU-09. Attorney Schenk stated that significant justification should be interpreted to refer to requiring substantial factual evidence warranting approval or denial; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 should be considered an adopted special area plan which was adopted after original approval of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; however, the City has not completely implemented the Downtown Master Plan 2020 by adopting the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384 indicates the applicant and not the City is required to set forth sufficient justification for approving the extension. City Attorney Taylor concurred and stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384 indicates the applicant must provide sufficient justification only for approval but not denial, the justification of which is the responsibility of the Commission. Attorney Schenk stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384 approves the requested extension and should not be utilized as a basis to deny the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09. Commissioner Palmer stated that the term "significant justification" should be clarified; that Attorney Furen indicated significant justification consisted of Wynnton's timely application for the extension. Attorney Schenk stated that Wynnton has indicated the extension is justified primarily for economic reasons; that the May 18, 2001, letter from Wynnton to the Administration seeking an extension of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F and Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 included in the Agenda backup material indicates sufficient pre- leasing has not occurred to satisfy construction financing requirements. Commissioner Martin stated that the Commission must examine the changes which have occurred since the original approval of Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201; that the most significant change is the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that significant community involvement occurred as part of the process to adopt the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 are relevant for evaluating whether to deny or approve an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 represents the City's long-term goals for Downtown although the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan have not been adopted; that the City has adopted the Downtown Master Plan 2020 in a real sense; that walkability is the most important concept of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that a drive-through facility will negatively impact the walkability of the affected area along First Street; that significant pedestrian traific occurs on First Street near the site; that the proposed contiguration of First Street could be more pedestrian friendly; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has legal significance; however, the applicability of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 to determine denial or approval of the requested extension should be addressed by legal Staff; that the concern is the legal interpretation may be that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is not valid until the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted and implemented. Attorney Schenk stated that Attorney Furen has indicated the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is not considered effective until the required amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan are adopted; that similar arguments will probably be presented to the courts if litigation results; however, the presiding judge would consider the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 in the City's favor; that an additional concern of the presiding judge would be if the City has implemented the required development standards to guide the design of a drive-through facility to meet the required pedestrian standards; that the City has not formulated the required development standards; that Wynnton may argue the lack of BOOK 49 Page 21400 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21401 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. the required development standards prevent the successful design of an acceptable drive-through facility; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 represents a policy direction for the City. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City's adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 represents the initial step towards establishing a policy and guideline for development standards which have not yet been implemented; that the legal standing of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has been raised many times prior to the present; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 should be considered a guide which has not been implemented; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is required to implement the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that an ordinance will be required for final adoption of the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that development regulations which implement the Downtown Master Plan 2020 have not been adopted; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 should legally be considered a resolution of the City until the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are implemented and the appropriate ordinance adopted; that the Zoning Code (1998) contains contradictory language regarding the extension of site plans and major conditional uses; that the City and not Wynnton was responsible for drafting the language of the Zoning Code (1998); that the City could lose the potential litigation and also time for development of the property. Commissioner Quillin asked the total percentage of the Five Points Tower consisting of the drive-through facility? Ms. Murphy stated that the drive-through facility consists of approximately 25 percent of the Five Points Tower footprint. Commissioner Quillin asked the total percentage of the square footage of the Five Points Tower consisting of the drive-through facility? Ms. Murphy stated that the Five Points Tower consists of 197,750 square feet; that the drive-through facility consists of only a small percentage of the total square footage of the Five Points Tower. Commissioner Quillin stated that Wynnton indicated the drive- through facility is an essential element of the Five Points Tower; that the indication was removing the drive-through facility would destroy the economic viability of the Five Points Tower; that the Five Points Tower was previously approved by the Commission due to the support of NationsBank to lease office space; that the President of NationsBank indicated the proposed building should be constructed as soon as possible and the drive-through facility was an essential element of the Five Points Tower; that two years have passed; that NationsBank, now Bank of America, is no longer interested in leasing space at the Five Points Tower; that another financial institution has not pre-leased office space in the Five Points Tower; that Wynnton could construct the Five Points Tower without the drive-through facility; that Site Plan No. 99-SP-F was extended for two years and would have to be revised if the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 is not approved; that at the August 16, 1999, Regular Commission meeting, Wynnton indicated the Five Points Tower should be approved immediately to facilitate lease negotiations; that Wynnton also indicated the Five Points Tower would be pre-leased quickly; that the drive- through facility only occupies an insignificant portion of the Five Points Tower, is not an essential element, and could be removed; that the Commission should weigh the impact of removing the drive-through facility versus the prospect of not developing the property for another year. Ms. Murphy stated that the drive-through facility consists of approximately 5 percent of the square footage of the Five Points Tower. Commissioner Quillin stated that 5 percent is only a minor percentage of the Five Points Tower. Ms. Murphy stated that a definite reason exists for only approving a one -year extension to a major conditional use but a two-year extension of a related site plan; that each project must meet certain requirements such as transportation concurrency; that the requirements may change prior to construction; that Attorney Furen indicated approving the extension of the site plan mandates approval of the related major conditional use; however, the logic would also mandate denial of the site plan and major conditional use at the same time; that the applicants would be required to resubmit to the entire development review process; that the intent of the language of the Zoning Code (1998) is to allow applicants only to resubmit or revise a portion of development plans if an extension is required if development requirements have changed; that Wynnton could modify Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; that eliminating a major conditional use may not alter a site plan significantly; that the Zoning Code (1998) provides developers the option of eliminating a major conditional use as part of a site plan. BOOK 49 Page 21402 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21403 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission previously adopted Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201 approving Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F, and Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09; that the Administration approved the extension of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; that a substantial legal basis to deny the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 has not been presented; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will not be implemented until a final version of the SmartCode and the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted and implemented; however, the drive-through facility would not be a permitted use aiter the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is fully implemented; that the Commission cannot deny the requested extension at this time; that the appropriate legal basis and objective criteria warranting denial of the requested extension have not been presented by Staff; that denying an extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 would be an arbitrary and capricious action. Commissioner Palmer stated that the difference of a one-year extension of a major conditional use and a two-year extension of a site plan is a concern; and asked Wynnton's development rights for the Five Points Tower after the expiration of the one -year extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 if approved? City Attorney Taylor stated that Wynnton would not be permitted to construct the drive-through facility; that Site Plan No. 99-SP-F is valid for an additional year; that Wynnton could modify Site Plan No. 99-SP-F to replace the drive-through facility with another use and proceed with construction of the Five Points Tower. Ms. Murphy concurred. City Attorney Taylor stated that Wynnton has indicated a different interpretation of the language of the Zoning Code (1998). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: 1. The Planning Staff Report for Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP--F. 2. The application, site plan, and all accompanying documents submitted by the Applicant on file with the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk re: Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F. 3. The Minutes of the Planning Board Public Hearing on July 7, 1999 and of the Planning Board meeting of July 14, 1999 re: Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F. 4. All exhibits and documentary evidence submitted for the record by persons during the presentation of evidence at the Planning Board meetings of July 7, 1999 and July 14, 1999 re: Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F. 5. The agenda packet for the City Commission meetings of July 19, 1999 and August 16, 1999 re: Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F 6. The Minutes of the City Commission meetings of July 19, 1999 and August 16, 1999 re: Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F. 7. All exhibits and documentary evidence submitted for the record by persons during the presentation of evidence during the City Commission meetings of July 19, 1999 and August 16, 1999 re: Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson continued that the following codes and plans of the City of Sarasota should also be entered into the record: 1. Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota (1998 ed.). 2. The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan (1998). 3. Engineering Design Criteria Manual. BOOK 49 Page 21404 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21405 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. 4. The Community Redevelopment Plan a/k/a the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 prepared by Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company dated October 25, 2000 as adopted by the City Commission in Resolution No. 01R-1336. 5. Resumes and/or statements of qualifications of City staff, City consultants and expert witnesses previously filed with the City Clerk. 6. Transportation study Five Points Tower prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. dated March, 1999. 7. A1l documents maintained as part of the Official Record by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk re: Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 and Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F, in accordance with Resolution No. 99R-1134. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1384. Motion failed for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to deny a one-year extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Palmer stated that the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 should be set for public hearing if denied at the current meeting. Mayor Hogle asked if setting the extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 for public hearing is a possible action? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that the City Attorney's Office will prepare a resolution denying the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 for Consent Agenda No. 2 of the July 16, 1999, Regular Commission meeting, if desired. Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission should provide proper justification if the requested extension is denied; that a substantial legal basis to deny the requested extension has not been provided; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is not fully implemented; that the City may be subject to litigation from multiple parties if the requested extension is denied. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City is frequently subject to the potential for litigation; that the ultimate interpretation of the City's laws will be made by a judge; that approval of Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201 was not supported previously; that the Five Points Tower is not an appropriate use for the property; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 also indicates the drive-through accessory is not an appropriate use for the property. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution to deny a one-year extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 and schedule for adoption under Consent Agenda No. 2 at the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Martin stated that a tremendous community effort occurred to develop and adopt the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which is focused on the concept of walkability and pedestrian travel Downtown; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was initiated due to the decrease in quality of life and walkability Downtown; that the proposed drive-through facility is not appropriate for and compromises the walkability of the affected area of First Street; that the motion is supported; that the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 should be denied; that Wynnton is encouraged to reapply for a different conditional use for the Five Points Tower; that design of any proposed conditional use should incorporate the concept of walkability; that the portion of First Street near the Five Points Tower will not be pedestrian friendly if the proposed drive-through facility is constructed. Commissioner Quillin stated that adoption of Ordinance No. 99-4159 and Resolution No. 99R-1201 was not previously supported; that the proposed drive-through facility did not comply with the City's long-term goals for Downtown development during 1999; that Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 does not provide for the safety of pedestrians along the property's boundary with First Street; that the Five Points Tower will require the removal of necessary public parking spaces near the property; that the pubic parking spaces will not be replaced; that testimony has not been heard which indicates the requested extension should be approved; that the drive-through facility only constitutes approximately 5 percent of the total area of the Five Points Tower and is not an essential element; that BOOK 49 Page 21406 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21407 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Wynnton has not provided significant testimony or factual evidence to confirm the essential nature of the proposed drive- through facility; that NationsBank, now Bank of America, previously indicated a desire to pre-lease office space in the Five Points Tower but is no longer interested in tenancy; that the drive-through facility was proposed to accommodate NationsBank, now Bank of America, and is no longer required; that drive-through facilities are, no longer essential elements of modern financial institutions; that Wynnton is encouraged to apply for a different conditional use; that locating a drive- through facility at the proposed location is not in the best interests of the public. Commissioner Palmer stated that the term "may" in Section IV-910 (A) (2), Zoning Code (1998), does not mandate Commission approval of the requested extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 even if the Administration approved an extension of Site Plan No. 99-SP-F; that a lack of sufficient pre-leasing to proceed with construction does not constitute justification for approval of the requested extension; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was adopted by the Commission and represents something greater than a conceptual plan; that the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan have been transmitted to the DCA; that the SmartCode will be adopted in the future; that Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F, and Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 were not supported as a member of the PBLP in 1999; that the potential for litigation is signiticant; however, Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 was not supported as a PBLP member for many good reasons; that the extension will not be supported at this time; that sufficient legal justification exists to deny the requested extension; that the PBLP originally rejected Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09; that the Commission overturned the action of the PBLP; that the Five Points Tower will probably be constructed in the future; that the proposed drive-through facility will significantly impede pedestrian access to the Five Points Tower and the surrounding area from First Street, which should be considered a pedeatrian-triendly street; that the PLBP previously rejected Street Vacation Application No. 99-SV-04, Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-F, and Major Conditional Use Application No. 99-CU-09 due to the complications to pedestrian access; that the motion will be supported. Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution to deny a one-year extension of Major Conditional Use No. 99-CU-09 and schedule for adoption under Consent, Agenda No. 2 at the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Motion carried (3 to 2) : Martin, yesi Mason, no; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, no. 19. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - DIRECTED THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF THE ALCOHOL PURCHASES AND SALES AND OPERATIONS T THE VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL; DIRECTED THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO REQUEST SUGGESTIONS FROM THE SEARCH FIRM FOR THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER AS TO STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERVIEW PROCESS (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (1089) through (2256) COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that the opportunity to travel to Scotland on behalf of the City and in place of the Mayor is appreciated; that a precedence of utilizing Sister City funds for travel should not be established; that travel funds are available for the trip as the Annual Conference of the Florida League of Cities (FLC), which is at the same time, will not be attended; that video tapes can be brought back from the FLC Conference; that being unable to attend the FLC Conference which is excellent is disappointing. B. stated that some citizens park trailers and launch boats at Centennial Park; that a parking crisis is occurring; that permitting the parking of boat trailers may be necessary; that sometimes one person takes the boat out while the other parks the vehicle and trailer; that designated areas for parking with permits could be provided near the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i that the parking problem in Centennial Park should be resolved; that a suggestion is to limit the parking of cars during designated times; and asked if a master plan of the area is still in progress? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated yes. Mayor Hogle stated that parking at Centennial Park should be considered in the master planning of the area. BOOK 49 Page 21408 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21409 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that the suggestions are from citizens who utilize Centennial Park and are willing to pay for a parking permit. Commissioner Palmer stated that a letter was received from a citizen requesting the possibility of having a paid permit for parking in Centennial Park; that some funding would be expended to initiate a parking program in the area; that the concern is a policy which could cause significant conflict with the VWPAH; that instituting parking permits without causing conflict with the VWPAH is acceptable but unlikely; that investigating the option may not be worthwhile. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the option of issuing parking permits has been investigated and was unsuccessful in the past. C. stated that the dirty brass fixtures on the outside doors of City Hall are disappointing; that the brass inside the Commission Chambers is clean; that the brass push plates on the restroom doors in City Hall have been varnished and look terrible; that other brass fixtures in City Hall could easily be cleaned; that the detail is minor but should be done; and asked the cost of the new brass push plates to the Chambers? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the new brass push plates were purchased for $5 each. Commissioner Quillin stated that City Hall should not be dirty as renovations are complete. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to extend the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. D. stated that the Commission's Rules of Procedures were discussed earlier in the meeting; that the Commission issues proclamations and Mayor's Citations; that a standard should be developed as some certificates are signed by all Commissioners and some are not signed at all; that standard language should be implemented; that Commissioners run for a district or at-large Commission seat and not for Commissioner; that the request has been made to have the designation of District 3 with the title of Commissioner on anything personally signed; that perhaps each Commissioner's signature could be designated if desired. Mayor Hogle stated that the signature is not of concern. Commissioner Quillin stated that the process will be educational and will assist the public in understanding the Commissioner/Manager form of government. Mayor Hogle stated that the Deputy City Auditor and Clerk developed some good language in the Mayor's Citation for Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, Inc. (Selby Gardens); ; and requested the Deputy City Auditor and Clerk distribute copies. Commissioner Quillin stated that the language has always been available; however, some members of Staff do not utilize the language. Mayor Hogle stated that copies of the Mayor's Citation presented to Selby Gardens were provided to Staff; that Staff has been requested to make all language uniform throughout the City. Commissioner Quillin stated that uniform language is appropriate; that the Mayor's Citation should be signed by the Mayor only; that Commissioners can give citations; that language should be created by the City Auditor and Clerk which will educate everyone; that the current language can be confusing. E. stated that the financial statement for the VWPAH was received; that an audit of the VWPAH including alcohol sales is suggested; that the figures for purchase and sale of alcohol are only a fraction of the total; that no inventory control figures are included in the financial statement; that the figures should be reexamined; that an audit can institute good procedures for accounting; that the City should have more control especially while leasing space for functions which create revenue; and requested the City Auditor and Clerk audit the VWPAH alcohol purchases and sales. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an audit of the alcohol purchases and sales and operations at the VWPAH can be performed. BOOK 49 Page 21410 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21411 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that result of the audit should be a procedure for reporting alcohol purchases and sales in the future. VICE MAYOR MASON: A. stated that drug problems exist in north Sarasota; that the manner in which the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) is managing the drug problems is unsatisfactory; that a discussion was held with the Chief of Police; however, the problem is not resolved; that a better job can be done; that no consistency has been achieved in enforcement of drug-related crime; that no personal expertise is claimed; however, she lives and works in the community; that drug-related crime is related to the lack of community policing; that community policing is valuable to the community and has diminished; that the Administration should explore the option of returning community policing; that a recommendation from the Administration would be appreciated. B. stated that the Enterprise Zone, the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI grant, and the Newtown Redevelopment Plan are of concern; that the City's Director of Redevelopment and Development Services has done a good job but is leaving the City, which is a concern; that redevelopment is important to the City; that the desire is to ensure the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services leaves the City a blueprint to assure accomplishing the goals after his leaving; that the African American Leadership Coalition has concerns regarding the length of time taken to receive a short list of respondents to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Newtown Redevelopment Plan; that the Newtown Redevelopment Plan was slowed by the bureaucracy which is inherent in government; that the public's perception of government must be changed by encouraging participation in the government process and by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy; that a recommendation from the Administration would be appreciated. C. stated that the Administration and Staff are thanked for working hard to get information concerning the HOPE VI grant to the Commission; that the Commission, the City Auditor and Clerk, and the City Attorney are thanked. D. stated that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), Park has parking problems; that permission was given to Men Against Destruction Defending Against Drugs & Social Disorders (MADDADS) to build on the parking area across from MLK Park; that the decision was not supported in the past and is still not supported; that MADDADS has not done anything with the property to date; that the Commission made a mistake in the action taken; that the mistake should be rectified; that the land was bought for overflow parking for MLK Park; that allowing MADDADS to build on the property put the immediate neighborhood in jeopardy during events; that MLK Park is frequently used and has limited parking facilities; that the desire is for the Commission to rescind the action; that a recommendation from the Administration would be appreciated. Mayor Hogle stated that adding a discussion concerning parking at MLK Park to the Agenda for the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting is supported as the property has been unchanged for one year. COMMISSIONER PALMER: : A. stated that the Community Resource Team (CRT) was initiated by several Commissioners in the 1980s; that the CRT was wonderful; that the elimination of the CRT was disappointing; that some conversations have been held with the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) concerning a resurrection of the CRT; that the issue is budgetary; that the SPD is concerned with the CRT regarding staffing levels and the necessary resources; that the issue is for the City Manager to determine; that the hope is the Commission can take some action to reestablish the CRT which was an incredible operation; that reestablishing the CRT is supported. BOOK 49 Page 21412 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21413 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. B. stated that the issues concerning the organization of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and establishment of a CRA Advisory Board have been unresolved since initially raised a few months ago; that the understanding is the topic will be on the Agenda of the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting as the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services is leaving in the near future. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct. Commissioner Palmer stated that a CRA meeting will be held in conjunction with the July 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct. C. stated that some citizens raised questions concerning the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Ritz-Carlton) ; that the additional right-turn lane which is toward Gulf Stream Avenue is almost complete; that the lane in front of the Holiday Inn By the Bay (Holiday Inn) is still blocked; that some concern regards vehicles having to curve around the Ritz-Carlton before making a right-hand turn to the west if the right lane in front of the Ritz-Carlton is opened before the lane in front of the Holiday Inn. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission, distributed a packet including the Proposed Holiday Inn/Denny's Restaurant Staging plan and a map of the area, and stated that the work will be complete in eight weeks; that the Engineering Department was working out differences between the owners of Denny's Restaurante/Holiday Inn and the Ritz-Carlton; that the required access to One Watergate was provided; that the problems were resolved on June 28, 2001, with the assistance of the City Attorney's Office; that approval to begin the first two weeks of the outlined schedule was granted on June 29, 2001; that the work should be completed in eight weeks; that the new driveway into Denny's Restaurant will be blocked off for one month and reopened on October 1, 2001; that the Ritz-Carlton will open in late November 2001. Commissioner Palmer stated that the area in front of the Ritz-Carlton, Denny's Restaurant, and Holiday Inn will be open by approximately October 1, 2001. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission went through the painstaking elements of the site plan approval for the Denny's Restaurant property and referred to the map of the area including the street improvements. Commissioner Quillin continued that the commitments made for the entranceway into the Ritz-Carlton Hotel are not seen on the map; that the Banyan tree is indicated on the map as being removed; that adherence to the agreement made between the City, Core Development Incorporated, a Kansas Corporation (Core), and Celt, Inc. is not reflected on the map; that the plan presented is not the plan which was approved. Mr. Daughters stated that the Banyan tree is to remain. Commissioner Quillin stated that a Banyan tree is on the side of the street opposite the property; however, the Banyan tree discussed should be in the center of the driveway and is indicated as being removed. Mr. Daughters stated that the Banyan tree in the island is to remain. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Banyan tree on the Ritz-Carlton property is not being discussed; that the Banyan tree at the entranceway to Denny's Restaurant is of concern. Mr. Daughters indicated the entranceway to Denny's Restaurant and stated that no change has been made. Commissloner Quillin stated that the map is confusing. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: A. stated that the County has been involved with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Resource Management Area (RMA) ; that on June 25, 2001, the County hosted a program called Planning for Great Neighborhoods which is particularly applicable to the City's Downtown; that a video tape of the meeting should be viewed by the Commission; that some speakers were remarkable and included people who had been working in Englewood, Venice, and Sarasota City and County; that the program will continue; that the County will conduct a BOOK 49 Page 21414 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21415 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. developers' forum on August 2, 2001; that developers who have worked with regulations such as the City of Sarasota SmartCode, Official Draft Version 1.0, January 2001, for certain communities will be present; that the Commission should participate; that developers, land use attorneys, and planners who work in the community should be informed and attend the forum; that the information may relieve some concerns voiced in the community. B. stated that the hope is a portion of the interview process for the City Manager search can include time for select stakeholders to conduct interviews; that the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA), the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), etc., might be included; that an opportunity should be provided to some citizens for involvement in the process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the search firm will be contacted for suggestions from other cities concerning the process. Mayor Hogle stated that the plan was to include some stakeholders in the process; that the CCNA, the Downtown Association, and the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) should be included. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission is elected is to represent citizens; that a reception should be held before the interviews, at which time stakeholders can talk to the candidates; that the stakeholders' responsibility is to be present as the Commission conducts the interviews; that taking a break to allow people to talk to the Commission is not a concern; however, the final decision belongs to the Commission; that having the stakeholders participate in the process is not supported. Commissioner Martin stated that the final decision belongs to the Commission; however, suggestions from the search firm could be received for Commission consideration; and requested the City Auditor and Clerk contact the search firm. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the search firm will be contacted for suggestions. Commissioner Palmer stated that stakeholder participation was raised the first time the City Manager search was discussed; that some community participation should be included in meeting and greeting the candidates but not in the decision-making process; that the candidates will also be making decisions; that a candidate will have to decide to accept the position if offered. Commissioner Quillin agreed. C. stated that the departure of the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services is of concern particularly regarding the continuity of the programs overseen; that the Administration should return a report concerning the manner in which the City will address the position and the management of the projects sO the Commission can move forward. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services is assembling a blueprint which will be ready in July 2001; that the Deputy City Manager will temporarily take over the responsibilities of the position; that the Administration should return a program as to the manner in which the issues will be resolved. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Director of Downtown Redevelopment, who is a new employee, is capable of taking on additional duties; that the talents of many employees must be utilized to complete the projects. MAYOR HOGLE: A. stated that the HOPE VI grant application as submitted is on the Commission clipboard; that remarks will be saved for a later time. 20. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (2256) through (2285) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that the pertormance -based budgeting workshop will be followed by the budget introduction on July 6, 2001. Commissioner Palmer asked the time the budget will be received? BOOK 49 Page 21416 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21417 07/02/01 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the budget will be presented on July 6, 2001. 21. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2285) There being no further business, Mayor Hogle adjourned the Regular meeting of July 2, 2001, at 11:56 p.m. 4 ALBERT F. HOGLE, MAYOR ATTEST: OFA Belly & - tAds BILLY E.ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 3