MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. 1. ADOPTION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 94R-718, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF LLOYD DEXTER MORGAN JR.. AN OUTSTANDING CITIZEN OF SARASOTA #1 (0034) through (0151) Mayor Pillot stated that Memorial Resolution No. 94R-718 recognizes the passing of Lloyd Dexter Morgan, Jr., an outstanding citizen of Sarasota who helped to develop many of the amenities of this community including the Sarasota County Fair and (the Fairgrounds). Mayor Pillot read Memorial Resolution No. 94R-718 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 94R-718. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that on behalf of the Commission he will present the Memorial Resolution to Mr. Morgan's family on opening day at the Sarasota County Fair. 2. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 1994 CAPTAIN CHARLES W. JOHNSTON, PUBLIC SAFETY, FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES BUREAU #1 (0158) through (0288) Julius Halas, Chief of Fire/Rescue Services Bureau, and Captain Charles Johnston, Fire/Rescue Services Bureau, came before the Commission. Chief Halas stated that Captain Johnston has served the Fire Rescue Bureau of the City of Sarasota for 21 years; that Captain Johnston has been a key individual of the Incident Command team at several Book 36 Page 10258 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10259 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. significant emergency fire incidents within the City, as well as the County; that Captain Johnston has served as chairperson of a Countywide Emergency Management Communications/Clear Text" committee under the direction of Gregg Feagans which has successfully initiated a standard set of Clear communication signals; that Captain Johnston was honored by all the local municipal fire chiefs in Sarasota County for this accomplishment; that the Sheriff's Department will attempt to initiate a similar effort within law enforcement; and that this effort has been a major transition to improve Sarasota's emergency capability during a disaster. Chief Halas offered Captain Johnson congratulations. Mayor Pillot read the Employee of the Month Certificate and presented Captain Johnston with a plaque for being selected as "Employee of the Month" for January, 1994. 3. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO GEORGE PROBST, SENIOR FINANCIAL ACCOUNTANT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, WITH 13 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0289) through (0368) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, and George Probst, Sr. Financial Accountant, came before the Commission. Mr. Mitchell stated that George Probst began his career with the City in January 1968; that George has a total in excess of 25 years of service; that George originally retired from the City in January 1980 to pursue other interests, but returned to Finance Administration 11 months later; that therefore, he will be retiring from the City twice; that George is well liked and has always been willing to assist co-workers, many of whom are present tonight to watch the Retirement Award presentation. Mayor Pillot read the Retirement Award and presented Mr. Probst with a plaque. 4. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF INJURY PREVENTION THROUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION #1 (0380) through (0771) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this program is dependent upon a State grant with matching funds provided by Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH). Julius Halas, Chief of Public Safety Fire-Rescue Bureau, and James Frazier, Battalion Chief, Fire-Rescue Services Bureau, came before the Commission. Slides were displayed throughout the presentation on a computer- generated projector, and the Mobile Learning Lab was on display outside city Hall. Battalion Chief Frazier stated that tackling the injury problem (in Sarasota) has become a community effort; that he is pleased and excited to be part of the Injury Prevention Campaign (IPC); that the IPC has become a reality because of the dedicated participation of civic-minded organizations such as SMH; that health care reform is a hot topic in the media with injury or trauma care at the heart of the issues; that approximately $38 million dollars are spent each year (in Sarasota) on health care costs for treatment of injured patients, not including costs for rehabilitation or the loss of revenue due to absences from work. Battalion Chief Frazier continued that in September of 1991, the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board agreed to provide a cash match to an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) grant received by the City of Sarasota which allowed the beginning of a countywide IPC spearheaded by all Fire-Rescue Services in Sarasota County; that special support and efforts of Dr. Steven R. Newman, Sarasota County EMS Medical Director paved the way for the birth of this partnership between the SMH and Sarasota Fire-Rescue; that the first step of the campaign was to better define the nature of the injury problem in Sarasota; that a statistical analysis conducted by an independent consultant provided the factual profile of injury in Sarasota which is targeted by the IPC; that motor vehicle accidents, falls, and drowning are the unintentional injury areas which are most prevalent; that as the campaign picked up momentum, other centers of expertise (such as Sarasota School Board, Ringling School of Art, the Florida Highway Patrol, and the Florida Department of Transportation) joined the efforts to reduce the human tragedy of injuries. Battalion Chief Frazier further stated that a two pronged public education approach has been developed to have the broad range of contact necessary to produce a significant improvement or outcome of the ICP: (1) Mobile Learning Lab, and (2) Group presentations; that two multi-media programs are provided in the IPC: 1. Overview Program of the unintentional injuries most common in Sarasota providing information about the cause of injury and safety tips to avoid such injury; that this program will hopefully have a significant impact on the infant drowning rate in Sarasota which is twice that of other areas in the State. 2. "Targeted Multi-media Highway Injury Prevention Demonstration Project" which is a three year program funded by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), State Safety Office, targeting specific high-risk corridors for public education to prevent motor vehicle crashes; that an interactive participant is taken along a video drive-thru of the hot spots in the corridor and given safety tips along the way. Book 36 Page 10260 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10261 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Battalion Chief Frazier stated that aggressive milestones (such as reaching 20,000 residents/visitors, and reducing the injury incidents by 10%) have been set for the IPC; that with continued community support these goals can be met; that the City's contribution to the IPC is limited to an in-kind portion of budgeted personnel salaries (estimated at $20,000); that the total (research development as well as implementation for the first three years) is $445,000; however, compared to the cost of injury, it is a small investment; that the Mobile Learning Lab will be about in the community, and will be the focal point of the Fire-Rescue booth at the Sarasota County Fair, March 18th thru 26th; that group presentations can be scheduled beginning in April; and that because of SMH's generous support back in September 1991, the IPC is now a reality. Chief Halas stated that Sarasota County School Board Adult Community Education Department has provided funds through available grants to support instructional staff to deliver the programs to alleviate overtime costs to the City for instructors; and that instructors are also being drafted from the County. Mayor Pillot requested that Michael Covert, President of SMH, come to the Commission table. Mr. Covert stated that SMH appreciates the opportunity to participate in the IPC; that he encourages touring the Mobile Learning Lab; that the program will make a difference; and that SMH hopes to be able to continue supporting the IPC in the future. Mayor Pillot read the Mayor's Citation to Sarasota Memorial Hospital and presented it to Mr. Covert. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0771) through (0781) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the February 22, 1994, minutes. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0782) through (0830) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: A. Add to Scheduled Presentations, Item No. V-3, Presentation Re: Request for designation of Vladimir, Russia and Perpignan, France as Sister Cities. Commissioner Merrill requested the following Change to the Orders of the Day: B. Move Scheduled Presentations, Item No. V-1, Presentation Re: Increase in number of Adult Entertainment Shops on North Tamiami Trail forward to follow Public Hearings on the Agenda. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that public hearings are advertised for 6:30 p.m. Since it was not that time, it was the consensus of the Commission to move to Consent Agenda No. 1. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEMS 1 AND 2 - APPROVED; ITEM 3 TABLED TO LATER IN THE MEETING (AGENDA ITEM IIIA-1,-2,-3) #1 (0832) through (0997) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Item 3 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the 1994 Home Application 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Commercial Roofing Technologies Inc., Tampa, Florida, in the amount of $33,200 for replacing the built-up roofing system on the City's Water Treatment Plant/Operations and Maintenance Facility, located at 1643 12th Street On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 Items 1 and 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. Approval Re: Authorize Administration to acquire the professional services of Tindale Oliver & Associates to perform a traffic study, concerning the left-turn lane at the intersection of Bayfront Drive/Main Street Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she removed Item 3 to vote against it; that she does not want to allocate $10,500 to do an engineering study to redo the Bayfront Drive/Main Street intersection without waiting to see how the intersection functions as originally planned. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she agrees; that she thought the Commission agreed to see how the current plan functioned, and then go back and review changing the median. Book 36 Page 10262 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10263 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he thought the Commission had requested the Administration to return to the Commission with designs for a left-turn pocket coming off of U.S. 41 onto Main Street; that the Engineering Department does not have the staff to prepare the designs on a timely basis; therefore, consulting advice would be necessaryi however, the Administration has no objection if the Commission prefers to delay (the study). Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission voted by majority to approve the left-turn lanes; that absent the data received by a study, the left-turn lanes would be delayed beyond the intent of that majority action. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she recalls that it was moved to make application to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to complete the left-turn lanes as rapidly as possible which received a 3-2 vote; that her position was and still is to delay (the left- turn lanes). On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to table Consent Agenda No. 1 Item 3 to later in the meeting (when appropriate minutes of the meeting are made available). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3772, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1707 BAHIA VISTA STREET, A HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE DOLPH & LAURA ALBRITTON HOUSE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-02, MIKKI HARTIG) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) AND 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3773, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 935 CITRUS AVENUE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE RIEGEL COTTAGE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-03, MIKKI HARTIG) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA IV-2) AND 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3776, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 908 POMELO AVENUE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE THEODORE W. REDD/AUGUBTUS M. WILSON HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-06, MIKKI HARTIG) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) AND 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3777, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 1735 BAHIA VISTA STREET, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE OLIVE BRINK HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-07, MIKKI HARTIG) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (0998) through (1460) There was consensus of the Commission to simultaneously address the four Public Hearings regarding historic designation of structures. Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development; Mikki Hartig, Petitioner; and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist, came before the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that all four structures are in the same neighborhood; that the Historic Preservation Board unanimously recommended approval of all four structures. Slides were displayed of the four structures to be designated as structures of historic significance, pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota. Ms. Hartig stated that proposed Ordinance 94-3772 designates the structure located at 1707 Bahia Vista Street, historically known as the Dolph & Laura Albritton House; that the house is an early representation of a farm house constructed in 1908; that the property originally had four acres of land and was the site of a strawberry farm; that Mr. Albritton was an early pioneer, as well as his wife, Laura Rigby Albritton, whose family settled in Sarasota in the 1890s; that Mr. Albritton and (W.F.) Rigby were two of the earliest builders in Sarasota; that the subject structure is an excellent example of Florida frame vernacular and has been virtually unaltered since construction; that the farmland was subdivided in 1923 and the Graham Heights Subdivision was formed. Ms. Hartig stated that the significance of the structure was that it is representative of an early truck farm linked to Sarasota's Book 36 Page 10264 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10265 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. agricultural development, associated with the Adolphus Albritton and Laura Rigby Albritton, and it is one of the few residential structures still standing in the City of Sarasota from the early part of the century. Ms. Hartig stated that proposed Ordinance 94-3773 designates the structure located at 935 Citrus Avenue, historically known as the Riegel Cottage; that the structure was constructed approximately in 1912 (and displays characteristics of) a National Folk House; that the structure was originally a boarding house; that the house is in excellent condition, and it embodies the characteristics of the style, (period), and method of construction. Ms. Hartig stated that proposed Ordinance 94-3776 designates the structures located at 908 Pomelo Avenue, historically known as the Theodore W. Redd/Augustus M. Wilson House; that the structure is named for two of its earliest occupants; that indications are that the house was built in 1900; however, it could have been constructed as early as 1897; that Augustus Wilson, a pioneer resident to the area and the patriarch of a family whose members took an active role in the political and civic affairs not only in Sarasota but throughout the State of Florida, resided in the home from the 1920s; that Mr. Wilson served two terms as State Senator, representing what was then a 12-county area, and served one term as a Representative to the House of Representatives for Manatee County, before the creation of Sarasota County in which he played a significant role; that although the house has received some alteration, the alterations are over 50 years old and reflect the settlement of the surrounding area and the changes necessitated by that settlement; that the main house provides an obvious visual contrast in its scale design and construction to virtually all of the surrounding housing stock. Ms. Hartig stated that proposed Ordinance 94-3777 designates the structures located at 1735 Bahia Vista Street, historically known as the Olive Brink House; that the structure is approximately two doors down from the Albritton House located on property in Graham Heights that was originally part of the strawberry farm; that the structure is hollow clay tile construction with a typical stucco exterior, a Craftsman Style bungalow widely constructed in the 1920s; that the structure retains all original windows as well as the original two-car garage; that the first owner of the house was Olive Brink, the granddaughter of Perry Brink, original founder of Brinks (Express Company). Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3772, 94-3773, 94-3776, and 94-3777 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved (to pass proposed Ordinance Nos. 94-3772, 94-3773, 94-3776, and 94-3777 on first reading). Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONB PRESENTATION RE: INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT SHOPS ON NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #1 (1451) through #2 (1400) Dr. Arland Christ-Janer, President of the Ringling School of Art and Design and Chairman of Gateway 2000; Tom Sullivan, (substituting for General Roland Heiser) member of Gateway 2000 Executive Committee and Manager of the Hyatt House; Martha Lambert, Manager of the North Trail Branch of Sun Bank Gulfcoast, President of the North Trail Business Association, and member of the Gateway 2000 Executive Committee; Barbara Cherry, President of the Best Western Royal Palms Motel and Secretary/treasurer of the North Trail Business Association; and C. Bart Cotten, President of Sapphire Shores Owners Association, came before the Commission. Dr. Christ-Janer stated that he thanks the Commission on behalf of the Gateway 2000 Executive Committee for the opportunity to make this presentation; that (the people as listed above) are before the Commission to collectively express concern over the presence and the proliferation of adult entertainment businesses on the North Trail corridor, and to lend conceptual support to the proposed up- scaled shopping mall to be built on the Mission Harbor site; that Gateway 2000 from its earliest meetings determined that the community was most focused on the perception of crime, drugs, and prostitution as the symbol of the gateway into Sarasota; and that the following solutions are recommended: Modifying the Zoning Ordinance for the North Trail (NT) Zoning District. Proposing (licensing) or amortization of existing adult entertainment businesses. Encouraging high-economic impact projects along the North Trail such as the proposed upscale shopping center. Dr. Christ-Janer stated that Gateway 2000 interest was peaked by two recent events: (1) issuance of an occupational license for an adult entertainment and paraphernalia store in the former Paragon Music Store location next to Kentucky Fried Chicken on the North Trail, and (2) the recent Commission vote requesting that the County Commission explore other sites for the library; that it is Book 36 Page 10266 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10267 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. (the committee's) desire to create a community environment which would prohibit future adult entertainment activities on the North Trail and amortize or eliminate adult entertainment activities already established on the North Trail; that support for an upscale shopping center on the Mission Harbor site rather than the proposed library is based on the conviction that a tax-producing entity would enhance the North Trail corridor more than a nontax-producing entity and would produce revenue for the city of Sarasota which could in turn provide financial support for a number of desired undertakings by the City; that it is not suggested that the essential zoning improvements and the tax-producing entity be linked; that the North Trail Zoning improvements must be free standing; that it is important that the North Trail Zoning improvements be in place first to help attract desirable tax- producing entities along the North Trail. Mr. Sullivan stated that today's statement is consistent with the endorsement from the Gateway 2000 Mission Statement to improve the North Trail as business leaders in the community with the assistance of the Commission, as accepted by the Commission in 1990; that in 1992 the Commission approved Ordinance No. 92-3562 which created the North Trail (NT) Zoning District, designed to enhance economic climate along the North Trail and provide incentives for a hospitality corridor; that the ordinance received a high-level of input from the community and citizens; that proposed Ordinance No. 92-3547 contained wording which would have precluded the proliferation of adult entertainment facilities now found along the North Trail; that if the Commission allows this proliferation to continue with no action, the intention is inconsistent with Commission desires to improve the North Trail; that he is impressed with the improvements made to Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, the Exhibition Hall, and Centennial Park; that a resolution has recently been passed by the Commission supporting development of the Mission Harbor site to be recommended to the County Commission; and that he is opposed to allowing (the proliferation of adult entertainment) to downgrade an area which has previously been heading in the direction of upgrade by Commission recommendations and substantial investments to the area. Ms. Lambert stated that speaking for the North Trail business community, she urges the Commission to adopt an ordinance which (only) permits businesses in the NT Zoning District that create a positive perception of Sarasota; that the rezoning done last year was welcomed by the property owners and allows usage and improvements that benefit the businesses; that (the NT community) is proud to be the gateway to Sarasota, and the Commission's assistance in maintaining that pride is essential to the (businesses") survival; that the location of an upscale shopping center on the Mission Harbor property will have a positive economic impact on all properties in the NT Zoning District as well as represent the highest and best use of that property; that the long- range, economic impact of the adoption of (the ordinance and the upscale mall) will insure (the North Trail's) continued existence as a viable business community as well as attract new businesses complimentary to the City of Sarasota; and that Commission consideration is appreciated. Ms. Cherry stated that she has previously been before the Commission representing the hospitality industry on the North Trail with the idea of making the North Trail a safe and attractive area for visitors; that the State of Florida is fighting the perception as a crime haven; that the adult video and lingerie establishments attract questionable clientele and are considered to be crime related, whether they are or not; that guests coming to Sarasota via the airport and entering the City through the (NT Zoning District) see all the proliferation; that the North Trail needs to be made a safe and inviting place for guests; that she strongly supports the recommendations presented by Dr. Christ-Janer. Mr. Cotten thanked the Commission for rearranging the meeting agenda to accommodate the speakers of this presentation; that his family moved to Indian Beach 15 years ago; that the North Trail was already the institutional and cultural center of the City, unfortunately, it was also the designated prostitute center of the City; that the institutional and cultural aspects have grown and been reinforced; that a new Asolo complex (has been developed) I i that New College has been recognized as one of the top small colleges in the United States; that University Parkway developed from a dirt road into a major highway connecting a new interstate with a new international airport to the North Trail; and that Dr. Christ-Janer has turned the Ringling School of Art and Design into the best art school in the United States. Mr. Cotten continued that businesses that exploit sex for profit and the elements those businesses attract has also grown because past City Commissions, in their in action, have told the businesses that they are welcome in the City; that he believes morality can be dictated through nonaction as well as regulation; that guests entering the City perceive what is seen on the North Trail to be a moral fiber of the City; that he and his neighbors want to rid the City of this stigma; that Ordinance No. 92-3562 gives the Commission the opportunity to supply the private sector, with Commission assistance, the tools necessary to build a better gateway to Sarasota; that he pleads with the Commission to reach out and seize this opportunity for positive action. Dr. Christ-Janer stated that the Commission can count on the City's citizens in the North Trail area for assistance. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that two, separate important issues have been presented to the Commission in a thoughtful and well considered fashion: Book 36 Page 10268 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10269 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. 1. The unwelcome proliferation of adult entertainment establishments along the North Trail which is something that this Commission has wrestled with before and will wrestle with again; and 2. The encouragement of the construction of an upscale mall on the Mission Harbor site which this Commission addressed by agenda and voted unanimously to send (a resolution) to the County to ask them to reconsider the placement of the library on that site. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she encourages the presenters to make a similar presentation on the Mission Harbor site issue to the County Commission, who will make the decision on the location of the library. Dr. Christ-Janer asked if the City can establish a special zoning district (specifying what can and cannot occur in the North Trail district) ; that Charleston, SC, has such a special zoning district downtown. Mayor Pillot stated that the City's first ordinance relates to nudity where alcoholic beverages are served, and quoted the following excerpt from a memorandum dated March 3, 1994, from Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, regarding the Regulation of Adult Businesses: The second part of our local regulations consist of Ordinance No. 93-3649. This regulation prohibits nudity in business and commercial establishments, including hotels, motels, restaurants, nightclubs or cabarets where alcoholic beverages are not served, video stores, lingerie shops, meeting facilities utilized by any religious, social, fraternal, or similar organization. This regulation does not include the location of sexually-oriented businesses in the sense of confining these uses to particular zone districts. Our local regulations do not provide for licensing. You requested that I outline the options available to the City Commission concerning the regulation of adult businesses. The following is offered for discussion: (a) The City Commission must decide what it wants to regulate. (b) Should the City Commission wish to revisit the concept of a zoning regulation, then standards will need to be developed which will provide for the locating of these sexually-oriented uses in other than one single geographic area, unless it is the intent of the city Commission to concentrate all regulated businesses in one geographic area. (c) Sexually-oriented businesses are protected by the First Amendment and as such may not be banned entirely from the City limits, provided, however, content-neutral time, place and manner regulations are legally enforceable as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in city of Renton V. Playtime Theaters, Inc. Mayor Pillot asked Ms. Schenk to define "content-neutral". Ms. Schenk stated that "content-neutral" means the content of books, magazines, or videos is not regulated, but location is regulated; that proposed Ordinance (92-3547) which allowed these uses in the CI, ILW, and I zone districts, stipulating distance requirements of 500 feet from residential zones, churches, and schools was defeated two years ago because the Commission felt this concentrated adult businesses in one geographic location; that if the Commission wants to revisit the zoning regulation, it should be referred back to the Planning Department for further study as to where these zones could be appropriately located. Dr. Christ-Janer stated that changing the 500-foot restriction to 200-feet could alleviate the concentration). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Dr. Christ-Janer's suggestion could address some of the previous concern of the Commission regarding this issue; that the County has passed an ordinance regulating the distance (of adult businesses) from schools and residences, etc; that the City Commissioners, of whom she was one, (two years ago) wrestled with the idea of judging what books, videos, or magazines people could see citywide; that the Commission's intent was to zone the adult businesses into the industrial park zones and into areas where very few people would be impacted; however, many people came forth at the public hearing who worked and lived near those (proposed) industrial areas and strongly objected to having all the adult businesses zoned into their backyards. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that the Commission has different choices; that the distance from usages can be regulated, hoping to address the City's biggest concern; that as previously proposed, the North Trail could be recognized (as a special district banning adult entertaimment) that if this is done, she has concerns with the businesses locating to the South Trail; however, the North Trail seems to be conducive to inviting undesirable uses in an area where the City is trying (to accomplish upgrade improvements), and perhaps a special district could be an avenue. Commissioner Merrill stated that he thought under the City's existing ordinance, that lingerie shops would be illegal. Ms. Book 36 Page 10270 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10271 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Schenk stated that lingerie shops would only be illegal if nude individuals are in the shop; that nudity is defined in the ordinance; and that scantily clad models would probably be alright (in reference to the Supreme Court), / depending on what is showing. Commissioner Merrill asked Police Chief Jolly if the lingerie shops are featuring lingerie or more than that? Gordon Jolly, Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission, and stated that based on police investigations, nothing more than scantily clad models have been found. Mr. Cotten suggested that the Commission review the classified section of yesterday's newspaper in which an ad advertises the lingerie shop on one page with a phone number, and the help wanted section advertises "models needed, nudity required" (with the same phone number). Mr. Cotten continued that his intent of this presentation was to suggest what Vice Mayor Patterson has stated whereby the City adopts a special district ordinance for the North Trail corridor, since it is the hospitality interest to the Cityi that the special district ordinance could ease the complication of citywide zoning. Mayor Pillot stated that he finds the (special district) desirable, but not enough; that as Vice Mayor Patterson mentioned, the Commission does not want to transfer the adult entertainment establishments to the South Trail or other parts of the City. Mayor Pillot continued that the greater the distance requirement is set from schools, churches, etc., and written into an ordinance, the fewer the opportunities for (adult entertainment) to operate businesses in the City. Mayor Pillot asked Ms. Schenk (what reasonable required distance from certain uses could be upheld in court?) Ms. Schenk stated that a reasonable number of alternative sites must be allowed; that the courts will look at the size of the City and determine a reasonable number of sites; that anywhere from 11 to 25 to 125 sites have been upheld by the courts; that the 125 sites upheld were for a large metropolitan area; that looking at the City of Sarasota population, the proportionate size would be 8 to 10 sites. Commissioner Merrill stated that he has had many complaints regarding the proliferation adult entertainment estblishments along the North Trail often mentioning the lingerie shops; that the Commission may want to direct, and he would support, the Police to conduct a more detailed "sting" operation to determine if the lingerie shops are, in fact, breaking the law; that whatever the Commission decides, enforcement expenses will be associated with (deterring the proliferation). Patterson asked about the distance requirements of the Vice Mayor ordinance passed by the County? stated that the County's ordinance is a zoning ordinance Ms. Schenk where uses are allowed as a matter of which lists certain zones right; that other zones are required to get a special exception; that the distance requirements are as follows: these businesses and certain A 800 feet (distance) between residential and office zones; child-care 800 feet distance between church, schools, centers, and public recreation; and oriented 500 feet (distance) between another sexually business. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she had read the County ordinance; that the ordinance is tough and may zone these uses out of the city the ordinance does not since the City is so small; however, County which need to be addressed seem to address lingerie shops, may separately by the Cityi that the City can skip the problem of whether there are such zones available in the City or not by simply the Commission allows the County ordinance to apply to the saying city. Ms. Schenk stated that the County ordinance deals only with County Zone Districts which are not applicable to the Cityi that she will research if any courts have upheld such an approach; however, she would be (if the effect) is doesn't believe (the approach) upheld to ban all together the businesses from the City. Pillot stated that the least the City should do is adopt the Mayor ordinance; that there is no reason the Commission should County that will be thrown out of court and cost the pursue a solution if something is reasonable and the establishments taxpayers moneyi want however, to take the City to court, the City shouldn't back-off out of fear. city Manager Sollenberger stated that he suggests referring, this to the Administration if the Commission is interested in this approach; that the Administration will review the County ordinance and report back to the Commission with reports from the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Merrill stated that he hopes Vice Mayor Patterson's approach (to adopt the County ordinance) would work to ban (adult entertainment) in the City; however, the County ordinance does not ban topless bars and lingerie shops; that (the County ordinance should be used to supplement, not replace, what currently exists in the City). Book 36 Page 10272 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10273 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission is (previously) on record with a motion as requesting a proposed ordinance regulating adult entertainment be brought back to the Commission in the strongest form possible with a reasonable chance of survival in a court challenge; therefore, that intent should be included in the Administration's report. The following people came before the Commission: Odd K. Oddsen, 4820 Remington Drive, stated that he concurs (with the presentation given). John P. Martin, representing Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores, 547 N. Shore Drive, stated that he concurs (with the presentation given). Lyn Lloyd-Davies. representing the American Family Association (AFA), 4628 Pine Green Trail, stated that he is glad to see the Commission is trying to meet the needs of the community; that prior to his connection with the AFA, he spent eight years in the ministry; that he joins with those who are trying to improve the City and commends and concurs with the approach presented to the Commission; however, the North Trail should not be just an instance, an isolated part of the City to be treated; that the City needs to be considered as a whole and considered as part of the County; that if (the society) pursues the course the City, County, State and nation has been on, society will inevitably be on a downhill path which has no real bottom and from which it is hard to recoveri that the issues should be seized and addressed and corrected now. Betty Milan, 6710 Anchor Way, stated that anything the Commission can do to keep the City of Sarasota a place where families love to visit and live, rather than a mecca for lovers of adult entertainment, would be appreciated by many citizens. Eileen Linxwiler, representing Indian Shores/Sapphire Shores Association, 337 N. Shore, stated that the Blue Video store was mentioned and opposed at the North Trail Sector meetings; that the people attending those meetings were appalled that a Blue Video store would be allowed within so many feet of Bayhaven public school; that the people were also concerned with the (Backstreet) gay bar; that an erotic toy store has been instituted next to the Blue Video; that Intimate Lifestyles, Sheer Sensations, and Bare Necessity are lingerie shops located between 27th Street and (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way); that the new (adult entertainment establishment) will be called Pleasures II Adult Video, Inc.; and that she would appreciate the statistics related to the police investigations of the lingerie shops. Ms. Linxwiler stated that the following, read from Ordinance No. 93-3649, expresses her feelings: WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to protect and preserve the character of the City of Sarasota as an outstanding environment for families, tourist visitors, retired persons and for the business community. WHEREAS, the City Commission finds and determines that without regulation, which is incompatible with normal primary activity taking place at a particular location, at a particular point in time. Ms. Linxwiler stated that she finds the County ordinance much stronger (than the City ordinances); that the County ordinance does address adult book stores, adult pornographic studios, adult theaters, adult video stores, adult modeling studios which lingerie shops may be considered; that the ordinance also states that the establishment cannot be within 500 feet of schools, day care centers, or residential areas; that the North Trail area is zoned RSF 1 and RSF 2; that she is concerned that the establishments which exist today will be grandfathered. in if a new ordinance is adopted; and that she was shocked to find the cost for an adult recreational permit is only $270. Esther Rachwal, representing AFA, 4975 Southern Wood Drive, stated that it is time that the City of Sarasota deal with the (adult entertainment proliferation) head on. Ms. Rachwal showed the Commission local advertisements and stated that she had responded to the ad referred to by Mr. Cotten which read "earn $1000 a week, nudity required" as well as an ad for dancers at the Scoreboard; that the Scoreboard indicated that the dancers receive top pay, tips from the clientele, and are required to dance topless with flesh colored tape covering the areola area, which does not meet the requirement of the ordinance; that the other establishment is called ETS and is across from the Ringling Art School next to the Blue Video. Ms. Rachwal referred to a newspaper article and stated that the (owners/managers) of these (adult entertaiment) establishments profess not to know what goes on bbehind closed doors, but tissues and lotions are supplied; that it is obvious these places are fronts for prostitution; that many of the video stores claim the stores cannot stay in business if X- rated videos are not sold; however, Blockbuster Video is doing exceedingly well. Ms. Rachwal stated that a newspaper article had stated that "youth are greatly influenced by alcohol ads"; that the youth is also very influenced by the ads for the erotic; that articles are seen daily in the newspaper regarding children raping children; that hormones are not a factor in 8 and 10 year old children, the children are just repeating what they have seen, and this issue must be addressed; that Book 36 Page 10274 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10275 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. children being used this way is really sad, and affects everyone because the children are the future of our country. Ms. Rachwal stated that the Blue Video stores have been able to eliminate the $750 permit amount (required by the County's ordinance) by purchasing quantities of cheap videos to meet the requirement of the law, but are still advertising as adult video stores and have changed nothing; that she strongly recommends if the City adopts the County ordinance that the distance be reduced and the 20% allowable quantity (of erotic videos) be reduced to 10%. Paul Thorpe, representing the Downtown Association of Sarasota and City of Sarasota Business Coalition (CSBC), 47 S. Palm Avenue, stated that the Downtown Association of Sarasota and the CSBC endorse the program presented by the people from Gateway 2000 and the North Trail Association; that the program has an impact on business communities throughout the City; that all the people in support of moving the library site from Mission Harbor to allow (commercial development) need to go before the County Commission; and that the Downtown Association of Sarasota and CSBC also offer their assistance. Yvonne Liewelyn, 7717 Red Cedar Lane, stated that she applauds the Mayor's statement not to operate out of fear; that (this country) originally had laws to protect (society) against (the proliferation of adult entertainment); that things changed, but together it can be changed back; that the laws established to protect people and businesses like this, can be removed or changed; that family values are being expressed at a national level; that bumper stickers state, "Let's do what is right, maybe our leaders will catch on." Ms. Liewelyn referred to a newspaper article and statements made at the County Commission (hearing) - and stated that she was educated at the County Commission meeting and appalled at what goes on in these video stores and lingerie shops; that these places are not places citizens want in the City. Pat Phebus, 8412 Cypress Lake Circle, stated that she concurs with everything stated tonight; that she would also like to know what happened to government that was for the people, by the people, and of the people; that she doesn't understand why a few people who have interests contrary to the good of society can dictate what is wanted by the majority of the citizens within the City and County; that obscenity is not covered by the First Amendment; that the majority of the citizens have the right to determine what is wanted within the City and County and it should not be dictated by a few people who supposedly want their First Amendment rights. David Simmons, 4464 Ascot Circle South, stated that he is a registered voter, lives in Sarasota, and has run a financial services business located on Main Street since 1986; that in the past 37 years since his family moved to Sarasota many changes have occurred in Sarasota, some for the better, some for the worst; that he requests the Commission to join Senator John Grant and Representative Buddy Johnson in Tallahassee by raising the standards of Sarasota County and the great state of Florida; that Florida Senate Bill #1280 and House Bill #1241 have been proposed and the Bills clearly define nudity and make it unlawful to be nude in a public place, including bars and lingerie modeling shops; that he hopes Sarasota can model an ordinance similar to the St. Johns County Public Nudity Ordinance which has been upheld by federal, district, and appellate courts; that his desire is that Sarasota join with other municipal governments that have enacted their own public nudity laws to help enforce Florida's statutes; that this type of ordinance will provide our City and County law enforcement a major legal tool to fight sexually oriented business which exploit women as sex objects and which create tremendous crime and health risks; that most new clubs and lingerie modeling shops are nothing more than fronts for prostitution; that these type of businesses contribute to the moral decay of the family, contribute to the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and contribute to crimes involving illicit drugs and violence against women; that the standard in the community should be raised so that theme parks, tourist attractions, streets, malls, and other public places will be safe from this type of offensive behavior; that this kind of behavior destroys marriages, families, and the fabric of our society should be discouraged; that (society) needs to join together to fight to preserve the moral values on which America was founded; that leaders, like the Commission, are needed to defend the safeguards, lives, and futures of our children; that family values should be put before payrolls and profits. Victoria Bond, 8049 Outpost Lane, stated that she grew up in Sarasota; that Commissioners have tried to keep Sarasota a clean, decent area to which families want to come; that many citizens live in Sarasota and work in Tampa to avoid the (same proliferation which is) beginning to occur in Sarasota; that families do not want to be a part of what is starting to happen; that families bring the City its livelihood: doctors, schools, small businesses, large business; that if the standards of living are lowered, crime starts rising upward and only that type of people will remain; that the businesses who threaten to sue, do not have the right to ruin the City for the rest of the citizens, just for a dollar; that the citizens are asking the Commissioners, who they voted into office, for moral rights and to preserve, to take care, to raise the establishment sO people will want to be in the neighborhoods and want to live in Sarasota; that the Commission is being asked to stand behind the citizens; and that most of the (business owners) don't even live in Sarasota. Linda Royall, P.0. Box 49402, stated that she has addressed the City and the County on this issue previously; that Someone is Book 36 Page 10276 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10277 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. responsible for the (sexually oriented) advertisements; that a billboard advertising Club Mary greets the visitors who fly into Sarasota's airport as they drive out; that the newspaper advertisements constantly refer to pornography; that if these places have to exist, an ordinance regulating and licensing the businesses should be developed whereby the people (operating the establishments) are not sex offenders; that a high price is paid for the license; that the businesses are private and not advertised, except for people who are over 21 and subscribe to some type of sex magazine; that just those who need to be affected will be affected. Ms. Royall presented various newspaper clippings, and stated that in addition to a drug problem, there is a sex problem; that many people aren't getting enough sex, and the problem needs to be addressed; that studies should be conducted to find out what will satisfy men and women who cannot work together to make (the country) a safe place. Bob Nalven, 325 South Shore Drive, stated that it has been said that the North Trail should not be singled out for special dispensation to (avoid driving the adult entertainment) elsewhere in the City; however, the kind of activity which is the concern of the citizens is attracted only to certain locations; that these types of businesses want to locate on major thoroughfares; that although the North Trail is the gateway to attractive things, it is also the gateway for these type of people; and that the attractiveness of the location (to the adult entertainment businesses) should be considered when framing the ordinance. Pat Mastrippolito, representing AFA, 6633 Jarvus Road, stated that she is the President of the AFA in Sarasota County; that her feeling about the enforcement expenses mentioned by Commissioner Merrill is that an ordinance does exist in the City and if the City is not willing to pay in order to enforce that ordinance, why have it? Ms. Mastrippolito stated that the Scoreboard Lounge has a sign inside the establishment that states, "Dances on tables, $5, Topless, $10"; that she called Police Chief Jolly to report this, and he had responded that the police had investigated the Scoreboard Lounge and areolas were covered, and the Scoreboard Lounge had a First Amendment right to have a such a sign; that the State of Delaware has enacted an ordinance which makes it mandatory for adult video entertainment establishments to have no doors, and regulated hours of operation similar to daily 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Sundays 12 p.m. to 6 p.m.; that the Delaware ordinance affected the pocketbooks of the people who are trying to degrade the cities in the most horrible way imaginable. Mayor Pillot stated that Ms. Schenk and the City Manager have noted the reference to the Delaware ordinance; that if something has passed scrutiny of the United States Supreme Court in Delaware, it will in Florida; that the City does have limitations on personpower in the Police Department; that the crime against morality and community standards is severe; however, Police Chief Jolly, City Manager Sollenberger, and John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, continuously discuss how more effective "stings" can be conducted. Mayor Pillot continued that in accordance with the City ordinance, covering just the areola is not sufficient. Ms. Schenk stated that the ordinance reads: "the areola of the female breast or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola." Mayor Pillot responded to the comment made to protect the rights of the majority, and stated that he believes virtually all the citizens of Sarasota would stand behind what has been said at the table tonight, and frankly, those who would not, he is proud to have against him; that in response to grandfathering existing businesses, if an ordinance is passed which prohibits new businesses, a time of amortization should be included for the existing businesses. Ms. Schenk stated that the (nudity, ordinance) gave six months amortization to businesses who had recently began operation, and one year for businesses who had been established for a longer period of time. Commissioner Merrill stated that during the (Sarasota City Commission) crime summits it was stated that one of the reasons people break laws is the absence of swift and sure punishment; that when Sheriff Monge was successful in finding certain behaviors through undercover endeavors, he received praise by some and criticism by others. Commissioner Merrill requested Police Chief Jolly to come to the Commission table and address these two questions: 1. What is the difficulty in enforcing the nudity ordinance at the Scoreboard Lounge? and 2. What is involved to investigate what really goes on in the lingerie shops? Gordon Jolly, Chief of Publice Safety Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that undercover officers are sent into the Scoreboard Lounge on a frequent basis; that (his orders have been) if a violation of the City ordinance is observed, the violator is to be charged; that reports to date indicate that the dancers at the Scoreboard lounge are in compliance with the nudity ordinance; that the dancers use flesh colored tape to cover the breast from the top of the areola to the bottom of the breast; that photographs have been reviewed with the City Attorney whose opinion is that this is legal. Police Chief Jolly continued that he is not concerned with criticism; that he will do his job to the best of his ability; that if the Commission or the State legislature passes a law or ordinance, criminal in nature, it is his intent to enforce that law; however, violations which are not seen cannot be Book 36 Page 10278 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10279 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. enforced. Police Chief Jolly further stated the narcotics unit is used to enforce vice laws; that narcotics has been give a higher priority over vice laws, with the exception of street-level prostitution which has been enforced vigorously; that the lingerie shops have been investigated; however a "sting" operation has not been conducted; that the police would be searching for violations of the nudity ordinance or the prostitution laws of Florida; that he does not want to discuss details of how a "sting" operation would be conducted. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would support Police Chief Jolly moving the lingerie shops to a higher priority; that considering the current concern of the direction headed on the North Trail, it may be time for Police Chief Jolly to reevaluate where the current priorities stand. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she supports doing something to the North Trail alone, since it is impacted more than other areas; that she supports an ordinance similar to the County ordinance; that the issue needs to be looked at as a zoning issue, an undesirable land use which negatively effects neighborhoods and business areas, and not as a legislation of moral issues; that no two people have the same morality; that one person's morality would ban books by Ernest Hemingway and movies with any degree of nudity making no theaters in the city or County able to show such movies; that (the Commission) needs to be sensitive to individual rights which is her difficulty with this issue. Commissioner Atkins stated that by saving the North Trail, U.S. 301 may be buried; that he will not support an ordinance that moves (the adult entertainment establishments) from one side of the City to another; that his position is that the ordinance needs to be all encompassing; that the Commission's position should be very clear to do it all or do nothing at all. Mayor Pillot stated that it is not his intent or his competence nor his right to deal with other people's morality; however, by virtue of his election it is his intent and right to be a part of legislating social and economic welfare of the city of Sarasota. Mayor Pillot stated the Commission's direction to the Administration as follows: 1. Review the County ordinance and how it can be adopted usefully in the City. 2. To explore whether or not standards in the City can be stronger than the County ordinance, especially with references to distances. 3. Discuss with the Director of Public Saiety and the Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, to determine how much more enforcement and "sting" operations can be conducted. 4. Report back what kinds of zoning modifications can be made to protect the gateways to the City of Sarasota. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a citywide ordinance similar to the County ordinance should be addressed; that if a citywide ordinance proves to be difficult, the zoning should be addressed. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration should report back to the Commission with at least the strength and standards of the County ordinance to be adopted appropriately within the City. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to refer this matter to the Administration for a report back to the Commission as soon as possible. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. The Commission recessed from 8:10 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. 13. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY' s REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 1994 - ACCEPTED; SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION 94-SE-3 APPROVED; SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION 94-SE-4 = APPROVED; ORDINANCE NO. 93-3709 - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; ORDINANCE NO. 94-3769 RETURNED TO PLANNING BOARD TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING; ALLOWANCE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING BOARD TABLED AWAITING SYNDER DECISION PROCEDURES FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; 30-DAY WAITING PERIOD WAIVED FOR PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 94-E (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (1424) through (3159) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, and Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of February 2, 1994: A. Special Exception Petition 94-SE-3 to permit a child care center in a RMF-1 Zone District. The parcel is approximately 2.936 acres and is located at 1723 N. Orange Avenue. Mr. Annis stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found Special Exception Petition 94-SE-3 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended Commission approval with the capacity limited to 144 children. Book 36 Page 10280 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10281 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to affirm the action of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency to adopt the resolution for Special Exception 94-SE-3, subject to the number of children bring limited to 144 children. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Special Exception Petition 94-SE-4 to permit a charter boat in the MP Zone District. The boat will occupy slip A-8 at Marina Jack, which has been vacated by Finally Charters (87-SE-22, previously approved by the Planning Board and City Commission). Mr. Annis. stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found Special Exception Petition 94-SE-4 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended Commission approval subject to the number of passengers being limited to six; that Planning Board was concerned that this special exception created unnecessary paperwork since the boat is being replaced by a like boat. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (affirm the action of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency to adopt the resolution for Special Exception 94-SE-4, as a replacement boat, subject to limiting the capacity to six passengers). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3709, Regulating Garage Sales Mr. Annis stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency recommended that proposed Ordinance No. 93-3709 be set for Public Hearing and that an amendment be made to amend the commencement hour of garage sales from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; and recommended Commission approval of this action. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration recommendation is to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3709 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set Ordinance No. 93-3709 for public hearing with the modification of an 8:00 a.m. starting time. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. D. Proposed Ordinance 94-3769, regulating drive-in and drive-thru restaurants. Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP had recommended that Proposed Ordinance 94-3769 be set for hearing with the assumption the ordinance would come before the PBLP; however, the public hearing will be held before the City Commission; that this ordinance adds additional definitions and opens up the location of these restaurants generally within the zone rather than through a special exception; that the PBLP feels that quality of life issues may need to be addressed, and requests that a public hearing be held before the PBLP prior to the public hearing held before the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration has recommended either (to direct the ordinance be returned to the Planning Board for a public hearing), or (set the public hearing for the next available City Commission meeting). On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to (return the proposed ordinance to the Planning Board for a public hearing). Commissioner Cardamone asked if interested citizens will be required to attend two public hearings? Ms. Schenk stated that the public hearing before the City Commission is legally required to adopt the ordinance on first reading; that the citizens can speak at the Planning Board meeting and have the minutes forwarded to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that attending two public hearings could be considered a waste of the public's time, and she will vote against (the motion). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that for issues of complexity, the wrinkles are better ironed out before the Planning Board rather than before the Commission; that the PBLP's agenda is smaller and land use is their specific focus. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. E. Request to allow the Planning Department Staff to make recommendations to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency regarding proposed ordinances, special exception petitions, etc. Mr. Annis stated that most of the Board members feel comfortable with the Planning staff not making recommendations as currently occurs; however, Mr. Boedecker felt very strongly that the Staff recommendations be reinstituted. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission requested Staff not make a recommendation to the PBLP; however, the concern was not if the PBLP would be influenced by a Staff recommendation; that during the first public hearing impacted by the Synder decision, the Commission experienced a situation on (an issue) where the Staff recommended approval, the City Manager recommended disapproval, the Commission voted to disapprove, and she believes the PBLP voted to Book 36 Page 10282 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10283 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. disapprove; that during the courtroom-like) procedure, the attorney for the land owner had the ability to call expert witnesses; that the City's expert witnesses, Staff, had already committed themselves to the opposing perspective; that if litigated, Staff testimony would be used in opposition to demonstrate why the Commission and the Planning Board had not made responsible decisions; therefore, it was requested that Staff explore the City Plan and the Zoning Code and present the PBLP and the Commission the arguments for and against a particular land use; and that the policy makers, the Planning Board and the Commission, would make the ultimate determination; that in very gray issues, the Staff were unintentionally turned into the land-use policy makers of the City. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she was surprised to see Staff had made recommendations on the two special exceptions in (tonight's) agenda packet by finding consistency with the Sarasota City Plan; that no recommendation was given for approval or disapproval; however, in 9 cases out of 10, once consistency is found with the Sarasota City Plan a vote of disapproval is difficult; that the Staff did not implement the Commission's request adequately; that she is in direct opposition of the PBLP's request. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration recommendation is to direct the City Attorney to determine (if Staff recommendations can legally be made and without violation of the intent of the Snyder decision) . Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration recommendation doesn't speak to the issue at all; that it is legal for Staff to make recommendations; therefore, the determination is not necessaryi that the question is whether the Commission wants to allow it related to policy, and asked Ms. Schenk for comment. Ms. Schenk stated that the Florida Supreme Court case in Synder doesn't address whether a local recommendation is acceptable or not; that it is the decision of each local jurisdiction by way of their procedures. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City Attorney's office is developing a set of policies and standards for the Commission to use in the Snyder decision; that this issue can be addressed at the time the procedures are presented to the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommendation is basically what Vice Mayor Patterson has mentioned; that the Staff can point out how the criteria for consistency has or has not been met in each of the instances, but not make a recommendation; that the recommendation would be made and determined by the PBLP based on the facts set forth. Commissioner Atkins stated that when the Commission receives a recommendation from Staff finding the use consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, there is little the Commission can do without a tremendous amount of investigation to the contrary; that if the Staff is allowed to recommend consistency, then a ponderous of evidence will be gathered to support a case for or against (the consistency); that the Commission needs to decide whether or not to have a Staff recommendation. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (have the Administration) direct the Staff not to make a recommendation on consistency, or (recommend) for or against a land use change, but present the evidence on consistency and zoning regulation for or against any change in a land use, including special exceptions. Commissioner Merrill stated that judgement calls are often necessary, and the Commissioners are not the experts; that if the Planning Staff presents a neutral position and the Attorney supporting the land owner presents a wealth of evidence, it puts the burden on the Commissioner to create (argumentative) evidence; that typically Staff has shown good judgement; that considering the one or two times the Commission has overruled the Staff is worth the risk (of having the Planning Staff present a recommendation). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Staff will have ample opportunity to display evidence in their analysis; that she is trying to avoid the situation where the City's own Staff is in a position to give evidence against the City if a land use issue is litigated. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as: for the Planning Staff not to make recommendations, but to present evidence to the Planning Board which can then be interpreted in making their decisions. Mayor Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Merrill. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion failed (2 to 3): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to (table this issue) and delay action on Staff recommendation to the Planning Board or to the Commission until the Commission receives the procedures from the City Attorney's Office regarding the Synder decision. Ms. Schenk stated that a draft outline of some procedures for handling quasi-judicial public hearings on rezoning and special exceptions will be presented to the Commission in about one month; Book 36 Page 10284 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10285 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. that the segment related to Staff recommendation will be discussed (upon presentation). . Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of February 2, 1994. F. Preliminary Site and Development Plan (PS&D) 94-E Request for 30-day Time Limit Waiver Mr. Taylor distributed a letter from Bishop & Associates to the Commission, and stated that a request was received this morning by the City Auditor and Clerk from a representative of the (former) Aku Tiki property on Lido Key to waive the 30 day waiting period between the Planning Board meeting and the City Commission meeting; that the request has not been taken through the City Manager, but V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, was made aware of the request this morning. Mayor Pillot stated that requests for that kind of action are properly taken through the City Administration which should not be bypassed. Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff was unprepared when the petitioner showed up at the PBLP's last meeting; that by miscommunication with the Planning Director, the petitioner was of the opinion that the PS&D was scheduled for that meeting, and therefore would be on the April 4th Commission agenda; that the Planning Board has agreed to hold a special meeting on March 23rd; that in order for the petitioner to come before the Commission on April 4th, the required 30-day waiting period between (PBLP and City Commission meetings must be waived). Ms. Schenk stated that she attended the PBLP meeting mentioned; that this PS&D was a rezoning approved several years ago for the Aku Tiki property which involved a hotel on the site plan; that (the petitioner) is submitting a new site plan which shows a condominium development; that a public hearing is held at the Commission level that amends the conditional rezoning ordinance to allow the new site plan to replace the old site plan; that because the (PS&D) is tied to a rezoning, although it is not actually rezoning property, the co-provision as to rezoning applies and requires the 30-day waiting period between Planning Board and Commission meetings. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve a waiver of the 30-day time limit between the Planning Board and City Commission meetings. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she doesn't see why two weeks will make that much of a difference. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that from the perspective of Lido Key as well as the City's perspective on a tax base, it is hard to get a more desirable development; that this is a trade-off for the neighborhoods of a luxury condo with 105 units versus a 293 unit hotel in addition to the tax base created by the type of luxury units these condominiums will be. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Commission has devoted many meetings to developing the former Aku Tiki property; that the Commission now has an opportunity and should vote to approve the waiver. Commissioner Merrill stated that he will vote to support the motion because there was some miscommunication. Mayor Pillot stated that unless a firmly defended emergency exists, which is not shown in this letter, he will not vote to support something that bypasses the proper procedures. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. 14. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1994 ACCEPTED; PETITION 94-HDD-01 = - - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; PETITION 94-HD-11 = SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (3169) through (3329) Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission, and stated that at the February 8, 1994, meeting of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board, the following petitions were recommended for Commission approval: Petition 94-HDD-01 at 1122 & 1130 Pomelo Avenue A proposed Historic District of two lots. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration recommendation is to set for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petition 94-HDD-01 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 36 Page 10286 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10287 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Petition 94-HD-11 at 1744 South Drive located in Cherokee Park Mayor Pillot asked why the agenda request contained an Administration recommendation "not" to set for public hearing. Mr. Taylor stated that was a typographical error. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to set Petition 94-HD-11 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the report of the Historic Preservation Board's meeting of February 8, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. CONSENT AGENDA NO 1: ITEM 3 - TABLED MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST (AGENDA ITEM IIIA-3) #2 (3330) through #3 (0271) The Commission was in receipt of the minutes requested earlier in the meeting. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to remove Item 3 from the table. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. Approval Re: Authorize Administration to acquire the professional services of Tindale Oliver & Associates to perform a traffic study, concerning the left-turn lane at the intersection of Bayfront Drive/Main Street Vice Mayor Patterson read an excerpt of the minutes of January 18, 1994 as follows: On the motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone it was moved to amend the motion to include exploring left-turn lanes as the second stage of this project if approval can be obtained from the FDOT. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that motion meant that the City Manager would move ahead with whatever was required (to explore the left- turn lanes approval from FDOT) which includes a study that costs $10,500; however, her position is the same; that it is possible that the absence of left-turn lanes may not work well, but has a chance of working and is better than the previously existing access into the downtown and Island Park; that the intersection will be completed anyway and there is no harm in a tryout period before pursing (the left-turn lanes). On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to deny (the request for $10,500 to acquire professional services to acquire a traffic study). Commissioner Merrill stated that before spending $10,500, the City Manager could send a letter (to FDOT) and ask if (FDOT) has standards the City must achieve? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/Clty Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the FDOT does not have a form or established criteria when requesting left-turn lanes; however, prior discussion has been held with the FDOT Staff at which time a non-desire for the left-turn lanes was indicated by the FDOT; that based on experience, putting left-turn lanes at Ringling Blvd FDOT will require thorough and detailed data which is the reason for the associated cost of the study. Commissioner Merrill stated that a traffic study has been conducted for an earlier project, and asked if that data with a letter could be submitted as a request to FDOT while the (new intersection absent the left-turn lanes) is reviewed? Commissioner Cardamone stated that it was her understanding that the City would proceed with the design which was presented and approved, and then adding the left-turn lanes would be explored, which (the Administration) assured her would not be expensive to do; that she doesn't want to spend $10,500 to explore the intersection in advance of finishing it as planned; that construction on the intersection couldn't have started without traffic counts being prepared; therefore, the City should wait to review the traffic counts and the need for left-turn lanes (after completion of the intersection as planned), rather than spending the money at this time. Mayor Pillot asked if it is accurate that absent the data the study would present, the City will not have an effective presentation to submit to FDOT, and, therefore, now or later, FDOT permission will not be granted to put in the left-turn lanes? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct; that a prior study was accomplished two or three years ago; that the FDOT is not fond of data that old, and the intent of that study was to pursue vehicular crossing and did not recommend left-turn lanes at this intersection. Mayor Pillot stated that he is unwilling to substitute his non- engineer judgement for that of the City Engineer who has demonstrated his conservatism in bringing recommendations to the Commission. Book 36 Page 10288 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10289 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this subject doesn't need to be discussed at this time since the intersection has not been completed; that this Commission voted to (complete the intersection), and then explore the opportunity of the left-turn lanes. Mayor Pillot stated that the City Engineer is stating that the studies will be essential in approaching the FDOT with a request to install the left-turn lanes as (approved); that the first stage was to complete the project as presented to the Commission and then, by the amendment which passed 3-2, to explore as a second stage, the left-turn lanes with the FDOT; that (obtaining a study) is the first step of that exploration; that the first step is necessary to get anything further done; that if the motion on the table succeeds, the Commission is killing the left-turn lanes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mayor Pillot is essentially correct; however, the real question is whether the left-turn lanes are wanted regardless of whether this intersection works without them, in which case (the study should be pursued) : however, if it is believed that this intersection may function without the left- turn lanes and provide adequate access to island park, Marina Jack, and Main Street, there is no reason to pursue the study until it is known; that she is not opposed to the left-turn lanes; however, she doesn't feel the study needs to be done now, versus six months from now, since it may be unnecessary. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to table this motion to deny the request by the Administration to acquire the professional services of Tindale Oliver & Associates to perform a traffic study) - . Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 16. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94-719) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3771) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3774) ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3775) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3779) - ADOPTED; (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0272) through (0835) Commissioner Cardamone requested that Consent Agenda No. 2 Item 1 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 94- 719, 94-3771, 94-3774, 94,3775, and 94-3779 by title only. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3771, providing for the designation of the structure located at 463 Sapphire Drive, historically known as the Nagirroc, Corrigan House, as a structure of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-HD-01, Mikki Hartig) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3774, providing for the designation of the structures located at 1622 Ninth Street, historically known as the William T. Finch House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-HD-04, J. Whitcomb Rylee & Jeremy O. Caplin) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3775, providing for the designation of the structures located at 121 Edmondson Avenue, historically known as the Morrison House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-HD-05, Mikki Hartig) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3779, providing for the designation of the fountain located at the intersection of Camino Real and Fortuna Streets, historically known as the Granada Fountain/Marker, as a fountain of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-HD-09, Mikki Hartig) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Items 2 through 5. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-719, appropriating $30,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to purchase Gym Equipment for the Police Services Bureau Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has no real opposition to purchasing Gym Equipment for fitness purposes for the Police force; however, the Commission is frequently requested by Consent Agenda to appropriate funds from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF), and she requests a discussion on the LETF regarding how much money is in the Fund, how it was obtained, how it is designated, and what the applicable uses are. Book 36 Page 10290 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10291 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Gordon Jolly, Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (FCFA), Florida Statute 932.705, states that police have the authority under State law to seize goods or cash that have been used as instrumentalities of a crime or have been received in furtherance of a crime, such as real property purchased through drug profits, a car used as a getaway car in a bank robbery, or money in the possession of a street dealer when caught selling drugs; that in addition, a share of the forfeitures seized under the Federal Forfeiture Act is received based on (the City's) contribution in the organized drug enforcement task forces with one or more Federal agencies. Police Chief Jolly stated that the Statute is fairly vague regarding how the dollars can be expended; that the Statute states that the dollars can be used for any law enforcement purpose as designated by the Chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction and is appropriated by the governing body of that jurisdiction; that the same Statute requires a 15% allocation of annual revenues for such purposes as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and other drug education programs, drug treatment, safe school and safe neighborhood programs; that in addition, the City of Sarasota (Police Bureau) has been the recipient of a Federal Anti-drug Abuse Grant for the past 6 years which requires a portion of revenues received as a result of the operations conducted under the auspices of that grant be pumped back into the drug enforcement unit; that this has been done through a request for allocation of $40,000+ per year for rent of an off-site location; and that the Commission will soon be requested to allocate some of those funds to purchase new undercover vehicles for the narcotics unit. Police Chief Jolly further stated that the Statute does not permit LETF dollars to be taken into consideration during budget consideration or to be used to replace (the law enforcement) operating budget, i.e. personnel salaries, benefits, office supplies. Police Chief Jolly stated that the LETF committee composed of various Public Safety personnel reviews specific needs such as replacement body armor, computer needs, or special projects; that LETF dollars were used to purchase and accomplish much of the renovation of the Resource Center located on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, and the renovation of the current sub-station located at 8th Street and Orange Avenue. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of why consideration of the LETF dollars are not allowed during budget (appropriations) and asked if perhaps the legislators feared law enforcement would become dependent on reaching a certain goal (of drug seizures)? Police Chief Jolly stated that he feels the legislators feared having the LETF used as a profit and loss statement; that the legislators' intent was to guard against having governing bodies of any jurisdictions put pressure on law enforcement agencies to make more money through forfeitures to supplement the general fund. Commissioner Merrill stated that requesting Gym Equipment through LETF dollars is a credible request since officers need to be in top shape to chase offenders and make drug arrestsi; that considering the condition of the flooring, and the 21-year old equipment of the current gym, he considers the request an essential expenditure long overdue; that the purpose of the LETF is to fund essential items that may not have been a high enough priority to be budgeted. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proposed Resolution No. 94R-719 in its entirety. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Item 1. Commissioner Atkins asked if the City has met the required percentage of allocation to drug education, treatment, safe school, and safe neighborhood programs each year? Commissioner Atkins also asked who sits on the LETF committee to advocate for the community, which also has the opportunity to take advantage of some of these monies? Police Chief Jolly stated that the City met the 15% percent allocation at 30-35% in 1993, which was the first year the allocation was effective; that the LETF committee consists of himself, the division commanders of each division patrol, a Criminal Investigation Division representative, a Support Services Bureau representative, and the President of the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) or his representative. Commissioner Atkins stated that he suggests having someone on the recommendation board who represents the citizens of the City of Sarasota to help diversify some of the recommendations for LETF expenditures. Commissioner Merrill stated that one of the 55 (Action Plan) recommendations was to create a Police Chief's Advisory Board, and asked if it were legal to go through that Board for recommendation? Police Chief Jolly stated that the law requires that the Chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction determine whether or not the request meets law enforcement needs or is for a law enforcement purpose; that citizens' : input has been taken into consideration in the past; that an appropriation request is being discussed from this year's revenue toward drug free communities, and (the Police Chief's Advisory Board) will be asked make determinations on how the funds can be used in the community. Book 36 Page 10292 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10293 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees that a citizens committee should help in the advisory process. Commissioner Cardamone stated she also agrees. Mayor Pillot stated that he would not oppose good input being received; however, he would oppose it being binding; that the responsibility and authority has to lie by law with the Chief of the Police Department; and that he agrees with Commissioner Merrill's analysis of the need for this Gym Equipment. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Item 1. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 17. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATION RE: PRESERVATION OF THE HUMBER HOUSE AT 1365 FRUITVILLE ROAD AND DEMOLITION OF THE INN AT 1375 FRUITVILLE ROAD = CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER PRESENT AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING SPECIFIC PLANS AND TIME LIMITS FOR ALL STRUCTURES TO WHICH THE DEMOLITION ORDER REFERS AND THE PROPOSAL BE PASSED THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A RECOMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM V-2) #3 (0857) through (1564) J. Whitcomb Rylee, Historic Consultant, and Robert Stuber, Architect, representing Mark Famiglio, came before the Commission. Mr. Rylee stated that (Mr. Famiglio) was not notified that the Humber House and the Inn buildings would be on the agenda at the February 22nd City Commission Meeting; that an update could have been presented had Mr. Famiglio been notified. Mr. Rylee continued that A Woman's Place was anticipated to take over one of the buildings; however, in November, A Woman's Place merged with Coastal Recovery and the project was put on hold by Coastal Recovery; that the property has been shown to other interested parties; that Mr. Famiglio is searching for a non-profit organization to use the building and is willing to assist such an organization on the project; that the property has been locked and continuously broken into in the past; however, the buildings have been properly boarded up and secured within the past two weeks; that he currently lives a couple hundred feet from the property and will maintain the property on a regular basis. Mr. Rylee stated that as part of the restoration project non- historic building materials have been removed which make the buildings look more deteriorated; that the buildings have been pressure cleaned twice in an effort to remove 90 years of paint; that if removing all the paint at once is attempted, the wood can be damaged; that the properties will be pressure cleaned again before being painted; that the structures are constructed of hard pine wood, therefore, the wood is not rotting from the exposure to the elements; that abeyance from the demolition order is requested; and that an opportunity to speak would have been appreciated before the demolition order was initiated. Mr. Stuber stated that speaking from an architectural standpoint, the project is shifting gears from the residential character anticipated for sleeping units necessary for A Woman's Place to an office-type set upi that the ability to file for a construction permit is as close as two weeks away; that it is requested that the Commission direct the Building Department to continue to work with (Mr. Famiglio) in this matter and not immediately exercise the order to demolish; that (Mr. Famiglio) would like to continue to proceed as planned and provide necessary documents for a permit to rehabilitate the Humber House; that at this time there is no dedicated use for The Inn; however, security on The Inn would be maintained during the construction on the Humber House in hopes of attracting a user for The Inn. Mr. Rylee stated that this is not a tactic to stall to avoid the demolition expense; that it would have been more affordable for Mr. Famiglio to have the buildings demolished one year ago before removing $6,000 worth of non-historic fabric, expending $1,000 for plywood to secure the buildings, and paying consulting and architectural fees; that Mr. Famiglio is trying to find a use and preserve these historic buildings. City Manager Sollenberger stated that an Administrative recommendation was made at the last Commission meeting since there had been no action taken to proceed with the restoration of the buildings; that the Administration and the Commission have received numerous complaints regarding the appearance of the buildings; that the Administration was authorize to move ahead with code enforcement action on the buildings to seek their removal. Commissioner Atkins stated that it is common courtesy to notify property owners when the Commission plans to discuss their properties and make decisions; that he is concerned that this property owner was not notified. Mayor Pillot stated that he agreed and stated such at the last meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she brought the item to the agenda without the understanding that the property owner would not be notified; however, the effort of securing the buildings comes a little late; that the property owners have abused the system and the generosity of the previous Commission by not applying time constraints to the properties. Mr. Rylee stated that Mr. Famiglio had a tenant for (the Humber House) until November; that a building is not boarded up when restoration of a building is anticipated and construction plans are Book 36 Page 10294 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10295 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. underway; that the building is now secured much like the John Ringling Towers has been secured. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the property owner should have had the courtesy to keep the Commission updated on the progress of the project. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the original issue came to the Commission with a Staff recommendation to demolish or take a bond from Mr. Famiglio to guarantee the demolition within a particular time period; that Mr. Famiglio seemed to feel this (recommendation) was a lack of trust of his intentions; that the Commission is in a difficult position; that the means must exist for renovation with or without a tenant on the part of the owner; that the John Ringling Towers has a particular connected project and a time line; that she is willing to give the property owner an extended period of time which S very specific and connected with a guarantee of performance to demolish; that the burden is on the property owner; that the City has bent over backward to accommodate the property owner; that she wants renovation to begin on both structures within the next six months or wants to see them demolished at the owner's expense. Mr. Stuber stated that the owner would be willing to have specific time constraints applied; that he suggests each structure be handled separately as opposed to both structures being started within six months; that the Humber House would be started first, and The Inn could be started immediately if a use were to surface. Vice Mayor Patterson stated if a specific proposal with tight time- constraints is not received from Mr. Famiglio by the next Commission meeting, she is ready to demolish the buildings. Tim Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, stated that Mr. Famiglio has been served with an order to demolish three buildings on the site; that an order to repair was served on the one brick building on the site; that the orders were served tonight and the property owner has the right to appeal the order to the Special Master within 60 days; therefore, the City cannot proceed with demolition for 60 days. Mayor Pillot stated that if the property owner returns with a proposal to the Commission at one of the next two Commission meetings, the Commission could decide whether to stay the order to demolish or uphold it since it would be within that 60 day time period. Vice Mayor Patterson suggested that any proposal coming forth to the Commission be presented to the Administration for Administration recommendation to the Commission; that to be very clear, she wants plans with definite dates for both structures with a bond or some guarantee for the Cityi that if plans are presented for one structures she would move for a stay of demolition on only that one structure. There was consensus of the Commission to have the property owner present at the next Commission meeting, after being passed through the Administration for a recommendation, specific plans and time limits for all structures to which the demolition order refers and that the Commission Meeting date can be changed at the discretion of the Administration, not the property owner, to a meeting within the 60 day period. Mayor Pillot stated that it was wrong not to notify Mr. Famiglio of the Commission discussion; that it took the John Ringling Towers four years to get a specific time plan in force. REQUEST FOR 18. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATION RE: DESIGNATION OF VLADIMIR, RUSSIA AND PERPIGNAN, FRANCE AS SISTER CITIES - REQUEST APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM V-3) #3 (1593) through (1808) Michael Pender, Sr., Sister Cities Committee representative came before the Commission, and stated that the 18 member Board of Directors of the Sarasota Sister Cities Association (SSCA) has approved a resolution to request the City Commission enter into a formal Sister Cities' relationship with two new cities: Vladimir, Russia, and Perpignan, France; that there have been delegations to both cities from the SSCA Board; that the Sarasota YMCA is sponsoring a new YMCA in Vladimir, Russia, and the Rotary Club of Sarasota Bay is working to establish a rotary club in Vladimir; that Alain Taulere, owner of the Cafe of the Arts and a local bakery, comes from Perpignan, France, and has brought back the letter of request from that cityi that both cities are similar in size to Sarasota and are heavy into artistic culture; that two delegations from Vladimir have visited the City, and a French artist from Perpignan will be in Sarasota tomorrow for a reception. Commissioner Cardamone asked what was the cost associated with approving these Sister Cities? Mayor Pillot stated that there is no cost to the Cityi that the fee for the membership in the Sister Cities International Program is the city's only expenditure; that there are 1700+ Sister Cities Associations, 900 of which are in the United States. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to accept the recommendations of the SSCA Board to designate Vladimir, Russia, and Perpignan, France, as Sister Cities to the City of Sarasota. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 36 Page 10296 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10297 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. 19. CITIZENS' INPUT: (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (1806) through (1808) There was no one signed up who wished to speak. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ARTWORK - CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO WAIT TO TAKE ACTION UNTIL A MODEL IS PRESENTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (1808) through #4 (0589) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Virginia Hoffman, Artist, came before the Commission. Displays were shown on the overhead projector throughout the presentation. Mr. Daughters stated that the wording approved by the Commission for the Historic Display, sketches for the Historic Display portholes, and sketches of the sculptures and two fountains were presented at a joint meeting between the Historical Preservation Board and the Public Art Committee; that two members of the Historic Preservation Board were in attendance without a quorum but participated in discussion. Mr. Daughters distributed a copy of the actions taken at the Joint Historic Preservation Board and Public Art Committee Meeting of Friday, March 4, 1994 (a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) . I and stated that Leslie Ahlander and Dwight Rose of the Public Art Committee (PAC) were present to review their recommendations. Ms. Hoffman showed the Commission visuals of the Historic Display text and stated that the headings lettering will be 1" tall and the text will be 3/4" tall; that she has suggested sandblasting the text into granite rather than concrete to provide more detail and also suggested detailing the etched artwork in enameled metal silk screen onto metal with a protective tempered glass cover; that her suggestions were approved by the PAC; that the presentation tonight is a preliminary presentation; that a second presentation will be given with full-scale drawings and mechanical artwork. The following comments and suggestions were made while the porthole imagery was presented on the overhead projector: Ms. Hoffman stated that imagery includes designs from the archives to create a collage effect; that oyster shells and cabbage palms will be used on the Native American image. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Scots imagery presents an opportunity to add an African/American to the project by using Leonard Reid as John Gillespie's golf caddie. Ms. Hoffman stated that she plans to use Mr. Reid in her full-scale presentation. Mayor Pillot stated that the wording "He was the town's major influence on the City's early development" presents a redundancy and the word "town's" should be deleted from the text. Ms. Hoffman stated that her concept for the Changing Shoreline is depicted by superimposing two older maps of the Shoreline of Sarasota. Mayor Pillot stated that the Changing Shoreline imagery is confusing and suggested using a lineal map of the existing bay area shoreline and graphically denoting the shoreline as it was prior to the 1950s construction; that this will visually show what the text states. Commissioner Merrill stated that a specific mapped area of the shoreline in the Bayfront area should be used rather than the entire Sarasota shoreline. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Changing Shoreline could show the shoreline at the turn of the century and note where the Hoover Arcade was and show the shoreline which previously came to where the Penner Building currently stands. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she liked the idea of the Tarpon fish on the Old City Hall etching since the Tarpon Tournament was such a big event in Sarasota. Commissioner Merrill stated that the caption is about Old City Hall and the fish doesn't belong. There was consensus of the Commission to delete the fish from the Old City Hall etching and to allow the artist to determine the materials to use (to create the artwork).. Leslie Ahlander and Dwight Rose, of the Public Art Committee (PAC) came before the Commission. Ms. Ahlander stated that the PAC request replacing the word "probably" with "one of" in the Scots text; that the first statement under Native Americans was altered as follows: "The Paleo Indians were the first known inhabitants of Sarasota"; and that a circus poster was suggested to be added to the side of the building wall in the War Memorial image to make reference to the circus influence in Sarasota. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the native Indian used in the Native American image should be depicted as the archives depict the majority of the Indians. Book 36 Page 10298 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10299 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hoffman showed visuals and displays of her PAC approved concept for the fountain and the sculpture. Ms. Hoffman stated that the water in the fountain continually flows and has a maximum height of six feet which will work well with (the asymmetrical forms of metal and glass); that the sculpture will be anchored in four areas with the body elevated above; that the (strings of metal) will be hammered metal components that will move with the movement of water and wind; that the sculpture will be between 8- and 10-feet tall; that the glass portion of the sculpture will be approximately 4-feet tall; that once the concept of the sculpture is approved she will develop a scale model of the sculpture. Ms. Hoffman continued that she would like the sculpture to be four- sided; however, only $12,000 has been allotted to build two sculptures, and she may not be able to complete a four-sided sculpture within that budgeted amount. Commissioner Merrill asked if a message or symbolism is being conveyed by this sculpture? Ms. Hoffman stated that she can have a specific message or symbolism created by the next Commission meeting if the Commission so desires; that she is designing a site specific sculpture which is appropriate for the space and environment and will interact with the water and light occurring at the site; that she sees her concept as something beautifully illuminated at night as a sparkling jewel to the area, and during the daylight hours the sunlight and the water will be sparkling throughout. Mayor Pillot stated that he never votes for anything he can't justify to himself; that with due respect to the PAC, he will not vote for a sculpture just because they recommend it; that he does not find this sculpture to be contributing anything to the Bayfront. Ms. Hofiman stated that this sculpture may not be a piece of art wanted in a living room or in a backyard; however, the sculpture is designed specifically for the area; that it is difficult to judge art from a drawing, and she suggests the Commission review a project on Longboat Key with two outdoor sculptures that she has recently completed. Mayor Pillot stated that he respects the way Ms. Hoffman presents herself personally and professionally; however, his mind will not be changed (by. seeing a similar sculpture); that he will not sit back and placidly accept that in which he does not believe. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission faced a similar conflict between Commissioners with approving or not approving Memory Path at Selby Five Points Park; that the PAC recommended a model which was not a great model; that the Commission was told that the reality would be different and very well executed; however, the (Memory Path) was not executed as expressed to the Commission; that she would like to delay approval until a model is presented to the Commission since the shape and materials (for creation) are not complete; that she would like to respond to people asking why she voted for the sculpture, "because I like it." Ms. Hoffman stated that she has made every effort to express herself as a professional to the City Commission; that she has invited and again invites each Commissioner to tour her studio. that she sort of agrees with the Commission (experience on the Memory Path) project; that she has lived in Sarasota all of her life; that she has grown and developed in Sarasota and is a professional of status in the community. Mayor Pillot reiterated that his mind will not be changed. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to see a model before she votes; that she would also like a personally conducted tour of Ms. Hoffman's work (on Longboat Key). Commissioner Atkins asked for clarification on the $12,000 mentioned to complete both sculptures. Ms. Hoffman stated that the project has a $20,000 budget; that a portion of the $20,000 is allotted for the (Historic Display), and $12,000 is allotted for the sculptures; that the $12,000 figure was applied to the "spitting fish" concept which was to be some form of cast product; that the sculpture now being discussed is a more substantial item. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Ms. Hoffman needs to present the Commission with a design which is concrete stating that the production costs are "X", artist fees are "X", and if the Commission want this sculpture it will cost "XX". Commissioner Cardamone asked if the fountain has many moving parts or if the water is forced through a space which creates the spray? Ms. Hoffman stated that a bronze cylinder below the grill propels the water outward; that the fountain is similar to a giant showerhead; and that the sculptures are placed over fountain head which is not part of the sculpture. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she likes the concept of the glass and light prism effect that the water will generate on the glass; however, she is concerned with the glass being vandalized. Ms. Hoffman stated that water will be around the sculpture which will deter vandals from climbing onto the sculpture; however, if a Book 36 Page 10300 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10301 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. vandal wants to shoot at the sculpture with a gun, there is not much which can be done. There was consensus of the Commission to wait to take any action until the next presentation when a model is presented. Mayor Pillot asked whether the Commission was agreeable to move to New Business: Agenda Item VIII-2 and then New Business: Agenda Item VIII-3 to accommodate Mr. Dietz who is a volunteer and is in the audience awaiting presentation. There was consensus of the Commission to move forward the items. 21. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REFER TO ADMINISTRATION FOR REPORT CONCERNING "SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE" FOR THE RENEWAL OPTION FOR O'LEARY'S LEASE AND CONCESSION AGREEMENT - APPROVED TO REFER TO ADMINISTRATION FOR REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #4 (0518) through (0560) City Manager Sollenberger stated that notification has been received from O'Leary to renew their lease; that under the terms of the lease, O'Leary's must give 180 days advance notice of their intent to extend their option by five years; that approval of the extension is based upon a finding that the leasehold has run in "substantial compliance" with the terms of the lease; that his recommendation is to refer the matter to the Administration for a report on the question of "substantial compliance". On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer the matter to the Administration for a report concerning "substantial compliance." Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (R.F.P.) FOR ARCHITECTURAL/ ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PERFORM A FACILITY AND THEATRICAL EVALUATION OF THE CITY'S VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL - APPROVED TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF R.F.P.(AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (0560) through (1407) City Manager Sollenberger stated that a facility and theatrical evaluation of the city's Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall was recommended in the Van Wezel Long Range Strategic Plan; that the R.F.P. has been reviewed by the (Van Wezel) Advisory Board and the (Van Wezel) Foundation. Mr. George Dietz, Chairman of the Van Wezel Advisory Board, Ms. Alexandra Jupin, Executive Director of the Van Wezel, and Mr. Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission. Mr. Gerkin stated that the procedures are in compliance with the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act; that the purpose of the evaluation has been identified in the R.F.P.; that the proposed fees are approximately, $50,000, based upon the recommendation of the Planning Consultant, Victoria Harding; and that the selection will be done by the Evaluation Committee, followed by a recommendation to the City Commission. Mayor Pillot asked if the evaluation is budgeted? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the evaluation is not budgeted; that after discussion, the decision was made not to budget the funds; and that the City Commission could appropriate funds from the fund balance of the Van Wezel, if approved. Ms. Jupin stated that the study will address several points identified in the R.F.P.; and that the overall goal is to insure that the Van Wezel continues its position as a cultural leader and the building remains intact with integrity. Mr. Dietz stated that the Advisory Board has considered this matter for a period of time and strongly urges the Commission to move forward with this step; that the 25-year anniversary of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall is next year; and that the Board wants to keep up with changes and look to the future. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the results of the study issued by Architect Stuart Barger? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City has a copy of the report (which can be provided to the Commissioners). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that, according to the Advisory Board minutes, Mr. Barger recommended against attempting to enlarge the seating capacity of the Hall; that the R.F.P. seems to indicate the city plans to enlarge the stage house to accommodate productions which cannot be produced today and to enlarge the seating capacity; that she assumes from the R.F.P. more seating capacity will be necessary to support the larger productions and to make them economically viable; that her concern is the City will obtain a proposal with a large bill attached; that the only monies available are reserve funds; that an outstanding potential obligation exists for an unresolved litigation concerning sales tax which could exceed a million dollars; and that she is, therefore, reluctant to put out an R.F.P. which begins with the presumption that all of these things need to be addressed at this moment. Mr. Dietz stated that much of this information was given to the Board by Ms. Harding; that there is no intent to tell the professional what the findings should be; that the items in the R.F.P. should be reviewed and a report issued; that if it is recommended the City have a larger facility and if the Van Wezel cannot physically be enlarged, the next question is whether another facility should be constructed and, if so, whether it should be a Book 36 Page 10302 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10303 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. City, a City/County, or a third-party facility; and that he does not feel the City has tried to direct the (outcome of the evaluation). . Vice Mayor Patterson stated that an engineer or an architect will respond to the R.F.P.; that they will not be able to say whether more seating capacity is necessary; that (more seating capacity) is being indicated by the R.F.P.; and that the engineer or architect will respond if it can be done within the existing shell. Mayor Pillot stated that this was his understanding of what is being sought; that (the City) felt that the stage should be wider, bigger, and higher and more seats are necessary; that the engineers or architects are being asked to address (these questions) ; and that an R.F.P. is not necessary if the input on enlarging the house and stage is not being sought. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the R.F.P. would be acceptable if it did not state that (enlarging the stage and seating capacity) is necessary. Mayor Pillot stated that (enlarging the stage and seating capacity) is the objective. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that (enlarging the stage and seating capacity) may be the objective of the Board but is not her objective. Mayor Pillot stated that (enlarging the stage and seating capacity) is his (objective). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City has something that works todayi that the City does not have the means or the will, at least from her vote, to venture into a multi-million dollar project involving either a new hall or a major renovation of the existing hall; and that readjusting seating required by aging and the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) is another issue because these are dollars which must be spent in any event. Mr. Dietz stated that the R.F.P. is not for refurbishing the existing facility but rather an effort to determine if the facility can be expanded; that if it is physically impossible to accomplish, nothing further will be done; and that if it can be done, the Commission will decide whether additional action is taken. Mayor Pillot stated that he recalls the Commission decided to determine if the seating capacity and stage facility of the Van Wezel can effectively, structurally, and sensibly be enlarged; that he thought this was the majority wish of the Commission; that, if not, a lot of time has been wasted; that an R.F.P. is not necessary to determine how to refurbish or replace aging seats; and that he would like to find out from the Commission whose understanding is correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she recalls movement on the Commission not to look to the City to foot the bill for replacement or a multi-million dollar renovation of the (Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall)i that perhaps discussions should occur with the County to take over the Performing Arts Hall; and that the outcome of the previous meeting was to discuss the issue at another day. Commissioner Merrill stated that he recalls two Commissioners talked about giving the facility to the County; that it was determined to do a study and then make a decision; that the issue he has with the R.F.P. is it is for an engineering study with nothing specified as to how to decide whether 1700 seats is adequate; that he would like to know what shows must go to the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center because they cannot come to this facility; that he is not certain (the City) would want to spend the money even if shows are lost; that this is an engineering study to determine if expansion can occur inside the shell; that this study does not address whether the facility should be replaced; that nothing in the R.F.P. requires analyzing the question of whether this Hall is the right size for the community or not; and that he was of the understanding that size was to be analyzed. Commissioner Merrill asked if this is an issue? Ms. Jupin stated that this is an issue and is addressed in the R.F.P.; and that what can or cannot be done with the Van Wezel will be determined by the architectural and engineering study. Commissioner Merrill asked where demand and the issue of whether 1700 seats is an adequate number to serve this community is addressed in the R.F.P.? Ms. Jupin stated that the seating capacity depends on what the Commission wants to offer the Community; that a broad array of cultural attractions has been offered to Sarasota in the 25-year history (of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall); that the Van Wezel is a leader statewide, if not nationwide, as a community facility; that the Van Wezel is 25 years old and much has changed, including production demands; and that it is difficult to accommodate a full ballet company or orchestra on the stage, not to mention (the productions of) Cats or Phantom, because the stage is small. Commissioner Merrill asked about the economics of affording Cats with 1700 seats? Ms. Jupin stated that it would be easier if there were more seats. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Van Wezel is the proper size for the community? Book 36 Page 10304 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10305 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Ms. Jupin stated that it is serving the community now but its ability to serve is limited and will become even more limited as the facility ages because of its size and how it is equipped. Commissioner Merrill stated that the equipment can be handled but he wants to know about size. Ms. Jupin stated that size of the facility and equipment cannot be divorced because the stage housing will determine what equipment is necessary. Commissioner Merrill stated that item one (on the R.F.P.) is to study the stage house; that the stage house does not determine whether the facility is big enough for the whole community; that item number two asks whether more seats can be added; that nothing asks whether (1700 seats) is the right size for the community. Ms. Jupin stated that it would be very difficult to increase the size of the stage house and not increase the size of the seating. Commissioner Merrill stated that (increased seating within the existing shell) would be a minor change, perhaps from 1700 to 1900 seats. Commissioner Merrill asked if 1900 is a proper size for this community? Ms. Jupin stated that (1900 seats) would be adequate to allow this community to enjoy a wider range of productions better presented. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if there were a particular number of seats in mind? Ms. Jupin stated no that she is waiting for the architects and engineers to say what can be done while preserving the integrity of the building. Mr. Dietz stated that the recommendation of Ms. Harding when she appeared before the Commission was to give serious consideration to increasing the capacity of the Hall. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agreed but it appears that (the City) is trying to preserve a building when the purpose of the building is to bring theater to the community; that he does not want to see the building be the driving force rather than bringing theater to the community; that the building is gorgeous with a great reputation although controversial when built; that his issue is whether (the City) is providing the community with the proper facility and not trying to preserve a historic building; and that this engineering study is the proper thing to do if there is no reason to study whether the facility is the proper size. Ms. Jupin stated that she is convinced this study is a logical next step after reading the long-range plan. Mr. Dietz stated that the extent of growth in the community over the past 25 years, whether City or County, must be kept in mind. Mayor Pillot stated that a philosophical community decision must be offered and Mr. Dietz as the Chairman of the Advisory Board is the leader in that (decision-making process); that his opinion is this community would love to see a wider range of programs come to the Van Wezel than it is currently capable of handling; that his perceived reaction to Ms. Harding's report was that the Commission wanted to proceed with this study; and that he is, therefore, passing the gavel to make a motion. On motion of Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to (authorize issuing the R.F.P. for architectural/ engineering services to perform a facility and theatrical evaluation of the City's Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall). Commissioner Cardamone stated that many of the questions were addressed in Ms. Harding's report, such as the economy, the size in relation to the community, the extent of the audience, the cost of production versus seats; and that she believes this is the next step and fully supports (the evaluation). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she will support the motion because questions should be answered before concrete decisions are made; that if it were decided that the community meaning the County, a multiple County area, or the region needed a bigger performing arts hall, a city of 50,000 people cannot support the cultural and entertaimment needs of the entire County, at least without allowing the City other considerations; that the reverse actually occurs on the part of the larger community; that (the Van Wezel) works and does a good job; that a competing facility which is larger and serves more needs will kill this facility either due to the competition or shutting it down - one a slow and one a more rapid death; that she is concerned about the wording in the R.F.P. which basically says: "This is the foregone conclusion and you make it happen because that is your job"; and that the R.F.P. is not asking the question of whether it can be done. Mayor Pillot stated that a reputable architect and engineer responding to the R.F.P. will not make (enlarging the seating and stage housing) happen if they do not believe it should happen; that the architect and engineer will indicate their response to the R.F.P. was based upon the fact that (the City) wants (the Van Wezel) enlarged but, after study, it cannot feasibly be done; and that he does not worry about the engineer and architect knuckling down if they feel enlargement should not occur. Book 36 Page 10306 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10307 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed that is probably correct in terms of the engineering and architecture but she is not certain that is correct in terms of the bill; and that almost anything, ultimately, can be done if (the City) is willing to pay. Commissioner Atkins stated that he wants the record to reflect that he hopes this (issue) will come back in stages of incremental improvements so he can cut out what he does not like and accept what he does like. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that would help her with her concerns because there are many issues to resolve before (the City) ventures into a major expense. Vice Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to proceed with the R.F.P. as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 23. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PARKING SPACES - APPROVED TO RESTRIPE THE PARKING ON MAIN STREET FOR 9-FOOT SPACES (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (1407) through (1737) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission, and stated that the Commission directed staff in January to maximize the parking on Main Street under the current project between Gulfstream and Orange Avenues; that there are currently 136 spaces including 6 handicapped spaces; that the striping can be removed and the spaces narrowed to provide at least 143 spaces, a gain of at least 7 spaces; that the dimensions are being reviewed again and a possibility exists of perhaps an additional one or two spaces being gained; that this is based on a nine-foot parking stall width, whereas most of the spaces are ten feet today; that nine feet is a modern-day standard adopted by FDOT (the Florida Department of Transportation); that he has drawings of the entire area if the Commission wishes to see them; that he is not recommending the area in front of Charlie's News (the intersection of Palm Avenue and Main Street) be converted to parking spaces because of the sight visibility problem; and that this area is striped off presently, allowing no parking. Mayor Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 11:14 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone asked what is the visibility problem? Mr. Daughters stated that Palm Avenue is not signalized today but is a stop street. Mr. Daughters displayed and explained maps indicating the location of the intersection. Mr. Daughters continued that if an individual is located at the stop sign at Palm Avenue, the view of the traffic moving on Main Street is blocked; that if the intersection is signalized in the future, a safe crossing would result because the driver would have a green signal; that parking could then be provided at the location; and that he would not recommend parking spaces in the location as long as (the intersection is not signalized). Commissioner Merrill asked what driving speeds are being assumed on Main Street? Commissioner Merrill stated that he suspects if this location were a commercial parking lot, (allowing parking spaces) would not be an issue; and that those roads serve as a parking lot. Commissioner Merrill asked if a lot of accidents occur at the location? Mr. Daughters stated no because the location is blocked off from parking at the present time. Commissioner Merrill asked if this is due to the slow speeds or the fact that parking is not permitted and asked if (the City) would allow parking (at this location) if it were a parking lot? Commissioner Merrill further asked if Mr. Daughters would consider that type of arrangement dangerous (in a commercial parking lot)? Commissioner Merrill continued that the speed on Main Street is analogous to a parking lot and that he cannot see the high speed. Mr. Daughters stated that the view from a side corridor coming across a main corridor in a grocery store parking lot would be blocked (if parking were permitted) and that he would recommend against (allowing parking). Commissioner Cardamone asked if this location is a four-way stop? Mr. Daughters stated no, it is a two-way stop. Commissioner Cardamone stated that, therefore, all the cars are moving east and west. Mr. Daughters stated that (cars travelling on) Main Street have the right-of-way. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it would be difficult to go against the City Engineer's recommendation on this issue. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the cost of the additional 7-9 parking spaces? Mr. Daughters stated that the estimated cost is $35,000 for restriping, much of which has to be done in any event; that ($35,000) is a very reasonable cost; and that $5,000 per space is very inexpensive parking. Vice Mayor Patterson asked about the need to repave prior to restriping which was mentioned by Mr. Paul Thorpe (of the Downtown Association) ? Book 36 Page 10308 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10309 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that Public Works recommends against repaving and he concurs with that recommendation; that Main Street is in good structural condition and looks good for the vast majority of the street; that the pavement was done many years ago and has held up remarkably well; that it is paved in the "black beauty" surface which stays continuously black; that a resurfacing would not stay black for that long; and that the estimated cost exceeds $150,000 to replace the pavement because the existing pavement would have to be milled first due to the high crown, creating drainage problems. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if Mr. Daughters is aware of the particular problems about which Mr. Thorpe is concerned, specifically cuts and holes resulting from the construction? Mr. Daughters stated yes; that most of the cuts and holes will be repaired as part of the project and the rest can easily be repaired and should be. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to (direct the Administration to restripe Main Street for nine-foot wide diagonal parking spaces). Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the (motion approved) is to spend the $35,000 to restripe, gaining 7-9 parking spaces. Commissioner Cardamone stated that restriping is not just to gain parking spaces; and that there are many places with no striping or striping which is in terrible condition. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the cost is between $5,000 and $7,000 per parking space and that is a reasonable price based upon what the Commission has heard before. 24. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REAPPOINTED TOLLYN TRITCHELL AND JOHN TERAN TO THE MPO CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (1737) through (1761) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to reappoint Mr. Tollyn Twitchell and Mr. John Teran to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Citizen Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 11:20 p.m. 25. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE, CONCERNING RESPONSE TO CRITICISM OF HEAVY TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION APPROVED TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO CONTACT THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING TIMING OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (1779) through (2368) Commissioner Merrill stated that traffic congestion in the City has generated a number of complaints; that Vice Mayor Patterson had previously brought up the issue of the traffic signal at Osprey (Avenue) and Webber (Street); that he has received a number of complaints about traffic signals around the City; that the timing on many of the signals is not good; that it is due to the consultant or contractor performing the work; that it may be necessary to go to the State Legislators about the issue; and that the signal on Bay Street and U.S. 41 should be a 90-second timing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the light at Webber (Street) and Osprey (Avenue) is new and asked if (that location) is part of what the (consultant or contractor) is doing? Commissioner Merrill stated that he is being told that the (consultant or contractor) controls the timing; and that the light at Shade (Avenue) and Bahia Vista (Street) is a State issue as well. Mr. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, stated that all the traffic signals in the City are being computerized under a FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) project; that the project is being done in two phases by two contractors; that all the traffic signals are being affected by FDOT's two contractors; and that the contractors are in control of the traffic signals. Commissioner Merrill stated that Shade (Avenue) carries less traffic than Bahia Vista (Street) yet the timing on the signals is the same; that Bahia Vista (Street) backs up close to East Avenue from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m.; and that, therefore, people are encouraged to cut through neighborhood streets as they try to bypass these areas. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what can be done? Commissioner Merrill stated that Hillview (Street) used to have a 90- second green signal at U.S. 41; that the timing on the green signal has now been cut in half, encouraging more people to use Hillview (Street) so they do not have to wait for a 90-second red; that Gulfstream (Avenue) at U.S. 41 southbound used to have a 25-second green light; that the timing (on this light) doubled this weekend; that someone is controlling the lights; that he feels the Commission should go to its State representatives and say "Please, get your government in line even if extra has to be paid to the contractors"; that signalization is creating congestion problems affecting the neighborhoods because people try to get around the busy streets; that the result is (the City) must do traffic abatement forcing people Book 36 Page 10310 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10311 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. back on to the busy streets; and that the situation is getting worse. Commission Merrill stated that a map was presented at the Vision Plan meeting indicating a "parkway" which basically ran down the railroad right-of-way; that the "parkway" was shown right on top of Shade Avenue; that he does not think whoever prepared the map intended (to show a parkway in place of Shade Avenue); that someone at a recent meeting said "that's going right down my neighborhood"; that (the City) has to be very careful not to make people worry about an expressway coming through the neighborhoods; that the whole issue of an expressway was raised in 1988; that the concept of an expressway through an urban neighborhood has not been done in any community for 20 years because of the negative effect; that presenting an expressway to the east of town in a Vision Plan is a fantasy as a solution to the traffic (problem) i that real people live in that area who will say they do not want (the expressway) there. Commissioner Merrill stated that this brings up the issue of light rail (which was discussed at the Vision Plan meeting) i that light rail is not economical anywhere; that it may be 50-60 years before (Sarasota) will get light rail going down the corridor because of the number of cities seeking State grants (for light rail). Mayor Pillot asked for a motion to extend the meeting long enough to complete the Commissioners' remarks. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to extend the meeting long enough to complete the Commissioners' remarks. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that the reason he brings up the light rail issue is that recently (the Commission) had a discussion about "rails to trails" using the railroad right-of-way; that (the City) should preserve the rail corridor but realistically there is not going to be an expressway or light rail (in that location); that the Commission should back the concept of "rails to trails", perhaps as an off-road bus or trolley route; that (the right-of- way) will not work as a road or light rail but there may be other options; that (the City) could put a bike lane and recreational activities (on the right of way) rather than letting it remain idle; and that some groups are interested in (the concept) and he hopes that it can be considered. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission may not have had clear information on the location of the office building on the west side of U.S. 41 when it considered the issue of the double- left turn lane going south on U.S. 41 at Bee Ridge Road; that there might be enough room (to construct the road without taking the office building); that new, big roads will not be built in the community for the next 50 years; that U.S. 301 may get six lanes; that (the City) has to look at incremental improvements to the (road) system and moving more cars through the intersections which are roadblocks; that a double-left turn at U.S. 41 and Bee Ridge (Road) makes a lot of sense, provided that (the City) will not lose the building. Mayor Pillot stated that he agreed; and that he had been wrong about the building and has since inspected the location of the building. Commissioner Merrill stated that (the double-left turn lane) should be looked at again. Commissioner Merrill continued that the MPO (Metropolitan Planning organization) has a commuter-assistance program; that representatives of the MPO met with the City Manager (concerning the program); that the approach of the MPO is for governments to set up different examples the private sector can follow, such as van pools, priority parking to people who ride share, etc.; that the transportation issue will not go awayi that the incremental changes have to be reviewed; that it may be possible to return to some of these issues when the City hires a transportation expert. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved that (the Commission) contact the State representatives about the timing of the traffic signals for which the State currently is setting the timing and which require correcting. Mayor Pillot restated the motion as (the Commission) through the Administration should contact the State representatives relevant to the concerns expressed by Commissioner Merrill about traffic signals and related matters. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is not certain that (contacting the State representatives) is the most effective way of carrying out what is being suggested by Commissioner Merrill; that each of the Commissioners could make a telephone call to appropriate representatives; but that a resolution or a letter from the City Manager expressing the thoughts of the Commission both to the representatives and to Mr. Ben G. Watts, Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation, might be more effective. Mayor Pillot stated that this is exactly what the motion would do; that the motion would authorize the City Manager to state that "the Commission" as a corporate body has (these concerns). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 26. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = APPROVED TO REQUEST THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A Book 36 Page 10312 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10313 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. REPORT CONCERNING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM X): #4 (2368) through (2862) Vice Mayor Patterson: 1. stated that noone has reset the light at Osprey (Avenue) and Webber (Street) since the issue was brought up two weeks ago; that she thinks some of the lights could be reset by (the City) i and that she has waited 45 seconds at that location, during which time not a single car turned left or right while the traffic on Osprey (Avenue) was delayed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the light should be used for school hours only. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mr. Daughters will probably tell the Commission that (the City) cannot reset the light. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the light was put up and set by someone; and that she expects (the City) can control the timing. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission could get a letter from the (City) Engineer as to whether something can be done? 2. stated that a long time ago she brought up the fact that there are properties outside the City which are receiving water and sewer from the City; that she knows of some specifically on the southern end of the City just outside of the Bay Road area; that the Commission discussed the issue about a year and a half ago and again about six months ago; that she would like a staff recommendation (on the issue) ; that she would like notification given to the people with realistic deadlines as to when they will have to annex into the City; that at some point she will take the initiative to agenda a Commission discussion; that the Sarasota Bay and Estuary Program on which Commissioner Cardamone has a lot of expertise and participation is turning to the City to provide vast amounts of sewer service; that the League of Women Voters is studying (the question) right now and will be making a recommendation, as will other organizations to whom it will sound very good for the City to solve some environmental problems caused by the County allowing development without provisions for water and sewer; that people will look to (the City) to provide (water and sewer); that if there is no policy, (the City) will look like "bad guys" when (the City) says it does not want to give away City services; that she will wait to agenda the issue if the Administration wants to bring (a recommendation) to the Commission; and that otherwise the Commission should give thought to what policies should be put into effect. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for a policy recommendation from the Administration on at least those properties currently enjoying City water and sewer? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the staff has done some work on the question; and that if the road was smooth sailing, there would be something other than a status report. Commissioner Atkins: 1. stated that he believes the Public Safety Employee of the Month Award should be separated from the General Employees; that he believes General Employees get overwhelmed by Public Safety Employees due to their rank, high profile, and sensational situations in which Public Safety Employees become involved; that he believes (the City) will be able to enhance the morale of General Employees in a more positive way if General Employees are recognized separately; and that Public Safety Employees have two or three other mechanisms for recognition. Mayor Pillot stated that he had not considered the question previously but that he agrees. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the issue has been discussed with staff but no final closure had been reached. Commissioner Atkins stated that there are two categories of employees and that it (the issue should be considered). Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like a recommendation from the Administration. There was general consensus of the Commission to request the Administration give a recommendation on the conçerns of Commissioner Adkins about the Employee of the Month Program. Commissioner Cardamone: 1. stated that she hears from the service stations on U.S. 41 and Hillview (Avenue) that the turn light is a delayed turn light; that people do not anticipate the delay because it is different from lights in the rest of the City; that a left turn southbound is not made first; that the traffic comes through and the arrow changes and then a left is made to go into the stations on the east side of U.S. 41 while other cars are still coming through the red light; that this is a cause of a lot of accidents; that she has Book 36 Page 10314 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10315 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. mentioned this to the Traffic Engineer several times; and that she thinks it will be determined that the delayed green arrow is responsible for the accidents. 2. stated that she suggests that the light at U.S. 41 and Siesta Drive does not always change to an eastbound green left arrow from the southbound (approach). Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the light (at U.S. 41 and Siesta Drive) is a demand light? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the light creates the problem on U.S. 41 at Bee Ridge Road because of backup. 3. stated that she is concerned about an article she read in the paper indicating the owners of the Siesta Key Fish Market wish to delay or withdraw their petition for historic designation; that the City has a lot of cost, time and energy involved in that designation as do the 400 petitioners and several large organizations which supported the designation and had a large influence on her vote supporting that historic designation; that she believes (the Commission) should discuss what to do when (the City) has invested time and money and someone changes their mind because they learn some more about the ramifications of the designation. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he had received a letter last week from Brooke G. Asbury and Gloria Wilson on behalf of Elvin Wilson (the former owner) who died; that they are requesting (the request for historical designation) be held until after the outcome of the five-year extension for nonconforming uses; and that he has advertised the public hearing regarding the five-year extension for nonconforming uses at the next (Commission) meeting. Mayor Pillot stated that the fee for a petition for historic designation (under the Billable Fee System) will take care of the problem in the future. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like to send a bill (to the owners of the Siesta Fish Market). 4. stated that she and Vice Mayor Patterson attended the Seventh National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology in Tampa several weeks ago; that they learned more than they thought they need to know; that they learned a lot about what they do not know; that part (of the Conference) was very technical and scientific presentations on new and alternative technology; that there are other options beside dredging and pumping sand; and that it was interesting and beneficial. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that (the Conference) was very interesting; that part was very difficult to follow for a nonengineer; and that the Conference was worthwhile. 5. stated that she has asked for about three years to have some indication placed at Selby Park as to where (the public) can order a brick. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if it is still possible to order a brick? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the original was the bricks at the park would be memory bricks; that concept call all of ask (where they can purchase a brick) ; and that a people and where bricks can be ordered may result in more plaque orders indicating because people will know what to do. 27. OTHER MATTERS/ /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS APPROVED TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXPAND THE JOHN RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE AESTHETIC TASK TEAM BY TWO MEMBERS (AGENDA ITEM XI): #4 (2862) through (3451) City Manager Sollenberger: 1. stated that he recommends adding two members to the Ringling Causeway Bridge Aesthetic Task Team, one from the Golden Gate Point Association and one a resident recommended by the Sunset Drive and Cedar Point Drive property owners. Mayor Pillot asked if Mr. Dennis Hart (of Hart's is on committee? Vice Mayor Patterson stated Landing) the no. Mayor Pillot stated that he feels Mr. Hart should be the committee) because he knows more about the area than (on alive. any person Vice Mayor Patterson stated that on the suggestion of the Manager, she and Commissioner Merrill acted at the MPO City Planning Organization) to further the request of the (Metropolitan the MPO agreed to allow the City Commission to liaison Commission; that FDOT (the Florida Department of directly with the bridge through the Transportation) on the aesthetics of is City's Advisory Board; and that the Task Team comprised of five people including a Downtown Association representative, a St. Armands Merchants Association a representative from the Coalition of City representative, representative from Bird Key. Neighborhoods, and a Book 36 Page 10316 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10317 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, stated that the representative Bird Key is from the Coalition of City Neighborhoods; that the other two representatives are from the Public Art Committee and the AIA (American Institute of Architects). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the feeling of a number of people contacting her is there is not enough neighborhood participation; that the neighborhoods most directly affected should have an equal voice to the representative from the St. Armands Association or the Downtown Association; that additional participation would logically come from Golden Gate Point and the condominiums on the Bay; and that she is curious that Mr. Sollenberger did not include 888 (Avenue of the Arts). Mr. Sollenberger stated that the residential sections closest to the fall of the bridge were considered. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. James Boyle seemed to be a spokesman for the Sunset and Watergate area during the recent campaign and that he may be a contact for that condominium complex. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she does not mind expanding the committee because the broader the base, the better the information and asked if (the Commission) will have an opportunity to see the proposal for the bridge, the landfalls and the mechanism for going into Hart's Landing with a boat trailer? Vice Mayor Patterson asked if (the Commission) will have an opportunity to see the proposal for the (Tony) Saprito Pier as well? Mayor Pillot stated that he believes Mr. Hart should be invited to serve; that Mr. Hart has a reason to be concerned; and that (the Hart) family has been in business for half a century and recognized as knowledgeable, respected people. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that anyone can talk to the Advisory group, express their opinions and help determine the results; but that if she were a representative of Bird Key which has 800 homes directly affected by this bridge, (she would not be happy) having a vote equal to Mr. Hart. Mayor Pillot stated that he was referring to access, the (Tony) Saprito Pier and how the public will drive in and out of that area. Mayor Pillot asked who knows more about (these issues)? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this committee will not address those issues. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the aesthetics of the design will be discussed; and that Mr. Hart is going to be 65-70 feet below (the bridge), therefore, he will not be able to see what the bridge looks like aesthetically. Mayor Pillot asked if the design/aesthetics of the bridge will have no impact on the access around the bridge? Mr. Sollenberger stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there are very limited aesthetic (issues). Mayor Pillot stated that it is one thing to talk about color, but it is another to talk about land fall and how the substructure of the bridge is designed; that the latter will affect how (the public) gets under the bridge into the Hart's Landing area; that he withdraws his comments if aesthetics have nothing to do with the structural design; and that he would be amazed if that is the case. Commissioner Merrill stated that the committee could expand its own purpose; and that perhaps the committee should be more skewed towards architects if ideas are being sought. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there is one person from the AIA on the committee. Commissioner Merrill stated that this means that there is an aesthetic design team with one person having professional skills. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there are two people with professional skills because there is also a person from the Public Art Committee. Committee Merrill stated that perhaps the committee should be comprised of more idea people. Commissioner Cardamone stated that someone from FDOT (the Florida Department of Transportation) will take four designs from a drawer and say: "Here are your four designs to pick from"; that this will be how the bridge is designed; that someone (from the FDOT) sat at this table and said (the City) will have the ability to design this bridge and said there were unlimited monies to build the bridge. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he would like approval of the addition of the two members he has recommended. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve (the addition of the two members recommended by the Administration) ). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she requests that the condominiums which look onto the bridge directly be included (in the group from which a condominium representative is to be chosen).. Book 36 Page 10318 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10319 03/07/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that he would like to have (a representative from One Watergate Tower) because much of (that condominium) sees the bridge. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she spoke with those who served on the (John) Ringling (Causeway) Bridge Task Force; and that they feel they were told this would be an on-going project and were not through with their work, and would like to participate further. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if those people were from Golden Gate Point? Commissioner Cardamone stated no; that the Task Force feels (the Commission) is eliminating the purpose for which they have been promised further involvement by (the appointment of) a committee to work on design; and that there is some misunderstanding between (the Commission) and the Task Force. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the two members recommended by the Administration are included in the motion. Mr. Sollenberger stated that is correct; that (the motion) includes a representative from Golden Gate Point and one recommended by the Sunset Drive and Cedar Point Drive property owners; and that the resulting committee would have seven members. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 28. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII). #4 (3451) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of March 7, 1994, adjourned at 11:58 p.m. 19 - GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: G Billy E Robnssy BILLY E.PROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK