BOOK 43 Page 16337 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1998, AT 9:00 A.M. PRESENT: : Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Jerome Dupree, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: : Commissioner David Merrill 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 9:08 a.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0015) through (0070) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add Item No. II, Report Re: John Ringling Towers, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger. B. Add Item No. III, Appointment Re: Historic Preservation Board, per the request of City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1056, AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION OF A LOAN IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,850,000 FROM THE FIRST FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL FINANCING COMMISSION: APPROVING THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION OF CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION: APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRST FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL FINANCING COMMISSION PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAKING OF SUCH LOAN; RATIFYING THE COMMISSION/; S INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0070) through (0158) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration requested approval of proposed Resolution No. 98R-1056 at the March 16, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that the request was withdrawn due to the absence of two Commissioners; that the proposed loan will finance improvements to which the City is committed for the Renaissance of Sarasota project, which must be under construction no later than December 1998; that the improvements to which the City has committed must be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for Phase I of the Renaissance of Sarasota project. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Resolution No. 98R-1056 authorizes the negotiation of a loan from the First Florida Governmental Financing Commission (FFGFC) in an amount not to exceed $1.85 million to construct road improvement projects and also approves the execution and delivery of a loan agreement; that three road improvement projects are required in conjunction with the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that most of the costs are funded by the Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) extension; however, the projects must be under construction in 1998/99 to coincide with the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that in each instance, the first portion of the project is required as part of the City's commitment to the Renaissance of Sarasota project with funding provided by the L.O.S.T. extension; that the second portion of the project was included in the list of projects accompanying the referendum for the L.0.S.T. extension; that the road improvement projects are: 1. Sixth Street from U.S. 41 to Orange Avenue Streetscape project including trees, bike path, sidewalks, street lighting and landscaping; also includes adding a third lane from U.S. 301 to Orange Avenue - Installation of pedestrian-scale street lighting and the planting of trees along the right-of-way 2. Cocoanut Avenue from Fruitville Road to Tenth Street Streetscape project including intersection improvements at Fruitville Road and Sixth Street and trees, landscape, irrigation, sidewalks, and pedestrian scale street lighting from Gulf Stream Avenue to Fruitville Road = Landscape improvements to the existing medians and the replacement of the existing street lighting system with pedestrian-scale lighting 3. Central Avenue BOOK 43 Page 16338 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16339 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. from Fruitville Road to Second Street Streetscape project to continue the theme established on Central Avenue, north of Fruitville Road, to include pedestrian-scale street lighting, trees, landscaping and irrigation from Fruitville Road to First Street - continuation of the streetscape theme Mr. Mitchell continued that the estimated costs for these projects is $1.7 million; that funding in the amount of $1.322 million is provided in the L.O.S.T. extension; that the addition of the third lane on Sixth Street was not included in the L.O.S.T. extension and is estimated to cost $400,000, with funding to come from impact fees; that the FFGFC is making loans to all present members in April 1998 with a deadline of March 25, 1998 for participation; that the Commission must approve this loan to participate in this year's borrowing; that the bond issue is preliminarily sized at $1,721,140 of which $21,140 is for issuance costs; that the True Interest Cost is 4.15 percent; that the average annual debt service is $388,321 for five years; that the City can reinvest the funds until required for the road improvement projects at a rate not to exceed 3.95 percent. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution 98R-1056. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1056 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution 98R-1056. Commissioner Patterson stated that some of the optional components such as street lighting and landscaping on 6th Street and Orange Avenue are specifically designed as a linkage between the Renaissance of Sarasota project and downtown; and asked for confirmation that the City's projects will begin at approximately the same time as construction begins on the Renaissance of Sarasota project to assure overall coordination of the project's entry ways and the City's beautification and transportation concurrency improvement projects. City Manager Sollenberger stated that construction of the City's projects and the Renaissance of Sarasota project will begin at the same time; that construction on the Renaissance of Sarasota project will begin no later than December 1998; that the City also plans to begin project construction in December 1998; that once the Renaissance of Sarasota project is approved, Staff will be asked to prepare the plans and specifications for the City's beautification and traffic concurrency improvement projects; that the City will meet the commitment to the Wynnton Group, Inc. (Developer). Chairman Pillot asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt proposed Resolution 98R-1056. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT RE: JOHN RINGLING TOWERS - MAJORITY CONSENSUS SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATION S ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT #1 (0177) through #2 (0250) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the purpose of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) report is to: 1. Report on the March 24, 1998, Historic Preservation Board meeting concerning the JRT issue. 2. Present facts regarding the JRT demolition issue from the Administration's perspective. 3. Outline an alternative course of action and determine if the Commission will, through consensus, support the Administration's pursuing the recommended alternative course of action. City Manager Sollenberger continued that C. Robert Buford, owner of the JRT property, filed for a demolition permit in early March 1998; that the demolition permit was approved by the City; that notification was forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Code; that the issue of the requested JRT demolition permit was placed on the March 24, 1998, agenda of the Historic Preservation Board, which was unable to act due to a lack of quorum as the Board has two vacancies and two Board members had declared a conflict of interest; that the Historic Preservation Board selected April 10 and April 22, 1998, as two potential dates on which a future meeting could be scheduled to consider the issue, depending on the availability of new Board members once appointed by the City Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Zoning Code requires that permits to demolish structures on the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) list not be issued until the expiration of 45 days from the date of permit application; that the JRT is on the FMSF list; and cited Section 15-31, of the Zoning Code as follows: Demolition Stay - Florida Master Site File Structures: The purpose of this restriction shall be to allow adequate time to determine if there are any viable BOOK 43 Page 16340 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16341 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. alternatives to demolition of the structure Staff of the Planning and Development Department shall be permitted access to the premises and to the subject structure during the forty-five day period for the purpose of showing the structure to individuals who may be interested in restoring and/or relocating the structure. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the purpose and intent of this provision of the Zoning Code is to provide time to examine whether saving an historic structure is possible; that in this instance, the provision has been satisfied over the last 7.5 years; that when the Huntington Bank was in the position to take over ownership of the JRT property, the City presented a case to examine the property for the purpose of saving the JRT; that the Huntington Bank was cooperative and commissioned a study; that as a result, a community meeting was called and a citizens' group, the John Ringling Centre (JRC) Foundation, was formed to proceed with efforts to save the JRT; that the JRC Foundation put forth a valiant attempt to save the JRT; that many involvement opportunities and fund-raising events took place from 1970 through 1997 to salvage the JRT. City Manager Sollenberger further stated that a lawsuit was recently resolved between the JRC Foundation and Mr. Buford, who agreed to examine the potential of salvaging the JRT, but who recently concluded that salvaging the JRT is no longer possible and filed the request for a demolition permit; that based on past experiences, finding a solution to save the JRT in 45 days is incomprehensible, that Section 15-22 of the Zoning Code provides an alternative measure as follows: Nothing in this article shall prevent demolition of a designated structure when the building and zoning administrator certifies in writing that such work is necessary for the purpose of correcting conditions determined to be dangerous to life, health or property. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a decision was made to inspect the JRT after viewing a video produced in 1997 as part of several lawsuits; that the inspection determined that the JRT falls within Section 15-22 of the Zoning Code, the application of which was previously resisted as the City had a partnership with the JRC Foundation for the preservation of the JRT; that stringent code enforcement was thought to impair and obstruct the JRC Foundation's efforts and ability to move towards rehabilitation of the JRT; however, the partnership between the JRC Foundation and the City no longer exists; that the video led to the conclusion that a building inspection was necessary; that as a consequence, the Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement inspected the JRT and concluded the JRT is a hazard and an emergency exists. City Manager Sollenberger further stated that the Administration has not withheld code enforcement action on any building in the City other than the JRT; that under the Zoning Code, the Administration can require a building's demolition; that the JRT has not previously been demolished because the JRT is significantly important to and of high profile in the community; that demolishing the JRT would not be appropriate without seeking the guidance of the Commission; that this presentation is to seek consensus among the Commission for the Administration to proceed, under Section 15-22 of the Zoning Code, to issue a demolition permit for the JRT. A video tape depicting the interior of the JRT was shown on the television screens in the Chambers. City Manager Sollenberger stated that photographs will be presented by Marion Almy, whose credentials include serving on the City's Historic Preservation Board, the Sarasota County Planning Commission, the Sarasota County Historic Preservation Commission and the Florida Historic Preservation Advisory Council; that Ms. Almy has been extremely helpful to the City in efforts to seek funding, including over $700,000 worth of State grant assistance for the historic restoration of the Municipal Auditorium. Marion Almy came before the Commission and stated that showing photographs of the deterioration of the JRT is difficult; that a great deal of her efforts have been directed at preserving the interior and exterior of many buildings; that the photographs were taken in 1996 as a part of the study done by Dr. Susan Tate, Preservation Architect, University of Florida; that the photographs verify the condition of the JRT; that Dr. Tate concluded the first two floors of the JRT had not been rehabilitated according to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's standards; that a visit to the building with City Staff was conducted to verify the building is as deteriorated as the pictures indicated; that the JRT is very deteriorated; that her last visit to the JRT was in 1976; that the JRT has dramatically changed since that time; that many prominent, architectural items have been removed, including tile, wooden and stone features; that some efforts were made during the 1980s to remove and store such items for use in the restoration; that the room where the items were stored in 1989 had been broken into and vandalized; that the few, remaining items were broken and scattered; that unfortunately, the JRT was never secured from vandals or curiosity seekers. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the attorney representing the JRT owner is being called to state the owner's commitment for the record; that Mr. Buford is prepared to spend $10,000 for the BOOK 43 Page 16342 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16343 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. Historic American Building Survey, Level II (HABS II), documentation of the JRT; that the HABS II documentation can be done within the $10,000 limit and is more than the Zoning Code requires; that the only requirement of the Zoning Code is to determine if the building can feasibly be rehabilitated in 45 days. Lamar Matthews and Keith DuBose, Matthews, Hutton and Eastmoore, representing C. Robert Buford, came before the Commission and stated that Ms. Almy was engaged to assure technical compliance with all regulations for issuance of a demolition permit for a structure listed on the FMSF list; that due to the lack of quorum at the March 24, 1998 Historic Preservation Board meeting, the review and presentation could not be heard; that Ms. Almy's final recommendation is as follows : It is the Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) goal to present a win-win situation to the Historic Preservation Board on behalf of Mr. Buford; that although there are no requirements for documenting the JRT prior to demolition, and an impressive body of documentation already exists, Mr. Buford is willing to contribute $10,000 to do what no governmental body or no preservation body has ever undertaken on the JRT site; that Mr. Buford will underwrite HABS II documentation, and then prepare the Collections Management Study on how to gather these various things. Attorney Matthews continued that the Administration's concern is issuing the demolition permit; that due to the lack of quorum, the Historic Preservation Board was not able to hear the presentation or vote; that the $10,000 donation is an outstanding offer and unlike any other situation regarding the JRT; that the JRT rehabilitation process has lasted for at least 18 years; that the highest confidence is given to the JRC Foundation and its officers; that the demolition cost will be borne by the owner; that the JRT is the only building in the City exempted from code enforcement; that the issue is if the Commission is directing the Administration to apply a different standard of enforcement of the City's own laws and ordinances to the JRT than other buildings; that the JRT is not being held to the same standards as other buildings; that the City's police officers have admirably been in the JRT under the Property Watch Program; that no votes will be taken on the issuance of a demolition permit of the JRT; that the question is if the City Manager will be allowed to do his job; and quoted the following from the Book of Ecclesiastics in the Bible: There is a point in time for everything, there is a time for every event under Heaven and in that list, there is a time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted, and there is a time to build and a time to tear down. Attorney Matthews stated that leaving the JRT in today's condition is not an honor to anyone; that removing the JRT shows respect for the JRT's designers and builders, not disrespect; that the JRT should not be remembered for being in such a deteriorated condition; that demolishing the JRT shows honor for the grace and charm the JRT once brought to the City during its fullness of life; that demolishing the JRT shows great respect to the people that turned every stone and lifted every possible opportunity and exerted every effort to bring the JRT back to life; that the City Manager has addressed the demolition challenge with great courage. Ms. Almy stated that the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) are part of a national program for buildings that must be demolished; that HABS II documentation involves large format photography, four by five black and white negatives, interior, exterior and aerial photographs; that the material is archivally handled; that the Federal Register of the U.S. Department of the Interior publishes the detailed specifications for the process; that ACI has completed this process for clients in Florida many times; that for the record, her position is an archeologist; that her responsibilities do not include this part of ACI's business; that Carrie Scupholm, Senior Architectural Historian with an Historic Preservation Planning degree from Cornell University, prepared the report; that approximately 20,000 HABS-HEAR records are produced each year and put in the U.S. Library of Congress; that HABS-HEAR records document America's architectural feats; that the careful documentation exists as a way of paying tribute to once great buildings which must be demolished; that HABS-HEAR is a very high standard of documentation; that a local photographer familiar with large, black and white and color format photography already has several four by five, large color and black and white negatives; that the photographs taken before the JRT is demolished will be compared to previous JRT photographs and drawings; that a team of photographers will be brought into the JRT with the necessary equipment immediately upon notification by the owner; that the photography will take a few days as lighting and power systems must be set upi that HABS II documentation requires drawings, photographs and written data; that the written data is comprised of primary sources and original documents as much as possible; that the nomination of the El Verona Hotel (JRT) to the National Register of Historic Places is an excellent source of information; that in the two days spent looking over available data to prepare the report for the Historic Preservation Board, a large body of information and thousands of photographs were discovered and will be utilized; that HABS II photography is the only step which must occur before the BOOK 43 Page 16344 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16345 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. demolition of the JRT; that ACI is prepared to go forward with the photography. Commissioner Patterson asked if part of the process is to gather older photographs and incorporate those into the historical documentation? Ms. Almy stated yes; that 14 photographs commissioned by the original JRT architect are currently kept at Syracuse University and will also be used; that after use and copying, the photographs will be archively prepared as part of the presentation; that thousands of photographs exist; that large format negatives will also be used, specifically according to HABS II documentation requirements. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the HABS II process is done to preserve the memory of the JRT? Ms. Almy stated yes; that the process is also done to preserve the architectural features; that architectural documentation will mainly consist of the lower two floors; that photographs will be used to show a normal single room, double room and suite; that the older photographs will accompany the existing, as-built drawings. Commissioner Cardamone asked if $10,000 is the cost of the documentation or the entire cost for the photography and the documentation? Ms. Almy stated that the $10,000 covers the entire project. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the owner is offering a gift of $10,000 or if the documentation is required? Ms. Almy stated that the owner is not and cannot be required to offer the $10,000 as no State, Federal or local law requires this type of documentation; that the owner was contacted because of his interest in the JRT; that the historic documentation of the JRT is the correct thing to do and should be done as the JRT cannot be preserved. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the purpose of the $10,000 commitment is a goodwill gesture for preserving the JRT's memories for the future of the City? Ms. Almy stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked if any requirement exists to enter into this commitment? Ms. Almy stated no; however, the JRT has been on the corner of U.S. 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue for a long time and should be properly documented; that the Federal government stipulates the criteria for proper documentation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that documentation is important as many people have attempted to preserve and resurrect the JRT; that much documentation is available; that the historical documentation of the JRT is a good idea; that the JRT's present condition is very sad. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if HABS II is recognized by the National Register of Historic Places? Ms. Almy stated yes. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if documentation is required? Ms. Almy stated that no Federal or State dollars are being used to demolish the JRT; that proper documentation is required if Federal or State dollars are used to destroy a building that is significant to the Nation's history. Vice Mayor Dupree asked where the documentation is kept? Ms. Almy stated that the determination is open to the Commission's suggestions; that the recommendation is to keep one copy in the U.S. Library of Congress and another copy in the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources. Mayor Pillot thanked Ms. Almy on behalf of the Commission for an excellent presentation. Timothy Litchet, Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the Unsafe Building Abatement Code allows a building official to issue an order to demolish any building or structure which constitutes an unsafe building or which is damaged or deteriorated to an extent that the cost of renovation and repair will exceed 50 percent of the assessed value of the structure; that an unsafe building includes any building that has any of ten different conditions, including that the structure is unsafe or unsanitary or is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance or a nuisance; that a nuisance includes any attractive nuisance including an unoccupied building which may prove a hazard to inquisitive persons or an abandoned building which contains unsafe flooring or walls, fire hazards or other unsafe conditions; that unsafe conditions also include structures allowing for criminal activity to persist to the danger and detriment of the surrounding neighborhood; that a nuisance includes an unclean or unsanitary structure, a condition that substantially detracts from the appearance of a neighborhood or causes the demunition of property values in the area; that a nuisance includes a building which is abandoned, boarded up or left for unreasonably long periods of time in a partial state of construction or a building which is unfit for human occupancy. BOOK 43 Page 16346 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16347 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. Mr. Litchet further stated that the conditions witnessed at an on-site inspection of the JRT include broken glass and bottles, dead and decaying raccoons, collapsed walls, fire damage, structural damage, roof damage, water intrusion and rotting carpet; that the JRT is a nuisance and an unsafe structure; that by working with the owner in a cooperative manner, as many safety hazards as possible have been eliminated; that vagrants and varmints have been dealt with on a regular basis; that the owner has cooperated in every way asked but has let Staff know that continuously trying to secure and provide security for the vacant structure is no longer possible; that under the Zoning Code, a demolition permit for an historically designated structure must be referred to the Historic Preservation Board; however, under Section 15-22 of the Zoning Code, the provision does not apply if demolition is required on an emergency basis; that an emergency does not just include an immediate, imminent danger; that an emergency also includes a change of circumstances or conditions that can cause danger; that his professional opinion is that a demolition permit should be issued on an emergency basis based on the structure's current condition and the changed circumstances; that the changed circumstances have been a personal concern for some time; however, the JRT has been a structure of major cultural importance to the Community; that a partnership effort existed to do everything reasonable to save the JRT; that for the City to work with building owners is not unusual; that working with building owners and taking all reasonable steps to save a building is a Commission policy; that the efforts to save the JRT have failed; that the failing efforts create the emergency nature of the request; that the owner had indicated that continuing to maintain and keep the structure safe and secure is impossible; that the physical inspection of the property shows that the building is internally dangerous; that no reasonable expectations of any immediate remedial work correcting the dangerous conditions of the building exist; that the possibility of long delays are foreseen if the matter is not regarded as an emergency; that delays will only add to the additional hazards; that the conditions did not exist last year, last month or last week; that an emergency exists when an owner indicates the building is unsafe and the problems can no longer be corrected in a reasonable manner; that an emergency exists when a building inspection reveals no reasonable options are available to correct the unsafe situations; that an emergency also exists if a slim chance exists that a citizen could be injured on the property; that no one wants to be responsible for neglecting to correct a potentially harmful situation; that his recommendation is this type of dangerous situation should not be allowed to continue; that such unsafe conditions would not be tolerated by neighbors in a residential area; that the nature of these intolerable conditions is the reason this matter is being brought to the Commission for consideration. Mayor Pillot thanked Mr. Litchet for an excellent report. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's request is to proceed under Section 15-22 of the Zoning Code to issue a demolition permit on an emergency basis allowing the demolition to move forward, bypassing the provisions of Section 15-31 of the Zoning Code. Mayor Pillot asked if Commission consensus would be an appropriate action? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a motion is not required. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Zoning Code authorizes the Administration to make decisions regarding demolition of designated structures on an emergency basis without the need for Commission approval; however, the Administration is requesting Commission guidance before proceeding as the JRT is a politically sensitive issue. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's purpose in coming to the Commission is to obtain guidance; that the Administration does not wish to exercise the discretion allowed by the Zoning Code without discussing the issue with the Commission for the reasons previously outlined; that a genuine partnership exists. Mayor Pillot stated that generally, no such building or other code enforcement issue would come to the Commission; that the JRT demolition issue is an extraordinary issue; that the City Manager is acting properly in asking for this consensus. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the demolition permit will be issued immediately upon receipt of Commission consensus? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes; that the photography will be done prior to demolition; that the HABS II photography can be completed promptly Commissioner Cardamone asked if today's consensus will be the last regarding the JRT? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will not change the decision to demolish the JRT; that the decision has been carefully evaluated and has been made based upon the building official's findings and conclusions in which confidence is expressed; that regarding the JRT, the end of the road is being approached. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a desire exists to Close the JRT issue; that over the years, a great deal of energy has been expended over the JRT. BOOK 43 Page 16348 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16349 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. Vice Mayor Dupree commended the Administration for the thorough presentation and for gathering the different speakers to give an extremely thorough presentation. Commissioner Patterson stated that a personal promise has been received from the JRT owner that the Bickel House will be preserved and restored at his own expense or the expense of the corporation that takes over the rights; and asked if the Bickel House is part of the demolition? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the owner specifically stated that the request for a demolition permit does not include the Bickel House; that the issued demolition permit showed the demolition of the buildings on the site; that when contacted, the contractor indicated the inclusion of all buildings on the site was an error; that a correction was filed indicating that the demolition permit only applies to the JRT. Attorney Matthews stated that the permit is only for the JRT; that the owner has committed to restoring the Bickel House to Commission standards; that the Bickel House is anticipated to be a fine, fully restored and utilized restaurant incorporated into the Ritz Carlton project. Mayor Pillot stated that under Florida law, an elected official may not abstain from a formal vote; however, this vote is not formal as previously clarified; that informal conversations have been held with a number of people since the settlement between the JRC Foundation and Mr. Buford; that considering all input to reach a decision is a responsible measure; that the video was viewed on several occasions; that the JRT was personally visited two years ago and clearly was not restored; that the video and pictures do not illustrate safety; however, the Administration's report does illustrate the lack of safety; that the video and photographs are valuable and useful; that the informal comments received have probably been 10 to 1 in favor of demolition; that his vote must be cast according to his personal beliefs, data and judgment; that going with the obvious momentum would be easyi that his statement could ultimately be characterized as selfish; however, his support will not be offered to a consensus to demolish the JRT, which is part of the City's heritage; that the financial feasibility of restoring the JRT is a judgment call which has to do with the value of the building to the person paying the bill; that Mr. Buford's judgment is respected; however, his position will never be to look back and say his support was given to demolish the JRT. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that respect is given the Mayor's position; that a number of buildings considered important to Sarasota's heritage have been demolished during his 59 years of living in Sarasota without any photographs being taken as a reminder the buildings once existed; that a building on the corner of 6th Street and Cocoanut Avenue representing one of the City's pioneers will eventually be demolished; that no question is being raised about that building; that his vote will be supportive of demolishing the JRT. The following people came before the Commission: Daniel Delahaye, 935 North Beneva Road, Suite 509-C (34232) Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, stated that the Historic Preservation Board is an advisory board to the Commission; that his concern is not being called upon to speak to the Commission in his capacity as the Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board; that the Board's intent has been to accommodate petitioners; that the Board is the steward of historic preservation in the Community. Mr. Delahaye distributed a copy of a memorandum dated March 23, 1998, to the members of the Historic Preservation Board concerning the City's Water Works building; and stated that a recommendation by the Historic Preservation Board regarding the sale of the Water Works building will be presented at a future Commission meeting; that the recommendation is for the City to conduct HABS, Level I, (HABS I) documentation on the Water Works building and explore the possibility of architectural salvage; that the recommendation is also for the Commission to include in the Request for Proposal (RFP) that any proposed development receive rezoning and preliminary site and development plan approval prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the Water Works building. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the relevance to the discussion is unclear. Mr. Delahaye submitted for the record a letter dated May 15, 1990, from the Preservation Architect for the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, and stated that the indication is National Register buildings should be documented in accordance with HABS I requirements; that the letter specifically references the JRT; that the project as a whole should be considered, not just a single item or the demolition of a single structure; that the possibility of Federal, State, or local involvement should be considered and read the following prepared statement: The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal of federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take BOOK 43 Page 16350 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16351 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, of other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of Section 106, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur Mr. Delahaye continued that the use of any Federal funds or issuance of any license or permit in association with the JRT in the future may jeopardize a future project; that the owner's intent could be interpreted as to demolish the building, alleviate the problem and avoid the requirement for cultural evaluation in the future. Commissioner Patterson stated that the expenditure of Federal dollars is not being discussed. Mr. Delahaye stated that his understanding from newspaper reports is a boat basin would require a Federal permit; that a linkage to the property from U.S. 41 would require Federal or State involvement; that the issuance of a license or permit or use of direct or indirect Federal or State funds can result in the imposition of HABS requirements. Commissioner Patterson asked for legal comment. City Attorney Taylor stated that based upon his research and as indicated in the May 15, 1990, referenced letter, HABS documentation is required only if Federal, State or local funds are involved which is not the case with the JRT. Commissioner Patterson asked for additional comment. Ms. Almy stated that the Preservation Architect who authored the May 15, 1990, letter and who was contacted out of personal concern indicated the HABS documentation requirements are imposed if Federal funds are used in the demolition; that private funds will be used to demolish the JRT; that the letter accurately indicates that HABS documentation is only required if Federal funds are used for the demolition. Commissioner Patterson asked the difference between HABS I and HABS II documentation? Ms. Almy stated that HABS I documentation requires measured drawings of the entire building; that the JRT has approximately 700,000 square feet, not including the first two floors; that under the direction of an architect, the measured drawings would take a team of four to five technicians four months to complete at a cost of approximately $80,000; that as-built drawings of the JRT already exist in several places; that HABS II uses existing documentation and as-built drawings; that HABS II is an acceptable level of documentation but is not required; that HABS II will provide excellent documentation and is an expensive gift on behalf of the owner. Whit Rylee, 1345 2nd Street (34236), stated that the Mayor is thanked for his stance on the JRT; that during the past months, much personal attention has been given the movement to demolish the JRT which has been well organized; that urges to develop on the JRT property have been extensive; that the promised Ritz Carlton Hotel is anticipated by some as the "Holy Grail" of downtown redevelopment; that destroying the JRT will have a tremendous impact on Sarasota; that he is leaving Sarasota in a few months, not because the JRT is being destroyed but because the City, so dearly loved, no longer exists; that Mayor Pillot is thanked for taking such a valiant, unpopular stand. Mayor Pillot stated that in spite of his personal decision to oppose the demolition of the JRT, the City Manager is commended for his position. Commissioner Patterson stated that support is given the Administration's recommendation; that the issue of demolition is separate from the issue of the Ritz Carlton; that the JRT versus the Ritz Carlton is not the issue; that a lot of money is needed to restore the JRT; that many efforts have been undertaken for many years to raise the money needed from donations; that the not-for-profit efforts have raised a lot of money and are commendable, but the money raised has not been sufficient; that the private sector has indicated that restoring the JRT is not financially feasible; that the lack of financial feasibility leaves only one avenue open, which would be if the government, i.e., the City, the County or the State through a large grant, restored the JRT; that the City would have to contribute the necessary $10 million to restore the JRT; that absent such a solution, a delay of 45 days or 10 years will leave the eyesore of the JRT continuing to deteriorate; that the Administration's proposal is the finalization of years of demolition by neglect; that refusing to demolish the JRT would not make sense unless a willingness existed to vote for millions of dollars of City resources to restore the JRT; that the owner, upon reaching a settlement with Huntington Bank, indicated a lack of financial ability to restore the JRT; that the owner's position as a private investor who bought the land to make money is right and appropriate; that good economic times exist at the present time; that the City has limited property available for positive BOOK 43 Page 16352 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16353 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. development; that a retirement complex was considered when the discussion on developing the JRT property began 7.5 years ago, which would not be a positive development for the City; that the best opportunity for positive development is available if the JRT, for which no real hope of restoration exists, is demolished; that the best course of action for the thousands of citizens who take ownership of the City is to allow the elimination of the JRT whether or not a Ritz Carlton Hotel is constructed in its place. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the right to vote based upon heartfelt feelings is the most positive aspect of his service on the Commission; that the presented information and the people's feelings are considered after which voting against an action supported by so many people requires courage; that attaching an economic, political, or financial reason for giving a consensus to demolish the JRT is insignificant; that no economic, political, or financial reason exists for his vote; however, the time has arrived to reach a conclusion and move forward, which is the basis for his vote. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her agreement is given to the statements of Commissioner Patterson and almost all the statements of Vice Mayor Dupree; however, the one exception is that thousands of people in the Community have not been involved in the effort to save the JRT; that much criticism has been received during the five years of her support for the efforts of the JRC Foundation through her votes; that her response was always support must be offered the good people willing to spend their time, money. and energyi that her faith with the JRC Foundation was broken upon receipt of a July 24, 1996, letter from William W. Merrill, III, and quoted from the letter as follows: First, the Foundation has not "fail( (ed) to comply with the provisions of paragraph 5 of that certain Agreement" between the City of Sarasota, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the Foundation. First, the Foundation has rehabilitated the exterior facade and first two floors of the John Ringling Towers in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as of July 19, 1996. Commissioner Cardamone stated that presenting such language to the City Manager and the City Attorney was a sham; that subsequent to receipt of the letter, the work of the JRC Foundation was questioned; that her support is offered to support the Administration's recommendation; that the City Manager, the Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, and the others involved are praised for bringing the issue to the Commission at this time. Commissioner Cardamone continued that a discussion concerning the Historic Preservation Board and its loss of credibility with her is desired following a decision on the Administration's recommendation; that a personal unwillingness exists to appoint a new member to the Historic Preservation Board; that her surprise was the political posturing which occurred the week of her absence from town; that the City Attorney's Office will be requested to report on the Historic Preservation Board's meeting at which the JRT was discussed; that the Historic Preservation Board knew the Commission's position. Mayor Pillot stated that a report is requested following the conclusion of the issue under discussion. Mayor Pillot stated that votes are cast according to one's heart; that his position may be foolish and questionable and is certainly selfish; that his decision is made by listening to his heart; that any consequences will be accepted; and asked if the City Manager, the City Attorney or the City Auditor and Clerk have any doubt about the Commission's consensus? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated no. City Manager Sollenberger stated that his understanding is a Commission majority consensus exists, with the Mayor in disagreement, that the Administration will proceed with the issuance of the demolition permit; that assurance will be obtained that the necessary photographic work is complete prior to the demolition; that the Commission's time and effort in considering the request is appreciated. The Commission recessed at 10:44 a.m. and reconvened at 11:03 a.m. 4. NEW BUSINESS: APPOINTMENT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM II) #2 (0264) through (1114) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that two vacancies exist on the Historic Preservation Board; that the seat designations are: One member Licensed architect from the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, or one such architect and one licensed architect from the local chapter of the American Institute of Landscape Architects One member A general or specialty contractor holding a current certificate of registration in accordance with Ordinance No. 82-2612 or who is a registered professional engineer BOOK 43 Page 16354 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16355 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. Mayor Pillot stated that no willingness exists to vote for appointments to the Historic Preservation Board at this time; that his reasons will be explained; and asked the position of the other Commissioners? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission had an opportunity to make an appointment to the Historic Preservation Board during the absence of Commissioner Patterson and Mayor Pillot; that an appointment was not made at that time; that the Commission's sentiment was some seats should be made available to the general community and not all seats should have professional designations; that concerns have been heard from some neighborhoods concerning historic designations; that Staff was requested to consider eliminating some professional criteria for the seats; that Commissioner Merrill has indicated his lack of support for seat designations on the City's Advisory Boards; that a split of 50 percent professional designations and 50 percent community representatives may be appropriate; that appointment of a member to the Historic Preservation Board was not anticipated at this meeting; that none of the applicants is known and most do not live in the City, which is a concern; that no contact has been received from any of the applicants. Mayor Pillot stated that no emergency exists; that the Commission's action under Agenda Item No. II means the Historic Preservation Board is no longer involved in the disposition of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) ; that the normal process of receiving applications from anyone interested in and qualified for appointment should be followed; that appointment should be scheduled at a regular Commission meeting in the near future; therefore, his support is not offered to making appointments at this time. Commissioner Patterson stated that an appointment at this meeting is not of great import; however, she came to the meeting prepared to nominate two applicants, both of whom are eminently qualified, meet the seat requirements, and have been interviewed; that their philosophy of and commitment to historical preservation is balanced with an appreciation for preserving the characteristics of a neighborhood; that the next regular Commission meeting is April 6, 1998, which is in the not-to-distant future. Mayor Pillot stated that his vote can be anticipated at the April 6, 1998, regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission agreed to review the seat requirements. City Attorney Taylor stated that the question was why the seat requirements were adopted; that the City determined to become designated as a Certified Local Government (CLG) under the National Historical Preservation Act, allowing the City to nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places and to apply for historical preservation grants from the State; that the requisite level of expertise must be represented on the Historic Preservation Board for designation as a CLG; that certification by the State can be allowed without requisite expertise if the minimum number of disciplines cannot be found; that the State's process is being reviewed; that the research will require some time if the City wishes to continue as a CLG. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Historical Preservation Board votes on issues affecting property development permissions; that historical designation, for example, allows an exemption from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood regulations; that an exemption can also be obtained from waterfront and other setbacks; that her preference is for a board with the knowledge to determine if a property is of historic value; that her concern with the Historic Preservation Board is that almost every property presented is approved for designation and allowed massive remodelings which may have a greater negative affect on surrounding neighborhoods than the loss of an historical structure; that the available incentive concessions should be reviewed; that finding the minimum number of people meeting the qualification requirements is not a problem; that membership could be increased to allow for representation by particular neighborhoods; that input from the affected neighborhood association could be required in considering historic designation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that enlarging the Historic Preservation Board to include members with interest but without expertise may be a solution; that the City is anxious to preserve residential structures; however, the possible uses available to historically designated properties is a concern; that comment is requested on the March 24, 1998, meeting of the Historic Preservation Board. Mark Singer, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the various members of the Historic Preservation Board were met recently for the first time; that his impression of all members is of strongly committed individuals; that the Commission should be proud of the membership; that the Historic Preservation Board operates under certain constraints; that the members are volunteers with professions and other obligations; that the Historic Preservation Board is staffed by Sarasota County representatives, who also have constraints on their time and availability; that April is Historic Preservation Month; therefore, Staff has further restraints due to busy travel schedules; that the Historic Preservation Board has regular meetings every other month, generally for two hours, with special meetings as necessary; that the request for a demolition permit for the JRT was received the week of March 16, 1998; that the matter was placed on the Historic Preservation Board's Agenda with two pending historic designation petitions, which had been BOOK 43 Page 16356 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16357 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. postponed from an earlier meeting; that the desire was to hear the matters in a timely fashion. Attorney Singer further stated that concern existed that a quorum would be lost after the normal two hours meeting time due to members' other commitments; that conflict of interest issues under the Florida Statutes also affected the possibility of a quorum; that potential conflicts of interest must be treated seriously; that advisory board members are volunteers and do not want exposure to potential liability or to appear to be gaining advantage; that immediate concern developed over the potential conflict of interest when the JRT matter was placed on the Agenda; that the conflict of interest statutes were explained to the three members with concerni that particulars as to the members' circumstances were obtained; that a second conversation took place with two of the three members, the third member having resigned, so - a proper determination could be made; that the City Attorney's Office is convinced that the two members who recused themselves, Robert Town and William Merrill, had no other alternative; that Robert Town indicated in the conflict of interest form that his firm handled the architectural plans for the JRT; that William Merrill was a Principal in the John Ringling Center (JRC) Foundation and provided legal representation to the JRC Foundation; that the members of the Historic Preservation Board take their jobs seriously; that the matter was thoroughly reviewed by Staff and thoroughly discussed during the Historic Preservations Board's March 24, 1998, meeting; that the meeting's result was the only reasonable and logical outcome. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Historic Preservation Board has seven members; that one vacancy existed; that two members recused themselves. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a resignation from the Board was submitted on March 23, 1998, resulting in two vacancies. Attorney Singer stated that the City Auditor and Clerk was present at the Historic Preservation Board's March 24, 1998, meeting to provide guidance on parliamentary procedure; that his advice was that three members do not constitute a quorum as a quorum is four members; that action could not be taken in the absence of a quorum. City Auditor and Clerk stated that his advice was based on the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual which states: When a member of local board, is required to abstain pursuant to Section 112.3143 (3), Florida Statutes, the local board member is disqualified from voting and may not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the two members who abstained from voting could not be counted towards the quorum. Commissioner Cardamone asked upon what basis the quorum is established? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that in the absence of by- laws to the contrary, a quorum is a majority of the total number of seats, which is four of a seven-member board. Mayor Pillot asked if a quorum is lost if three Commissioners are present and one must abstain from voting? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes, for the particular issue; that a recess can be taken and the balance of the Agenda considered upon reconvening. Mayor Pillot stated that the Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual supersedes Robert's Rules of Order. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Mayor Pillot stated that his apology is offered for his statement that the City Auditor and Clerk and the City Attorney's Office erred in the determination of a lack of quorum; that the quorum would not be destroyed under Robert's Rules of Order; however, the determination according to Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine law was not previously known; that appreciation is expressed for the information. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the assertions in the July 24, 1996, letter that the exterior and the first two floors of the JRT had been rehabilitated is very odd considering the videos presented and are strongly and seriously questioned. The following person came before the Commission: Craig Holliday, 1715 Hyde Park Street (34239) representing the Historic Preservation Board, stated that major concerns exist over the Historic Preservation Board's March 24, 1998, meeting, especially the issue of the JRT; that the situations resulted in the failure to vote on an issue about which he feels strongly and which should have been handled by the Board with a recommendation to the Commission for review; that the Commission should not be required to do the job of the Historic Preservation Board; that the Commission's time and effort to review the JRT issue is appreciated; that considerable information was put forward; that a vacancy had existed on the Board for about a year; that the untimely resignation of one member was a great surprise; that five members remained; that two members were known to have a conflict of interest requiring abstention on the JRT issue; that a question BOOK 43 Page 16358 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16359 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. was whether the member who ultimately resigned would also have a conflict of interest; that the major concern was the time taken away from his business as well as the time taken by others to consider an issue on which a vote could not be taken; that the issue was tabled and was taken to the Commission; that discussion on the JRT has consumed most of this meeting; that his job as a member of the Historic Preservation Board is taken seriously; that a great deal of time and effort is devoted to understanding the issues presented; that all petitions for historic designation are not necessarily approved; that approval is generally given with certain exceptions, i.e., permitted uses, location of accesses, etc.; that historic designation does not allow circumvention of all the zoning codes and building laws. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the comments, obviously done with a great deal of thought, are appreciated; that the long-term vacancy was not previously known, for which apologies are offered; that thanks for the sharing of concerns and time are expressed. Mayor Pillot stated that the one vacancy could have been filled; however, subsequent events, i.e., the last-minute resignation and the abstentions, could not have been controlled; that the speaker's commitment of time and energy is appreciated. 5. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (1114) through (1156) VICE MAYOR DUPREE : A. asked if meetings with the Boards of members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) have been scheduled? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the schedules have not yet been finalized but will be shortly. Mayor Pillot stated that recent developments concerning the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement have received extensive publicity; that numerous calls and commentary have been received; that people supporting a high bridge requested a meeting, which will take place shortly; that at this time, his desire is not to attend MPO member Board meetings; that meeting with MPO member Boards would be counter to the sentiment currently being heard; that his position is a desire to resolve the legal issue and determine definitively whether the proposed 65-foot-high bridge can be built or not. Commissioner Patterson stated that asking other Boards to mandate MPO representatives change their vote is pointless if a full Commission does not attend the meetings. Mayor Pillot stated that apologies are offered to the Commission as his current position represents a change from his previous agreement to attend the meetings; that being involved in requesting the MPO change its position on the 65-foot-high bridge is not desired; that his preference is to see the outcome of the actions coming to the forefront with the new organization in support of a high bridge; that his conscience cannot support approaching other Boards at this time to change a position with respect to a high bridge. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission listened to the public for several years and made a decision based on the information received; that the Commission's decision was strong; that a plan of action was developed; that calls and letters are being received; that the Commission was elected to make the decision, which was made after many public hearings; that some supporters of a high bridge have organized, raised money and run advertisements in the newspaper; that the survey conducted was unusual; that retreating from the Commission's position is not desired; that meetings of the MPO member Boards should not be undertaken until a report from the attorney retained by the City is heard. Mayor Pillot stated that his judgment will be withheld until after the attorney presents his information; that either the proposed 65-foot-high bridge can be built or not; that his feelings on this issue are very strong; that the question is not who is right but rather what is right. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Mayor was outraged when documentation was presented that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had an alternative which the Commission was never allowed to consider. Mayor Pillot stated that the possible existence of another alternative is a reason to obtain an answer to the question of the viability of the proposed 65-foot-high bridge but is not a reason to visit other MPO member Boards; that an answer is desired; that FDOT has responded that the attorney retained by the City is incorrect and intends to proceed with the plans for the proposed 65-foot-high bridge; that the proposed 65-foot-high bridge can either legally be built or not; that if the proposed bridge cannot legally be built, the philosophy about a too-high or a too-low bridge is irrelevant; that if the proposed bridge can legally be built, meetings can be held with the other MPO member Boards; that the answers are desired to determine if an issue exists. Commissioner Patterson asked who will provide the answer and when? BOOK 43 Page 16360 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16361 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. Mayor Pillot stated that a court will probably make the decision; that representatives of the City and the FDOT can go to a court of competent jurisdiction for a decision; that the step is logical. City Attorney Taylor stated that the attorney retained by the City is prepared to file suit; that the final presentation will be made at the April 6, 1998, regular Commission meeting. Mayor Pillot stated that ideally the court can made a quick decision; that meetings with other MPO member Boards are pointless if the proposed 65-foot-high bridge cannot be built. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the court's decision will probably not be quick enough; that his concern is the possibility of an emergency and the potential of evacuation; that the issues are not only legal but also public safety; that evacuation of the barrier islands cannot be accomplished quickly with the current Ringling Causeway Bridge which is often difficult to cross; that decisions should be made with all haste. Commissioner Patterson stated that the bridge is locked down in a closed position in an emergency; that the only safety issue is if the deterioration of the bridge poses a hazard; that FDOT has dedicated several million dollars to repair the bridge whether the bridge is replaced or not as a replacement bridge will not be constructed in time to eliminate the necessity to repair the existing bridge; that the bridge could malfunction resulting in the safety issue becoming a concern; however, the same may occur with any drawbridge on Florida's west coast; that her conclusion is the opposite from that of the Mayor; that committing $300,000 of City funds to pay an attorney is troublesome and seems exorbitant; that $200,000 was also spent on the bridge charette; that spending a total of $500,000 on an issue about which no Community consensus exists is a concern; that the reason for her proposal for a referendum was to determine Community consensus; that the question is whether $500,000 should be spent on a potentially fruitless lawsuit when the decisions of other MPO member Boards could be more easily influenced at a lessor cost to support the City; that her choice would be to deal with the political issue directly rather than spending $500,000 on a quixotic legal challenge to FDOT; that the wisdom of litigating to assure the City's will is heard if the desirability of a high or low bridge has not definitively been established is questioned; that a court could find the FDOT process faulty in which case the process would be thrown out; that FDOT would begin again; that the result would again be a 65-foot-high bridge; that nothing will have been accomplished. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Sarasota County was requested to provide the wind speeds on the Ringling Causeway Bridge during recent turbulent weather; that the proposed 65-foot-high bridge will not be comfortable for vehicular traffic with the high winds frequently experienced in the City in January, February and March; that in response to her question, FDOT indicated bridges were never closed due to high winds; however, FDOT does not have the ability to close bridges; that the City or County emergency management personnel make the determination; that the proposed roadbed is 75 feet off the water; that winds of 45 to 55 miles per hour are experienced on the existing low bridge and will be much greater on a 65-foot-high bridge; that evacuating over such a high bridge with high wind speeds will be a major safety problem; that less turbulence is experienced the lower the bridge is to the water; that the requested wind speeds have not yet been received; and asked the Administration to pursue the request with Sarasota County. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the request will be pursued. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the emergency is the poor condition of the existing bridge, which requires repair, and the density of traffic at St. Armands Key. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the proposed new bridge will not carry one more car and will not increase capacity, which is another large waste of money. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that a bad condition exists and something must be done. Commissioner Cardamone agreed; and stated that the proposed 65-foot-high bridge will have a major wind problem and provide no possibility for evacuation from the barrier islands. 6. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (1156) through (1975) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that a community forum will be held by the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation (GNCRC) on Saturday, March 29, 1998, creating a conflict with the previously scheduled Goals Workshop continuation; that the conclusions of the Commission's first Goals Workshop have been compiled and distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Goals Workshop continuation should be rescheduled; that an open-discussion format rather than an agendaed meeting was discussed; that such discussion is likely to take more time than previously anticipated. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the continuation of the Goals Workshop will be rescheduled. BOOK 43 Page 16362 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. BOOK 43 Page 16363 03/25/98 9:00 A.M. B. stated that he will not be in attendance at the April 6, 1998, regular Commission meeting, at which time the issues concerning the Renaissance of Sarasota project will be considered; that the proposal from Television Channel 40 to purchase City property on 10th Street will be on the Agenda; that the attorney retained by the City to handle the issue of the Ringling Causeway Bridge is scheduled to make a presentation at that meeting; that the suggestion is to schedule a meeting from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. and a second meeting for the public hearings beginning at 7:00 p.m.i that notice for the public hearings must be given by 12:00 noon today. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a special Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting will also be held at 7:00 p.m. on April 6, 1998; that the Consent Agendas, Unfinished Business and New Business will be on the Agenda for the regular Commission meeting from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.; that the public hearings will begin at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, portions of the regular Commission meeting will be scheduled from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. and the public hearings will commence at 7:00 p.m. on April 6, 1998. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that the workshop concerning Financial Sustainability will be held from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. on March 26, 1998. 7. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (1975) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the special meeting of March 25, 1998, at 11:53 a.m. ASOTA 0 3 ah GENE MAYOR - PILLOT, J ATTEST: - . tlly E Robes : 86n BILLY EGROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK