MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1996, AT 3:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 3:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. REPORT RE: REÇOMMENDATIONS OF THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AESTHETIC TASK TEAM - REFERRED THE BRIDGE ISSUE BACK TO THE TASK TEAM TO ASK, IF COST WERE NO OBJECT, WOULD ALTERNATIVE #4 STILL BE THE FIRST CHOICE AND, IF NOT, FOR A NEW RECOMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0027) through #2 (2117) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the purpose of the meeting is to present the recommendations of the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team concerning the aesthetics of the Ringling Causeway replacement bridge; that Staff recommendations, which generally coincide with those of the Task Team, will also be presented; that Task Team members, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Staff, Kunde, Sprecher & Associates (KSA) as FDOT's consultants, and members of the Sarasota architectural community who participated will respond to questions after the presentation; that the Commission is being requested to make a choice on the concept design for the replacement bridge. Commissioner Pillot asked the scope of the discussion and if a definitive decision has been made for a high-rise bridge or if other options are viable? Mr. Daughters stated that the Task Team deliberated in the context of a fixed-span, 65-foot-high bridge as a foregone conclusion and was to address aesthetic issues only, including the theme of the bridge, lighting, landscaping and related items. Commissioner Pillot stated that aesthetics would be different based upon the type of bridge; and asked if the ultimate decision-making authority has actually made the definitive decision? Book 39 Page 12742 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12743 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated yes, unless legal action is taken to change that course of direction; that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) made a recommendation to FDOT to accept the high-rise, fixed-span bridge over the objection of the City; that the FDOT District Secretary, who has the final decision, has accepted the MPO's recommendation. Mayor Merrill stated that the high-rise, fixed-span bridge will be pursued unless the MPO reverses itself which seems unlikely; that the Commission should not consider all eventualities but only the aesthetics of a high-rise, fixed-span bridge. Commissioner Pillot stated that the purpose of the inquiry is to know how the Commission's time will be spent at this meeting. Mayor Merrill stated that the intent is not to debate whether a high-rise bridge will be built but rather to assume the current path to built a high-rise bridge will continue; that the Commission has voted against such a bridge in the past; however, the MPO is the deciding board; that the analysis should be confined to the aesthetics of a high-rise bridge. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that her understanding of the purpose of the meeting was to decide the design if a high-rise bridge is built; that this Commission unanimously supported the island communities in asking for a regional study of all bridges in the area. Commissioner Patterson stated that she concursi that the status at the MPO is to build a fixed-span, high-rise bridge; that a request has been made to pursue a major investment study, which has been tabled pending the outcome of a charette involving this bridge, another high-rise bridge to be built north of Sarasota, and consideration of the possibility of a third bridge at any time in the future; that the issue will probably not be reopened for discussion at the MPO if the outcome of the charette is negative and no third bridge will be considered in another location; that the only constructive action is to consider the design of a fixed- span, high-rise bridge. Mayor Merrill stated that the chair rules that the discussion will be limited to the style of a fixed-span, high-rise bridge. Mr. Daughters stated that the Task Team held eight meetings over a period of one and a half years and was comprised of the following members: Kate O'Connell, representing. the Public Art Committee (PAC), William Halstead, a local architect from the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Doug Carpenter, representing the Downtown Association, Jim MacDonald, of the St. Armands Circle Association, Richard Angelotti, of Bird Key Improvement Association, Patrick Wilson of the Golden Gate Point Association, and Roger Compton of the Sunset Drive and Cedar Point area. Mr. Daughters referred to drawings developed by KSA to illustrate the size, location, and various views of the proposed bridge; and stated that the drawings were developed by superimposing computer imagery of the proposed bridge on actual aerial photographs. Commissioner Pillot asked if westbound traffic can turn right to access the Harts Landing's facilities? Mr. Daughters stated yes; that parking will be available east of Harts Landing. Commissioner Pillot stated that the location of the access is changed; and asked if access is reduced? Mr. Daughters stated no; that access is actually improved, especially from the perspective of the additional parking to be provided. Commissioner Pillot stated that the access is approximately as wide as the existing access; therefore, small water craft can be accommodated. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct, in the same manner as today. Mr. Daughters continued that a seawall will be built in the area where rubble currently protects the shoreline because of the City's demand for a wider sidewalk; that the seawall will improve the aesthetics of the area; that the bridge will encroach over North Bird Key Park, which the City owns, due to the width of the bridge; that the Commission previously approved encroachment over this area; that a wide sidewalk/Dikeway will be built for pedestrians and bicyclists; that a sodded, shallow retention basin will be built. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if all the necessary permits can be obtained? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT believes all necessary permits can be obtained; that the bridge project will actually result in more usable land in the Bird Key Park area; that the preliminary studies done a couple of years ago were reviewed and analyzed from the perspective of the environmental constraints. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated a roadway off the Bird Key traffic signal provides access to parking and a launching site for jet skis and sail boards, etc. Book 39 Page 12744 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12745 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct; that the roadway will remain; that the south side will only have pedestrian access from Bird Key Drive; that vehicular traffic is permitted today but will not be permitted in the future; that access will continue to be available to areas currently accessed from the north side. Mr. Daughters continued that some Bird Key residents will lose their current view across the bay to the north; that terrace plantings to improve the aesthetics will be installed along the bridge retaining wall which will be built. Mr. Daughters further stated that the Commission did not accept the Task Team's recommendation at the September 19, 1994, meeting and requested that FDOT provide additional alternatives for the Task Team's review; that four subsequent Task Team meetings were held, the first of which was on October 11, 1995, at which time FDOT presented three alternative designs as follows: Alternative #8 - Roman columns without heavy, solid masonry arches and with decorative lintels. Alternative #9 - Plain-Jane, simple cylindrical columns with simple lintels. Alternative #10 - Dual column with integrated lintel and decorative relief on columns similar to the Merrill Barber bridge in Vero Beach. Mr. Daughters stated that colored renderings of the three alternatives were made available for public review; that on October 11, 1995, the Task Team approved five motions, three dealing with aesthetics and two dealing with the fishing pier and the railings. Mr. Daughters continued that on November 29, 1995, the Task Team received seven additional alternatives, labeled Alternatives #1 through #7, from the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA; that exciting, significant and interesting discussion occurred on all seven alternatives; that the Task Team members agreed to discuss the total of ten alternatives, including the three from FDOT, with their respective associations with the exception of Ms. O'Connell who represents the PAC which did not meet during that timeframe; that the pros and cons of the ten alternatives were discussed at the last meeting of December 5, 1995; that a great deal of discussion ensued, and the ten alternatives were progressively narrowed to two, Alternatives #4 and #8; that Alternative #4 was submitted by Todd Yeomans of SMRT Huntington-Dreher from the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA and is described as: Alternative #4 Clover-shaped columns with precast concrete shapes used as decorative elements; precast concrete supports creating visual arches; fiber optic lighted handrail with varying color; unique street lights with flags. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the arches are strictly decorative? Mr. Daughters stated that the presentation is schematic and the functionality is difficult to determine; however, the arches will probably be more decorative than structural. Mr. Daughters presented schematics of Alternatives #4 and #8 for comparative purposes and stated that Alternative #4 is the Task Team' 's first choice; that Alternative #8 is the second choice and is the original design previously presented to the Commission, with modifications; that the Task Team was concerned about the connection of the columns to the crossbeam on the original design and the fact that the columns appeared "squatty" at either end of the bridge; that FDOT and KSA attended a session with the architects of the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA as well as all the meetings of the Task Team and developed another design incorporating the suggestions made; that the connection of the column to the crossbeam was changed and the columns were changed from the Roman Gothic to a Classical style, which is a smooth style as opposed to a fluted style; that the result is the modified Alternative #8, which the Task Team is seeing for the first time. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked how Alternative #8 as modified can be considered as one of the top two choices if the Task Team has not seen the modified drawing? Mr. Daughters stated that the Task Team recommended changing the design from a Roman Gothic theme to make the connection between the columns and the crossbeam smoother; however, no discussion occurred regarding changing from a fluted column to a smooth column; that the Task Team's main concern was the connection and the appearance of the columns close to landfall; that the columns proposed in the modified Alterative #8 are tapered to be smaller at the top than at the bottom, which appears less "squatty" at landfall; that the change from a fluted to a smooth surface was necessary due to the tapering of the columns. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that accepting the modified Alternative #8 as the Task Team's recommendation is difficult if the modifications have not been reviewed; and asked if the members of the Task Team could have a few minutes to review the drawings to determine if their requested criteria have been met? Mayor Merrill stated that the Task Team will be accommodated to review the modified alternative. Mr. Daughters stated that a motion was unanimously adopted at the December 5, 1995, meeting of the Task Team as follows: Book 39 Page 12746 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12747 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. We present the findings of this Task Team to the City Commission, stating the first and second choice design concepts, how the vote came out, how we came up with the selection process, stating these two selections were made from ten design themes submitted for consideration, supplementing the respective story boards (concept drawings) and making available any information that the Commission wants at a later date. Mr. Daughters stated that the Task Team's vote was on a point system and the final vote was ten points for Alternative #4 and eight points for Alternative #8; that the Task Team was of the opinion that the presentation of all ten concepts to the Commission would be superfluous and distracting; that the Task Team's function was to narrow the choices and to make a recommendation to the Commission; however, the information on all ten choices is available. Commissioner Patterson asked if a simple vote as to how many Task Team members prefer each alternative was taken? Mr. Daughters stated that three or four votes were taken to narrow the choices; that the final process was to give two points to the first choice and one point to the second choice which resulted in the final ten to eight vote; that of the seven members, five people voted for Alternative #4 and two people voted for Alternative #8 as their first choice; that the first choice of the St. Armands Circle Association is also Alternative #4; that a meeting was held with the Sunset Towers, Cedar Point and Golden Gate residents at which a simple vote was taken and ten people voted for Alternative #4 and six voted for Alternative #8. Mr. Daughters presented aerial and profile photographs of the bridge including the Harts Landing area and depictions of the area with the new bridge; and stated that the second issue for discussion is the fishing pier; that the Task Team unanimously voted not to retain any portion of the existing bridge for a fishing pier and voted to recommend the City request FDOT retain Saprito Pier and construct a separate fishing pier underneath the new bridge like the Merrill Barber bridge in Vero Beach; that the advantages are shelter from the rain and sun; that a visit was made to the Merrill Barber bridge and many people were fishing and strolling on the fishing pier including a woman in a wheelchair, which was impressive. Commissioner Pillot asked if the noise of the vehicles overhead resulted in any discomfort? Mr. Daughters stated no; that the noise from the vehicles was not noticeable. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if FDOT is likely to consider the request? Mr. Daughters stated yes, based upon comments made at the Task Team meetings. Mr. Daughters stated that the third issue is the vehicular and pedestrian railings; that Staff recommended three alternatives for the vehicular railing at the Commission meeting of July 3, 1995, which are the New Mexico railing, the Wisconsin railing and the Rhode Island railing, all of which are metal railings and provide the best side views for passengers in cars; that Staff recommended the Rhode Island railing and the Oregon railing for the pedestrian railing at the same meeting; that the recommendations were sent to FDOT which responded that the vehicular railings were unacceptable because crash test performance standards were not met; that FDOT submitted three alternatives for vehicular railings which are: The standard FDOT New Jersey barrier similar to the one installed on the bridge over Phillippi Creek which is 32 inches high, A metal-type railing called the Illinois 2399 which has larger beams but provides a better side view than the New Jersey barrier, and The Kansas Corral railing which is a concrete railing with some space under the concrete crossbeams similar to the one on the bridge on U.S. 41 over Hudson Bayou. Mr. Daughters stated that the Task Team's preference was the New Jersey barrier as pedestrians would feel safer with a good, strong, solid concrete barrier. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if all the barriers are 32 inches high? Mr. Daughters stated that all barriers are from 31 to 33 inches high. Commissioner Patterson stated that a barrier with cutouts has been recently installed on the Kennedy Avenue bridge in downtown Tampa; and asked the type of that barrier? Doug Cox, Project Manager, for FDOT's management consultant, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., came before the Commission and stated he does not know; that the Kansas Corral railing has a 6 inch high by 9 foot wide gap at the base of the railing; that the Task Team indicated this opening would not provide much of a view. Mr. Daughters stated that the Task Team liked one feature of an alternative design which is a lowered pedestrian walkway; that the Book 39 Page 12748 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12749 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. load from pedestrians is less than from vehicles so the large I- beams are not necessary for support and can be recessed behind the pedestrian walkway; therefore, pedestrians would not see vehicles and the noise would be reduced. Mr. Daughters continued that the original design in Alternative #8 had an X-medallion design in the pedestrian railing, which FDOT indicated could be constructed if modified to meet building code standards; that the Task Team like the X-medallion pedestrian railing but was of the opinion that the pedestrian railing is dependent upon the design theme chosen for the bridge. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the lowered pedestrian walkway with the New Jersey vehicular railing has any advantage in terms of a view of the water from cars? Mr. Daughters stated no; that the New Jersey barrier will be the restricting element regardless of the location of the pedestrian walkway. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the New Jersey barrier creates a major problem in terms of a view of the water. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct; that the purpose of the Engineering Department's study on alternative barriers was to identify barriers which would provide a better view of the water; that the Administration does not necessarily like the New Jersey barrier because of the restrictions to the side view. Commissioner Pillot stated that the difference in visibility between the Kansas Corral and the New Jersey barrier is zero; that the Task Team made a proper judgment in preferring the New Jersey barrier. Mr. Daughters stated that percentage of openness was established as a criterion in the study; that the Kansas Corral railing has an openness of approximately 42%; that all the railings recommended by Staff have an openness of approximately 80%; that the Illinois 2399 has an openness of almost 80%. Mr. Daughters continued that the Task Team's recommendation was the New Jersey barrier for the vehicular railing and for the Commission to choose a pedestrian railing which fits the bridge theme. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Task Team selected a pedestrian railing for each of the alternatives recommended? Mr. Daughters stated that the X-medallion pedestrian railing was tied to the Roman Gothic design; that no pedestrian railing was selected for Alternative #4; that the pedestrian railing would have to be worked out in detail as the design process proceeds. Mr. Daughters continued that the final item for discussion is lighting and landscaping; that three kinds of lighting must be selected: roadway, pedestrian and decorative; that the Task Team with the concurrence of Staff indicated that the lighting will be affected by the final design theme selected; that alternatives should be presented by FDOT at a later date. Mr. Daughters stated that the Staff recommendation is for the Commission to: 1. Accept the report from the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Aesthetic Task Team. 2. Select either the first or second choice concept design as recommended by the Task Team which are Alternatives #4 and #8 respectively. 3. Agree with the Task Team to request FDOT not retain any portion of the existing bridge as a fishing pier but rather construct a separate fishing under the new bridge with compatible aesthetics and lighting. 4. Agree with the Task Team to request FDOT utilize the standard New Jersey barrier for the vehicular railing. 5. Request FDOT present alternatives for the pedestrian railing, the roadway, pedestrian and decorative lighting and the landscaping to the Commission through the Task Team at a later date when the decision must be made. Commissioner Patterson asked why Recommendation #4 was made if Staff does not agree? Mr. Daughters stated to support rather than disagree with the recommendation of the Task Team. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the voting. Mr. Daughters stated that six members were at the Task Team meeting at which the vote was taken; that the vote was ten points for Alternative #4 and eight points for Alternative #8, with each member giving two points to their first choice and one point to their second choice; that the final vote was after the choices were narrowed to two. Commissioner Pillot stated that the vote could have been different had the seventh member been present; that the vote did not reveal a great disparity in the preference between the two alternatives. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct; that the small difference in the two choices was the reason the Task Team recommended the Book 39 Page 12750 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12751 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Commission chose between Alternatives #4 and #8; that the voting by the Task Team and two different association groups was very close. Commissioner Pillot stated that Alternative #8 as modified is being presented for the first time at this meeting; and asked if fluted columns were being considered when the vote was taken? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Mr. Daughters continued that the initial scoring on all ten alternatives ranged from five points for a first choice to zero if the alternative was not among the top five; that the vote at that time was: Alternative #4 received 25 points, Alternative #8 received 16 points, and Alternative #2 received 14 points; that Alternative #4 was the first choice of four people and the second choice of two people; that Alternative #8 was the first choice of two people and the second choice of four people. Mayor Merrill asked if the Administration has a preference between the two alternatives? City Manager Sollenberger stated that input will be provided after comments from the public. The following persons came before the Commission. Marcelle Wolf, representing the Lido Key Residents Association, 445 McKinley Drive (34236), stated that representatives of Lido Key were not included in the Task Team which was unfortunate; however, she did attend the meetings at the invitation of the City Engineer; that the Task Team is to be complimented for taking advantage of the architects in the area and for utilizing their expertise in developing a commendable recommendation; that Sarasota was known as the "city of the Architects" when she first came to Sarasota; that the Commission should choose Alternative #4 which is the result of working with the AIA and the Task Team. Joe DeBuono, 1168 Myrtle Street (34234), stated that the bridge will be a pivotal point in design; that her background is art history; that concern has been expressed about the design; that as Classical a design as possible should be chosen; that the fiber optics on the AIA design is a Las Vegas trick used to cover mediocrity; that everyone in Sarasota will have to look at and drive over the bridge; that the design must stand the test of time; that solid design will be important in the long run; that Sarasota already has a purple elephant. Commissioner Pillot stated that the structure is called the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH). Ms. DeBuono stated that criticism has been heard concerning the VWPAH and the Selby Library, both of which are fairly new; that both were innovative at the time but are falling to mediocrity; that the long term should be considered. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with the philosophy but does not agree the VWPAH is considered mediocre; that a great deal of appreciation has been expressed concerning the VWPAH during his 32 plus years in the City. Mayor Merrill asked for clarification concerning the fiber optics. Mr. Daughters stated that the fiber optics will be in a transparent tube along the top of the pedestrian railing. Commissioner Patterson asked if the fiber optics are an integral part of the design or an option? Mr. Daughters stated he does not know. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the issue of lighting will be sent back to FDOT for a recommendation. Mr. Daughters stated that fiber optics has not worked well for the City in other projects and is very expensive; that the bridge will be approximately a mile long; that fiber optics only go about 100 feet so many sources of light would be required and many lightbulbs will have to be changed; that neon lights were also considered; that the fiber optics was considered to be a detail which could be worked out if Alternative #4 is chosen. Mayor Merrill asked if the Task Team focused on the fiber optics as a reason for its decision. Mr. Daughters stated he does not think so; that the members of the Task Team can better address that issue. Charles Kuykendall, representing Barger and Dean Architects, the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA and the Downtown Association, 1130 Hampton Road (34236), stated that he is an architect who served during the charette for the Task Team; that enough options have not been presented for the Commission to make a good decision; that three basic statements were developed by the AIA that a good design should achieve: Structural integrity and visual distinctiveness apparent from a long distance, identifying the bridge as Sarasota's bridge. Good lighting as a bridge is in the dark half of the time. Book 39 Page 12752 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12753 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Color. Mr. Kuykendall stated that the Sunshine Skyway bridge has a unique structure which is noticeable from a great distance, has a striking lighting system and is brightly colored, which is also necessary in Sarasota and is what FDOT promised; that FDOT originally presented a Roman Gothic, column-style bridge; that the AIA had separate groups consider a major change, a moderate change, and bare minimum changes in the FDOT design; that the Task Team did not understand the AIA's process fully and did not present that aspect of the design charette to the Commission; that he prepared a moderate design change, which is Alternative #1; that the major change designs would probably not be accepted from a budgetary or aesthetic viewpoint; that the Commission should be exposed to and consider another alternative, which is a moderate design change and which the engineers admit is feasible; that most people have not seen any of the designs but rather have been given two alternatives at most; that the Downtown Association, for example, had not seen any alternatives until this morning. Mr. Kuykendall referred to a concept drawing of Alternative #1 to illustrate the colorful steel framework on a standard FDOT design; and stated that the Alternative #1 would look totally different from the standard FDOT design; that Sarasota should not settle for a standard FDOT bridge. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if Alternative #1 was one of the ten alternatives the Task Team considered? Mr. Kuykendall stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Task Team did not choose Alternative #1 due to cost? Mr. Daughters stated yes; that KSA commented that they would love to design Alternative #1 which is unique and would stand out but which could not be built within the budget. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that FDOT indicated previously that expense was not a problem and not to be considered; and asked why expense is now a concern? Commissioner Patterson stated that alternatives should be considered as long as the proposed bridge will be a relatively small amount over budget. Mayor Merrill stated that determining a percent difference between alternatives is difficult; that FDOT indicated no budget had been established; that budget will not be considered in his analysis at this time, although budget will be considered before the bridge is built; that the Commission should be selecting a preference without budgetary consideration as long as the proposed alternative is reasonable. Mr. Daughters stated that KSA reviewed and commented on the seven alternatives presented by local architects. Bill Halstead, representing the AIA as Past President and a Task Team member, 3709 Breezemont Drive (34232), stated that KSA initially presented a Greek temple; that all the elements of a Greek temple were to be put into the bridge design; that three options for lights, railings, etc., were presented from which the Task Team could select; that the Task Team voting was not unanimous; that members were to take the information back to their represented organizations which did not occur in several instances; and asked who originated the idea of a Task Team? Commissioner Patterson stated that the idea was proposed by the Administration and adopted by the Commission after discussion. Mayor Merrill stated that the authority comes from the MPO. Mr. Halstead stated that a charette by the AIA was subsequently suggested and the City concurred; that 20 architects participated; that the consensus was that fluted columns are great on buildings but not on bridges; that the proportions from span to span of the FDOT design were not acceptable; that the connection between the columns and the crossbeams was weak; that arches should be added between the columns to add rhythm, beauty, and a proportional element; that a suggestion was made to lower the pedestrian walkway which results in reducing the mass of concrete and in creating a better view for motorists; that bicycle lanes and a pedestrian walkway are necessary only on one side of the bridge, thus saving money. Mr. Halstead presented a brochure of designs illustrating the various elements recommended by the AIA; and stated that the AIA wants to continue to be part of the City designing process and will be happy to volunteer again. Commissioner Pillot stated that he likes the arches as recommended by the AIA; and asked if the design of Alternative #8 as modified incorporates that element? Mr. Halstead stated no; that the intent of the AIA brochure when presented to the Task Team was not to vote on one of the alternatives but rather to demonstrate alternate designs; that the Task Team should not be limited to a certain budget; that the result should be to be build a good bridge which is not an off-the- shelf design. Book 39 Page 12754 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12755 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the lowered pedestrian walkway makes sense; and asked if locating the pedestrian walkway on only one side intrudes on symmetry? Mr. Halstead stated no, as the bridge is viewed only from one side or the other; that locating the pedestrian walkway on one side would be very elegant. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City has not had good experience with fiber optics; that everything the City builds should function well; that the arches at the bayfront were designed to have fiber optics, which have never worked; that the design of Alternative #4 is very good; and asked if fiber optics is integral to the design? Mr. Halstead stated yes; that a pedestrian bridge in Miami has fiber optics and the color of the lights can be changed; that the ribbon of light created by fiber optics is important for the aesthetics of the bridge at night. Commissioner Pillot asked if the arches recommended by the AIA are on the side of bridge? Mr. Halstead stated that is correct. Richard Storm, representing the Bridge Too High Committee, 5136 Sun Circle (34234), expressed appreciation on behalf of a group of local, concerned citizens to the Commission and the Task Team for their hard work; and stated that hopefully their work will not be needed because a high-rise bridge will not be built; however, the Task Team attacked the problem with great skill and honesty; that the issue has been presented to the MPO and is still an open question; that his organization hopes the MPO will consider the request for the Federal Department of Transportation to conduct a major investment study; that the fundamental issues of a regional traffic network should be addressed; that building this bridge or any bridge in isolation does not solve the problems of access, evacuation and safety in high winds. Jim Kolb, Architect, 3603 Camino Real (32349), expressed appreciation to the Task Team who went through a difficult process and pulled together a consensus in a remarkable manner; and stated that the Task Team was at a disadvantage as the drawings were at different scales and elements were not drawn to scale; that the tendency was to focus on the details so the big picture of the bridge was missed; that most of what has been brought to the Commission will not be recognizable by the majority of people viewing the bridge; that the bridge will be very large and have a big impact on the community; that his intention was to try to make the bridge look smaller and possibly less expensive; that the current cross-section of the bridge is 107 feet across, including duplicative pedestrian pathways on both sides; that adding a secondary arch will create an aesthetic element reducing the mass of the bridge and the top deck to 77 feet across, both of which will reduce the scale of the bridge; that the larger picture of the bridge should be considered before the details; that Alternatives #4 and #8 as the top two choices are an improvement from what was presented previously; however, those alternatives represent merely adjustments to a basic bridge which will not be a signature bridge for the community. Mr. Kolb referred to two presentation models to compare the basic, generic FDOT concept to a proposed concept with a secondary, lower arch for the pedestrian pathway. Mayor Merrill asked the width of the pedestrian pathway in the proposed concept? Mr. Kolb stated 15 feet to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. Commissioner Patterson stated that the pedestrian pathway could be on both sides. Mayor Merrill stated that the pedestrian pathway would probably be 8-feet wide if constructed on both sides; that 15 feet is necessary for bicyclists; therefore, a 15-foot pathway on one side is preferred to two 8-foot pathways. Commissioner Patterson stated that a pathway on the mainland side could be broadened to achieve the concept of an under-the-bridge fishing pier. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Task Team saw the two models? Mr. Kolb stated no; that the models were just built; however, Alternative #7 which he presented to the Task Team included the concept of the secondary arch; that the Task Team was concerned about the increased grade of the pedestrian pathway; that the grade ranges from 5% to 7.5% which is not a significant difference; that landings approximately every 30 feet assures the pedestrian pathway complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that KSA indicated a 5% grade is the maximum for bicycling and walking. Mr. Kolb stated that a grade over 5% is defined as a ramp rather than a pedestrian pathway; that the difference in walking up 5% versus 7.5% is not great; that his Alternative #7 complies with ADA requirements; that a concern was also expressed about ambulance access which is legitimate; however, the same conditions exist in Book 39 Page 12756 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12757 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. many other places, for example, any building; that security was also a concern which is also legitimate; however, the same concerns exist throughout the base area of the bridge and the piers; that the Alternative #7 represents an opportunity to make a smaller bridge. Kate O'Connell, representing the Task Team and the Public Art Committee, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), stated that several questions were raised by the Commission concerning the Task Team's recommendations: 1. The selection of the vehicular New Jersey railing = Since all the railings were approximately 32 inches high, the line of sight would not be significantly altered by utilizing the other allowable alternatives, and the New Jersey railing provided a cleaner look. 2. The actual votes The first vote included all ten alternatives, and only four were considered to be feasible options. Alternative #2 is a variance of Alternative #8, and those two alternatives received a significant number of votes. Alternative #4, however, received more votes. Clearly, Alternative #4 and some combination of Alternatives #2 and #8 received the most support. The Task Team has not yet seen Alternative #8 with the most recent modifications by FDOT and would love an opportunity to do so. 3. The size of the proposed bridge The Sarasota bridge will be significantly smaller than the Sunshine Skyway bridge, and the Sarasota bridge cannot be like the Sunshine Skyway bridge. Comments were heard that the recommended alternatives are not unique; however, the recommended alternatives are, indeed, unique compared to any bridges with which the Task Team is familiar. Ms. O'Connell stated that the Task Team understood the concepts presented; that the architects presented their recommendations and the Task Team spent hours asking questions and did understand the big picture; that Alternative #1 was not one of the final selections because of the high maintenance costs; that views from a distance were considered, as were the standpoints of pedestrians, motorists, nearby residents and property owners, and others. Commissioner Pillot asked if any difference would have resulted had Alternative #8 as modified been presented rather than the initial Alternative #8? Ms. O'Connell stated that it is possible; that the votes were divided among three bridges: Alternative #2 or the original Gothic bridge with modifications, Alternative #4 or the modern bridge, and Alternative #8 or the original Gothic bridge without modifications; that the vote was evenly distributed among the three alternatives; that the final adaptation of Alternatives #2 and #8 merged may have resulted in a different vote; that most Task Team members stated they would be proud to see any of these bridges on the Sarasota skyline. Commissioner Pillot asked if Alternative #8 for which the Task Team voted had fluted columns? Ms. O'Connell stated yes. Commissioner Patterson referred to a drawing of Alternative #1 and stated that the Task Team apparently did not consider that alternative due to maintenance and expense; and asked if the consideration was that of the Task Team or of FDOT? Ms. O'Connell stated that FDOT loved the look of the Alternative #1 bridge and would love to build it; however, the maintenance costs would be quite high; that the cost was estimated at an additional $3 to $5 million to build the bridge, which is significant. Commissioner Patterson stated that the cost is substantially less than a draw bridge, which would have been built had the MPO so voted. Ms. O'Connell stated that the Task Team carefully considered all the alternatives presented from every angle, especially aesthetics. Commissioner Patterson stated that the aesthetics of Alternative #1 were not considered as FDOT indicated the bridge was too expensive to build. Ms. O'Connell stated that her personal feeling is the original numbers showed very clearly what the Task Team members liked. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked when the first vote was taken? Ms. O'Connell stated that the first vote was taken after the presentations by the architects. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if FDOT was requested to remove the fluted columns when the Task Team requested modifications? Ms. O'Connell stated that FDOT was specifically requested to modify Alternative #8 where the columns connected to the crossbeams and in the "squattiness" of the columns at landfall; that FDOT was not told how to accomplish those modifications. Roger Compton, representing. the Task Team, Sunset Towers (34236), stated that the Task Team has not seen Alternative #8 as modified; that the modifications in the section where the columns join the crossbeams incorporates the guidance provided FDOT; however, the Book 39 Page 12758 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12759 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Task Team also emphasized arches as being important aesthetically; that FDOT was told arches should be incorporated into the next design to be presented to the Task Team, which was not done; therefore, the look of the bridge is completely different; that the fluted columns were not addressed by the Task Team; therefore, elimination of the fluted columns in Alternative #8 as modified is not representative of what was. requested; that two major changes have occurred. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that no arches have been included and the fluted columns disappeared. Mr. Compton stated that is correct; that FDOT would have included fluted columns and arches had the recommendations of the Task Team been followed. Dale Parks, Architect, representing the Art in Public Places Committee and the Task Team as an Alternate Member, 1221 North Palm Avenue (34236), stated that local architects spent a great deal of time and effort in designing alternatives for the bridge; that his involvement in the Task Team has been as a vocal opponent to the traditional Greek-Roman approach to the bridge design; that construction will occur in 1998 and could continue for two to three years for a completion date in the year 2000; that a bridge should not be built which appears to have been built centuries earlier; that many alternatives are available if budget is not taken into consideration; that FDOT commented about budget on the different alternatives; that budgetary consideration is part of the reason some alternatives were excluded by the Task Team; that the Commission should consider other alternatives which the architects have spent much time designing. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked about the cost of the various alternatives and the role cost played in the Task Team's consideration. Mr. Compton stated that his understanding was the cost of the basic bridge was tied to a small range; that the cost of the aesthetic package which would make the bridge more acceptable was more flexible; that the cost of the basic bridge plus aesthetics was approximately $26 million; however, additional money could be provided for aesthetics; that a cost of $30 or $35 million would have been outside the range; that the aesthetic package represents a small percentage of the total cost. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if votes were cast for the various alternatives based on prices? Mr. Compton stated definitely; that Alternative #3 was very favorably, but briefly, considered by the Task Team since the cost was stated to be very high; that each reinforced concrete column would have had to be individually formed. Mayor Merrill asked why FDOT, which was unwilling to provide a budget initially, told the Commission budgetary constraints did not exist and now budgetary constraints seem to be a consideration? Chuck Wood, Project Coordinator, FDOT, came before the Commission and stated that the budget is $25.1 million for construction and an additional 10% or $2.5 million for aesthetics, including landscaping, arches, etc. Mayor Merrill stated that he recalls an original cost of $29 million plus aesthetic enrichment. Commissioner Patterson stated that a different Task leam discussed a drawbridge for months which would have cost $45 million. Mr. Wood stated that $45 million is not an unreasonable cost for a drawbridge, due to the uniqueness, the counterweights, the mechanics, etc., which is not the case with a fixed-span bridge. Mayor Merrill asked the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Task Team was established by the Commission on the recommendation of the Administration; that the Task Team's recommendations should be accepted; however, the recommendation for Alternative #8 as modified, which is the second choice, is sight unseen; that Alternative #4 is the first choice and could be approved; that the question could also be referred to the Task Team for a recommendation back after considering Alternative #8 as modified; that the design schedule for FDOT is compressing; that 18 months is ordinarily available for design and 12 months is now available due to the length of time involved in the process. Mayor Merrill asked if the Task Team should review the alternatives without considering cost? City Manager Sollenberger stated that FDOT represented that a bridge would be delivered of which the City could be proud and which would meet the aesthetic concerns of the City; that budget was not an issue; that the Commission should insist FDOT keep its word. Mayor Merrill asked if the Task Team should also consider other alternatives which were ruled out because of cost? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a time constraint exists on the process; that opening consideration to all alternatives will take more time. Book 39 Page 12760 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12761 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that another month should not be a concern for a bridge which is to last for 50 years. City Manager Sollenberger stated that ordinarily the recommendation would be to proceed with the top choice of the Task Team; however, the second choice has not been seen by the Task Team. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that her understanding was the Task Team was not working on a design based on cost; that the fact that FDOT indicated that cost was not an issue would have been communicated to the Task Team had cost constraints been known to be a consideration in the deliberations; that she is concerned if the Task Team did this work based upon the fact that cost was part of the consideration, thus eliminating an alternative the Task Team may have liked; that if willing to do so, the Task Team should have the option of considering all the alternatives; that the Commission will push FDOT's arrangement regarding expenses. Commissioner Pillot stated that a delay of four or five months should not be a factor in a bridge which must last four or five decades; that the question of budget constraints should be directed through the Administration to the highest State authority; that time should not rush a decision until the question is answered. Mayor Merrill stated that a bridge design costing $2 million more than the budget may be possible if a political constituency is supportive; that a design should be chosen which is close to the budget, and the City can ask the State to revise the budget. Commissioner Patterson stated that the question may be moot; that she was prepared to vote for Alternative #4 and would have difficulty voting for a bridge designed to look like a temple; that the Task Team should review the alternatives which were eliminated due to cost and determine if Alternative #4 is still the first choice; that the comments of the Task Team on Alternative #8 would be appreciated, especially if arches are incorporated. Mr. Compton stated that the Task Team has given the Commission two options if the budget is $25 to $26 million; that the options can be refined; however, a long time period will be required to estimate the cost of alternatives if the cost of the bridge is not fixed and $30 to $35 million is available. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that a dollar amount should not be considered and the prettiest bridge for Sarasota should be selected. Mr. Compton stated that time is required to do engineering estimates even if the detail is not considered. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to ask the Task Team if Alternative #4 is still the first choice were cost not an object, given the other architectural presentations and, if not, to develop a new recommendation. Commissioner Pillot stated that the use of fiber optics is integral to Alternative #4; that he will not vote for a design which includes fiber optics. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that her comments should not be construed to mean that the most expensive bridge should be built, as taxpayers' money is being spent and cost is important; that the proposed bridge will be the third bridge in the location since she has resided in Sarasota; that bridges are not being built to last a lifetime. Mayor Merrill stated that the bridge once built should be described as unique, special, distinctive, cultural, artistic, creative, bold, and having excellent architecture, which the designs presented may or may not achieve; that the Task Team has been limited by cost; that the focus has not been on the bridge silhouette but on specific details which cannot be discerned with a view of the bridge from a distance; that bridge builders throughout history have tried different approaches to making bridges interesting; that 200 years ago a bridge was something exciting, and entrances and portals were built as the defining features; that today's high speed travel means that a bridge is nothing special, just a continuation of the road; that a bridge can be like many building with a focal point which makes it look special; that the problem with the silhouettes presented is the lack of a focal point; that the proposed bridges go up and go down with no identifiable focal point; that the Sunshine Skyway bridge is interesting because of the distinctiveness of the towers and the cables; that the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco is also unique; that Sarasota should take the silhouette and add a focal point to make the bridge distinctive; that a similarity can be drawn with water towers which are also utilitarian; that water towers can either be hidden and not embellished or something spectacular can be created; that Sarasota chose to hide a water tower because space was available; that the bridge cannot be hidden as it will span the bayfront; that the town will be destroyed if a utilitarian FDOT-silhouette bridge is built even if decorative medallions are added; that the distinctive focal point is not known; that the City of Memphis, Tennessee, built a bridge across the Mississippi in the shape of an "M" which has become the City's symbol; that something more is needed; that the Task Team tried to operate within financial constraints but the presented alternatives are not unique, special, distinctive, cultural, artistic, creative, bold or possessing great architecture. Book 39 Page 12762 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12763 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the comments are well said. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion to refer the bridge issue back to the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge Aesthetic Task Team and ask, if cost were no object, would Alternative #4 still be the first choice, and, if not, for a new recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. City Manager Sollenberger asked if a timeframe should be established? Mayor Merrill stated that the City Manager can bring back a report as soon as possible and practicable. Commissioner Pillot asked if the new Commissioner can be briefed on this issue after the January 23, 1996, election? Mayor Merrill stated yes. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM II) #2 (2117) through (2246) The following persons came before the Commission. Bill Halstead, representing the AIA as Past President and a Task Team member, 3709 Breezemont Drive (34232), stated that the issue of FDOT cost constraints should be addressed sO the Task Team can consider the issue of cost in its deliberations. Commissioner Patterson stated that cost constraints should not be considered. Mayor Merrill stated that the Task Team should be creative in its deliberations. Kate O'Connell, representing the Task Team and the Public Art Committee, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), stated that determining if a budgetary limitation exists is an excellent suggestion; that sending the Task Team back to come up with a bridge which cannot be built due to budgetary restrictions will not achieve a good objective; that the best design for Sarasota is the objective; however, the design should be for a bridge which will actually be built and not a design for a moot point; and asked if FDOT can be contacted to determine an approximate cost appropriation? Mayor Merrill stated that the cost should be under $50 million. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission was presented with choices; that the bridge chosen by the Commission was a mid-Key drawbridge which cost twice as much as the bridge the Task Team is considering. Ms. O'Connell asked if the bridge chosen by the Commission was allowed? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission decided on such a bridge. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Task Team could also recommend a second choice. Ms. O'Connell asked if the Task Team's first three choices in order can be presented? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that is agreeable. Mayor Merrill stated that his parameters are for a design which is unique, special, distinctive, cultural, artistic, creative, bold with excellent architecture under $50 million. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the dollar figure should not be used because FDOT will be requested to provide cost estimates; that the Task Team should present its preferences on design of the bridge. Mayor Merrill asked if the lobbyist hired by the City can contact state agencies to determine if a special allocation for additional funds can be obtained for the proposed bridge? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. 3. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION THE ISSUE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED MOVIE THEATER AND THE CITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE MAYOR'S FEED THE HUNGRY PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM X) #2 (2246) through (2377) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that the Commission has been opposed to six laning U.S. 301, however, probably would not be opposed to some beautification of U.S. 301, such as medians with trees; that the petition to develop a movie theater and parking garage in downtown Sarasota raises the issue of the available right-of-way on U.S. 301 which is currently limited; that some leeway exists now in the location and height of the proposed parking structure if the parameters of required right-of-way are known; that a Commission consensus is sought to refer the issue of Book 39 Page 12764 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12765 01/04/96 3:00 P.M. potentially requesting the petitioner to modify the site and development plan to the Administration prior to second reading. Mayor Merrill stated that a consensus of the Commission is to refer the issue to the Administration for a report back. VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that Commission consensus is sought for the Administration to give recommendations concerning the Mayor's Feed the Hungry Program and the City's involvement in the upcoming year. Commissioner Pillot stated that the management of the funds should be taken out of City Hall; that the support of the Mayor, of course, should enthusiastically continue. Mayor Merrill stated that he agrees; that a consensus of the Commission is to request the Administration provide recommendations concerning the Mayor's Feed the Hungry Program. 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (2377) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the special meeting of January 4, 1996, at 5:34 p.m. DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: LLE Robinson BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK