MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot, Commissioners Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, Deputy city Auditor and Clerk Karen McGowan, City Manager David Sollenberger, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson PRESIDING: Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, APRIL 1996, JEAN BERKEY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE #1 (0055) through (0187) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, requested that Jean Berkey, Administrative Assistant, come before the Commission. Mr. Schneider stated that Ms. Berkey, who began her employment with the City almost eight years ago, has taken the initiative to continually develop her professional skills and to share her talents with co-workers and the public; that Ms. Berkey, who initially had virtually no knowledge of the personal computer, is today one of the most knowledgeable computer users in the City; that Ms. Berkey has been one of the core members of the City's Liaison Committee, comprised of departmental representatives who discuss common problems and offer advice to the Information Services Department regarding issues important to the users; that Ms. Berkey has participated in the development of the City's Information Master Plan, and along with Karen McGowan, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk, has been the driving force on development of the City's complaint tracking program, which has taken close to three years and is near completion. Mr. Schneider continued that Ms. Berkey is particularly effective in dealing with the public; that the City Manager's office often receives calls and. visits from members of the public who are angryi that Ms. Berkey is always courteous and understanding in trying to resolve the problem; that the City is fortunate to have someone as qualified and effective as Jean Berkey, a shining star that serves with "excellence and pride.' 1 Mayor Cardamone presented Ms. Berkey with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the April 1996 Employee of the Month Book 40 Page 13164 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13165 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0187) through (0212) Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Approval of Minutes, Item No. 1-3, the Minutes of the Special City Commission Meeting of April 30, 1996 B. Add under Board Appointments, Item No. IX-1, regarding resignation of Charles Williams from the Sarasota Housing Authority, per the request of Mayor Cardamone. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996, STATUTORY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1996, REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1996 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1,-2,-4) #1 (0219) through (0245) Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the special City Commission meeting of April 8, 1996, statutory City Commission meeting of April 12, 1996, and regular City Commission meeting of May 6, 1996, are approved by unanimous consent. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0247) through (0267) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Department of Community Affairs Grant Application to establish "Sexual Abuse Intervention Networks" in a variety of communities statewide 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Municipal Services and Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sunset Chevrolet, Inc. and Robert W. Geyer - 1800 Bay Road, Sites 11-8 (a) through (f), and 11-14 an automobile dealership 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Assignment of Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Robert M. Weeks, d/b/a Weeks Broad- casting to New Wave Communications, Limited Partnership 4. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to DeJong Excavating Contractors, Inc., Venice, Florida, (Bid #96-62) in the amount of $216,883.30 for the Siesta Key & Newtown Area Water Line Renewal 5. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and city Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Consumers Applied Technologies, Inc., Orlando, Florida, (Bid #96-69) in the amount of $102,700.00 for the city-wide Water Meter Replacement, Phase I 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Corrective Warranty Deed between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Area Housing, Inc. for the property located at 1330 N. Lockwood Ridge Road On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 through 6 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-887) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-888) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-889) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-890) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-891) = ADOPTED: (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0267) through (0419) Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Resolution Nos. 96R-887, 96R-888, 96R-889, 96R-890, and 96R-891 in their entirety. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-887, appropriating $4,100.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund to purchase traffic safety vests, traffic safety cones and traffic control wands; etc. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-888, appropriating $1,325.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund to purchase a Coleman Vacu-Print Fuming unit; etc. 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-889, appropriating $22,237.50 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund to fund the purchase of an engine analyzer for repairs to Police cars; etc. Book 40 Page 13166 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13167 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-890, appropriating $6,000.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund to fund minor modifications to one of the service buildings at Fire Station #5 on Beneva Road, to house Special Operations vehicles and equipment; etc. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-891, appropriating $10,000.00 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund training programs offered at educational and law enforcement training institutes; etc. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 5 inclusive. Mayor Cardamone requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Cardamone requested Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan to explain the public hearing process. Deputy city Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3932, TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) CITY OWNED PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY FROM RMF-1 ZONE DISTRICT TO G IGOVERNMENTAL) ZONE DISTRICT FOR CONTINUED USE AS A PARKING LOT, SAID PARCELS BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SITE A: LOTS 11, 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK A, REVISED PLAT OF OAK PARK HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 1521 STRINGFIELD AVENUE AND SITE B: LOTS 9 THROUGH 16, BLOCK F, REVISED PLAT OF OAK PARK HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 2621 12TH STREET, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 215, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-RE-02, PETITIONER CITY OF SARASOTA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0419) through (0515) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3932 rezones from Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-1) Zone District to the Governmental Use (G) Zone District the two City- owned parcels located at 2621 12th Street, used for parking at the Ed Smith Stadium and 1521 Stringfield Avenue, used as a water retention area; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), at its meeting of April 3, 1996, found Rezoning Petition No. 96-RE-02 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3932 on first reading. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Record of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meeting of April 3, 1996 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3932 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3932 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3933, TO REZONE A CITY OWNED PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY CURRENTLY USED AS A FIRE TRAINING SITE, FROM RMF-1 ZONE DISTRICT TO G IGOVERNMENTAL) ZONE DISTRICT, SAID PARCEL LIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CIRCUS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET EAST OF NORTH BENEVA ROAD, HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 874 CIRCUS BOULEVARD: MORE PARTIC- ULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-RE- 03, PETITIONER CITY OF SARASOTA) = OPENED AND CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JUNE 17, 1996 (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (0519) through (0614) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 rezones from Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-1) Zone District to the Governmental Use (G) Zone District, a City-owned parcel located at 874 Circus Boulevard, currently used as a fire training site; that the Planning Board/Local planning Agency, (PBLP), at its meeting of April 3, 1996, found Rezoning Petition 96-RE-03 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission; that a discrepancy in the legal Book 40 Page 13168 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13169 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. description has been identified; therefore, the Administration recommends the public hearing be opened and continued to the regular City Commission meeting of June 17, 1996. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Record of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meeting of April 3, 1996 Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved continue the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 to June 17, 1996. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes; Cardamone, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3934, TO REZONE A CITY OWNED PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS LAUREL STREET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, FROM RMF-R ZONE DISTRICT TO G (GOV- ERNMENTAL) ZONE DISTRICT, SAID PARCEL LIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAUREL STREET APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1725 LAUREL STREET: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-RE-04, PETITIONER CITY OF SARASOTA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (0626) through (0711) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3934 rezones from Residential, Multiple-Family Revitalization (RMF-R) Zone District to the Governmental Use (G) Zone District, a City-owned parcel located at 1725 Laurel Street, known as the Laurel Street Neighborhood Park; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), at its meeting of April 3, 1996, found Rezoning Petition No. 96-RE-04 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission; that a change in use of the property is not proposed. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3934 on first reading. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Record of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meeting of April 3, 1996 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3934 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3934 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3936, TO REZONE A PARCEL OF CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY FROM G (GOVERNMENT) ZONE DISTRICT TO CI ZONE DISTRICT, SAID PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST % OF LOTS 17 AND 18, AND ALL OF LOT 19, AND THAT PORTION OF AN EAST TO WEST ALLEY LYING BETWEEN LOTS 17 AND 18, AND THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF SAID ALLEY THAT LIES SOUTH OF AND ABUTTING LOT 19, BLOCK 24, PLAT OF SARASOTA (ORIGINAL) AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 30 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID PARCEL HAS A STREET ADDRESS OF 1445 FOURTH STREET; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-RE-06, PETITIONER CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (0711) through (0801) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3936 rezones from Governmental Use (G) Zone District to Commercial, Intensive (CI) Zone District, a City-owned parcel located at 1445 Fourth Street; that the CI Zone District is less intensive than the (G) Zone District; that the parcel will be combined with abutting CI zoned property to the east, which is owned by Roy and Barbara Smith, and subsequently developed as the new location for the Goodyear Auto Service Center, presently located at 1331 First Street; that the Planning Board/Local Planning agency (PBLP), at its meeting of April 3, 1996, found Rezoning Petition 96-RE-06 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval to the City Commission. Book 40 Page 13170 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13171 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3936 on first reading. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Record of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meeting of April 3, 1996 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3936 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3936 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes;. Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3938, TO REZONE A PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY FROM RMF-2 ZONE DISTRICT TO OPB-1 ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY USED AS A MIGRANT EDUCATION FACILITY BY THE STATE ' OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: SAID PARCEL HAS A STREET ADDRESS OF 3135 N. WASHINGTON BLVD. (U.S. 301): MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-RE-05, PETITIONER CITY OF SARASOTA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #1 (0802) through (0891) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3938 rezones from Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-2) Zone District to Office, Professional, and Business (OPB-1) Zone District, a parcel of real property located at 3135 N. Washington Boulevard (U.S. 301), in accordance with previous action taken by the City Commission during the Nonconforming Use public hearings held in October 1995; that the property is currently used by the State of Florida Department of Education as a Migrant Education Facility; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), at its meetings dated April 3, 1996, found the proposed zone district (OPB-1) consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval of Rezoning Petition No. 96-RE-05 to the City Commission. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3938 on first reading. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Record of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meeting of April 3, 1996 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3938 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3938 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3943, TO HISTORICALLY DESIGNATE THE STRUCTURE SITUATED ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY; LOTS 9, AND 10, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 10 AND 12, BLOCK G, A PART OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THE OSPREY SUBDIVISION IN LAUREL PARK, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 65, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID PROPERTY KNOWN AS "THE MOSES L. TOMLINSON HOUSE" WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 636 S. OSPREY AVENUE, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR READING BY TITLE ONLY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE = NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #1 (0891) through (2040) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3943 approves Petition No. 96-HD-01 to historically designate as structures of historical significance two of the three structures located at 636 South Osprey Avenue, known as "The Moses L. Tomlinson House"; that the main house and the first detached single-story structure, which is the cottage, are the two structures for which historic designation has been requested; that the duplex located on the westernmost portion of the property was not included in the petition; that the Historic Preservation Board Book 40 Page 13172 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13173 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. and the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources recommend approval of the historic designation to the city Commission based on Section 15-14 (1) (d) of the Zoning Code; that the City Commission, at its meeting dated May 6, 1996, set proposed Petition No. 96-HD-01 for public hearing; that the owners have filed Special Exception Petition No. 96-SE-02 to permit a healing arts use in a maximum of 860 square-feet in the two structures. William Baumgartner and Barbara Best, Petitioners, came before the Commission and displayed various photographs on the slide projector to explain: the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association with frame vernacular and construction of prairie houses built in 1900 through the 1920s; a handicapped ramp built for access to the rear, side entry of the main house; an enclosed rear porch; and a lattice fence and gates along the handicapped ramp between the parking area and the structures. Ms. Best stated that the handicapped ramp was constructed to provide access to the house for her elderly parents; that the ramp was deliberately added to the side entry to retain the architectural details at the front of the house. Mr. Baumgartner stated that the historic designation and special exception petitions originally included all three structures; that the duplex was subsequently removed from the request as the financial investment of installing handicapped restroom facilities in accordance with the American Disability Act (ADA) was excessive; that he is a Licensed Massage Therapist; that the spècial exception has beèn requested to permit practice of massage therapy in the main house; that the special exception includes permitting three practitionèrs in the healing or wellness arts to live and/or work on the property. Commissioner Patterson stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to address historic designation of the structures; that approval of an historic designation does. not guarantee approval of a special exception. Ms. Best stated that the PBLP has approved Special Exception Petition No. 96-SE-02; that the historic designation petition filed is predicated upon special exception approval. Commissioner Patterson stated that PBLP approval of a special exception stands if the Commission fails to take action within a specified period- of time. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct; that the Commission has 45 days during which to take action on the PBLP decision. Mr. Taylor stated that an historic designation ordinance requires first and second readings; that the report of the PBLP's meeting of May 1, 1996, at which Special Exception Petition No. 96-SE-02 was approved, will be provided at the June 3, 1996, regular City Commission meeting; that second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3943, if passed on first reading tonight, will also be scheduled for June 3. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission would postpone second reading on the ordinance if PBLP approval of Special Exception Petition 96-SE-02 is not affirmed. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission. Mikki Hartig, 3708 Flores Avenue (34239), came before the Commission and stated that she is speaking on an individual basis and does not represent the petitioner. Ms. Hartig referred to various photographs displayed on the slide projector to explain her objections to the historic designation of the property located at 636 South Osprey Avenue. Ms. Hartig stated that the primary facade is the most important element of an historic structure; that the main structure on the subject property was originally constructed as a single-family dwelling having one door at the facade; that at a later date another door was framed into the facade, creating the appearance of a multiple-dwelling unit with upstairs and downstairs apartments; that the scale, massing, and location of the handicapped ramp, which can be viewed from the street, detracts and ruins the integrity of the structure; that originally the rear porch was an opened screened porch with. three-foot-high walls and screening to the ceiling; that the porch was enclosed in the 1990s; that the windows and sidings are modern alterations which substantially modify the original architectural design. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. Ms. Best and Mr. Baumgartner came before the Commission for rebuttal. Ms. Best stated that the property was purchased with two doors in the facade; that the doors are congruent with the floor plan; that the handicapped ramp was reviewed for compliance with historic designation prior to obtaining a building permit; that the lattice fence and landscaping will obstruct visibility of the ramp, which was a major concern of the Historic Preservation Board; that the rear porch is not visible from the street or the driveway. Book 40 Page 13174 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13175 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone asked if the Historic Preservation Board was aware the ramp would be built? Ms. Best stated yes; that the ramp was built prior to her and her parents' moving into the property; that photographs and a site plan were submitted to the Historic Preservation Board. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if any information has been provided to the Commission which was not provided to the Historic Preservation Board? Ms. Best and Mr. Baumgartner stated no. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Record of the Historic Preservation Board's meeting of April 9, 1996 city Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3943 on first reading. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3943 by title only. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Historic Preservation Board and Ms. Hartig are two highly respected resources on historic preservation whose recommendations are usually in accord; that disregarding one recommendation over the other is difficult; however, all five members of the Historic Preservation Board voted in favor of Petition No. 96-HD-01. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3943, on first reading. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Pillot asked the future status of Petition No. 96-HD-017 City Attorney Taylor stated that approval of an historic designation is required prior to approval of the special exception; therefore, approval of Special Exception No. 96-SE-02 is a moot issue without adoption of Ordinance No. 96-3943. Vice Mayor Pillot asked. the rights, if any, of the petitioners? Mr. Taylor stated that the petitioners have the right to file another historic designation petition which addresses some of the concerns of the Commission or the issues raised by Ms. Hartig. Mayor Cardamone stated that the petitioners have stated the historic designation is desired only if the special exception is granted; and asked for clarification of the association between the two processes. City Attorney Taylor stated that the special exception process provides an opportunity for property owners to request particular uses that would not otherwise be allowed in certain zone districts; that the City's Zoning Code associates the special exception process with the historic designation process as an incentive for property owners to preserve historic structures; that assuming a requested use does not have an adverse effect on a neighborhood, the designation of the historic structure serves as the grounds or basis for the processing of a special exception. Commissioner Patterson asked if the petitioner is required to wait a specified amount of time before another historic designation petition can be filed? Mr. Taylor stated that Commission denial of an historic designation petition approved by the Historic Preservation Board is not a common practice; that he is not aware of a time delay relative to filing petitions for historic designation. City Attorney Taylor stated that a time delay is not applicable to the filing of historic designation petitions. Commissioner Patterson stated that the expertise of the Historic Preservation Board is respected; however, the Board seems to be anxious to preserve what history the City has left; that only one property in eight years has been rejected by the Board; that focus should be on reviewing structures based on merit rather than on preserving some element of Sarasota history although a structure may have been substantially modified. Commissioner Patterson continued that special exceptions on historically designated structures are only appropriate if the petitioner is willing to reside at a property for which uses which would otherwise not be allowed in a residential district are permitted; that as a resident the property owner will be more apt not to adversely affect the character of a neighborhood; that Special Exception Petition No. 96-SE-02 specifically states the petitioners may not reside at the property in the future; that as the petitioners indicated the historic designation is contingent upon the special exception, she cannot support proposed Ordinance No. 96-3943. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees with the statements made by Vice Mayor Pillot and Commissioner Patterson regarding the differing recommendation of two highly respected historic preservation experts and the expectation of petitioners to reside in historically designated structures; that his views conform with Book 40 Page 13176 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13177 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. those of Ms. Hartig's as the petitioner's lack of commitment indicates a greater interest in gaining a commercial use rather than preserving an historic structure; that live/work uses are more compatible in neighborhoods and acceptable to neighborhood associations; that the highest standards possible should be required if a petitioner does not intend to reside in a structure for which historic designation is requested. Commissioner Dupree stated that modifications or renovations to historical structures require approval of the Historic Preservation Board and must conform with the historic design of the structure; that the handicapped ramp depicted in the photographs does not conform with and detracts from the original architectural design of the building. Mayor Cardamone stated that approving historic designations for the purpose of preserving a structure of historic significance can be supported; that approving historic designations for the purpose of acquiring a commercial use for the structure cannot: 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3944, TO HISTORICALLY DESIGNATE THE STRUCTURE SITUATED ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOT 21, BLOCK 8, PLAT OF SARASOTA, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 30, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID PROPERTY KNOWN AS "THE RUSSELL BUILDING" WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1490 FIRST STREET, SARASOTA, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-HD-02, PETITIONER MIKKI HARTIG FOR THE RUSSELL BUILDING) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-7) #1 (2045) through (2397) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3944 designates as a structure of historical significance the structure located at 1490 First Street, historically known as "The Russell Building"; that the Historic Preservation Board and the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources recommended approval to the Commission of Petition No. 96-HD-02 based on Section 15-14 (1) (a)&(e) of the Zoning Code; that City Commission, at its meeting of May 6, 1996, set Petition.No. 96-HD-02 for public hearing. Mikki Hartig, representing property owners Ernie and Loretta Ritz, came before the Commission and displayed photographs on the slide projector to explain the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association with the Mediterranean Revival Style of architecture. Ms. Hartig stated that the building, constructed in May 1925, provides an excellent example of an early downtown commercial building constructed during Sarasota's most tremendous period of growth and is the work of prominent and State-renowned architects W.B. and W.D. Talley and local builder Leadley Ogden, recognized as one of Sarasota's premier 1920s Boom-Time builders. Ms. Hartig continued that the property was purchased by Thomas Anson Jones in 1905; that Mr. Jones's daughter, Carrie Belle Jones, married Benjamin Russell, who constructed the structure which housed The Velvet Ice Cream and Dairy Store in the main store and the Tampa Daily Times in the smaller store on the first floor; that the Russell family lived on the second floor; that significant alterations to the building were made after the Sarasota Builders Association purchased the property in 1962; that Mr. and Mrs. Ritz have restored the smaller storefront according to historic photographs and have partially restored the main store; that a poured concrete beam prohibits total restoration of the main store; that the original windows on the second floor, which had been sealed, were reopened and restored; that a second floor has been constructed over the addition previously built by Sarasota Builders Association; that the architectural design has not been included in the historic significance of the building. City Attorney Taylor stated that Ms. Hartig's qualifications should be included for the record. Ms. Hartig stated that her consulting firm, Historical and Architectural Resource Services, prepares reports on historic designation petitions not only in Sarasota but for National Register nominations throughout the State of Florida. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3944 on first reading. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1994 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments Record of the Historic Preservation Board's meeting of April 9, 1996 Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3944 by title only. Book 40 Page 13178 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13179 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3944 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED PLAN TO REMOVE AN EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE CULVERT IN THE EUCLID CANAL AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH COURTLAND STREET WHICH WILL REOUIRE THE CLOSURE OF BROWNING STREET AT THE EUCLID AVENUE END - APPROVED; DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO EXPRESS A WILLINGNESS OF THE COMMISSION TO ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF SCHOOL CHILDREN AT ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHEN AND IF REQUESTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS (AGENDA ITEM IV-8) #1 (2400) through #2 (2200) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineering, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that during a routine survey of the stormwater facilities, the Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU) determined the existing culvert in the Euclid Canal, at the intersection of Browning Street, Courtland Street, and Euclid Avenue, has become structurally deficient; that major repair work has been performed on the culvert over the past few years; however, the culvert has reached a stage of irrepair, continues to deteriorate, and poses a potential threat to public safety; that the following two options have been identified to address the situation: Option #1 - Remove the deficient culvert and cul-de-sac the east end of Browning Street at Euclid Avenue. Option #2 - Replace the existing culvert and retain the Euclid Avenue crossing. Mr. Daughters stated that Option #1 will provide for open flow of water through the canal and, therefore, a better drainage system and lower maintenance; that Browning Street would no longer be a through street which would be beneficial to the residents of Browning Street by eliminating problems of excessive cut-through traffic and associated speeding; that the pedestrian crossing of the canal would remain in place to provide access to Alta Vista Elementary School and the YMCA. Mr. Mohammed distributed to the Commission a handout entitled Browning Street/Euclid Canal Traffic Abatement-Drainage Project and gave a computer-generated slide presentation to explain the location of the proposed cul-de-sac, neighborhood traffic data, the neighborhood survey results, and a comparative analysis of the two options. Mr. Mohammed stated that the SEU is upgrading the Euclid Canal; that the existing culvert at Browning Street has deteriorated and should be replaced or removed; that during the past three years numerous requests from the residents of Browning Street have been received urging the City to implement traffic abatement measures to reduce the volume and speed of traffic on Browning Street; that Option #1, at an estimated cost of $150,000, would address both problems and improve drainage flow; that Option #2, at a cost of $300,000, would address only the deteriorated culvert. Mr. Mohammed continued that the traffic study conducted by the Engineering Department during May 1996 indicates a daily traffic volume of 1,304 on Browning Street between Shade and Euclid Avenues, an average speed of 28.5 mph, and an 85th percentile speed of 33.85; that 66% of the motorists are travelling 25-35 mph, 22% are travelling 16-24 mph, and 7% are travelling 36-45 mph. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Engineering Department's traffic data differs from the results of the Department of Public Safety's traffic studies conducted in January and October of 1995, which indicate daily traffic volume at 1,500 to 1,750, an average speed between 19.5 and 21.8 mph, and an 85th percentile speed of 25 to 28 mph; that the speed limit on Browning Street is 30 mph. Mr. Mohammed stated the Public Safety Department's data was collected by positioning the Police Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer (SMART) at a specific location from approximately 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on one day; that the Engineering Department's data was collected by placing 24-hour traffic counters across Browning Street for three days. Commissioner Merrill stated that the SMART trailer can be seen from a distance; that motorists tend to slow when a police vehicle is visible to avoid receiving a speeding ticket; that traffic counters across a street do not pose that threat to motorists; therefore, the Engineering data is considered more accurate. Mr. Mohammed stated that 196 surveys were mailed to residents of Bay, Wood, Novus, Courtland, and Browning Streets, and Euclid and Jefferson Avenues; that 69 responses were received; that, cumulatively, 41 or 59% of the area residents supported Option #2 and 28 or 41% supported Option #1; however, 79% of the responding residents on Browning Street, and 100% of the residents on Euclid and Jefferson Avenues supported Option #1. Mayor Cardamone asked the number of houses on Browning Street. Book 40 Page 13180 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13181 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that approximately 20 houses are located on Browning Street between Euclid and Shade Avenues. Commissioner Merrill stated that the city has received numerous complaints regarding vehicular volumes and speeds on Browning Street; and asked if a completed petition for traffic abatement on Browning Street has been filed? Mr. Mohammed stated no; however, the SEU drainage project provides the City an opportunity to address both the failing culvert and the traffic concerns; that Option #1 will also save the taxpayers $150,000; that a neighborhood meeting was conducted with the residents of Browning Street and other adjoining streets; that convenience, quality of life, the question of safety, and limiting vehicular access to the YMCA were issues raised. Commissioner Merrill stated that saving the County $150,000 may not be a major issue to residents. Mr. Daughters stated that the $38 annually collected by the SEU for stormwater drainage will be increased through a special tax assessment district established for the Hudson Bayou drainage project; that those funds will be utilized by the SEU to remove or replace the culvert; that the tax assessment district is comprised of City residents, only; that the annual stormwater drainage fee for residents in the Hudson Bayou area is anticipated to increase to approximately $100 annually. Commissioner Merrill stated that the financial burden to City residents was not expressed at the neighborhood meeting; that the attendees at the neighborhood meeting focused primarily on the traffic issue rather than on the cost of the projects; and asked if speed humps could achieve the traffic abatement the Staff is advocating? Mr. Mohammed stated that the issue of speed humps was raised by a resident at the neighborhood meeting; that the volume, not the speed, of vehicles travelling on Browning Street is the major concern; that speed humps are utilized to slow traffic not to reduce the volume of vehicles; that the closure of Browning Street should have little or no impact on the adjoining streets as Hatton Street, a parallel, nonresidential street, which was recently converted from one-way to two-way traffic, will provide alternative access from Shade Avenue to Euclid Avenue, Alta Vista Elementary School, and the YMCA. Commissioner Merrill stated that survey results can be interpreted various ways; that many people trust the City's judgment and do not respond to surveys; that the results indicate more residents support Option #2 than Option #1 but do not indicate a majority of the people who live in the area oppose Option #1; that the residents on Browning Street, who would be most impacted, support the proposed street closure; that approximately 70% of the residents support or do not object to Option #1 if nonresponses are counted as a "do not object" vote. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission previously requested a change in survey language to inform residents that nonresponses would not be considered; therefore, nonresponses cannot and should not be viewed as "do not object" or "yes" votes; however, the survey results of the residents on Browning Street are highly significant. Vice Mayor Pillot continued that the conversion of Hatton Street from a one-way to a two-way street was and is opposed; that diverting traffic from Browning Street to Hatton Street concerns him; that the northern portion of the Alta Vista Elementary School campus borders the entire length of Hatton Street between Shade and Euclid Avenues; that the Sarasota School Board will probably fence the length of Hatton Street as a safety measure, however, accidents involving small children could occur; that increasing the traffic volume on Hatton Street is a negative aspect associated with Option #1. Mr. Mohammed stated that the School Board requested Hatton Street be converted to allow two-way traffic. Commissioner Patterson asked if input has been obtained from the School Board regarding a diversion of traffic from Browning Street onto Hatton Street? Mr. Mohammed stated that increased traffic onto Hatton Street has been an issue discussed during continuing deliberations of the School Advisory Team regarding a temporary closure of School Avenue; that the School Advisory Team is comprised of School Board, County, and City representatives. Commissioner Patterson stated that a Closure of Browning Street could divert onto Jefferson Avenue and Wood Street neighborhood traffic attempting to access Tuttle Avenue. Mr. Mohammed stated that Hatton Street would be the preferred route of travel to access the traffic signal at the intersection of Browning Street and Tuttle Avenue. Mr. Mohammed continued that Option #1 will improve traffic safety on Browning Street, has no significant impact on adjacent streets, will maintain reasonable vehicular and pedestrian access to the Alta Vista Elementary School and the YMCA, is supported by the Department of Public Safety, and will save City taxpayers $150,000. Book 40 Page 13182 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13183 05/20/06 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson asked if vacating the portion of Browning Street closed to vehicular traffic is anticipated? Mr. Daughters stated that the right-of-way, which is necessary for the utilities and to provide pedestrian crossing, would not be vacated. Mayor Cardamone stated that the County should be questioned as to whether the vehicular. crossing over the culvert could be reinstalled if negative impacts associated with the cul-de-sac are identified. Commissioner Dupree asked if a study has been conducted to compare the traffic counts on Browning and Hatton Streets before and after Hatton Street was converted to a two-way street? Mr. Mohammed stated that an analysis has not been conducted; however, a slight reduction in traffic volume on Browning Street has been noted based on a comparison of the Engineering data compiled in May 1996 and the Public Safety data compiled in November 1995; that traffic counts on Hatton Street are not available. Commissioner Merrill stated that Alta Vista Elementary School faces Euclid Avenue; and asked for the daily traffic volume on Euclid Avenue? Mr. Daughters stated 4,470. Commissioner Merrill asked if the traffic volume on Euclid Avenue is greater than that perceived on Hatton Street? Mr. Mohammed stated that based on future projections, the traffic volume on Euclid Avenue will always be greater than that on Hatton Street. Mayor Cardamone asked why traffic counts were not conducted on Hatton Street? Mr. Mohammed stated that Hatton Street received minimal use prior to the recent conversion; therefore, traffic counts were not necessary; that a change in traffic pattern takes time to occur; that traffic counts on Hatton Street at this time would not have any long-term validity. Mr. Daughters stated that the SEU has agreed to either replace or remove the culvert, based on the preference of the City Commission; that the Administration is recommending removal of the culvert. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Doug McLawhorn, 2541 Browning Street (34237), stated that he has resided on Browning Street for 25 years; that the majority of motorists travelling on Browning Street are employed downtown and cut through Browning Street to access the YMCA; that the traffic volume on Hatton Street will never be as great as the traffic volumes and speeds on the streets surrounding Southside Elementary School; that in response to concerns raised at the January 30, 1996, neighborhood meeting, the City rerouted refuse collection vehicles and the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) rerouted buses to travel along Hatton Street instead of Browning Street; however, large delivery vehicles travelling to the school, the nursing home, or the YMCA continue to cut through Browning Street to access Euclid Avenue; that motorists have been viewed speeding, missing the curve as Euclid Avenue changes into Browning Street, and landing in the canal; that $300,000 should not be expended to obtain a result which can be achieved by spending $150,000; that Option #1 is supported. Mark Goddard, 2403 Browning Street (34237), stated that his fenced residence is located on the corner of Shade Avenue and Browning Street; that speeding motorists pose a safety threat to his five-year-old child; that the majority of opposition to Option #1 is generated by residents on adjacent streets who utilize Browning Street as a cut-through to the YMCA or to Tuttle Avenue; that alternative routes are available; that speed humps on Browning Street are not supported; that Option #1 is supported. Wade Cox, 2495 Browning Street (34237), stated that he has resided on the corner of Browning and Jefferson Streets for 25 years; that neighborhood children and pets have been struck by speeding vehicles on Browning Street; that the curve at Euclid Avenue and Browning Street is dangerous; that the majority of opposition to Option #1 comes from residents on adjacent dead-end streets who may be inconvenienced by a cul-de-sac on Browning Street; that the majority of elementary schools in Sarasota County, i.e., Brookside, Southside, and Phillipi Shores, are located adjacent to busy streets; that the Commission should support saving the taxpayers $150,000; that Option #1 is supported. Richard Roehr, 2475 Wood Street (34237), stated that an estimated cost of $250,000 for Option #2 was presented at the neighborhood meeting; that the issue is not traffic abatement but stormwater drainage; that the City should not cul-de-sac streets each time a culvert deteriorates; that routes which provide through access from Shade to Tuttle Avenues are limited; that the City is growing; that all City streets should remain open; that placing a cul-de-sac on Browning Street will divert traffic onto Wood Street; that additional traffic will be diverted onto Wood Street if School Avenue is closed temporarily or permanently; that Hatton Street has been available to public traffic for approximately four months, but Book 40 Page 13184 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13185 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. motorists are not using Hatton Street; that Option #1 is not supported. Kathleen Babcock, 2593 Browning Street (34237), stated that she resides in the last house on Browning Street adjacent to the culvert and views the mess created after each rain storm; that the traffic volume on Browning Street is one issue, but deficient stormwater drainage is another; that her driveway would be used by motorists turning around at the cul-de-sac; however, she supports Option #1, which will correct the drainage problem and save the assessment district $150,000; that the road could be re-opened if the cul-de-sac substantially impacts adjacent neighborhoods. Floyd Stauffer, 2505 Browning Street (34237), stated that he resides at the northeast corner of Jefferson and Browning Streets; that Mr. Mohammed and Joe Pizzalato, Traffic Control Systems Technician IV, gave an excellent presentation at the neighborhood meeting; that the many children who reside on Browning Street should not be subjected to the high-volume of traffic and speeding motorists; that the curve at Euclid Avenue and Browning Street is dangerous; that Option #1 is supported. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving Option #1 to remove the culvert and cul-de-sac at the east end of Browning Street at Euclid Avenue. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Option #1 as recommended by the Administration. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the statements made by, Browning Street residents have persuaded him to support the motion; that the Engineering Staff has stated the closure of Browning Street would have little or no impact upon the adjoining streets because an alternative access to Euclid Avenue, Alta Vista Elementary School, and the YMCA would be available through Hatton Street; that SCAT buses have been rerouted to travel along Hatton Street between Euclid and Shade Avenues instead of Browning Street; that traffic volume on Browning Street is high; that Wood Street may be impacted, but the majority of the traffic will use Hatton Street; that extending Hatton Street from Shade Avenue to School Avenue is being discussed to divert traffic; that the traffic volumes on Hatton Street will inevitably increase; however, the ultimate safety of the children attending Alta Vista Elementary School is a concern. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to offer City Commission support to the Superintendent of Schools for installing traffic abatement methods on Hatton Street between Shade and Euclid Avenues. Commissioner Merrill stated that the neighborhood has been concerned with increasing traffic volumes on the streets; that a determination on closing School Avenue has not yet been made; however, traffic will have to go somewhere if School Avenue is closed; that the site plan for the Alta Vista Elementary School campus reflects the majority of the property adjacent to Hatton Street will be used for parking; that the traffic volume on Euclid Avenue is greater than that expected on Hatton Street; that Osprey Avenue, U.S. 41, and Proctor Road, the streets adjacent to Southside Elementary and Phillipi Shores Elementary, have substantially greater traffic volumes than Hatton Street; that traffic abatement in neighborhoods and near schools is supported to slow traffic. Commissioner Patterson stated that unobstructed routes by which motorists can travel around the City must be provided; that abating traffic on every City street is not supported; that unobstructed routes in an area are necessary for emergency response vehicles; that diverting traffic onto nonresidential streets is appropriate; that Hatton Street is not a residential street; that the School Board will take precautions to protect the safety of the children attending Alta Vista Elementary School, including placing "Slow" signage in the area; that installing speed humps on Hatton Street cannot be supported. Commissioner Patterson continued that Closure of City streets in general is not supported; however, placing a cul-de-sac on Browning Street can be supported because an alternative, parallel route is being provided; that the original motion is supported; however, she will vote against the amendment. Commissioner Dupree stated that four alternative routes are available to motorists attempting to access Tuttle Avenue from Shade Avenue; that portions of the traffic currently using Browning Street could be diverted to Wood Street, Bahia Vista Street, Hatton Street or Tami Sola Street. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the intent of his motion was to offer support for traffic abatement, not specifically speed humps. Mayor Cardamone referred to a letter received from a Browning Street resident opposed to Option #1 who was unable to attend the meeting; and cited the following: This is a neighborhood, the school, the nursing home, the church, the YMCA. The neighbors on Courtland and Browning Streets to the east are all part of our neighborhood, so please don't cut us off. Book 40 Page 13186 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13187 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Engineering Department's traffic data indicates a traffic volume of 359 on Browning Street, which is not significant; that many of the YMCA members who use Browning Street as a cut-through street will not be diverted onto Wood Street; that the culvert is not aesthetically pleasing to driye over; that Alta Vista Elementary School will most likely be built with a fence; that traffic exiting the YMCA will pose a greater safety hazard to children attending Alta Vista Elementary School than the traffic on Hatton Street; that the City is not in a position to offer traffic abatement to the School Board without knowing the school bus routes, the outcome of deliberations regarding an expansion of Hatton Street to School Avenue, etc.; that Hatton Street, which has no residential homes, should be used to handle traffic; that the original motion is supported; however, she will vote against the amendment. Commissioner Patterson stated that the traffic data map indicates a traffic volume of 359 on the portion of Browning Street west of Shade Avenue; that the traffic volume on Browning Street east of Shade Avenue is approximately 1,300. Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct; that the traffic volume for the eastern portion of Browning Street was inadvertently omitted on the map but was included during the presentation. Mayor Cardamone stated that the traffic volumes of two key streets, Browning and Hatton Streets, were omitted from the map contained in the Agenda material, on which she was intending to base her vote. Commissioner Merrill stated that traffic counts on Hatton Street should be performed to obtain a baseline to which to compare future traffic counts. Mr. Mohammed stated that traffic counts will be taken on Hatton Street before and after Browning Street is closed. Commissioner Patterson stated that Browning Street could be closed on a trial basis before a decision is made regarding removal or replacement of the culvert. Mayor Cardamone stated that the issue could be referred back to the Administration or action on the item delayed until the next meeting. Mr. Daughters stated that Browning Street may have to be closed if the culvert continues to deteriorate; that the traffic abatement issue could be addressed on a trial basis; however, timely action is necessary to address the drainage issue before the culvert fails; that the SEU has hired a consultant and wants to proceed as quickly as possible with the Commission's selected design. Commissioner Merrill stated that Browning Street could be closed prior to the cul-de-sac being constructed. Commissioner Patterson stated that the designs for the two options differ; that performing a trial analysis after the Commission chooses an option would not be beneficial. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the intent of his amendment was to communicate a willingness of the City Commission to offer services to enhance the safety of children at Alta Vista Elementary School when and if requested by the superintendent of Schools; that perhaps the amendment should be amended. Commissioner Merrill stated that, as seconder to the amendment, he understood the intent of the amendment to be as restated by Vice Mayor Pillot. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the amendment as clarified by Vice Mayor Pillot. Motion carried (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the main motion to approve Option #1 and express a willingness of the City to offer services to enhance the safety of children at Alta Vista Elementary School when and if requested by the Superintendent of Schools. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone recognized members of Boys Scout Troop #24, Church of the Redeemer, who were present in the audience. The Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48 p.m. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE = DESIGN THEME SELECTION = SET SEPTEMBER 1, 1996, AND JANUARY 1, 1997, AS TARGET DATES TO PROVIDE FDOT WITH STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND AESTHETIC DESIGN SELECTIONS: DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH CITY'S AESTHETIC TASK TEAM, THE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN ARCHITECTURE AND THE GULF COAST CHAPTER OF AIA TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS. TO SUBMIT MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS, AND TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON ARCHITECT, / ENGINEER RECOMMENDED BY CHARLES KUYKENDALL AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (2230) to #3 (1903) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission placed this item on the agenda after the Commission Workshop concerning the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge on May 13, 1996, to solicit input from the public; that a conciliatory response has been received from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Book 40 Page 13188 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13189 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. motivated by interest from higher levels; that the top people in the State are now aware of the Commission's concerns. Mayor Cardamone stated that FDOT initially estimated the cost of a replacement bridge at $20 million which may now be increased to $28 million; that in 1993 FDOT engineers estimated $28 million for a 65-foot, fixed-span bridge; however, FDOT did not actually promise any extra money at the May 13th workshop. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that $20 million covers construction costs only; that the referenced $28 million also includes preliminary planning work, permitting and actual design; that the option of a segmental box structural system has been offered by FDOT as an alternate to the beam and girder structural system; that the State will grant additional time to analyze the alternate structural system; that FDOT expects the structural system to be chosen before September 1, 1996, and the aesthetic design before January 1, 1997; that the Administration recommends a motion for the Commission to: 1. Decide on the structural system before September 1, 1996. 2. Decide on the aesthetic design before January 1, 1997. 3. Direct the Administration to work with the Aesthetic Task Team, the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture and the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to develop recommendations for Items 1 and 2 above. Mr. Daughters continued that the Administration will interact with the three advisory bodies unless directed by the Commission to involve only the Task Team in the decision-making process; that the Administration will develop a recommendation to expedite the Commission's selection of the structural system for presentation to FDOT before September 1, 1996; that the symbiotic relationship between the structural system and aesthetics poses difficulty in separating the two; that the Administration will work with the three groups to develop a recommendation for the aesthetic design before January 1, 1997. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Administration has considered the challenge of integrating three different groups to produce one recommendation? Mr. Daughters stated that coordination of the groups is in the development stage; that many good people are involved in all three groups. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Foundation has clarified its offer and proposes to subsidize and introduce exceptional architectural critics and consultants at the City's request and to sponsor an expert to contribute a professional viewpoint regarding bridge design. Commissioner Patterson stated that professional guidance is anticipated following the Foundation's introduction at the workshop; that the Task Team, comprised of lay people who presumably reflect the taste of the citizenry, is hampered by a dearth of members qualified in bridge design; that maintaining the status quo may encourage FDOT to restrict the number of options from which the Task Team may choose; that professionals brought in by the Foundation may offer alternative designs as will the AIA, which will infuse creativity into the process without taking a seat or casting a vote on the Task Team; that Charles Kuykendall, Architect, continues to express interest in the building of an acceptable and unique bridge which will be pleasing to residents of the City and is personally acquainted with an architect/engineer: who has designed gorgeous bridges and can travel to the City at minimal cost; that the Administration should study the qualifications of the recommended architect/engineer who views the possibility of designing a bridge for the City as a source of inspiration and submit a report to the Commission. Mayor Cardamone stated that two other architects with ideas for great bridges have contacted the City; that photographs of a gorgeous bridge in Amsterdam have been received from one architect; that a letter was received from an architect who proposes a steel- arch design accented by two identical steel beam arches criss-crossed with cables; that the process should be tightened to prevent further delay; and asked if a consensus exists to designate the Task Team as the recipient of the forthcoming information. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the City should extend the time frame dictated by FDOT; that neither the Task Team nor the AIA are sufficiently qualified or objective enough to represent the City; that the individuals suggested by the Foundation will be both objective and competent. Mr. Daughters stated that the September 1, 1996, date is very close; that the Task Team must indicate approval of a structural system by the end of July 1996 to enable the Administration to bring a recommendation to the Commission at the first regular Commission Meeting in August. Commissioner Merrill asked the differences between the segmental box and the beam and girder structural systems and the degree of difficulty a decision will present? Book 40 Page 13190 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13191 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that the decision is simple if the choice is limited to between the segmental box and the beam and girder structural systems; that the segmental box structural system allows approximately twice the spacing between the columns than does a beam and girder structural system, thus making the underside more attractive by eliminating a row of small beams. Commissioner Merrill stated that the structural system decision due in September will be resolved immediately if the architects coming forward confirm the aesthetic superiority of the segmental box structural system, enabling the city to move forward to the aesthetic issue; that the segmental box structural system seems to accommodate a longer bridge span. Mr. Daughters stated that an expert opinion is essential to confirm that the segmental box structural system accommodates a longer bridge span. Commissioner Merrill stated that the experts may be able to clarify the differences between the two structural systems; that the September decision addresses a choice between the segmental box and the beam and girder structural systems. The following people came before the Commission: Richard Storm, 707 South Gulfstream Avenue (34236), representing the Bridge Too High Committee (BTHC), stated that the citizens and Commission who have contributed sO much time on such an aggravating issue should receive praise; that a wall of arbitrary decision- making has been built by people who do not reside in the City; that the Commission has controlled the situation well; that the BTHC will continue to oppose the construction of a high bridge for reasons partially aesthetic in nature; that the Commission is asked to remember the precedent set in the denial of permits for the Anna Maria bridge; that the environmental issues which caused the Anna Maria bridge project to founder and which the BTHC will continue to address should remain prominent in the discussion on the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge; that asking the purpose of a new bridge may produce a more amenable result although the aesthetics of the project are the basis of the discussion; that a new bridge will neither alleviate flooding problems nor change the evacuation process and will provide no more added convenience for the community; that the City's request for a major investment study to determine the transportation problems of the entire area was dismissed by FDOT as irrelevant; that the bridge will not provide additional carrying capacity; that retaining the current bridge should be considered while addressing the problems forced upon the Commission. Dale Parks, 1221 North Palm Avenue, # 107 (34236), stated that, as an architect in the City, much design input has been offered; that FDOT should provide pertinent information and design criteria required for design production if the Commission desires input from local architects and the AIA; that FDOT has not provided necessary information forcing local architects to use imagination in place of factual information; that FDOT has summarily dismissed alternative designs by local architects; that the September 1, 1996, decision requires specific information relevant to the structural system. Commissioner Patterson asked what information is needed from FDOT? Mr. Parks stated that FDOT has built bridges with segmented box structural systems, such as the Broadway Bridge in Daytona Beach; that a cross-section with depths and widths of the structural system as well as other pertinent information would be helpful to provide aesthetic details as well as structural system design. Commissioner Patterson asked if more than the range of column spacing with maximum spacing and a cross-section of the road bed should be requested from FDOT? Mr. Parks stated that an even footing with FDOT is necessary as bridge designs presented by the City previously have been dismissed as too expensive even when extensive efforts were made to present viable alternatives. Kate Hansen O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232) representing the Aesthetic Task Team, thanked the Commission for its diligence and fortitude which has made available the option of the preferred segmented box structural system with fewer pillars; and stated that designing the best bridge is the goal of both the Commission and the Task Team; that different choices are available to aid the decision-making process leading to the September 1, 1996, and January 1, 1997, deadlines; that the Foundation should be contacted as soon as possible to bring in a professional to work with the Task Team; that the purpose of the Task Team is to integrate a diverse group of individuals representing different parts and various aspects of the City who will be most affected and use the bridge most often; that the Task Team's diversity prevents any prejudice except in favor of the City; that each individual has a unique outlook on the project determined by taste and background; that collectively the Task Team has aimed for the best decision possible which can only be enhanced by the additional expertise offered by a professional sponsored by the Foundation; that the Task Team appreciates any help from the Commission, including urging FDOT to extend accessibility to the local architects; that outside architects may be wonderful, but local architects are available; that FDOT should be accessible to interested architects; that a body of information should be on file at City Hall so a potential designer can contact the City directly and receive all pertinent information with one telephone call, facilitating the presentation of a viable bridge design; that wonderful concepts Book 40 Page 13192 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13193 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. have no viability without access to factual information specifying FDOT structural requirements; that convincing FDOT to provide information is difficult; that time is required to review the architectural designs submitted to the Task Team; that proposing impractical concepts can be avoided if the designs received are created from specifications provided from a collective package available from the City which meet FDOT guidelines, including storm aspects and high-tide lines. Mark Smith, 5562 Cape Aqua Drive (34242) representing the American Institute of Architects (AIA), stated that FDOT and FDOT's bridge design consultant indicated at the workshop that many design options exist; however, due to their own shortcomings as engineers, FDOT could present only one option; that the Foundation has already been obstructed by limiting the number of the structural system options to only one; that the structural system and the aesthetics are integral and cannot be separated; that freedom of design is necessary to design a structure; that a professional bridge architect can select a buildable design to meet FDOT standards; that presentation of drawings are a prerequisite to the permitting process; that the Anna Maria bridge design had been completed but environmental permits could not be obtained indicating that the City's and the designer's time will be wasted without a permit; that the City should urge FDOT to offer reassurances a permit will be awarded; that a bridge charette sponsored by the Sarasota- Manatee Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) investigated all options under the best case scenario and produced a 20% chance of success in acquiring a building permit; that the Anna Maria bridge was a replacement bridge for which the drawings were complete and yet a permit was denied; that an architect who completes the drawings for a project and then returns to the client without a permit to build will spend a great deal of time in litigation; that the bridge issue presents the opportunity to inform the National and State politicians of the ludicrous nature of the apparently convoluted State permitting process; that hiring experts without the bridge qualifying for permits is a waste of time. Mayor Cardamone asked the cost of the construction design process? Mr. Smith stated that the cost is potentially millions of dollars. Commissioner Patterson stated that an architect must know the minimum number of bridge supports before a design can be submitted for a permit; that a Catch-22 exists in that the design must proceed at least halfway to determine the number of supports before applying for a construction permit; that information concerning the refusal of the Anna Maria bridge permit have been supplied to the Commission; that FDOT's failure to develop a public consensus rather that environmental concerns were uppermost in the rejection of the Anna Maria bridge design; that a majority of affected citizens came forward in opposition to the Anna Maria bridge; and asked if further information is available regarding the details of the bridge's failure to qualify for a permit? Mayor Cardamone stated that the City Engineer has the full report concerning the denial of the Anna Maria bridge permit. Commissioner Patterson stated that an analogy cannot be accurately drawn between the two bridges. Mr. Smith stated that the Attorney representing the Anna Maria beach community could be contacted for more information. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the permitting agency can be told that a bridge design is neither available nor desired until a determination is made that permitting qualifications/guidelines and FDOT minimum specifications can be supported in terms of cost in time and dollars? Mr. Smith stated that FDOT should provide guidelines. Marcelle Wolf, 445 McKinley Drive (34236), representing Lido Key Residents Associations, stated that the September deadline should be rejected unless the necessary information is provided to make a prudent decision; that FDOT has not specified the dollar amount for design and construction of the bridge; that the Commission is entitled to know the financial implications; that development of style or feasibility of construction is impossible without a firm commitment from FDOT; that FDOT must state which materials can be used; that FDOT rejected the suitability of steel without granting the courtesy of a discussion to address the prohibitions of cost and material for Mr. Kuykendall's design previously selected by the Commission; that no committee can proceed without minimum information; that now is the time to utilize all available expertise; that all involved individuals must be brought together immediately; that progress reports must be submitted continuously; that awaiting final recommendations until the deadlines is a disastrous policy; that a monitoring system must be implemented. Donald Blivas, AIA, 143 Beach Road (34242) President, Foundation for Excellence in Architecture, stated that the Commission should be commended for stopping the process and challenging FDOT; that professionals must be retained to achieve a world-class, signature bridge; that no offense was intended in his previous statement that the Commission members were unqualified for bridge building or that the Task Team lacks a sufficient number of professionals; that the Task Team has been a pawn for three years because no qualified professional who understands bridges, builds bridges or is experienced in the intricacies of bureaucratic-driven development interacted with FDOT; that a professional must be brought into the process if the goals of the Commission are to be met; that the Foundation will sponsor top people to move the process forward; Book 40 Page 13194 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13195 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. that two locally-based individuals who have bridge design experience will be part of the Foundation's search for the top talent in the field; that a potential problem exists in expecting a top designer to work with a Task Team; that a group of unqualified people interjecting unfounded opinions will be unacceptable to a professional bridge designer; that the Foundation is not in a position to critique the aesthetics of a bridge design; that a fine designer will offer to design the best bridge, within the budget and addressing the environmental concerns of the community and FDOT; that the process cannot be moved forward without professionalism. Commissioner Patterson stated that the suggestion infers that the Foundation and the Commission will choose the designer and accept the bridge design presented. Mr. Blivas stated that bridge design begins with preliminary concepts and drawings and develops through various stages; that the Commission has the opportunity to accept or reject any concept; that the Commission is the client and retains the right to impose desires and create a program, which has not been done. over the past three years; that the Task Team gave opinions only when drawings were completed; that a program can be written to specify the Commission's requirements; that FDOT's arrogant limiting of two possible designs can be rejected by the introduction of alternative choices available only by using a professional bridge designer. Commissioner Patterson asked who will choose the designer? Mr. Blivas stated that the Foundation will suggest two or three designers to present portfolios of completed work that the Commission will choose; that the process is similar to building a home. Commissioner Patterson stated that a third party is not used as a go-between when building a home. Mr. Blivas stated that the Commission has every right and ability to choose the architect without help; that the Foundation has offered a service and wants only the very best bridge built. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Task Team should perform the design choice function; that the Foundation and the AIA will bring forward qualified individuals to be appraised by the Task Team. Mr. Blivas stated that an appropriate process can be instituted if the Commission wants to retain the Task Team as an interface with the designers; that the Task Team has spent three years inspecting small aspects of the bridge as if choosing items from a Chinese menu rèstricted by FDOT. Commissioner Patterson stated that FDOT allows one concept and offers the Task Team the approval of insignificant details. Mr. Blivas stated that the Task Team can act as an interface and choose the designer; however, no professional will tolerate a Task Team empowered to dictate the process of design. Commissioner Merrill stated that a professional bridge designer with experience should be retained; that the Commission lacks the qualifications to offer opinions to the expert; that the Task Team with its diverse background is relied upon to set standards for the bridge design; that a committee is necessary to help the Commission work with a professional. Mr. Blivas stated that no one has devised a coherent process; that the cost to design a bridge is $2.5 to $3 million; that most environmental concerns can be conquered at a preliminary stage. Commissioner Merrill asked who reviews the professionals' input and decides how to proceed if the Commission does not wish to arrive at the decision alone? Mr. Blivas stated that workshop meetings in the next two weeks will enable the process to be refined. Nan Plessas, 325 Central Avenue (34236), representing the Foundation, stated that Commissions and qualified citizens in other communities in Florida have designed bridges with professional designers. Mr. Blivas stated that designers do not object to programmatic input; that interjecting design criteria is objectionable; that the design professionals of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge would never have tolerated a community dictating the bridge design. Commissioner Patterson stated that the FIGG Engineering Group (FEG) is part of the group working on the current bridge. Ms. Plessas stated that Kunde, Sprecher & Associates (KSA) is FDOT's bridge design consultant for the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge; that a consultant to KSA used to work for FEG; that FEG has designed and knows how to design bridges through consensus gathering. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Foundation believes a process can be developed enabling the Task Team to contribute input? Mr. Blivas stated that a broad interface group which will not dictate details will be acceptable. Book 40 Page 13196 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13197 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Dupree asked for clarification of the $3 million cost for a design? Commissioner Patterson stated that the price estimate is for the engineering work; that FDOT will judge eligibility for permitting when all the engineering work is completed. Commissioner Dupree asked how long a Foundation-sponsored designer will require to produce a sketch? Mr. Blivas stated that the answer is unknown; that a designer and the engineers must be found and the Commission must scrutinize the candidates; that the process is starting over. Ms. Plessas stated that the City should not be limited to FDOT's arbitrary timetable; and asked why the City feels rushed? Commissioner Dupree stated that the Commission should not become ensnared in FDOT's timetable; that an independent timetable should be determined; however, time must not be wasted. Mayor Cardamone stated that the City must not waste any more time; that the Commission was unaware the Task Team was being driven in FDOT's direction; that Commission rejected FDOT's machinations and insisted upon the right to view unique bridge designs when the Task Team's helplessness came to light; that several local architects drew sketches of bridges over a weekend; that no construction plans or any other expensive components of bridge design have been undertaken; that the term "timetable" is not as accurate as "FDOT's time trap. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Foundation can produce results within nine to twelve months? Mr. Blivas stated that the process will be tightened up considerably when professionals become part of the equation. Commissioner Patterson stated that a group of architects submitted drawings which has been constrained by lack of information and by being told summarily that a segmental structural system is unacceptable; that local architects should not be eliminated from the process and their designs should be pursued; that the architect/engineer referred by Mr. Kuykendall may please the Foundation; that surrender of the project to the Foundation is not contemplated nor desired; and asked if the Foundation can introduce bridge designers and the AIA can have input on design? Mr. Blivas stated that the roles of the Foundation, the AIA and the Task Team can be integrated into a proper place in the process. Commissioner Patterson asked how a nationally prominent designer can be integrated into community involvement? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Foundation, the AIA and the Task Team can be integrated through role segmentation; that the Administration supports the Foundation's offer to assist the City; that the Foundation has expressed a willingness to serve in a facilitative role to bring in expertise to provide advice to the Task Team or design parameters the local AIA can implement; that a workshop will be scheduled with the three groups; that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will be contacted for advice on permitting. City Manager Sollenberger continued that the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), I the precursor of DEP, previously awarded an $8 million grant to the City for a spray irrigation process on the High Hat Ranch; that the City paid to have the system designed, specified and bid; however, the design was condemned when the City applied for a permit at an administrative hearing from an another division of DER; that the DER first paid for the design and then refused to allow the permit; that consultation with regulatory agencies before the design is finalized does not guarantee approval. Mayor Cardamone stated that FDOT indicated permitting should be postponed until construction plans are complete. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City has been challenged in previous confrontations with FDOT and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission is elected to represent the public and the City of Sarasota and not to abrogate responsibility for actions taken; that while the decision-making process requires receiving input from citizens and from duly appointed bodies such as the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), building a bridge is another matter; that his only qualification for designing a bridge is personal aesthetic opinion; that the professionals to whom the Foundation refers are qualified to design bridges; that the Commission should proceed exactly upon the path the Foundation has introduced; that experts of the stature referenced by the Foundation will not allow interference in the creative process; that the Commission should accept the Foundation's offer and advise the Task Team, the AIA and other individuals who contributed energy and time that no isentranchisement is intended but the franchise must be appointed to qualified individuals; that all input must come to the Commission; that choosing one designer from two or three candidates is standard procedure; that the project is too large to be handed over to a committee of lay citizens or even architects or engineers of the City; that the people who built the Book 40 Page 13198 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13199 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Sunshine Skyway Bridge and other bridges of that quality and substance throughout the United States will offer their opinions; that the Commission will listen, make the final decision and accept responsibility. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to accept the Administration's recommendations to: 1) provide a decision on the structural system before September 1, 1996, 2) provide a decision on aesthetics design before January 1, 1997, and 3) direct the Administration to work with the City's Aesthetic Task Team, the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture and the Gulf Coast Chapter of the AIA to develop recommendations for Items 1 and 2 above. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the main motion to require monthly reports on the bridge design from the Administration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that a qualified bridge designer should be involved in the decision-making process; that the time has come to retain professionals; that no criticism is intended but the City is facing the current dilemma because the Task Team did not invite bridge design experts; that the Commission is elected by the community to make decisions; that a process must be developed to expedite decision-making without interference from a board. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to amend the main motion to direct the City Manager to obtain background information on the architect/engineer recommended by Mr. Kuykendall and make a recommendation to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mr. Blivas stated that all the groups must meet to develop balance in the processi that the Foundation is in favor of bringing in Mr. Kuykendall's recommended architect/engineer. Mayor Cardamone stated that tying the hands of the groups is not desirable; that the Administration, the Foundation, the AIA and the Task Team must be allowed free choice to contact the recommended designer or not. Commissioner Patterson stated that the intent of the amendment is to refer the investigation to the Administration which can proceed with liberty. city Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will obtain background information concerning the suggested individual and make a recommendation. Mayor Cardamone asked if the City Manager will limit the possibilities to one designer's ideas or reach out to investigate other possible candidates? City Manager Sollenberger stated that no limits will be set; that the Foundation will be involved in the process. Vice Mayor Pillot asked the status to be attributed to each of the three organizations? city Manager Sollenberger stated that a balance will be achieved when each group's role in the process is segmented. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that nationally or internationally prominent professionals will not share professional responsibilities with a Task Team; and asked if the Task Team or any other interested individuals from the community will be limited to offering ideas? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will offer the Commission a solution after identifying each group's role; that the process will be developed and a draft of the decision-making process will be returned to the Commission in two weeks. Commissioner Patterson stated that over-complicating the process could waste an entire month. Mr. Blivas stated that only two to three meetings over a two-week period should be required to organize an advisory board. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission will exercise direct authority over the chosen designer; that the Task Team will be limited to offering advice to the Commission; that the Commission will be the final decision-making body if the bridge designer chooses to disregard the Task Team's opinions. Mayor Cardamone stated that a Request for Proposal (RFP) is disseminated when the City wishes to engage consulting services; that the final decision comes back to the Commission for approval; that the September and January deadlines set by the FDOT are unreasonable. On motion of Mayor Cardamone (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Pillot) and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to amend the motion by establishing September 1, 1996, and January 1, 1997, as target dates rather than deadline dates. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Book 40 Page 13200 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13201 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that time must not be wasted; that the MPO will accuse the Commission of lack of support if the City varies considerably from the dates. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the intent of the amendment is to indicate that, while the dates are acceptable, the Commission's hands will not be tied. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve the main motion as amended as follows: 1. Set September 1, 1996, as a target date by which to provide FDOT with a structural system selection. 2. Set January 1, 1997, as a target date by which to provide FDOT with an aesthetic design selection 3. Direct the Administration to work with the Aesthetic Task Team, the Foundation for Excellence in Architecture and the Gulf Coast Chapter of AIA to develop recommendations for September 1, 1996, and January 1, 1997. 4. Direct the Administration to submit at least monthly progress reports on the bridge design. 5. Direct the Administration to obtain background information on the architect/engineer recommended by Mr. Kuykendall and make a recommendation to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone expressed gratitude and thanks to the citizens for their work and interest in the bridge project. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: CITY-WIDE CLOSED LOOP TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM - DIRECTED CITY MANAGER TO ARRANGE TOUR OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM COMPUTER ROOM FOR THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (1903) through (2823) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that on March 29, 1996, the Engineering and Public Works Departments accepted control of the long-awaited, closed-loop traffic signal system from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) i that a brief presentation will be made by a representative of Florida Transportation Engineering, Inc. (FTE), a sub-contractor hired by PDG Corporation (PDG), FDOT's construction contractor on the project. Gordon Ziecina, P.E.. Signal System Engineer, FTE, came before the Commission and stated that he earned a Master's Degree from the University of Florida in Traffic Engineering; that the instructors at University of Florida are primarily signal experts; that every piece of the City's system was addressed with twenty years experience in computerized controls; that PDG was to correct the problems created by confusion and poor workmanship from a prior contractor; that a local traffic engineer advised FDOT twenty years ago that Sarasota required a computerized signal system; that the city now possesses a state-of-the-art communications network; that local newspaper reports infer that the system will solve all the City's traffic problems; however, proper utilization is essential; that an operator can accomplish better results in less time; that volume counts, signal efficiency, and the ability for maintenance personnel to discern a problem at midnight are easily achieved if good hardware is functioning properly in the streets; that problems can be corrected from the office; that qualified personnel are required to operate an efficient mechanism. Commissioner Merrill asked if an implication is being made that the City does not have qualified personnel? Mr. Ziecina stated that the City operator possesses two years experience; that training will help realize the potential necessary to become an expert traffic operator, to learn how to direct traffic flow properly and implement innovative ideas; that installing properly functioning timings on U.S. 41 is not an easy task; that major problems will arise if the proper methods are not applied; that newspaper reports overestimate the computer system's capability to alter and adjust traffic patterns independently. Commissioner Merrill stated that an inference is being made that the system suffers from weaknesses and the operator is limited by inexperience. Mr. Ziecina stated that the City would be pleased with the results of two more months of FTE expertise. Commissioner Merrill asked if FTE can provide training to perform the necessary operations? Mr. Ziecina stated that a time-consuming process is involved. Commissioner Patterson asked if Staff will have to do more than maintain the system during a two-month training program? Mr. Ziecina stated that traffic patterns change constantly and every time property is rezoned; that, for example, the traffic signal program will have to be adjusted when the proposed Walgreens at Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41 is constructed. Book 40 Page 13202 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13203 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone asked if every light in the City, including those on State highways, is incorporated into the closed-loop traffic system? Mr. Daughters stated that a few isolated signals are not. Mayor Cardamone asked if the City possesses the capability to control the lights on Fruitville Road? Mr. Ziecina stated yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that the lights are uncooperative; and asked if the City now enjoys "smart lights" permitting a light to change at midnight, independent of personnel, when one car waits at an intersection? Mr. Ziecina stated that the City has possessed the ability to do so for the past 20 years; that improperly functioning sensors cause problems. Mayor Cardamone asked if the City has accepted the system? Mr. Ziecina stated that the FDOT transferred the system to the City on March 26, 1996; that many traffic problems will be solved in the near future by utilizing the existing tool. Commissioner Patterson asked if the hardware financed by the grant is currently installed and operating in the street? Mr. Ziecina stated that the State and Federal Governments repaired only the communication network which enables the operator in City Hall to communicate with hardware at the intersection; that the State and Federal. Government will not fix hardware located on City streets. Commissioner Patterson asked if the physical problems caused by poor workmanship have been corrected allowing utilization of an efficient tool? Mr. Ziecina stated that the system is generally acceptable. Mayor Cardamone asked how many of the 120 traffic signals are working at capacity? Mr. Ziecina stated that every signal must be independently inspected to determine if full capacity is realized. Commissioner Patterson asked how many of the non-functioning signals were financed as part of the grant disbursed to PDG? Mr. Ziecina stated that all 120 are functioning at basic levels. Commissioner Patterson asked if existing problems are unrelated to that work? Mr. Daughters stated that pre-existing, non-functioning equipment, not replaced by FDOT as part of the construction project, became the subject of negotiations which enabled the City to acquire three additional controllers, including a main controller, to be delivered in the future; that expired specifications, relative to equipment available five or six years prior, are the reason the system construction took so long. Commissioner Patterson stated that utilization of the computer system must be maximized before traffic abatement is installed on neighborhood streets; and asked what is required to train Staff and to install hardware required to equip the City with a system utilizing existing arteries to maximum capacity? Mr. Ziecina stated that the system exists right now; that the City must perfect one section at a time. Commissioner Patterson asked if the inference is made that Staff is inadequate? Mr. Ziecina stated that Staff is inexperienced. Mr. Daughters stated that a proposal for additional training and a review of definite problem intersections is being considered which will be brought to the Commission when developed; that the Engineering Department deserves the opportunity to develop experience over a period of time; that FDOT turned the system over to the City only on March 26, 1996. Commissioner Patterson asked the speed limit on U.S. 41 and U.S. 301? Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the speed limit is 45 mph on U.S. 41 next to the hospital. Commissioner Patterson asked if the signals will remain green if a speed of 45 mph is maintained? Mr. Ziecina stated that the starting point of travel is the determinant. Mr. Mohammed stated that a plan which includes training is being devised to manage the system; that the Commission will be asked to allocate $10,000 per year to update traffic counts and perfect one section of the system at a time. Book 40 Page 13204 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13205 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Dupree asked the length of time, the degree of training, and the number of full-time personnel required to implement the system at maximum capacity? Mr. Ziecina stated that a full-time employee is required to modulate timings and develop patterns seasonally when the traffic fluctuates. Commissioner Dupree asked the amount of training required? Mr. Ziecina stated that competent personnel are not widely available. Mr. Mohammed stated that the systems employed in other municipalities are fine tuned for at least two years; that the same technicians work on the traffic systems over a period of time to excel at the job. Mr. Daughters stated that a larger city will hire a fully-trained, proficient technician at a much higher salary. Mayor Cardamone stated that a tour is requested, thanked Mr. Ziecina for the presentation, and stated that traffic problems are the Number, One complaint the Commission receives. City Manager Sollenberger stated a tour for the Commission will be arranged. Mr. Ziecina stated that the City's troubles stem from one contractor who was stopped by FTE in the initial stages but regained access to the project by sub-contracting for another company. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DECISION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95- 3840, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM MCI AND RSF-2 ZONE DISTRICTS TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE PARK (COP) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL EXTENDING FROM BAHIA VISTA STREET TO PROSPECT STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 630 FEET WITH A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 255.61 FEET: APPROVING FINAL SITE & DEVELOPMENT PLAN 94-K IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREENLS DRUG STORE AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CO-06, PETITIONER WILLIAM W. MERRILL, III, AS AGENT FOR OLYMPIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. AND AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR BVP ASSOCIATES) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS: 1) CHANGED THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY TO 255.61 FEET: 2) EXTENDED THE RESTRICTION OF LARGE DELIVERY TRUCKS DELIVERING ONLY DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS THROUGH PHASE II AND PHASE III; 3) CHANGED THE NUMBERING IN THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE A NUMBER SIX (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (2824) through #4 (0873) City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 originated after a request for rezoning was presented to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) which recommended approval to the Commission; that a public hearing was held before the Commission during which several proffers made by the developer were entered as part of the record and added to the proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840; that proffers are normally incorporated into an Ordinance between first and second readings; that an unusual situation has arisen because the rezoning request traveled through the court system and returns to the Commission after public hearings were held; that a change made is a reference to the use of the property as a drug store rather than a Walgreen's; that nothing in the record states' that the property owner agreed before the Commission to designate the business as a Walgreen's; that the Zoning Code does not address the use of property being brand specific; that the business is a drug store operation and will be so referenced; that the proffers by the petitioner regarding hours of operation and the restriction in delivery times are also included; that providing bicycle racks in the Phase I project was a proffer in the record; that the depth of the property is referenced as being approximately 260 feet while the legal description attached describes the property as 270 feet; that the discrepancy was corrected in a letter to the PBLP in May 1994 to state that the depth is actually 255.61 feet which should be changed for purposes of legality. City Attorney Taylor continued that no public input is being allowed on this item because the matter has been before the PBLP, the Commission and through litigation; that the City is very limited in any possible alterations as the Court found the sign-off and approval of Staff meet the requirements of the Zoning Code; that Staff is of the opinion that landscaping around the retention pond can be considered since the site will accommodate enhanced buffering; that a cost estimate is provided confirming a landscaping plan well beyond Zoning Code requirements; that the Commission should exercise caution before attempting additions to proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 in view of court findings. Commissioner Dupree asked if the buffer will be situated on the east or west side of the pond. City Attorney Taylor stated that the buffer is on the east side. Commissioner Patterson stated that Section 7 of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 is after Section 5 with no reference to a Section 6. Book 40 Page 13206 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13207 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the omission is a typographical error and will be corrected. Commissioner Patterson stated that Section 5 (e) is a contradiction to Section 4. City Attorney Taylor stated that Section 5(e) addresses Phase III; that Staff is of the opinion that landscaping should be separately reviewed under the Tree Protection Ordinance in Phase III to save large, existing trees; that Staff technical approval for the balance of the landscaping is conditioned by excepting approval of the Phase III portion to a later date. Commissioner Patterson stated that preventing the project from moving forward at this time is not feasible; that the Commission is asked to approve one part of the site and development plan with no ability to impose conditions on any other point; and asked if the tree protection issue is the only issue conditionally addressed? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City processed the project as a single development although the project was phased; that the landscaping exception is limited to the Tree Protection Ordinance which will be addressed in a hearing before the PBLP. Commissioner Patterson asked the meaning of the statement in the proposed ordinance which indicates that more than one building permit will be approved? Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the first building permit is the earliest permit issued. Commissioner Patterson asked if more than one building permit is allowed and if the Commission is approving a site and development plan today? Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, came before the Commission and stated that often a series of permits are required when projects are initiated; that a demolition permit, a foundation permit, etc., are examples of possible permits. City Attorney Taylor stated that the first permit triggers the PBLP review under the Tree Protection Ordinance. Commissioner Dupree asked if the retention pond is part of the site? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Dupree stated that the proposed ordinance states that a landscape buffer will be installed along the western boundary of the site; that the City Attorney stated earlier that the buffer will be planted on the east side. City Attorney Taylor stated that the site plan illustrates a retention pond, a proposed six-foot wall and some landscaping, all of which appear to be on the east side of the retention pond; that the buffer is on the west side of the property being rezoned. Mayor Cardamone stated that the buffer is between the retention pond and frontage on U.S. 41. Commissioner Dupree asked if the retention pond is part of the site? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mayor Cardamone asked why the proposed ordinance does not address the retention pond? City Attorney Taylor stated that the retention pond is not addressed in the proposed ordinance as it is included in the graphic depiction; that once approval is granted, the developer will have to conform with the graphic depiction; therefore, no reason existed to include the requirement for a retention pond. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission has not received a site plan. Mayor Cardamone stated that bike racks, which were a relatively minor issue, are included in the ordinance; however, the retention pond, which was a major issue, is not included; that the safety and landscaping issues involving the retention pond have not been addressed. Commissioner Patterson asked on which side of the wall the landscaping will be installed? City Attorney Taylor stated that the landscaping is on the westerly side of the wall. Commissioner Patterson asked why the retention pond does not have any landscaping? City Attorney Taylor stated that the petitioners proffered to provide enhanced landscaping on the west property boundary between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets. Commissioner Patterson asked if landscaping will be planted between the drainage area and the residential neighborhood? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that the language in the proposed ordinance requires the petitioner to install at his sole expense a landscape buffer consisting of specified plant material in Phases I and III along the west boundary of the site. Book 40 Page 13208 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13209 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the location of landscaping was described as along the western boundary. City Attorney Taylor stated that the unmodified site plan does not illustrate enhanced buffering; that the language can be clarified in the future for the record. William Merrill, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, representing the petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that landscaping shown on the site plan west of the wall is a portion of landscaping required under the Commercial Office Park (COP) Zoning District and is addressed in the regular zoning requirements eliminating the necessity for inclusion in the proposed ordinance; that additional landscaping is located on the western boundary of the site, west of the retention pond, and is proffered by the petitioner. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 contains language inconsistent with the judicial order, either by error of commission or omission? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that the petitioner can grant requests from the Commission although is under no obligation to do so. Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission can modify the petition, such as, requiring the proposed sign be moved from Bahia Vista Street to U.S. 41? City Attorney Taylor stated that the zoning codes allows the petitioner to install a sign on Bahia Vista Street; that the Commission can request but not mandate a change; that the Zoning Code will not allow enhanced signage on U.S. 41 on the basis of elimination of the sign on Bahia Vista Street. Mayor Cardamone asked why bike racks can be added? City Attorney Taylor stated that bike racks are included as proffers by the petitioners. Mayor Cardamone asked if all items proffered by the petitioner have been addressed? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Patterson asked if the issue of double-street sign frontage is addressed? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that Staff determined during settlement discussions that increasing the size of a sign on U.S. 41 as a condition for removing a sign from a side street is not legal. Commissioner Patterson stated that more flexibility was exercised when signage for the downtown district was approved; and asked if the restriction is unique to the COP zone district? City Attorney Taylor stated that other districts share the same restrictions; that the Zoning Code is being rewritten because of inconsistencies; that the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD), COP, and newer zone districts differ in zoning requirements. Commissioner Patterson asked if a message will be sent to other merchants on U.S. 41 inferring that existing signage may be doubled if the Zoning Code is rewritten to enable removal of the sign on Bahia Vista Street on the condition that the sign on U.S. 41 is enlarged. Mr. Taylor stated that standards in a commercial zone district differ from standards in a shopping center zone district. Commissioner Patterson stated that the sign on Bahia Vista Street is slated for placement further down on the residential street rather than on the corner of U.S. 41. Mr. Taylor stated that the sign meets Zoning Code requirements. Commissioner Patterson asked why the petitioner cannot install the sign at the corner of Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41? Mr. Taylor stated that the Zoning Code requires study to address triangular visibility which may prevail as the determinant; that installing the sign too close to an intersection may violate safety requirements; that an area of flexibility may be discovered. Commissioner Patterson stated that the residents will object to a sign intruding on the residential section of Bahia Vista Street; that the Commission cannot guarantee compensation for signage if such action motivates other merchants to request the same consideration. Mayor Cardamone stated that residents on Prospect Street desire modification of the roadway from Bahia Vista to Prospect Streets located behind the proposed commercial buildings; that residents of Prospect Street fear an increase in volume of traffic; that the petitioner may consider the feasibility of designing the roadway as a dead-end; that the petitioner proffered a restriction of large truck deliveries to daylight hours through Phase I; that residents express concern that delivery trucks may arrive and leave day and night throughout Phase II and III. City Attorney Taylor stated that the site plan relates primarily to the drug store which considers the delivery issue part of the site Book 40 Page 13210 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13211 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. plan review process approved by the technical departments and the PBLP; that no substantial competent evidence exists in the record reviewed by the Circuit Court to give grounds for an alteration by edict. Mayor Cardamone stated that the case is of landmark proportions for land use in the City; that Staff, the Administration and the PBLP have disallowed commercial retail establishments on the west side of U.S. 41 to protect the neighborhoods; that this development is the first break in retail construction on the west side of U.S. 41 from the Wings establishment north of downtown all the way to the Pharmor drug store on the City Limits line; that the break is regrettable. Commissioner Patterson asked what instituted the delivery truck restrictions? Attorney Schenk stated that the petitioner proffered the condition. Commissioner Patterson asked why the restriction of delivery trucks during daylight hours applies only to Phase I? Attorney Merrill stated that the petitioner proffered the restriction to the PBLP at the time of approval; that no recollection of a specific reason can be given. Commissioner Patterson stated that delaying the project is undesirable; that the City did not prevail in Court; that the petitioners are neighbors also; however, delivery trucks arriving in the early morning hours will create difficulties for the neighbors; and asked if the petitioner will voluntarily extend the restriction pertaining to deliveries during daylight hours through Phases II and III? Attorney Merrill stated that his client, Olympia Development Group, Inc., will authorize extension of the restriction through Phases II and III. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read Ordinance No. 95-3840 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 on first reading with the following modifications: 1. The legal description of the depth of the property will be changed to 255.61 feet. 2. The restriction of large delivery trucks delivering only during daylight hours will be extended through Phase II and Phase III. 3. The numbering in proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 will be revised to include a Section 6. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance 96-3840 on first reading. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a majority of the Commission approved the original motion to accept the offer to settle; that his illness prevented attendance when the motion was rescinded and the public and the Commission decided conscientiously to approach the Court; that the petitioner had the right to refuse concessions as the City Attorney stated no inconsistency existed in the proposed ordinance per the judicial order either by error of commission or omission; that the petitioners made a generous concession by restricting delivery times since the withdrawal to settle was unilateral; that the record should show the petitioners deserving of commendation for citizenship. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission was placed in an untenable position by Staff decisions made over a period of several years; that the Commission is approving an ordinance with several contradictions to common sense interpretation of the Zoning Code; that the Commission is obligated to deal in good faith with the petitioners by approving the proposed Ordinance; that rezoning issues must be presented to the Commission and not managed through a manipulation of the Zoning Codes when Staff perceives a stumbling block to good development in the City; that the Commission is placed in a disadyantageous position which reflects on subsequent decisions; that a Zoning Code should be developed with clearer specifics and should not be adjusted to conform with any particular development finding favor with Staff; that the Snyder decision gives petitioners the right to develop land without consideration of popularity; that although no chastisement is intended, clarification of the Zoning Codes must be targeted as a goal by Staff and attorneys. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a comment is necessary on the use of the term "untenable position"; that Staff should present proposals concluded to be correct through expertise and research and not what is believed to be what the Commission wants to hear; that sometimes Staff errs and sometimes they do not; that the primary responsibility of Staff is to exercise best judgment and not presume what the Commission wants to hear. Mayor Cardamone requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes; Cardamone, no. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND COASTAL RECOVERY CENTERS, INC.- APPROVED Book 40 Page 13212 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13213 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. WITH MODIPICATIONS AND STIPULATIONS : RECEIVED COMMITMENT FROM COASTAL RECOVERY TO SEND LETTER TO THE LAUREL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING SCHEDULING TWO FULL-TIME PERSONNEL ON DUTY 24 HOURS PER DAY (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (0881) through #5 (2228) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Coastal Recovery Centers, Inc., filed a request for a 14-person residential treatment center at 1840 Morrill Street pursuant to Chapter 419, Florida Statutes; that a reasonable accommodation has been reached between Coastal Recovery and the City; that the Administration recommends a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the resulting Settlement Agreement. City Manager Sollenberger continued that Coastal Recovery has maintained strong determination to convert the Brandy Lee Apartment Complex into a residential treatment center; that Coastal Recovery will pursue litigation if thwarted, as demonstrated by complaints filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) i that reasonable accommodation is in the best interest of the City. Mike Connolly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that three different areas of law are applicable: 1. The City Zoning Code 2. Chapter 419, Florida Statutes 3. The Federal Fair Housing Act Attorney Connolly continued that the 14-person residential treatment center is the minimum accommodation which the City can make; that Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, specifically states that 14 residents comprise the functional equivalent of a family in a multiple-family district although the Fair Housing Act may allow a higher number of residents. Commissioner Patterson stated that the reference to providing services "such as crisis stabilization" is objectionable; and asked if the petitioner will agree to strike the reference. Attorney Connolly stated that the petitioner has agreed to strike the reference; that he concurs the reference is unnecessary. Commissioner Merrill stated that Staff has justified the settlement to avoid a lawsuit; that capitulation risks encouraging other agencies to file for similar approval; that Chapter 419, Florida Statutes and the Fair Housing Act defend the theory of the "protected class"; and asked who is "protected" and will Staff subsequently recommend similar settlement if groups petition for residential treatment centers in Laurel Park, Gillespie Park or Sapphire Shores. Attorney Connolly stated that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin; that the handicapped, the most heavily litigated, include recovering alcoholics and substance abusers, adults who require foster care, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled and people with traumatic brain injury. Commissioner Merrill asked what Staff will advise if a petition is filed to house 20 handicapped citizens in Laurel Park? Attorney Connolly stated that a case-by-case analysis is required under the Federal Fair Housing Act; that Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, mandates placement of 14-person residential treatment centers in a multiple-family zone and 6-person residential treatment centers in a single-family zone; however, no maximum number of residents is indicated in. the Federal Fair Housing Act. Commission Merrill asked if multiple-family or single-family residential neighborhoods may find an institution with greater than 14 residents moving into the neighborhood due to the Fair Housing Act's undefined limits? Attorney Connolly stated yes. Commissioner Merrill asked if the City can restrict buildings housing protected classes to no more than one every 1,200 feet in Laurel Park? Attorney Connolly stated that State Statutes reference the 1,200- foot limitation; that Coastal Recovery has agreed not to locate another residential treatment center within 1,200 feet; that the regulation was upheld by one Federal Circuit Court and struck down by another as discriminatory. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Chamberlain School previously requested approval for a residential treatment center; that the Commission Chamber was filled with "NIMBIS" (Not-In-My- Neighborhood) who objected on the grounds that the character of the neighborhood would be changed; that the Chamberlain School did not follow the application through to completion; however, Staff had recommended a legal fight on the basis that the proposed facility was going to be a school rather than a facility for protected classes; and asked if Staff would have recommended litigation if Chamberlain School had petitioned as a protected class? Attorney Connolly stated that the Administration would have recommended approval if Chamberlain School had been willing to limit the residential treatment center to 6 residents; that approval of a 6-person residential treatment center would have been mandated in a single-family neighborhood by the State Statute. Commissioner Merrill stated that Coastal Recovery initially did not agree to a 14-person limit for the residential treatment center but Book 40 Page 13214 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13215 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. rather petitioned for approval of up to 20 residents; and asked if Staff would not have recommended approval if approval of up to 20 residents were being requested? Attorney Connolly stated that the recommendation would have been based on a very difficult risk analysis, which must be done on a case-by-case basis; that the likelihood of success in Federal Court would not be great considering the present status of litigation under the Federal Fair Housing Act; that the State Statute is clear and mandates only the 14-resident requirement. Commissioner Merrill stated that the same argument could have been made if the Chamberlain School had asked for approval of 14 rather than 6 residents. Attorney Connolly stated that the Chamberlain School was requesting approval in a single-family neighborhood, in which residential treatment centers must be approved for up to 6 residents by State Statute; that the exponential increase from 6 to 14 persons as described for the Chamberlain School is different than an increase from 14 to 20 persons; that an analysis involving the suggested facts with the Chamberlain School would be very difficult. Commissioner Merrill stated that jurisdictions which capitulate to a protected class entity send the wrong message to the Federal Courts; that several hundred more people will seek housing if the mental health hospital in Arcadia is closed; and asked what measures will protect the citizenry from a possible tidal wave of institutions? Attorney Connolly stated that no negative signal is sent; that applicable State law limits residential treatment centers to 14 persons in a multi-family zone; that the City cannot restrict the number of residents to 10 if the State establishes the number at 14 residents. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to extend the meeting to finish the agenda. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Attorney Connolly continued that the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1988 and the Federal Court system moves very slowly; that the law is changing and fluid at this time; that establishing appropriate regulations is in the City's best interest as the Zoning Code does not currently address regulation of residential treatment centers. Commissioner Patterson stated that one problem with the Zoning Code is that double-density Adult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLFS) are allowed in every multiple-family zone with no requirement for a special exception; that drawing a distinction between individuals requiring help with daily living skills because of advanced age and those requiring help because of mental illness is impossible, particularly when similar services are required; that if limits are desired in the Zoning Code, consideration should be given to the desirability of permitting double-density ACLFS in all multiple- family zones with no requirement for a special exception or other approval process; that having an agreement following the requirements of the State Statute is probably preferable to no agreement; that Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, may be irrelevant in the City of Sarasota at this time due to the City's Zoning Code. Attorney Connolly stated that the point just made is the argument Coastal Recovery gave before the Board of Adjustment; that Coastal Recovery argued a community residential home and a residential treatment center are not different and should not be treated differently in terms of dispersal or maximum occupancy regulations; that Staff is of the opinion that differences in treatment exist; however, the factual analysis is difficult; that the issue should be addressed more clearly in the Zoning Code to alleviate future problems. Commissioner Dupree asked if the Settlement Agreement addresses the requests made by neighborhood residents? Attorney Connolly stated that the City Attorney represents the City; that the Settlement Agreement does not incorporate specific concerns of neighborhood residents due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Merrill stated that Coastal Recovery is accused of intimidation by neighborhood residents for branding free speech as discrimination; that accusations of discrimination and threats of litigation have been made against neighborhood residents who speak against a residential treatment center which treats the mentally ill; and asked if the public speakers risk property loss and possible imprisonment if differences between the ACLF and a mental health facility are opined? Attorney Connolly stated that imprisonment is not a risk as the issue is civil rather than criminal; that one Federal Judge has stated that all citizens have a First Amendment right to speak freely, while another Federal Judge determined liability exists if the speech results in a negative action. Commissioner Merrill stated that Coastal Recovery allegedly threatened to sue neighborhood residents for discrimination; and asked if citizens who publicly address safety issues can be sued? Attorney Connolly stated that a successful lawsuit against a neighborhood resident is unlikely. Book 40 Page 13216 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13217 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that a media article reported one out of four people is mentally ill; and asked if a Commissioner can be accused of discrimination for portraying differences in treatment between an ACLF and a mental health facility during public deliberations preceding a land use decision? Attorney Connolly stated that a plaintiff may testify that comments stated publicly by a Commissioner constitute an intent to discriminate. Commissioner Merrill stated that restraining a Commissioner's ability to speak the truth to avoid litigation is absurd; that the law pretends no difference exists between the mentally ill and other citizens, when obvious differences do exist. Commissioner Patterson stated that the proposed Settlement Agreement demonstrates Coastal Recovery's desire to live with the city and the neighborhood in good faith; that the neighbors and the Commission are safe from litigation despite initial inferences. Commissioner Merrill stated that both the City Manager and the County have complaints currently filed against them; that the noble intentions of Coastal Recovery are not evident. Morgan Bentley, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg; James Sleeper, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Coastal Recovery Center, Inc.; and Mr. Fritz Drybrough, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Coastal Recovery Centers, Inc. came before the Commission. Mr. Sleeper stated that appreciation is extended to the City for developing a mutually satisfactory Settlement Agreement; that beautification began with purchase of the Brandy Lee Apartments and continues as an ongoing project; that Coastal Recovery never intended to place 80 people in the residential treatment center; that the original application requested 10 beds, which the State later increased to 20; that the BOA finally reduced the number to 14 residents. Mr. Drybrough stated that Coastal Recovery does not intend to threaten or impugn any citizen; that Coastal Recovery has been proven over the years to be the best local agency licensed by the State in the field of mental health; that social service agencies protect the City by caring for people who would otherwise wander the streets. Commissioner Pillot stated that the content and manner of Mr. Sleeper's comments are appreciated; and asked if legal action is pending against the City Manager? Mr. Sleeper stated that no action or threat has been directed at any one individual in the City; that the neighborhood has not been threatened with lawsuit; that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) names the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the municipality in any complaint as standard operating policy; that Coastal Recovery did not name the City Manager. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the complaint becomes moot if the Settlement Agreement is approved at this meeting? Attorney Bentley stated that Coastal Recovery technically files the complaint and HUD executes subsequent procedure; that HUD is charged under administrative rules with first conciliating between the parties; that the Settlement Agreement fulfills the conciliation requirements of HUD which will dismiss further investigation; that Attorney Connolly can confirm the same understanding of HUD rules. Attorney Connolly stated that technically the State Attorney decides whether or not to pursue litigation after the complaint is filed; that Coastal Recovery is no longer in a position to withdraw from the Settlement Agreementi that conversations with the HUD investigator indicate no further action will be taken if the Settlement Agreement is approved. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if comfort is derived from the HUD investigator's assurances. Attorney Connolly stated yes. Attorney Bentley stated that the HUD investigator did offer an explicit verbal commitment to dismiss the complaint. Mayor Cardamone asked if the complaint by Coastal Recovery is now controlled by HUD? Attorney Connolly stated that HUD should send a letter to confirm suspension of further action. Commissioner Merrill stated that friendly demeanors are presented at public meetings but that behind-the-scenes actions indicate otherwise; and asked why Coastal Recovery earlier denied that a complaint was filed against the City? Mr. Sleeper stated that the earlier question referred to action brought against the City Manager; that Coastal Recovery filed a complaint with HUD under the Fair Housing Act which addressed stalled negotiations between Coastal Recovery and the City. Commissioner Merrill asked who prepared the document received from HUD? Book 40 Page 13218 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13219 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Attorney Connolly stated that the document from HUD does not indicate the identity of the prepareri that the signature on the complaint document is that of Mr. Sleeper. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of an earlier denial that Coastal Recovery filed a complaint against the City Manager? Mr. Sleeper stated that Coastal Recovery did not name the City Manager. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the complaint was filed against the City Manager and the City; that the complaint filed by the Chamberlain Schools implicated only the City. Commissioner Merrill stated that a credibility issue has been repeatedly raised by neighborhood residents. Mr. Sleeper stated that Coastal Recovery filed a complaint against the City but did not name the City Manager. Commissioner Merrill stated that multiple-family residential areas have been historically defined as buildings housing more than one family rather than multiple, unrelated individuals residing within one unit; that social service agencies can either locate residential treatment centers in Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) zones outside residential neighborhoods or locate low-volume residential treatment centers within residential neighborhoods; that Coastal Recovery probably will attend neither neighborhood association meetings nor functions in Laurel Park; that the number rather than the nat ture of the residents is the primary concern; that the character of the neighborhood should not be changed by the presence of an institution; that at a meeting in Laurel Park, a Volunteers of America (VOA) representative stated that the VOA researches and conforms with the zoning restrictions in a municipality; that Coastal Recovery understood the zoning restrictions in Laurel Park from the time of purchase and threatened litigation to win approval for rezoning; that Coastal Recovery once intimated that a neighborhood resident may be sued; that Commissioner Merrill is willing to act as defendant to test the case in court; and asked if Mr. Sleeper remembered the conversation? Mr. Sleeper stated that the conversation is not recalled. Commissioner Merrill stated that the conversation is explicitly remembered; that neighborhood residents are concerned about Mr. Sleeper's confrontational attitude which has received positive coverage in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that the Settlement Agreement is a desirable but not promising resolution of the issues. Commissioner Patterson stated that Coastal Recovery was granted greater latitude regarding the character of residents of the residential treatment center in an earlier agreement; that specific requirements concerning beautifiçation inserted into the earlier agreement are not addressed in the current Settlement Agreementi; that beautification of the Brandy Lee Apartment Complex is a neighborhood concern; that Coastal Recovery provided assurances of future beautification; and asked how Coastal Recovery intends to proceed on the subject of landscaping? Mr. Sleeper distributed pictures of the Brandy Lee Apartment Complex and stated that beautification efforts at the apartment complex and neighboring buildings are illustrated. Commissioner Patterson asked if the pictures include an extra lot? Mr. Sleeper stated that adjacent properties are pictured. Commissioner Patterson stated that some properties in the neighborhood are beautifully landscaped and some are not; that Coastal Recovery is requested to beautify. Mr. Sleeper stated that the process of beautification has been ongoing and will continue. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the Settlement Agreement does not bind Coastal Recovery to any oral commitments and that issues of landscaping are secondary; that the President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) agrees the compromise is acceptable. Attorney Bentley stated that the City Manager's name appears on the complaint form because the short HUD form requests the names of the parties; that Coastal Recovery refers only to the City as defendant in the attachment which details the complaint; that the City Manager's name is included because of a denial which occurred at the end of the summer of 1995; that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is viewed as "the City" and considered by the State to be the denier; that the City Manager is identified as the individual who denied the zoning under Chapter 419, Florida Statutes; and asked if any inquiries from HUD have been directed to the City Manager? City Manager Sollenberger stated that two complaint forms have been filed; that HUD has followed through with letters addressed to the City in general and to the City Manager in particular. Attorney Bentley stated that the file with the November correspondence and the response from HUD has only one complaint. city Manager Sollenberger stated that correspondence addressed both to the City and to the City Manager has been received. Book 40 Page 13220 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13221 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Attorney Bentley stated that the complainant is allowed to make only one complaint. City Manager Sollenberger stated that files show that two separate complaints are filed. Attorney Bentley stated that Coastal Recovery did not make two complaints because no requirement exists to do so. City Manager Sollenberger stated that two complaints were served: one on the City and one on the City Manager. Attorney Bentley stated that HUD may have processed the complaint in a certain manner due to the fact that the City is a corporate body and because the City Manager is the CEO; that the additional naming of the City Manager came not from Coastal Recovery but from HUD; that HUD's file will prove that Coastal Recovery filed only one complaint with Mr. Sleeper's signature. city Manager Sollenberger stated that a copy of the City's file will be sent to Attorney Bentley. Attorney Bentley stated that an apology will be presented to the Commission if two separate letters exist. Mr. Sleeper stated that an apology would be forthcoming from him as well. Commissioner Merrill stated that the name of the City Manager was specifically entered as a response to a question in the form; that the documentation before the Commission reveals a complaint with Mr. Sleeper's signature which identifies the City Manager as the individual who violated Chapter 419, Florida Statutes; that Mr. Sleeper earlier denied filing a complaint against the City Manager. Mr. Sleeper stated that the complaint was filed against the City. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the specific part of the form requests the complainant to name the individual(s) who have violated the law and that the City Manager's name is printed in ink; and asked if the HUD complaint is analogous to a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)? Attorney Bentley stated yes; that the attachment to the document is the only complaint filed by Coastal Recovery. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the complaint, signed by Mr. Sleeper explicitly accuses the City Manager, by name, of violating the law. Attorney Bentley stated that Coastal Recovery's intent was to identify the individual responsible for making the decision as the CEO according to Chapter 419, Florida Statutes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that as School Superintendent, eleven complaints with EEOC were filed, none of which were successful; that Coastal Recovery's complaint against the City Manager is in error; and asked why Coastal Recovery refuses to admit that the complaint was entered against the City Manager? Attorney Bentley stated that the intent when the complaint was filed was different. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the language on the form clearly states the City Manager violated the law; and asked why an admission of the action is not forthcoming? Sheryl Wilson, Resource Developer, Coastal Recovery Centers, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that Coastal Recovery indicated the City to be at fault when the complaint was originally filed; that the people at HUD who investigate complaints telephoned and asked the name of the CEO or CAO of the City; that the resubmitted complaint named the City Manager. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a Coastal Recovery representative wrote the name "David Sollenberger" on the form. Ms. Wilson asked if the words are handwritten or typed? Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the words are handwritten. Ms. Wilson stated that the writing on the form was entered by a HUD employee in Atlanta; that she provided the City Manager's name. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if Coastal Recovery received a copy of the complaint? Ms. Wilson stated yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Coastal Recovery knows that an action has been entered against the City Manager. Ms. Wilson stated that the complaint was not filed as a personal action against the City Manager, but in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the complaint accuses the City Manager of violating the law; that a vote will be cast against approval of the Settlement Agreement unless Coastal Recovery promises on record to take necessary steps to rescind the action against the City Manager. Book 40 Page 13222 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13223 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Attorney Bentley stated that HUD will be called to assure the dismissal of any individual action against the City Manager. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if Coastal Recovery, the client, will go on record. Attorney Bentley stated that apology is offered to the City Manager and to the Commission if the language is interpreted to implicate the City Manager personally. Mayor Cardamone stated that the attorney for Coastal Recovery has a thorough understanding of the law which states that the City Manager is sued if the City is sued; and asked if Mr. Sleeper will satisfy the Vice Mayor's request? Mr. Sleeper stated that all necessary steps will be taken to assure that the City Manager is not the target of legal action. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the City expects the official representatives of Coastal Recovery to take every possible measure to convince HUD to dismiss the complaints. Mr. Sleeper stated that HUD was contacted and asked not to attend the meeting because of the significant progress made between Coastal Recovery and the City; that Coastal Recovery will pursue both the elimination of the City Manager's name and dismissal of the complaint; that the City Manager's efforts are appreciated. Commissioner Patterson asked that correspondence in relation to the Vice Mayor's request be copied to the Commission. Mr. Drybrough stated that dismissal of the complaint will be addressed at the Board of Directors' meeting on Wednesday. Mayor Cardamone stated that the City must receive confirmation that a Coastal Recovery representative has made a telephone call to Atlanta on Tuesday morning, May 21, 1996, to initiate the dismissal of the complaint against the City. The following speakers came before the Commission: Tina Taylor Little, 534 Columbia Court (34236), stated that neighborhood residents are concerned about the Laurel Park neighborhood, Coastal Recovery is concerned about the mentally ill, and the Commission is concerned about the City; that a personal knowledge of Mr. Drybrough indicates sanity, decency, kindness and fairness; that an attempt should be made to interpret statements from the perspective of the speaker; that disbelief arises at Coastal Recovery's attempt to dissemble the truth before the Commission. Ms. Little continued that Laurel Park will welcome Coastal Recovery into the neighborhood; that the eyes of the neighborhood will be on Coastal Recovery as on every other property in the neighborhood; that a positive relationship will develop if the residential treatment center is adequately staffed, if the rooms are clean, if the service is adequate, and if Coastal Recovery listens to, communicates with, and helps the neighbors; that a negative relationship will develop if Coastal Recovery does not cooperate; that information reveals that only one staff member will be on duty after 11:00 p.m. and asked Coastal Recovery to commit to scheduling two staff members on duty 24 hours per day? Mr. Sleeper stated that limited finances restrict the ability to make a commitment; that the scheduling of two people on duty after 11:00 p.m. cannot be promised, but every avenue will be pursued and the neighborhood will be contacted with an answer. Ms. Little stated that the inability of Coastal Recovery to afford one more staff member is frightening. Mr. Sleeper stated that resources are limited. Attorney Bentley stated that an apology is offered for his reaction to an earlier question. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Attorney Bentley's reaction was the more courteous than his. Brian McGinnis, 1742 Laurel Street, stated that the nature of the evening's conversation with Coastal Recovery illustrates the discourse between Coastal Recovery, the City and the LPNA for the past eighteen months; that the tactics and demeanor employed by Coastal Recovery are unacceptable; that the original application for the licensure of a Residential Treatment Facility (RTF) in the City requested approval for a 20-bed, Level II, RTF; that Coastal Recovery's earlier statement claiming the original number of beds was increased from ten to twenty by the State is misleading as the State mandated an increase not on Morrill Street, but at Audubon Place; that the action taken against the City occurred after Coastal Recovery was denied the initial application for twenty residents; that clarification of specific points and representations made by Coastal Recovery must be constantly readdressed; that the property at Morrill Street was purchased absent of zoning approval by the City. Mr. McGinnis continued that 50 people attended a meeting planned in the City Commission Chambers between Coastal Recovery representatives and Laurel Park neighborhood residents; that Commissioners Merrill and Patterson were asked to leave prior to the commencement of the meeting; that Coastal Recovery claims the Chapter 419, Florida Statutes provision for a disbursal to avoid an Book 40 Page 13224 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13225 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. over concentration of group homes in residential areas does not apply; that Coastal Recovery has characterized reasonable concerns expressed by the neighborhood and City government as fears and practices of discrimination and filed complaints against the City Manager and the City; that the Settlement Agreement cannot be supported as the zoning is not correct. Mr. McGinnis further stated that a commitment from Coastal Recovery ensuring two staff people on duty 24 hours a day should be a requisite for City approval of the Settlement Agreement; that Coastal Recovery should provide aesthetic improvements consistent with desirable properties in the neighborhood; that equal opportunity should be provided with the remaining apartments; that six units will be used for the residential treatment center, leaving sixteen additional apartments available for rental; that Coastal Recovery is challenged to follow Fair Housing Act practices which discourage the creation of ghettoes by congregating economically disadvantaged people; that Federal programs are implemented which encourage open market rental by limiting subsidized housing to a percentage of the units available creating a more equal socio-economic setting; that the City's deliberations are appreciated. Martha Haffner, 543 Madison Court (34236), President, Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, stated that Coastal Recovery has been requested to include landscaping specified in the original agreement in the proposed Settlement Agreement; that promises offered by Coastal Recovery do not instill confidence; that the Settlement Agreement should include the assurance that two staff members will be on duty 24 hours per day; that thanks is offered for the Commission's efforts on behalf of the neighborhood. Mayor Cardamone asked if the LPNA Board has reached a position on the Settlement Agreement? Ms. Haffner stated that the LPNA Board supports the Settlement Agreement and asks for the inclusion of the two recommendations. Norman Dempsey, 7294 Cloister Drive (34231), stated that Coastal Recovery terminated his employment for refusal. to work at the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) i that only one counselor is on duty for every 15 people in the group environment; that a mobile screener which provides off-site emergency care was promised during 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shifts and is not always available; that an intensive case manager or the police must be called when a mobile screener is not available; that one of the night counselors confirmed that two people on duty at night is essential. Devin Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street (34236), stated that appreciation is expressed to the Staff and Commission; that the President of Coastal Recovery accused him and the Commission of practicing discrimination; that Coastal Recovery revealed the intention to purchase the Brandy Lee Apartment Complex: three buildings, twenty-two units, forty-two bedrooms, capable of accommodating 60 to 80 individuals allegedly to house ten people; that a battle was promised the neighborhood if the residential treatment center was resisted; that confrontation with a $12 million per year nonprofit corporation was not desired; that the need for such a large facility for housing 10 clients was questioned; that a great many meetings, discussions and shouting matches have occurred in conjunction with the fear of lawsuit; that the possibility of neighborhood houses being firebombed was raised; that as a result, the LPNA is stronger and more unified than ever before. Mr. Rutkowski continued that the Settlement Agreement is not supported; that many insults were exchanged during the process but the biggest insult is that the neighbors, Coastal Recovery's representatives and the City Manager never met together to discuss what the neighbors believe should be included in the Settlement Agreement; that research has demonstrated that accountability from Health & Rehabilitation Service (HRS), from the Agency for Health Care Administration (ACHA) or from Coastal Recovery is difficult; that accountability is expected from Coastal Recovery in the future; that only the best is wished for Coastal Recovery. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Staff determined the Settlement Agreement to be preferable to a court decision; and asked if issues, other than the promise by Coastal Recovery to drop the complaints, exist to prevent the City from successfully approving the Settlement Agreement. Attorney Connolly stated that the Settlement Agreement is in complete compliance with Chapter 419, Florida Statutes and the Fair Housing Act; that nothing else can be required for inclusion in the Settlement Agreement. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the oral promise to dismiss the complaints submitted at the meeting by the Coastal Recovery representatives can be appended to the Settlement Agreement. Attorney Connolly stated that a landscape plan can be appended provided that agreement is reached by both parties before May 31, 1996; that the City must grant the siting with no control over beautification if a decision is not reached by May 31, 1996. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the tape recording or the written minutes can be excerpted to stipulate the issues agreed upon by Coastal Recovery representatives? Attorney Connolly stated that appending excerpts from the meeting to the Settlement Agreement is not desirable. Book 40 Page 13226 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13227 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if a supplemental document can be created? Attorney Connolly stated that a supplemental document can be created if Coastal Recovery agrees. Vice Mayor Pillot asked why promises made orally and on record by Coastal Recovery cannot be produced in writing? Attorney Connolly stated that the Settlement Agreement is finalized and any other representations made by either party are outside the Settlement Agreement; that Coastal Recovery cannot be legally bound by oral stipulations made before the Commission. Attorney Bentley stated that a promise made by Coastal Recovery's President to rescind the complaint against the City Manager and the City, and the promise of a resolution by the Board of Coastal Recovery to dismiss the complaints will be prepared and attached as a separate paragraph; that the necessary provisions will incorporate the promises into the Settlement Agreement. Vice Mayor Pillot expressed appreciation and stated that neighborhood residents requested two full-time Staff personnel 24 hours a day; that Coastal Recovery's answer intimating budgetary considerations is reasonable; and asked if a letter to the President of the LPNA will be appropriate? Attorney Bentley stated a letter may be sent from Coastal Recovery to the LPNA; that no dissembling is intended as legitimate budgetary restraints exist. Vice Mayor Pillot asked that reasonable consideration will be offered with no promises? Attorney Bentley stated that the letter to the LPNA and the resolution of the Board of Directors will be delivered Wednesday or Thursday to the Mayor's office. Commissioner Patterson stated that the plants in the pictures presented by Coastal Recovery at the meeting are small; and asked for commitment from the petitioner that larger plants will be included? Mayor Cardamone stated that an issue is being opened which will invite rebuttal. Commissioner Patterson stated that rules governing a Snyder decision hearing do not apply. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Snyder decision hearing is not referenced; that when individuals who spoke earlier return to the Commission to answer questions, others must also be given the same right to do so. Commissioner Patterson stated that an answer to the question is desired. Mayor Cardamone stated that her ruling stands. Ms. Wilson stated that construction, including installation of a fire sprinkler system at the location, precludes immediate landscaping of large, mature plants; that the Commission and ACHA approvals of the Settlement Agreement are required prior to renovations which will include extensive landscaping; that the landscaping provided at Audubon Place and at the CSU is very attractive. Commissioner Patterson that construction of the residential treatment center requires building permits for HRS approval; and asked if specific unit numbers will be identified? Ms. Wilson stated yes. Commissioner Dupree stated that the first four sentences of the Settlement Agreement appear repetitious; and asked the intent? Attorney Connolly stated that the Settlement Agreement is drafted to dispel doubt; that the first sentence states that the City approves a 14-bed residential treatment center; that the second sentence assures that Coastal Recovery will not increase the number of residents; that the third sentence promises that Coastal Recovery will never apply to increase the number of residents to more than 14; that the fourth sentence promises that no other residential treatment center will be instituted at the Brandy Lee Apartment Complex. Commissioner Dupree asked if one person on duty can supervise 14 emotionally handicapped persons? Attorney Connolly stated that no Staff member possesses the expertise necessary to render judgment; that the City can only approve or deny the siting of the residential treatment center; that operational regulation is solely within the expertise of ACHA, the licensing body. Mayor Cardamone asked if the apartments detached from the residential treatment center are addressed by Staff? Attorney Connolly stated that Coastal Recovery specifies in the Settlement Agreement that units not part of the residential treatment center will be offered on the general rental market; that Coastal Recovery will provide services exclusively to the 14 residents in the residential treatment center; that Fair Housing Book 40 Page 13228 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13229 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Act rules do not allow further restrictions in the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Merrill asked what services can be provided by Coastal Recovery to the remaining units? Attorney Connolly stated that services which are available to the public at large can be provided in the extra units; that an analogy is drawn to an automobile accident during which witnesses offer help to the accident victims until the Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) arrive; that any interference by the City in universal services provided by a landlord is a blatant violation of the Fair Housing Act. Commissioner Merrill stated that a citizen suffering from cancer can receive full medical services in a house, including live-in attendant, live-in doctor, live-in nurse, etc; and asked if the administering of drugs or counseling are limited by the Settlement Agreement? Attorney Connolly stated that Coastal Recovery cannot administer drugs or counseling at the apartments since those services are provided at a non-residential Coastal Recovery facility Commissioner Merrill stated that further clarification is requested; that the Settlement Agreement states that no patient services will be provided on the property to tenants of the apartments, except those services available to the public at large; and asked if Coastal Recovery can be called to provide mental health services at a private home? Attorney Bentley stated that the service available to the public at large is short-term treatment for crisis stabilization which is provided to anyone in any private home or facility; that a statement in the original draft which restricted the number of Coastal Recovery patients allowed in the remaining apartments to no more than 50% was deleted to accommodate confidentiality provisions; that no patient services will be provided to tenants of the remaining units whether or not patients of Coastal Recovery; that the Settlement Agreement ensures all services, including counseling, group therapy, etc., for residents outside the residential treatment center will be off-site. Commissioner Merrill stated that providing long-term, mental health services to residents of the apartment units at another, off-site location owned by Coastal Recovery is acceptable; that the phrase "except for those services available to the public at large" should be deleted. Attorney Bentley stated that crisis stabilization is Coastal Recovery's primary function; that the original sentence ended with the phrase "such as crisis stabilization", Commissioner Merrill stated that the phrase should be reinserted; that providing temporary help to a person having a breakdown is not as great a problem as the possibility of transforming the entire property into an institution; that the phrase "except for crisis stabilization" should be included. Commissioner Patterson stated that the phrase "except for services available to the general public" should be deleted. Attorney Connolly stated that the sentence will read "no services of any type will be provided on the property to any of the residents of the units outside the community residential home, except for crisis stabilization." Mr. Sleeper stated that Coastal Recovery will function exclusively as landlord for the tenants outside the residential treatment center. Commissioner Dupree asked if Coastal Recovery will offer services to emotionally handicapped people who may rent the other units? Attorney Connolly stated that Coastal Recovery offers all services off-site; that a patient of Coastal Recovery renting an independent unit will receive no services at the Brandy Lee Apartment Complex. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and seconded by Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Settlement Agreement with the following provisions: 1. Coastal Recovery will contact HUD and take every possible measure to dismiss the complaints against the City and the City Manager and copy the Commission on any correspondence. 2. The Board of Coastal Recovery will pass a resolution to eliminate the complaints against the City and the City Manager and copy the Commission on any correspondence. 3. The Attorney for Coastal Recovery will re-execute the necessary provisions to incorporate the promises to urge HUD dismissal of the action into the Settlement Agreement. 4. The City Attorney will include the following statement in the Settlement Agreement: "No services of any type will be provided on the property to any of the residents of Book 40 Page 13230 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13231 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. the units outside the community residential home, except for crisis stabilization. 5. The President of Coastal Recovery will send a letter to the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association stating an intent to investigate the possibility within budgetary restraints of scheduling two full-time personnel on duty 24 hours per day and copy the Commission on any correspondence. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Laurel and Gillespie Parks have become the two most upwardly mobile neighborhoods in the City due to the progressive upgrading of the homes and the design of the parks; that ordinarily a vote would be cast against the Settlement Agreement although Coastal Recovery deserves a great deal of respect for the services provided; that a "yes" vote will be cast on the motion because the City can make no other common sense decision. Commissioner Dupree stated that the request by neighborhood residents to schedule two personnel on duty 24 hours per day is reasonable, if the financial capability exists; that Coastal Recovery should provide the requested landscaping. Commissioner Merrill stated that Coastal Recovery was asked to schedule a meeting in the neighborhood to discuss the possible improvement of the Brandy Lee Apartment Complex; that the relationship between concerned parties deteriorated after the meeting failed to materialize; that he initially informed the City Manager that a vote would be cast in support of the Settlement Agreement; that during a recent neighborhood meeting only two neighborhood residents were present for a panel discussion which was attended by neither Coastal Recovery nor the City; that the Settlement Agreement will not receive his support because the neighborhood was excluded from the process. Commissioner Merrill continued that the aggressiveness of Coastal Recovery's management creates problems; that the City Manager helped Coastal Recovery tremendously in the development of the 10th Street facility where land was received from the City; that the City Manager is highly concerned about the HUD complaint and is maintaining distance from the issue for fear of legal repercussions and damage to reputation; that the primary reason for the "nay" vote is the exclusion of the neighborhood from the Settlement Agreement; that the State believes the maximum who qualify in a multiple-family neighborhood is 20 residents per facility and may overturn the Settlement Agreement which restricts the number to 14 residents; that major implications are predicted for zoning in the City, if not the entire country; that an institution should buy a piece of land and build a residential treatment center in an MCI or commercial zone; that a "no" vote will be cast. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion will be supported; that a smaller facility in a single-family house would have been preferable to a facility in a large apartment complex; that the philosophy should be to integrate people who cannot live alone or in a family setting into a neighborhood rather than an institutional setting; that the city Attorney's office was encouraged to seek outside legal advice to confirm the legal opinion that a great deal could not be done to assure the city would prevail in Court; that Staff previously indicated to Coastal Recovery that a 20-bed facility would not be permitted, a decision which would have been appealed; that she served as a former Member and President of the Board of Storefront, the predecessor to Coastal Recovery, at a time when Mr. Sleeper worked for the agency as second in command; that her support was solicited; however, at a lunch meeting with Mr. Sleeper, the current President, and another member of the Board of Coastal Recovery, no commitment was made but rather an explanation offered that the neighbors are heroes for having resurrected, with City help, a declining neighborhood; that the continued activity of Laurel and Gillespie Parks' neighborhood residents is essential to maintain the prosperity of the Downtown district; that Coastal Recovery stated no objection to limiting the institution to a 14-bed facility and offered assurance that the complex will not be filled with Coastal Recovery patients; that the discussion offered a degree of optimism for agreement on the project. Commissioner Patterson continued that through meetings and telephone conversations neighborhood residents have had input into the various agreements; that the Commission cannot perform miracles or change the laws or court situation; that neighborhood residents suggested the City should buy the complex and offered to help find a facility large enough for a 14-bed residential treatment center; that the Board of Coastal Recovery wanted to place the 14 residents with no further delay; that the real focus perceived from discussions with neighborhood residents is restricting the residential treatment center to a 14-bed facility rather than an 80-bed facility; that Coastal Recovery was asked to place the intended functions and goals of the facility in writing and agreed in goodwill to accede to her request. Commissioner Patterson further stated that the Commission did not have an opportunity to design the Settlement Agreement line by line; that the attorneys developed the Settlement Agreementi that pairing neighborhood residents with opposing attorneys for the purpose of designing an agreement is probably not possible; that the Commission, the Staff and the City Attorney's office attempted to create the best settlement agreement possible to address Coastal Recovery's needs and limit repercussions from an overwhelmingly permissive court system; that Coastal Recovery's intent and purpose in helping people is praised; however, Coastal Recovery should work with the neighborhood and will be viewed negatively if the Book 40 Page 13232 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13233 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. scheduling of only one staff person on duty leads to unpleasant incidents; that Coastal Recovery is urged to give serious consideration to the neighborhood's request, although she cannot legally demand that consideration. Vice Mayor Pillot asked what will be the repercussion if Commission does not approve the Settlement Agreement? Attorney Connolly stated that the HUD investigator will arrive in the City in June if the problem is not resolved; that past experiences with HUD indicate that conciliation means giving in; that no optimism exists that the HUD investigation will result in an agreement as positive for the City as the Settlement Agreement presented for approval; that legal ramifications include the filing of a civil lawsuit against the City by HUD or an aggrieved party; that astronomical damages have been awarded in HUD cases. Mayor Cardamone stated that she was out of town when the first neighborhood meeting was held between Coastal Recovery and LPNA; that Coastal Recovery's requesting Commissioners Patterson and Merrill to leave a City neighborhood meeting was inappropriate; that highly critical comments about the Commission, the Administration, and the LPNA, have been received from Mr. Sleeper via telephone calls as well as public; that the demeaner of Coastal Recovery representatives during tonight's dicussions indicates their unwillingness to resolve the neighborhood issues through a cooperative effort; that the settlement agreement will not be supported. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, no. 18. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSION WITH KEY PACKAGING COMPANY RELATING TO PRODUCTION RELOCATION AT THE CITY OWNED 10TH STREET SITE - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #5 (2229) through (2610) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Key Packaging Company wants to relocate for current and future expansion purposes; that Key Packaging Company is located at 2752 Leonard Reid Avenue at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and employs 80 people, a number of whom are from the Newtown area; that meetings between the City and Earl Smith, President and CEO of Key Packaging Company, included a joint meeting with the County Administrator and a member of the Committee of 100; that the City originally offered the City-owned 18 acres on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way adjacent to the railroad tracks but found the cost of fill was prohibitive; that Key Packaging Company is interested in the City's property on 10th Street easterly from Central Avenue in front of Coastal Recovery's Crisis Stabilization Unit. City Manager Sollenberger continued that the Administration recommends a motion to authorize the City Manager and Staff to enter into discussions with Key Packaging Company to relocate the plant to the City-owned 10th Street site; that the current plant has been toured recently and is most impressive; that the public interest will be served by facilitating a growing, local company to produce jobs. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if approval of the current recommendation will result only in discussions with Key Packaging Company and if the City Manager will return to the Commission with a recommendation for an agreement? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the land, terms, and incentives will be addressed; that the County has been approached to mitigate impact fees; that the City's Grants Consultant has been asked to determine the possibility of financial aid. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the authorization allows the City Manger to pursue the matter without making a final decision and return to the Commission with a recommendation for action? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to accept the City Manager's recommendation to enter into discussions with Key Packaging Company relative to production relocation to the City-owned 10th Street site. Earl Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Key Packaging Company, came before the Commission and expressed appreciation; and stated that Key Packaging Company has been located in the Newtown area since 1970 and desires to remain in the community; that positive feedback received from the Committee of 100, County Commissioners and Staff will be pursued; that a win-win situation is the goal. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a successful agreement is anticipated. Commissioner Dupree stated that a win-win situation is highly likely; that other potential City-owned properties did not qualify; that a tour of the current facility proves that the current plant is cramped; that the City Manager has his approval to develop the best possible scenario. Mr. Smith stated that an invitation is extended to the Commission on any day between Monday and Thursday to witness past Book 40 Page 13234 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13235 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. accomplishments and future plans; that telephone calls to arrange a tour are welcome. Commissioner Patterson stated that the area north of 10th Street will be a highly suitable employment center which should be developed as an employment bank for the area; that creating a more attractive business foundation is desirable as the current industrial facilities are neither high employers nor remotely acceptable as a physical neighbor; that a positive resolution is anticipated. Mayor Cardamone stated that an industrial concentration should be developed along the entire length of Central Avenue; that the next step is to expand from 10th to 12th Streets; and asked if the industrial area to the west side of Central Avenue between 10th and 12th Streets has been explored. Mr. Smith stated that the owners of the concrete plants are not interested in selling, as construction on Longboat Key is. serviced and is expected to continue for four or five more years. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 19. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: SARASOTA HOUSING AUTHORITY = APPOINTED MRS. DANNIE R. FRAZIER (AGENDA ITEM IX) #5 (2621) through (2783) Mayor Cardamone stated that the letter of resignation submitted by Mr. Charles Williams creates a vacancy on the Sarasota Housing Authority Board; that she would like to extend a thank you to Mr. Williams for his service on the board. Mayor Cardamone continued that Mrs. Dannie R. Frazier is nominated to fill the unexpired term; that the nominee is a retired educator, with a Bachelors and Masters degree in education from Alabama State Teachers College and 36 years experience as a classroom teacher; that the nominee is involved in many activities, including the Drug Free Action Team - Newtown and the J.H. Floyd Executive Board; that a dedicated concern has been expressed towards children in public housing; that a great amount of pleasure accompanies presentation of the nominee for approval. Commissioner Dupree stated that the nomination of Mrs. Frazier gives great pleasure; that the nominee has been a personal acquaintance for many years. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Vice Mayor Pillot it was moved to endorse the Mayor's appointment, Mrs. Dannie R. Frazier, to the Sarasota Housing Authority Board to fulfill the unexpired term of Mr. Williams. The motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 20. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = RECEIVED REPORT ON TDC MEETING; DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTACT COUNTY COMMISSION REGARDING NUMBER OF BOOKS PLANNED FOR NEW LIBRARY; DIRECTED STAFF TO REPORT ON SIESTA KEY DRAINAGE OPTIONS TO QUALIFY FOR $250,000 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) FUNDS; CONSENSUS TO SEND A KEY TO THE CITY TO THE MAYOR OR REYKJAVIK, ICELAND (AGENDA ITEM X) #5 (2787) through (3467) VICE MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that a report is offered regarding his first meeting as a member of the Tourist Development Council (TDC); that a motion was made directing the TDC to ask the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to add one cent on the bed tax; that the second part of the motion directs the proceeds from the first year of collection to finance any shortfall in matching funds for Lido Beach restoration and that subsequent monies will promote a conference center; that he seconded the motion; that the motion passed five to two. COMMISSIONER DUPREE: A. stated that a small announcement in the newspaper drew a large number of people to a meeting on May 20, 1996, with Commissioner Patterson and representatives of the Sarasota County Department of Parks and Recreation, at which the subject of recreational facilities and job opportunities for young people was addressed; that support from the Commission would be appreciated to provide activities for middle and high school students; that very little is provided to older children, while elementary school students have a wide range of recreational activities. Mayor Cardamone stated that she also attended the meeting; that the overflow attendance confirms that the community is interested and her support is offered. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that a call received from the Friends of Selby Library addressed the number of books planned for the new downtown facility; that plans disclosed at a public meeting reveal that the new library is slated to house 90,000 books, slightly more than half of the 166,000 Book 40 Page 13236 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13237 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. currently stocked; that the City is being shortchanged if the square footage allocated to books in the planned library is substantially smaller than the current library; that Commission support is requested to ask the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to address the issue. Commissioner Dupree stated that a similar telephone call was received with the same information; that his support is offered. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the City Manager should contact the County Administrator at the earliest possible time? Commissioner Patterson stated that the City Manager should send a letter to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners; that the County Commission should publicly assure the City that the number of books will not be decreased before voting on the design of the new library building. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the City Manager should determine the manner in which to notify the County. Mayor Cardamone stated that there is a consensus of the Commission for the City Manager to contact the County Administrator and Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to address the number of books and the square footage allowed for books prior to a vote on the new library building design. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that cutting the number of books by nearly one half is inane as is any action which will not increase the number of books from 166,000. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Board of County Commissioners should address the issue to dispel the rumor. Commissioner Patterson B. stated that at the May 20, 1996, meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) a recommendation was made to use the $250,000 remaining from the Bay Crossing charette to fund drainage improvements on Siesta Drive on Siesta Key; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) proposes a $5 million solution which raises the road way and seizes private citizens' front yards; that the City and County working together can make the necessary drainage improvements less expensively and more satisfactorily; and asked if the city should pursue efforts to obtain the funding from the MPO. Commissioner Merrill stated that the vote failed due to a negative vote of one Commissioner on the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Cardamone stated that there was a consensus of the Commission for the City's MPO representatives to pursue efforts to obtain the $250,000 in funding for use in correcting the drainage problems on Siesta Drive. MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that a request has been received from a Sarasota retired teacher to present a Key to the City to the Mayor of Reykjavik, Iceland; and asked for clarification of the practice of presenting Keys to the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that a Key to the City was sent to Russia; that Commissioner Merrill presented a Key to the City in France. Commissioner Merrill stated that presenting Keys to the City is at the Mayor's discretion. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the presentation of a Key to the City is very much appreciated and well received; that a Key to the City has been presented in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Limerick City, Ireland; that the presentations have been made by the Mayor or on behalf of the Mayor; that the Key is being requested for presentation to the Mayor of Reykjavik, Iceland. B. stated that a great deal of noise was generated by the Lemon Coast Bar at approximately 4 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, May 19, 1996, which is a legitimate cause for complaint by the nearby residents; that a discussion of the problem will occur at a future Commission meeting. 21. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #5 (3468) through (3604) DEPUTY CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK MCGOWAN: A. stated that a joint workshop is scheduled with the Charter Review Committee from 4 to 6 p.m. on Thursday, May 30, 1996; that a joint workshop with the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency and the Board of Adjustment concerning the Land Development Regulations is scheduled from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 31, 1996; that a workshop on various topics of concern is scheduled at Selby Gardens from 9 to 11 a.m. on Saturday, June 1, 1996. Book 40 Page 13238 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Book 40 Page 13239 05/20/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that the meeting will be at the Christy Payne House on the corner of Mound Street and Palm Avenue. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that the City will host the Florida City and County Management Association annual conference at the Hyatt Hotel starting on Wednesday, May 22, 1996; that Mayor Cardamone will welcome the delegates on behalf of the City. 22. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #5 (3605) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of May 20, 1996, at 1:55 a.m. S016 Ahlas MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR ATTEST! Baut E Robenson BPETSBOBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK