BOOK 55 Page 26651 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2003, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Palmer recognized Shannon Staub, Chair, and David Mills, Commissioner, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners present in the Chambers audience. 1. APPOINTMENT RE: : PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD = APPOINTED GERALDINE LUDWIG (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 6:00 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one vacancy exists on the Environmental Protection Advisory Board (Parks Board) due to the resignation of Jay Gorzelany; that the appointment was on the Agenda for the November 17, 2003, Commission meeting; however, due to a tie vote, the Commission requested the appointment be placed on the Agenda at the next Commission meeting at which a full Commission would be present; that Matthew Woodall has subsequently withdrawn his application. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to appoint Geraldine Ludwig to the vacant seat on the Environmental Protection Advisory Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 2. APPOINTMENT RE : PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE - REAPPOINTED VICKY RANDALL AND BONNIE LANCASTER TO THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 6:01 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the terms held by Vicky Randall and Bonnie Lancaster on the Public Art Committee have expired; that Ms. Randall is filling the seat designated for an art expert and Ms. Lancaster is filling the seat designated for a City resident or property owner; that both are eligible have expressed an interest in reappointment; that no other applications have been received. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to reappoint Vicky Randall and Bonnie Lancaster to the Public Art Committee. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yesi Palmer, yes. 3. APPOINTMENT RE: : ST. ARMANDS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REAPPOINTED MICHAEL VALENTINO (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 6:02 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the term held by Michael Valentino expires on December 31, 2003; that Mr. Valentino is eligible and has expressed an interest in reappointment; that no other applications have been received. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to reappoint Michael Valentino to the St. Armands Business Improvement District Board of Directors. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mayor Palmer recognized Sarasota County Commissioner Paul Mercier present in the Chambers audience. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the BOOK 55 Page 26652 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26653 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Palmer requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that the requirements of quasi-judicial public hearings were defined by the judicial process; that during quasi-judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that time limits will be established; that Affected Persons are individuals especially interested in the proceedings due to proximity to or other special interest in the subject property; that Applicants, Affected Persons, and the City will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and for cross-examination. 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1674, APPROVING THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION NO. 04-SP-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INTERMODAL BUS TRANSFER FACILITY TO BE OPERATED BY THE SARASOTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SCAT) LOCATED ON PROPERTY IN THE GOVERNMENTAL USE (G) ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LEMON AVENUE PROPOSED TO BE VACATED BY STREET VACATION ORDINANCE NO. 02-4391 AS WELL AS ADJACENT PROPERTY; SAID PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY SECOND STREET, ON THE SOUTH BY FIRST STREET, ON THE EAST BY THE CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA AT 1565 FIRST STREET AND ON THE WEST BY LEMON AVENUE; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO . 04-SP-02, APPLICANT JACK REES, CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR, PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER, AS AGENT REPRESENTING THE SARASOTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, THROUGH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE CONTRACT VENDEE) ADOPTED INCLUDING SPECIFICS FOR THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FROM CITY STAFF'S REPORT (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) CD 6:05 through 10:20 City Attorney Taylor stated that the following persons have applied for and complied with the rules for obtaining Affected Person status: Elmer Berkel, Pamela Dorwarth, Gary Hoyt, and Richard Thomas. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, the Affected Persons are certified. City Attorney Taylor stated that the recommendation is to allow 45 minutes for the Applicant's presentation and 20 minutes for rebuttal and 20 minutes for the City's presentation and 20 minutes for rebuttal; that Mr. Hoyt, as an Affected Person, will have 40 minutes to speak and 10 minutes for rebuttal; that other individuals certified by the Commission as Affected Persons will have 5 minutes to speak and 3 minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 3 minutes to speak. Commissioner Servian asked the reason one Affected Person has been provided 40 minutes to speak and others only five minutes? City Attorney Taylor stated that Michael Furen, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., representing Gary Hoyt, the Affected Person, is the only individual who contacted the City Attorney's Office concerning time limits; that adequate time is being provided to present evidence; that the time recommended was reached through negotiation; that additional time would have been recommended for the other Affected Persons if the individuals had contacted the City Attorney's Office with a request. Mayor Palmer stated that the other Affected Persons could be provided an extension of time to speak, if necessary; that hearing no objections, the recommended time limits are approved. Mayor Palmer continued that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 is to approve Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-02 for the construction of a new Intermodal bus transfer facility which will be operated by the Sarasota County Transportation Authority (SCAT) ; that the Applicant is Jack Rees, Construction Property Administrator, Public Works Business Center, as agent BOOK 55 Page 26654 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26655 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. representing Sarasota County Transportation Authority, through the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners, as the contract vendee. Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing; and continued that a number of individuals will be speaking before the Commission; that a request is to avoid repetition and redundancy in commentsi; that the Commission's decision will be based completely and exclusively on substantial and competent evidence; that the location of the SCAT transfer facility is not the subject of discussion; that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1675 is to approve the site plan submitted with Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-02; that the discussion will included issues related only to the site plan; that other issues are included later in the Agenda but are contingent upon the outcome of the public hearing regarding proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674. Mayor Palmer requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that conversations have been held with Mr. Thomas, an Affected Person, regarding the topographic and boundary survey and the Public Transportation System Analysis "Best Bus Alternative." Commissioner Servian stated that communications have been received via electronic mail and telephone conversations have been conducted which have indicated support and opposition to Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-02 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1675; that no compelling arguments on either side which would affect any decision have been heard; that conversations have also been held with Mr. Thomas. Commissioner Atkins stated that communications have also been received via electronic mail and telephone conversations held, none of which will affect his decision. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a general conversation was held with Dale Parks of Seibert Architects on behalf of the Applicant; that conversations were held with Affected Persons, Mr. Hoyt, and Ms. Dorwarth; that electronic mail in support and opposition to the site were also received. Mayor Palmer stated that a meeting was held with County Commissioner Shannon Staub, James Ley, County Administrator, Stephen DeMarsh, Deputy County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney, City Attorney Taylor, and City Manager McNees after the denial of proposed Resolution No. 03R-1634, which was to approve the site plan submitted with Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-11; that the conversation was exclusively concerning the procedure regarding the manner in which to re-file the site plan; that the conversation was concerning procedures and did not include details of the site plan; that a telephone conversation was held with Kerry Kirschner, of the Argus Foundation, an interested citizen; that procedures between the City and the County regarding the process for going forward was discussed; that details of the project were not discussed; that conversations were held with Mr. Hoyt on two occasions; that specifics were not discussed; that a conversation was held with Paul Thorpe, an interested citizen; that Mr. Thorpe provided a document which was delivered to City Auditor and Clerk Robinson; that the document concerns photographs relating to cross sections of streets indicating pedestrian maneuverability on the site; that copies will be distributed; that electronic mail, letters, and telephone calls have been received from citizens expressing various opinions; that everything received is on record in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk. City Attorney Taylor stated that electronic mail received by each Commissioner regarding the issue should be provided to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward. David Bullock, Deputy County Administrator, James Harriott, Transportation Planning Manager, Sarasota County, Mitch McKnight, Project Manager and Professional Engineer, WilsonMiller, Samuel Holladay, President, and Dale Parks, Project Architect and Designer, Seibert Architects, P.A., came before the Commission. Mr. Bullock stated that the Commission is requested to consider proposed Resolution No. 04R-1675, which is to approve the site plan submitted with Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-02 for the SCAT transfer facility; that the intent is to provide the Commission with evidence and information which demonstrates the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility as revised and resubmitted and under consideration by the Commission at this time serves the long term needs of the community; that the site plan works, is properly designed, can be constructed, and will provide BOOK 55 Page 26656 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26657 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. for the needs of the SCAT bus riders for many decades; that Deputy County Attorney DeMarsh as well as other County staff are available in the Chambers audience for questions, if necessary. Mr. Holladay referred to architectural drawings displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating the location and design of the proposed SCAT transfer facility and the location of the Whole Foods Centre Market project and stated that Lemon Avenue, First and Second Streets, and the City Hall parking lot are indicated on the drawing; that the wall which separates the SCAT transfer facility from the City Hall parking lot is included as part of the site plan; that low ground cover and the location of trees are indicated on the drawing; that Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-02 satisfies the Standards for Review set forth in Section IV-506, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.). Mr. Parks stated that the opportunity to discuss the merits of the project is appreciated; that the intent of the presentation is to demonstrate the project is a safe, responsible, and effective design solution; that opponents have insisted the plan poses a danger to pedestrians and vehicular traffic and have indicated buses will be jumping curbs or worse; that one opponent indicated the location is comparable to placing a size nine foot in a size six shoe; that the intent is to demonstrate the facility fits on the site; that since the October 6, 2003, Regular City Commission meeting, the team has reviewed the comments which were voiced during the session and further revised and refined the site plan to address issues raised by those who even now continue to insist the project is unsafe; that the team will prove otherwise; that the team has worked closely with City Engineering Staff to resolve issues raised at the October 6, 2003, Regular City Commission meeting; that with the assistance of the design team and County Staff, the belief is the Commission will recognize the significance of the work in proving the project, contrary to portrayal by others, is worthy of approval; that the project is worthy of approval for the fabric of the community and for the dignity of the ridership. Mr. Parks continued that a joint City/County report was produced in April 2002, establishing the criteria for the design of the SCAT transfer facility; that architectural objectives for the project addressed by the team include principles of new urbanism, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and the issue of civic architecture; that the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) identifies Lemon Avenue north of First Street, First Street east of Lemon Avenue, and Second Street as secondary "B" Streets; that the SCAT transfer facility is bounded on all three street frontages by street designations which are not required to conform to the same rigorous and exacting rules required of primary grid or "A" Streets; that "B" Streets are seen in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 as those which are not viewed as high priority streets for pedestrian activity; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates "B" Streets are acceptable for a complementary set of uses, many of which are unacceptable along "A" Streets, i.e., gas stations and drive-through restaurants; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 also confirms automotive traffic is compatible with healthy pedestrian environs if drivers obey a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph) or less and yield to pedestrians at intersections; that the speed for which Lemon Avenue was designed adjacent to the SCAT transfer facility is 15 mph with four way stops at both intersections flanking the facility; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 identifies the review of the SCAT transfer facility as Project T 5 and recommends the site be located at Fruitville Road, Second Street, and Orange Avenue; that the location was important due to the ease in walking within the Downtown environs; that the proposed location was opposed and defeated by a group including individuals present and certified as Affected Persons; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 recognized the paramount importance to locate the SCAT transfer facility within walking distance of the Downtown. Mr. Parks further stated that the SCAT transfer facility project was reviewed by the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) and satisfies the requirements of current CPTED principles; that subsequently, Officer Debra Rossnagle of the SPD Crime Prevention Unit has reviewed the Sarasota Downtown Intermodal Transfer Facility Preliminary Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Review report submitted by Carter and Carter Associates from Attorney Furen's package dated December 8, 2003, also included in the Agenda Backup material; and submitted a December 16, 2003, follow up letter to him with comments regarding CPTED issues raised by Carter and Carter Associates. Mr. Parks stated further that Sarasota County requested public restrooms be included in the project during the programming phase of the facility; that numerous merchants in the area support public restrooms in the facility; that the location is BOOK 55 Page 26658 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26659 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. in the central area of the waiting platform with the entrances facing out on the center of the platform for access and casual surveillance by bus patrons; that the major wall of the restrooms are constructed of glass block to allow for maximum natural lighting inside the restrooms and the psychological perception of transparency in lieu of dark interiors which would contribute to a sense of lack of safety; that the material possesses a translucent quality which aids in the ability to discern the presence of people in the facilities from the outside; that the material is not totally transparent allowing for a sense of privacy; that the restrooms do not have closing doors to allow isolation of the interior space during operating hours; that the facilities are locked by coiling doors located in the ceiling at the end of the SCAT transfer facility operating hours and remain closed overnight until reopening in the morning; that security for the SCAT transfer facility will be accommodated by personnel hired by Sarasota County to maintain safety of the bus patrons and provide active observation of the waiting platform and the restroom facilities. Mr. Parks stated that the architectural expression for the SCAT transfer facility is derived from the modernist vocabulary; that the facility is a long span structure which floats as a pavilion above the bus users allowing for protection from the elements and contributing a strong image as civic architecture; that specific design issues have been raised regarding the size of the platform and the accompanying circulation patterns; that the standards for capacity of the waiting platform have been determined according to the transit capacity and quality and service manual produced by the transportation research board; that pedestrian capacities for level of service "C", which is average capacity, is listed as ten square feet per person; that the capacity of the waiting platform is calculated based on the square footage of the platform minus the restrooms with an 18 inch buffer around the perimeter of the platform and around seating areas, or 3,158 square feet; that at ten square feet per person, the capacity for standing pedestrians is 315 people with additional seating capacity of 78 people; that the maximum pedestrian capacity is therefore 393 bus riders at any one pulse period; that 245 people would arrive with an assumption of some waiting if all seven buses arrive fully loaded at 35 seats per bus; that the platform adequately serves the capacities identified; that currently, the SCAT system has 2,000 people arriving in the Downtown location per day; that the average concentration is 200 people per hour or 100 people per pulse; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility exceeds current capacity requirements and can accommodate much more; that the location of concrete pylons at either end of the platform have been described by opponents of the project as traveling through a tunnel in order to exit the facility; that opponents of the project have described the concrete pylons at either end of the platform create the feeling of traveling through a tunnel to exit the facility; that the pylons contain the trash and recycle receptacles and support lighting and signage indicating the entrance to the facility; that the pylons are control points similar to an entry door into a building; that the pylons regulate the circulation in and out of the facility; that the control points and all the sidewalk widths on and off the platform comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Mr. Parks continued that the SCAT transfer facility was reviewed as if a totally enclosed building, function excluded, to determine the relative size of the exit points to the passenger capacity; that based on the Florida Building Codes and a 376 passenger count, the total exiting width required if the building were enclosed is 75 inches, which is the equivalent of just over three feet of door width at either end of the platform; that the project contains four different entry points with a combined egress width capacity of 314 inches; that the building would already exceed all the exiting capacity building code requirements by almost four times if the building were enclosed. Mr. McKnight distributed and referred to computer-generated site plan designs displayed on the Chamber monitors, and stated that some concerns were expressed regarding the site design during the Commission's review of the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility in October 2003; that the concerns have been addressed; that a change has been made in the area of Lemon Avenue and Second Street; that the originally submitted design had an exit from the SCAT transfer facility onto Second Street which has since been removed; that a service parking area has been provided; that buses will exit onto Lemon Avenue; that the offset in the roadway on Lemon Avenue was eliminated by creating a median and directing traffic through the intersection in a better manner; that the largest improvement is increased pedestrian enhancement; that the pedestrian refuge has been increased; that the pedestrian/vehicle interface has been reduced; that the pedestrian refuge has also been increased at the intersection of Lemon Avenue and First Street; that the existing curb line was moved to line up with the curb across Lemon Avenue; that in doing SO, the radius and the area for pedestrian landing are increased; that a raised island BOOK 55 Page 26660 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26661 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. area is also created which provides additional safety for pedestrians; that the original design included one bus route approaching and turning in from the west; that the route was changed; that buses will not approach from the west on First Street and turn into the SCAT transfer facility; that the entrance will be a right turn only which allows an increase in turn radius; that the driveway is a right turn only; that the driveways have been redesigned with aprons rather than the turning radii in the previous design to meet the Engineering Design Criteria Manual criteria. Mr. McKnight continued that turning radii has been an issue of considerable discussion; that the SCAT bus dimensions have been verified; that the vehicle used in the computer-aided American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) diagrams was 35.0 feet; that the actual length, bumper to bumper, is 35.6 feet; that the length of the bus has been input into the turning radii; that the buses are able to make the turning movements without jumping curbs, hitting pedestrians, or other buses; that the issue concerning turning radii has been field tested to prove the turning radii work; that the site visibility was an issue at the time the driveway onto Lemon Avenue was created; that the ability for the bus driver to have appropriate visibility back to a passenger vehicle as well as the passenger vehicle back to the bus was a concern; that site visibility with the trees and light posts meets the criteria for the design speed on Lemon Avenue which has been proven to the City Engineer; that a commitment has been made for the trees to have a clear trunk width higher than the eye of the bus driver; that site visibility is not an issue; that the effort. extended by the Development Review Committee (DRC) in reviewing the plans is appreciated. Mr. Harriott stated that the Public Transportation System Analysis which was approved by the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) discusses a recommended transportation system for the Sarasota/Manatee County areas which is exactly the type of system planned; and quoted the Public Transportation System Analysis as follows: As the area grows, it is likely to evolve into a multi- centered urban area focused on retail oriented development Clusters, a pattern that tends to favor a timed transfer bus system. A pulse time transfer bus system is designed to facilitate transfers between routes and foster improved transit access between outlying suburban areas. Mr. Harriott continued that SCAT operates and continues to move toward evolving into a pulse time transfer bus system; that a pulse system focuses on transfers and provides choices to the riders through the transfers; that the transfers occur at the different hubs throughout the system and may include 10 to 20 transfer points; that generally, on a pulse system, buses depart for routes at the same time; that at times, buses may route to or through another transfer point or connection facilityi that the route brings the bus back to the SCAT transfer facility; that not all buses in the SCAT system will go through àll transier points; that the characteristics of transfer systems is basically a rhythm; that buses enter a transfer station, remain for a short period of time, and go back out; that two pulses per hour currently operate, the first at 15 minutes after the hour and the second at 15 minutes before the hour; that a pulse system is the most cost effective manner by which to cover an area; that the SCAT system is being built around a pulse system; that the Venice Train Depot in Venice, Florida, has recently been renovated and is a bus transfer facility; that preliminary work is being conducted to improve a small connection facility in the Palmer Boulevard, Cattlemen Road area in Sarasota County; that preliminary discussions have taken place regarding a similar small facility at Bee Ridge Road and Honore Avenue; that a network of transfer points is being created around the community. Mr. Harriott further stated that the previous site plan indicated eight bus bays; that the site plan before the Commission at this time has seven bus bays; that an effective pulse transfer system can operate at four pulses per hour; that four multiplied by seven equals 28 buses per hour; that 13 buses are currently operating per hour which leaves 15 bays open per hour; that the bus system is presently operating at slightly less than half of capacity; that the Transit Development Plan for 2004, approved by the BCC and the State, indicates the bus system must remain at 13 buses per hour but should move from a two pulse system to a four pulse system; that the major reason for moving to a four pulse system is due to the availability of a recent Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) grant to operate 30 minute headway service on the Beneva Road route; that the 30 minute headway service is significant and is a significant level of service improvement; that the system will still operate with 13 buses per hour out of 28 bays; that the Transit Development Plan indicates in the future, beginning in the year 2005 to 2008, 15 buses are scheduled BOOK 55 Page 26662 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26663 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. with four buses at 15 minutes after the hour, three buses at 30 minutes past the hour, five buses at 15 minutes before the hour, and three buses on the hour. Mr. Harriott stated further that 2,009 people traveling in and out of the SCAT transier facility were surveyed; that 46 percent transferred; that 26 percent had the Downtown SCAT transfer facility as a final destination; that 54 percent were home or work trips with 32 percent of the people using the SCAT transfer facility for work trips; that two Wachenhut security or similar security staff are recommended during operating hours; that for seven months, security staff has been operating at the temporary transfer station located at Selby Public Library; that passengers like having security; that the security staff keep people moving on through the station; that the station has not become a place for loiterers; that anyone loitering is requested to leave. Mr. Bullock stated that a constant theme throughout the discussion is the ability of the buses to move in and out of the SCAT transfer facility; that a test operation was conducted to ensure the buses could easily move in and out of the SCAT transfer facility; that the results of the test operation will be shown during the presentation; and distributed a December 16, 2003, letter to Mr. Harriott, from Teri Owen, a registered surveyor and mapper, certifying the layout of the SCAT transfer facility is exactly as indicated on the site plan before the Commission at this time, and a signed, sealed statement from Mr. McKnight indicating he provided the information exactly as appears before the Commission at this time. Mr. Bullock displayed a videotape of the four hour test operation with the SCAT buses approaching from all angles, making turns in and around a facility exact full scale model of the SCAT transfer facility displayed on the Chamber monitors; distributed an accompanying document of photographs from various camera angles from four corners of the facility throughout the presentation; and continued that the videotape indicates the facility is full and loaded with buses; that an aerial view is indicated with a normal pulse occurring; that buses come out of the facility and make the turn off of Lemon Avenue onto Second Street, traveling in two directions; that buses can turn right on Orange Avenue or go straight; that each bus is making every turn without clipping any curbs, hitting other buses, running over pedestrian areas or crossing the center lane in any significant manner; that corner one is the location at which the bus will come in from Orange Avenue, travel up First Street and make a right turn into the SCAT transfer facility; that a bus with a fully extended bike rack is able to make the turn at corner one; that corner two is Lemon Avenue and Second Street which is the location at which buses will pull out of the SCAT transfer facility onto Lemon Avenue and will either continue north on Lemon Avenue or turn right onto Second Street toward Orange Avenue. Mr. Bullock further stated that seven buses and seven SCAT drivers were part of the test operation; that the experience of the SCAT drivers varied; that the test operation was performed on a Saturday; that every possible turning angle entering and exiting the facility was covered; that the videotape indicates a bus coming out of Lemon Avenue turning onto Second Street with another bus traveling along Second Street; that corner three is the location at which the buses will pull in from two directions on Second Street; that a bus was purposely parked in the first bay which makes the turn difficult; that corner four is on First Street; that buses come out of corner four and turn in two directions; that corner four is the most difficult corner in the SCAT transfer facility; that orange cones were used to represent a vehicle possibly parked in the street; that a claim was made none of the buses could leave out of order; that the videotape indicates a typical pulse system in which the buses all leave in order; that a question was if buses can move out of order around another bus if a bus breaks down or is not able to move; that a variety of angles indicated on the video prove the buses are able to maneuver around other buses; that no accidents occurred during the six hour video taping of a typical day at the SCAT transfer facility; that buses moved in and out of the facility in a careful manneri that pedestrians were present; that the SCAT transfer facility is designed for the buses presently in the system; that the demands on SCAT over the past several years have been for smaller community buses rather than larger buses; that the number of smaller community buses will likely increase to feed into the fixed route system; that on occasion, the SCAT transfer facility will also be utilized for SCAT Plus, which utilizes small vans; that the goal of the videotape is to provide the Commission with an accurate representation of the operation of the SCAT transfer facility with the type of buses which will be operating and the people responsible for operating the buses; that the videotape was in no way staged or manipulated, but rather indicates a typical day at the SCAT transfer facility. BOOK 55 Page 26664 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26665 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Bullock stated further that the bus drivers were asked if any problems would be incurred by operating the buses in and out of the SCAT transfer facility on a daily basis; that the bus drivers indicated the corners at Ringling Boulevard and School Avenue, and Mound Street and Osprey Avenue are the most difficult but operating in and out of the SCAT transfer facility on a daily basis is not considered a problem; that the belief is the design works on the site; that the SCAT patrons will be able to use the SCAT transfer facility; that the system will work. Mayor Palmer asked the dimensions of the buses indicated on the videotape. Mr. McKnight stated that the SCAT buses in the videotape are 35.60 feet from bumper to bumper; that the buses have an 18.25 foot wheel base; that the overhang is approximately 24 inches with the bicycle rack fully extended; that the buses are eight feet wide. Mayor Palmer stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) indicated a concern regarding the width and the length of the buses; and asked the length of the bus with a double bicycle rack in the front? Mr. McKnight stated that the double bicycle rack fully extended is 2.60 feet. Commissioner Servian asked the manner in which the problem concerning visibility on Lemon Avenue has been corrected? Mr. McKnight referred to the SCAT transfer facility site plan displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that visibility was improved by specifying a cleared tree trunk height of at least 84 inches; that foliage will not hang down blocking the bus drivers view; that the height of the drivers' eyes sitting behind the wheel of a bus is at 78 inches; that the City Engineer concurred with the improvement; therefore, no technical deviation was required. Mayor Palmer stated that a number of technical deviations were requested; and asked for Clarification regarding the status of any outstanding requests for technical deviations. Mr. McKnight stated that four technical deviations were requested and granted; that one was for the distance of the driveway on First Street to Lemon Avenue; that the proximity is close and is less than the established criteria. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding the requested technical deviations. Mr. McKnight stated that the first technical deviation was to address the driveway on Lemon Avenue which does not meet Engineering Design Criteria Manual standards; that the Engineering Design Criteria Manual requires the driveway be 45 feet; that the driveway is actually 15 feet; that stopping sight distance was not an issue with the proximity to the intersection due to the four way stop condition with a 15 mph posted speed limit on Lemon Avenue; that the second technical deviation was to address the driveway flare which did not exactly agree with the standards for a triangular flare required by the Engineering Design Criteria Manual; that the technical deviation requested was to provide the raised island to help protect pedestrians and was granted; that the third technical deviation was also to address the driveway flare which cannot extend past the site's property line; that the driveway flares will extend past the site's property line; that the City Engineer concurred the situation was satisfactory; that the fourth technical deviation concerned the dimension of the buses; that the Engineering Design Criteria Manual requires any developer demonstrate any AASHTO designated single unit truck or bus vehicles can make turning movements at local streets without encroaching into the opposing traffic; that the video demonstrates the buses do not encroach into opposing traffic; that the City Engineer required proof the movements can be made at the two driveways without encroaching into the opposing lane with an AASHTO bus; that different definitions exist for an AASHTO bus; that the determination was made a 40 foot bus can make the movement without encroaching over the center line; that the buses presently used and committed for use in the future are 35 feet long; that the 35 foot buses can make the movement without encroaching over the center line; that the technical deviation which was granted was requested based on a 35 foot bus. Mayor Palmer requested clarification regarding pedestrian travel paths and congestion at First Street; and quoted the following from the December 16, 2003, letter to Dale Parks, from Police Officer Rossnagle: While six feet travel paths along the restrooms would appear to be adequate, I am not knowledgeable in accepted design criteria, therefore I do not feel qualified to offer an BOOK 55 Page 26666 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26667 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. educated response. Nor am I qualified to respond to potential pedestrian/traffic conflicts at the intersection of First Street during special events. Mr. Parks stated that the special events to which Police Officer Rossnagle was referring is the Farmers Market on Saturday mornings; that the SCAT transfer facility has been operating at the Lemon Avenue location with the Farmers Market for years; that no known problems exist. Commissioner Bilyeu asked the date the videotape was filmed? Mr. Bullock stated that the videotape was filmed on December 13, 2003; that a lay down study was performed in a parking lot in the fall of 2003. Mayor Palmer stated that the videotape was filmed after the December 10, 2003, PBLP meeting; and asked if the lay down study performed in the fall of 2003 was videotaped? Mr. Bullock stated that the lay down study performed in the fall of 2003 was videotaped but was not shown at the December 10, 2003, PBLP meeting. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Karin Murphy, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Ms. Murphy stated that on March 28, 2003, a contract was executed between the City of Sarasota and the Sarasota County Transportation Authority regarding the purchase of property and the design and construction of a SCAT transfer facility located on property immediately east of Lemon Avenue between First and Second Street; that the City processed the street vacation required by the contract and coordinated the first stage of the City's responsibilities for the design and construction of the SCAT transfer facility under the guidance of V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager; that the Applicant, Sarasota County, requests site plan approval of Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-2 to construct the SCAT transfer facility; that the proposed structure includes public restrooms, a lounge area for bus drivers, and a small office/ticket booth; that the site plan was originally processed as Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-11; that the PBLP held a public hearing on August 13, 2003, and made a motion recommending denial of the initial site plan; that subsequently, at the October 6, 2003, City Commission meeting, the Commission in a four to one vote denied the site plan request; that the County modified the plan to address issues and concerns as follows: Raised curb refuge areas between each driveway sO pedestrians will traverse no more than 24 feet of driveway or street along First and Second Streets without clearly defined refuge areas. Moved exit to the west bays from Second Street to Lemon Avenue, and limited to right-turn only traffic. Limited entrance to the west bays to right turn in buses only . curb along the north side of First Street was moved to align with the corresponding curb along on the west side of the intersection which allows for a larger pedestrian refuge area. - Reconfigured curb at Second Street and Lemon Avenue. Ms. Murphy continued that the site plan requires a number of technical deviations from the Engineering Design Criteria Manual i that the Applicant requested the following three technical deviations which have been approved by the City Manager to: construct one of the four driveways at the northeast corner of First Street and Lemon Avenue within 15 feet of the Lemon Avenue curb line, rather than the required 45 feet. extend driveway without a flare on its west side. construct two driveways 12 feet beyond the property line. Ms. Murphy further stated that the County's November 18, 2003, resubmittal of the site plan which was received by the Engineering Department on November 19, 2003, indicates three other technical deviations will be requested from the Engineering Design Criteria Manual; that the three other technical deviations as the following do not meet the standards of the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) : Handicap ramp at Lemon Avenue and Second Street. Driveway on Lemon Avenue. BOOK 55 Page 26668 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26669 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Sight visibility due to the oak trees along with streetlights on Lemon Avenue. Ms. Murphy stated further that subsequently, significant technical information was submitted by the County Engineer, City Engineer, the Affected Parties, and engineers and experts representing the Affected Parties; that Planning Staff is unable to determine the impact, if any, of the conditions mandated by the technical deviations and potential conditions attached by evidence entered into the record on the criteria for site plan review; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) does not require the Planning and Redevelopment Department to make a recommendation; therefore, the application may proceed and the findings of fact for either approval or denial are recommended by the PBLP and decided by the Commission; that at the December 10, 2003, public hearing, the PBLP in a 5 to 0 vote recommended denial of the request; that although the PBLP has recommended denial, Staff recommends an Interlocal Agreement which the Administration supports if the Commission approves the request; that the Interlocal Agreement will address issues and concerns relevant to the policing of the SCAT transfer facility and routing prohibitions and requirements; that the Interlocal Agreement has not been negotiated or drafted; that the December 16, 2003, letter to Dale Parks submitted by Police Officer Rossnagle is contingent on the details of the plan and the manner in which the site is policed. Ms. Murphy stated that any revisions to the site plan signed off by the Development Review Committee (DRC) or approved by the Commission and deemed not to be minor revisions by the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Entorcement would be required to go back through the site plan approval processi that going back through the site plan approval process will also be required for revisions which may be necessary to satisfy the conditions of the technical deviations to the Engineering Design Criteria Manual. Mr. Daughters stated that the Applicant has complied with all the requirements of the Engineering Design Criteria Manual; that some compliance was obtained via technical deviations; that Mr. McKnight has thoroughly and accurately described the four technical deviations which were granted; that the potential existed for three additional technical deviations; however, the last submittal to the Engineering Department indicated the three technical deviations could be met; that Engineering Staff was not liberal with interpretations and recommendations concerning technical deviations; that the trees on the site must have an 11 inch diameter to meet the sight distance requirement. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if three or four technical deviations for a project are considered excessive? Mr. Daughters stated that the technical deviations requested with the project are the most Staff has ever issued; that a limit does not exist for the number of technical deviations which can be issued for a project; that every site has certain peculiarities which may necessitate more than one technical deviation; that the four technical deviations requested on the project are not considered excessive; that two are considered very minor. Commissioner Servian stated that the technical deviation granted for the driveway within 15 feet of Lemon Avenue is likely considered major; and asked the manner in which technical deviations are qualified as major or minor? Mr. Daughters stated that of the four technical deviations, three are relatively minor; that the City Manager has authorized technical deviations similar to the technical deviation for the driveway within 15 feet of Lemon Avenue to other developments within the City. Mayor Palmer stated that 15 feet is considerably less than the requirement of 45 feet; and asked for further detail. Mr. Daughters stated that the requirement of 45 feet is sO the use of the intersection at First Street and Lemon Avenue will not be impacted; that the driveway will be a right turn only as described by the Applicant; that Staff believes the 15 foot driveway will create less impact to the intersection; that the intersection at First Street and Lemon Avenue is a four way stop; that the sight distance will be adequate. Mayor Palmer stated that some concerns were raised regarding the de minimus finding concerning traffic. Mr. Daughters stated that Staff conducts detailed analysis; that Staff only reviews the site in question; that the site is 80 feet by 230 feet wide; that the site is currently comprised of parking and landscaping; that the site does not generate traffic at this time; however, the number of the buses are the same; that the buses exist at this time but are temporarily located one block BOOK 55 Page 26670 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26671 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. away from the SCAT transfer facility; that the same number of buses will be operating initially. Osama Freija, Traffic Manager, Engineering Department, came before the Commission; and stated that the site is a parking lot being replaced with a SCAT transfer facility which was the basis for the traffic concurrency study; that Staff is of the opinion the buses will still have two dedicated bus lanes; therefore, the traffic concurrency analysis was based on a four lane divided roadway; that the review was based on an 18,000 plus square foot facility; that the SCAT transfer facility will have as low as four to five trips in the peak evening hours which is considered de minimus. Gary Hoyt, Michael Furen, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., representing Affected Person, Gary Hoyt, Steve Ortman, Director of Planning, South Region, and Senior Project Manager of STV Incorporated, came before the Commission. Attorney Furen stated that the Commission is requested to confirm that the following items are included in the public record: City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); - City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020; Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); Sarasota City Code (1998 as amended). / Engineering Design Criteria Manual; and City files concerning Street Vacation Application No. 02- SV-02, Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-11, and Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-02. City Attorney Taylor stated that the items are included in the public record; that the public record also includes the record of the previous Application which is not before the Commission for consideration; however, the speaker has a right to have the record of the previous Application placed into the public record as a relevant argument will be made; that the Commission is advised making the item concerning the previous Application part of the public record is acceptable; however, the Commission is not considering the previous Application at this time. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, the items are entered into the public record. Attorney Furen stated that a few legal deficiencies of the proposed project will be presented; that first, the proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan of the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Furen referenced the Thoroughfare Plan as indicating Lemon Avenue from Tenth Street south to Pineapple Avenue as a minor arterial with four lanes; and stated that the City Attorney may advise approving an implementing zone district of a future land use classification assures consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; however, interpreting such consistency as not requiring meeting consistency requirements of other chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan is ridiculous; that the Commission should not allow such interpretation as private sector developers will take full advantage of the provision on future projects, effectively abrogating the Transportation, Historic Preservation, Recreation and Open Space, or any other Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the provision is void under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which requires consistency of all development approvals, applications, and permits with all Chapters, not just one Chapter, of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Furen stated that the proposal is also inconsistent with the Thoroughfare Plan in the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended), contrary to the City Engineer's determination indicating Lemon Avenue is a local road under the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, requiring only 60 feet of right-of-way; and quoted Section 30-53, Minor Arterial Streets Designated, City Code, as follows: The streets designated in this section and no others shall be developed and maintained as minor arterial streets and shall be used primarily as through streets for the movement of concentrated flow of intra-urban traffic. Attorney Furen stated that the proposal does not meet the City's adopted Thoroughfare Plan in the City Code; that Section IV-203, Concurrency Certificate, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), requires the BOOK 55 Page 26672 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 266'73 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. issuance of a certificate of concurrency prior to any development approval, including developments determined de minimus; that the file has been examined and includes no certificate of concurrency regarding the proposed site plan. Attorney Furen distributed a June 25, 2002, certificate of concurrency which was included in the file but which was for the previously submitted site plan; and stated that the examination for concurrency did not examine First or Second Streets and only examined Lemon Avenue as a four-lane minor arterial as provided in the Thoroughfare Plans in the City Code and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Furen quoted Section IV-503(C), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), as follows: Technical Deviations: Such deviations must be based upon review of a detailed study prepared by the applicant which demonstrates why the technical deviations will result in preferable environmental or design impacts. Attorney Furen stated that the certifications provided the City Engineering Department indicate the achievement of equal or better than environmental or design impacts as required by the Engineering Design Criteria Manual; however, the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) does not require equal or better but rather preferable environmental or design impacts; that Section IV- 202 (F) (1), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), requires the Applicant for development approval file, at the time of the Application, a Summary of Evidence and Disclosure Report, which could not be found in the file for the proposed project. Attorney Furen continued that STV Incorporated is a national leader in the planning, design, and engineering of bus systems, was ranked 11th in the Engineering News Records top 50 design firms in transportation and fourth in mass transit and rail, and obviously has many years of experience in transit design; that Mr. Ortman holds a Masters Degree and Bachelor of Science in urban planning; that Mr. Ortman has been involved in transit bus operations, bus rapid transit, transit facility design, urban design and traffic calming. Mr. Ortman stated that he has worked on projects similar to the SCAT transfer facility ranging from modest, three bus transit facility projects in Corpus Christie, Texas, to a project currently underway which is the redevelopment of the permanent transportation center at the World Trade Center site in New York City, New York; that the opportunity to work on the transportation center at the World Trade Center site is a great honor and privilege; that exception is taken regarding the recent tenor of the debate concerning the project; that the process is normally open and collaborative; that indications are some are opposed to the project which is out of line; that work has been conducted regarding similar projects all over the World for 20 years; that developing transportation infrastructure projects in communities is of great interest since transportation infrastructure is integral to economic development, expansion of transit, and opportunities for the community; that transit and transportation infrastructure enhances economic development opportunities, which is of utmost importance; that society is just beginning to realize the importance of an investment in transportation infrastructure; that attempts have been made to reach out to people supporting and developing the project with a goal to exchange information; that surprisingly, no feedback has been received regarding offers to share information, possibly due to a perception of his being an out-of-towner with the intent of bringing harm to the project, which is not the case; that concerns regarding turning movements were previously raised; that a project for an eight bus bay facility was developed in Corpus Christie, Texas; that lines were spray painted on the facility and cones were laid out, similar to the test operation conducted and videotaped by Sarasota Countyi that everyone having expressed interest in the process was invited to watch the operation in Corpus Christie for hours upon hours; that no one was invited to the test operation videotaped by Sarasota County, which is surprising; that the first time the results of the test operation were heard was through hearsay and some articles in the local newspaper; that the local newspaper obviously needed to sell a few more newspapers and generate controversy; that the results of the videotape were not displayed at the PBLP meeting. Vice Mayor Martin stated that as a point of order, the tone of the discussion is considered inappropriate; that the accusative tone and arrogance are not acceptable at the Commission table. Mayor Palmer agreed. BOOK 55 Page 26674 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26675 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Ortman apologized, and stated that for the County to conduct the operation is pleasing; however, the hope was to have been at the videotaping of the operation with the County to take measurements, share some of the ideas concerning dimensions, and discuss issues which have been of great concern throughout the process. Mr. Ortman distributed and referred to drawings of the SCAT transfer facility indicated as Figures 1 through 8 throughout the discussion; and stated that Figures 1 through 8 clearly demonstrate some of the issues indicated in the videotape; that every turning movement demonstrated showed the bus extending over either the center line of the oncoming traffic lane or over a curb edge; that Figures 1 through 6 and 8 indicate the ability of the buses to pull around buses which are parked in the bay in front; that Figure 7 identifies a summary of the more egregious encroachments seen while running the operation; that the inability of the first bus to proceed beyond the second bus without encroaching onto the rear end of the bus is indicated; that bus movements were seen which did not allow for a significant amount of clearance between buses parked at the facility and buses attempting to exit the facility; that significant encroachment upon curbs which were extended or added to the project with the second revision to the plan were seen; that a number of issues were clearly displayed in the videotape shown by the County which reinforced the issues of concern; that County Staff inquired about the inputs used to develop the vehicle sweeps and the wheel paths shown and the conflict therein; that the County was using wheel turning angles of 45 degrees and a specific wheel base number; that the County questioned the reason for using a different number; that making a 45 degree angle turn out of a parked bus bay would be extraordinarily difficult, requiring the bus driver to turn the wheel over the maximum amount possible while stopped. Mr. Ortman continued that documentation concerning AASHTO standards was obtained concerning the matter; that at the PBLP meeting, County Staff was instructed the maximum allowable wheel turn allowed under the AASHTO standards is in fact 46 degrees rather than 45 degrees which translates to a flatter curve; that the bus will have a tighter clearance, if any clearance at all, to avoid the bus in front; that rather than relying on the AASHTO standards, SCAT was contacted and requested to provide the name of the vehicle manufacturer of the existing fleet vehicle; that the manufacturer, Gillig Corporation, was contacted; that the manufacturer specification for the SCAT vehicle for maximum allowable wheel turn is 47.5 degrees; that even more confusing is a copy of the SCAT's manufactured specifications for the vehicle; that the County indicated a wheel base dimension of 18.5 feet; that the manufacturer indicates the wheel base dimension is 19.58; that a question is which vehicles were used for the County's test operation and the reason for the difference in the wheel base dimensions; that the additional wheel base coupled with the turning angle or the steering angle of the wheel at 47.5 degrees suggests a much flatter curve and turning ability for the bus to exit out of the parked bus bay and avoid a bus in front, or further, avoiding the curb to the far left; that County Staff is suggesting SCAT buses with a wheel base dimension of 18.5 feet were used in the test operation; that the manufacturer indicates the SCAT buses have a 19.58 foot wheel base dimension which raises significant questions. Mr. Hoyt referred to a site plan and photographs of the SCAT transfer facility displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation as well as the Sarasota Downtown Intermodal Transfer Facility Preliminary Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Review report submitted by Carter and Carter Associates included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that Carter and Carter Associates was instrumental in developing the CPTED program in Sarasota; that major clients of Carter and Carter Associates include the National Crime Prevention Council, the National Crime Prevention Institute, the City of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; that Carter and Carter Associates has also provided training and technical assistance to over 40 cities across the United States; that a central CPTED principle is having passive surveillance; that the SCAT transfer facility site does not have passive surveillance; that to the west of the site is the service side of the Whole Foods Centre Market in which no windows exist; that east of the site is the City Hall parking lot; that landscaping and walls on the east side of the site make a view to the facility difficult; that the entrances into the SCAT transfer facility are a concerni that four entrances exist to waiting areas which are four feet or less; that CTPED principles require clear visibility; that the four entrances are a series of walls; that People for Public Spaces which is a New York, New York, based group, was contacted in August 2003; that People for Public Spaces introduced STV Incorporated and Mr. Ortman to deal with the issues directly associated with transit; that the project should be constructed in an appropriate manner, which has always been the request; that transit is important; that BOOK 55 Page 26676 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26677 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. the covering and restrooms are important and are supported; that some organizations do not support restrooms. Mr. Hoyt referred to a site plan of the Votran transit facility in Daytona Beach, Florida, and continued that the County's consultants for the SCAT transfer facility designed the Links facility in Orlando, Florida, and the Votran Public Transportation Facility (Votran) in Daytona Beach, Florida; that the plan and dimensions for Votran are similar to the SCAT transfer facility which was indicated at the PBLP meeting; that the width of the waiting area is approximately twice the size being proposed for the SCAT transfer facility; that the waiting area is well protected and more specifically, is open; that low seating is included; however, a series of walls or buildings in the center is not included; that customer service is located in the center of the site with a view down the center of the facility; that everything on the facility is visible and well protected; that the facility is comfortable with or without the buses; that a question is if adequate space is available to construct the SCAT transfer facility in an appropriate manner; that Votran was used as a reference; that having a similar facility would be nice. Mr. Ortman stated that the dimensions of the facility are a concern; that the width and length are constraining which can be seen in the videotape; that the reality is a margin for error does not exist, regardless of issues concerning the wheel base dimension; that the similarity between Votran and the SCAT transfer facility has been heard at two meetings; that the driveway access into Votran is planned in a responsible manner and keeps the driveway away from the main intersection; that Staff has used Votran as a comparison for the SCAT transfer facility; that the ten bus bay Votran facility has dimensions of 140 feet wide and 380 feet long; that the lot width of the SCAT transfer facility is approximately 83 feet with a length of 218 feet; that the dimensions of the SCAT transfer facility are clearly significantly different than the Votran facility which is being used as an example. Mr. Ortman stated that the Staple Street Station project in Corpus Christie, Texas, was previously shown which is most similar to the proposed SCAT transfer facility; that the Staple Street Station is 110 feet wide and 300 feet long; that many AASHTO rules were not followed; that traffic engineers worked hard to accommodate dimensions to the utmost; that having a width any less than 110 feet is not recommended; that the Votran facility is 140 feet wide and 300 feet long; that Votran is more comparable to the Staple Street Station project. Attorney Furen stated that the site is obviously too small for the proposed SCAT transfer facility; and quoted the following Sarasota Downtown Intermodal Transportation Center Land Acquisition and Design project of June 1994: Expanding the facility at the current site near First Street and Lemon Avenue cannot fully solve these problems. Attorney Furen continued that the first task is to appraise sites or sites deemed suitable for SCAT's intermodal facility; that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 is erroneous in title as are many references to an intermodal facility; that the SCAT transfer facility is clearly not an intermodal facility; that the project detail indicates the facility site will most likely need more than one acre due to the requirements of the scale of the facility; that the site for the SCAT transfer facility is approximately four tenths of an acre. Mr. Ortman stated that a program and plan outlining the needs and capacity of the facility to grow over time have not been seen; that the idea of creating intermodal facilities is to create a facility greater than the sum of the individual parts; that some discussion has taken place regarding the need to provide the facility to the existing riders; that assurance is provided no riders will be attracted to the system if the facility focuses only on the existing riders; that the facility will be nothing greater than on the day of opening, which is basically a seven bus bay bus stop. Commissioner Servian stated that an inference was made the videotape of the test operation of the SCAT transfer facility was conducted in secret; and asked if the belief is the test operation of the facility was not conducted properly? Mr. Ortman stated that an answer cannot be provided; that to speculate is not fair to the County; that everyone thought to have an interest was invited to a similar test of the operation of the Staple Street Station project in Corpus Christie, Texas; that the traffic engineers opposed to the project were invited as well; that everyone was invited to take out tape measures to ensure the tapers on the bus bays were correct and the ADA ramps were properly located; that ADA ramps were not seen on the County's BOOK 55 Page 26678 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26679 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. videotape; that the County is applauded for conducting the test operation; however, the reasons for not inviting everyone having an interest to the site to take measurements during or upon completion of the test operation is not understood; that the plans for the site do not indicate the problematic issues concerning security, visibility, and accessibility for everyone; that a discrepancy exists concerning the buses used in the videotape, which is considered counterintuitive. Attorney Euren stated that the Commission should keep in mind the videotape of the test operation of the SCAT transfer facility was obviously conducted in a controlled environment; that the speed at which the buses were departing could not be determined; that the videotape did not include any traffic traveling in, out, or around the facility, which reduces the potential for traffic conflicts. Mr. Ortman stated that the only traffic conflicts seen were at the time buses were traveling in opposite directions; that responses to the closeness of the buses while making movements in opposite directions were heard in the Chambers audience; that the notion of a zero margin for error in the test operation is valid. Commissioner Servian asked if pedestrians in the area as well as other bus riders and security guards who will be on site have been considered regarding concerns over passive surveillance and having eyes on the facility? Mr. Hoyt stated that a number of different people will be in different places; that people will be cordoned off into one of four areas; that people may be isolated for a moment walking into a restroom; that a real possibility exists other people will not be watching or present in the area depending upon the cycle on numerous occasions throughout the dayi that the SCAT transfer facility is subdivided; that Carter and Carter Associates indicated uncertainty is frightening to people; that the movement through the facility, quite unlike the Votran facility, is a series of blind corners going into separate areas; that people going into the restrooms are even more removed from any kind of passive surveillance. Mr. Ortman stated that most projects on which he works are funded in part by the Federal Transit Administration; that the Federal Transit Administration must not be involved with the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility as the Federal Transit Administration would likely not approve the site plan and would hold up funding due to all the blind spots associated with the passenger waiting island and the problems with sight lines and security; that columns have been narrowed in previous projects to avoid the possibility of a person hiding; that a question is if the Federal Transit Administration is involved in funding and has reviewed the site plan. Mayor Palmer asked if Mr. Ortman has previously been employed by the Federal Transit Administration? Mr. Ortman stated that work has been performed under contract with the Federal Transit Administration many times. Commissioner Servian asked if Mr. Ortman is an engineer? Mr. Ortman stated that he is an urban planner. The Commission recessed at 8:01 p.m. and reconvened at 8:13. Mayor Palmer requested that the Affected Persons come forward. Pamela Dorwarth, State Commissioner for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, 1300 North Lockwood Ridge Road (34237), stated that subsequent to discussions concerning safety and compliance issues regarding the design of the proposed SCAT transfer facility at the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, she personally delivered the design to the State's Department of Community Affairs, the Building Codes and Standards Department, and the Technical Advisory Committee for review; that subsequently, the design was reviewed by ADA officials of the Florida Department of Transportation who review plans for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to ensure the proposed SCAT transfer facility will be in compliance with the ADA and Florida Statutes; that the design is compliant with the ADA, the standards of the Florida Department of Transportation, and the State's Building Codes and Standards; that officials of the Florida Department of Transportation and the Building Codes and Standards Department offered to assist with any problems or issues with construction of the proposed SCAT transfer facility. Richard Thomas, 2322 Alameda Avenue (34234), stated that Mr. Harriott has been quoting from the Public Transportation System Analysis regarding the Bus Priority Corridor along US 41 and not addressing bus service on Beneva Road; that according to BOOK 55 Page 26680 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26681 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. the Public Transportation System Analysis, 30 minute service should exist on US 41. Mr. Thomas continued that a radial system with buses arriving at a main transfer point is unrealistic; that the Public Transportation System Analysis indicates the existing bus routes must be restructured and 40 foot buses should be run along the US 41 Priority Corridor which does not focus on a single dominant central business district; that a timed transier system with a bus priority main corridor allowing for growth is required; that running time is extremey critical for competitive travel times; that the time waiting for any connecting service with other routes should be minimized; that a wait of 40 minutes to transfer should not occur; that the US 41 service requires a one hour frequency east to west route grid; that an independent transportation authority may be organized in 2005 or 2007. Mr. Thomas further stated that bus passengers will encounter a brick wall at the end of the nice promenade at City Hall and be required to walk in a parking lot and compete with vehicles to get to First or Second Street if the proposed SCAT transfer facility is constructed; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility will require demolishing a portion of the City Hall campus which is a very beautiful piece of architecture; that an intermodal transfer facility at the Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport makes sense as buses, planes, taxis, rental cars, etc., will be available in one central location; that the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) indicates the intermodal transfer facility should be located at the railroad tracks and Ringling Boulevard which will make sense at the time railroad passenger service is available; that the Chicago Transit Authority System is a grid system; that the intermodal Midway Airport includes an elevated railroad, buses, and planes; that the Public Transportation System Analysis recommends an intermodal and grid system; that Staff indicated topographical and boundary surveys were submitted for the Application for the SCAT transfer facility; that the surveys submitted are as-built surveys; that the Application requirements indicate topographical and boundary surveys must be submitted; that the submitted surveys for the proposed SCAT transfer facility are not sealed by the surveyor; that the area tabulation is missing. Mayor Palmer requested that other interested persons come forward. The following people came before the Commission: Barbara Grill, 1759 Vamo Drive (34231), signed up to speak but was no longer present in the Chambers. Kerry Kirschner, 2033 Main Street (34239), Executive Director, The Argus Foundation, stated that the Argus Foundation continues to request the Commission to seek an answer to the overriding question which continues to arise before both the PBLP and Commission, which is if the size of the site dedicated by the City is adequate; that the Argus Foundation Board of Directors will provide unqualified support to the project if the issues of safety and function and an adequately sized site create a quality urban space consistent with good planning; that the Argus Foundation had anticipated a multi-modal facility as originally promised by SCAT and as contemplated in the City of Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the multi-modal element has been eliminated and the number of bus bays has been reduced from ten to seven; that the continued reduction of bays with each plan submitted indicates a tacit recognition the site is too small to accommodate the contemplated facility; that the concern of the Argus Foundation is to assure the City delivers to the taxpayers a functional and efficient project for all users; that adequate land must exist to complete the project properly; that buses restricted to tight turning radii resulting in the buses crossing into lanes of oncoming traffic makes no sense from a public safety perspective; that additional land should be dedicated to the project. Joe Hembree, 1335 Second Street (34236), representing Hembree and Associates, referred to a photograph of the current bus transfer location displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that he has an office near the current SCAT transfer facility; that children run between the buses; that other vehicles are required to dodge buses; that the situation is unsafe; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility will not safely accommodate pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, vehicles, bicycle riders, etc.; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility is adequate neither for the present nor the future; that an adequate SCAT transfer facility for the present and the future is required. Marcia Wood, 1401 Second Street (34236), stated that the expert testimony is overwhelming; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility must be on a larger site to function for the present and the future; that downsizing the plan is a move in the wrong direction; that Staff determined the previously proposed SCAT BOOK 55 Page 26682 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26683 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. transfer facility would not accommodate eight buses even with four technical deviations; that the present proposed SCAT transfer facility will not safely function with seven buses; that the site must be much larger to safely serve riders and pedestrians; that the analogy used by the PBLP has not changed, i.e., putting a size nine foot into a size six and one half shoe is painful, defies logic, and will not work no matter the effort expended; that the site plan for the proposed SCAT transfer facility is illogical, does not function in a safe and efficient manner, and will ultimately be very painful as in the future a very costly mistake will be realized; that the City is fortunate to have a mass transit system; that transit users are happy to have a transit system; that transit users have a right to expect a safe and comfortable environment; that the City owes a safe and comfortable environment to the County, the riders, and the community; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility physically endangers not only riders but also pedestrians and automobile drivers alike as the buses cannot maneuver in and out of assigned spaces without hitting something; that buses cannot negotiate coming in or going out of the proposed SCAT transfer facility without obstructing oncoming traffic and running over curbs and landscaping; that the necessity for a transfer facility forces the Commission to make decisions which are not in the best interests of the bus riders who are the most important people; that the bus riders deserve to be safe, secure, and comfortable; that the proposed site plan does not allow safety, security, and comfort; that the site should be enlarged to accommodate the needs of the buses and the riders; that doing otherwise is a major disservice to the people providing support to the system; that approving the proposed SCAT transfer facility is a mistake; that a question is if the faithful customer base is undeserving of safety and security. Nathalie McCulloch, 700 John Ringling Boulevard (34236) representing Selby Public Library, stated that many citizens feel a bus transfer facility is required in the heart of Downtown; that a battle between experts has occurred; that the Commission is making a very serious decision. Diana Hamilton, P.O. Box 1371 (34230), stated that Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), indicated a bad idea will die a natural death; that the site for the proposed SCAT transfer facility is a bad idea; and quoted a remark Author Mark Twain attributed to British politician Benjamin Disraeli as follows: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Ms. Hamilton continued that the display of driving skills exhibited by the County's bus drivers presented in the videotape displayed earlier was executed under incredibly controlled circumstances; that personal exception is taken to the desultory treatment of the Saturday Farmers Market regarding the impact of the buses; that she has been located at the southeast corner of Lemon Avenue and First Street for three years as a Farmers Market vendor; that buses are driven in such a manner considered dangerous to pedestrians in the Farmers Market; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility was intended as a multi-modal facility but no provision for multi-modal use has been observed; that the method of providing security is a concern; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility is paid for by tax dollars; that a person should be able to use the public restrooms, sit at the SCAT transfer facility, and not be requested to leave by a security guard if not a bus passengeri, that the proposed SCAT transfer facility is destructive; that the site is not appropriate for a SCAT transfer facility; that the hope is the Commission will follow the guidance of the PBLP and deny the Application; that the action of the PBLP provides a feeling of pride. David Bernstein, 7444 Broughton Street (34243), representing Sarasota Manatee Area Ready Reliable Relaxing Transportation, stated that he has developed a system to re-deploy the current bus fleet and cover the same routes currently covered by the SCAT system; that attempts have been made to present the plan to the County for quite some time; that the proposed site plan for the SCAT transfer facility is supported. John Harshman, 1525 Main Street (34236), representing the Association of the Downtown Commercial Property Owners, stated that on numerous occasions, the Association of Downtown Commercial Property Owners (Association) has been on record as being in favor of the best possible bus service for Downtown; that unfortunately, the proposed site plan does not offer a good system; that the PBLP recognized the proposed site plan is not good; that little has changed in the site plan from the previous site plan which was denied by the Commission; that the site is too small for the intended use; that the Commission is encouraged to deny the site plan based on the technical flaws. BOOK 55 Page 26684 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26685 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Richard Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that the City should be able to provide a pleasant, significant public transportation experience for people traveling Downtown from affordable housing communities, if affordable housing is not provided in the Downtown; that re-striping the streets would allow larger bus turning zones; that having only one lane of traffic and no parking on First and Second Streets would provide improved negotiation for the buses and automobiles; that a reasonable plan for an appropriate SCAT transfer facility is desired. Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane (34242), stated that the proposed site plan is supported; that County Staff has prepared a proposal to meet the requirements requested by the City; that City and County experts indicate the proposed SCAT transfer facility is appropriate; that the current temporary SCAT transfer location is unsafe; that the bus ridership must be accommodated; that locating the SCAT transfer facility Downtown is important; that locating the SCAT transfer facility at Lemon Avenue has been advocated for the past 12 to 13 years. There was no one else signed up to speak. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Bullock, Mr. McKnight, Mr. Holladay, Mr. Harriott, Kevin Ratigan, Senior Vice President, Architects Design Group, and Kevin St. Jacques, Professional Engineer, Wilbur Smith Associates, came before the Commission. Mr. Holladay stated that Architects Design Group is a consultant to Seibert Architects and has been involved in the project since its inception. Mr. St. Jacques referred to the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that he is a professional engineer as well as a professional traffic operations engineer; that he has been requested to speak specifically to the issues concerning CPTED on the site; that the restrooms on the site face into the center pod; that the center pod is the larger area in which most people will be sitting; that the center pod provides casual surveillance of the entry points of both restrooms; that the passengers sitting in the center pod have line of sight into the restroom area and can watch people going in and out of the restrooms; that casual surveillance exists by people walking past the platform; that any deviant behavior which may occur will be very visible to people on the platform; that many of the passengers leaving or accessing the site will be along the Lemon Avenue sidewalk; that the site is open and visible; that everyone coming out of City Hall to the City Hall parking lot has a direct of the site; that the elevated walkway at City Hall provides a good view of everything going at the platform. Mr. St. Jacques continued that passive surveillance is not the only CPTED principle; that CPTED has other primary principles, one of which is territoriality, that the bus passengers are very frequent riders of the system; that the bus passengers know many of the people riding the bus at the same time; that the bus passengers will establish a turf on the site; that random individuals coming off the street to use the restrooms will not be deviants or an unwelcome presence, that another element of CPTED is active surveillance; that a security guard will be hired and will be on site during the operating hours of the SCAT transfer facility; that the security guard will address any issues with loitering or individuals causing problems; that a high level of security exists on the site. Mr. Ratigan stated that Architects Design Group designed the Votran Public Transportation Facility; that questions concerning similarities between Votran and the SCAT transfer facility can be answered; that the points of entry into the SCAT transfer facility site are not canyons or walls as has been indicated; that the pods which are identified for recycling and refuse containers are in fact only three and one half feet tall; that good visibility is available to the areas from all perimeter points; that the points of entry are not isolated; that the entry points into the restroom areas are open; that no doors are included; that the restroom areas are similar to those in a large airport; that steel gates coil down and completely close off the restroom facilities at night, eliminating the possibility of someone entering the restrooms; that the model of the SCAT transfer facility and the site plan indicates the facility is open and can be easily viewed from surrounding areas. Mr. Harriott referred to the Public Transportation System Analysis, included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that "Best Bus Alternative" has existed for quite some time; that the Public Transportation System Analysis discusses parking BOOK 55 Page 26686 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26687 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. fee programs, no-build alternatives, and Bus Rapid Transit; that the "Best Bus Alternative" is indicated as a low capital investment but is compared to a high capital investment of a fixed guideway light rail system; that the Public Transportation System Analysis indicates the recommended public transportation is a timed pulse transfer system; that ridership system wide is increasing seven percent per year, which includes Downtown; that passengers have been loading and unloading in the street while buses are double parked; that passengers are having to weave in and out of doubled parked buses, stepping off the curb; that buses must be rearranged to allow wheelchairs to enter and exit; that the size of the SCAT transfer facility is adequate for seven percent growth. Mr. Harriott referred to a specifications sheet from Gillig Corporation, the manufacturer of the buses, displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that several different buses are used in the field; that the 35 foot bus with a 219 inch wheel has a wheel base dimension of 18.25 feet; that Mr. Ortman indicated a wheel base dimension of 19.58 feet; that the bus with a wheel base dimension of 19.58 feet referenced by Mr. Ortman is not utilized in the SCAT transfer facility bus system; that the buses referenced by Mr. Ortman are Gillig Corporation, 35 foot buses but are completely different from the buses used in the SCAT bus system. Mr. McKnight agreed; and stated that the wheel base was personally measured at 18.25 feet; that turning templates and the videotape were based on a wheel base of 18.25 feet; that an inadequate site dimension was raised as a concerni that an indication was the lot width of the SCAT transfer facility is approximately 83 feet with a length of 218 feet, which is incorrect; that the survey of the site indicates a length of 230 feet and a width of 80 feet. Mr. McKnight referred to drawings of the SCAT transfer facility submitted by Mr. Ortman as Figures 1 through 8; and continued that Figure 1 indicates a U-turn which is a movement which never occurs; that Figure 2 indicates very little lateral clearance to the left; that Figure 2 indicates ample lateral clearance to the right; that Figure 2 indicates a bus hugging one edge rather than being in the center of the drive; that the buses personally measured, shown on paper, and in the videotape work fine on the site; that the buses in the videotape did not jump curbs, drive over landscaped areas, or hit pedestrians or other buses. Mr. Bullock stated that the videotape test operation was set up in an effort to clearly demonstrate to the Commission the operation of the SCAT transfer facility and was made as accurate as possible using many camera angles; that nothing was hidden; that errors could be seen on the videotape; that buses moving in different directions were indicated; that some buses made perfect turns every time and some did not; that the videotape exposed the margin of error; that the buses did not hit curbs or run into other buses; that the bus drivers were not supervised; that bus drivers are professionals and do the job independently; that the buses are confidently driven; that the test on the site was accurate; that the buses are the buses which are used in the SCAT system; that the wheel base dimensions are correct; that a 40 foot bus was brought in from Tampa, Florida, and put through the test but was not included in the videotape; that the design works; that the discussion has included turning radii, wheel bases, CPTED, dueling experts, etc.; however, the concern is for the bus riders; that the SCAT transfer facility is for the 2,000 people riding the bus into the City every day; that a large number of the riders get off and go to work and contribute to the community, making the City and County vibrant; that the community bus riders have had to wait for buses out on the street for 20 years; that restrooms or a place to change a child's diaper have not been provided previously; that shelter from the rain or sun has not been provided previously; that the opportunity is available to provide a good facility to the bus riders; that the SCAT transfer facility will work on the site, will serve the bus riders for a long time, and will do sO successfully; that the Commission is requested to approve Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-02 at this time. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification regarding the issue raised by Attorney Furen concerning the Downtown Intermodal Transportation Center Land Acquisition and Design project of June 1994, which indicates the site should be a minimum of one acre. Mr. Bullock stated that the 1994 project is not known; that he was not employed with Sarasota County in 1994; that the test operation videotaped at the site was personally seen; that the size of the site is considered adequate. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification regarding the Public Transportation System Analysis recommendation of a pulse time transfer bus system? BOOK 55 Page 26688 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26689 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Bullock referred to and quoted Section 3, Transfers and terminals, of the Public Transportation System Analysis, displayed on the Chamber monitors as follows: As the area grows, it is likely to evolve into a multi- centered urban area focused on retail oriented development clusters, a pattern that tends to favor a timed transfer bus system. A pulse time transfer bus system is designed to facilitate transfers between routes and foster improved transit access between outlying suburban areas. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a timed transfer bus system is the same as a pulse timed transfer bus system? Mr. Bullock stated yes. Commissioner Servian asked if a functional reason exists for the location of the trash receptacles at the northern and southern end of the site? Mr. Ratigan referred to the model of the SCAT transfer facility displayed on the Commission table; and stated that the belief is the functional reason for the location of the trash receptacles can be addressed by Mr. Parks, the Project Architect and Designer; that the belief is the trash receptacles are positioned to facilitate the easy use of recycling and refuse as a person accesses the site; that the location of the trash receptacles is not critical to the operation of the facility. Commissioner Servian asked if the trash receptacles could be moved to other locations on the site? Mr. Parks came before the Commission; and stated that moving the trash receptacles to another location on the site is possible; that an effort was made to disperse the trash receptacles throughout the platform; that four trash receptacles are located at each column. Commissioner Servian asked if City Staff was invited to the videotape test operation of the SCAT transfer facility? Mr. Bullock stated no; that no one was invited; that the test was laid out over a two day period; that the buses were run through the test operation; that the goal was to accurately depict the actual operation; that the operation was conducted on a Saturday. Commissioner Servian stated that questions being raised at this time may not have been necessary if City Staff had been invited to the videotape test operation. Mr. Bullock stated that being overly focused on the task at hand is probably the reason for not inviting City Staff; that the focus was to lay out and demonstrate the actual operation of the SCAT transfer facility. Commissioner Servian stated that several reasons were given for denial of the original site plan; that the predominate reason was pedestrian safety at the access point of Second Street and Lemon Avenue; and asked the manner in which the concern was resolved? Mr. McKnight referred to a site plan of the SCAT transfer facility displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that a median did not exist due to the Second Street driveway; that the Second Street driveway was eliminated; that seven bus bays were created; that the buses now exit on Lemon Avenue which created many opportunities for a standard pedestrian corner; that the Lemon Avenue offset was eliminated; that walkways and handicap ramps are included; that pedestrians no longer conflict with vehicles. Commissioner Servian asked the manner in which Lemon Avenue was realigned? Mr. McKnight stated that the area was widened and a landscaped median was created sO through traffic can be more directly in line across the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Second Street. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification regarding the indication the SCAT transfer facility, as designed, is at 50 percent of current capacity. Mr. Harriott stated that the SCAT transfer facility, as designed, is at 50 percent of current capacity which is based on the Transit Development Plan adopted by the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners and accepted by the State of Florida; that the Transit Development Plan is the indicator of the transit system in Sarasota County. Commissioner Servian stated that the suggestion was made the buses moving through the SCAT transfer facility will be dangerously close to colliding; that some assurance other than indicated in BOOK 55 Page 26690 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26691 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. the videotape is requested; that the videotape did indicate some buses coming dangerously close. Mr. McKnight stated that the buses have a turning angle of 46 degrees; that the operation continued for four hours; that buses normally pull in and exit one at a time; that the only time a bus will be required to pull ahead of another bus is if the bus ahead is disabled; that the videotape test operation indicated buses were able to pull around a bus ahead; that the buses were close at times, but no mirrors were clipped; that the buses were probably not as close as the videotape indicates; that the bus drivers were comfortable with the movement. Commissioner Servian stated that another issue of concern which is continually raised is buses pulling onto the street are crossing into oncoming traffic, which is not considered uncommon for many vehicles; that trucks, buses, and sport utility vehicles unable to make a turn without crossing into the oncoming lane are commonly seen; that the expectation for the SCAT buses to not cross over into the oncoming traffic while making a turn may be excessive. Mr. Bullock stated that the issue was of constant concern; that bus routes were taken to observe the situation; that in many cases, the SCAT buses cross the center line in the normal course of work but not nearly as often as other vehicles; that the observation was the situation was mild compared to trucks, vans, and people driving in excess of the posted speed limit which cross the center line; that the Amtrak bus was observed as well; that an Amtrak bus was personally witnessed running over a curb; that the Amtrak bus had no choice since the bus is 45 feet long. Commissioner Servian stated that over the past several days an opportunity has been provided from her office on the seventh floor at Ringling Boulevard and Pineapple Avenue to observe vehicles traveling westbound on Ringling Boulevard turning north on Pineapple Avenue; that a variety of vehicles were seen hitting the curb and crossing into oncoming traffic; that the situation is not drastic but is an indication the condition is not an unusual occurrence. Mr. McKnight agreed; and stated that the bus wheels do not Cross the yellow center line when making the tightest turn out of the SCAT transfer facility, which must be demonstrated according to the Engineering Design Criteria Manual and which was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; that the original site plan incorporated a special design for the driveways which included curves rather than 45 degree flares; that the new site plan uses a standard driveway required in the Engineering Design Criteria Manual with ten feet of raised full height curb between the two driveways; that the curb could be pulled back one to two feet enabling the driver to make the turn easier; that the fix is a minor final construction detail. Mr. Harriott referred to a photograph of an Amtrak bus at Main Street and Links Avenue displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the wheels of the Amtrak bus are sitting on the center line; that the reason is so the Amtrak bus driver can minimize the clip to the curb; that vehicles touching or going over the center line are a common occurrence. Vice Mayor Martin stated that professional security and maintenance of the site are a concern; that Sarasota County provides security at the temporary SCAT transfer facility location at the Selby Public Library, which is pleasing; that an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Sarasota County will likely include the provision for security at the Lemon Avenue SCAT transfer facility; and asked if the intent is to continue to provide the current level of service? Mr. Bullock stated that the intent is to continue to provide the current level of service; that the intent is included in the draft operating plan; that passengers like the presence of security officers; that security officers question anyone remaining on the site over two pulses. Mayor Palmer asked if the County will proffer an Interlocal Agreement with regard to security issues? Mr. Bullock stated yesi that an Interlocal Agreement is essential to work out a number of operating arrangements between the City and the County. Mayor Palmer stated that the belief is the professional engineers working on the project have signed off on the site plan in writing; and asked for clarification regarding engineering issues concerning safety of pedestrians and passengers and the comparison between the Votran facility and the SCAT transfer facility. Mr. Ratigan stated that his firm, Architects Design Group, designed the Votran facility; that the Votran facility in some BOOK 55 Page 26692 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26693 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. ways served as a model for the SCAT transfer facility; that some of the common elements are the staggering of the bus bays, the offset which allows the turning movement indicated in the videotape, and the program for the type of facilities provided such as the ticket and bus drivers' restroom and break area and the passenger restrooms; that the Votran facility was also used as a model for some concepts relative to the function of the canopy or overhang of the facility, which are architectural elements; that the Votran facility is quite different than the SCAT transfer facility; that the characteristics of the specific site dictate to a large degree the response of the facility; that the Votran facility does not have heavy pedestrian traffic; that the Votran facility is farther away from the Downtown core than the SCAT transfer facility; that the Votran facility has a number of specimen oak trees which were determined as a guiding factor in the evolution of the facility; that the amenities of the Votran facility are all pulled off to one side and a large open area exists for gathering and boarding of buses; that bus clearance was the guiding design factor. Mr. Ratigan continued that the Director of Votran was contacted to confirm the facility has operated for eleven years as designed; that the Votran facility was designed for ten 40 foot buses; that 40 foot buses have since been eliminated from the fleet since the buses cannot adequately get to the site as the City streets have turning radii which are too tight; that the buses could move a little more rapidly through the site; that safety has not been an issue; that the design facilitates a more moderate movement through the site. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding the difference in size between the Votran facility and the SCAT transier facility? Mr. Ratigan stated that the parcel available for the Votran facility was larger; that a desire to save the oak trees on the site was a guiding factor; that a protective tree wall exists around one of the oak trees since the oak tree was beginning to infringe upon the optimal size of the lanes for the buses; that the dimensions of the bus lanes on the Votran facility are the same as those included in the SCAT transfer facility. Mayor Palmer asked if the size of the SCAT transfer facility is considered adequate for the design for the site? Mr. Ratigan stated yes. Mr. McKnight stated that requirements of the Engineering Design Criteria Manual have been met; that City Staff concurs with the design of the facility; that the SCAT transfer facility is considered safe. Mr. St. Jacques stated that he is a professional traffic operations engineer and holds specified training in traffic related to transit; that the videotape was seen and the test operation was pleasing; however, the desire was to visit the site personally to view buses proceed through the test operation; that he stood on the center line waiting for a bus to come too close, which did not occur; that buses were watched from all critical points; that the one point at which he would not stand was the hard right turn onto First Street; that the bus driver crossed the line by approximately one foot for two seconds; that the bus driver was requested to make the hard right turn many times; that each time the bus driver improved; that the first bus driver was new and was a little rough around the turns; that bus drivers making the turns for four hours on the videotape became better each time a turn was made. Mayor Palmer requested that the Affected Persons come before the Commission for rebuttal. Attorney Furen, Mr. Hoyt, and Mr. Ortman, came before the Commission. Attorney Furen stated that the offset at Second Street and Lemon Avenue has been improved but has certainly not been eliminated; that Commissioner Servian has indicated traffic crossing the center line has frequently been seen and is not considered an unusual occurrence; that the issue cannot be debated with Commissioner Servian; however, crossing over the center line violates the Engineering Design Criteria Manual or approval of site plans; that the County's videotape demonstrates center line crossings do occur; that Mr. McKnight actually mentioned the wheels do not cross the yellow center line; however, the body of the bus does, which in and of itself precludes the Commission from lawfully approving the site plan at this time. Mr. Hoyt quoted the Sarasota Downtown Intermodal Transfer Facility Preliminary Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Review report submitted by Carter and Carter Associates, included in the Agenda backup material as follows: BOOK 55 Page 26694 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26695 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Tight pedestrian walkways along the station platform next to the driver lounge, women's restrooms, men's restrooms and mobility center. The pedestrians will tend to avoid these areas by walking in the vacant bus bays. Mr. Hoyt continued that fairly free movement will occur along Lemon Avenue due to the design of the SCAT transfer facility; that since August 2003, his request has been to construct the SCAT transfer facility in an appropriate manner; that credit is due for the work conducted on the site which has been provided; that more land at the Lemon Avenue site will solve the issues raised; that attempts were made to open a dialog with the County; that not being invited to the videotape test operation at the site is surprising and seems peculiar; that the hope was to construct the SCAT transfer facility correctly the first time; that taking the time to review a modified site plan would have solved the issues raised; that since August 2003, time could have been spent attempting to solve the problems with the site plan; that tenaciously holding on to the same basic site plan without any serious accommodation to legitimate points raised seems disingenuous at the least; that the reason for choosing the path is not known. Mr. Hoyt further stated that the issue of the State grant tends to drive the decision concerning approval of the site plan; that the belief is the discussion is larger than simply the SCAT transfer facility; that other projects will be forthcoming; that the relationship between the City and the County is critical; that the hope is the City and County will continue to work together to solve issues in the community; however, communications should be open, honest dialogs; that legitimate design issues raised should be addressed; that the hope is the SCAT transfer facility is constructed soon; that an improved SCAT transfer facility will help every citizen and bus rider; that urban spaces when correctly constructed create exciting places; that everyone is part of the transit action taking place; that transit is exciting; that the hope is exciting transit will take place in Sarasota; that transit facilities should be constructed right the first time and should have ample space; that doing sO will avoid technical decisions and allow construction to move forward. Mr. Ortman stated that the existing transit rider and serving the existing transit rider has been the crux of the discussion; that time has not been spent discussing serving the existing transit rider in the future which is a valid point; that the facility as presented will not enhance the transit experience, thus attracting choice riders to the transit system; that an investment in the Downtown is not being created; that the bus utilized in the videotape test operation remains confusing; that an individual employed with SCAT indicated multiple buses in the fleet were used for the videotape test operation; that none of the buses in the videotape test operation include the bus for which Gillig Corporation provided specifications; that Mr. Bullock indicated the SCAT fleet uses only one type of bus which was utilized for the videotape test operation; that much like a significant amount of the process, a straight answer is not available; that for quite some time, the Votran facility was indicated as wonderful and similar to the SCAT transfer facility; that nothing but back peddling was heard once the size of the Votran facility, which is 50 percent larger than the SCAT transfer facility, was pointed out; that subsequently, the County indicated only specific elements of the Votran facility were utilized in the decision making concerning the SCAT transfer facility; that the reason the Votran facility is not suddenly considered a viable comparison is confusing. Mr. Ortman continued that exception is taken to the issue regarding safety and security; that facilities presently designed with public restroom facilities are almost always designed with active security in mind, i.e, the individual selling tickets looks across the window to monitor the restrooms; that public restroom facilities are not a function of passive security; that active security is the issue in new development of public restrooms at transit facilities, which is a well known fact among urban planners. Mr. Ortman further stated that a question was raised as to if an engineering license was personally held; that although an urban planner, he employs 15 licensed civil engineers; that an issue was raised regarding sealed drawings not being providing; that the licensed civil engineers were requested to prepare a response; that Steven Scalici, P.E., STV Incorporated, New York Office, would not allow anyone to stamp the drawings since the design is considered substandard; that stamping and signing drawings are considered an endorsement of a design; that none of the engineers in his office would sign the drawing; that a request is to imagine the potential for the facility in 20 years. BOOK 55 Page 26696 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26697 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Ortman referred to the site plan of the SCAT transfer facility displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated further that the problem with the site plan which has been discussed for months can be easily solved; that principles of new urbanism can be incorporated; that surface parking could be replaced with active transit use in the SCAT transfer facility; that 10 to 14 buses could be accommodated, while creating a very active, interesting park like environment with a bus transit center serving the perimeter of the block tied into City Hall; that simple, attractive solutions exist to the problem if people are willing to think outside the box. Attorney Euren stated that for the Commission to provide adequate time to make the presentation is appreciated. Mayor Palmer referred to an unsigned STV Incorporated memorandum by Steven Scalici, P.E., STV Incorporated, New York Office, dated December 17, 2003, regarding the Third Follow-up Assessment of the Lemon Avenue Bus Terminal; and asked if the memorandum was signed by Mr. Scalici? Mr. Ortman stated that Mr. Scalici did not sign but did prepare the memorandum. Attorney Furen stated that at least three current Commissioners recognize the site is too small for the proposed SCAT transfer facility; that the size of the site has not changed since the Commission voted to deny the previously submitted site plan at the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting; that the Commission has not, in his recollection, overturned a 5 to 0 vote concerning a recommendation by the PBLP; that one of the PBLP members who voted to recommend denial of the current site plan supported the previous site plan; that for Planning and Redevelopment Staff not to make a recommendation to the Commission is not recalled in his experience; that the current posture of the Application is highly unusual; that good planning and good public safety are not the driving forces behind the proposal; that the belief is two issues are driving the proposal: 1) the potential loss of the State grant and 2) City concerns regarding a potential lawsuit by the County if the site plan is denied; that the Commission is requested and urged not to let either consideration influence a decision; that the Commissioners are requested to consider the proposal with their conscience. Mr. Thomas stated that Staff should produce the topographic and property boundary surveys required by Item No. 11 and the plat of vacation required by Item No. 16 of the Minimum Submission Checklist of the Development Approval Application Package. Mayor Palmer stated that the process does not require production at this time. Mr. Thomas stated that the Applicant is being given special consideration if the documentation cannot be provided; and asked if a response will be provided? Mayor Palmer stated that Staff can provide a response during rebuttal and requested that Staff come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Daughters, Ms. Murphy, and Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came forward. Ms. Murphy stated that significant information has been entered into the record at the current meeting; that the information was not subjected to a complete review by the Development Review Committee (DRC) due to the late submission of the intormation; that Staff is therefore unable to provide a recommendation at this time; that the square footage for the occupancy under the structure should be clarified; that the understanding is the Building Code requires 15 square feet per person rather than 10 as indicated; that the Applicant's presentation indicated 310 people could be accommodated; that the different standard could reduce the number of people who can be accommodated by 100; however, the Plans Examiner is not present to confirm the calculations. Mr. Daughters stated that a concern expressed was the overhang of the bus may go over a curb, which is not a concern of Staff; that the vehicle tires should not go over a curb; that the County has demonstrated to his satisfaction the bus tires will not go over a curb; that buses parked at the Selby Public Library were measured by City Staff; that the dimensions agree with the measurements presented by County Staff; that one technical deviation was indicated as major; that in his review, both the Votran facility and the Staple Street Station project in Corpus Christie, Texas, would have required a technical deviation as the driveway is closer than the Engineering Design Criteria Manual allows; that the offset on Lemon Avenue in the proposed site plan is satisfactory and acceptable; that two streets BOOK 55 Page 26698 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26699 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. cannot line up if one side has a left turn pocket but the other side does not; that an island is therefore constructed; that finally, a property boundary indication and topographical survey were submitted but were preliminary; that the final property boundary and topographical surveys are not required prior to approval of the site plan but rather prior to approval of the final construction drawings as indicated in Section II(A) (2) of his November 10, 2003, letter to WilsonMiller, Inc., as follows: The boundary and topographic survey must be updated [and] signed and sealed by a Professional Surveyor and Mapper licensed in the State of Florida. Commissioner Servian stated that the Expert for the Affected Person indicated his engineers would not sign off on the site plan due to the substandard nature of the site plan and asked for comment. Mr. Daughters stated that any document furnished to a government agency in the State which is for the public and represents an engineer's opinion must be signed and sealed by someone authorized to practice in the State of Florida, which could be a reason an engineer from outside the State would not sign off on the site plan. Commissioner Servian stated that Staff did not make a recommendation concerning the proposed site plan and asked the reason. Ms. Murphy stated that the schedule for review of the revised proposed site plan for the SCAT transfer facility was expedited; that the City has an established development review procedure; that at some point, a cutoff point must be established and an analysis written; that numerous issues were still outstanding at the time; that the resolution of the issues or the impacts on the site were not known; therefore, Staff was unable to make a determination as to the effect of all the variables; that subsequently, a public hearing was held before the PBLP at which substantial evidence was entered into the record; that the evidence from the PBLP public hearing was not incorporated into a plan or provided with adequate copies for distribution and review by the DRC; that the submission of evidence has continued at the current Commission meeting; that Staff may have wished to ask questions concerning the videotape presented by the County earlier in the meeting; that generally, development applications are routed to the DRC; that subgroups may be established to review particular aspects of development applications; that communication will occur between Staff and Applicants to address questions, etc.; that the opportunity for the communication was not available; that the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility was presented at the December 10, 2003, PBLP Regular meeting; that the test operation was conducted on December 13, 2003; that the site plan is now being presented at the December 17, 2003, Special Commission meeting, not leaving adequate time for normal Staff review. Commissioner Servian asked if Staff would have adequate time to review the site plan prior to second reading? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 does not require a second reading. Commissioner Servian asked if the lack of a Staff recommendation is a function of time constraints or the lack of comfort with making a recommendation? Ms. Murphy stated both. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if Lemon Avenue is a minor arterial road? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Commissioner Bilyeu quoted Section I(A) of the November 10, 2003, letter from Mr. Daughters to WilsonMiller as follows: The Thoroughfare Plan (Sections 30-51 through 30-55 of the City Code) designates: 1. Lemon Avenue is a DEA type (ST-60-34) with a future right-of-way (ROW) width of 60 feet. Current ROW adjacent to subject property is 60 feet, adequate to meet minimum required width. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification concerning the required right-of-way. Mr. Daughters stated that the right-of-way will be less than standard; that the decision for a right-of-way which is less than standard was approved by the Commission as part of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Plan; that the cross-section of the design and construction plans as part of the SCAT transier facility was provided by the City to comply with the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Plan. BOOK 55 Page 26700 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26701 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the Commission previously approved a right-of-way at less than the standard of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended). Attorney Schenk stated that Section 30-53, Minor Arterial Streets Designated, City Code, designates Lemon Avenue as planned for a minimum right-of-way of 90 feet subject to acquisition of additional right-of-way; that Sections 30-51 through 30-55, Thoroughfare Plan, City Code, have not been amended since August 1, 1994, are out of date, and should be amended; that the Commission made a policy decision during consideration of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape Plan to narrow Lemon Avenue and not require 90 feet of right-of-way; that at some time, the City Code will require amending to reflect the City's current plans; that much has happened since 1994, including the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, and the incorporation of new urbanism principles into the Engineering Design Criteria Manual. Vice Mayor Martin stated that last minute information has been received by the Commission during the current meeting; therefore, Staff's position concerning a recommendation is respected; and asked if revisions may be required to the proposed site plan? Ms. Murphy stated that revisions could possibly be required. Vice Mayor Martin stated that modifications would go through the approval process again; that the approval process would depend upon whether the modification is minor or major. Ms. Murphy stated that is correct; that building permit plans are generally submitted once a site plan is approved by the Commission, at which time Staff compares the submitted plans with the approved plans; that additional technical information is presented; that changes are often required; that the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement must determine if such changes are major or minor modifications; that the complete review process including DRC and PBLP review is required for major modifications. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the City will continue to exercise control regarding any changes to the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility. Ms. Murphy stated that is correct; that any changes affecting the findings of fact made by the Commission require a complete review; therefore, the Commission is cautioned regarding any findings of fact made. Commissioner Atkins stated that discussion concerning the potential for lawsuits was heard earlier in the meeting; and asked if the City has a defensible position if sued? Attorney Schenk stated that Section IV-506, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), includes the standards for review of site plans; that significant testimony has been heard relative to Section IV- 506 (A) (5), which is the main criteria under consideration, as follows: Whether the proposed development, design and layout has made adequate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access, safety, and traffic circulation (both internal and external to the project) Attorney Schenk continued that the courts have determined governing bodies must have competent and substantial evidence in the record to support any decision; that competent and substantial evidence means evidence a reasonable person would find reliable and trustworthy; that evidence may be presented on both sides of the question as long as evidence is presented to support the governing body's position. City Attorney Taylor stated that the burden of proof has been correctly indicated; that testimony and facts have been entered into the record at the current meeting; that the Commission makes the record which will be defended as necessary; that the Commission will conduct deliberations and make findings leading to a vote; that the question is if a reasonable mind would accept the factual information presented as adequate to support the conclusion reached; that some controversy concerning the facts may be presented; however, the Commissioners can determine the facts presented are adequate for a reasonable person to make a decision, which should be defensible. BOOK 55 Page 26702 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26703 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Attorney Schenk stated that the issue of security was raised; and quoted for the record Section 3(7) of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 as follows: Final approval by the City Commission and County Commission of an Interlocal Agreement prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or certificate of occupancy (whichever is applicable) for the Bus Transfer Facility, detailing: (a) the County plans to maintain and police the facility, including but not limited to, maintenance of the restrooms, litter control, loitering, alcohol consumption and disorderly conduct; (b) bus routing issues, including a prohibition on left hand turns of buses eastbound from Second Street onto Orange Avenue and requiring buses exiting Second Street to yield to other vehicles in the intersection; and (c) the County's plans to transition toward smaller vehicles than the existing buses operated by the Sarasota County Transportation Authority. Attorney Schenk stated that the County has agreed to Section 3(7) of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674. Ms. Murphy stated that in response to correspondence dated November 20, 2003, from Police Officer Debra Rossnagle, the County has made additional proffers concerning the equivalency of the level of service. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification. Ms. Murphy stated that Section 3(7) of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 requires the County present plans for safety, security, etc.; that Vice Mayor Martin may have understood the section to mean equivalent to the level of service currently being provided. Attorney Schenk stated that equivalency will be included in the record for negotiation of the Interlocal Agreement; and continued that Attorney Furen raised an issue of consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition; and referred to Section A, Executive Summary of Staff's report, as follows: Comprehensive Plan Consistency: Future Land Use Chapter, Action Strategy 3.5 of the Sarasota City Plan states that site plans shall be found consistent with the Sarasota City Plan if the zoning district within which the requested project is located is a zoning district that is intended to implement the land use classification within which the project is located. Attorney Schenk continued that the G Zone District implements the Central City Future Land Use Classification of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that Planning Staff agrees every site plan application reviewed which did not have an associated rezoning or conditional use application has been reviewed consistent with Action Strategy 3.5 of the City's Comprehensive Plan since adoption in 1998; that the application of Action Strategy 3.5 is consistent with past practice; that Action Strategy 3.5 does not exempt the site plan from concurrency requirements; that concurrency requirements are included in Section IV-203, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), which requires the Director of Planning and Redevelopment sign a certificate of concurrency as to all public facilities and services. City Attorney Taylor stated that an issue raised earlier in the meeting was no certificate of concurrency was included in the file; that the certificate of concurrency is not required until after the approval of the Commission. Attorney Schenk stated that an issue was raised concerning the terminology of technical deviations in the Engineering Design Criteria Manual; that the Engineering Design Criteria Manual requires technical deviations must perform at the same or higher level while the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) indicates a preferable design impact; that after discussion with Engineering Staff, the terminology may be slightly different but is not different in degree; that a technical deviation must perform at the same or higher level which was met with the proposed site plan. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674. Commissioner Servian stated that the Applicant has worked diligently to correct the deficiencies noted at the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting at which the previous site plan for the SCAT transfer facility was presented; that the purpose of BOOK 55 Page 26704 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26705 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. the current meeting is not to redesign the SCAT transfer facility or to compare various sites throughout the County; that since the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, the corrections to the deficiencies make the site more safe, provide increased pedestrian access, meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements as indicated by public speaker, Pamela Dorwarth, State Commissioner for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, who presented the site plan to the State for review and testified as to the safety and compliance of the site plan; that the criteria necessary to approve the site plan have been met by realigning Lemon Avenue, removing the egress onto Second Street, and disallowing left-hand turns into the SCAT transfer facility from First Street as well as assuring the necessary security will be provided; that community bus riders should be provided a safe and secure SCAT transfer facility; that the Commission is responsible for assuring the site plan will meet the health, safety, and welfare needs of the City's citizens. Vice Mayor Martin stated that City Engineering Staff used the term satisfactory and accessible in describing the SCAT transfer facility; that the previous site plan for the SCAT transfer facility was to his personal satisfaction as to good urban design; that the problem presented is redevelopment of a City with many constraints; that the decision to locate the SCAT transfer facility Downtown was made long ago; that mass transportation to address traffic and congestion issues is the future of the community; that many issues were raised in the discussion; that the Commission repeatedly decided the SCAT transfer facility must be considered a civic use; that a skilled architect was engaged to design the civic building; that security and maintenance issues were of personal concern; that a proffer from the County will address the need for a high level of service for security and maintenance; that safety and the potential conflict between buses and/or vehicles and/or pedestrians has been raised as a concern; that a walk is not being taken in the woods in a congested area such as Downtown; that pedestrians must remain cautious while walking in a busy Downtown environment; that parents have always taught children the correct way to cross the street by looking left and right before crossing the street; that dangerous situations may arise in the Downtown environment; that being Downtown makes people, either drivers or pedestrians, more careful to avoid the conflicts; that few pedestrian or automobile accidents occur in the Downtown area; that the decision concerning siting of the SCAT transfer facility has been difficult for the community; that the presented site plan for the SCAT transfer facility is now better for the opposition and for the gauntlet of the Democratic process which has occurred; that all the ideas brought forward are appreciated; that Mr. Hoyt is particularly respected for the concern to assure a good Downtown and good urban design of the project; that the SCAT transfer facility is key in the creation of a more vital Downtown, especially an inclusive Downtown; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the SCAT bus system has been a special situation for the City for approximately the last 20 years; that the SCAT bus system has been utilized by his family for years; that the plight of persons utilizing the SCAT bus system is understood; that he has utilized the SCAT bus system many times although not recently; that the process is of concern; that a vote was cast to deny the request for approval of the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility at the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting; that the Affected Persons were told at the time the only reason the SCAT transfer facility would not be supported was if a threat was posed to the health, safety, or welfare of the City's citizens; that the City's and the County's experts have done everything possible to accommodate the City; that the City is well operated and has high standards; that the County did the best job possible and has surpassed the threshold personally sought; that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 is supported; that the time has come to move on and look forward to the future of the City. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the site plan is not supported for several reasons; that the first two reasons the site plan is not supported are: 1) environmental and 2) historic preservation; that the black olive trees on Lemon Avenue will be removed and the ground scraped; that the historic nature of City Hall, which was meant to include the entire block, will be compromised; that a first-class SCAT transfer facility is deserved by the City's citizens; that the building looks good and has good architecture; however, the site is not designed for a multi-modal system; that County Staff indicated two different sizes of the buses during testimony, which causes discomtort; that a multi- modal system could include trolleys and Amtrak buses in the future; that locating the SCAT transfer facility in the Downtown area is now personally acceptable, which may not have been true at one time; however, the size of the proposed site is not acceptable; that the mai rgin of error is zero, as reflected on the County's videotape; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility will not be as safe as projected; that a first-class SCAT transfer BOOK 55 Page 26706 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26707 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. facility is deserved by the citizens; that the goal of a first- class SCAT transfer facility will not be accomplished due of the size of the site; that different figures of ridership have been presented; that the County indicated ridership at 2,000 a day and at 2,600 a day; that public speaker Paul Thorpe estimated the ridership at approximately 3,600; that the different figures of ridership is confusing. Commissioner Bilyeu continued that the City should sell the County more land to make the proposed site larger or a larger site should be found; that the State grant is not a major concern; that having cash in the pocket does not always mean the cash should be spent; that the ridership will be rendered a disservice if the proposed SCAT transfer facility is approved; that at the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, Affected Person Elmer Berkel indicated the proposed SCAT transier facility will be a significant improvement over the existing facility, which is true; however, the proposed site plan is too narrow in the center and people will get wet during the area's torrential downpoursi; that the proposed SCAT transfer facility is better than previously proposed but is still not the first-class SCAT transfer station the best small City in America deserves; that the site plan could be a lot better; that the architect of record could do an even better job with more land; that the efforts of the County's Staff, the architects, and consultants are appreciated; that the presentation of Affected Person Gary Hoyt is appreciated; that Mr. Hoyt's participation has always been admired; that the proposed site plan for the SCAT transfer facility is not personally acceptable. Mayor Palmer asked if the intent of the motion is to include the proffer of the County concerning the public safety issues? Commissioner Servian stated yes; and asked if an amendment to the motion is required? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an amendment is not required if the intent of the motion is a matter of record. Commissioner Servian stated that the intent was to include the County's proffer concerning the public safety issues in the motion. Vice Mayor Martin stated that his intent as the seconder was to include in the motion the County's proffer concerning public safety issues and to provide the existing level of service at the current location at the Selby Public Library. Mayor Palmer stated that specifics concerning the Interlocal Agreement are incorporated in Staff's report included in the Agenda backup material which could be included in the motion if satistactory. Commissioner Servian as the maker of the motion with the approval of Vice Mayor Martin as the seconder of the motion agreed that the specifics concerning the Interlocal Agreement incorporated in Staff's report are included in the motion. Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission denied the previous site plan for the SCAT transfer facility by a 4 to 1 vote at the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting; that her vote at the time was to deny the site plan and did not concern the proposed site location; that the Commission had previously made a decision concerning the site location, a decision which was supported by members of the current Commission after a joint meeting with the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners; that the proposed location is not personally considered the best; however, the current review concerns a site plan rather than a site location; that numerous sites were reviewed by the City and the County; that the proposed site is the only site acceptable to the County, the bus patrons, and various other interested parties who have been involved in discussions concerning the SCAT transfer facility for years; and continued by quoting the December 8, 2003, letter from Attorney Furen as follows: It appears obvious to bystanders that the City, no matter what the testimony is at the scheduled public hearing before the City Commission, has agreed to approve the new Site Plan Application. Mayor Palmer stated further that the Commission has listened to three hours of testimony and substantial and competent evidence on both sides; that one Commissioner indicated the proposed site plan will not be supported based on the substantial and competent evidence presented; that four Commissioners did not support the site plan presented at the October 6, 2003, Regular Commission meeting based on the substantial and competent evidence presented at the time; that personal conversations were held with County Commissioners subsequent to the City Commission's denial of the previous site plan, which should have been and now are being placed in the record as ex-parte communications; that the County BOOK 55 Page 26708 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26709 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioners were told the previous site plan was denied as the City has a standard, which is substantial and competent evidence; that on the basis of substantial and competent evidence, four Commissioners decided the site plan was not appropriate for the SCAT transfer facility; that site location is not the issue as clarification for Attorney Furen; that the quoted statement in the December 8, 2003, letter from Attorney Furen is not accurate; that the Commission listened to the information; that minds had not been made up prior to the current meeting. Mayor Palmer further stated that the issue of the State grant should be addressed; that the potential loss of the State grant is not before the Commission; that the hopes are the State grant will be received and the funds will not be lost; however, her decision to deny or approve the proposed site plan is not based on the possible loss of the State grant; that the possibility of the filing of a lawsuit by the County if the site plan is denied has not been heard; however, the possibility of lawsuits from other individuals has been heard; that the hope is no lawsuits will be forthcoming; that the hope is additional City funds will not be spent to defend an action concerning the location of the SCAT transfer facility; and continued by quoting Section 3(1) of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 as follows: All final building plans shall be to full review for compliance with applicable codes and development plans by the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement. Mayor Palmer stated further that any remaining issues which do not meet City or State code requirements will be addressed; that following the complete process will be required for any major modification; that any required minor modifications can be adjusted appropriately. Mayor Palmer referred to Section 3(5) of proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 concerning technical deviations and stated that nothing will be perfect in the Downtown; that the Downtown is constrained regardless of the location of the SCAT transfer facility; that problems will arise but should not be severe; that certified engineers signed off on the site plan to indicate the location is safe as to bus movements and the lack of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts; that the Sarasota Police Department raised one concern but was otherwise satisfied any issues regarding public safety had been addressed; that the design of the SCAT transfer facility is excellent; that the location is neither the largest nor the best; however, the identity of the largest and best location is not known, unless in the rural area of the Countyi that the urban area requires a SCAT transfer facility; that the SCAT transfer facility is appropriate for the bus patrons; that the time is appropriate for the City to act favorably on the site plan for the SCAT transfer facility; that the motion is supported. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 including specifics for the Interlocal Agreement from City Staff's report. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, no; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 5. APPROVAL RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02- 4391 TO CONDITIONALLY VACATE THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF THE 60 FOOT WIDE LEMON AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SECOND STREET AND BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF FIRST STREET AND CONSISTING OF THE EASTERLY 27 FEET OF SIDEWALK AND RELATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IMMEDIATELY ADJAÇENT THERETO AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN ; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM V) CD 10:20 through 10:22 City Attorney Taylor stated that second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4391 is to conditionally vacation a portion of the Lemon Avenue right-of-way and is associated with Agenda Item IV-A-1, the quasi-judicial public hearing concerning proposed Resolution No. 04R-1674 approving the site plan for the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) transfer facility; that an additional presentation by Staff is not required unless desired by the Commission. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4391 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4391 on second reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes. 6. APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE MAJOR ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT BOOK 55 Page 26710 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26711 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. (SCAT) AUTHORITY FOR THE SCAT TRANSFER FACILITY - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI) CD 10:22 through 10:24 City Manager McNees stated that the Major Encroachment Agreement between the City and Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Authority is also a companion to Agenda Item IV-A-1 concerning the SCAT transfer facility; that additional presentation may not be necessary. Commissioner Servian stated that a consultant was seen entering the Chambers and making an unpleasant gesture and asked if any concerns exist? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that a verbal threat was received; that the consultant was upset with his statements at the end of the public hearing of Agenda Item IV-A-1 and made some unprofessional comments; that the consultant's comments were taken as a verbal threat. Mr. Daughters continued that the Major Encroachment Agreement is for roof overhangs on each end of the SCAT transfer facility; that the encroachment into the right-of-way is minor. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to approve the Major Encroachment Agreement between the City and Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Authority and to authorize execution by the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 7. APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND SARASOTA COUNTY FOR THE SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT TRANSFER FACILITY = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII) CD 10:24 through 10:25 Mayor Palmer stated that the item is to approve Amendment No. 1 to the contract for the sale and purchase between the City and the County for the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) transfer facility; that a revised Amendment No. 1 was received immediately prior to the meeting to replace the Amendment No. 1 included in the Agenda backup material; and asked for clarification. Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the August 14, 2003, draft of Amendment No. 1 was included in the Agenda backup material; that the December 8, 2003, draft of Amendment No. 1 should have been provided. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the changes are: - the approvals by the City must be on or before December 31, 2003; the payment of the $460,648 for the overpayment to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) fund will be made on or before January 31, 2004; and - the requirement concerning a vehicular pass-through in the parking lot is removed and a wall will be constructed instead. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to the contract for the sale and purchase between the City and the County for a Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) transfer facility. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Servian, yesi Palmer, yes. 8. APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OVERPAYMENT BETWEEN SARASOTA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SARASOTA WHEREBY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WOULD MAKE A $460,648 PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII) CD 10:25 through 10:28 Mayor Palmer stated that the item is to approve the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County regarding the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Overpayment (Interlocal Agreement); that the Interlocal Agreement provides for the City's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to make a $460,648 payment to the County. BOOK 55 Page 26712 12/17/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 26713 12/17/03 2:30 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Interlocal Agreement is the last step in the process to finalize the details relating to the transaction concerning the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) transfer facility; that the item concerns an adjustment to the payment to the TIF fund. City Attorney Taylor referred to the Agenda Request Form included in the Agenda backup material indicating the error of incorrectly including the value of tangible personal property in the Tax Appraiser's certification of taxable value resulted in an overpayment of $1,803,057, of which the County has agreed to provide reimbursement credit to the City in the amount of $1,342,409 for improvements which directly benefited the County and which were constructed by the City using TIF revenues; and stated that the amount remaining for repayment is $460,648; that the Interlocal Agreement memorializes the understanding between the City and the County. Mayor Palmer stated that the Interlocal Agreement is consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding approved by the City and the County Commissions several months ago. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County Regarding the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Overpayment wherein the Community Redevelopment Agency will make a $460,648 payment to the County. City Attorney Taylor quoted the Agenda Request Form as follows: A revised agreement is supposed to be coming from the County Attorney's Office that requires the payment by March 31, 2004. City Attorney Taylor stated that the payment is required by January 30, 2004. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the date was initially March 31, 2004; that the County Attorney's Office preferred a date of January 30, 2004, which is the date in the Interlocal Agreement and which is acceptable to the City. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mayor Palmer stated that all the items on the Agenda concerning the SCAT transfer facility have been considered; that decisions have been made; that everyone's involvement and commitment are appreciated. 9. CITIZENS 1 INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM IX) CD 10:28 There was no one signed up to speak. 10. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 10:28 There being no further business, Mayor Palmer adjourned the Special meeting of the City Commission of December 17, 2003, at 10:28 p.m. Emek LOU ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR ATTEST: LLy A Ralrenson BILLY EC ROBENSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 55 Page 26714 12/17/04 2:30 P.M.