Book 36 PAGE 10533 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 26, 1994 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone, City Manager David Sollenberger, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen McGowan and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 7:02 p.m. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REPORT OF THEIR SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1994 = ACCEPTED (AGENDA ITEM I-1) #1 (0001) through (0370) Jane N. Robinson, Director of Planning, and Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of April 20, 1994: A. 94-PA-01 (Boston Chicken) : Petition to amend the Existing Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map to include annexed property for continuance as Commercial Intensive (CI) zoning restricted to existing use or less intensive commercial zoning; that this parcel is located at 3875 South Tamiami Trail; that no one spoke during the course of the public hearing and no particular concerns were expressed; that the motions carried unanimously to find the matter consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, to incorporate the revision into the Comprehensive Plan, and to recommend approval of this item to the Commission. B. 94-PA-02 (Evangelical Free Church of Sarasota): Petition to amend Existing Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map to include annexed property for continuance as Residential Multi-Family (RMF-1) zoning; that this parcel is located at 1899 south Tuttle Avenue; that no one spoke during the public hearing and no particular concerns were expressed; that the motion carried unanimously to find the matter consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and to recommend approval of this item to the Commission. C. 94-CRPA-03: Petition to amend the Thoroughfare designa- tion of South Boulevard of the Presidents and Taft Drive from Major Collectors to local roads; that no one spoke during the public hearing and no particular concerns were expressed; that the motion carried unanimously to find the matter consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and to recommend approval of this item to the Commission. D. 94-CRPA-01: Petition to amend the Thoroughfare designa- tion of Myrtle Street from U.S. 41 to the east City limit, from a two-lane Major Collector to a four-lane Major Collector; that four members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed change; that a motion was made to recommend adoption of alternative 3 requiring no change in the Thoroughfare Plan, but rather the establishment of a program for improvements along the right-of-way; that the motion carried 4 to 1; that the dissenting vote was not an objection to changing the designation, but rather whether to begin the improvements at this time; that the motion carried unanimously to find alternative 3 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan; that the Board felt there was insufficient information to justify the change; that over the last three years the Board has tried to review the Thoroughfare Plan; that this plan must be reviewed within the next two years to meet State requirements; that the Board is suggesting dealing with the Thoroughfare Plan comprehensively to determine whether the City needs two four-lane roads, i.e., 17th Street and Myrtle Street; that this designation does not have to be completed this year since the projected time frame at which the level of service would decline is in the future. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the objection from Mr. Annis at the PBLP meeting was regarding the capital improvements? Mr. Annis stated that his concern was to assess the situation more completely before committing to capital improvements on the long-term configuration of the road; that the Board was unanimous in wanting additional information before deciding on a four-lane road; that the only disagreement was when to proceed with the capital improvements; that the concern is the lack of sidewalks and inadequate roadway width for bicycles, particularly with a school on the road. E. 94-3782 Amendment Procedures for Comprehensive Plan: that the motion carried unanimously to amend Ordinance 94-3782 to provide the PBLP. the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report for review at Book 36 PAGE 10534 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10535 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. the first regular meeting after receipt by the City; that a determination will be made whether to hold a special meeting prior to the City Commission public hearing; that the intent of this motion is to read "after receipt by the Planning Department from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) at the next scheduled PBLP meeting, it will be reviewed with the presumption if there were major changes by the DCA then a hearing would be held prior to the City Commission hearing"; that the Board is trying to deal with the time constraints by eliminating the automatic requirement for a public hearing before the PBLP; that an opportunity will still exist for a public hearing if there are major changes recommended by DCA to the plan; that the motion carried unanimously for approval of this Ordinance and to recommend approval of this item to the Commission. Mr. Annis stated that one item from the meeting did not make the PBLP report, but occurs in the minutes; that the Board felt it would be helpful to attend the budget workshops on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to be more informed in order to provide a recommenda- tion on this matter; that the motion carried unanimously for the Planning Board to request the City Commission consider the Board's participation in budget workshops regarding the CIP. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she concurs with the Board's recommendation. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the report of the PBLP special meeting of April 20, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan to explain the public hearing process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3801, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREMENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 94-PA-01, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-PA-01, BOSTON CHICKEN) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0380) through (0538) Pamela K. Hower, Senior Planner, came before the Commission and stated that annexation of this parcel was approved by the Commission on November 15, 1993; that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Maps are being amended to include this parcel located at the northeast corner of Bee Ridge Road and U.S. 41. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval; that due to the Snyder decision the staff is refraining from making specific recommendations on rezoning and comprehensive plan measures, however this matter has had two hearing before the City Commission; that this is an administrative act, therefore, the recommendation is made. Ms. Hower stated that this is a small scale development activity amendment; that no additional public hearings will be held. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There were no individuals wishing to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3801 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept Ordinance No. 94-3801. Mayor Patterson requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3802, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREMENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 94-PA-02, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREKENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-PA-02, EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0539) through (0625) Pamela K. Hower, Senior Planner, came before the Commission and stated that this is the second annexation this year for the Evangelical Free Church, 1899 south Tuttle Avenue; that part of the Book 36 PAGE 10536 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10537 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Church on south Tuttle Avenue is in the city and the remainder is in the County; that the petitioner has requested and the City Commission has approved annexation for easier Church expansion; that this is an amendment to the City's Future Land Use Plan, Existing and Future Land Use Maps to be consistent with the annexation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3802 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 94-3802. Mayor Patterson requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimous- ly (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREMENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 94-CRPA-03 - PETITION TO DELETE SOUTH BOULEVARD OF THE PRESIDENTS AND TAFT DRIVE AS MAJOR COLLECTORS FROM THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN - AFFIRMED THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S (PBLP) RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL; AMENDMENT TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE (AGENDA ITEM II-3) #1 (0630) through (0731) Pamela K. Hower, Senior Planner, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission passed Ordinance 93-3675 to remove South Boulevard of the Presidents and Taft Drive from the Thoroughfare Plan in April 1993; that the Planning Staff is in agreement; that these roads have been on the Thoroughfare Plan since the Plan was originally adopted and there was to be a bridge on Siesta Key; that removing this road will make the Thoroughfare Plan consistent with the ordinance. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is for approval of the Plan Amendment. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, stated that there are two votes involved in the motion; that the first vote is to affirm or reverse or modify the amendment as recommended by the Planning Board and the second vote is for the transmittal to the State. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to affirm the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 94-CRPA-03. Mayor Patterson requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimous- ly (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 94-CRPA-03 to the State. Mayor Patterson requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimous- ly (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 94-CRPA-01 = PETITION TO UPGRADE THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN DESIGNATION OF MYRTLE STREET FROM A 2-LANE MAJOR COLLECTOR TO A 4-LANE MAJOR COLLECTOR - DENIED; ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM II-4) #1 (0731) through (3679) Pamela K. Hower, Senior Planner, and Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and distributed handouts regarding Myrtle Street and displayed a map of the Myrtle Street Corridor on the overhead projector. Ms. Hower stated that in 1979 Myrtle Street was designated as a Major Collector with 75 feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Myrtle Street is a Major Collector with 75 feet of right-of-way today? Ms. Hower stated that the road is a two-lane Major Collector; that the distinction between a two- and a four-lane Major Collector was not made in 1979. Mr. Daughters stated that there is not 75 feet of right-of-way at Myrtle Street today. Mayor Patterson asked if it is still a goal of the Plan to have 75 feet of right-of-way? Mr. Daughters stated this is correct. Ms. Hower stated when the City adopted the current Thoroughtare Plan in 1989, Myrtle Street was adopted as a two-lane Major Collector; that the City and the County met to discuss possibilities of widening Myrtle Street in May 1992; that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was contacted and advised it Book 36 PAGE 10538 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10539 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. would be a plan amendment to change the thoroughfare designation from a two-lane to a four-lane roadway; that the City and County staffs met with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in September 1992 to discuss the possibility of using Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) funds; that the recommendations of the City and County Commissions at a joint meeting to address Myrtle Street were as follows: 1. Amend as appropriate the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Sarasota to include four lanes for this segment of Myrtle Street; 2. Request the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to make a corresponding amendment to the Sarasota Manatee Area Transportation Study (SMATS) Plan; 4. Request the MPO to budget federal funding for the construction of this project during its 1993 annual update of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Ms. Hower continued that the Myrtle Street Extension from Booker Middle School to U.S. 301 appeared in the County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in 1993/1994; that Tampa Bay Engineering (TBE) completed Phase I of the traffic study relating to the Booker High School expansion to identify possible areas for improvement in September 1993; that the County's 1993/1994 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) included building the segment from Tuttle Avenue to U.S. 301, and this project was probably in the County's previous CIPS as well. Commissioner Atkins requested an explanation of the four-lane right-of-way. Ms. Hower stated that the County has the right-of-way to build four lanes; that the portion of road from Tuttle Avenue to Booker Middle School has sidewalks and bike paths. Mayor Patterson stated that there is public ownership of four lanes of right-of-way along Myrtle Street until the City limits is reached. Ms. Hower stated that the traffic study in 1993 did not specify where the widening of the road should occur; that the traffic study did not look at the entire corridor, but just the vicinity of Booker High School. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the traffic study reviewed the section of Myrtle Street from the railroad track to U.S. 301? Ms. Hower stated that the study was not specific; that in discussion with the Neighborhood Advisory Committee the immediate needs were in the vicinity of Booker Middle School; that Myrtle Street from U.S. 301 to the City limits is a County road. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City limits is on the south side of the right-of-way of Myrtle Street. Ms. Hower stated that a joint meeting of the City Commission, the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners was held in November 1993; that a vote was taken to approve Phase I of the traffic study giving City staff the opportunity to go into Phase II which is the feasibility of items in Phase I; that part of Phase I was the widening of Myrtle Street; that a traffic study was completed in March 1994 for the City's and the County's segments of the road; that the County proposed using a portion of the City's impact fees to fund the design and engineering of the corridor. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the cost of the design and engineering for the City's portion of the road was $240,000. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the County proposed this amount and if the City agreed? Ms. Hower stated that the City did not agree, but wanted to wait until the Plan Amendment was passed. Ms. Hower stated that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) approved the Project Priorities List in April 1994; that Myrtle Street ranks 26th out of 52 on the MPO list; that it will be several years before this project receives attention from the MPO; that a neighborhood workshop and planning meeting was held later in April 1994; that the projection is the County will begin construction of the Myrtle Street Extension from Booker Middle School to U.S. 301 in October 1994. Ms. Hower reviewed the highlights of the traffic study by Kimley Horn, the Booker High School Concurrency Study prepared by TBE, and the Booker High Transportation Study which also addresses Myrtle Street and the methodology used in the study. (A copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk). Commissioner Atkins asked if the traffic volumes reported in the traffic study is on both streets or only on Myrtle Street or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. Ms. Hower stated that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way has about 11,000 cars a day and Myrtle Street has about 8,000 cars a day; that the growth on Myrtle Street is projected at 43%; that the consultants were asked to look at a planning horizon for the year 2020; that the MPO's model only extends to the year 2010. Ms. Hower stated that the staff completed an analysis of the amendment; that five improvements are recommended without widening the road: Book 36 PAGE 10540 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10541 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. 1. Correct the width problems in the vicinity of Booker High School and the problems related to the industrial area where there is a drainage ditch, no bike paths or sidewalks, however this is a County responsibility, 2. Improve the intersection at Orange Avenue and Myrtle Street as recommended by the Booker High School Traffic Study and where the County is considering adding a traffic signal, 3. Correct the railroad crossing which is defective, very rough and needs traffic abatement, but this will be very expensive, 4. Resurface the entire length of Myrtle Street which may include areas which must be rebuilt with curbs and gutters, 5. Extend the sidewalks and add bike lanes throughout the entire portion as the new segments from Tuttle Avenue to U.S. 301 are completed. Ms. Hower distributed a map of the City's and the County's Thoroughfare Plans and stated that a capacity analysis will be completed by the County for future growth; that this capacity analysis is broken down by residential units; that according to the County, the area is 78% built out; that the traffic study used an overall growth rate of 2% to determine when the level of service will fall; that the County has not been able to determine the nonresidential capacity at this point; that the 700-acre major employment center indicated on the County's Plan is closer to 500 acres; that Myrtle Street will stop at Lockwood Ridge Road and the connecting portion to Longmeadow Drive has been deleted from the County's Thoroughfare Plan; that improving the portion of roadway from Myrtle Street between Tuttle Avenue to Lockwood Ridge Road is currently unfunded, but is part of the long-range plan; that the City asked the County's position if the City Commission elects not to amend the Thoroughfare Plan for Myrtle Street; that the County responded by letter stating that this has been a long-term project for the County; that if the City chooses not to amend the Plan, the likelihood of ISTEA funding is greatly diminished and the County would feel no obligation to fund the project themselves. Commissioner Atkins asked if this meant there would be no improvements at all in this case? Ms. Hower stated this is correct. Mayor Patterson asked if the road improvements are eligible for ISTEA funding as a two-lane road as recommended by alternative 3? Ms. Hower stated that she believes this is correct; that the criteria for ISTEA funds is based upon road-widening projects. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that other communities have had sidewalks and bike lanes approved and asked if bike lanes and sidewalks will be funded in the future? Ms. Hower stated that there is a good chance for funding of sidewalks and bike lanes which are included on the Enhancement Priority List of the MPO. Mayor Patterson stated that the list of Enhancement Priorities will consume the next five years of funding available to the MPO. Ms. Hower stated that a project has been submitted for the year 1999/2000 which is the only year for which funding is left. Commissioner Cardamone asked if any part of Myrtle Street is on the Sidewalks to Schools Program? Mr. Daughters stated that he did not believe so; that the majority of the portion of Myrtle Street within the City already has sidewalks; that there is a long section that does not have sidewalks on Myrtle Street which is outside the City limits. Mayor Patterson stated that the City has about a half million dollars in impact fees; that a portion of this will be contributed towards the development and engineering costs for this project if a four-lane road is developed; and asked the cost for road improvements for the City segment of Myrtle Street? Mr. Daughters stated that a preliminary rough estimate for a complete reconstruction of two lanes within the existing right-of-way and the entire length of Myrtle Street from U.S. 41 to U.S. 301 would be $2.5 million; that the portion from Bradenton Road to U.S. 41 would be the City's responsibility. Mayor Patterson asked what the letter from Sarasota County Government was in response to? Ms. Hower stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment package was sent to the County; that the County responded it does not have the funds to contribute unless the funds come from the federal agency. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that if the federal government does not fund this project, another County project will be funded which will free up local dollars; that the County stated that they will not be obligated to fund the improvement, yet County Commissioner Mills feels it is important; that this area is not a priority at this time and traffic studies confirm this fact. Book 36 PAGE 10542 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10543 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that the letter from Mr. Galloway, P.E., Manager, Engineering Division, Sarasota County Government, was an appropriate. responsei that the City will not be taking a tremendous gamble if the decision is made to improve the two-lane road with curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bike paths. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Annis' objection has some relevance if there are to be substantial improvements; that the value of the improvements may be lost if a four-lane road is developed; that the number of years for the current improvements should be amortized; that 10 years is an acceptable life span for improvements on this segment of road. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that it is hard to forecast what may happen in an area; that the growth generator utilized depicts straight-line projections; that there would be a demand to fill a four-lane road if built; that straight-line projections are difficult to predict; that if a straight-line projection was completed in the 1950's, Bahia Vista Street would be a Level of Service (LOS) F, but it is not because other roads have been built. Ms. Hower stated that she was attempting to show in this projection at what point the level of service would fall. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there are always alternate routes; that using straight-line projections is not the best analysis. Commissioner Cardamone asked the time line for review of the Thoroughfare Plan and when this issue will be brought back to the Commission with additional information from the MPO and information regarding ISTEA funds if a decision is delayed on this section of the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Hower stated that several large scale studies are being performed: the U.S. 301 Mobility Study which is a State project of the MPO as well as the MPO's 2020 Plan update; that these are good sources for additional data in terms of traffic generation; that these studies will be completed in about 18 months; that there is a requirement by the State to update the City's Thoroughfare Plan in approximately two years; that the Thoroughfare Plan will be returned to the Commission in about two years. Commissioner Atkins asked the projected time frame on the County's studies indicating the 78% built-out rate? Ms. Hower stated that the land is currently built out at 78% in residential density according to the County's future land use projections and what projects have been approved. Mayor Patterson asked the costs of the different options projected for the ideal improvement category? Mr. Daughters stated that the two-lane road in the existing right-of-way was projected as being the most expensive two-lane alternate; that there could be a less expensive alternative than totally reconstructing the entire length of the road as two lanes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the total reconstruction includes curbs, gutters, and sidewalks? Mr. Daughters stated that total reconstruction also includes drainage, bicycle paths, traffic signals, etc. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the estimate is for the maximum reconstruction, but the cost could be less if the City did solid repair on the existing road. Vice Mayor Merrill asked where the sidewalks are and if they are connected? Commissioner Atkins stated that there are sidewalks on the south side of Myrtle Street from Lime Avenue to Old Bradenton Road; that the County portion is before the railroad tracks where there are no sidewalks. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the sidewalks should be in the Capital Improvement Plan this year. Mayor Patterson asked if the estimate included sidewalks on both sides of Myrtle Street or just continuing one decent sidewalk? Mr. Daughters stated that the estimate is for totally new sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and drainage on both sides of a totally new two-lane road. Mayor Patterson stated that it certainly would be hard for the County to opt out of any responsibility for providing sidewalks on the north side of Myrtle Street if the sidewalks are necessary. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the neighborhood will be improved by having curbs and sidewalks from the railroad tracks to the west; that these improvements would make the area more attractive for the residents. Commissioner Atkins stated that this area is a very old neighborhood which has no sidewalks along the road; that all the City has been trying to accomplish is the Sidewalks to Schools Program and solving the problem along Myrtle Street. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he could not believe that Myrtle Street was left out of the Sidewalks to Schools Program. Book 36 PAGE 10544 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10545 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked for an Administrative recommendation and/or comments on the matter. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which is based on carrying out the wishes of the City and County Commissions to proceed with a four-lane road; that the PBLP has recommended to keep Myrtle Street a two-lane road; that he suggests the Commission determine what it wants to do and take action accordingly. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration's recommendation is clearly trying to carry out the will of the Commission; that she respects the Administration's recommendation; that there is staff with expertise in the matter which the Commission does not have; that the Commission has not heard the staff's recommendation; that she would like an unencumbered recommendation from the staff. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Sollenberger stated that the staff does not feel the data supports a four-lane road at this time; that the staff supports a two-lane road with sidewalk and bicycle path improvements. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Commission has the option to vote on the recommendation if the Thoroughfare Plan is to be reviewed? Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:07 p.m. Mayor Patterson stated that the Thoroughfare Plan will be reviewed in a couple of years; that the neighborhood deserves planning by the Commission as to how the improvements of either the ideal construction plan or sidewalks so school children can walk safely, drainage, etc., can be funded; that the Commission should recommend the staff pursue alternative 3 and work with the County and the MPO for options to improve Myrtle Street. Commissioner Atkins stated that ideas should to be explored to generate and identify funding from all programs available plus City funds. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following individuals came before the Commission: Frances Eckstein, 3606 Clark Road, stated that she protests turning Myrtle Street into a four-lane road which would lower the quality of the lifestyle of the residents in the two neighborhoods on both sides of Myrtle Street; that the City has become divided with the desert highways, i.e., 10th Street, 17th Street and Bee Ridge Road; that more canopied roads should be developed as Tallahassee began developing over a decade ago, which means keeping the roads improved and the canopy growing over them; that the section of Myrtle Street between Central Avenue and Old Bradenton Road has dense forests; that building a bridge over Whitaker Bayou which is essentially a drainage ditch does not make sense; that there is a sidewalk on the south side of Myrtle Street from Central Avenue to Old Bradenton Road. Eric Franklin, 4460 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that he has attended several meetings concerning the improvement of Myrtle Street; that the neighbors' input has been considered by Mr. Annis and Ms. Hower; that the concerns of the citizens are echoed by the Commission and this is a great comfort; that this is an old neighborhood with a specific character which has not been recently altered; that the trees are oaks and pines from the original ecology of this area, many of which are 400 years old; that much planning can be done, but one of those trees can never be replaced; that his feeling is that Myrtle Street does need improvement in terms of sidewalks and bicycle lanes; that the project should be approached from the standpoint of repaving the road, dealing with the drainage, adding sidewalks, rather than an overall remake which would strap the City with an additional million dollars worth of work; that 17th Street also needs improvement; that a modified improvement of both 17th Street and Myrtle Street would take the pressure off the need to make four lanes out of either street; that the Commission's opinion is heading in the same direction as his own; that it is really important not to jump the. gun and create a project for which there is not a need and the result of which would be to divide and change the character of a fine old neighborhood in Sarasota; that he appreciates the work of the staff and the Planning Board. There was no one else who wished to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Mr. Sollenberger stated that if the Commission does not want to proceed with the amendment, but would follow the recommendation from the PBLP that two motions are necessary: 1) to deny the amendment and not transmit the amendment to DCA; and 2) to instruct the staff to pursue program improvements which will enhance safety and operations of the roadway including resurfacing the railroad crossing, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 94-CRPA-01 and not to send the Amendment to the State. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Franklin stated in the Neighborhood Meeting that the commitment of the Commission should be to the neighborhood and not to building roads; that Central Avenue was being discussed from the perspective of the commercial district and not the neighborhood people; that in this particular Book 36 PAGE 10546 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10547 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. area there is a parallel with 10th Street; that 10th Street is four lanes in a section that is commercial and then becomes two lanes at Gillespie Park; that it will be hard to make this a four-lane roadway because of the way the street is built; that although a perfect road was not built, the curbs and gutters on Shade Avenue have dramatically improved the appearance of that road; that there are still problems with drainage, but millions of dollars could not be justified to rebuild Shade Avenue; that the people have stated the $250,000 investment improved the neighborhood and the same should be done on Myrtle Street; that extra wide sidewalks are needed on both sides of Myrtle Street for bikes and walking; that there are no full bike lanes on Shade Avenue; that there is a four- foot sidewalk on one side of Shade Avenue south of Bahia Vista Street for the Brookside Middle School children; that there is a need for bike lanes for school children; that the reason he will vote to deny the amendment is that a four-lane road is not needed; that other roads will be built which may eliminate the need for four lanes either on Myrtle Street or 17th Street. Mayor Patterson requested Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Atkins stated that the construction improvements on Shade Avenue did work aesthetically; that all options should be explored to solve the problems on Myrtle Street; that the city should pursue and build a partnership with the County and the MPO to see how the Myrtle Street neighborhood can best be served; that he would support any type of motion to pursue the funds and the best plan for alleviating the problems of foot, bike and vehicular movement through the Myrtle Street Extension. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Commissioner Atkins is referring specifically to maintaining Myrtle Street as a two-lane road? Commissioner Atkins stated this is correct. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not want an expensive engineering study on how to put together a totally rebuilt road with new sidewalks and bike paths, etc., which will not allow building for five or ten years; that the City should pursue funding and then seek planning and engineering options; that she does not want to have all the money spent on planning and engineering and have no funds left to improve the road in the end. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that since the staff has experience with the Shade Avenue project, the costs should be relatively easy to ascertain; that he supports a project similar to the Shade Avenue project and not a major rebuild of the road; that the $250,000 spent on Shade Avenue covered the road and the engineering; that Community Development and Block Grant monies could be used for part of this project; that there is sO much potential on Myrtle Street if the road is not made into four lanes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Siesta Drive between Osprey Avenue and Tamiami Trail was also improved in the same wayi that Siesta Drive instantly changed its character with the additions of the improvements; that communication between the City and County should be pursued first for a cost estimate. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the staff will be instructed to pursue program improvements to enhance safety and operations to include resurfacing the bridge and the railroad crossing and combining sidewalk and bike paths and to discuss with the County potential funding; that impact fees will not be invested into engineering. Commissioner Atkins stated that the railroad crossing is not in the City. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the railroad crossing will not be included in the City portion. Mayor Patterson stated that the railroad crossing should be a major portion of the conversation between the City and County as the City residents are driving on the County portion of the road also. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the entire length of Myrtle Street from U.S. 41 to U. S. 301 will be reviewed as a two-lane road with bridge and railroad improvements, separated bicycle and sidewalk pathways, resurfacing, and curbs and gutters. Mayor Patterson stated that if the County will not contribute any monies to the project, a review would have to be made as to how far the City can go on the project including the railroad crossing improvements. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he would support completing the City's section either way. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the City Manager's recommendation to explore the addition of sidewalks, improved drainage and the road in general on both City and County portions after negotiation with the County to see how many dollars in total the City has to fund this project cooperatively and to return with a recommendation to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3782, AMENDING THE PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS SET FORTH HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS AS TO NEED; AMENDING THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO Book 36 PAGE 10548 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10549 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. SAID AMENDMENT PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM II-5) #1 (3680) through #2 (0477) Pamela K. Hower, Senior Planner, came before the Commission and stated that there are certain changes proposed for processing proposed amendments to the Local Government Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed changes are: 1. Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) is proposing the ordinance requiring neighborhood workshops be incorporated into the procedures ordinance which is currently a separate ordinance and will make the procedure easier. 2. PBLP is asking that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) review all proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments; that there have been some recent changes by the State and if the PBLP does not ask for a Plan amendment review and a review is initiated by another person, the process will be longer; that other governments are making the same request. 3. PBLP recommends the second Planning Board meeting which is held after the receipt of Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report and which is not required by DCA, be optional when the ORC report is received from the State; that the second Planning Board meeting has been held as a courtesy and the PBLP has not found in the past any amendments with substantial changes, but only changes which are technical or format in nature. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he recommends approval. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Mary Quillan, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that she has discussed the issue with Mr. Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that she is pleased to see workshops in the neighborhood to entertain public participation; that she is very disturbed a hearing will be taken away from the public; that the public is afforded the opportunity to give input and even though the public has not needed this particular hearing in the past, this hearing may be needed in the future; that she understands the PBLP will have the option to call an additional public hearing; that if the PBLP does not opt to have a public hearing after the amendment returns from the State, the only time the citizens will have an opportunity to be heard is at a City Commission meeting. Mayor Patterson stated that there is opportunity for the citizens to give input at public hearings and asked for a clarification on the number of public hearings held in the present process. Ms. Hower stated that there are two Commission meetings in a normal amendment cycle which is not in a small scale development; that there are also two Planning Board hearings and a neighborhood meeting for a total of five meetings. Mayor Patterson asked the actual number of public hearings when the public is notified? Ms. Hower stated four: the Planning Board Transmittal Hearing; the City Commission Transmittal Public Hearing; the Planning Board Adoption Hearing which is being proposed to be made optional; and the City Commission Adoption Public Hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP and the staff are proposing that the PBLP would have a public hearing only if the DCA makes an alternative recommendation which involves significant changes. Ms. Quillan stated that the City has to comply with the State's recommendation and the public will end up with one hearing. Ms. Hower stated that the PBLP will call for a public hearing if the ORC report is returned from the State with major issues to be resolved and those issues would change either the data submitted or the basis upon which the Commission or the PBLP voted. Ms. Quillan stated that she still objects to anything that takes away the input of each citizen; that she is a supporter of the Neighborhood Workshops. Commission Cardamone asked what problems would occur if the amendment is left alone, and no changes were addressed. Ms. Hower stated that the staff's and Planning Board's time and advertising costs are involved if there are no changes; that the State has decreased the review time by 60 days. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3802 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 94-3782 on first reading. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there is a fine line between listening to the public and wearing out the public; that the first Book 36 PAGE 10550 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10551 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. meeting is when the citizens' emotions occur and that is the vote most people assume will determine what happens; that if a citizen felt that there was necessary argument, the Commission has very liberal policies regarding public hearings; that the Commission is available to the citizens; that this change will be a money-saving effort and in no way restricts the citizens' access to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the safeguard is that a public hearing will be held at the PLBP level and again at the City Commission level when substantive changes occur. Ms. Hower stated that it will be the PBLP's option as to whether a hearing should be held. Mayor Patterson stated that the PLBP will want to hear the amendment again if there are substantiative changes in order to provide the Commission with the PBLP's input. Mayor Patterson requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimous- ly (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. CITIZENS - INPUT: (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (0478) through (0500) There were no individuals signed up to speak. 8. OTHER MATTERS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (0501) through (1259) Commissioner Cardamone: A. stated that she does not want to ignore the PBLP's request to participate in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) came before the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone asked for an elaboration on the statement of the recommendation to the City Commission that the "PBLP be allowed to attend the City Commission Workshop". Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP would like to participate by attending the City Commission Workshop on the CIP; that each time the budget is presented to the PBLP they feel uncomtortable passing on something about which they have no background; that the role of the PBLP should be limited to commenting on issues that are directly related to planning; that some background is needed in terms of discussions, etc., even on issues within the PBLP's scope, such as road improvements and items related to comprehensive planning. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission does not have public commentary in workshops; that full participation may be difficult to achieve unless a person is brought to the table and made a full participant in the discussions in a joint meeting at the workshopi; that some clarification is needed as to what happens to the CIP as it relates to the PBLP at the present time. Mayor Patterson asked if the PBLP is asked to comment on the CIP without a review? Mr. Annis stated that the CIP is not based on real numbers for the next year and these numbers will not be available until the CIP goes back to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) at the end of the summer. Mayor Patterson stated that the same numbers are reviewed by the Commission and the CIP Plan is funded the following year when the Commission elects to fund it; that the rest of the numbers are just projections. City Manager Sollenberger stated that there is a question of the role of the PBLP; that the PBLP could recommend a CIP to the Commission; that the PLBP could prioritize projects or could find if the projects proposed are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that he suggests that the main objective of the PBLP is to assure the City Commission the projects proposed in the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Annis' point is a valid one; that a review of the CIP with the PBLP is needed if the PBLP is asked to comment on the CIP. Mr. Annis stated that a Clearer definition should be given regarding the budget in order for the PBLP to give recommendations. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a better staff presentation to the PBLP could be made. Mayor Patterson stated that it makes sense to have the PBLP attend the workshop. Mr. Annis stated that a narrower role of the PLBP in the review process should be defined. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a legitimate role for the PBLP is to advise the Commission whether an item is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Board should indicate whether projects are consistent with the CIP; that the Commission does not want to fund projects that are not consistent with the CIP. Book 36 PAGE 10552 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10553 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the PBLP should be a planning organization rather than an organization which reacts to requests; that finding projects to be in compliance with the CIP should be a job of the PBLP, however, it is important to issue a specific invitation to the PBLP to sit in on the CIP workshop as there is much to be learned which will give the PBLP the opportunity to formulate questions for the Commission to discuss. Mayor Patterson stated that the outcome of a workshop is a consensus of the Commission directing staff to provide funding for specific items even though there are no formal votes; that the PLBP should provide a commentary on appropriate items to the Commission ahead of time; that to arrive at a consensus with 10 people with the final decision to be made by the Commission will be confusing. Mr. Annis stated that the list should be narrowed to those items specifically addressed by the PBLP; that those items are reviewed by the PBLP prior to the Commission review. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP staff develops recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a draft of the CIP could be made available for review by the PBLP and an explanation provided of the projects and the relationship to the CIP; that statements could be acquired from the PLBP that those projects are consistent with the CIP and any other commentary which the PBLP may wish to provide the City Commission, and the information could be transmitted along with the proposed CIP to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this will involve considerable preparation; that this suggestion should be presented to the PBLP for discussion and the PBLP should return to the Commission with ideas. Commissioner Atkins stated that he does not understand what the PBLP is expecting from the Administration; that he does not perceive the Commission complicating this process; that the PBLP should adhere to their charge and the Commission adhere to its charge which will result in the best interests of all being served; that this sounds like another loop in the process. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there is a small staff to deal with the issues and input received from the various departments; that other places go through a sophisticated CIP process, but the City is not staffed to accomplish this; that the staff produces a high quality product with the resources at hand. Mayor Patterson stated that a formal invitation could be issued by the Commission to the PBLP to attend the workshop if the PBLP desires; that the Commission cannot issue an invitation to speak without issuing the same invitation to the public, however, the PBLP would be free as a Board to comment to the Commission prior to the final vote on the matter; that nothing is final in workshops. Mr. Annis stated that he does not want this viewed as a "turf grab" by the PBLP; that the issue was raised because the PBLP is uncomfortable with making recommendations concerning the CIP and not having full understanding of certain issues. Mayor Patterson stated that she understood and would have the same discomfort; that it is hard to grasp the entire CIP even after the Commission has had a compiete presentation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she said "No" because she does not want to add an extra dimension in the presentation of the CIP to the Commission; that she would like to see the PLBP involved in the planning rather than the reactionary phase of review. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the CIP takes about four hours of review with the City Commission; that the PBLP provides valuable commentary; that the PBLP should review the CIP for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; that there are projects in the CIP designated as Capital Improvement Elements (CIE) which must be done in order to carry out the CIP; that the non-CIE projects are more discretionary and go beyond the requirements of meeting the demands of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP will be notified of the CIP workshop. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the PBLP could comment back to the Commission if the PBLP attends the workshop presentations; that he does not want another loop in the process. B. that she will not be in attendance at the first budget presentation on Friday, June 17; that she would like to have a tape prepared for her review. Mayor Patterson asked what will be prepared for the budget workshop on June 17? Mr. Sollenberger stated that this workshop is to provide an overview of the budget document allowing the Commission the opportunity for review over the weekend prior to the workshops the following week; that an hour is scheduled to review the basic budget overview. Mayor Patterson stated that it is her understanding that this first meeting will not be followed by discussion of details or specific items; that the Administration will present the budget; that the Commission will review the budget at home and the discussions will begin the following week. Book 36 PAGE 10554 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Book 36 PAGE 10555 05/26/94 7:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that if the Commission has any questions the Administration will certainly respond to the questions, but a workshop discussion format is not encouraged. C. asked the status of Hudson Bayou project and if a meeting is planned? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that there is a County public hearing on June 9, 1994, which will be advertised soon by the County; that the City staff will attend; that this meeting is to inform and receive comments from the public as to the recommendations in the Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plan. Commission Cardamone asked if specific residents of the Bayou were notified other than by a public hearing notice? Mr. Daughters stated that he thought notification was newspaper publication only. Commissioner Cardamone asked for someone to make key calls to people on the various Associations who were specifically interested in this item. Mr. Daughters stated he will contact Association representatives. Mayor Patterson: A. stated that there is a possibility that she will not be able to attend the City Commission meeting on August 1. Commissioner Cardamone asked if there would be any difference in making the Commission meeting in August the third Monday rather than the first? Mayor Patterson stated that the reason the meeting was suggested for August 1 was so there will be five weeks off between Commission meetings. 9. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (1260) The Sarasota City Commission Special Meeting of May 26, 1994, adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Moro Allousen NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTES/: KAREN D. MÇGOWAN, DEPUTY CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK