Book 39 Page 12699 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ADOPTION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 96R-864, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF TED SPERLING, FORMER CITY COMMISSIONER AND OUTSTANDING CITIZEN OF SARASOTA = ADOPTED #1 (0014) through (0120) Mayor Merrill stated that the active life of Ted Sperling came to a close on January 1, 1996, and read in its entirety Memorial Resolution No. 96R-864, recognizing Ted Sperling, who exemplified the highest ideals of public service to the community through his work as a City Commissioner form April 1973 to April 1979 leading several campaigns for the public acquisition of beach and bayfront property which serve as recreational parks for thousands of residents and tourists. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 96R-864. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll- call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill stated that a signed copy of the memorial resolution appropriately framed will be delivered to the Sperling family. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 4, 1995, AND DECEMBER 18, 1995 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0126) through (0134) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meetings of December 4, 1995, and December 18, 1995, are approved by unanimous consent. 3. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S. REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1995 - SET 95-SV-04 FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0135) through (0180) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and presented the following item from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of December 6, 1995: Petition No. 95-SV-04 Mr. Taylor stated that Petition No. 95-SV-04 is a request to vacate a portion of Briggs Avenue; that the unopened, unimproved right-of- way is 40 feet wide by approximately 241 feet long and is located adjacent to property owned by the First Congregational Church; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) found 95-SV-04 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends approval to City Commission, subject to the petitioner granting the necessary easements. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting Petition No. 95-SV-04 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to set Petition 95-SV-04 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1; 2, 3, 5, 6 AND 7 APPROVED; ITEM NO. 4 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0183) through (0261) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson referred to Item No. 1; and stated that the date of January 15, 1996, reflected in the Agreement has been changed to January 31, 1996. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the City of Sarasota for Interpretive Signage and Trail Brochure for the Downtown Bay Walk (6th Street Habitat Restoration site) 2. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of engagement with Landers and Parson for representation of the City for Lido Beach restoration and renourishment funding Book 39 Page 12700 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12701 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. 3. Approval Re: Sale of surplus parking property at the Fourth Street Fire Station to Roy Smith to facilitate the Goodyear relocation 5. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3864, amending Chapter 11, Buildings and Building Regulations, Articles I through X, inclusive and Chapter 14, Articles II, III & IV, to provide for the enforcement of such chapters by the city Manager or his designees; amending Chapter 11, Article IX relating to the Electrical Board of Rules and Appeals to provide for the Board to deny the issuance of a building permit to a contractor certified by the State of Florida, under certain circumstances; adopting by reference the Standard Building Code, 1994 Edition, the Standard Mechanical Code, 1994 Edition, the Standard Plumbing Code, 1994 Edition, the Standard Gas Code, 1994 Edition, and the Standard Fire Prevention Code, 1994 Edition; adopting by reference City of Sarasota amendments to each of the aforementioned Standard Codes of the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. and the Local Amendments to the 1990 National Electrical Code, as revised; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing for a penalty for violations; etc. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Municipal Services and Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Joseph D. Hudgins and Lisa A. Hudgins for Site 11-25, 1220 Bay Road 7. Approval Re: Use of the 1985 G.O. Bond Issue for funds for the construction of the Anglin Drive Drainage Project On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 4. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3919, amending Article VI, Districts, Regulations Generally, Section 6-15, Yards, so as to permit razor wire or coiled barbed wire in CI, I, and ILW Zone Districts; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. Commissioner Patterson stated that the ordinance requires the coiled barbed wire or razor wire not exceed 24 inches above the height of the fence; and requested that Staff verify the standard height of coiled barbed wire and razor wire prior to the public hearing. Michael Cuttler, 734 Siesta Key Circle (34242) had signed up to speak but deferred his comments until the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 4. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yesi Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3922) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0262) through (0290) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3922 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3922, amending Article XVI of the Zoning Code pertaining to the Public Art Program of the City of Sarasota; expanding the authority of the Public Art Committee to advise the City regarding the acquisition, placement and display of public art and to confer with persons or organizations who have offered to donate public art without prior request from the City Commission to act; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item 1. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll- call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson 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 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3910, TO VACATE AN ALLEY LYING BETWEEN BLOCK A AND BLOCK B, OF THE REVISED PLAT OF COURT HOUSE SUBDIVISION: AND AN APPROXIMATELY 22 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF RINGLING BOULEVARD SPUR, LYING BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND RINGLING BLVD (MAIN THOROUGHFARE) ADJACENT TO BLOCK A OF THE RE- VISED PLAT OF COURT HOUSE SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 48 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND A PORTION OF LINKS AVENUE LYING EASTERLY OF AND ADJACENT TO LOTS 5, 6, 7, AND 8, BLOCK 15, SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK G AND BLOCK Book 39 Page 12702 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12703 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. H OF MAP OF SARASOTA, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK A, PAGE 57, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LYING WESTERLY OF A PORTION OF BLOCK A AND B OF THE REVISED PLAT OF COURT HOUSE SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 48 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; ALL VACATIONS LYING WEST OF WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, LYING SOUTH OF MAIN STREET, LYING EAST OF S. OSPREY AVE; AND LYING NORTH OF RINGLING BOULEVARD (MAIN THOROUGHFARE): MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-SV-01, JOEL FREEDMAN, AICP, REPRESENTING THEATRE ASSOCIATES BY BBK) - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO: 1) VERIFY OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY UNDERLYING LINKS AVENUE AND THE ALLEYS, 2) RESPOND REGARDING OMITTED DATA ON THE SEPTEMBER 26, 1995, TRAFFIC COUNTY /ANALYSIS PROGRAM INFORMATION SHEET, AND 3) PURSUE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING A PARKING EASEMENT TO THE WEST AND SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED THEATER STRUCTURE; PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0327) through #4 (0183) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Petition No. 96-SV-01 for the vacation of three rights-of-way was submitted in connection with Development Plan 96-DPR-01 to permit construction of a Cobb Theatre Complex. Mr. Taylor referred to a parçel address map displayed on the overhead projector to identify the following rights-of-way requested for vacation: the westerly 22 feet of the Ringling Boulevard Spur connecting Ringling Boulevard and Main Street the 60-foot width of Links Avenue lying between two unnamed alleys in the block between Ringling Boulevard and Main Street the 15-foot width of an unnamed alley lying between Links Avenue and Ringling Boulevard Mr. Taylor stated that on December 6, 1995, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and heard approximately two hours of public comment on Petition Nos. 96-DPR-01 and 96-SV-01; that the PBLP deferred action until December 13 to allow for Staff clarification of the proposed stipulations; that on December 13, 1995, the PBLP approved Petition No. 96-DPR-01 and recommended approval to the Commission of Petition No. 96-SV-01 with the following five stipulations: 1. The solid waste dumpsters be relocated to a more remote location in the alleyway (less visible from Ringling Boulevard), subject to approval by the Public Works Department for pick up. 2. Prior to second reading of the vacation ordinance, the Petitioner shall execute utility easements in favor of GTE Florida, Inc., and Florida Power and Light Company, providing for the operation and maintenance of existing telephone and electric facilities respectively within the vacated portions of Links Avenue and Ringling Boulevard Spur and the vacated alley described in the ordinance. In the event that Petitioner's plans for development of the vacated Links Avenue, Ringling Boulevard Spur, or vacated alley require the relocation of the existing telephone or electric facilities, the expense of design and construction for such relocation shall be borne by Petitioner. 3. The City of Sarasota hereby retains and expressly reserves unto itself and its successors an easement for purposes of maintaining and repairing sanitary sewer, potable water, and storm sewer facilities over, along, and under the entire portion of the vacated Links Avenue, vacated Ringling Boulevard Spur, and the vacated alley described in the ordinance. In the event the Petitioner's plans for development of the vacated Links Avenue, Ringling Boulevard Spur, and vacated alley require the relocation of any of the above-described facilities, all the expense of construction including design costs for such relocation shall be borne by Petitioner. 4. In consideration of the fact that the street vacations described in the ordinance are requested by Petitioner for the purpose of constructing the structures and improvements described in the development plan filed with Petition 96-DPR-01, Petitioner shall obtain the certificates of occupancy for the structures described in 96-DPR-01 prior to January 16, 2000. In the event the certificates of occupancy for the structures described in 96-DPR-01 are not issued prior to January 16, 2000, the City shall be deemed to have retained the public rights- of-way vacated by the ordinance, and Petitioner shall restore the public right-of-way previously vacated to the condition existing as of the effective date of the ordinance, at Petitioner's sole expense, in compliance with the requirements of all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Sarasota. On or about January 16, 2000, the City Auditor and Clerk shall record a notice in the Public Records of Sarasota County stating whether this condition has been fulfilled. 5. Petitioner shall reconfigure the proposed vacation of a portion of Links Avenue to provide continuous connection to the public alley parallel to Ringling Boulevard near the intersection of Links Avenue to the south. Book 39 Page 12704 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12705 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the first stipulation is not related to the street vacations but is applicable to the development plan; that the only issue before the Commission are the street vacations; that the PBLP has approved the development plan. Mr. Taylor referred to a display on the overhead projector and stated that according to Section 30-82 of the Sarasota City Code, streets may be vacated if one or more of the following criteria are met: 1. The street has not been used or is abandoned. 2. The street is of no benefit to the City and the public. 3. The closing or discontinuing of the street is in the best interest of the City and public. Mr. Taylor stated that the vacations are in the best interest of the city and public; that the City's comprehensive plan, redevelopment plan, and vision plan all address the need for economic redevelopment, attracting more people downtown, particularly in the evenings and on weekends, and facilitating the downtown as a cultural, civic, and business center; that the proposed project will further those objectives. Mr. Taylor continued that the issue of parking has been raised by the media and others; that parking is not an issue associated with the street vacation petition; and referred to his memorandum to David Sollenberger, City Manager, dated December 15, 1995, which defined the Central Business District (CBD) parking requirements, the National Planning Standard for Movie Theater Parking, and the Cobb Theatre Standard for Parking. Mr. Taylor stated that 176 parking spaces are required under the CBD zoning requirement for the proposed building which is approximately 61,594 square feet; that an additional 33 parking spaces are required for the 11,500 square feet of ground floor retail in the proposed parking structure; that the theater/retail project will provide approximately, 596 parking spaces which exceeds the city's CBD zone district requirements by 387 spaces; that the national standard average is 1 parking space for every 3 to 5 seats; that the number of theater seats proposed is 3,500, requiring 1,166 spaces at a ratio of 1 space per 3 seats, 875 spaces at a ratio of 1 space per 4 seats, and 700 spaces at a ratio of 1 space per 5 seats; that a study of over 12,000 shows, conducted at 10 to 12 Cobb Theatres in Florida, indicated the average attendance at 25%; that based on the Cobb standard of 1 space for every 5.5 seats at 50% occupancy, the parking requirement for the proposed project is 318 spaces. Mr. Taylor continued that should the City Commission vote to approve the street vacations, the petitioner has stated the streets will not be closed until building permits are issued; that in addition, the petitioner needs to reach an agreement with owners abutting property for the air rights above the alley adjacent to the parking structure which is designed to extend over the alley and abut the structures facing Main Street; that the petitioner, Dr. Kauffman, owns several but not all of the Main Street properties and is currently negotiating for the air rights. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Steve Tindale, Tindale-oliver and Associates, Inc., came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the records retained in the Engineering Department were reviewed to determine the type of ownership the City has on the rights-of-way within the subject rights that Plat Book 2, page 48 of the Official Records, entitled project; Plat Court House Subdivision" filed in June 1926, states: "revised We the undersigned owners hereby dedicate the streets in the above subdivision to the public for thoroughfare purposes reserving unto ourselves all other rights. Mr. Daughters stated that the Engineering Department and the City Attorney's Office concurred, that the determined, City holds easement rights and not fee simple title to the requested for vacations. rights-of-way Mr. Daughters continued that the three criteria in Section 30-82 of the Sarasota City Code were reviewed; that Links Avenue, which is currently used for thoroughfare traffic, is of some benefit to the City; that, however, the closing or discontinuing of Links Avenue is in the best interest of the City and public; that a benefit will be gained by closing the street; that other streets in the surrounding area, specifically Osprey Avenue, Main Street, U.S. 301, and Ringling Boulevard, can be utilized for traffic. thoroughfare Mr. Daughters further stated that a traffic study was the City's consultant Tindale-oliver and prepared by funded by the petitioner; that the Associates, Inc., and considered in the consultants' following elements were study: 1) existing traffic 2) traffic associated with other approved, but not constructed counts, developments, 3) the estimated traffic generated by the proposed development, 4) an assumption Links Avenue would be closed and traffic distributed onto the other streets referenced, and the the fact that other surrounding roads have excess available 5) that the study indicates the proposed closure of the capacity; requested segment of Links Avenue will not adversely affect circulation the project site. near Book 39 Page 12706 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12707 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3910 on first reading. Joel Freedman, AICP, Bishop & Associates, Dr. Mark Kauffman, Managing Partner, Gary Hoyt, Project Architect, representing Theatre Associates by BBK, Inc., and Wesley Cline, Vice President of Real Estate, Cobb Theatre Corporation, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman referred to a site development plan for the Hollywood 18 Cobb Theatres displayed on the overhead projector to identify the streets and the need for the vacation of Links Avenue, the Ringling Spur, and the alleys. Mr. Freedman stated that the project cannot be developed without the vacations of Links Avenue and the identified alleys; that Dr. Kauffman and his associates are 30-year Sarasota residents who have been involved in such redevelopment projects as the Mira-Mar renovation on Palm Avenue and the current renovation of the building located on the corner of State Street and Palm Avenue which formerly housed the Tucker Sporting Goods Shop; that the project will provide a much needed anchor for the eastern portion of Main Street by providing family entertainment in a pedestrian oriented facility. Mr. Freedman continued that concerns have been raised regarding the project being "fast tracked"; that the project has followed the normal City procedure; that the PBLP public hearing was continued to provide for Staff clarification of stipulations; that the Commission accommodated the petitioner by permitting an advance PBLP report; that an article announcing the potential of a movie complex on the eastern portion of Main Street appeared in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune approximately 8 months ago; that the petitioner has been working with City Staff to resolve potential issues and address concerns being raised; that the project has not been fast tracked. Mr. Freedman further stated that closure of the Ringling Spur to provide a pedestrian plaza was originally requested; that the site plan was subsequently modified to address parking concerns raised by area businesses; that the parking on the Ringling Spur has been increased by 6 spaces; that the site plan, which originally proposed 71 parking spaces around the building on the western end and southern side of the property, was modified to address City concerns and preserve existing oak trees; that the number of parking spaces around the property has been reduced to 65; however, the parking structure which originally provided 525 parking spaces is being redesigned to provide 608 parking spaces; that a total of 707 parking spaces will be provided; that City Staff has counted 125 additional parking spaces within a one-block radius of the property; that the total parking available will be 832, providing for a ratio of 1 space per 4 seats. Mr. Freedman further stated that the street vacations are justified by the public benefit which will be received; that the project will act as a redevelopment incentive for eastern Main Street and generate spin-off business for the existing businesses in the area; that the project will generate approximately $40,000 in additional ad valorem taxes; that the project will provide family entertainment and address the need identified in the City's Vision Plan to attract people to the downtown area in the evening and on weekends. Mr. Hoyt referred to a partial site plan to identify and explain the location of the proposed theater building, the parking structure, and the ground level retail space to be located on the ground level of the parking garage, which will provide a continuation of urban space from the County government buildings on Ringling Boulevard along the Ringling Boulevard Spur to Main Street. Commissioner Pillot stated that the parking structure is adjacent to U.S. 301; and asked if the building has been designed in a manner which would accommodate the potential need for a taking of land in the future for improvements to U.S. 301? Mr. Freedman stated that the parking structure will be built to the lot line as permitted in the CBD zone district; that the petitioner should be informed at this time if the existing right-of-way is insufficient and a taking of land will be required for U.S. 301. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City Commission's adamancy against six-laning U.S. 301 carried at the last Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting; however, providing medians and beautification on U.S. 301 is still being discussed; that sufficient right-of-way may not exist; that the petitioner should liaison with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) before proceeding. Mr. Hoyt stated that the parking structure includes five levels above the retail space; that the design of the parking structure could be modified prior to construction to accommodate a taking of land. Mr. Cline stated that an 18-screen movie complex is proposed; that an overabundance of films are being produced by Hollywood; that the number of films produced is anticipated to increase by 20% this year; that Cobb is attempting to: 1) reposition itself in the Sarasota market by providing adequate facilities to make all the films available for viewing and 2) build for the future and long- term success of a facility by providing adéquate capacity; that Book 39 Page 12708 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12709 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. larger complexes are the trend of the industry; that a small facility in downtown Sarasota would fail if larger facilities were built elsewhere in Sarasota; that Cobb is comfortable with the parking proposed; that the facility will be a mixed-use development promoting foot-traffic in the downtown area. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for clarification of the seating arrangement and the separation of screens inside the facility. Mr. Cline stated that seating in the individual auditoriums will range from 550 to 100 seats; that the smaller auditoriums will provide the opportunity for Cobb to retain a new release for a longer duration. Commissioner Patterson asked for the seating capacity of the Cobb Theatres located on Fruitville Road and at Gulf Gate Mall. Mr. Cline stated that the referenced theatres have 1,200 to 1,500 seats; that the recently opened 20-screen Cobb theatre in Naples, Florida, has 3,800 seats; that a 24-screen AMC movie complex recently opened in Bradenton. Commissioner Patterson asked if the total number of available parking spaces as previously stated by Mr. Freedman includes leased spaces in the Sarasota City Center? Mr. Freedman stated no; that the estimate is conservative; however, an agreement has been reached to lease 300 parking spaces in the Sarasota City Center on holidays and weekends. Dr. Kauffman quoted the following from City's 50 Year Vision Plan: Change is inevitable, the downtown is changing, the State is changing, and the world is changing. Dr. Kauffman that he and his associates choose to embrace this change; that studies indicate movie theaters will attract people to the downtown; that he and his associates are reputable, local developers; that after 5 p.m. eastern Main Street is desolate, dark, and dreary; that a quality, family-oriented entertainment complex with a secure, monitored parking structure is proposed to bring excitement and energy to that portion of Main Street; that the proposed development will benefit the surrounding downtown businesses and population and generate the rebirth of Main Plaza. Commissioner Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 6:51 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the following codes and documents are made a part of the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1991 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M; and the City of Sarasota local amendments. All documents made a part of the record at the PBLP meeting of December 6, 1995, and December 13, 1995, as well as the minutes of those meetings. The Development Plan filed for Petition 96-DPR-01, on October 12, 1995, as revised on December 8, 1995, and partial site plan dated December 12, 1995. Commissioner Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 6:53 p.m. City Attorney Taylor stated that the street vacation petition filed is not subject to considerations of rezoning criteria or the Zoning Code; that a public hearing on Petition No. 96-SV-01 was held before the PBLP as required by the Sarasota City Code; that the PBLP recommended approval to the City Commission; that the Sarasota Code requires a second public hearing before the Commission; that the public input should relate to the three criteria set forth in Section 30-82; that the Commission's determination on whether the vacating of the street is in the best interest of the City and the public should be based on the recommendations of the PBLP and Staff and relevant public input received. Commissioner Pillot stated that the issue of the proposed development creating competition for other theaters in the area was indicated in a Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial; and asked if potential competition is relevant to the Commission's decision? City Attorney Taylor stated that the criteria is open-ended; that considerations and statements found in the comprehensive plan which relate to the economic viability of the city in its development may have some bearing on the Commission's decision; however, justifying a determination on the basis that the requested vacation is not in the best interest of the City because of potential competition would be difficult. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Charles Stephens, 2401 8th Street #6, representing Project Black Cinema, stated that the full interest of the community may not be served by a large movie complex whose focus is solely on business; that a number of black films have not been shown at Cobb Theatres, i.e., Malcolm X, Dead Presidents, Mensas Society, Jungle Fever, Tales from a Hood; that he is not opposed to the proposed Book 39 Page 12710 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12711 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. development; that his concern is that the facility be an outlet or a venue for continued cultural diversity which serves the entire community. Mr. Stephens continued that venues have been approached to exhibit films during the Project Black Cinema Film Festival; that Burns Court Cinema has been accommodating; however, a cooperative effort among the major venues has not been successful. Frank Colsen, 1666 Hillview Street (34239), stated that a new Art Complex anticipated to attract over 1 million people annually is developing in the former Main Plaza; that the majority of population growth is occurring east of Interstate 75; that a market survey should be performed; that constructing an 18-screen movie complex in the center of the City cannot be cost effective; that people will not travel from the eastern sections of the County to the Downtown to view a movie; that vacating Links Avenue to permit construction of a movie complex and to receive $40,000 in additional ad valorem taxes is not in the City's best interest. Mayor Merrill stated that based on a $12 million assessment, Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, estimated the ad valorem taxes to the City at $78,000; that the total taxes generated to the various governments, City, County, and School Board, would be approximately $230,000. Clark Brooks, 3005 Betty Drive (34232), stated that he is the manager at Burns Court Cinema and resides in the McIntosh/Bee Ridge Road area. Mr. Brooks read a prepared speech which stated that for 14 years the Sarasota Film Society has taken pride and pleasure in bringing unique films to the Sarasota area, e.g., films that would normally never be seen outside of a major metropolitan area, films that are different from the standard variety available at the large mainstream theaters, and films from countries all over the world including risk-taking independent features from the United States; that on August 13, 1993, after years of hard work and support from its faithful membership, the Flim Society opened the Burns Court Cinema, which is a colorful, friendly theater in a part of downtown most people never knew existed prior to the opening. Mr. Brooks read a list of events sponsored by the Film Society at the Burns Court Cinema which included Jazz concerts, poetry readings, discussions, and lectures by renowned artists, and meetings by local merchants organizations; and stated that the Film Society has provided donations to Lakeview Elementary School, Sarasota Opera Association, Friends Against AIDS, The Symphony Association, Cardinal Mooney High School, the Longboat Key Sabre Chapter, and the Humane Society of Sarasota; that many organizations have benefited by holding fund raisers or other special events at Burns Court Cinema; that the Sarasota Film Society's Burn Court Cinema is a local merchant providing a unique service to the community as well as an arts organization that is not only self-sufficient but makes its resources and facilities available to others; that this valuable resource would be destroyed by a Cobb Theatre of such gigantic proportions as proposed; that other small theaters, i.e., the Teatro and Crossroads Twin, have been forced to close business as the big theater chains have become more powerful by operating 66 screens in Sarasota and Manatee Counties; that adding 18 screens downtown will bring the total number of screens in Sarasota County to 62; that a Cobb Theatre may not provide family entertainment; that 9 out of 10 movies shown in October 1995 at the Cobb's Cinema 10 Theatre on Fruitville Road were rated "R" or above. Mr. Brooks requested that the Commission reject the project as currently proposed. Charles Laubheim, 769 John Ringling Boulevard #37E, stated that closing streets to construct a multiplex theater in downtown Sarasota is not in the best interest of the City or the public; that Harbor Place in Baltimore, Maryland, was a tremendous success; that the multiplex theater and entertainment centers constructed subsequently were tremendous failures; that people do not travel downtown to frequent entertainment centers; that severe traffic congestion will be generated on U.S. 301 as people leave the proposed development to travel home after viewing a movie; that the businesses west of U.S. 301 will suffer since people will become frustrated with the congestion and frequent other businesses in less traffic congested areas; that bigger is not always better; that Hollywood will continue to produced less than quality films if the an abundance of venues are available for viewing; that change is not always for the better. Mr. Laubheim continued that without showing a certain number of "commercial" films annually the Burns Court Cinema will not be able to survive; that ensuring the viability of a local merchant is not the responsibility of the Commission; however, the Commission should not support an ordinance that will ensure the demise of a business and deprive the public the opportunity of viewing quality films. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of the Downtown Association of Sarasota, 47 Palm Avenue South (34236), read the following into the record: The Board of Directors of the Downtown Association of Sarasota recently held a special meeting with the City Planning Department and reviewed the preliminary site plans for the referenced street and alley vacations. The Board was briefed by Engineering and Planning Staff and all questions were satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, no objections have been registered by any Book 39 Page 12712 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12713 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. of the members of the Association, which would be directly impacted by the street and alley vacations. Therefore, the Downtown Association of Sarasota supports the street and alley vacations as proposed in Ordinance No. 96-3910. Richard Morris, 447 South Washington Drive (34236), presented for the record a list of his credentials; and stated that he is an independent theater consultant to most of the major theater corporations in the United States as well as the Burns Court Cinema; that the City's Vision Plan envisions a business park, not a movie theater, on the subject site; that the Sarasota Film Society is recognized by the Florida Cultural Department as a leading cultural institution; that replacing the Burns Court Cinema with an 18-screen theater which shows less than quality films will not produce the cultural dimensions desired in the community. Mr. Morris displayed on the overhead projector and explained a comparison of the Projected Traffic Flows as a Percentage of Population prepared by Tindale-oliver and Associates updated to the 1990 census; and stated that 60% of the attendance at Burns Court Cinema on Monday through Friday occurs prior to 6 p.m.i that the projected traffic flows estimated by Tindale-oliver and Associates for the Burns Court Cinema were underestimated by 25%; that mall figures were used to estimate the trip generation for the proposed development; that a similar discrepancy in traffic flows estimated for Theatre Associates by BBK, Inc., is likely; that the traffic study indicates the majority of traffic will come from Longboat Key, Lido and Bird Keys, McClellan and Laurel Parks neighborhoods, and the northern end of Siesta Keyi that the population density of the City and the County as per the latest University of Florida study indicates the opposite; that the study does not accurately reflect the operations of the movie industry; that consideration was not given to the Cobb's 10 Cinema Theatre on Fruitville Road being converted to a "second run" or dollar theater to direct traffic toward the "first run" facility downtown. Mr. Morris continued that General Cinemas recently constructed two successful 6-screen theaters in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, California; that Mizner Park in Boca Raton, Florida, limited AMC Theatres to constructing an 8-screen complex; that major theater chains will build to the maximum capacity permitted; that smaller theaters showing selective movies can be successful. Mr. Morris further stated that the theater standard for parking is 1 space per 3.5 seats; that the screen standard is 1 screen for every 7,500 people; that Sarasota has 1 screen for every 5,000 people. John Harshman, 2535 Mulberry Terrace (34239), stated that he has lived and worked in the City of Sarasota for 22 years; that Sarasota has grown, changed, and evolved; that many of the traditional retailers which relocated from the downtown in 1990 have been replaced with a new influx of businesses, i.e., restaurants, antique shops, and specialty design shops; that the proposed 18-screen complex would assist the downtown in becoming an entertainment center; that the City's improvement to the Bayfront, the streetscape on Main Street, and the Storefront Assistance Program have made the downtown area in the 1200 to 1500 blocks clean, neat, vibrant, and alive; that a movie complex in the 1900 block can be a catalyst for enhancing the eastern portion of Main Street. Charles D. Bailey, Attorney, 1500 Ringling Boulevard; Scott Profitt, Proprietor, Main Bookshop, Inc., 1962 Main Street; Geraldine and Shane Saah, Property Owners, 1944 through 1960 Main Street, came before the Commission. Attorney Bailey stated that enthusiastic support for the proposed project, which will revitalize the area and increase business by generating a tremendous amount of pedestrian traffic, was voiced at the PBLP meeting held December 6, 1995, along with the following concerns: 1. The loss of the 28 parking spaces along the Ringling Boulevard Spur. 2. The turning radius for vehicles ingressing and egressing the alleyway behind his clients' properties. 3. The encroachment of air rights over the alley intended to assure unrestricted access to the parcels for maintenance, public safety, and construction vehicles. Mr. Bailey stated that the petitioner has addressed items 1 and 2 to the satisfaction of his clients; that one of the conditions of the PBLP's approval of the development plan, was that an agreement between his clients and the proposed developer be executed prior to sècond reading of the ordinance pertaining the street vacation; that other concerns were raised at the PBLP meeting, but his clients are generally supportive of the project and look forward to working with the developer to reach an amicable arrangement. Commissioner Patterson stated that the two-hour parking limit on Main Street provides adequate time to view a movie; that a potential problem for the businesses at street level may be created since surface parking is more appealing than garage parking; and asked if the business owners would desire the time limit being reduced to one hour? Mrs. Saah stated that one hour would not provide adequate time for customers of New York Hair Salon. Book 39 Page 12714 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12715 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Profitt stated that a vacant parking garage is located next to the Main Plaza; that the business owners are hopeful the proposed development will induce retail occupation of the Main Plaza and the opening of that garage for public use. John Cox, 1811 6th Street (34234), stated that he is property owner in the City of Sarasota, a resident of Sarasota County, and a businessman in the community; that based on his construction experience in development, the proposed project will be beneficial to downtown Sarasota and is in the best interest of the City. Commissioner Patterson asked if the proposed parking structure would be available to the public? Dr. Kauffman came before the Commission and stated that a beneficial development is proposed for the downtown area; however, the proposal does not include construction of a free public parking garage; that parking spaces cost approximately $8,000 per space; that leased parking spaces will be made available to the local merchants. Commissioner Patterson stated that a number of public parking spaces will be monopolized by movie theater patrons. Dr. Kauffman stated that a significant number of movie theater patrons will park in the parking garage and subsequently patronize other businesses in the area; that initially, unmonitored ingress and egress to the parking structure is envisioned after 5 p.m.; however, the issue may be readdressed in the future if the area is substantially revitalized and evening parking in the structure becomes a problem. Jay Starker, 1564 Main Street (34236), stated that he is a 35-year resident and business owner in the city of Sarasota; that a famous European architect stated "less is more"; that the proposed development cannot exist without approval of the street vacation; that vacating a street to allow construction of a theater complex which will show movies with violence, crime, and anti-human proportions is not in the best interest of the City and the public; that a City government giving a helping hand to a fledgling business which benefits the community would be noble; however, contributing resources to a commercial enterprise which may fatally damage an existing business which has served the community in a proven manner would be questionable; that the procurement of the product on which the Burns Court Cinema survives could be endangered; that such a worthy institution as the Burns Court Cinema deserves the help of the City. Patricia Caswell, 1623 North Drive (34239), stated that she is a resident in the City of Sarasota and serves as Executive Director to the Board of the Sarasota County Arts Council (SCAC); ; that the mission of the SCAC is to preserve and strengthen all of the arts in Sarasota County; that the issue is not a parking or traffic issue but a vision issue; that the Vision Plan labels the arts as an integral and important part of the City; that the Commission can protect and shepherd that vision by policy, planning, and wise decisions; that Sarasota is becoming a foreign film center; that careful consideration should be given to a decision which may result in the loss of an art form. Stanley Blumenstein. 4400 Calle Serena (34238), stated that he is a resident of Sarasota County; that Mr. Cline made clear the necessity of building an 18-screen complex to monopolize the market; that forcing the closure of the Burns Court Cinema is not in the best interest of the City or the County. Nancy Taylor, 1756 Oak Street (34236), stated that building a large theater in a small, lovely city is not appropriate; that Sarasota is known as the Arts Center of the West Coast; that vacating public rights-of-way to permit an 18-screen commercial movie theater in the downtown will make Sarasota similar to any suburban town in America; that the project could fail, leaving the downtown with another enormous, vacant structure; that the special quality of Sarasota should be preserved. Lewis Hanan, 690 Freeling Drive (34239), stated that he has had an office in the City of Sarasota for 30 yearsi that the City should be complimented for the revitalization efforts made to western Main Street; that the Commission's decision to vacate the rights-of-way and unify the eastern and western portion of Main Street will not only serve to increase the tax base but to revitalize and make the area more desirable for businesses to flourish. Mr. Hanan continued that many of the arguments raised are fruitless; that the same consequences to Burns Court Cinema will occur whether the 18-screen movie theater is constructed downtown or just outside the City limits; that numerous films shown at Burns Court Cinema are not family oriented; that art films are not rated "G"; that the Commission has the opportunity to preserve the economic viability of the downtown into the 21st Century; that vacating the rights-of-way is in the. best interest of the City and the community at-large. Jeffrey Oldenburg 1869 Fruitville Road (34230), stated that he has resided in the City of Sarasota since 1978 and owns a home and rental units within walking distance of the proposed development; that he sympathizes with a smaller cinema which may not be able to compete with a larger facility; however, such risks are taken when a business is opened; that his business entails his presence on east Main Street 350 evenings annually; that east Main Street languishes in the evening; that the subject property is zoned high density; that the benefits outweigh any negative impacts; that the Book 39 Page 12716 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12717 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. proposed development, which will add vitality, vibrancy, and legitimacy to the area, is totally supported. Susan Weseley, 2425 Gulf of Mexico Drive (34228), stated that she resides on Longboat Key and works downtown and on Longboat Keyi that attempting to revitalize east Main Street with a project of the size proposed is a mistake; that a feasibility study proving the necessity of a theater complex of the magnitude proposed and the benefits to the community should be performed and made public; that the capacity of the theater is 3,500 seats; that the capacity at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) is 1,751 seats; that traffic congestion occurs on U.S. 41 each time an event at the VWPAH lets out; that the congestion on east Main Street and U.S. 301 when the movies let out will be twice that amount; that the approximate and appropriate size of a theater complex determined by a feasibility study could be supported. Janet Leslie McLean, 1818 Main Street (34236), stated that she owns Paradise Pictures and recently signed a lease at 1818 Main Street; that Paradise Pictures will be filming five feature films in Sarasota over the next two years; that vacating Links Avenue will prevent access of large catering trucks to the rear of her leased property. Ms. McLean continued that 18 screens are not necessary if a 50% occupancy rate is estimated; that she is often the sole viewer of films at the existing commercial theaters in Sarasota; that east Main Street is not desolate in the evening; that many people patronize the YMCA at the City Center until 10 p.m.; that the parking on and around east Main Street, which is already a problem, will become worse if the proposed development is constructed; that a towing service is often called to remove vehicles from designated parking spaces to the rear of her leased property; that the Rosemary District would be a more appropriate location for the proposed development. Mayor Merrill asked if access to the alley behind the referenced property will be prevented as a result of the proposed development? Mr. Daughters came before the Commission and stated that the alley referenced will be accessible from Osprey Avenue. The Commission recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21 p.m. Helga Harris 1756 Oak Street (34236), stated that she resides downtown; that the community currently has the opportunity to view small budget, unique films at Burns Court Cinema; that having an 18-screen movie complex will eliminate that opportunity; that Sarasota will lose its charm and become similar to any huge city; that bigger is not better regarding this issue. Anne Olshansky, 1690 Starling Drive (34231), stated that she resides in Sarasota County; that vacating the streets to permit the proposed development is supported to bring life and activity to east Main Street; that the downtown offers activities for various groups of people; that continuing to make the downtown an area for people of all ages from all socioeconomic groups should be pursued; that movies provide an inexpensive leisure activity for families and people on limited budgets; that the elderly population need the stimulation movies provide by offering a distraction to problems and an opportunity to laugh with other people rather than being alone; that the proposed development is accessible via the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) system; that in the evening east Main Street is a dangerous, depressed area with a high crime rate; that on Saturday mornings Main Street is alive, vibrant, and friendly; that the proposed development is sited at a perfect location to increase activity and attract more people to the downtown area throughout the day and in the evenings. Sy Sherr, 523 South Washington Boulevard (34236), stated that he has resided in the City of Sarasota since 1962 and owns a number of properties in the downtown area, specifically in the Laurel Park/Oak Street vicinity; that the realtors' perspective of the downtown as a crime area makes renting properties difficult; that the proposed development will assist in improving that perception. Mr. Sherr continued that the Burns Court Cinema is a three-screen theater which was not required to provide parking when constructed; that complaints are not being voiced about Burns Court Cinema patrons monopolizing the surface parking on Burns Court; that Burns Court Cinema's contribution to the ad valorem tax is minimal; that Burns Court Cinema is currently the only movie theater in the City of Sarasota; that members and patrons of foreign films will continue to attend showings at Burns Court Cinema even if a commercial movie complex is constructed in the downtown; that residents on Bird Key travel 15 miles to an AMC Theatre for selective commercial films; that Cobb Theatre will locate in Sarasota County if not in the City of Sarasota; that the competition ramifications an 18-screen movie complex in the City will have on County theaters is not a City concern; that the amount of taxes generated by the proposed development will be significant; that the taxes will be paid whether or not the project is a successi that vacating the requested streets to permit construction of a Cobb Theatre in the City of Sarasota is in the best interest of the City. Milt Felsen, 888 Boulevard of the Arts, stated that he is a film maker who has resided in the City of Sarasota for 18 years; that two commercial theaters were formerly located on Main Street; that Main Street is an appropriate location for a commercial theater; that people will continue to patronize Burns Court Cinema to view the category of film shown at that venue; that the surrounding Book 39 Page 12718 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12719 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. business will prosper and the community at large will benefit by vacating the streets to permit construction of the proposed development. Alexander Paderewski, 1834 Main Street (34236), stated that he has resided in the City of Sarasota for 45 years; that the location of his office property is directly contiguous to the proposed development; that the needs and wants of the general public have been considered in the City's Vision Plan; that the Commission's objective is to further the best interest of the City of Sarasota; that the United States of America thrives on free competition; that the Commission's decision should not be wrongly persuaded by the emotion generated by the Burns Court Cinema following; that vacating the requested streets could further the best interests of the City; that the Commission has a duty and moral responsibility to take the associated risk and approve the requested vacations. Mr. Paderewski stated that the risk of public on-street parking being consumed by movie theater patrons could be overcome by offsetting the consumption. Mr. Paderewski referred to the partial site plan displayed on the overhead projector to identify the location of his property and explain his proposal for the City to request a quid pro quo that the parking proposed adjacent to the alley to the west of the proposed development (west alley) and the alley to the south of the proposed development (south alley) be made available to the public and regulated by the City. Mayor Merrill asked for clarification of ownership on the parcels for which vacations have been requested. City Attorney Taylor stated that based on the research conducted by the Engineering Department, the subject parcels are easements that were dedicated to the City for transportation purposes; that the land underneath the unnamed alleys and Links Avenue is owned by the petitioner (s); that the Commission is being requested to determine that the transportation easements are no longer necessary and to relinquish easement rights; that the opinion of the City Attorney's Office is that the City obtained the right to utilize privately owned land for transportation purposes; that the law does not recognize the City has anything to sell if the rights for the easement are relinquished. Commissioner Patterson stated that private enterprises and governments pay to acquire easements or rights-of-way; that the City is relinquishing an easement which has a dollar value attached; and asked if an easement on the west alley can be requested in exchange for the easements the City will be relinquishing. City Attorney Taylor stated that surface parking could be considered an adjunct of the City's transportation easement; that alternative arrangements have been made to address concerns raised by the Engineering Department regarding the street vacation; that streets are used for vehicular transportation as well as vehicular parking. Commissioner Patterson asked for further clarification regarding the west and south alleys. Michael Taylor came before the Commission, referred to a partial site plan displayed on the overhead projector; and stated that the plan proposes private parking spaces on private property adjacent to the west and south alleys which are public easements. Marsha Fottler, 180 Mimosa Circle, stated that she lives east of the City and has resided in Sarasota since 1970; that she reviewed films for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for 17 years; that the movie theaters were often empty; that an 18-screen Cobb Theatre exceeds the cinema demands of the population; that Burns Court Cinema, located downtown, has three screens; that vacating streets to permit another movie theater in the downtown would not be appropriate; that Sarasota has at least 41 screens from University Parkway to Sarasota Square Mall, 26 of which are operated by Cobb Theatre; that the Commission should remember the hype and vision which characterized the ill-fated Main Plaza development; that the street vacations are not in the best interest of the City at this time. Elwood Levy, 770 South Palm Avenue (34236), stated that he is opposed to the petition, but is not opposed to development at the subject site; that the public supports further development at the eastern portion of Main Street; that the size of the proposed development is the main issue about which opposition is being heard; that the petitioner is proposing 18 theaters in the same building; that a greater understanding of the potential traffic congestion is perceived by envisioning the 18 theaters as 18 individual buildings; that the VWPAH has a seating capacity of 1,751 and a parking capacity between 800 and 1,100; that a seating capacity of 3,500 and a parking capacity of 608 has been proposed for the movie complex; that the intersections of Fruitville Road, Ringling Boulevard, and Main Street at U.S. 301 are the busiest in the City; that the theaters will be filled in excess of 50% capacity on Saturday evenings; that two of the referenced intersections will have the detritus and pedestrian traffic of 3,500 people as the movies let out. Mr. Levy continued that the 22 feet on the Ringling Boulevard Spur is City property; that the City's legal authority to vacate Links Avenue and the alleys for the sole purpose of improving the profit potential of a private venture is questionable; that the City's study of the legal issue has not been sufficiently addressed; that Book 39 Page 12720 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12721 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. the Commission should delay action until the legal issue has been resolved and a fifth Commissioner is elected. Mayor Merrill asked if the City has the legal right to grant the requested vacation? City Attorney Taylor stated that the question being raised is whether the facts presented would support a Commission decision to approve the vacations; that the question is a legal argument; that his opinion is that the Commission has the legal ability to make a decision based on the record being compiled; that the Engineering Department made the determination that the City does not have ownership of the underlying fee title on the three parcels requested for vacation; that he has not independently made that determination; that the information can be researched by the City Attorney's Office if so desired by the Commission. Mayor Merrill stated that there was a consensus to direct the City Manager to verify the Engineering Department's analysis regarding ownership prior to second reading. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO) and himself, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237), stated that he lives and works in the City of Sarasota; that the facts do not support the granting of the requested vacations; that the project will not meet concurrency; that the responsibility of an elected official is to use judgement and not rely solely on an engineer's recommendation; that the City's engineer has stated that the proposed development will divert traffic onto Osprey Avenue; that Osprey Avenue/Orange Avenue is a sensitive area; that adding the committed capacity of the former Maas Brothers building, the Main Plaza, a vacant 4,900-square-foot office building or other vacant buildings, which has not been considered in the transportation analysis for the proposed development, to the existing traffic will create gridlock on U.S. 301; that including additional traffic from the proposed development will assure gridlock. Mr. Lobeck referred to the September 26, 1995, Traffic Count/Analysis Program information sheet included in the Agenda packet; and stated that the same information sheet dated December 19, 1994, indicates an adopted level of service "D" for U.S. 301 from Main Street to Ringling Boulevard and from Fruitville Road to Main Street with a measured level of service "E" based on the traffic counts listed; that traffic counts on the September 1995 information sheet have been omitted; that State law requires the Commission disapprove the proposed development. Mr. Lobeck continued that traffic congestion slows business and tourist traffic, which negatively impacts businesses and tourism, and increases air pollution, which negatively impacts people's health; that a recent study indicates the correlation of traffic congestion with a higher rate of cardiac fatalities; that the developer has refused to make the parking structure available to the public but is requesting the donation of a City street in exchange for gridlock on other City streets; that the City-owned VWPAH has a 2 to 1 parking ratio; that the proposed development has a 4 to 1 parking ratio; that the vacations are not in the best interest of the City and should be denied. Commissioner Patterson requested a response by the Administration regarding the omitted data on the Traffic County/Analysis Program information sheet referenced by Mr. Lobeck. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Mr. Daughters will respond to the Commission by memorandum. Ellen Maloff, 2620 Grafton Street (34231), representing ReLEAF Sarasota County, displayed photographs of W.T. Robarts Memorial Park; and stated that the City park lands from Marina Jack to the Bayfront have been converted to asphalt parking lots; that trees planted in honor of war veterans were destroyed to allow construction of the former Maas Brothers development; that the park donated to the community to honor a member of the Robarts family should be considered in the Commission's decision. Johnny Nugent, 400 North Tamiami Trail, stated that the Commission has the opportunity to take a position in support of small business or big business; that the concept of the proposed development is supported; however, the vacating of streets and relocating a park to allow for the proposed development shows favoritism to big business and is not supported; that small business is the backbone of the Country. Mr. Nugent read a draft petition prepared by the Sarasota Democratic Club to require a public referendum prior to the Commission's approving the sale or lease of public park land; and stated that a signature drive is planned to have the petition placed as a referendum on the fall ballot. Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission previously discussed and reached a resolve with the petitioner regarding Robarts Park. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista (34239), stated that the proposed development would be a fine project at an alternative location; that adequate property is available in other parts of the City; that the vacant lot, building, and parking garage which currently exists on Main Street could accommodate the proposed development; that city streets and alleys should not be vacated to accommodate a commercial venture. Book 39 Page 12722 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12723 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Julian Carrick, 605 South Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), stated that he lives within walking distance of the proposed project; that the Commission should implement parking stipulations if the requested vacations are approved; that Cobb Theatre is a powerful business entity able to pick and choose from a variety of film styles; that including a stipulation which would provide priority to Burns Court Cinema relative to a conflict in the ordering of foreign and artistic films should be considered. Don Leidel, 5420 Eagles Point Circle #205 (34231), stated that he resides off of U.S. 41 between Southgate and Gulf Gate malls; that the foreign and artistic showings at Burns Court Cinema and other cultural aspects of Sarasota enticed he and his wife to retire to Sarasota; that Sarasota's reputation as a cultural center in Florida will be damaged if Burns Court Cinema is lost; that a movie theater could contribute to successful revitalization of east Main Street; however, an 18-screen movie complex is too large; that losing Burns Court Cinema would not be in the best interest of the City; that having a new, smaller movie theater and retaining Burns Court Cinema would serve the best interests of the community. Sue Morris, 447 South Washington Drive (34236), submitted for the record approximately 320 signatures to a petition which read as follows: I object strongly to the vacation of Links Avenue and adjacent City property to build the proposed movie theater complex in downtown Sarasota. Mrs. Morris cited the following statements made by Cleveland Kent, President of Kent Theatres which were recently published in the newspaper: "Cobb will get it all. No one can compete. If you've got 18 screens no one within 10 miles can, they will take them all. Cobb runs good theaters and they do not overcharge, but its unfortunate they just push the little guys out of business." Mrs. Morris stated that the Sarasota Film Society is not against theaters but against City streets being vacated for an 18-screen movie theater. Mrs. Morris read a prepared speech indicating the merits and contributions of the Sarasota Film Society; and stated that the Sarasota Film Society has been a not-for-profit organization since 1983, is recognized as a leading cultural institution, and belongs to the community; that the Film Society brings approximately 85,000 people to the downtown annually and has more than 2,200 dues-paying members; that the City's participation in a free land giveaway to real estate speculators, which will probably result in the demise of Burns Court Cinema and the Sarasota Film Society, is shocking; that free market competition does not mean giving land to one operator and taking land away from another; that the City demanded and received 400 square feet of Burns Court Cinema property as a condition of site plan approval; that the City of Sarasota will be the first city in the world to have an 18-screen movie complex in the heart of its downtown. James Steinhardt, 1511 Pelican Point Drive (34231), was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Margaret Pearson, 4906 Bayshore Road (34234), stated that the symbol of the City of Sarasota is an artistic masterpiece; that Sarasota's art and culture promotes tourism in the area; that an 18-screen movie theater is out of character and does not belong in downtown Sarasota; that the majority of the screens will be showing adrenaline pumping junk to powerless, immature, and angry youngsters who will leave the theaters and prey upon innocent passersby in the parking structure. Ms. Pearson continued that promising multi-screen theaters have failed in other areas of the country; that the City Commission has a moral responsibility to protect and preserve what is good in Sarasota; that she has not agreed with the. recent decisions made by the City Commission regarding the library or the fountain at Island Park donated by Marina Jack, Inc. Charles Latimer, 3110 61st Street (34243), stated that Sarasota's reputation as a developing center for the arts enticed him to relocate to Sarasota 35 years ago; that he is a charter member of the Sarasota Film Society; that none of the proponents of the proposed development have referred to traffic; that people currently avoid the downtown to avoid traffic; that the existing traffic situation will worsen and other businesses in addition to Burns Court will. suffer if an 18-screen movie theater is constructed as proposed. Gael Houlihan, 1709 North Pompano Avenue (34234), Vivian Anderson, 2836 Wrenwood Court (34235), Helene Noble, 4719 61st Avenue Terrace West, Bradenton FL (34210), and Shirley Lee, 1861 Beneva Court #1200 (34232), were no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Stephen D. Rees, Esquire, 2033 Main Street Suite 600 (34237). representing Sarasota Film Society, Inc.. and Richard Morris, distributed to the Commission a letter dated January 2, 1996, and a data sheet indicating his experience as a land use attorney in Sarasota for 23 years and his knowledge and application of Florida statutory provision and/or administrative regulations, Sarasota Zoning Code, Sarasota City Code, Sarasota City Plan, and other applicable land development regulations and ordinances. Book 39 Page 12724 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12725 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Attorney Rees briefly explained the following grounds to deny adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3910 which are detailed in his letter: A. Invalidity of January 2, 1996, City Commission Hearing Authority to Act Pursuant to Sec. 30-85 Attorney Rees stated that a basis for a challenge to the validity of the conduct of the public hearing being held tonight pursuant to Sec. 30-76 through 85 of the Sarasota City Code is described on pages one through 3 of his letter; that neither the PBLP minutes of the December 6, 1995, regular meeting nor the minutes of the December 13, 1995, meeting indicate a consistency finding relevant to the street vacation pétition or any expressed findings as to the three mandatory criteria required by Sec. 30-82; that a premature receipt and consideration of the PBLP report and recommendation was made at the December 18, 1995, City Commission meeting; that the PBLP report and recommendation may not come before the Commission earlier than 30 days following the PBLP at which action was taken unless an express waiver is granted by the Commission and findings of hardship are found to justify earlier consideration; that no express waiver was granted; that there have not been 30 days between PBLP action which was taken on December 13 and tonight's hearing. B. Invalidity of Street Vacation for Purely Private Gain and Benefit. Attorney Rees stated that two Florida decisions have been cited which clearly state that private gain supporting the removal or closure of streets is not lawful under Florida law; that the City's record does not support a basis for a vacation other than for the private gain of the petitioner associated with the approval of the development plan; that the petitioner has indicated that without the closure the project cannot go forth. C. Rights of Subdivision Dedicator, Charles Ringling Company, Its Successors and/or Assigns Attorney Rees stated that the case cited as well as legal authorities shown indicates a justiciable question as to whether the dedication reservation within the plat vests the title to: 1) the dedicator and/or its successors and assigns or 2) to the abutting owners. D. Rights of Other Subdivision Lot Owners Attorney Rees stated that under Florida Law the Beneficial Rule provides as to implied easements over streets held by lot owners acquiring title by reference to a plat that such rights continue to such streets and alleys as may be reasonably and materially beneficial to their ownership, occupancy and use and the vacation of which would cause them to suffer a lot value reduction. E. Legality of a Conditional Vacation Attorney Rees stated that the Commission's conditioning the vacation clearly shows the City's present recognition that there is now, and will continue to be, both the necessity for public use and a direct benefit to the public by continued use of the streets and alleys proposed for vacation. H. Deficiencies With Tindale-oliver and Associates Traffic Concurrency Review I. Due Process Violations Attorney Rees stated that the PBLP failed to allow additional public comment and testimony as to substantial testimony and evidence by City Staff after the closure of the public hearing at the December 6, 1995, meeting; that at the December 13, 1995, meeting Michael J. Furen, Attorney for Sarasota Film Society, requested the opportunity to comment on the revised site plan and was denied; that the Development Plan Review failed to comply with the requirements set forth within Division 5 of Sec. 5-14 of the Zoning Code; that the proposed development is not in keeping with the proposed character and scale of the office district described in the adopted Sarasota 2040 Vision Plan. Attorney Rees entered the following into the record: Exhibit A Agenda item No. IV-1, Commissioner Packet for January 2, 1996 Exhibit B Revised Plat of Court House Subdivision (PB2/48) Exhibit C December 12, 1995, Bishop & Associates letter to Ms. Debbie Marks, with attachments Exhibit D Bishop & Associates, Hollywood 18 Cobb Theatres site development plan (Sheet No. 3, Rev. 12/8/95) Exhibit E Report on actions of Planning Board/Local Planning Agency matters December 6, 1995 and December 13, 1995 Exhibit F Agenda Item No. of regular City Commission meeting of December 18, 1995 Exhibit G Agenda Request Item No. V-1 from Bishop & Associates dated November 21, 1995 to City Auditor & Clerk to request advance December 6, 1995 Book 39 Page 12726 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12727 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Planning Board report be given at December 18, 1995 City Commission meeting Exhibit H Draft Minutes excerpt of regular City Commission meeting, December 4, 1995, Agenda Item V-1 Exhibit I Bishop & Associates October 24, 1995 letter to Alexander J. Boudreau, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Department Exhibit J Debbie Marks, Sr. Planning Technician Memorandum to City Auditor & Clerk dated October 10, 1995 Exhibit K December 13, 1995 Planning Board Agenda and attachments Exhibit L Verified complaint, Sarasota Film Society, Inc. and Richard A. Morris (Plaintiffs) V. City of Sarasota, Florida and City Commission Exhibit M I.T.E. Trip Generation (Fifth Ed.) land use: 444- Movie Theatres with Matinee (Pages 681-690) Exhibit N Excerpts of Sarasota 2040 Vision Plan and Brochure Jack Winner, 644 40th Street (34234), stated that he resides in the City of Sarasota; that as a private citizen he supports a movie theater in the downtown; that as the Vice President of the Sarasota Film Society he does not feel an 18-screen movie complex will benefit Sarasota or the Sarasota Film Society; that Mr. Cline has stated a smaller complex is not economically feasible for Cobb Theatres. Mr. Winner cited from Box Office Magazine various smaller movie complexes which recently opened or plan to open; and stated that the 24-screen complex recently opened in Naples, Florida, is five to seven miles outside of the central district of Naples with acres of surface parking; that large complexes are not being constructed in downtown areas. Mr. Winner continued that the street vacation is proposed to assist a private developer to bring in a Cobb Theatre; that other cities have not permitted movie theaters of the size proposed. P.J. Sproat, 1725 Cunliff Lane (34239), stated that she resides in McClellan Park and works in downtown Sarasota; that the following issues are of concern: 1) enhancement of the existing traffic congestion at the intersections of Fruitville Road, Main Street, and Ringling Boulevard at U.S. 301, 2) safety in the parking garage which will not be monitored after 5 p.m., and 3) the scale of the project in comparison to the surrounding area. Stuart Kaminsky, 4604 Little John Trail (34232), stated that he resides in Sarasota; that he has a Ph.D. in Film Studies from Northwestern University where he taught for 20 years and headed the Department of Film; that he was a founding director of the Film Conservatory at Florida State University; that Burns Court Cinema contributes to Sarasota's reputation as a cultural center; that experts in the history of theater should be consulted as to the validity of placing an 18-screen movie complex in downtown Sarasota; that he is an expert; that teenagers tyrannize multi-plex theaters nationwide; that the proposed development will not promote cultural diversity or entertainment for all ages and will fail; that vacating public streets for construction of an 18-screen movie complex is not in the best interest of the City or the community. William Froug, 8888 Huntington Pointe Drive (34238), stated that he is a retired UCLA Professor from the School of Theatre, Film, and Television; that he is currently writing a book which requires viewing of all new movie releases; that the service received at Cobb Theatres is deficient; that the seats lack comfort; that the popcorn and drinks are overpriced in comparison to AMC Theatres; that the published viewing times are inaccurate; that he could support an 8-screen AMC Theatre, but is opposed to a Cobb Theatre of any size. Helen Pell, 1740 Alderman Street (34236) and Dan Aaron of Longboat Key, were no longer in the Commission Chambers. Cellis Mills, 560 Beach Road (34242), stated that she was raised on Siesta Key; that Sarasota's character is rapidly changing; that the history and character of Sarasota should be preserved; that the younger generations have difficulty finding what to care about; that Hollywood does not depict the values of America but promotes violence; that the films shown at Burns Court Cinema depict values. Jerry Simons, 988 Boulevard of Arts, was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. Gloria Cohn, 770 South Palm Avenue, stated that the demise of the Burns Court Cinema should be prevented; that attempts should be made for the proposed development and Burns Court Cinema to coexist; that Burns Court Cinema is special; that east Main Street need revitalization; that a smaller Cobb Theatre theater would be a welcome addition; that a 6-screen or 8-screen theater would allow the survival of Burns Court Cinema; that citizens would retain their freedom of film and theater choice; that the retailers downtown would be happy; and the Cobb Theatre principals would reap the benefits of complimentary press. Rani Brown 514 South Boulevard of Presidents, stated that cultural activities make Sarasota attractive to tourists and promotes relocation of people to Florida; that Sarasota is unique; that the Book 39 Page 12728 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12729 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Sony Theatre in New York City has 13 screensi that an 18-screen movie theater will make Sarasota like any other city; that an 18- screen complex in the downtown could put the struggling theaters at the malls out of business; that mall retailers will suffer. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Mr. Freedman, Mr. Hoyt, Mr. Kauffman, and Mr. Cline came before the Commission for petitioner rebuttal. Mr. Freedman stated that the majority of the comments related to a business issue of survival of Burns Court Cinema; that Cobb Theatres and Burns Court Cinema show two different types of product and are different types of operations; that Burns Court Cinema will retain the membership of 2,200 members and survive if the proposed development is constructed. Mr. Freedman referred to the issue of traffic congestion; and stated that the City requires a traffic study be performed; that the peak times for movie viewing is the off-peak time on roads; that movie schedules are staggered; that based on the staggered movie schedules and the anticipated occupancy rate, 3,500 seats will not be released simultaneously; that approximately 100 to 200 vehicles will leave the development at the same time; that a feasibility study has been performed for Cobb Theatres; that Cobb Theatres feels confident about the market today and in the future. Mr. Freedman stated that the County government office complex is located on east Main Street; that alternate interests and activities to those promoted on west Main Street are required for successful revitalization of the eastern portion of Main Street; that employees or employers in the Sarasota City Center or the government complex, who decide to eat dinner downtown and take in a movie, will not relocate their vehicles; that the proposed development will promote interaction between uses. Mr. Freedman referred to the site development plan displayed on the overhead projector to explain the potential relocation of Robarts Memorial Park to another area at the corner of Links Avenue and Ringling Boulevard; and stated that the trustee for the Robarts Memorial Park has agreed to the relocation subject to the City's approving the vacation. Mr. Freedman referred to the issue raised regarding monitoring of the parking structure in the evening; that the structure will be monitored by full-time security personnel and cameras; that payment for access is what will not be monitored. Mr. Kauffman stated that Burns Court Cinema has added to the quality of life in Sarasota; that he and his wife will continue to frequent Burns Court Cinema as well as the Cobb Theatre; however, his grandchildren do not appreciate the films shown at Burns Court Cinema; that Burns Court Cinema and Cobb Theatres attract different audiences; that the moving forward of the proposed development should not be the demise of Burns Court Cinema; that the visibility in the community of Burns Court Cinema may actually be enhanced when people look through the newspaper to find out what movies are playing downtown. Commissioner Patterson asked for the petitioner's intent for the parking proposed adjacent to the west and south alleys? Mr. Kauffman stated that the parking located on private property is intended for daytime attendees and employees of the theater; that regulating that area will depend on the success of daytime operations; that the spaces could be made available for public parking if a theater need is not recognized. Commissioner Patterson stated that the movie theater will have a negative impact on surface parking currently available to the public; asked if the petitioner would consider a Commission request to permit City regulation of two-hour parking on the private property parking? Mr. Kauffman stated that a greater impact on Main Street parking may result if public parking is permitted on the west and south alleys; that the lease with Cobb Theatre precludes the developer from giving away private parking. Mr. Cline stated that Cobb Theatre does not have a large matinee business as does Burns Court Cinema; that making some the parking in the west and south alleys available to the public on weekdays would not be a problem; that doing so in the evening and on weekends would; that the intent is to utilize the parking for employees; that the Commission's request will be considered and a response from Cobb Theatres forwarded to the City. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that City encourages downtown businesses to have employees park in parking lots rather than to consume valuable surface parking along Main Street; that the intent of Cobb Theatres to provide on-street parking for employees along the west and south alleys is counterproductive to the City's goal; that Cobb Theatres should consider encouraging off-street parking for employees. Mr. Cline stated that Cobb Theatres encourage ingress and egress through the lobby; that the customer will attempt to park near the front door; that the parking structure and the street parking along Main Street will primarily be used; that the parking in the rear of the property will be less used. Book 39 Page 12730 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12731 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if Cobb Theatres shows multi-cultural films? Mr. Cline stated that movies, i.e., Malcolm X, have been shown in Cobb Theatres; that Cobb Theatres is not discriminatory but commercial; that an 18-screen complex will provide for more variety of product; that the number of or frequency of black films shown in Sarasota Cobb Theatres can be forwarded to the Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a 3,500-seat theater is unusual? Mr. Cline stated that speculation at one time was that video would be the demise of theaters; that the theater industry initially experienced a 10% to 15% decrease in product; however, over time, the risk associated with film making diminished, more product was developed, a demand for more screens per location occurred, and facilities were expanded; that larger facilities with more seats are now being built to meet existing and future demands; that more available screens in a facility makes the overall average occupancy lower. Commissioner Patterson referred to the memorandum from Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, dated December 15, 1995, which indicates the following: Based on the Cobb standard of one space for every 5.5 seats at 50% occupancy the parking requirement is 318 spaces. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Cobb Theatres study of 1994 indicates 2.39 people per car; that the 5.5 seats applies to the entirety of theater; and asked if the 318 spaces is an inaccurate statement? Mr. Cline stated that the statement is inaccurate; that 50% of 3,500 seats is 1,750 seats divided by 2.39 people per car results in the need for 725 parking spaces. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a traffic signal will be placed at the intersection of the Ringling Spur and Main Street to permit left-turns onto Main Street and promote synergy between the eastern and western portions of Main Street. Mr. Freedman stated that Staff indicated that left-turns which are currently prohibited will continue to be prohibited. Mr. Daughters and Asim- Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mr. Mohammed stated that the Ringling Boulevard Spur is very close to the intersection of Links Avenue and Main Street. Mr. Daughters stated that left turns onto Main Street were permitted at one time; that traffic difficulties with the Links Avenue/Main Street were experienced; and the left turns from the Ringling Boulevard Spur were prohibited. Mayor Merrill stated that the feasibility of a left-turn onto Main Street from the Ringling Boulevard Spur should be investigated. Commissioner Patterson stated that a reconfiguration of the intersection should be considered. Vice Mayor Cardamone agreed. Mr. Daughters stated that permitting left-turn traffic onto Main Street from the Ringling Boulevard Spur area will be reviewed. Commissioner Pillot stated that this is the first reading of the ordinance; that questions raised can be considered and brought back for further consideration at second reading. Mayor Merrill stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3910 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3910 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson asked if the parking proposed on the Ringling Boulevard Spur will be public parking? Mr. Sollenberger stated that his understanding is that the parking will be on the public right-of-way. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to include directing the Administration to pursue between first and second reading a parking easement for the west and south alleys of the proposed theater structure. Commissioner Patterson stated that the discussion heard from the Cobb Theatre representative indicates the potential of providing public benefits not included with the proposal at this time; that her vote on second reading will be cast based on the information received. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that her support for the 18-screen movie complex is to provide a nearby facility for citizens who do not appreciate art and foreign films and prefer commercial venues; that employees and employers in downtown buildings are envisioned leaving their vehicles parked, eating dinner at a restaurant, and viewing a movie in a downtown theater; that she would not cast a Book 39 Page 12732 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12733 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. vote in favor of an ordinance foreseen as resulting in the demise of the Burns Court Cinema; that the proposed development should not be of threat to the Burns Court Cinema. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the amendment. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Commissioner Patterson stated that a large movie complex is something every downtown struggling to maintain viability would wish for; that she shares many of the concerns voiced, i.e., the size of the project, the potential traffic congestion, and the parking issue; however, the City's Staff, who are suppose to be experts in engineering and planning, have informed the Commission the project will work; that the petitioner, who will be investing millions of dollars into the downtown, feels the project will work; that the downtown will benefit greatly if the project works. Commissioner Patterson continued that the Commission has directed the Administration to work through parking difficulties experienced with Burns Court Cinema; that the. city has contributed to making the Burns Court Cinema a viable entity on the western area of Main Street; that the difficulties which may be encountered by Burns Court Cinema in obtaining films is understood; however, Commission votes must be cast in the best interest of the entire City and not in the best interest of one particular entity, regardless of how beneficial the Commission may feel that entity is. Commissioner Pillot stated that the western portion of Main Street has been successfully revitalized; that the proposed development could be a catalyst for revitalization on the eastern portion of Main Street; that he would like to see the entire Main Street proper; that Theatre Associates by BBK is comprised of 30-year residents of the City of Sarasota who have a proven track record of excellence and support of the community. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City has made the following improvements in conjunction with the construction of the Burns Court Cinema: 1) installation of 1,300 feet of six-inch water line to provide fire protection at a cost of over $69,000, 2) sidewalk and curb replacement and restoration at a cost of over $20,000, 3) street resurfacing at a cost of $1,300, and 4) installation of parking and historic district signs at a cost $260; that the City also granted a temporary parking permit which was renewed for a second six months to allow parking near the theater for ease of access by patrons and authorized the changing of parking on Pineapple Avenue from two hours to three hours to accommodate patrons of the Burns Court Cinema; that Florida Power & Light (FPL), at no cost, installed two additional lights and increased the intensity of light for safety in the area; that the Burns Court Cinema has not been considered lightly by the City of Sarasota; that both theaters should be able to coexist profitably; that he supports the motion. City Attorney Taylor stated that the preambles of the ordinance are implicit that the Commission finds the closing and discontinuance of the streets in the best interest of the City and the general public. Commissioner Pillot, as maker of the motion, stated that is the intent of the motion. Mayor Merrill stated that the City has been supportive and assisted in the timely opening of the Burns Court Cinema, which has been an asset to the community; that the concerns raised about competition could equally occur if an 18-screen movie theater is placed elsewhere in Sarasota; that without the proposed development, City of Sarasota residents will continue to drive miles out of the City to view commercial movies; that the traffic counts on Links Avenue are minimal and traffic can be rerouted; that the surrounding property owners support the project; that the City is built out; that the proposed development will increase not only the City's tax base but also contribute to other governmental taxes; that downtown is a proper location for an 18-screen movie complex; that the proposed theater structure is approximately 60,000 square feet and not out of scale or character with the area; that the office buildings in the surrounding area are 200,000 square feet; that entertainment uses have successfully revitalized other downtown areas; that a separate building for parking will promote pedestrian traffic for surrounding businesses; that this is one of the most exciting projects which has come before the Commission since he has been a Commissioner; that he will support the motion. Commissioner Patterson stated that calls have been received regarding the negative impact such a large movie theater complex may have on the Sarasota Square Mall or other outlying theaters; that no competition will be generated within the City of Sarasota other than with the Burns Court Cinema, which shows a different product; that Sarasota Square Mall is in competition with the City of Sarasota in every retail aspect; that the City Commission is responsible for the welfare of the City, the City's tax base, and the City's vitality; that the project should be beneficial for the City; that the potential impacts of the project on outlying malls, which have had a draining effect on the economy of the City, should not be considered. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that J.C. Penny, Sears, and Maas Brothers, which were formerly located within the downtown area, have relocated to the malls; that regaining some of the retailers which have relocated to the malls would be of benefit to the City. Book 39 Page 12734 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. - Book 39 Page 12735 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3923, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 95-3862 PERTAINING TO THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO CRT ZONE DISTRICT OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 1 THROUGH 18 AND LOT 20, BLOCK "B," TOWLES SUBDIVISION, A RESUB OF LOT 18, 20 AND BLOCK "H, I PLAT OF SARASOTA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATED PETITION 95-DPR-01; SETTING FORTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS CON- TAINED IN SECTION 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 95-3862 PERTAINING TO SAID REZONING; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-DRP-01, RUSSELL MOORE, DESIGN STUDIOS WEST FOR BEVERLY HILLS ASSOCIATES) = INFORMATION ON LOT LINE CHANGES TO BE FURNISHED AT SECOND READING; PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #4 (0158) through (0637) Commissioner Patterson stated that her husband's law firm represents the owners of the Towles Court project; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will not vote on this item. Commissioner Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 10:47 p.m. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that Beverly Hills Associates, owners of the Towles Court project, request Commission approval of: A minor revision to Conditional Rezoning Ordinance No. 95-3862 which was approved June 5, 1995 - Section 6(3) of the ordinance requires the petitioner to obtain certificates of occupancy for three structures located at 253 Links Avenue, 1959 Morrill Street, and 1936 Adams Lane within one year from the effective date of the ordinance, and the petitioner requests the language be changed to require a building permit within one year from the effective date of the ordinance. Final site and development plan approval - Section 5 of the ordinance requires the depiction of the location of all exterior lighting, location of trees, and uses in accordance with the conditions set forth, and the plans submitted meet those requirements. Change in type of ownership The originally approved plan proposed condominium ownership and the petitioner is now requesting fee simple ownership of the lots in the project. Commissioner Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 10:49 p.m. Mr. Litchet stated that representatives of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association have been contacted and support continuation of the project. city Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3923 on first reading. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following person came before the Commission: Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista (34239), stated that several variances in regard to this project were considered by the Board of Adjustment; that the project was reviewed by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the project is not the same as was presented to those two Boards initially; that the owners originally requested fee simple ownership and were told condominium ownership was required to avoid zoning problems; that the Commission should not make a decision without Board of Adjustment and PBLP consideration of the requested changes; that the normal procedures and safeguards are being bypassed; that the changes should be presented as a new project requiring appropriate Board review. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City's regulations do not normally regulate ownership; that the land use continues to be the same although the type of ownership has changed; that originally, an internal City decision was made that the type of ownership made a difference in the configuration of the project; that subsequently, the Acting Director of Building, Housing and Zoning determined that the type of ownership is not an impediment; that condominium ownership creates a significant impediment to continuation of the project; therefore, the original ordinance is being amended to accommodate the change in type of ownership; that the change was considered to be of minor significance and will allow the project to proceed; that use of the property will be restricted and such restrictions will be recorded in the public record. Mr. Litchet stated that the Zoning Code does not regulate how property title is transterred, i.e., condominium or fee simple ownership; that the land uses requested are exactly the same as previously requested; that the method of transfer was determined not to be important after consultation with the City Attorney's Office. Book 39 Page 12736 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12737 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked why condominium ownership was important initially? Mr. Litchet stated that the initial question was whether the property boundaries in the rezoning of a large parcel should be taken from the outside boundary of condominium property or from the boundaries of individual lots; that, for example, the rezoning on the North Tamiami Trail involved a large parcel of land, and condominium ownership was not a consideration; that the petitioners have presented declarations of homeowner restrictions which meet the requirements of restricting the land use; that one consideration in rewriting the Zoning Code should be to assure project changes are communicated to all concerned parties; that this proposal is the same project brought to the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, which supports the fee simple ownership over condominium ownership. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the process is a concern; that this project is excellent; however, a project should not be presented and approved one way and an ordinance rewritten at the last minute without the initial steps being followed again; that an ordinance should not be rewritten on a project approved under a different concept. Mayor Merrill asked if the petitioner wishes an opportunity to rebut? Russell Moore, Design Studios West for Beverly Hills Associates. petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that homes were originally planned on top of lot lines, etc.; that each home could not be sold individually because the lot sizes were too small; that the solution was to utilize condominium ownership; that the owner has subsequently reviewed the cost of developing the condominium documents required under State law compared to the cost of sales and the absorption time of the project; that a discussion ensued with the Acting Director, Building, Housing and Zoning who indicated that the ownership could be changed to fee simple in which case each unit could not be sold individually and only one sale would be required if three units exist on one lot; that the result was a downsizing of the density and the number of units in the project, which the developer was willing to do in order to speed up the absorption time of the project; that the site plan, the number of units and the land uses are exactly the same; that only the ownership process is different. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if PBLP approval could be sought? Mr. Moore stated that the issues considered by the PBLP are land use issues and not issues of ownership. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson stated that buyers are waiting to close on the homes in the project. Mr. Moore stated that reservations have been received on every unit. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission is not considering the issue of buyers waiting to close on property. Commissioner Patterson stated that sales could be held up while the PBLP considers an ownership issue and not a land use issue. Mr. Moore stated that the only change is the overlay of ownership; that all other aspects have been reviewed by all appropriate boards. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3923 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3923 on first reading. Mayor Merrill stated that a review by the PBLP would have been preferable; that some lot lines appear to have been changed; however, ownership should not matter. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked what vote is necessary as only three Commissioners will be voting? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that three affirmative votes are required to pass an ordinance. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the processes in place should be followed; that the concern has nothing to do with the project under discussion; that pending sales should not be a criteria for Commission consideration. Mayor Merrill asked if information on the proposed lot line changes could be provided to the Commission prior to second reading? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the information will be provided. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 8. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK ON THE POSSIBILITY OF THIRD-PARTY FUNDING FOR THE HUDSON BAYOU Book 39 Page 12738 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. Book 39 Page 12739 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. CLEANUP, FINES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING GARBAGE CANS ON THE CURB, AND EMPLOYEE SICK LEAVE; SCHEDULED THE STATUTORY MEETING FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1996, AT NOON (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (0646) through (0960) VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that she will be absent for the next regular Commission meeting and regrets that only three Commissioners will be left at the table, which had not been contemplated when her plans were made. B. stated that the neighbors in the area of the Hudson Bayou did not cause the existing problems in the bayou but are willing to pay for the cleanup; that bids will be sent out in February 1996 and prices for the Cleanup should be available by March 1996; that the possibility of third- party funding to lessen the load on those neighbors should be investigated by the Administration. Mayor Merrill stated that there is a consensus to refer the issue to the Administration for a report back. C. stated that the newspaper was not completely accurate in quoting her concerning the issue of fines for garbage cans left on the curb. Mayor Merrill stated that one resident indicated that the law would have to be violated every week because of shift work; that he voted against the ordinance concerning garbage cans. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a report has been requested from the Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement; that the facts must be ascertained as to what the "garbage police" are or are not doing; that some suggestions will be presented for continued enforcement while dealing with the concerns raised. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the ordinance should be enforced in the neighborhoods where there is a concern; that many garbage cans were on the curb in an east Sarasota neighborhood on Saturday morning so the ordinance has had no effect in one neighborhood. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the issue will be referred to Department of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, for resolution. Commissioner Patterson stated that warnings should be considered; that a $50 fine is probably excessive. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a $50 fine is the standard fine and a special set of fines may be recommended. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that a report would be valuable concerning the statistics regarding the Community Development Department, i.e., how many City homes have been renovated, how many dollars spent, etc., as well as the successes of the Community Housing Corporation. B. stated that the Flexible Benefits Plan booklet includes a section on disability insurance; that employees have been given extended sick leave in the past with salary continuation; that she is not necessarily opposed, especially for long-term employees; that the City should consider some type of banking program or criteria so the amount of disability to which an employee is entitled without disability insurance is dependent upon longevity, past use of sick days, etc. Commissioner Patterson stated that Sarasota Memorial Hospital has an integrate policy which could be considered; that Staff should review the issue of sick leave and disability insurance; that City employees are unlikely to sign up for disability insurance if other employees have been given extended sick leave. Mayor Merrill stated that there is a consensus to refer the issue to the Administration. COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated the quotes attributed to him in the newspaper article concerning garbage cans were not necessarily inaccurate but were inadequate; that the City has erred in this instance but it was his own personal fault; that adequate attention had not been given to the ordinance either quantitatively or qualitatively; that the fault is his own and not with Staff or the Administration. B. stated that Vice Mayor Cardamone has announced her absence at the January 16 regular meeting; and asked will the regular meeting of January 16 be canceled if one Commissioner is ill? City Auditor and Clerk stated that is correct. C. asked when the fifth Commissioner will be seated following the election? Book 39 Page 12740 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. : a ane Book 39 Page 12741 01/02/96 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the statutory meeting would normally be held on Friday, January 26, at noon. Mayor Merrill stated that a conflict exists with that date. There was a consensus of the Commission to have all members of the Commission present at the statutory meeting and to reschedule the meeting to Monday, January 29, 1995. 9. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (0960) through (0974) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that the session with the facilitator and the Commission is scheduled for Friday and Saturday, February 2 and 3; that the schedules of the candidates for Commission have been requested; that one candidate has responded that he will be available and a response is being awaited from the other candidate; that the date should be considered firm. B. stated that the dedication for the Hazard Fountain will be held Wednesday, January 3, at 5:30 p.m.; that at that time the water will be turned on and the fountain will be lit. 10. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (0974) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the regular meeting of January 2, 1996, at 11:17 p.m. DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTESTS 1ll E Robensor BILLY E. d6BINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling Drive X CITY COUNTY 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON W'HICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: January 2, 1996 X ELECTIVE :1 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal fother than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt tO influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CII FORM XB 10-86 PAGE' IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on January 2, 19. 96 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X - inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A Conditional Rezoning Petition (Ordinance No. 95-3862) was brought before the City Commission to be amended for minor changes (Ordinance No. 96-3923). My husband, as an attorney, represented the petitioner before the City's Board of Adjustment. January 3, 1996 Loro hloien Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B 10-86 PAGF 2