BOOK 37 Page 11511 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy, Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 1995 = ROBERT M. STANTON, SERGEANT, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, POLICE SERVICES BUREAU #1 (0024) through (0157) Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, and Robert Stanton, Sergeant, Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone arrived at 6:03 p.m. Police Chief Jolly explained the formation and functions of the Sarasota Burglary Robbery Enforcement (SABRE) Unit and stated that Sergeant Stanton, recently honored as the 1994 Police Officer of the Year, is being additionally honored as the City of Sarasota's Employee of the Month for his fine work as the SABRE Unit's First Line Supervisor; that the statistics of the SABRE Unit in garnering over 555 arrests, seizing over 1,400 pieces of rock cocaine, 187 baggies of marijuana, and numerous firearms give an example of Sergeant Stanton's leadership; that much of the SABRE Unit's success can be attributed to Sergeant Stanton's self-initiated planning and execution of crime suppression efforts; that Sergeant Stanton now works in the Police Internal Affairs Department where his high standards are continued. Mayor Patterson stated that results of the SABRE Unit are visible and tangible in the City neighborhoods; and presented Robert Stanton with a plaque and certificate for the Employee of the Month for January 1995 in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. Police Chief Jolly presented Sergeant Stanton with a watch which had the City Logo on the face of it. Mayor Patterson requested that Sergeant Stanton's two sons who were present in the audience stand and be recognized. 2. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD, ULYSEES BOLDEN, MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST, SOLID WASTE DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WITH 29 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0157) through (0235) Gil Leacock, Director of Public Works, Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and Ulysees Bolden, Maintenance Specialist, came before the Commission. Mr. Leacock stated that Mr. Bolden has concluded his employment with the City after 29 years of service. Mr. Leacock thanked Mr. Bolden for all his efforts and congratulated him on his retirement. Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented Ulysees Bolden with a plaque. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0258) through (0284) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: A. Continue Agenda Item IV-4, Public Hearing Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 95-3860, annexing certain real property with street addresses of 3931/3951 Dearborn Avenue and 3940 School Avenue into the corporate limits of the City of Sarasota, per the request of the petitioner On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 30, 1995, AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1995 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0285) through (0300) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Commissioner Cardamone referred to draft page 19 of the January 30, 1995, minutes and stated that the last sentence of the fourth paragraph should be changed as follows for clarity: BOOK 37 Page 11512 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11513 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. that when lobbying the Sarasota County Commission, she was informed the issue was not viewed as a City bridge, but strictly as a transportation issue. Hearing no other changes, Mayor Patterson stated that the minutes of the special City Commission meeting of January 30, 1995, as modified by Commissioner Cardamone, and the regular City Commission meeting of February 6, 1995, were approved by unanimous consent. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0333) through (0341) 1. Approval Re: 1994-95 Calendar of Budget Meetings 2. Approval Re: Award of Contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder (Bid #95-28), for the construction of the Fillmore Drive Parking Lot 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to Minor League Baseball Facility Lease between the City of Sarasota and Red Sox of Florida, extending the agreement for one (1) year through the 1995 Championship Season 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Professional Services Contract with Par- sons Engineering Science, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, (R.F.P. #95-38) for selection of consulting engineers for replacement of Pre-Existing Emergency Power Supply System 5. 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 the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program for the Wastewater Feasibility Project On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 5 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-785) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-798) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-801) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-802) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0345) through (0392) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 95R-785, 95R-798, 95R-801, and 95R-802 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-785, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-798, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-801, pertaining to the repair and development of the Franklin Manor Park Waterfront Facilities and Seawall as specifically described herein; authorizing the City Manager to seek funding from the Florida Boating Improvement Program to restore the Pier, Dock and Seawall to useable condition; etc. (Title Only) Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission table at 6:14 p.m. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-802, concerning the Municipal Election to be held on March 14, 1995, and April 11, 1995, if necessary, for the purpose of electing two district commissioners for a term of four years; setting forth the locations of polling places, names of clerks, inspectors and officers; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 4 inclusive. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission table at 6:15 p.m. 7. CITIZENS I INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (0426) through (0657) The following people came before the Commission: Zeta Hayes, 1160 Florida Avenue (34236), stated that she is a native Sarasotan and a resident of the Downtown North area; that her statements are being made to urge all citizens to let their input be known to the government; that, for example, many people who do not read the newspaper are not aware of the library relocation issue; that the neighborhood association groups, BOOK 37 Page 11514 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11515 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. individually and collectively, do an excellent job in presenting the ideas of the community to the Commission; however, many citizens do not voice their displeasure with activities they see occurring, i.e., installation of medians, until a median is placed in front of their property and directly affects them; that the opinions of those citizens are voiced after the fact; that she encourages all Sarasota citizens to contact City Hall and the Planning Department to find out about activities which could be occurring in the areas of the City in which they live; that hearing from the citizens ahead of time would be helpful in the City's planning efforts. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission agrees with Ms. Hayes' comments. Ken Smiley, representing. Nature Talk, P.O. Box 2025 (34230), stated that the City should reconsider administrating, maintenance of the City's beach; that the County utilizes a beach rake pulled by a tractor in an attempt to pick up trash on Lido beach; that the gas combustion tractor picks up sand and crushes shells which are dumped daily as the beach diminishes; that the rake does not pick up cigarette filters or other such trash as it was promoted to do; that the tractor creates air and noise pollution during the sunrise hours and directly deposits gas combustion residues and grease into the Gulf of Mexico; that hiring an employee to pick up the minimal amount of trash left on the beach would be more appropriate; that the vehicles used to assist in the trash can pick-up should be electric-operated rather than run with gas combustion engines which are left running and pollute the waters; that cleaning the enclosed bathrooms at the beach with chemicals is dangerous; that the bathrooms should be washed down daily; that people rather than machines should be employed on the beach; that he would be willing to help with an employment program to replace the gas combustion vehicles and assist with the weeding of Australian Pine trees. Mr. Smiley requested the Commission's assistance to persuade the County to stop using gas combustion engine vehicles on the beaches. Mr. Smiley added that styrofoam, which is a catastrophe to the environment, should not be allowed on the beaches or in Sarasota. 8. REMARKS OF COMMISBIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE CBN REZONING PETITION ON DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY (AGENDA ITEM X) #1 (0658) through (0790) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. referred to a memorandum from Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, to City Manager Sollenberger dated January 31, 1995, regarding the status of the proposed City-initiated rezoning to Commercial Business Newtown (CBN) along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way and cited the following: It was concluded that since there is not eminent community desire to rezone this area, the preferred rezoning approach would be to support privately-initiated rezoning petitions at no cost to the petitioner. Commissioner Cardamone requested an explanation of "support rezoning petitions at no cost to the petitioner"; that a pattern was established with similar rezoning along North Tamiami Trail; that this approach seems to be a deviation from the established policy; that she has not taken a position on this issue; however, an explanation as to the intent of the cited approach is desired. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he will provide the Commission with a written report and place it on the next agenda. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that the first public hearing was closed previously and will not be reopened tonight; therefore, no petitioner or citizen input will be taken on that item; that on the remaining public hearings scheduled, 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. 9. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3840, CONDITIONALLY REZONE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM MCI AND RSF-2 ZONE DISTRICTS TO COP ZONE DISTRICT; SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF S. TAMIAMI TRAIL EXTENDING FROM BAHIA VISTA STREET TO PROSPECT STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 630 FEET WITH A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 260 FEET; AND, APPROVING PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 94-K IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREENS STORE AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NOS. 94-CO-06 AND 94-PSD-K) - DENIED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0797) through #2 (0401) City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission received a significant amount of input regarding this issue during the previously scheduled public hearing session; therefore, the City Manager requested that the Commission be provided with a brief overview. BOOK 37 Page 11516 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11517 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot requested that in his overview, the City Attorney, define the relevance of the term, "competent, substantial, evidence" and the Commission's responsibilities thereto. City Attorney Taylor gave a brief overview of the previous public hearing and the quasi-judicial proceeding, and stated that the Commission's responsibility tonight is to discuss and deliberate on the evidence presented; that the Commission is expected to make a motion to adopt or deny proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 or to take some other action; that the technical Staff is available to provide the Commission with additional input and clarification if necessaryi that the public hearing has been closed; that he does not anticipate the Commission will be called upon to hear additional input or rebuttals by the petitioners; that a deliberative process should be undertaken based on the record made; that the Commission's comments tonight will be made part of the record; that the entire record will be reviewed if a court challenge on the Commission's decision is undertaken on appeal; that addressing specific items with considerable detail would be appropriate if a Commissioner feels it is necessary. city Attorney Taylor continued that the Snyder decision states that the decision of the City Commission on these types of issues must be based on substantial, competent evidence; that substantial, competent evidence is important to the deliberations since it is the standard by which the Commission's decision would be judged in the event of an appeal; that the term "substantial" refers to the amount of evidence submitted, reviewed and/or heard to support the position taken by a Commissioner on the pending petition; that a court review of the record would be based on whether a reasonable person listening to or reviewing the record would deem the evidence presented as being sufficient in terms of quantity to support the position taken. City Attorney Taylor further stated that the term "competent" refers to the type of evidence heard and whether it is proper evidence to support thè position of the person providing that evidence; that, for example, a person expressing statements on the record concerning a matter for which they had no particular background or expertise should be considered personal opinion and would not carry the weight required under the term competent; that the Commission would be permitted to conclude that evidence submitted by a person testifying and drawing a technical conclusion, for example, as to the value of a piece of property after a rezoning, without properly developing the background of facts or without having proper credentials to render such an opinion was not competent evidence; however, testimony from a person with the credentials of an expert relating to property appraisals could be deemed as competent evidence. Mayor Patterson requested discussion from the Commissioners. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her residence sides on Bahia Vista Street and faces on Yale Avenue; that she has been an active participant in the Neighborhood Association directly involved with the issue, has served as president, and is a concerned merchant whose store is located catty-corner to the subject site. Commissioner Cardamone continued that evidence has been submitted that shows the petition to be inconsistent and incompatible with the following Sarasota City Plan land use elements: OBJECTIVE 1 - compatibility of land uses. OBJECTIVE 2 - compatible land use patterns regarding mitigation measures OBJECTIVE 6 - ensuring adequate facilities such as transportation are available. OBJECTIVE 8 neighborhood protection including traffic, aesthetics and character. Commissioner Cardamone stated that in reviewing the minutes of the public hearing held on February 6, 1995, she determined that substantial evidence was submitted that proves the proposed development does not meet the Zoning Code criteria; that problems presented included: stormwater retention ponds located on residential property, an overtaxing of public facilities, and five times the amount of acceptable traffic on Bahia Vista Street; that the noise from garbage, sweepers, truck deliveries, etc., would adversely affect the living conditions of the neighbors; that any traffic mitigation pursued would affect the living conditions of neighbors and their vehicular movements through the neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone continued that no substantial reason has been presented to prove the subject property could not be developed under the current Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) zoning. Commissioner Cardamone referred to draft pages 20 and 21 of the February 6, 1995, minutes and cited various paragraphs of dialogue between herself and Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development regarding the MCI zone and MCI uses on the subject property. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from a memorandum from Jane Robinson to the City Manager dated February 8, 1995 (page 329 of the information packet): 2. The petitioner has stated that the MCI zone is not consistent with the City comprehensive plan. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the MCI zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan and BOOK 37 Page 11518 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11519 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. that the subject property can be developed under the MCI zone district. Commissioner Cardamone stated that based on the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and evidence documented in the minutes, she cannot find that the petitioner has presented substantial reasons why the property cannot be used under its existing zoning designation. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following Zoning Code criteria as reflected on draft page 23 of the February 6, 1995, minutes: Criteria Comments Whether there are substantial The property can be used in reasons why the property cannot accordance with existing be use in accordance with zoning, however, the site is existing zoning. eligible to be reviewed for Commercial Office Park (COP) opportunities. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from draft page 18 of the February 6, 1995, minutes Attorney Merrill continued that he feels the petitioner has the right to rezone the property since there is currently an inconsistency on the zoning maps. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she questions the use of the term "right"; that the May Houck Impact Management Area (IMA) map uses the words "eligible for COP" which does not infer a right; that she has cited sufficient evidence that proves the current zoning is not inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she feels the former Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement made an incorrect determination regarding the retention pond which is not an appropriate land use for residential property; therefore, it is difficult for her to approve a site plan that shows water retention ponds in a residential area. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from an Engineering Department report dated October 26, 1994, under Transportation Currency and Traffic Circulation Review (page 355 of the information packet) : According to the results of the traffic study prepared by Tindale-oliver and Associates, the proposed project will result in an addition of 41 new trips to the residential section of Bahia Vista Street during the P.M. peak hour. This residential section of Bahia Vista Street currently carries five times the traffic volume (5,280 vpd) determined to be suitable for a residential street as per the City's warrants for traffic abatement on residential streets. Therefore, the proposed addition of 41 new hourly trips (410 daily trips) to Bahia Vista Street is a cause of concern to us and is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan's policy to reduce through-traffic on residential streets. We therefore recommend that the site plan approval of the proposed development be conditioned in the following manner: 1. That the project will not be allowed to have a driveway on Bahia Vista Street. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from draft page 28 of the February 6, 1995, minutes: Ms. Patten stated that she questioned the change in condition from October 26 to December 5, queried City Staff, and found that much correspondence back and forth and many meetings with the petitioner had taken place; that the Staff issued the October 26 memorandum because the developer was not in agreement to any mitigation conditions; that after issuance of the memorandum, the developer reluctantly agreed to participate in mitigation, not object to mitigation, and contribute $10,000 toward mitigation; that the developer did not eagerly try to appease the Avondale neighborhood and was forced into agreeing to mitigation; that to her knowledge, no agreements on any mitigation issue were made with the neighbors. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from a memorandum of clarification from Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer dated February 10, 1995 (page 328 of the information packet) : 4. Discussion ensued regarding a proposed condition in our October 26, 1994, memo to Jane Robinson and the process by which we changed it to the current conditions. The October 26 condition stated: "That the project will not be allowed to have a driveway on Bahia Vista Street." The process involved continuous communication between City Staff and representatives of the developer including some negotiation. We dropped the "no driveway condition" because we believe there would be no benefit if there was no driveway on Bahia Vista Street because 10 of the 18 new trips on Bahia Vista Street west of Brewer Place would still BOOK 37 Page 11520 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11521 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. travel on Bahia Vista Street and the other 8 would move to Prospect Street. Commissioner Cardamone stated that traffic abatement after the fact is totally unacceptable in any part of the City; that the traffic problems in the area have been discussed at numerous meetings; that the neighborhood has been attempting for many years to find a good, responsible, palatable solution to traffic on Bahia Vista Street; that William Merrill, Attorney for the Petitioner, had commented that the neighborhood was unable to agree on traffic abatement and implied that the neighborhood was in total disagreement and an agreement to traffic abatement could not be reached; that no good traffic abatement measure for Bahia Vista Street has been brought forth. Commissioner Cardamone continued with the following comments regarding the Avondale Neighborhood Association: 1) it is very sensitive to its needs, but also the needs of the adjacent neighborhoods, 2) it realizes that there is no easy solution for dealing with 5,280 vehicles per day (vpd) in a three block area on a 20-foot wide street, 3) it knows that much of the traffic is medical/hospital related, but can't figure out a way to control the generated cut-through traffic without affecting the genuine neighborhood, residential uses of Bahia Vista Street, 4) it realizes that the business office district of Midtown Plaza, the adjacent business areas and grocery store, etc., are patronized by the neighborhoods to the west which include: Avondale, Prospect, Floyd, Bungalow Hill, Orange Avenue, Harbor Acres, Bay Point, etc., for whom Bahia Vista Street is the only alternative by which to cross U.S. 41 with assistance of a traffic signal, 5) it recognizes the fact that the Sarasota High School (SHS), the Sailor Circus, the YMCA, churches, and other facilities that are located to the east of U.S. 41 across from Bahia Vista Street are used and patronized by the neighborhoods cited to the west. Commissioner Cardamone stated that over the years, she has participated with Bahia Vista Street residents and the Avondale Neighborhood Association in studying traffic alternatives which included closure of Bahia Vista Street at Brewer Place, U.S. 41 or Osprey Avenue, one-way designations, parking on the street, four- way stop signs at intersections, speed humps, etc.; that approximately 5,000 people would be impacted by any of the abatement measures studied; that the people travelling Bahia Vista Street for purposes other than cut-through traffic must be considered; that she believes a significant number of the 5,280 vpd are travelling Bahia Vista Street between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. which results in an average of 400 vehicles per hour on the three- block long, 20-foot wide street; that the traffic engineer indicated that traffic abatement on Bahia Vista Street will take three years after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to implement; that she does not believe traffic abatement can be applied that will satisfy the Avondale and adjacent neighborhoods; and asked what will happen if a solution cannot be reached after three years, or something that is tried does not work? Commissioner Cardamone continued that in the December 5, 1994, memorandum from Dennis Daughters which was provided to the Petitioner, but not to the Avondale Neighborhood Association, she noticed an attitude developing whereby Staff feels Bahia Vista Street is so congested that the additional traffic will not make it any worse; that this attitude concerns her and is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan which places neighborhood protection as a high priority. Commissioner Cardamone further stated that her statements and the statements reflected in the February 6 minutes prove that traffic from a proposed Walgreens and a commercial development on the corner of Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41 is in direct conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code criteria. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following intent and purpose of the COP designation from Section 8-219 of the Zoning Code: The Commercial Office Park (COP) zone is intended to promote a visually appealing "parkway" type uncluttered effect along interstate connectors and major arterials by providing for limited vehicular access to developments, promoting the consolidation of development on large parcels of land, discouraging strip center commercial type development and by requiring enhancement of landscaping materials which are visible from the connector or arterial roadway. The district is intended for relatively large-scale unified commercial-office developments which would be appropriate on heavily traveled roadways. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the preliminary site plan which indicated the proposed Walgreens as a 135 X 100 foot building; and stated that she has concerns with the potential use of such a large building if a Walgreens operation was to fail and the building was no longer used as a drugstore; that the building has the potential of housing five, 20 X 135 foot wide storefronts on U.S. 41, or six BOOK 37 Page 11522 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11523 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. storefronts facing on Bahia Vista Street; that the site plan does not include an office building which is an essential part of the COP zone district; that limited comment has been received on the 22,000 square foot building labeled "Proposed Commercial Building"; that specialty retail was used for traffic calculations; that 13 to 15, 18 or 20 foot wide, storetronts facing U.S. 41 could be housed in the proposed commercial building; that she believes the proposal is for a strip commercial center; that the site plan does not include employee parking; that parking spaces are valuable for customer use; that a commercial building with 13 to 15 storefronts could have between 26 to 45 employees; that a commercial center at this location would probably be successful and business owners would request that employees park off-site, thus affecting neighborhood streets including Prospect Street, Brewer Place, and Irving Streets. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the proposed sign near Bahia Vista Street in the site plan and stated that the placement of the sign is objectionable since it would invite traffic to use Bahia Vista Street. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the proposed 24' Ingress/ Egress Easement on the site plan and stated that a delivery area for a proposed Walgreens has been addressed by the Petitioner, but the delivery needs of 13 to 15 stores of unknown uses in the proposed commercial building have not been addressed; that her business in the area, considered a soft goods store, receives daily deliveries from United Parcel Service and RPS and an occasional semi-trailer truck delivery; that a multi-line hard goods store, i.e., a Television or hardware store, receives deliveries from many big trucks during a week; that the proposed easement would serve as a cut-through between Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets to avoid the long delayed traffic signal at Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41; that a Commercial Office Park should attract vehicles to circulate through the park-like setting and should not include a straight, cut-through strip of roadway for vehicle use. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the chart previously entered into the record by Diane Chadwick which separately listed the uses permitted in the MCI, COP, and OP (Office Park) zone districts; and stated that eligible COP uses include: banks, offices, service establishments such as barber shops and dry cleaners, restaurants with long hours of operation, and hotels; that any or a number of these uses could locate in the proposed commercial building. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the site plan has no characteristics of the COP designation; that it is not particularly visually appealing, doesn't have a park-like setting or an uncluttered effect; that it does not discourage strip-center commercial development; that it is in direct opposition to the COP designation; and she is prepared to make a motion to deny. - City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone, and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to deny Petition Nos. 94-CO-06 and 94-PSD-K (proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840). Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is a resident in the subject area; that he has an undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering which includes courses in transportation engineering; that being in the construction bousiness, he is especially concerned that the City preserve the private property rights guaranteed in the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution; that he has sought to make sure that the City's regulation of land is based on sound planning, that regulation of property is not arbitrary, and the ability of property owners to use their land is not based on a popularity contest with the neighbors; that when the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code declare that a certain use is appropriate on a given property, that use should be allowed even in the face of neighborhood opposition; that this obligation to property owners places a tremendous burden on the City government to draft regulations that are clear to both residents and developers; that, tonight, the Commission is considering the issue of whether or not to change the zoning on a parcel of land to the zoning which for six years the City's Comprehensive Plan has indicated would be appropriate; that the Administration and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) have both found the zoning district and the site plan to be consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Zoning Code; that given that support, he took the position in his review that he would vote to support the petition unless overwhelming evidence was noted to support denial; that such overwhelming evidence does exist and the presented site plan should be denied; that since the rezoning is based on a specific site plan, the rezoning should also be denied; that the evidence presented by both sides has been carefully reviewed; that he determined that the previous reviews by Staff and the PBLP were inadequate in failing to find errors and inconsistencies; that the COP zoning district could be appropriate; however, the site plan violates the existing land use pattern of transitional uses, fails to adhere to the intent of COP zoning, is out of character with the surrounding uses, would adversely affect adjacent property values, fails to conform to the Zoning Code, and lacks a specific plan to mitigate the traffic impacts. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the City has developed a clear pattern of transitional uses as a means to avoid incompatible uses adjacent to each other a pattern which is visible on the land use maps placed into the record; that transitional land use relies on office or multi-family districts to separate single-family districts from commercial districts in an effort to avoid the adverse impacts of incompatible uses such as traffic, noise, BOOK 37 Page 11524 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11525 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. litter, light, scale, and aesthetics; that one of the Comprehensive Plan's primary objectives is to promote the development of compatible land use patterns; that in 1989 Andrew Bush, agent for the current property owners, stated that for this site there was a "need to provide for a transition from commercial to residential land uses which is sustainable over time"; that Mr. Bush's suggestion, which was appropriately rejected, was to rezone the residential areas to multi-family zoning to provide the transition from commercial; that Mr. Bush also indicated the need for a landscape buffering between uses, not as a substitute for transitional zoning, but in addition to transitional zoning. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that the City Staff inaccurately labeled several of the uses on the existing land use maps; that the parcel on the north side of Bahia Vista Street is zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN), but its existing use is as an office; that motels on lands zoned multi-family residential are shown as commercial uses, although the City has no official classification as to whether they are commercial or residential; that the sites where the motels are located are zoned residential; that the historic definition of motel uses had been multi-family residential; that the COP zoning district can accommodate transitional land use patterns and be a compatible use adjacent to a single-family zoning district depending on the site plan; that this is the advantage and purpose of having conditional zoning where a specific use is declared as part of the rezoning; that transitional zoning would be maintained against the adjacent single-family areas if the predominant use on the subject site were office; that the primary intent of the COP zone district is for the development of commercial office parks. Vice Mayor Merrill cited the fifth preamble of the ordinance establishing the COP district as follows: Whereas, based upon the recommendations of the Planning Board, the City Commission desire to establish the Commercial Office Park zone district as provided herein to facilitate large scale, well planned and coordinated Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the name of the COP zoning district is explanatory of the use; that the name "Commercial Office Park" does not say "commercial or office parks." Vice Mayor Merrill continued that under the Zoning Code, Section 8-219 Intent and Purpose of the COP zone district the description states that the COP zone is intended to discourage strip-commercial type development and is intended for relatively large-scale, unified, commercial-office developments which would be appropriate on heavily traveled roadways; that the previously approved COP districts in the record as described by Bruce Franklin have adhered to the transitional land use pattern and are adjacent to multi- family zoned parcels which separate the COP zone district from the single-family areas; that separating single-family areas from commercial districts with multi-family zoning satisfies the transitional land use pattern. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that the Walgreens would be out of character with the surrounding office uses and direction of future uses on the west side of the Trail; that although the existing land use map shows a large commercial use on the north side of Bahia Vista Street, the existing use is office; that the existing land use map prepared by Jack Whelan, another local planner, shows the bank office building on the north side of Bahia Vista Street as an office use; that in determining if the proposed discount and specialty retail uses conform to the existing land pattern, he determined that no retail outlets with commercial zoning adjacent to single-family zoning exist along the west side of U.S. 41; that the Petitioner would be down-zoning the MCI parcel based on the intensity chart in Zoning Code Section 6-29; however, the intensity chart does not mean to imply that COP is more compatible than MCI with single-family zoning; that many MCI uses are commonly found adjacent to single-family districts; that these compatible MCI uses include churches, lodges, child care centers, nursing homes, and schools; that the high level of intensity of MCI follows from the possible use as a hospital; however, the subject site is outside the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Core and is not eligible for use as part of the existing hospital; that there is no pattern or principle of transitional zoning for MCI, nor has there been any general instability as the result of many stand-alone MCI districts adjacent to single-family districts; that being in an IMA granted this parcel no extra eligibility on the MCI portion of the property; that the MCI portion was already eligible for COP zoning based on other provisions found in the Comprehensive Plan; that a downzoning would not be automatic, the site plan would still have to meet all other criteria of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan; that the property could be used under the current zoning of MCI; however, the Petitioner argued that there was no demand for the MCI parcel; that the property owner's failure to sell the property under the current zoning was the evidence presented; that the Petitioners did not give sufficient facts to support their position that there is no market for the land as MCI zoning. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the site plan fails to comply with Section 8-227 of the Zoning Code, which states the following: Maximum lot coverage by impervious surface shall be seventy (70) percent. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the impervious area of the COP district on the subject site exceeds 70 percent; that the code needs no interpretation on this point; that a mistake has been made in the application of the Code, and it is the duty of the City BOOK 37 Page 11526 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11527 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Commission, as the final reviewing agency to find this site plan not in compliance with the Code; that the intent of the imperious area restriction was to provide the planing areas for enhanced landscaping; that the Zoning Code requires that the enhanced landscaping and therefore the impervious areas to be visible from the arterial roadway; that the impervious areas on the proposed site plan are located at the rear of the building and are not visible from U.S. 41; that the lot coverage issue has nothing to do with the City Building Director's determination that the stormwater retention could be on the adjacent residential property; that he agrees with William Hewes, former Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement on that issue; however, lot coverage is an entirely separate issue which was not part of the determination made on the stormwater issue; that the particular wording in the Code related to lot coverage needs no interpretation; that the Petitioners planners or engineers should have noticed that a mistake had been made. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the site plan proposed would have an adverse effect on adjacent property values; that single-family lots abutting the project would have lower property values as shown by the Petitioner's witness, Gulf Coast Appraisers, on a similar circumstance behind Sarasota Crossings Shopping Center. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that the Petitioners agreement as a condition of approval not to object to traffic abatement does not solve the traffic problem, but leaves the traffic impacts of the proposed development unresolved with a good possibility that they never will be resolved; that commercial retail uses generate traffic with different characteristics than MCI or office uses; that office uses generate less total daily traffic and fewer turning movements; that the traffic that is generated by office uses occurs during the work day thereby not impacting people who are home in the evening and on weekends; that MCI uses also generate less total daily traffic and fewer turning movements than commercial uses; that the volume of traffic on Bahia Vista and Prospects Streets generated by the proposed development may be far greater than the volume that the traffic consultant estimate; that the site plan shows a 22,000 square foot building in addition to the Walgreens building; that the traffic consultant analyzed traffic generation for the additional building as a specialty retail use which would generate 40.67 daily trips per 1,000 square feet; that the Walgreens' traffic generation was analyzed as discount retail which would generate 70.13 daily trips per 1,000 square feet; that the Zoning Code would allow another store identical to Walgreens as a use in the 22,000 square foot building; that there are no conditions to restrict uses as part of the proposed site plan; that the traffic analysis should have been based on the highest possible traffic generation of uses that are permissible under the Zoning Code; that assuming the highest use as discount retail, the traffic generated by the 22,000 square foot building would be 72.4% higher than the amount estimated by the traffic consultant; that the consultant used a capture rate of 45 percent which is the capture rate for shopping centers of less than 50,000 square feet; that for consistency with his traffic generation figures, the traffic consultant should have used the 34 percent trip capture rate for specialty retail and discount retail which would have increased the number of new trips by 21 percent; that the traffic consultant's estimates of the direction of the travel patterns that people would drive to the store may be incorrect; that the consultant determined that the people living south of Hyde Park Street between Osprey Avenue and U.S. 41 would all use U.S. 41 to get to and from the proposed site; that being familiar with the area, he estimates that most of these residents would take Osprey Avenue north and then use Bahia Vista or Prospect Streets to get to the proposed development; that the consultant also. estimated that residents in the Laurel Park neighborhood and the existing Central Park Condominiums would access the development off U.S. 41; that he feels most of the residents in those areas would use Osprey Avenue on at least one leg of their trip to access the development; that assuming half of the trips from these areas would come from the west, the percentage of trips using Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets would increase from 25 percent to 34 percent which is a 35 percent increase in traffic; that combining the effect of using a different traffic generation figure, a different trip capture figure, and a different split on the trip direction, would result in twice as much traffic on Bahia Vista and Prospect Streets as was estimated by the traffic consultant; that in order to avoid the negative impact from traffic, mitigation for traffic must be approved as part of the approval of the site plan; that traffic mitigation will be difficult at the subject location because of multiple interests; that while the Petitioner may not protest any plan, this alone will not ensure the success of an abatement plan. Vice Mayor Merrill added in conclusion that he would be willing to support a different site plan under COP zoning that would conform to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; that he would be willing to consider OP or a lesser intensive use zoning districts; that the Petitioner also has the option to develop the subject parcel under the existing MCI and residential zoning. Commissioner Pillot stated that in reviewing the minutes of the February 6, 1995, meeting and re-reading the testimony given by the Petitioner and by those in opposition to the petition, he feels that competent and substantial evidence, as defined earlier by City Attorney Taylor, was presented in the record by the Petitioner; that he disagrees with Commissioner Cardamone and Vice Mayor Merrill that the proposed plan is inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan or otherwise in violation with the Zoning Code; that the evidence presented by the Petitioner was not refuted by any similar weight of evidence to the contrary; that he believes, if litigated, BOOK 37 Page 11528 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11529 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. a court would agree that the strength of the argument rests with the Petitioner. Commissioner Pillot continued that the PBLP and the Planning Staff found consistency of the petitions; that the Commission has often given considerable weight to the opinions of the PBLP on other issues and finds it odd that the same strength was not given by other Commissioners to the findings of the PBLP on this issue; that with respect to deliveries being a burden, the Petitioner pointed out with concrete, substantive evidence, not speculation or opinion, that the Walgreens stores use their own small trucks for deliveries once per day during the daylight hours; therefore, he does not find the argument made earlier tonight to be a valid reason for denying the petitions; that the points made by the other two Commissioners related to the traffic problems in the subject area are valid; that the traffic on Bahia Vista Street west of U.S. 41 is abominable; that any additions to a problem are painful, but the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is of a small percentage; that the blame for the current traffic volume of 5,280 vpd on Bahia Vista Street rests with the present and past Commissions; that an adequate solution has not yet been found, but he feels solutions do exist; that he would be willing to support some of the existing methods which may include a partial closure of the street; that the burden of traffic on Bahia Vista Street should not inappropriately be placed on the shoulders of the proposed development. Commissioner Pillot further stated that the Petitioner had stated in response to a question asked during the last meeting that the Petitioner had not originally proposed the 22,000 square-foot commercial building, but included it in the site plan as a possibility to satisfy concerns raised on what could be placed there; that Commissioner Cardamone gave a carefully prepared, comprehensive evaluation of the 22,000 square-foot building; however, he feels that assuming that the building would be divided into 13 to 15, 18 to 20 foot wide shops, while possible, is both speculative and inconsistent with the Petitioner's noted response that the building was not included on the site of their own volition. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees that the placement of the sign may not be proper; that the City has sign regulations that govern the placement of signs; that objecting to the placement of the sign at that location even if the sign was consistent with the Zoning Code would be a minor point that most likely could be resolved with the Petitioner who has been cooperative throughout the process. Commissioner Pillot continued that the adverse effect on the values of property as cited by Vice Mayor Merrill was refuted by a Petitioner's witness who presented his credentials and showed the data concerning a number of parcels that he had evaluated throughout many parts of the community in and out of the City limits, yet Vice Mayor Merrill chose to refer indirectly to information that was cited by a witness for the opposing parties who did not have adequate data; that any court would find that the preponderance of evidence would fall with the Petitioner that presented a highly qualified person with a great deal of information and data whereas the opposing parties' witness admitted under cross examination that he had not performed comparables on the properties. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Commissioner Pillot had misquoted him; that Gulf Coast Appraisers was referenced in his statements. Commissioner Pillot further stated that references have been made to the consultants; that the Commissioners can select consultants to cite their chosen position or opinion; that unless credentials can be shown equivalent to or better than those of the consultants, the Commission does not have the prerogative of substituting their own evaluations for those of the consultants; and that he apologizes if he misunderstood and therefore misquoted the Vice Mayor. Commissioner Pillot stated that, in closing, he did not make a presentation such as those carefully, prepared presentations made by Commissioner Cardamone and Vice Mayor Merrill because he believes the Petitioners presentation was made with competent, substantial evidence which was not refuted with evidence of the same quality or quantityi and that he believes the court would agree with his position if the Commission's decision is litigated. Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees with the reasons placed on the table for denial of the petition by Commissioner Cardamone and Vice Mayor Merrill; that she believes from what has been presented that the actual character of the land use on the west side of U.S. 41 is quite different from that on the east side of U.S. 41; that the actual usage on the west side of U.S. 41 is primarily geared toward office and professional uses and, based on testimony heard, the small amount of commercial usage will probably be decreasing in the near future; that she is disturbed by the use of residentially zoned property for landscape buffering and in calculating the percent of impervious surface, which basically allows the Petitioner to create a commercial structure of a larger proportion than they other wise would be able; that the Commission has been advised not to consider the drainage issue since that issue has already been addressed; that crossing zone districts into residential for placement of landscape buffering and for impervious surface requirements is contrary to the City's Zoning Code; that approving this site plan would be setting a precedent in the City for all commercial developments in allowing petitioners an opportunity to expand the commercial size of their properties; that BOOK 37 Page 11530 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11531 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. the particular argument that disturbed her as setting a precedent was the idea that traffic abatement will justify in the future the allowance of increased traffic on a particular street in a neighborhood already overburdened with more traffic than is acceptable under the City's planning processesi that traffic abatement, except in rare circumstances where a particular street exists in isolation, invariably moves the traffic from one residential street to another; that traffic abatement measures rarely send the traffic to a major arterial; that traffic abatement in the future is not a good argument to allow a usage in an area that is currently overburdened with traffic. Mayor Patterson continued that in the future, she would support an office and professional use on the subject site whether as part of a COP proposal or as an OP rezoning; that an OP use with its hours of operation would impact less on neighborhoods. Mayor Patterson further stated that substantial testimony was entered into the record about how the proposed development would not affect property values in the adjacent neighborhoods; that she is a realtor by profession who sells residential real estate; that the huge volumes of data that were placed into the record were not found to be convincing enough to defy the common sense approach that the greater the impact of a potentially commercial structure, the less home buyers will be willing to pay and the less desirable a property will be; that for the reasons stated by Commissioner Cardamone and Vice Mayor Merrill and for the additional emphasis she has placed, she cannot support the proposed petition. Mayor Patterson added that Sarasota is a small town; that the Commissioners closely know people associated with both sides of this issue; that the petition has not been easy to hear or to evaluate for a variety of personal reasonsi that judging this petition as required by the Snyder decision has been difficult; however, she feels that she and the other Commissioners have done so in an objective manner. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her reference to truck traffic was not relating to Walgreens but to the potential 13 to 15 stores in the 22,000 square foot building. Commissioner Pillot apologized; and stated that he misunderstood Commissioner Cardamone's reference. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Petitioner told the Commission that Walgreens receives one delivery daily by a Walgreens truck; that many chain stores have a central warehouse from which most of their buying is done; that more than one truck would be making deliveries if Walgreens sells but doesn't carry such items as Coca Cola, Pepsi, cigarettes or other items in its central warehouse. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she suggested that the 22,000 square foot building could house 13 to 15 storefronts; that she did not make the assumption that the building would be used in that capacity. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the 22,000 square foot proposed commercial building on the site plan; and asked whether the petitioner could make minor changes to the structure without coming before the Commission for approval if the site plan as presented was approved? City Attorney Taylor stated that under the conditional rezoning process, a site plan is approved with reference to the uses shown on the site plan; that in this particular case the uses for the 22,000 square foot space have been generically identified as commercial; that the footprint presented at the time of approval would be the footprint to which the developer would be held; that minor deviations are allowed as set forth in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Cardamone stated that, therefore, the dimensions of the building could not substantially deviate from the 275 X 80 foot building reflected in the site plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that he feels that is correct; however, he would advise that the Commission request a specific answer from a representative of the Building Department. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the ordinance designates the Walgreens building as a drugstorei that the building would have to remain a drugstore; that the Petitioner would have to come back to the Commission and request an alteration of the ordinance to place another use in the building reflected as Walgreens on the site plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to deny proposed Ordinance No. 95-3840. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson recessed the meeting at 7:42 p.m. and the Commission reconvened at 7:56 p.m. 10. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3836. AMENDING ARTICLE VI OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS F ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AMENDING SUCH PROVISIONS TO EXEMPT PACKAGE STORES FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LOCATED IN CSC-N, CSC-C AND CSC-R ZONING DISTRICTS: PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLEI ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) BOOK 37 Page 11532 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11533 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. #2 (0436) through #3 (0650) Mayor Patterson stated that the public hearing on this item was not closed; therefore, public comment will be allowed. City Manager Sollenberger stated the proposed ordinance was changed as a result of the previously held public hearing. Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that paragraph (d) (3) in the modified ordinance allows for the sale of beer and wine in the shopping center districts without subjecting the establishments to the 500-foot distance limitations; that the provision will accommodate the needs of most grocery stores locating in Commercial Shopping Center districts (CSC-N, CSC-C, and CSC-R) such as the newly proposed Publix at Crossroads Shopping Center; that paragraph (d) (4) has been included in the modified ordinance to allow for the sale of beer, wine, and liquor provided that the following two requirements are satisfied: A. The floor area used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the package store. B. The floor area used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages does not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet. Mr. Litchet stated that the rationale for paragraph (d) (4) is to accommodate, on a reasonable scale, in CSC zone districts the sale of all types of liquors; that the current draft language addresses the Commission concern of keeping superstores out of shopping centers and also was drafted to accommodate the initial proposal from Michael's on East; that a survey on the square footage of existing package stores in the City was conducted; that the results were used to evaluate the modified language. Mr. Litchet continued that package liquor sales are currently a permitted use in all CSC zone districts subject to a 500-foot distance limitations from schools, residential districts, houses of worships, and other package stores, bars, taverns or nightclubs; that bars, taverns or nightclubs are allowed only by special exception in the CSC-R (Regional) zone district and are subject to the 500-foot limitations; that restaurants with 4-COP-SRX State licensing or restaurants or delicatessens with 2-COP State licensing, a beer and wine license for on-site consumption, are permitted uses in all the CSC zone districts and are not subject to the 500-foot limitations. Mr. Litchet further stated that the Administration feels the proposed ordinance as drafted adequately addresses the needs for which an ordinance was requested. Commissioner Pillot asked if the petitioners are proposing the sale of liquor? Mr. Litchet stated that he understands the Publix proposal is for beer and wine; that the Michael's On East proposal includes the sale of beer, wine, and liquor. Commissioner Pillot asked the City Attorney Taylor to clarify the relationship between State licensure and city ordinances. City Attorney Taylor stated that the beverage regulations of the State of Florida are the prerogative of the State; that except in a few specialty areas, State law prevails; that the State Statute specifies two areas where local regulations are a matter of control: 1) the actual space where a particular establishment is located is a matter of local control; and 2) the hours of operation are specifically within the prerogative of local government. Commissioner Pillot asked which regulation would prevail if the Commission passes the proposed ordinance, limiting the total floor area to 2,000 square feet, and an application is filed for a State license to operate a 10,000 square-foot package store in one of the CSC zone districts? City Attorney Taylor stated the City's regulation would prevail. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to the Kash-n-karry on Beneva Road which has a grocery store adjacent to a package store; and asked how the square footage would be calculated in that instance? Mr. Litchet stated that in the example given the package store is considered a separate tenancy; that the area in the package store would only be considered. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Kash-n-Karry at the Midtown Plaza could attempt to open a package store in an adjacent storefront; and asked how a determination will be made on whether a store is a stand alone store or a portion of a bigger store? Mr. Litchet stated that in the example referenced the package store would be considered a new tenancy. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if that would be the case if an inside door separating the grocery store from the package store was installed? BOOK 37 Page 11534 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11535 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that based on the proposed ordinance as written, his opinion would be that the grocery store portion of the Kash-n- Karry, which is strictly selling beer and wine, would be exempted by paragraph (d) (3); that a door opening into another area that is selling beer, wines, and liquor would be considered a package store governed by paragraph (d) (4). Vice Mayor Merrill asked if aisles are included in the calculation of 2,000 square feet of total floor area, and if so, how isolated stands near cashier counters would be handled? Mr. Litchet stated that including every conceivable scenario in ordinance language is difficult; that the proposed language states "the floor area used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages"; that in his opinion, any area where beer, wine, or liquor is placed for display or sale would be counted; that this would include the cashier areas; that the isle widths would count toward the calculation; that some package stores he surveyed had non-alcoholic beverages or cigarettes on one side of the isle and liquor on the other side of the aisle; that a fair interpretation in those instances would be to divide the isle areas in half and devote one-half of the isle area toward the total floor area used as display or sale of alcoholic beverages; that walk-in type cooler areas where patrons service themselves should be counted toward the total floor area; however, storage cooler areas of a warehouse type should not be included in the calculation. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that such an interpretation could encourage the package stores to play a game of keeping a large inventory in the storage area and displaying only a small portion in the main area. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the requirement would be for 2,000 contiguous square feet? Mr. Litchet stated that the ordinance as drafted does not state contiguous square feet. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Litchet is aware of any conflicts the two petitioners for whom the ordinance was developed have in relation to the distance requirements from schools or churches? Mr. Litchet stated that the Publix development experienced a problem with the requirement from residential property; that the Midtown Plaza establishment requested a variance on the distance requirements from residential property and another package store; that Davidson Drugs Store, selling beer and wine, was considered a package store within 500 feet of the expansion site proposed by Michael's On East. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification on the distance between the proposed Michael's On East expansion site and the Sarasota High School. Mr. Litchet stated that the distance between the two locations was measured at 515 feet; that the distance requirements from schools are measured from the front door of the establishment, down the path of normal pedestrian travel, to the nearest school boundary. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the distance requirements for schools and churches should not be changed; that the proposed ordinance should only exempt distance requirements from other package stores, etc., and residentially-zoned properties. Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. Litchet if the proposed expansion to Michael's On East would be affected if the distance requirement between schools and churches was to remain a requirement? Mr. Litchet stated that at the time the variance request was filed, the former Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement issued a formal determination that the distance between the proposed site and the SHS was 515 feet; that he upholds that determination; that no churches are located within 500 feet of the proposed site; therefore, the Michael's On East expansion would not be affected if the school and church distance requirements were retained. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Board of Adjustment denied a variance request; that an ordinance was drafted to accommodate an individual because of that denial; that she is concerned with the process being undertaken; and would like clarification as to why the Commission is addressing an issue on which the decision rests with the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Board of Adjustment must make its decisions based on the ordinances of the City; that in certain circumstances the ordinance under which the Board of Adjustment properly acted ought to be modified; that in those cases, a request is made of the Commission to modify the ordinance. Mr. Litchet stated that there are two ways in which an applicant can address a decision made by the Board of Adjustment: 1) appeal to the circuit courts, or 2) come before the Commission and request modification of an ordinance; that a meeting was held with the Board of Adjustment at which the Board was directed to strictly enforce ordinances as written. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Board of Adjustment made a decision on the referenced issue for which the Administration feels there is justification for modifying. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. BOOK 37 Page 11536 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11537 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Cardamone that ordinances should not be written to satisfy individuals; that ordinances are written to satisfy what appears to be common sense and interests of the community at large; that he feels this issue falls under that category. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the denied request was one of three similar variance requests that were brought before the Board of Adjustment; that the two previous requests had been granted; that he had argued the Board of Adjustment did not have the authority to grant those variances; that one variance request approved by the Board allowed the Kash-n-Karry to relocate with its package store from one shopping center at Beneva and Fruitville Roads to another; that the form of relocation was not technically correct, but it was politically acceptable so the variance was granted; that two years ago, the Board approved a variance request to allow a package store for a different applicant at the Midtown Plaza; that he, again, objected that the ruling was not within the Board's authority since the Board of Adjustment is suppose to base approval of a variance on a hardship; that those three cases are what brought forth the proposed ordinance before the Commission tonight; that ordinances usually come before the Commission when problems are noticed with the city's current regulations; that an individual petitioner usually brings forth the petition, but ordinances are not designed for an individual. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that, currently, the only CSC-N zone district in the City is the Ringling Shopping Center located at Ringling Boulevard and Lime Avenue; that an ABC Liquor Store operates across the street from the shopping center; that there is a problem with the homeless in that area; that the neighbors are not supportive of allowing a package store to open at the Ringling Shopping Center; that the CSC-N zone district has been exempted from Ordinance No. 94-3792 which regulates adult video and bookstores; and that the CSC-N zone district should be exempted from the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that package stores allowed under the proposed ordinance should have hours of operation limited to a 10:00 p.m. closure; that many citizens are worried about a 24-hour package store opening at the Midtown Plaza, for which no preventive measure has been made in the ordinance as drafted; that their concern is with late night customers of the package store wandering into the adjacent neighborhoods; that a 10:00 p.m. closing should be required if the distance requirements from residentially zoned property are eliminated; that he suggests modifications to the proposed ordinance as follows: 1. Retain the distance requirements from schools and churches; 2. Require a 10:00 p.m. closure as a condition of provision (d) (4); and 3. Exempt CSC-N zone districts from the permitted zone districts. Commissioner Pillot stated that a petitioner must meet both conditions "A" and "B" for provision (d) (4) to applyi that, for clarity, the language should read "when both of the following requirements are satisfied." Commissioner Atkins stated that he understands the concerns of Vice Mayor Merrill, but he has a problem with regulating time for no particular reason other than a fear that a patron may wander into the neighborhood; that the neighbors would probably be the late night patrons; that he supports all other modifications proposed. Mayor Patterson read a letter received earlier in the day from Daniel Kennedy, SHS Principal, which requested that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 be denied in an effort to prevent a precedent being set which would allow future expansion of the sale of alcoholic beverages in the proximity of SHS. Commissioner Pillot stated that in recent discussions with him on the issue, Mr. Kennedy agreed that worrying about students buying alcoholic beverages from the proposed Michael's On East expansion is not valid for two reasons: 1) the nature of the store will be in a price range that the students would not patronize, and 2) students will not attempt to illegally purchase beverages in clear site of the school; however, the proposal made by Vice Mayor Merrill to retain the distance requirements from schools and churches would fully address the concerns of Mr. Kennedy's and those who he represents in the letter, including the school, parents, etc.; that he is confident that Mr. Kennedy's objection is based on the exemption of the 500-foot distance requirement from schools. Commissioner Cardamone and Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Kennedy's objection was not viewed in that manner. Mayor Patterson stated that Vice Mayor Merrill's proposal would prevent problems at other shopping centers; that the Midtown Plaza is the only shopping center that would affect SHS; that the site of the proposed expansion is the Closest part of the Midtown Plaza in proximity to the SHS; that retaining the 500-foot distance requirement from schools would not affect Midtown Plaza. Commissioner Pillot stated that during their discussions, Mr. Kennedy expressed his concern with the removal of the 500-foot distance requirement from schools; that he does not think Mr. BOOK 37 Page 11538 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11539 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Kennedy would object to the ordinance if the distance requirement from schools was retained. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Kennedy could object to the sale of alcohol at the Midtown Plaza or he could be questioning the measurement between the proposed site and the SHS. Commissioner Cardamone requested that the route used to determine the 515 distance be explained in detail. Mr. Litchet referred to the maps included in the Agenda packet, explained the line of travel as outlined on the map, and stated the Zoning Code refers to the ordinary route of pedestrian travel; that the route as measured took into consideration the wall surrounding the establishment and the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval of the proposed ordinance; that the proposals suggested by Vice Mayor Merrill and Commissioner Pillot to make the ordinance more restrictive are consistent with the ordinance as proposed, therefore, he recommends inclusion. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Ken Smiley, P.O. Box 2025 (34230), distributed to the Commission copies of excerpts from "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer, from which the following statistical data related to the number of American Deaths per year from selected causes was cited: Tobacco - 340,000 to 425,000 Alcohol - 150,000+ (not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders deaths). Legal drug overdoses - 14,000 to 27,000 (from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol). Mr. Smiley stated that children in schools should not be surrounded by or subject to the poisons of alcohol. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista (34239), stated that he is a member of the Board of Adjustment; that the convoluted referenced route of travel does not exist and was suggested as a method to make the distance from the proposed expansion site to the SHS exceed the 500-foot distance requirement; that the actual route of travel which would be used is to walk down the steps to East Avenue, walk to Bahia Vista Street and cross the street; that blocking off the stairway was suggested as a means to lengthen the route of travel; however, the direct route of travel via the stairway still currently exists; that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836, as originally drafted, reasonably allowed the Publix development to relocate and retain its current operation; that the ordinance was subsequently revised to include accommodations for an individual applicant; that paragraph (d) (4) which eliminates the distances between package stores, thereby allowing package stores to locate next to other package stores, should be deleted from the proposed ordinance; that the proposed ordinance should be passed with the inclusion of the (d) (3) provision only; that the provisions relating to paragraph (d) (4) should be addressed in a practical manner during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Comprehensive Update rather than in a rushed manner at this time. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of Mr. Babb's recommendation. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Babb has recommended eliminating paragraph (d) (4); that retaining the provisions of paragraph (d) (3) would allow for beer and wine sales at the expansion site proposed by Michael's On East, but operating as a package store would not be allowed until further revisions were made. Mr. Babb stated that was correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the direct route reference by Mr. Babb. Mr. Babb referred to the maps included in the Agenda packet, identified the location of the stairways to which he referred, and explained the direct route of travel which currently exists; and stated that the 500-foot requirement was met on the assumption that public access to the walkway would be blocked by a security gate; that a security gate is not currently in place. William Strode, 720 S. Orange Avenue (34236), representing Mike Klauber and Midtown Plaza Association, deferred coming to the table since Mr. Klauber was present to speak. Michael Klauber, representing Michael's On East,1212 East Avenue S. (34239), stated that he is the owner of Michael's on East; that during his college and apprenticeship years, he visited many communities and garnered expertise in promoting food and wine related special events; that in 1980 he returned to Sarasota to preside over the food and beverage operation at The Colony Beach Resort; that he envisioned Sarasota as a food and wine mecca in conjunction with the arts community and the rich heritage of Sarasota history; that he saw an opportunity to be part of and to help the City grow and in 1987 opened Michael's On East as a restaurant which has evolved into a catering company, a ball room and a banquet facility, and has been selected by Florida Trend as one of the top 20 restaurants in the State of Florida; that five years ago he founded the Florida Wine Fest and Auction which in its first four years has become the third BOOK 37 Page 11540 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11541 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. largest food and wine event in the United States and has raised over $1 million for local disadvantaged children's charities; that the proposed Michael's Gourmet Market and the Sarasota Food and Wine Academy is a natural extension of Michael's On East and, in fact, will be under the same roof; that the new business would include a gourmet deli, full-service bakery, wine and spirits merchandise, and a cooking and wine school; that products for sale would include imported meats and cheeses, paté, caviar, smoked salmon, gourmet prepared meals and party platters for take out, specialty gourmet items, vinegars, oils, fresh roasted coffee, imported teas, candies, chocolates and crackers, gift items, cookbooks, glassware, food and wine related accessories, elegant gift baskets, food and wine related French antiques; that a full service bakery featuring breads, cakes and tarts; that tables have not been planned for the business, but seating at an espresso bar is envisioned; that an extensive selection of imported and domestic estate bottled wines, specialty liquors and premium spirits would be featured with a floor mix of 80 percent beer and wine and 20 percent spirits; that the Sarasota Food and Wine Academy will feature a 40 to 50 seat classroom with a working display kitchen that will allow beginners and experts to participate in Classes in cooking, wine appreciation, and other food and wine entertaining classes; that eight special events each year, the first of which has been scheduled in the banquet facilities at Michael's On East for May 9 and 10, will be hosted by the Special Events Director, Anthony Dias Blue, who is also the editor of Bon Appetit Magazine; that his future plans hope for a Fully-accredited school of food and cooking in Sarasota. Mr. Klauber continued that the proposed ordinance does not allow for a pure package store and is an innovative and responsible solution to the sale of packaged liquors by requiring that 50 percent of the store be allocated to items other than alcoholic beverages; that a store selling alcoholic beverages could not be larger than 2,000 square feet; that he would be willing to stipulate to a 10:00 p.m. limitation on the hours of operation. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that an average liquor store is 1,300 square feet; therefore, 2,000 square feet is a very large liquor store; and asked if Mr. Klauber anticipates allocating 2,000 square feet for the sale of alcoholic beverages? Mr. Klauber stated that the specific floor measurements for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the proposed expansion have not been determined; that 2,000 square feet may be necessary for the different display opportunities which are anticipated. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Klauber is well-respected and would manage the proposed business in a responsible manner that would not cause any problems to the neighborhood or the SHS; that the concerns voiced to her by citizens were with the type of store that could operate if the business was sold and operated under different ownershipi that the majority of the floor space in the proposed business will be allocated for wine and beer rather than liquor; that the Commission should address the small amount of space intended for quality spirits in a specialty fashion of a larger operation rather than attempting to revise the limitation of the area for alcoholic beverages which includes beer and wine; that this would also prevent Mr. Babb's concern of ordinary liquor stores combining with other uses. Mr. Klauber stated that the restrictions in the proposed ordinance would not allow for a pure package store at this location. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed ordinance would allow for a 2,000 square-foot book store to adjoin with a 2,000 square-foot package store under the same ownership. Mr. Klauber stated that the proposed business is a natural expansion of the adjoining restaurant; that in an effort to make the concept work, he has been cooperative and agreed to numerous restrictions imposed on the proposed business by the City; that the distance requirements from residentially zoned property on the southern most side of Midtown Plaza would prohibit a package store from locating in the shopping center. Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned about the distance to the SHS; that the concept put forth is great, but Mr. Klauber may choose to relocate the business at some time; that the proposed business would not negatively impact SHS; however, approving paragraph (d) (4) in the proposed ordinance would not only permit the concept proposed, but also open a law of unintended consequences; that the package store ordinance must address a larger context than the concept proposed by Mr. Klauber. Commissioner Pillot stated that approving paragraph (d) (3) of the proposed ordinance would permit the sale of beer and wine but not alcoholic liquor. Mr. Klauber stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot stated that paragraph (d) (4) allows for the sale of all alcoholic beverages on a floor area not to exceed 2,000 feet; that the concerns associated with a hypothetical situation where the business is sold to a new owner, who would allocate 2,000 square feet to the sale of hard liquors such as whiskey could be addressed by rewording paragraph (d) (4) sections A and B as follows: The floor area used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages other than malt and vinous beverages does not exceed a certain percent or square footage of the total floor area of the package store. BOOK 37 Page 11542 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11543 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. The floor area used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages other than malt and vinous beverages does not exceed a certain square footage. Commissioner Pillot further stated that the revised language would allow for a reasonable amount of hard liquor to be sold but would include an unlimited sale of malt and vinous beverages; that he is aware an ordinance should not be rewritten at the table; that the language was offered for a conceptual response. Mayor Patterson stated that she would be comfortable with the modifications proposed to paragraph (d) (4); and feels those including Mr. Kennedy would also be comfortable with the rewording. Mr. Klauber asked if the language could be reworded to read that no more than 50 percent of the 2,000 square feet allowed for a package store could be used for the sale of non-malt or non-vinous products? Mayor Patterson stated that 50 percent of a 2,000 foot store would allow for 1,000 square feet for the sale of non-malt and non-vinous products which is almost a full-sized package store. Mr. Klauber stated that most package stores provide more wine than alcohol; that people are drinking more wine so the mix of floor space is changing. Commissioner Pillot stated that allowing only 25 percent of the floor space to be used for hard liquor would reduce the amount of square footage allowed for liquor in the proposed expansion to 948 square feet. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she feels Mr. Klauber concept would be an enhancement to the existing businesses and the community; that the square footage necessary for liquor sales in the proposed business would be 400 square feet based on the 80 percent wine and beer and 20 percent hard liquor floor mix presented by Mr. Klauber. Commissioner Cardamone stated that 1,000 square feet is a large amount of space for liquor; that the measurement is probably comparable to a full service package store; and asked for the measurements of the ABC Liquor store, on Ringling Boulevard? Mr. Litchet came before the Commission and stated that the ABC Liquors, Inc., located on Ringling Boulevard has a total of 2,284 square feet in two adjoining areas. Mayor Patterson stated that approximately 1,000 square feet of floor area is probably dedicated to the sale of liquor at the ABC Liquors, Inc.; that she would prefer to include a maximum floor area of 500 square feet in paragraph (d) (4); that 500 square feet for the sale of hard liquor would accommodate the needs of Mr. Klauber. Commissioner Cardamone asked Mr. Klauber for comment on the security gate mentioned by Mr. Babb and the route of travel measured to reach 515 feet? Mr. Klauber stated that the security gate was proposed to address security concerns by limiting access to the new business from one entrance; that the route of travel was determined after several meetings with Mr. Hewes; that people can "jaywalk", but the measurements were taken as specified in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the sidewalk access to East Avenue would be closed for use? Mr. Klauber stated that a security gate prohibiting access to the sidewalk near East Avenue would be installed when the new business is opened. Mr. Klauber referred to the maps in the Agenda packet and indicated the route a person would travel along the sidewalk around the parking lot up the steps and back down the sidewalk to enter the establishment once the security gate was installed; and stated that using the crossing at Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41 as another option by which to measure the distance far exceeds 515 feet. Mr. Klauber stated that he is a major advocate of responsible consumption of alcohol; that laws govern the sale of alcoholic beverages; that responsible business owners adhere to those laws and check customers for identification to avoid jeopardizing their liquor license. Commissioner Pillot stated that including the following language to paragraph (d) (4) as a third condition would limit the maximum square footage to approximately 666 square feet: C. Not more than one-third of the floor area used for the sale or display of alcoholic beverages may be used for non-malt and non-vinous alcoholic beverages. Mr. Klauber stated the suggested condition was acceptable. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that Mr. Litchet come before the Commission to address issues related to unintended consequences; and asked if night clubs and bars are considered package stores? BOOK 37 Page 11544 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11545 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that night clubs and bars are not considered package stores by definition. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the proposed ordinance would allow for a bar to open at the Midtown Plaza? Mr. Litchet stated that bars, taverns, and night clubs are permitted under the Zoning Code by special exception in the CSC-R zone district only and are subject to the 500-foot distance requirements; that the proposed ordinance as drafted addresses only package stores; that a restaurant selling liquor would be permitted, but a night club could not be permitted in the Midtown Plaza. Vice Mayor Merrill asked Mr. Litchet if, for example, a building has a bookstore in one half of the building and a package store in the other half, would the business be considered a book store or a package store? Mr. Litchet stated that the scenario is conceivable under the proposed ordinance as drafted in conjunction the current definition of package stores; however, the liquor sales would be limited to the restrictions under paragraph (d) (4). Vice Mayor Merrill asked how the size of a package store would be determined if a book store and a liquor store under the same roof had separate entrances? Mr. Litchet stated that the determination would be based on tenancy; that legal ownership, leases, and other code regulation relating to tenancy would be reviewed prior to making a determination. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Staff can legally access business leases? Mr. Litchet stated that the signature of the Building Official is required on a State liquor license application; that documentation to his satisfaction to determine if the zoning code regulations have been met must be provided before he will sign off on the application; that he has often asked for the lease or other information he deems necessary to determine if the zoning code requirements are met. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a book store was adjacent to a package store with an archway between the two, would it be considered a unified store and, therefore, allow for the sale of liquor? Mr. Litchet stated that the described situation could be interpreted as one tenancy. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the interpretation if the archway was closed between the two, and there were separate entrances to the book store and to the package store? Mr. Litchet stated that the described situation would be interpreted as two, separate tenancies. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the archway between two businesses had a door which could be locked, would it be considered one tenancy or two? Mr. Litchet stated that "off the top of his head" he would designate a store having a door which could be locked within the archway to be considered two separate tenancies unless both businesses were owned by the same owner; that answers to such detailed questions should be researched. City Attorney Taylor stated that writing an ordinance to address every circumstance is difficult which is why Administrators of Departments are given the discretion to interpret the language; that referring the ordinance back to the Administration to address the concerns expressed by the Commission may be appropriate. Mayor Patterson reopened the public hearing and requested that Mr. Klauber come before the Commission. Mayor Patterson asked if open access between the gourmet market and the cooking school is anticipated? Mr. Klauber responded, yes; that the proposed expansion is for one business with different functions at different times. Mayor Patterson stated that the open traffic flow between the two entities could be included as a condition. Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Mayor Patterson asked if the aisle space will be considered in the evaluation of the uses on the total floor area? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that displays of alcoholic beverages could positioned at various locations throughout the store. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 on first BOOK 37 Page 11546 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11547 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. reading with the following changes to be properly phrased by the City Auditor and Clerk and legal Administration: 1. Add the following language to Paragraph 4: (c) Not more than one-third of the floor area used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages may be used for the sale or display of non-malt and non-vinous alcoholic beverages; (d) the distance restrictions shall continue to apply to schools and churches. 2. the following to be addressed before second reading: a) define package store to eliminate the openness concerns raised by the hypothetical scenario of a bookstore being joined with alcohol; and b) specify the maximum hours of operations as not to include the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has consistently objected to rewriting an ordinance at the table, and will vote against the motion because of the proximity of the proposed business to the SHS in support of the letter received from Mr. Kennedy; that the proposed ordinance should be sent back to the Administration for revision. Mayor Patterson stated that she concurs with Commissioner Cardamone's recommendation; that although she feels reasonably comfortable with the gist of the language as proposed in the motion, the proximity of the proposed liquor sales to SHS is still of concern. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion as stated. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND PARADISE PLAZA TRUST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL AND BAY ROAD, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 3800 SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 47,955 SOUARE FOOT DETACHED SUPERMARKET AND A 5,000 SOUARE FOOT DRIVE-THROUGH BANK; ETC. (PETITIONER MICHAEL P. CONNER, TRUSTEE FOR PARADISE PLAZA TRUST) APPROVED; TRAFFIC ISSUE REFERRED BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A RAPID RESPONSE (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #4 (0000) through (2698) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed Development Agreement is necessary to satisfy the concurrency requirements for transportation issues contained in the Comprehensive Plan; that the finding of concurrency by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for the proposed development is based on the design and installation of identified road improvements to Bay Road at the development site; that public hearings before the Commission on development agreements are rare and have been conducted only two timés previously in conjunction with the developments of: 1) Dillards at Southgate, and 2) the proposed hotel on North Tamiami Trail. Sarah Schenk, Assistant City Attorney, came before the Commission and stated that the special exception and the preliminary site development plan for the Publix development have already been approved; that several transportation conditions relating to concurrency were set forth in those approvals, based on the recommendations of the PBLP; that State law requires those improvements be provided for in a Development Agreement for which a public hearing must be scheduled; that the sole purpose of the Development Agreement is to address the concurrency requirements for transportation; that citizens should direct their comments toward the transportation issues and not whether the special exception should have been granted. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the PBLP at its meeting dated February 8, 1995, found the proposed Development Agreement consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that the PBLP also recommended that the City Commission do the following: 1. Evaluate the level of service (LOS) on Osprey Avenue at the intersection of Versailles Street both pre- and post-developmentz 2. Assess the responsibility for the cost of the improvements to be performed on Osprey Avenue; and 3. Perform an analysis of the turning movements and the impact of southbound traffic on Osprey Avenue. Mayor Patterson stated she has a financial interest in the property directly across from the Crossroads Shopping Center; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will abstain from voting. Mr. Daughters displayed on the overhead projector a site plan of the Publix development and identified various areas of the proposed BOOK 37 Page 11548 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11549 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. development including the existing driveways located on the western and eastern sides of Bay Road, Osprey Avenue and Versailles Street which will remain part of the proposed development. Mr. Daughters displayed on the overhead projector an enlarged area of the site plan and explained in detail the site plan condition and the concurrency related items which included the following: Site plan condition: 1. Construction of an extension of the outside, far right, westbound lane on Bay Road from the southeastern most driveway to Crossroads Shopping Center to the southwestern most driveway. Concurrency related items approved for inclusion in the Development Agreement by the PBLP: 1. Extension of a lane improvement to Bay Road in the eastbound direction consisting of an extension of the existing outside eastbound through lane back a minimum of 600 feet from the stop bar (eastbound, far right-turn lane on Bay Road to Brown Road); 2. Construction of a raised concrete separator on Bay Road to prohibit the existing left-turn movements into and out of the Publix development at the southeastern most driveway of Crossroads Shopping Center on Bay Road near U.S. 41; and 3. Construction of left-turn pockets on southbound Osprey Avenue turning into Versailles Street and/or turning into the main Publix development entrance off of Osprey Avenue. Mr. Daughters continued that at the January 17, 1995, City Commission meeting, it was determined that left-turn lanes on Osprey Avenue (PBLP concurrency item #3) should not be a concurrency or Development Agreement item, but a site plan condition; that the first two mentioned concurrency items have been included in the Development Agreement. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the height of the separator or median which will be installed on Bay Road? Mr. Daughters stated that the medians are approximately six inches high; that the Development Agreement requires the two improvements to be in place or under construction no more than three years after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Publix development; that funding for the improvements will be pursued through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) ; that the project, including the site plan elements, have been discussed with the FDOT which has been receptive to considering the funding; that the City intends to utilize road impact fee funds to complete the improvements if the FDOT determines the project is not eligible for FDOT funding. Mr. Daughters continued that a concern was expressed about the traffic separator prohibiting access to stores on the south side of Bay Road; that the purpose of the traffic separator is to prohibit left-turn movements to and from the eastern most driveway on Bay Road which accesses the Crossroad Shopping Center and the eastern driveway which accesses the strip of stores located on the south side of Bay Road; that the eastern driveway to the strip of stores is not conducive to left turns because it is narrow and steep; that access to and from the strip of stores would be available via Brown Avenue; that the separator would also prohibit left turns into the automotive service center on the south side of Bay Road at U.S. 41; that vehicles travelling westbound on Bay Road attempting to make left turns across three lanes of traffic into that driveway would not be a safe condition. Commissioner Cardamone asked how vehicles leaving the strip stores or the service station could turn to the left? Mr. Daughters stated that vehicles could make left turns from the strip stores by exiting via Brown Avenue; that vehicles leaving the service center would be prohibited from making a left turn onto Bay Road. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if a portion of the Sunset Chevrolet dealership located on Bay Road at Brown Avenue will be removed? Mr. Daughters stated that acquisition of land along the Sunset Chevrolet lot on the south side of Bay Road was discussed to provide more of a transition at Brown Avenue, but the FDOT recommended the current configuration. Commissioner Cardamone asked if all of the businesses in the area were notified of the proposed separator and if any objections to it were raised? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the businesses in the area were notified by a. standard letter of notification regarding the Development Agreement; that the details of the agreement were not included in the notice. Commissioner Cardamone stated that if she owned a shop along the area of the planned median construction, she would have concerns; that with the improvements proposed, accessing the strip stores on the south side of Bay Road would be cumbersome for patrons. BOOK 37 Page 11550 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11551 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that the elbow around which vehicles would have to travel to access the strip shop would provide for safer conditions. Mr. Daughters continued that at the February 8, 1995, PBLP meeting, concern was expressed about the Osprey Avenue and Versailles Street intersection; that the PBLP questioned whether or not the project met concurrency without a left-turn pocket at the intersection; that the Osprey Avenue/Versallles Street intersection was not studied in detail because the entire segment of Osprey Avenue/Bay Road was determined to be a LOS "D" with the improvements proposed on Bay Road; therefore, the intersection was not analyzed in detail; that turning counts at the intersection have been taken but the results have not yet been analyzed; that the developer would have been required to construct the left-turn pockets if the improvement was necessary to meet concurrency, but it is not; therefore, funding from the FDOT for the left-turn pocket on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street will be pursued; that the city intends to use road impact fees to pay for the construction if the FDOT does not provide funding; that the use of road impact fees has been discussed with the Sarasota County Transportation Director who feels that the two site plan condition projects, the separator and the left-turn pockets, would be proper uses for road impact fee funding; that based on the information reviewed, it is clear that the intersection of Osprey Avenue and Versailles Street would not meet the warrants for a traffic signal. Mayor Patterson stated that people who live in the condominiums on the west side of Osprey Avenue at the intersection of Versailles Street have been requesting a traffic signal for some time. Mr. Daughters stated that preliminary traffic studies were completed and it was found that the intersection did not meet the necessary requirements to warrant a traffic signal; that the additional traffic being added to the intersection by the proposed Publix development is not substantial enough to warrant installation of a traffic signal; that Osprey Avenue is a State highway; therefore, a traffic signal could not be installed if the necessary warrants are not met. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there is no traffic movement on Osprey Avenue at various times during the day due to traffic back up caused by the traffic signal at Siesta Drive; that this makes travel difficult for the residents of the condominium and patrons of the establishments to the south of Siesta Drive on the west side of Osprey Avenue; and asked if a left-turn lane to serve the needs of those people would be feasible? Mr. Daughters stated that consideration of a left-turn pocket or a two-way left-turn lane on Osprey Avenue from Siesta Drive to Bay Road could be requested of the FDOT; that FDOT would prepare an analysis and determine if such a project is necessary; that although, a two-way left-turn lane may alleviate the traffic congestion, more traffic would be encouraged to continue travelling north on Osprey Avenue through residential areas into the downtown, which must be considered. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the accommodation being made at Versailles Street for easier access to and from the Publix development could be detrimental to the established businesses and the residents of the condominium on the west side of Osprey Avenue who currently find it impossible to make a left turn onto Osprey Avenue during the day. Mr. Daughters stated that Steve Tindale, Tindale-oliver & Associates, the engineer who prepared the Crossroad Shopping Center Redevelopment traffic concurrency review, could better explain the warrants necessary for installation of traffic signals; that a warrant analysis for a traffic signal at Versailles Street and Osprey Avenue could be pursued through the FDOT. Mayor Patterson asked if Staff pursued the issue of a traffic signal through the FDOT, would the FDOT only give permission to place a traffic signal at the intersection or would the FDOT also provide funding for the project? Mr. Daughters stated that the first step in pursuing a traffic signal on a State highway is to request the FDOT to perform a warranted analysis; that a report would be forwarded to the City by the FDOT after the warranted analysis was completed with a determination on whether the minimum number of required warrants are met and whether installation of a traffic signal would be considered; that meeting the warrants does not require the FDOT to install a traffic signal; however, the warrants must be met for installation to be considered by the FDOT. Commissioner Cardamone stated that installation of a traffic signal on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street could further add to the traffic congestion currently experienced on Osprey Avenue due to the Siesta Drive traffic signal. Mayor Patterson asked if both proposed left-turn lanes on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street and at the entrance to Publix development will be installed? Mr. Daughters stated that both left-turn lanes will be pursued through the FDOT; that road impact fees will be used by the city for construction of at least one of the left-turn pockets if the FDOT will not fund the projects. Commissioner Cardamone asked which of the two left-turn pockets on Osprey Avenue has the higher priority? BOOK 37 Page 11552 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11553 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that based on the amount of traffic, the Osprey Avenue/Versailles Street left-turn pocket would have a higher priority than the one proposed at the main entrance to the Publix development. Mayor Patterson asked if there is sufficient right-of-way on Osprey Avenue to install a left-turn pocket? Mr. Daughters stated that the right-of-way is of sufficient width to add another lane as well as the sidewalk which is soon to be constructed on the west side of Osprey Avenue. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the impact to residents of Honeysuckle Drive, which is a natural cut-through street to avoid the Osprey Avenue/Siesta Drive traffic signal, has been addressed? Mr. Daughters stated that some residents of that neighborhood expressed a concern with the potential increase of cut-through traffic that may be generated when the Publix development is completed; that those residents were referred to the traffic abatement process. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the three-year commitment to traffic abatement associated with the Publix development is traffic abatement after the fact; that the subject was discussed at length during the site and development plan approval for which she voted against because of the traffic abatement plan and the median strip. Mayor Patterson asked if the developer will construct a sidewalk on the east side of Osprey Avenue? Mr. Daughters referred to the site plan in the Agenda packet and explained that as part of the site plan conditions, the developer will construct a sidewalk, curb, and gutter on the periphery street of the Publix development; that the City will construct a sidewalk on the west side of Osprey Avenue from the Simple Sam's Plaza south to the corner of Bay Road. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Mikki Hartig, 3708 Flores Avenue (34239), and Terry Coffrin, 3618 Palonia Court (34239), representing the Granada Homeowners Association came before the Commission. Ms. Hartig stated that she is appalled at the traffic proposal made for the Publix development; that the Granada subdivision is located between Siesta Drive and Bay Road and Osprey Avenue and Sarasota Bay; that this area also includes the San Remo subdivision; that drivers leaving the Granada subdivision cannot get onto Siesta Drive because of traffic backed up; that vehicles attempting to avoid the gridlock cut-through the Granada subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods; that traffic abatement of this cut- through traffic is necessary; that studies have been performed and will be brought to the City in the near future. Ms. Hartig stated that many of the neighbors shop at the existing Publix and will continue to patronize Publix at the new location; that the improvements made two years ago to the Osprey Avenue/Bay Road intersection included a turn pocket in front of Swim Mart large enough to hold one to two cars; that attempting a left turn off of Bay Road near the Swim Mart is still very difficult; that Bay Road is one of the routes by which residents leave the subdivision; that the traffic situation is a mess; that the prohibition of left-turns onto U.S. 41 make it difficult for residents who currently patronize the Publix at the Southgate Mall to get home; that further difficulties will be experienced when the new Publix development is constructed. Ms. Hartig presented the Commission with photographs taken at 2:00 p.m. which showed traffic backed up from Siesta Drive past Versailles Street; and stated that exiting the Crossroads Shopping Center onto Osprey Avenue is impossible and will worsen with the construction of the Publix development; that the Granada Neighborhood Association does not feel an adequate traffic study of the subject area has been performed; that allowing three years for inadequate traffic abatement after construction of the Publix development is unacceptable; that vehicles use Brown Avenue as a cut-through to avoid the traffic signal at Bee Ridge Road and U.S. 41; that the widening of Bay Road from U.S. 41 to Brown Avenue could prove to be inadequate; and asked who will pay to widen the road past Brown Avenue to Siesta Drive once it is determined that the extension from U.S. 41 to Brown Avenue is not adequate? Mayor Patterson requested that comments be directed toward ideas which can help make the traffic situation better; and stated that how the improvements would be funded is not the major issue at this point; that identifying solutions to alleviate the additional traffic generated by the Publix development should be the focus. Mr. Coffrin referred to the site plan on the overhead projector to explain his suggestion of realigning the ingress/egress at the west end of the Crossroads Shopping Center with the intersection of Bay Road and Brown Avenue and installing a traffic signal to allow for either right or left turns. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Daughters for comment on realigning the intersection of Brown Avenue and Bay Roads. Mr. Daughters stated that the improvement suggested by Mr. Coffrin could be made; that the study showed that this segment of Osprey BOOK 37 Page 11554 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11555 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. Avenue and Bay Road met the City's adopted LOS; therefore the improvement could not be required of the developer for concurrency. Mr. Coffrin referred to the overhead of an enlarged area of the site plan to explain his suggestion of realigning the entrance to the parking lot of the Publix development with Bay Road and placing a traffic signal at the intersection of Osprey Avenue and Bay Road; and stated that the traffic signal would allow for travel in all directions by people attempting to enter or exit the neighborhoods or the Crossroad Shopping Center; that the traffic signal would also help alleviate traffic congestion at the condominiums and other surrounding businesses. Ms. Hartig stated that the traffic plan was not presented at the neighborhood meeting or the PBLP meetings held regarding this issue; that the Commission should not make a decision tonight when the Engineering Department has stated that the traffic situation has not been fully studied; that traffic abatement is not a solution to traffic congestion. Mayor Patterson stated that it was becoming difficult for her to remain objective and act as chair on a subject for which she has declared a conflict of interest. Mayor Patterson passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill and left the Commission Chambers at 10:18 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission will not be able to make a decision on traffic solutions for the subject neighborhood at this meeting; that when driving to Siesta Key at 4:10 p.m. today he found the traffic backed up on Siesta Drive all the way to the 4100 block of Higel Avenue; that the traffic congestion was not related to the Publix development issue; that there are traffic issues on Osprey Avenue that must be addressed; that the neighborhood associations combined need to consider solutions such as four laning Osprey Avenue to alleviate the traffic congestion; that fully thought out solutions should be presented to the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the aborting of the normal public hearing process to debate traffic congestion issues is not resolving the problem; and asked that a decision be made as to what the next step is for this issue? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the public discussion has not been a waste of time; that the process has been strange from the very beginning; that she is concerned that the Commission has rolled over and let the Publix have its way; that she voted against previous approval of the site and development plan for the same reasons Ms. Hartig and Mr. Coffrin brought up tonight; that the public is indicating the issue has not gone through the normal process of development; that the subject area is already very congested and she finds it difficult to believe the traffic flow meets the adopted LOS; that the Commission must be patient and work through this process along with the public input. Commissioner Pillot stated that he did not infer the discussion was a waste of time, but that having the discussion at this point is a waste of time since two out of the four Commissioners voting have indicated that they will vote against this issue tonight; that perhaps the issue should be referred back to the Administration. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 10:20 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the following two issues of concern need to be addressed: 1. What does the developer have to do to meet concurrency? 2. What in general should be done to the subject area to improve traffic flow? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the public hearing will go forward with comments related to the concurrency agreement. Mr. Shelley Lederman, 1805 Jasmine Drive (34239) stated that his residence is located on the corner of Osprey Avenue and Jasmine Drive; that concurrency relates to the transportation issue; that at the recent PBLP meeting the Board not only asked for the traffic issue at Versailles Street to be studied but that the streets north of Versailles Street also be studied. Mr. Lederman presented the Commission with pictures illustrating the traffic back up which occurs on Osprey Avenue when a vehicle travelling north attempts to make a left turn onto Siesta Drive. Mr. Lederman referred to the overhead of the site plan; and stated that forcing the traffic exiting the Publix development to turn right onto Bay Road will direct the traffic onto Osprey Avenue; that the traffic will turn onto Versailles Street, use Jasmine Drive as a cut through, or back up the Siesta Drive traffic; that a traffic signal at Bay Road is a good suggestion; that the City Administration has not addressed all aspects of this issue; that U.S. 41 and a small portion of Bay Road were addressed with no concern for the businesses on Bay Road or the residents living in the area; that before proceeding with the project, traffic solutions need to be found which will address the concerns of the businesses and residents affected by the Publix development. Mr. Larry Kelleher, 1835 Jasmine Drive (34239) stated that he has attended all the PBLP meetings regarding this issue and supports the location of the Publix development at Crossroads Shopping Center; however, he is concerned with the traffic related issues; that left turns onto Bay Road from the Crossroads Shopping Center BOOK 37 Page 11556 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11557 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. will be prohibited; that the curvature of the Bay Road/Osprey Avenue intersection causes problems as vehicles drive too quickly around the curve; that the intersection could be squared off and a traffic signal installed; that a three-way stop could be installed at Versailles Street instead of a traffic signal; that a signage directing traffic to U.S. 41 could be placed at Versailles Street to alleviate some of the traffic flowing toward Siesta Drive. Mr. Kelleher stated that traffic is currently cutting through Jasmine and Tulip Drives to Honeysuckle Drive to Siesta Drive at. the intersection of U.S. 41; that the traffic problems in the area will exacerbate with the construction of the Publix development; that the traffic should be funneled down Versailles Street rather than through neighborhoods; that the left-turn pockets on Osprey Avenue are a good idea; that the situation should be further studied before the Commission makes a decision. Alice Coleman, 1860 Siesta Drive (34239) stated that her home is located between Osprey Avenue and Honeysuckle Drive; that she moved to the area three years ago for the convenience of living in the City; that sidewalks should be built and Osprey Avenue should be widened to keep people traveling on it and not cutting through neighborhood streets; that Osprey Avenue should become a south end of the City artery since businesses line the south end of Osprey Avenue; that the traffic is already a nightmare; that travelling south on Osprey Avenue today, traffic was backed up to Webber Street at 4:40 p.m.; that the traffic quickly dissipated as the intersection of Osprey Avenue and Siesta Drive was passed; that the traffic congestion caused by the Siesta Drive traffic signal blocks access to three to four side streets in each direction on Osprey Avenue; that Osprey Avenue should be widened before any further commercial development occurs in the area; that there is currently a serious traffic problem, especially during the season; that the traffic will never be abated; that the traffic needs to be controlled in order for it to move in a safer manner. Commissioner Atkins stated that the neighborhood did not want sidewalks or Osprey Avenue widened when the Siesta Drive project was being developed; that the traffic pattern at Versailles Street will need to be studied because there is currently signs prohibiting left turns at U.S. 41 and Versailles Street; that the intersection of U.S. 41 and Versailles Street requires that a driver cross over four lanes to drive north. Lisa Epstein, 1711-A S. 10th Street, Safety Harbor (34695), stated that she is the Director of Construction for Paradise Plaza Development and is representing the current owner of the Crossroads Shopping Center, the Paradise Plaza Trust; that she has attended all the PBLP meetings in regard to this issue; that discussion on the traffic in the subject neighborhood has been going on for some time; that although she is an advocate of prudent decision making, she questions the feasibility of finding an acceptable traffic solution for all parties within the next 30 days. Ms. Epstein continued that current negotiations at the Southgate Shopping Center could prematurely force the existing Publix out; that there is the possibility that the Publix development could pull the lease from the Paradise Plaza Development; that the Publix development lease is contingent upon a successful building permit and construction period at Crossroads Shopping Center; that the term of three years in the Development Agreement is to allow the City sufficient time to negotiate with the FDOT for the proposed improvements; that the Publix development is crucial to the ownership and success of the Crossroads Shopping Center; that there is the possibility the Crossroads Shopping Center would remain in is dilapidated condition if the proposed Publix development does not work out. Vice Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreement between the City and Paradise Plaza Trust; that concern has been raised with regard to allowing three years to meet the concurrency requirements; therefore, he recommends that the City be prepared to use road impact fee funds to help expedite the following: 1. The implementation of the concurrency issues to include, specifically, the eastbound lane on Bay Road; 2. The construction of a left-turn pocket on Osprey Avenue at Versailles Street which is a nonconcurrency issue; and 3. Provide for the construction of sidewalks on the east side of Osprey Avenue between Versailles Street and Siesta Drive. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation as stated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she respects the reasons for the City Manager's recommendation; however, she is concerned that the traffic situation has not been addressed properly; that she is also concerned with the impact on the businesses on the south side of Bay Road; that she will vote against the motion. Commissioner Cardamone continued that if the motion fails, she will move to have the Engineering Department meet with the neighbors in the affected area to discuss solutions to the traffic situation. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the issue is a concurrency issue; that it is a legal issue about meeting an engineering plan; that solutions to alleviate the traffic situation in the subject area are necessary and should be further addressed at another time; that he will support the City Manager's recommendation; and that he BOOK 37 Page 11558 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11559 02/21/95 6:00 P.M. supports having the Engineering Department meet with neighborhood residents to seek alternative solutions to the traffic situation. Vice Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, noj Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, abstained. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to direct the Administration to expeditiously investigate traffic abatement for the neighborhood surrounding the new Publix development. Mayor Patterson asked if the intent of the motion was to study facilitating the movement of traffic? Commissioner Cardamone stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion to refer the traffic issue back to the Administration for a rapid response. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, abstained. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the maps included in the Agenda packets were of very poor quality; that she hopes clearer maps will be furnished in the future. 12. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a Special meeting of the City Commission has been scheduled for Monday, February 27, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. City Attorney Taylor stated that Bonnie Wagoner has filed a law suit against the City relating to the alleged flooding of her property on Devonshire Lane. 13. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2726) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the February 21, 1995, regular meeting at 10:45 p.m. Mora Allson NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: Billy E Rebenson BILLY B. ROBINSON, 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 Sarasota - City Commission Patterson, Nora MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling Drive Xcrry : COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON W'HICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: X ELECTIVE - APPOINTIVE February 21, 1995 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 offiçe 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. CE FORMI XB 10-86 PAGE I 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 February 21 19 95 (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 motion was made and adopted to approve a Development Agreement for the property located at the northwest corner of South Tamiami Trail and Bay Road (Crossroads Shopping Center). My husband and I are part owners of property located across the street (3750 South Osprey Avenue) from the subject site. Kone/ ece - te Date Filed 3/22/95 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