Regular City Commission Meeting

---- pages 81-91 ----

significant delays in the area have been experienced; that several traffic counts have been taken in the area.

Mr. Freija referred to photographs of the south side of Main Street between Palm Avenue and Mira Mar Court displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that a traffic count was taken over a three day period beginning December 16, 2003; that one traffic count revealed 119 vehicles used Mira Mar Court between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.; that the average speed was 19.02 miles per hour (mph); that another traffic count was taken in the south of the alley between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., revealing 122 vehicles using Mira Mar Court; that the traffic count was conducted in the area for the sake of the First United Methodist Church, the children in the church's Early Care Center, and to enhance safety; that the average speed was 20 mph; that another count was performed revealing 109 vehicles traveled Mira Mar Court between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.; that the average speed was 21 mph; that Mira Mar Court currently provides traffic calming; that the posted speed limit is 25 mph; however, Staff agreed to reduce the speed limit to 15 mph through an Ordinance if possible; that contacting the City Attorney's Office will be necessary since reducing the speed to 15 mph may not be possible; that the traffic study is clear; that 880 trips will be generated by the proposed development; that 68 trips will occur during the p.m. peak time and 43 during the a.m. peak time; that the worst case scenario will be during the p.m. peak time; that approximately 11 percent of the traffic will be traveling on Mira Mar Court which translates to seven trips in the p.m. peak time with 97 trips all day.

Mr. Freija referred to the 2005 project projections of traffic displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that a traffic analysis was performed; that most intersections operate with an acceptable level of service without using the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA); that Attorney Lobeck indicated a request was made to exempt the project from transportation concurrency; that all the traffic circulation was analyzed in the area; that the project would have met transportation concurrency without utilizing any of the TCEA provisions; that the roadway segment will be operating at a Level of Service D or better in 2005.

Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding the level of service calculation.

Mr. Freija stated that projections for traffic counts for 2005 are calculated; that the percentages of growth and background traffic such as developments which have been approved but not yet built are added to the calculation; that the analysis for the segment of the roadway is then performed; that the roadway is projected at Level of Service D in 2005, including all the approved development which has not yet been built; that the operation of the segment of roadway of Main Street from US 41 to Pineapple Avenue will remain at Level of Service D if the proposed project is approved; that the segment of roadway of Palm Avenue from Cocoanut Avenue to Main Street has a Level of Service B for the northbound segment and a Level of Service A for the southbound segment.

Mr. Freija continued that the adopted level of service standard within the City not including the Downtown is a Level of Service D; that a project could degrade the level of service of an adjacent roadway to a Level of Service D before any improvements are required; that level of service reductions rather than exemptions exist for the Downtown portion of the City.

Attorney Fournier referred to Condition 7 associated with approval of Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42 as indicated in the Staff report as follows:

Approval is contingent upon the approval of a major encroachment agreement from the City Commission for the portions of the building which extend into the public right-of-way.

Attorney Fournier stated that Attorney Rees expressed concern regarding the term "contingent" in Condition 7, which seemed to suggest the approval was not final; that the following alternative language was suggested to the applicant:

Should any portion of the building extend into the public right-of-way, approval of a major encroachment agreement by the City Commission shall be required.

Attorney Fournier stated that the change in the language is the same as the original language except the term "contingent" is removed; that the change is not considered substantive and was discussed with Staff who was in agreement; that Attorney Rees was informed the change would be brought before the Commission; that approval of the change in language in Condition 7 is requested.

Vice Mayor Martin stated that an encroachment agreement may be necessary for portions of the building which extend into the public right-of-way as well as other improvements such as landscaping, etc.

Attorney Fournier stated that such improvements would require a minor encroachment agreement, which could be approved administratively; that the Commission's decision regarding the street vacation will impact the type of encroachment agreement necessary; that the proposed Ordinance is written to vacate 4,645 square feet of right-of-way; that Staff is opposed to the vacation of the three foot section between the outside surface of the columns and the curb; that Staff's recommendation is to vacate only 3,703 square feet of right-of-way; that the encroachment agreement must also address whatever encroachments, if any, are required within the three foot section; that a separate application has been submitted for the encroachment agreement.

Mayor Palmer asked if Condition 7 is a condition of approval of the site plan? Attorney Fournier stated yes.

Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding the language of the proffers made by the development team.

Attorney Fournier stated that additional conditions were added by the PBLP which may not be included in the Staff Report.

Mayor Palmer stated that clarification regarding language in proffers made during the current meeting is also necessary.

Attorney Fournier stated that the conditions identified or clarified can be incorporated into a motion to approve; that the Applicant will receive a letter if conditions are applicable to the site plan; that the option is to adopt a Resolution if the Commission wishes to have the language of the conditions come back.

Mayor Palmer stated that having a Resolution brought back to the Commission is preferred.

Mr. Parsons stated that the condition of the street vacations and the site plan are grouped in the Staff Report; that the PBLP separated the conditions associated with the street vacations from the conditions associated with the site plan, which is indicated in the February 11, 2004, PBLP meeting minutes included in the Agenda backup material; that one condition was added at the PBLP public hearing which required the developer to pay for traffic control and address management issues with the First United Methodist Church; that the three additional conditions referenced by the Affected Parties are important and should be added; that the first condition requires a binding proffer relating to the management of the loading space; that the first condition was not included and is considered appropriate; that the second condition requires a binding proffer relating to the protection of the historic buildings; that the third condition relates to liability for any damage to the historic buildings; that the condition was not originally included and is considered appropriate; that the Applicant indicated during rebuttal the Commission will have the opportunity to again review the proposed project including the landscape plan, which is incorrect; that the public hearing held at this time is the last opportunity the Commission will have to approve the site plan in a public hearing format; that a building permit will be required but is approved administratively.

Commissioner Bilyeu asked the reason Staff does not support vacation of the three foot section between the outside surface of the columns and the curb?

Mr. Daughters stated that from an engineering perspective, the City will retain more control of the use if the three foot section is retained; that the City could control signage or potted plants, for instance, which may disrupt pedestrian access from vehicles to the sidewalk area; that control of the area is the issue.

Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding criteria to approve street vacations.

Mr. Freija stated that an Action Strategy in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates no right-of-way shall be vacated unless not used and not serving the public in any way; that prior to vacating a street, Staff performs a traffic count to determine if a street provides a use to the public; that a street vacation is usually not recommended if the street is used by the public; that another Action Strategy included in the City's Comprehensive Plan requires integrity of the grid system; that the grid system must be kept intact and is considered in making a recommendation for a street vacation.

Mayor Palmer stated that the City is taking an action if a motion is passed at the current meeting; that the basis upon which Staff has indicated criteria concerning the street vacations in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) has been met should be made clear.

Attorney Fournier stated that the findings are included in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 which address the manner in which standards in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) regarding street vacations are met.

Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the alley and landscaping, which is not included in the site plan.

Mr. Parsons stated that the location of the alley was prescribed in a 1990 Ordinance; that Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42 depicts the location of and amenities within the alley in accordance with the 199 Ordinance.

Vice Mayor Martin stated that a proffer was made by the Developer to provide landscaping in the alley; that landscaping is not addressed in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536; and asked the type of landscaping which might be included in the south portion of the alley?

Mr. Daughters stated that the alley right-of-way is 20 feet; that under the conditions which were agreed upon by everyone in 1990, no space is available for landscaping; that a five foot sidewalk, an eight inch curb, and a 14 foot four inch sidewalk will not allow installation of landscaping; that one of the Johnson family's buildings sets back from the right-of-way line approximately one foot; that the presumption is the one foot area was the location in which to install landscaping; however, the one foot area is on private property presumed owned by the Johnson Trust.

Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the three foot section between the outside surface of the columns and the curb on Palm Avenue and Main Street.

Mayor Palmer stated that the issue concerning the three foot section will be discussed after the public hearing is closed; and closed the public hearing.

MOTION: Extend the meeting retroactively beyond the 9:30 p.m. deadline to complete the Agenda OUTCOME: Passed VOTE: Unanimous (5 to 0) AYES: Atkins, Bilyeu, Martin, Servian, Palmer

Mayor Palmer asked the manner in which the Commission would like to proceed regarding a motion to approve proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 and the issue concerning the three foot section of paved area?

Vice Mayor Martin stated that crafting a motion is not simple.

Mayor Palmer asked if the language in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 includes the extra three foot section of paved area along Main Street and Palm Avenue?

Attorney Fournier stated that the language in the proposed Ordinance includes the extra three feet of paved area along Main Street and Palm Avenue; that the proposed Ordinance, as drafted, vacates the three foot paved area between the columns and the curb.

City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 by title only.

MOTION: Pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 on first reading OUTCOME: (See below for amendment)