Wal-Mart Wrap-up, Part Two: Looking back, looking forward

The decision to deny the Ringling Wal-Mart site plan pleased many, but disappointed others. The question now is whether Wal-Mart will appeal the commission's decision in court.When contacted by email earlier this week, City Attorney Bob Fournier explained the process moving forward: “Before either party can appeal the city commission’s decision, it has to be reduced to writing and signed by the Mayor. We will be bringing a resolution to the city commission denying approval of the site plan and setting out the reasons for the denial (which is required by statute) most likely at the next city commission meeting, which is March 18. The 30-day period to file an appeal will commence on the day that the Mayor signs the resolution. I have not spoken with Mr. Porter or anyone from Wal-Mart since the conclusion of the Feb. 26 hearing and at this point do not know what they plan to do.”

Instead of legal action, the Wal-Mart folks could tweak their plan to make it more neighborhood-friendly---although they’d still be limited to 15,000 square feet as a “department” store at that location.

Their best bet might be a smaller, non-24-hour Wal-Mart "Neighborhood Market" grocery store, similar to the one on Myrtle St. and US-41, leaving room in the plaza for smaller local businesses as well.

Or Wal-Mart can “cut bait” and walk away from the project, leaving the aging shopping center without an anchor tenant.

It is also possible that city commissioners could rezone the Ringling Blvd. property, creating a zoning designation that would allow for a Wal-Mart in that location, but that would come as a slap in the face to those living in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Already the Wal-Mart folks have another local battle on their hands, as more than 300 neighbors living near the Bee Ridge and Beneva intersection have petitioned their developer-friendly county commissioners, asking them to nix the idea of rezoning the River’s Edge Community Church property so the church can be demolished to make way for a 40,000 square foot Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market.

Final Statements?

After the public had its say on Feb. 26, city staff stood by their interpretation of the zoning code that would have allowed the Wal-Mart to be built.

When the time came for the appealing party to make their final arguments, Alta Vista Neighborhood attorney Bob Turffs paid tribute to the citizen speakers when he said to commissioners, “I’m certainly humbled by all the public comment I’ve heard in support of our position. There’s nothing I can say that would be nearly as eloquent or as appropriate as what we’ve already heard. The question for you legally is: Is this consistent with the zoning code and the comprehensive plan? If you’ll look at your own code, this is not permitted. It’s prohibited.”

Concluding his remarks, and speaking as a “real person” instead of an attorney, Turffs  paraphrased a famous quote from the 1930s when he said, “Once a long time ago, the writer Gertrude Stein said about her former home in Oakland, ‘There is no there there.’ There is a there here in Sarasota---don’t destroy it.”

Wal-Mart attorney Jim Porter made his final plea, expressing his belief that the proposed project was compatible with the zoning code and therefore should be approved.It was then up to commissioners to make a decision. After brief discussion, Vice-Mayor Willie Shaw made a motion to deny the site the Wal-Mart site plan, saying, “I think that the presentation made by the appealing group has brought merit to this argument and brings forth the flaws that are presently found within our codes.”

Commissioner Terry Turner seconded the motion, saying, “The applicant is proposing what is essentially a suburban big box store in an urban environment. In my opinion, the proposed site plan is not compatible with the adjoining neighborhoods, the broader community nor the Sarasota city plan. I would mention the bulk, the 24/7 operations, the truck noise, the truck traffic … in general the intensity of the project in a neighborhood area.”

Commissioner Shannon Snyder gave no explanation as to why he voted to deny the site plan, but his third vote carried the day.

Explaining why she felt the proposed Wal-Mart was an allowable land use, Mayor Suzanne Atwell said, “To me, the staff testimony has met the interpretation of the code in a most substantial, competent manner ... Based on that, I can’t support the motion.”Commissioners Turner, Shaw and Atwell each expressed support for Tim Litchet and his staff in response to criticism levied in staff’s direction.

Commissioner Paul Caragiulo did not immediately explain why he voted in favor of the Wal-Mart, but after coming out on the short end of the 3-2 vote, he addressed the need to clean up the zoning code, saying, “If nothing else, this is an absolute clear direction that something needs to be done about our code. This is absolutely something that we need to be working on immediately. For anyone to come up here and say that the code is crystal clear on anything, I don’t know what code you’re looking at.”

He then said he voted the way he did based on his understanding of the “rule of law.”

A Former Mayor Sounds OffA week after the Wal-Mart decision was handed down, Alta Vista Neighborhood appellant and former Sarasota Mayor Kelly Kirschner shared his thoughts on the commission decision and the process that led to it.

“There’s a part of me that’s extremely frustrated that the City puts neighborhoods and citizens through these processes that really consume hundreds of hours of a community’s potential productivity to fight against the system and the City that we pay to make sure they follow the rules that all of us have agreed to go by,” he said.

“So, while I have that frustration, at the same time, when you go through an experience like that, it only strengthens a neighborhood and a community. I’ve met new neighbors and old neighbors that didn’t come out before. Those bonds make the community stronger and I think you saw that with everyone that testified. At the end of the night, getting those three votes, you feel good about your community and the decision they made.”

As for what we learned about the city zoning codes during the appeal process, Kirschner said, “The zoning code has become the convenient whipping boy, but then there’s no accountability for city staff.  If you ask City Attorney Bob Fournier how many times there has been an instance like this, with an appeal to the commission based upon a really significant error in interpreting the code, he will tell you there’s only been two in the past 10 years. One was the Wal-Mart on the North Trail---and that appeal did not go to the commission---and this is the first one that’s ever gone to the commission. You’d expect that if we have such rampant problems with our code that you would see this happen frequently, and that is not the case.”

Continuing that line of thought, Kirschner said, “What we do have, however, if you listen to [former City Planner] Mike Taylor, is that we have created multiple codes and consistently the problem has been that when the commission and staff have created these new codes they do not want to take away anyone’s property rights. So, then you have a code from 1974 that’s still in effect that they don’t want to touch or alter to make any more clear; and we have a new code that we adopted in 2001, but it’s not implemented. It’s really that type of issue that we’re facing here. It’s not really that the code is not clear.”Expressing frustration with Director of Development and Neighborhood Services Tim Litchet, Kirschner said, “Shannon Snyder probably asked the best question of the night. He said, ‘The zoning code states, Mr. Litchet, that you had to get sign-off and approval by the City Manager to make the determination that if it’s not in the allowed uses, then the City Manager had to sign off on it.’

“Where is that documentation and which City Manager was it? Bartolotta, was it the interim Terry Lewis or Thomas Barwin? None of it!,” Kirchner said. “He danced around it. He didn’t answer the question and he never answered the question on the pedestrian access issue with Payne Park, that to me, is critical. I respect the fact that Terry Turner and others said staff did a great job, but I think any honest assessment of that should say that staff did an extremely poor job.”

Social Media Reaction

At the suggestion of TWIS contributor Lisa Nisenson, I provided real-time Facebook updates on the Ringling Wal-Mart hearing as it unfolded on the evening of Feb. 26.

At 10:30 that night, I posted a note about commissioners’ decision to deny the site plan, prompting immediate and ongoing reaction from both supporters and opponents.

Here’s a sampling of what your cyber-neighbors had to say this issue:

Vince Pac: "Sounds like Chicago.. Yay… you stopped development! Great job!"

Andy Dorr: "The city made a mistake tonight. 3 commissioners basically voted against the City's staff. I expect lawsuit"

Susan Nilon: "They (Wal-Mart) will want their money back."

Bob Gorevan: "and they will get it...and the Ringling property will sit vacant for another 10 years..."

Vaughn Nickel: "You can't stop Wal-Mart democratically. Voters are about to discover that Wal-Mart owns politicians and the judicial system and what the voters want doesn't matter."

Tina Steele: "It's a great day for Sarasota. Big box stores have no place in a small city like ours. The neighborhood deserves to be rezoned for small locally-owned stores, cafes, restaurants, and affordable housing...like a bigger version of what is in the Orange/Pineapple districts."

Matt Burdette: "You guys can have one of Bradenton’s several Walmart we have plenty to spare.. There are way to many Walmart's around here and yes they create jobs but they treat there employees like crap."

Phil Chmieleski: "Lawsuit indeed. They voted on emotion not fact...regardless of your opinion vis a vis WalMart. As for the neighborhood that shopping center joins Ron Burks site to solidify the blight that the Alta Vista folks seem to revel in. So what now? I don't see a line forming to move into that run down sleazy strip center."

Phil Chmieleski: "Here is your smoking gun for a lawsuit "Reasoning that Walmart's plan is incompatible with the neighborhood, Commissioners Willie Shaw, Terry Turner and Shannon Snyder voted against it, while Paul Caragiulo and Suzanne Atwell voted to allow the store." It is not their job to "reason" what is "Incompatible" with the neighborhood. This is why we have laws."

Catherine Hodgson: "I am for the support of our locally owned stores. That is what capitalism is really about, not running over everyone with corporate money... I will give the little guy the chance over the corp greed any day!"

Sam Ward: "Hey . . . I like Walmart. Where else am I going to go to buy products made by slaves, sold by slaves, and bought by guests of the Jerry Springer show? . . ."

(Read what your real-life neighbors had to say during the Feb. 26 Sarasota City Commission meeting when given time to speak during public input.)