CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Members: Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE. PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading oft the Pledge of Conduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. The oath was administered to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. Attorney Connolly stated no applications for affected person status had been received. PB Chair Gallagher requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. There were none. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 7 1. Center Pointe [2033 Main Street): 14-ADP-01 proposes an Adjustment from the sign requirements for the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone District as specified in Section VII- 110(5)(d) of the Zoning Code in order to allow a second building identification sign at the top of the sixth floor along the Fletcher Street façade. This proposed signage replaces an existing non-conforming sign in the same location, replacing "Infinium" with "Icard Merrill." 1 The existing "Center Pointe" sign will remain unchanged. Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Applicant Presentation: Mr. Robert Lincoln and Mr. Michael Furen appeared to discuss the proposal. Mr. Lincoln stated the applicants were requesting an adjustment to the Downtown Code to replace an existing additional building identification sign that says "Infinium" on the Center Pointe building at 2033 Main Street that Icard Merrill is a tenant of with a sign that says "Icard Merrill". Mr. Lincoln stated the request meets the standards in the Zoning Code, stated a proposed building permit application has been included in the packet showing the proposed dimensions ofthe signage, and noted the font could change slightly however would not increase in size. Mr. Lincoln stated Icard Merrill had applied for an adjustment for an additional sign in 2010 that the City Commission approved however that sign was never erected. Mr. Lincoln stated that since Infinium is no longer a tenant the building owners have approved replacing that sign rather than putting up a new one. Mr. Lincoln noted the staff report states the application is consistent with the Zoning Code and the proposal actually reduces the clutter on the building as there will be one less sign under this proposal than they could place on the building currently. Mr. Lincoln stated the applicants have received a favorable recommendation from staff with the condition that the previously approved sign that was not constructed be abandoned. PB member Siegel stated his concerns regarding setting a precedent, questioned ifthe applicants intended to officially give up their rights to the previously approved sign on the third floor, and questioned how that would be documented. Attorney Connolly stated ifthe application is approved the conditions would be memorialized in the form ofa a resolution. PB member Siegel stated the goal ofthe current code is to have a cohesive sign program and the intent is to allow for information necessary for the conduct of commerce and requested Mr. Lincoln elaborate on how that intent is met, particularly since the commerce is a law firm. Mr. Lincoln stated the purpose of the sign code is to establish effective standards and noted not only is Icard Merrill one of the oldest law firms in the City but is also the largest tenant in the building. Mr. Lincoln stated Icard Merrill would in a lot of cases be considered a flagship tenant and primary identifier ofthe building, and noted the site has been the offices of Icard Merrill since the late 1960's. Mr. Lincoln stated due to that allowing the sign is consistent with the goal of a major business having their name on a building and noted that while the code normally only allows one building identification sign there are other buildings with more than one So no precedent is being set. PB member Siegel questioned if the applicants felt the fact they were replacing something trumps the standards that would have to be complied with. Mr. Lincoln stated staff found it is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 7 justification for the adjustment. PB member Siegel questioned how. Mr. Lincoln stated approving the adjustment will not add to the proliferation of signs, noted the net effect is one fewer sign, and stated the purpose ofthe code is to allow buildings with major tenants to be identified by signage and this request meets that purpose. Mr. Lincoln noted the sign cannot be replaced as a matter of right since it is non- conforming, however the City cannot force removal either. PB member Siegel stated the applicant has made the point that Icard Merrill is a brand that brings value to the City and noted his agreement. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned how large the letters on the Infinium and Center Pointe signs are, and how long Icard Merrill has been in business. Mr. Lincoln stated he thought the letters on the Infinium sign were approximately three feet while the Center Pointe lettering is approximately 26 - 30 inches. Mr. Furen stated Icard Merrill has been in business since the 1960's and discussed the history of the firm. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned ifthe firm has grown since the 1960's. Mr. Furen stated the firm started with approximately six lawyers and now has approximately 30 lawyers and 70 staff members. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned when Infinium moved out of the building. Mr. Furen stated approximately ten years ago. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the applicants did not request what they are asking for now back in 2010 when they came before the Planning Board twice. Mr. Furen stated the building owner would not approve that request. Mr. Lincoln stated Icard Merrill has renewed their lease since then and speculated the building owner may have been hesitant to approve the signage when the lease was about to expire. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the applicant's letter states the building's architecture is unique, which in her opinion means one of a kind, and questioned ifthe lobby area reallyis one of a kind. Mr. Lincoln stated there are similar buildings but none are as dramatic and noted many buildings that were constructed prior to the adoption ofthe Downtown Code cannot meet those requirements, stating that is the reason for the provision to apply for adjustments. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the applicant' S statement in their submittal that "The application ofthe Downtown Core sign code to the Building results in a building that does not meet the intent or character ofthe Downtown Core zoning district; only through the requested adjustment can the Building make reasonable use ofits frontage for signage" and questioned how the building did not meet the intent or character ofthe Downtown Core zoning district. Mr. Lincoln stated the building could not be approved today under the existing code even with adjustments due to the fact approximately 80% ofthe façade is setback farther from the street than the code permits on the first two levels, noting part ofthe justification for the adjustment is the fact the design ofthe building does not lend itself to the approaches to signage contemplated by the code. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the applicants had considered asking the building owner to change the name of the building from Center Pointe to Icard Merrill, noting one her biggest concerns was the code specifies only one building identification sign is permitted. Mr. Furen stated while the question has never been asked he can state with certainty that the building owner would not allow that, noted the staff report points out that the provision for adjustments allow for unusual circumstance to be addressed, and this is an unusual circumstance due to the height ofthe building and the fact the signage is proposed for the building façade that faces a secondary street. Mr. Furen further noted Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 7 there is already a non-conforming sign that is useless for the purpose ofbuilding identification, promoting commerce, etc. Mr. Lincoln stated due to the size of the building having two building identification signs should not cause confusion, noted staff found there are already two building identification signs that actually do cause confusion since one ofthe signs is for a tenant that is no longer located in the building, the applicants already have a right to put an additional sign on the third level, and that the criteria for granting the adjustment has been met. PB member Siegel stated he felt the standards were very subjective and that while he accepts the applicant's argument that the firm is a brand in town he feels anyone could make an argument under the standards. Mr. Lincoln stated the issue is not whether they are the only ones that can make the argument, that he agrees the standards can be somewhat subjective, however under this particular situation the applicant and staff agree the standards have been met and noted the adjustment process is in place SO that the Planning Board can provide relief under unusual circumstances. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if Mr. Lincoln was representing both Center Pointe and Icard Merrill. Mr. Lincoln stated the owners of Center Pointe had agreed to the application for the adjustment. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why Center Pointe had not insisted that the sign for Infinium be taken down noting it is cluttering the building. Mr. Furen stated to take down the sign and not replace it would leave the façade unattractive and there is no financial reason to do SO. Mr. Lincoln stated as a lawyer he would have to advise the sign be left in place as the building owner has rights to the non-conforming sign and there is no legal obligation to remove it. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated the requested adjustment is for a second building identification sign on the Center Pointe building that replaces an existing sign. Senior Planner Mendez discussed the history oft the signage on the building noting staff had recommended denial ofaj previous request for an adjustment due to concerns of visual clutter the additional sign would create. Senior Planner Mendez stated this request is to replace an existing sign, noted each request is reviewed independently, and stated the sign program has levels that build on one another. Senior Planner Mendez stated previous concerns were the proliferation of signage and the establishment of signs at a location not in any way identified as a location for signage in the current code. Senior Planner Mendez discussed the current signage program stating signs located at the top of a large building are for building identification as well as serving a wayfinding purpose. Senior Planner Mendez stated the design oft the building is not consistent with the current code which presents challenges as far as signage, that the proposal meets the definition of a building identification sign, and noted other buildings have signage that identifies the tenants rather than the building although most do not have dual signage. Senior Planner Mendez discussed the criteria for granting adjustments, noted most do not apply to this request, stated the main criteria that does apply is that granting the adjustment would equally or better meet the purpose ofthe regulation to be adjusted, and stated staff's conclusion is the proposal does generally follow the logical pattern of signage envisioned in the Downtown Code. Senior Planner Mendez stated the request does not constitute a proliferation of signage due to the fact an existing sign is being replaced and noted a condition offered by the applicant and recommended by staff that the previous approval for an adjustment be abandoned, noted that previous request was Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5of7 substantially more problematic, and stated based on a finding of consistency as well as other criteria that has been met staff recommends approval with two conditions. PB member Siegel questioned if there are any other buildings in Sarasota with a law firm's name on it. Senior Planner Mendez stated most are banks. PB member Lindsay stated Williams Parker does however they own the building and the building is smaller. PB member Siegel stated he has seen major corporate brands on buildings around the country but not law firms and questioned if approving the adjustment is putting the City in a difficult position with other local law firms. Attorney Connolly stated the code specifies adjustments are unique and do not set a precedent, and noted there have been other buildings with the name ofthe law firm, citing the existing building at Fruitville Road and Orange Avenue. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the code defines a non-conforming use as "a use that was lawful when commenced, but that subsequently, due to a change oft the zone district ofthe zoning lot or zoning regulations, the use is now prohibited in the zone district" and questioned if replacing an existing non-conforming sign with a non- conforming sign is prohibited. Discussion ensued regarding non-conforming uses versus non-conforming signs. Senior Planner Mendez stated the replacement ofthe non-conforming sign is not prohibited in the Code. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the City does not require building owners to remove a sign if that tenant moves out. Senior Planner Mendez stated the Zoning Code does not require that. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned the reference to an "identification sign" on page 4 noting it should be "building identification sign". Senior Planner Mendez stated both have the same meaning noting the signs can be the name of the tenant or building. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned the language in the text defining "communicate information necessary to the conduct of commerce", stated the definition of the conduct of commerce is the exchange of goods and services, and questioned ifthe City interprets that to include advertising. Senior Planner Mendez stated the regulation of signage includes the location, lighting, etc. however to regulate the specific content oft the sign would interfere with free speech rights and noted advertising via off-premise signage on other buildings is prohibited. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned where the City draws the line between a major tenant versus other tenants that pay the same dollar amount per square foot. PB member Lindsay stated that is between the landlord and the tenants. Senior Planner Mendez stated the code provides for the areas for signage however it is up to the landlord to allocate that space. Affected Person Testimony: PB Chair Gallagher stated there were no applications for affected parties. Citizen Testimony: There was no citizen testimony. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 7 PB member Siegel made a motion to find Adjustment 14-ADP-01 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the two conditions set forth. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Siegel stated he felt it was important to create a record of the basis for determining the adjustment met the criteria, stated the Planning Board had a good discussion, and stated his support for the request. PB: member Lindsay stated the applicant's submittal and the staff report were all over the place which confirms the Planning Board's discretion on the issue, stated the Icard Merrill brand is long established in the community at that location, Center Pointe means nothing to most people in the community, the building owner is not likely to change the name of the building, and that it is reasonable to let the firm have the signage since it does not set a precedent and does not increase the non-conformity. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she felt approving the request would result in the proliferation of signage, the fact Icard Merrill is the largest tenant is not part of the standards for approval, the code is clear that the identification sign is for the building, other tenants use Center Pointe as aj point of reference, having the Icard Merrill sign at the top of the building will cause confusion as to the actual name of the building, and noted Icard Merrill's request to place a sign on the third level has been denied by the Planning Board twice then approved by appeal to the City Commission. PB member Ahearn-Koch further stated she felt the evidence presented was not sufficient to allow the adjustment and she does not support the request. PB Chair Gallagher stated the Code allows a building identification sign on each frontage, the code does not require the sign have the building name versus the tenant's, the net result is one less sign, the sign will be lit, and noted the cost of removing a sign and repairing the area can be prohibitive. The motion carried 3/1 with PB member Ahearn-Koch voting no. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 11, 2013 The December 11, 2013 minutes were approved by consensus with no changes. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by staff. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7of 7 VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the Planning Board would be receiving the minutes from the December 11th joint meeting with the City Commission for approval. Attorney Connolly stated those were approved by the City Commission. Staff will provide copies of those minutes to the Planning Board members. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Note: The City's Website address is sarasotagov.com. Select "Watch Live and. Archived Videos" from the Main Web Page to view agendas, videos ofmeetings, and minutes. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. G.U ana - 15 PC David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]