CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Patrick Gannon, Chair Members Present: Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Robert Fournier, City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Member Gannon called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m. and Planning Director Cover L as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] stated that Adjustment Application No. 18-ADP-03, for the Sarasota County Parking Garage (2150 Ringling Blvd.) has been continued to the November 14, 2018 Planning Board Regular Meeting. 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 ofthe Pledge of Conduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Sarasota County Parking Garage (2150 Ringling Blvd): Adjustment Application No. 18-ADP-03 is a request for approval of an adjustment from Section VII-110(5)(C), Zoning Code (2002 ED.) for property located in the Downtown CORE (DTC) Zone District with a street address of 2150 Ringling Blvd., known as the Sarasota County Parking Garage. The Applicant is requesting wall signage to be located other than at the top of the first floor façade and to allow signage to exceed the allowable maximum height of24". (APPLICANTS HAVE REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE 11/14/18 PB MEETING) (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 42 2. Washington Blvd Commercial-lmeca (West of Washington Blvd Between 33rd Street and 32nd Street): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-05 and Rezone Application No. 18- RE-01 are a request for rezone and site plan approval to rezone a vacant parcel located west of and adjacent to Washington Boulevard (US 301) between 32nd and 33rd Streets and with a Property Identification Number of 2020-08-0080 from the Office Regional District (ORD) Zone District to the Commercial General District (CGD) Zone District and construct a hardware and home improvement store. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant's Presentation: Phil Smith, Landscape Architect, DWJA Landscape Architects, and Barron Schimberg, Architect, The Schimberg Group, introduced themselves to the record; Mr. Schimberg stated that the team's Planner, Mr. Joel Freedman, is in the hospital, they will try their best to present the application, and hope that he is doing well; noted that this application has been before the Planning Board before, the applicants have met all the requirements for site plan submittal, they have received DRC sign-off, they had a neighborhood meeting where no one showed up, they had a second neighborhood meeting on August 23rd, at the Robert Taylor Community Center, where two residents showed up and were very positive about the project; presented the site plan, stated that the site is bounded by US301, 32nd Street, and 33rd Street; pointed out that there are four grand trees on the site which are being preserved; noted that the building is approximately 9,500 sq. ft., there are 38 parking spaces, three of which are, grass parking; added that all required buffers are provided, and the required tree mitigation is provided on site; presented elevations of the proposed building, pointing out that it is ai metal building wrapped in masonry, SO it is stucco, with masonry block around it and some accents; noted that it will be a hardware store, something between an ACE Hardware Store and a Home Depot, and that the focus is on cabinetry, flooring, and anything to help a do-it-yourself person get their job done; presented illustrations of the site on the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map; and concluded that they are looking forward to the Planning Board's approval of the Site Plan and Rezone Applications. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page C-4 of the Site Plan, IMECA, Civil Site Plan, 5/30/2018, and requested clarification on the proposed Pump Box and on the proposed Sand Filter Treatment Area, both located on the west side of the Site Plan. Mr. Ben Hilton, Civil Engineer with ACT, explained that this is a stormwater treatment mechanism that provides two options based on the seasonal highwater tables; added that if the seasonal high water table is SO high that a positive discharge is not possible, meaning a gravity flow discharge off the site, due to lack of infrastructure or underground storm sewer piping, then they would use these pump systems to pump the water out, after it has been treated on site. PB Member Ohlrich explained that she thought that this could relate to storage of hazardous materials, which would be a concern, because of the residential development immediately to the west of the site. Mr. Hilton stated that there are absolutely no hazardous substances. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 42 PB Chair Gannon asked if this is an optional item, or the pump is being installed to kick in only when the flow did not occur naturally. Mr. Hilton responded that, at the time these plans were developed and during the DRC process, the seasonal high water table and the actual final design of the stormwater system had not been completed; noted that they are in that process now, and it appears that they will have a small pump system there, because of the elevation differences in the seasonal high water table, and it will be installed below grade, sO nothing will be sticking up above. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the water that is pumped out goes into the storm sewer where it cannot enter because of gravity. Mr. Hilton explained that there is no storm sewer along the site, sO the EDCM allows what is called a bubbler box, or a curved inlet, that essentially discharges water at the flow line of the concrete gutter that runs along the street; explained that the water enters there, and works its way west on 33rd Street, to the existing City-maintained stormwater system located at the far west end of 33rd Street; and added that currently the sheet flow runs off site on 32nd Street and on 33rd Street, because the site is mounted and slopes to the north, and the sheet flow runs naturally over the grass to the curb line, sO the design maintains what is called "pre-" versus post-" discharge paths. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if there is a study that indicates how much water could be flowing down 33rd Street now, and whether that can be handled by the proposed system, sO it is not puddling along the way. Mr. Hilton responded that, from the site development perspective, the EDCM prescribes a method for what is called "pre- development" versus - post development" discharge rates, and in those calculations the proposed system reduces the volume of post development discharge versus what was naturally occurring off site. PB Vice Chair Normile pointed to the grand tree located on the west of the site, in the middle of the proposed stormwater management system; noted that the tree is surrounded by the proposed sand filter treatment area; and asked if that will have any impact on the tree. Mr. Hilton stated that the sand filter area will not impact the tree, it will be away from the root system, and added that they have taken into consideration the canopy and they have designed the water system around it. PB Member Blumetti stated that the Imeca store is a chain; and asked if the design of the building is the same as other Imeca stores, or it is unique to Sarasota. Mr. Smith responded that this is the beginning of a prototype, which will be used for future stores as the company grows. PB Member Blumetti noted that there is a storefront or showroom, and then the warehouse; and asked if the public will have access to all that. (inaudible; unclear response from someone in the audience). Staff Presentation: Dan Greenberg, Planner, introduced himself to the record; noted that on March 19,2018, the Future Land Use Designation of the subject parcel was changed from Community Office Institutional to Community Commercial, thus making the existing Office Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 42 Regional Zone District a non-implementing zone district, therefore they are proposing to rezone to an implementing zone district, the Community General District; pointed out that the applicants are also proposing a Site Plan with a 9,400 sq. ft. home improvement store; stated that, as depicted on the plans, the proposed site plan runs along three adjacent streets, North Washington Blvd., 32nd Street and 33rd Street; said that the applicant has received approval for a Technical Deviation from the EDCM for the driveway distance on 32nd Street, which is not quite 70 ft., because there are two entrances and this is not a high L1 impact use, and thereforei it would not be an issue; noted that there are, 35 proposed parking spaces, three spaces fewer that the required number according to the Zoning Code, in order to save one grand tree on site; added that in total, 26 trees are to be removed and 16 trees are preserved as well as the four grand trees on site; stated that they propose a Type A parking lot buffer to run along the north, the east, and the south, with interior parking-lot landscaping; pointed out that for the abutting existing residential, to the west, the required buffering is Type C, which is a 6.5 ft. fence; added that the proposed building is 24 ft. tall and the Zoning Code allows for 45 ft. height in the CDG Zone, therefore it complies; noted that the proposed development also complies with all minimum setbacks, maximum FAR limitations, all development review standards relating to screening requirements and ground floor window coverage for all adjacent streets; stated that a traffic study was performed and found that all roadway segments in the study area are anticipated to maintain the Level of Service standards; said that a bike rack is proposed for the people in the neighborhood that may wish to get there by bike; pointed out that the proposed refuse and recycling area complies with zoning code requirements; noted that the required workshop was held on July 20, 2018, prior to submitting the applications; stated no one attended the workshop; stated the applicants held an additional volunteer workshop on August 23, 2018; stated that staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning and site plan applications, have found that they meet all development review standards, and recommend approval of the applications, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report; and provided a correction to a typographical error in the first sentence of the recommended motion, as follows: Code: deletions are strieken-threugh, additions are underlined - Adopt a motion to find Rezone 18-RE-01 consistent with Section MV 906 IV-1106 of the Zoning Code... PB Member Morriss stated that the only thing missing is information about signage; stated that the applicants have done a heroic job saving those grand trees on site, and the engineering is sO elegant to help keep those trees alive; added that he was wondering ift the visibility ofthe site has been compromised by the notable effort to save the trees, and was hoping that the Planning Board would be able to compensate the applicants, because he feels that the authorities should help people who are doing the right thing, like saving a grand tree; and asked why there is no reference to signage in the package. Planner Greenberg stated that staff did not review signage, according to the policies at the time the applicants proposed this; explained that this is a site plan, and signs are permitted under a separate process; added that staff has noted and has advised the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 42 applicants that during their design phase they need to comply with the sign regulations in Article VII of the Zoning Code. PB Member Morriss stated that a monument sign would be the only saving grace on US-301; and asked about the options available to the applicants. Planner Greenberg stated he has to review the appropriate sections of the Zoning Code; noted that the applicants can work through it; pointed out that they can always request a Variance for hardship; added that they would have to explain the conditions of the hardship, for example, the hardship is a result of their efforts to preserve grand trees; and outlined the process the applicants could follow. PB Vice Chair Normile referred to pages 15 and 75 of the staff report; noted that there are recommended stipulations by the traffic engineers; pointed out that recommended stipulation #2, on Page 75, relating to on-site bicycle parking, has been incorporated in the site plan, and asked what happened to recommended stipulations #1 and #3. Planner Greenberg stated that the applicants have filled the sidewalk gap on 32nd Street, (Pg. 72, recommended stipulation #1); and added that currently there is no sidewalk, and the applicants are proposing a sidewalk. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if that stipulation should be added to the staff recommended stipulations for approval of the site plan. Planner Greenberg referred to Page C-4, Imeca Civil Site Plan (05/30/2018); and noted that a 5 ft. sidewalk is depicted on the site plan. PB Vice Chair Normile asked how recommended stipulation #3, on page 75, relating to a dedicated space for vehicles to turn around when necessary, is addressed. Planner Greenberg referred to Pages C-4, Imeca Civil Site Plan (05/30/2018), and Page C-6, Imeca, Turning Template (05/30/20,18) and demonstrated that the applicant has met this recommended stipulation as well, by designating a specific area for turn arounds and no one can park there. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 5 of the Staff Report and noted that the site plan is proffered as part of the rezone; and asked for a reminder summary of the changes that would be allowed to be made in the future without violating the proffer. Planner Greenberg stated that pursuant to the Zoning Code, the applicants may come in for minor site plan changes; and added that anything that would be considered a Major Modification would require the applicants to go through the public hearing process again. PB Chair Gannon stated that there are no affected persons. Public Input: There was none. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 42 Rebuttal by Applicants: PB Member Morriss acknowledged that the applicants bent over backwards to save the grand trees on site, and that the trees block the view from US301 traffic; and asked how the applicants plan to mitigate that. Mr. Smith expressed appreciation to the Planning Board for mentioning this concern; stated that, at this point, they have planned for signage on the building and a monument sign, and they are still working on determining the exact square footage, and the design of the sign. Mr. Schimberg stated that they anticipate placing the sign near the intersection of US 301 and 33rd Street, within the property. Rebuttal by Staff There was none. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich moved to adopt a motion to find Rezone 18-RE-01 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning code and proffered Site Plan 18-SP-05 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Ordinance and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled Washington Boulevard Commercial, received by the Development Services Department on July 11, 2018 and July 12, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the motion. Speaking to her motion, PB Member Ohlrich stated that the discussion was complete. PB Vice Chair Normile, speaking to her second, stated that she agrees with the above statement. PB Chair Gannon stated that it was very positive in terms of the way the developers worked with the Landscape Architect to not only save trees, but also to work around parking requirements, and staff was able to work with them in terms of releasing a few extra parking spaces in order to save the trees; and concluded that this was a good workable solution. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 42 The motion passes unanimously (vote 5 to 0) 3. Alvin's Island (462 John Ringling Blvd and 440 St. Armands Circle): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-07 is a request for site plan approval for the renovation of an existing building located in the Commercial Tourist (CT) Zone District with street addresses of 462 John Ringling Blvd and 440 St. Armands Circle, known as Alvin's Island. Applicant is requesting approval to renovate the first floor retail space, to add three parking spaces and to renovate and expand the second floor in order to accommodate a restaurant use with outdoor dining. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Bruce Franklin, Planner representing the property owners Marco Destin Inc., introduced for the record himself and Mr. Tom Walter, project Architect; stated that the subject site is on St. Armand's Circle and John Ringling Blvd., and it consists of two buildings of approximately 13,000 sq.f ft.; added that one building has a tenant, The Sun Glass Hut; pointed out that the proposed property is currently zoned Commercial Tourist (CT) in the Metropolitan Regional Future Land Use Classification; stated that the applicant is not proposing changes in zoning, rather he is interested in renovation, since both of these buildings were built in the 1950s and are in need of significant renovation; noted that the current use of the property is for retail, and Alvin's Island is a beach-wear, casual-wear retailer; noted that there is a second floor small office and supply area; pointed out on the site plan that site access is off John Ringling Blvd., pointed to the paved alley adjacent to the property and the nearby City owned parking lot; stated that the applicant has done a lot of work in the alley facing the parking lot to clean it up, and to make it more accessible particularly for trash pick-up; referred to page A-1.10, Alvin's Island, Key Plan - Partial Enlarged Site Plan, 7/12/2018, and pointed to the south side of the site, where they are opening up the ground floor, adjacent to the alley, to provide three parking spaces under the 2nd floor, an entrance to the building from the parking lot, the dumpster enclosure, and a staircase to the second floor; added that there will be new electrical service; referred to. A-2.10, Alvin's. Island, Key Plan, Level 1 Retail, 7/12/2018, and pointed out the location of the new dressing rooms, new restrooms, the north entrance to the building along Ringling Blvd., the adjacent first floor lobby, the new passenger elevator, and the new staircase to the second floor, which is proposed to be a restaurant; referred to A-2.20 Alvin's Island, Key Plan, Level 2 - Restaurant, 7/12/2018, and pointed out the locations of the restaurant outdoor dining area, the enclosed area of the restaurant, the area for the mechanical equipment which will be buffered by a wall that will be landscaped on the interior, the location of the kitchen area, and the lounge area; stated that, at this point, the applicant does not have a restaurant operator, they are designing the building generically, and, at such time when there is an operator, then they will get a finish permit to accommodate the restaurant; showed in renderings the context in which the site lies and the views from the restaurant, and elevations of the first floor; noted that staff has recommended approval with three conditions, which the applicant accepts; said that the existing building is 13,000 sq. ft., the proposed renovation reduces the square footage on the first floor, but with the addition of the second floor there will be a net gain of 1,500 sq. ft. on Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 42 the overall finished building footprint; and that the enclosed area will be approximately 14,600 sq. ft. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the enclosed area is smaller than the outdoor area of the second floor. Mr. Franklin stated that this is accurate. PB Member Ohlrich asked what will be provided to protect people from falling off the second floor down to the cement sidewalk below. Mr. Franklin stated that a good example is the restaurant across the street with the open patio on the second floor; and pointed out that the rendering shows 42-inch glass panels providing safety. PB Member Ohlrich expressed safety concerns; and asked if the glass meets Code requirements. Mr. Franklin stated that it does; and added that they have applied for a building permit in hopes that they will be successful in this process, and in an effort to meet the owner's schedule, sO they have gone to great lengths in the design of the building and understanding the Code implications. PB Member Blumetti asked about the applicant's plans to mitigate sun exposure on the western façade of the second floor, or is it something that the applicant will resolve with the occupant when they come in. Mr. Franklin said they will use umbrellas, possibly a retractable awning on a portion of it, and noted there is a trellis area. PB Member Blumetti asked how the restaurant accesses the trash room on the ground floor, particularly if there are cars parked there. Mr. Franklin stated that there is a service elevator, stairs, and that there could be a trash-shoot, depending on how the operator wants to handle that issue; emphasized that, on the first floor, there will be one centralized trash collection area with enough space to accommodate both the restaurant and the retail area; and added that it will be an enclosed area with a roll up door, and with truck access. PB Member Morriss noted that there is vertical circulation to the second floor but no sheltered connection between that and the enclosed portion of the roof, something that the applicant will have to work out; and asked how the applicant is handling the FEMA regulations. Mr. Franklin stated that it is called the "50% Rule," they are within the 50% Rule, SO the cost of renovation cannot exceed 50% of the value of the structure; and explained that the applicant had an appraisal done, and at the end of the day, they cannot not go past the 50%. PB Member Morriss stated that the tenant improvement component will add to that. Mr. Franklin stated that tenant improvements are included in the FEMA, not chairs or movable equipment; noting anything attached is included under the FEMA Rule. PB Vice Chair Normile asked how much seating there is on the outdoor area, and if there is seating in the enclosed area. Mr. Franklin stated that the seating has not been determined yet, but there will be seating inside where the bar is located. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if there is an approximate proportion of indoor to outdoor seating. Mr. Franklin stated that they have estimated the total seating to be 180 seats. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she is interested in the outdoor seating, because if there is a month of bad weather, it could be trouble. Mr. Franklin stated that there are enclosures. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 42 Vice Chair Normile asked if the cost of the enclosures will be included in the FEMA calculations. Mr. Franklin stated that he does not know at this time. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the building can handle an expansion of the enclosed area. Mr. Franklin responded "Not without adding additional parking,' 1 because space expansion is related to parking spaces, and each parking space allows 350 sq. ft. PB Chair Gannon referred to page A-2.20 Alvin's Island, Key Plan, Level 2 - Restaurant, 7/12/2018, and asked how people get to the restaurant. Mr. Walter pointed to the north entrance, where there is an airconditioned lobby and the elevator for the restaurant. Mr. Franklin explained that in rainy weather, people will use a covered area connecting the elevator lobby of the 2nd floor to the entrance of the enclosed restaurant area on the 2nd floor. Responding to PB Chair Gannon' s question, Mr. Franklin stated that, at this point in the process, the applicant is not required to provide information about seating. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the ADA parking space is one of the three spaces adjacent to the building. Mr. Franklin confirmed that was correct. Staff Presentation: Mr. Dan Greenberg, Planner, introduced himself for the record; stated that the subject area is in the southeast quadrant of St. Armand' S Circle, it is zoned Commercial Tourist (CT), like all other commercial establishments fronting on St. Armand's Circle; noted that the applicant is proposing to keep the existing ground floor use, transfer some of the existing area to the second floor, as well as adding three parking spaces that would allow them up to 1,050 sq. ft. (based on 1 parking space per 350 sq. ft.); said that the proposed development complies with all required development standards; stated there is no existing vegetation on site, and none is proposed; stated the development goes to the lot line and that, according to the Code, the second floor can go out to zero setback; and stated that staff has reviewed the petition against the review criteria and has found that the application complies with them. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 30 of the staff report, the Development Review Committee Sign-off Sheet 6/20/18, and page 31 of the staff report, the Certificate of Concurrency (8/17/18), and pointed out that Mr. Ohrenstein signed off for Transportation, and asked if the transportation planners had looked at this application and if they had provided comments to Mr. Ohrenstein. Planner Greenberg responded that the City did not have transportation planners at the time this application was under DRC Review. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she asked this question in light of the conversation that took place at the last Planning Board meeting, when PB Members expressed concern about that issue; and asked if Engineering continues to sign off on behalf of Transportation. Planner Greenberg agreed. PB: Member Ohlrich asked why this restaurant, which has approximately 200 seats, does not have a layout, but another restaurant which is currently pending, has a very specific layout, why does this restaurant have the layout, and the other restaurant does not. Planner Greenberg explained that this applicant is not proposing final structures, and will have to go through the building permit review, therefore, the applicant is not required to provide a detailed layout at this time; explained that there is no site plan Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 42 requirement asking for a table that is shown at a certain location on an approved site plan that must be placed at that location when the project is completed; pointed out that it is important that the applicant clarifies the number of seats of the restaurant, noting staff conducts studies based on the number of seats that is quantified in the proposal; and added that this applicant does not have their tenant yet. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she did not realize it was optional. PB Member Morriss stated that usually it is not optional, but this applicant does not have a tenant yet. PB Member Ohlrich asked if this application will come back to the Planning Board, once the applicant has a tenant, or it will be approved administratively. Planner Greenberg stated that it will not come back to the Planning Board, because the Site Plan will not change; added that the applicant will have to show the proposed seating and show life-safety access on the building permit documents; and stated the applicants are showing the area and they had to comply with certain Zoning Code requirements, for example they had to show it was not enclosed, and it was in fact an outdoor dining area. PB. Member Morriss stated that he is concerned because he has seen projects with FEMA that have stood at a limbo line, and they are tipping out in the end, because they are getting closer and closer to 50%; noted that in the county, at one point, it was a "Life time 50%," but in the City it has changed; and added that, in a couple of years, they can find the value of the building, and calculate 50% of that. Planner Greenberg stated that the City will review each permit individually; noted that staff will review each building permit and compare it to the assessed evaluation; pointed out that the City does not combine permits, the County deals with this a little differently; added that if, in the future, the applicants decided that they need more improvements and the building permit was closed, then staff would review it and consider the new building permit. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the parking requirements are only for interior spaces. Planner Greenberg agreed. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if one. has a 200-seat restaurant outdoors and a ten-seat restaurant indoors, one only needs parking for ten seats. Planner Greenberg stated that parking requirements are based on the interior area. PB Vice Chair Normile referred to the traffic analysis and stated that it includes only the interior area. Planner Greenberg stated that the traffic study is based on the enclosed area, not the outdoor dining area. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the traffic study does not take into account the entire outside area of the restaurant, which is the bulk of the traffic for the restaurant. Planner Greenberg stated that the traffic study was done by the City Engineer, and it was their determination that this was the most appropriate way to review traffic in this location. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if 4,500 sq. ft. is the interior restaurant space. Planner Greenberg agreed. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that if the traffic study does not take into consideration the traffic for this restaurant, then it is completely useless. Planner Greenberg re-stated that the traffic study takes into consideration the enclosed restaurant. PB Vice Chair Normile responded that the enclosed restaurant is a tiny portion of the amount of seating, therefore the traffic study is incorrect, and the traffic study is based on the City's own requirements for such a study; ;said thati it would be good if someone from Transportation were present, because Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 42 she knows this is not Planner Greenberg's area; added that the City puts out the request for services (RFS) for the traffic study, and determines the parameters for the study, SO if this is correct... discussion ensued about the information shown on page 35 of the staff report, the Traffic Concurrency Analysis, to determine the square footage used in the traffic study. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that it would be helpful for the transportation planners to take a look at this, because the study does not include the bulk of the traffic generated by the restaurant. PB Member Ohlrich agreed. PB Member Morriss noted that they may need a liquor license at St. Armand's, SO probably this needs to be looked at, somehow, because it is a significant element of the success of this building and the changes they are proposing. Planner Greenberg stated that in staff discussions the applicant stated that they are proposing a restaurant, that is what is before us, and that is what was reviewed, if they want to have liquor in the future they will have to meet different standards, noting that is not for the staff to work out, it is for the applicant to know what they are getting into. PB Member Morriss stated that the Planning Board is approving or not approving applications based on realistic expectations in the future. PB Chair Gannon asked if there is a Major Conditional Use that would go with serving alcohol in the restaurant. Planner Greenberg stated that they could propose to have a bar within the enclosed area, but they could not have it outdoors. Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services introduced herself for the record; explained that the State has different requirements for different liquor licenses, one can get a 2COP license, which is just beer and wine, or 4COP SRX license for places ofi more than 150 seats and more than 51 % sales of food and the remaining can be alcohol including liquor, beer and wine; stated that staff is looking into whether they are required to have a fixed roof, because there have been some recent changes to the requirements in the State Statues; pointed out that it is up to the applicant to decide what license they need, and to meet the appropriate requirements; noted that the Conditional Use could be used only if they did not have 51% of the sales in food, or if they wanted to be a standalone bar or night club, and they did not want to serve food, and had more than 51 % in food sales, then they would have to come in for approval as a bar or nightclub, similar to what the 99 Bottles did recently. PB Chair Gannon stated that if they do not meet these criteria, they would not need a Conditional Use, and they would not come back to the Planning Board. General Manager Schneider agreed. PB Member Ohlrich asked who determines if a restaurant's profits are more than 50% from alcoholic beverages. General Manager Schneider said that the State has an accounting system, you provide your books to the State, and they do annual audits, and as a result sometimes restaurants come to staff trying to get a Conditional Use because they are at risk of losing their license; stated once they lose their license, they cannot get it back at the same location for a year, SO some of these restaurants have gone out of business and others have been successful in getting a Conditional Use, noting it eventually catches up to them. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 42 PB Vice Chair Normile asked when a restaurant is put on top of a retail store, how does that particular location increase its parking. General Manager Schneider explained that this applicant had space in the back; described different scenarios of providing parking; and explained the parking on this site plan, how it was calculated, and how it relates to the additional square footage on the second floor. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if this applicant does not have to provide parking spaces for the outdoor seating. General Manager Schneider agreed, said that the same happened with The Shores; explained that the City requires the following: if the floor area is defined by a wall that is 42" of height or less, or less than 51% of the area, then you are not considered "floor area" and you are not required to provide parking; and concluded that this is how the Code was written years ago, and applies to outdoor dining areas, sO if a restaurant had an outdoor patio, they are not providing parking for that space. PB Chair Gannon asked if buildings are required to provide on-site parking, in an area like this, where there is on-street parking, a City parking lot right behind the subject site, and a garage expected to be built across the street on Ringling Boulevard. General Manager Schneider agreed; stated that this was established years ago; noted that the City did a study to determine the amount of available City parking on site, on city lots, parking on the streets, and parking that was available behind different buildings, and came up with parking requirements of one: space based on 350 sq. ft.; and added that the intent was to keep what was out there, they did not want to build big structures, so if you wanted to add to your buildingyou had to provide parking. General Manager Schneider further sated there are some buildings that can add little square footage, others can add more, depending where they are located in the quadrant, others are maxed out already, and they cannot add any more space, unless if they do what this applicant did, to eliminate part of the square footage of their first floor store, as a way of creating parking. PB Chair Gannon asked about the impact of the remodeling efforts on the pedestrian side walk and the alley behind the site, and if the city has requirements that ensure pedestrians are not impacted by reconstruction. Planner Greenberg responded that if the applicant needed to get into the right of way during remodeling, they would have to get a permit from the Engineering Department; and added that staff reviews the staging permits during construction. General Manager Schneider stated that there have been times when part of the sidewalk was closed during renovations. Affected Persons Attorney Fournier called Ms. Emily J. Hermansen and Mr. & Mrs. Bellamy who had filed applications for affected person's status, however they were not in the audience SO were not eligible for affected person status. Public Input There was none. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 42 Rebuttal by Applicant: Mr. Franklin stated that if the applicant were just renovating the building, and maintaining the existing area on both the first and the second floors oft thel building, then they would have no need to provide parking, because nowhere in the CT Zone District, which is all St. Armand's S Circle, it is required to provide additional parking to renovate existing space; added that if one wants to add space, then one has to provide additional parking on his property, which is what this applicant elected to do; pointed out that not everyone can do that, but this applicant owns two buildings, which are about 11,000 sq. ft. on grade, and he has the luxury to take away floor area from the first floor to create three parking spaces, and the floor area that they took away to create those spaces was relocated to the second floor; noted that, as the staff report states, the existing building is 13,000 sq. ft., the new total enclosed building area is 14, 660 sq. ft., SO there is a net difference of about 1,500 sq. ft. in total enclosed building area; added that on traffic, the applicants filed the request for a concurrency determination, which is standard operating procedure as we know it today, staff did the analysis and found the proposed renovations to be de minimus, based on floor area and the occupancy load for seating for a restaurant, which meant that the applicant did not have to undertake a full traffic study for the additional 1,500 sq. ft.; noted that with respect to the number of seats in the restaurant, the applicant is limited by the fire code and the building code to a certain number of seats based on the square footage; added that their the occupancy load is 180 seats maximum; the enclosed area on the second floor that is available for public seating, is only 1,700 sq. ft.; the exterior is where the majority of the seating will be; and concluded that, as staff mentioned, it is up to the restaurant to comply with state license requirements, which are subject to annual state audits, and strict county procedures. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the enclosed area on the second floor is 4,500 sq. ft.. Mr. Franklin stated that the enclosed area is 3,800 sq. ft. (corrected by a member of his team to 3,200 sq. ft.); stated that the square footage is shown on Sheet A-2.20, Alvin's Island Retail Shop, Level 2 Restaurant (07/12/18), and it includes back of the house, and other areas; and added that they listed the number of seats when they requested the traffic concurrency determination. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that traffic studies are done based on square footage, they used numbers that come out of a book, and multiply them by the square footage; and stated that the square footage used in the traffic study was incorrect. Discussion ensued about various square footages on the second floor. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the parking spaces they are creating are public or reserved spaces. Mr. Franklin stated that the handicapped space is regulated, two spaces could be reserved, he is not certain at this point. PB Chair Gannon asked about the extent of the remodeling. Mr. Walter stated that there will be all new infrastructure (mechanical, electrical, plumbing), it will have a new second floor structure to handle the loads of the restaurant (rather than just having a roof load, it will have the roof and the people load), but the interior of the building has nothing inside other than clothes racks; estimated the construction time is 4 to 5 months; stated they will be submitting a staging plan to City Engineering to review and approve; stated that a temporary wall will be placed a few feet out in front of the building on the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 42 main road, just like they have in other areas on St. Armand's, sO that the public does not interface with the construction; and pointed out that the majority of the construction staging will happen from the alley. PB Member Blumetti asked if they are planning to get multiple permits on this job. Mr. Franklin stated that they are getting a FEMA permit, and another permit for finishing. Mr. Walter pointed out that the sidewalk in front of the building is a double sidewalk with a planter along the middle, SO even if they had to close the side of the sidewalk that is closer to be building, the other side will remain open. Rebuttal by Staff: Planner Greenberg offered a brief clarification about the square footage in the traffic study being a little higher than what was proposed, stating that an earlier version of the proposal included four parking spaces and more square footage on the second floor, however, later the applicants eliminated one parking space to provide for the refuse area, and scaled back the proposed area on the second floor. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti noted that the project overall looks like an improvement. PB Member Morriss agreed; and stated that his concerns boil down to things that will be the applicant' S problem that relate to FEMA and the liquor license. PB Member Blumetti stated that he also is concerned about the 50% Rule, it appears to be an extensive renovation and he is not sure it can be done under one permit, but he thinks the idea of multiple permits is not necessarily a bad thing, and it keeps the quality to the level he thinks it should be; and asked PB Vice Chair Normile if there is an issue with the number of seats or that it could potentially generate too much traffic. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she does not have a copy of the ITE Manual to know or figure out how many more cars are to be expected based on the additional square footage, but just guessing about it, just like this traffic study is a guestimate; added that she does not think it would bring it over thel line, it is minor because the project is minor; expressed concern about how the traffic study was done; stated that she knows that the City puts out the parameters for the RFP, and the City decides what is to be included and what not to be included in the study, and in this case they did not include the bulk of the seating; and stated that this has to change, but she knows that in this project it is a smaller amount of difference. PB Member Blumetti stated that he does not agree with the discrepancy in the report, but there are multiple users here, some people specifically come to this restaurant, and then people on the island are in the Circle and going to the restaurant, and he does not think there will be an issue. PB Chair Gannon added that there is an existing parking lot immediately behind the site, and a new garage is going in al block away, SO, from a parking perspective he thinks they are covered. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 42 Planning Director Cover clarified that staff does not determine what is counted, that is determined by the Zoning Code; added that staff is following the current Zoning Code; suggested that if there is an issue with counting indoor seats, then the Planning Board needs to recommend to Staff to look into changing the Code; and concluded that what the staff is presenting to the Planning Board is what the Zoning Code allows them to do. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that it is her understanding the traffic study is determined by the Engineering Department, they put out the RFP, and if she is incorrect about that, she would like to know; added that the Engineering Department does the initial study that determines if a proposed development is, or not, de minimis, and if not, they issue an RFP, and that is where bad-numbers-in, bad-numbers-out, or good-numbers-in, good-numbers -out occurs. PB Member Blumetti moved to adopt a motion to find Site Plan 18-SP-07 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled Alvin's Island, received by the Development Services Department on July 17, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit authorizing construction approved by Application No. 18-SP-07, a letter from the owner stating how the coordination of the refuse containers located on the south portion of the site is going to occur on pick up days is required to be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Development Services. At a minimum, details are required for: the signage that will be provided, who will be responsible for bringing the containers to the collection area and the days/hours this will occur; and, who will be responsible for bringing the containers back to the storage area and the days/hours this will occur. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Blumetti stated that the issues that were discussed by the Planning Board this evening were mostly concerns of the user, not concerns relating to the site plan; and concluded that he thinks the proposed site plan meets the review criteria. Speaking to his second, PB Morriss stated that what is proposed is an Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 42 improvement of what is currently there, he will miss the plastic awnings. His decision was close, mostly because of the FEMA concerns. PB Vice Chair Normile stated her support for the application because she agrees with what has been said, and because it looks like a vast improvement and it seems it will look very nice; expressed concerns about the material that Planning Board gets; and concluded that this is not the applicants' fault, she does not think the project should suffer as a result of that, and she hopes that her concerns can be resolved in the future. Motion is approved unanimously (Vote 5 to 0). 4. Sarasota Memorial Hospital Oncology Tower (1700 S. Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application 18-SP-14 and Street Vacation Application 18-SV-06 are a request for site plan approval for an Oncology Tower in the Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) Zone District located at the southwest corner of S. Tamiami Trail and Waldemere Street on the Sarasota Memorial campus with a street address of 1700 S Tamiami Trail. The proposed tower is 123 feet in height and will contain 56 patient beds in private rooms, a conference center for hospital staff, meeting rooms, offices, storage, operating and staging rooms and a café. Applicant is also seeking to vacate two existing City utility easements on the site south of Waldemere Street in order to construct the tower. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Dan Bailey, representing Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH), introduced himself and his team: Steve Jackson, Architect with Clark Architects; Melanie Smith, Project Engineer with Stantec; Tom Perigo, Director of Architecture and Construction for SMH; and Lorrie Liang, the CEO of SMH. Mr. Bailey stated that the applications relate to the Oncology Tower and this evening they are seeking site plan approval and vacation of two utility easements; pointed out that the 1.56 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Waldemere Street and South Tamiami Trail (US 41); noted that the Land Use Plan Designation is Metropolitan Regional, which allows for hospital and medical activities, and the Zoning is SMH, which is a zone classification designed around this particular hospital, and was created 15 - 20 years ago; pointed out that the proposed building is approximately 172,000 sq. ft., it has eight stories, the height is 123-ft., and the elevations are shown on the plans; stated that the building will have conference rooms for internal use, staff offices, storage, operating rooms, staging areas, and 56 patient rooms, which are not new rooms they are transferred from other parts of the hospital, as the hospital, in recent years, has converted semi-private rooms to private rooms; the proposed development will eliminate 33 parking spaces, however there is still a surplus of 2,000 spaces over the number of spaces required by the City; said that the essential question is "What do we need?" and this is what the hospital is trying to achieve with the construction of the West Parking Garage, employee parking garage, which the Planning Board approved a few months ago; noted that the unobstructed access to this area will continue because cars and pedestrians will still be able to pass beneath this building to get in and out SMH; stated the open space requirements have been maintained; explained that the SMH Zone District requires 5% Urban Open Space, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 42 the proposed development maintains 7.9% of open space; the campus-wide FAR is being maintained, the Hospital has a 2.0 and is going to increase to 1.62, but it is still beneath the 2.0; said that, in order to determine that there is no over-intensity, there are three things to evaluate: urban open space, floor ratio, and building coverage, which is going to be increased to 61 %, but it is still well below the threshold of 70%; pointed out that they are below the thresholds in all three areas; noted that there are 78 existing trees, of which 52 will have to be removed; noted 55 trees will be added back, resulting in a net increase of three trees, for a total of 81 trees on this particular site; stated thatall the required standards for site plan approval have been addressed and are deemed adequate by staff, as indicated in their staff report; noted that they had a community workshop on March 23, 2018, and no members of the public attended; pointed out that there is another element in this application, the vacation of some existing utility easements pertaining to a fire hydrant, a back flow preventer, and an easement, all of which serve only the hospital; stated those need to be vacated, and new easements will be provided at other locations; pointed out that the five review standards for the vacation application have been addressed in the staff report on page 8; and concluded that all the staff proposed conditions, on page 4 of the staff report, are acceptable to the applicants. Mr. Jackson showed elevations of the proposed development; pointed to the entrance on Level 1, connection for service on Level 2, Services for the Operating Room, such as prep rooms and recovery rooms, on Level 3, the Operating Room on level 4, Anesthesia space and mechanical space on Level 5, and the patient floors on Levels 6 and 7; stated that these arei not new beds, they are the result of the hospital's policy of creating private rooms; and added that the top floor has mechanical space and a café to supplement the current food service needs on campus for existing employees. Ms. Liang stated that there will be nine operating rooms; recovery rooms, and administrative space; pointed out that they have done a strategic plan and have recognized that Sarasota County does not have a comprehensive cancer care facility or services all under one roof; they also statistically looked at some data, and recognized that, in 2016, 5,500 patients were recognized with cancer at Sarasota Memorial Hospital, but 65% of those left the county for care, showing that there is a need for this service under one roof, so that our residents and neighbors do not need to leave Sarasota for their comprehensive care; noted that this is SMH's effort to create a cancer tower in which they can provide surgical and in-patient care for both the medical and surgical needs of cancer patients; and added in order to provide for more private rooms, they have taken beds that have been de-commissioned in semi-private rooms, and are using those bed licenses for these beds. PB Member Morriss stated that patients in private rooms recover faster; and asked about the impact of the conversion of rooms on staff quantity. Ms. Liang stated that they have added staff in the last several years to accommodate the growth and demand for services on this campus, and stated the proposed development will require some additional staff. PB Member Morriss asked if there was going to be "chemo corrals." Mr. Jackson stated that it is not like that, only if they are patients in this building they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 42 will get chemotherapy in this facility, it is not the place for people to come every week for chemo treatments. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if they are: moving the current Oncology Floor. Ms. Liang stated that they are not moving the Oncology Floor, because they are challenged with some capacity today, they will cohort the current cancer patients that are currently in medical or surgical units, to these floors, and have oncology certified nurses to take care of them in a "cohorted" fashion, which means they will be put together, the building will have two floors, where nurses and staff will specialize in cancer care. PB Vice Chair Normile asked again what will happen to the Oncology Floor in the main building. Ms. Liang responded that they do not have an Oncology Floor today, they have medical/ surgical floors, and cancer patients are distributed on those floors. PB Member Ohlrich noted that there are multiple references in the materials about parking being reduced by 33 spaces; also pointed out that on page 33 of the documents, in the applicant's response to the standards for review, it states that there is decrease of 38 spaces in parking; and asked which is correct, 33 or 38 spaces. Ms. Liang said it is 33 spaces. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 40 of the staff report, and said that there are multiple references to the 56 beds, and that the hospital is converting from semi-private to private rooms;" noted that the second paragraph on page 40 says that the new: facility will include 56 private beds, and the 56 private beds in the tower include the "conversion from private to semi private" of the 56 existing beds within the existing hospital. Mr. Jackson stated that the opposite is correct, the conversion is from semi- private to private rooms. PB Member Blumetti stated that this is one of the more attractive buildings that has been reviewed by the Planning Board; and asked Mr. Jackson if Clark Architects are based in Gainesville. Mr. Jackson stated that they have an office in Tampa and that is where he is working. PB Member Blumetti asked if Mr. Jackson worked in the Medical Building in Gainesville. Mr. Jackson stated that Clark Architects completed the Cancer Center in Gainesville, and the Cardiovascular Neurosciences Center next to it. PB Member Blumetti asked Mr. Jackson to talk about his experience with medical buildings, and the experience for the end user of this building, about circulation, or what it is like to get treatment in this building. Mr. Jackson stated that they specialize in health care, and they focus on a couple key components, first the ease of access for all patients entering Sarasota Memorial, and try to create an "airport like" sequence, while they also try to maintain security, trying to minimize the access points for patients into the building, sO the main entrance is on the first floor lobby, with the security desk there, and then elevators going upi pointed out that the public is going to the prep stage/recovery integrated care area, or patient floors; noted that the OR floor and pharmacy, and the mechanical areas are locked down floors, and the public does not have access to these areas; clarified that these floors are connected to the second floor by private elevators; and concluded that there is never a crossing of patients, or trash, or any other items moved to or from the locked down floors and public. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 42 PB Chair Gannon referred to the Sarasota Memorial Health Care System, SMH Oncology Tower, Master Site Plan, 6/2018,p.3of9,and requested clarification about the footprint of the building. Mr. Jackson stated that as part of that connection, and understanding that setbacks from Waldemere Street and the access, one of the key drivers for the placement of the enclosed space for this building was the main entrance drive; noted that they maintained the existing main entrance drive location, but between the existing road and the parking garage that is there, they are adding a space for the ambulance, what he called earlier the "airport like" connection, near the new enclosed area on the first floor; added that there is an additional enclosed area, on the east side of the main entrance drive, with some outdoor space to protect the pedestrians; said that this will go up two floors, which aligns with the current hospital floors and the Waldemere Tower; added that the third floor goes across, and you drive underneath the building at that point; pointed to the green area, as shown on the Master Site Plan, p.3 of9.; and pointed out that the footprint is of the building is the gray shaded area. PB Chair Gannon asked if there is any green space, foliage or trees in that area. Mr. Jackson stated that the area is under cover and trees would not grow; noted that they tried to maintain a pedestrian path along the west side of the main entrance drive, protected by guard rails of a solid element, sO pedestrians do not go into the pathway of traffic, they like to control the access, and there is a crosswalk, which controls where pedestrians are crossing; and added that the vegetation is in planters placed on the south side of the tower entrance along the north side of the main entrance drive. PB Chair Gannon referred to Sarasota. Memorial Health Care System, SMH Oncology Tower, Tree Removal Replacement Plan, (5/2018), p. LP-102, and asked about the location of the new mitigation trees. Ms. Smith pointed out the location of the trees, including those to be planted along Waldemere Street, where the bus stop is. PB Chair Gannon stated that he wanted to ensure from the pedestrian standpoint that there is coverage and shade from the trees. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 45 of the staff: report, the traffic circulation analysis, and noted in the proposed conditions it states that "the proposed entry court will reduce one way drop off access loops from two to three," and she asked if this can be illustrated in graphic form. Ms. Smith stated that they are aware of the current situation with the circulation on the main entrance drive, and they have addressed it in the proposed site plan, by channelizing traffic to do certain maneuvers, and they have increased the number of lanes to three; and added that they have also improved the valet service, they extended the drop off area, and have added a fourth lane adjacent to the water feature in front of the existing entry to the Tower. PB Member Ohlrich referred to Sarasota Memorial Health Care System, SMH Oncology Tower, Sarasota Memorial Hospital Zoning Plan, (5/2018), p. 9 of 9, and referred to the definitions noted on this page, and asked who established the three criteria for Urban Open Space. Mr. Bailey stated that these are the definitions in the Zoning Code, and the proposed development meets these criteria. PB Member Ohlrich shared photographs showing areas that have been identified as Urban Open Space by SMH, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 42 and pointed out that the majority of these spaces do not meet the Zoning Code criteria, because they do not have benches for the public; specifically referred to the two large green spaces along Waldemere Street and along Tamiami Trail/US 41, and noted that both have a lot of landscaping but do not have benches; and added that the green area along Hillview Street is a beautiful and serene space where people go when they have to wait for a long time, or after they have received bad news. PB Member Blumetti stated that SMH is fast approaching the maximum building coverage on this property; and asked about their future plans. Ms. Liang stated that she cannot discuss the topic, because the SMH Board of Directors has not approved any future strategic plans. Mr. Bailey stated that SMH is required to submit to the City an updated Master Plan every two years. Mr. Parigo stated that the Master Plan shows all the projects that are approved by the SMH Board of Directors for the next two-an-a-half years. PB Member Morriss referred to Urban Open Space and stated that SMH has to find the balance between providing comforting spaces for the patients and visitors, while avoiding having out-of-line people hanging around the hospital, and asked what can be done, is there a solution sO that the hospital can provide comforting places and also provide safety and privacy. Mr. Jackson stated that they are trying to address that by providing near the entrance planters, seating and more soft spaces SO that both patients and visitors have opportunities outside, while keeping their safety in mind; noted that SMH does not want people crossing the main entrance to go to a park bench; added that rather than sending them out, and putting benches in places where they could be hurt, SMH is creating internal courtyards, which do not count as Urban Open Space, but actually serve a better value and safer haven for the patients, staff and visitors that go to SMH, and they try to enhance those spaces. PB Member Morriss stated that SMH meets the need for Urban Open Space in areas that are not defined Urban Open Space. Ms. Smith agreed, and added that SMH is not getting any credit for these spaces. Mr. Jackson added that the front yard is a welcoming space that provides comfort to those who need it. PB Member Morriss asked if SMH has an issue with out-of-line people hanging around the hospital. Ms. Liang stated "Yes. " PB: Member Ohlrich referred to the comment about people finding respite in the intersection of US 41 and Waldemere Street; and asked what can the people do, sit on the grass. PB Member Morriss stated that he has seen people sit on the grass, but he also saw security officers with some people there, SO it requires a balance to provide a safe place for everyone. PB Member Ohlrich stated that there is no balance, because there are only fourteen benches in the interior court yard that does not count as an Urban Open Space, and a few benches along the building. Ms. Smith stated that it is a security issue that has been dealt with for many years, especially since the entrance is a valet and emergency drop off area, they do not want people to go sit out there for extended periods of time, or to gravitate towards this area; added that they want them to come in an out and enjoy the buffered landscape, maybe go for a walk and have their cigarette break, but not stay around in that area, because it is not Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 42 safe. PB Member Ohlrich noted that this is one of the criteria of Urban Open Space, as stated on the page 9 of 9, second rectangle, item "c: C. Equipped with amenities or development features designed to encourage the use and enjoyment of the space by the general public such as, but not limited to, vegetation, pools and fountains, sculptures, public seating, arbors, trellises drinking, fountains, and public telephones. Urban Open Space may also include areas that are covered by anings or canopies. Ms. Smith stated that the general public walks through it to go to another beautiful space, the hospital or its amenities. PB Chair Gannon asked what is the benefit of calling certain areas "Urban / Open Space, such as the semi-circular parking space at the north east corner of the site plan. Ms. Smith stated that the reason is to meet the Code requirement for providing 5% in Urban Open Space. Mr. Bailey stated that they have provided 7.2%, which exceeds the requirements. PB Chair Gannon stated that if it does not meet the requirement of providing amenities, it is just grass; and asked, why not remove the "Urban Open Space" designation. Mr. Bailey and Ms. Smith argued that item "C" refers to vegetation, it does not say to put benches all over. PB Member Ohlrich asked why then other open areas with buffer vegetation are not called "Urban Open Space." PB Member Morriss stated that the solution would be to place a bench there, however that is not what you want to do, because there are unique security issues, because the facility is a hospital; added that he understands the need to be away, and to collect your thoughts when bad things happen, on the other hand, the "everyday" is something else you need to be concerned with; added that you do not want benches that are not used by patients or their visitors, but might be used by people who might cause a threat to the hospital. Ms. Smith stated that the Open Urban Space at the intersection of Waldemere Street and US 41, unlike the courtyard area, is an active pedestrian-friendly open space, used by people who no longer want to sit. PB Member Morriss asked if the SMH team have exhausted all the possibilities of providing a comfortable space to sit outside and at the same time provide the security they need. Ms. Smith stated that they are providing that in this project, with low walls and landscaped planters where someone can sit. Mr. Bailey stated that they can try to do better. Staff's Presentation: Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services, introduced himself for the record; stated that the zone designation of the subject parcel remains the same, SMH the hospital district; noted that they are proposing an eight story, 120-ft Oncology Tower, plan to keep existing beds on campus, just relocating them to the tower, and make twice as many private rooms as they have now; added that they are maintaining the essence of the existing entrance, as the proposed tower will go over it; pointed out that they are providing streamlined access to Emergency patients who drive to the hospital; added that they are removing the parking spaces that backed up into the drive-aisle, which contributes to the improvements to vehicular travel in this area; stated that the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 42 application has met all of the development standards relating to FAR, height, minimum setbacks of 10- ft, and Urban Open Space, which has been discussed already; stated that this is not a proposal for new Urban Open Space, they are proposing to reduce it, because they are using some of that area, and staff is looking at the reduction, sO this has been approved; explained that just like we have active and passive parks, the Urban Open Space can also be active or passive, and in some instances it can be improved as the area is changing; added that the definition of Urban Open Space is not quantified, it offers options, however should the applicant propose new areas for Urban Open Space, then staff can evaluate their proposal and suggest the inclusion of some benches; said that now they have walkways and vegetation, and it was approved in 2009; added that perhaps the applicant, after this evening's discussion, can review the area and see: if they can improve it, however it already complies with the requirements of the Zoning Code; stated they are also proposing to vacate two utility easements, and they held a public workshop; explained that they need the area of the easements for the proposed structure; added that the conditions for approval say that they need these existing facilities, the fire hydrant and the backflow preventer/meter, they need to hook them up sO there is no lapse in connections, the hospital needs to start as new clients, sO they would not have any problems; noted that the traffic circulation was reviewed by staff, and it was determined that the proposed development would have de minimis impact; stated that the landscaping of the parking lot and the proposed interior landscaping complies with the code; noted that they are adding 28 canopy trees, 27 palm trees, they are proposing to remove 52 trees, and 26 trees will remain of the 81 existing trees; said that when staff asked why they need to remove sO many trees, when in some instances they are replacing existing trees with new trees, the applicants explained that they need to remove them to work on the underground facilities; added that they are complying with the mitigation requirements, and they comply with the Zoning Code; stated that staff reviewed the proposed site plan and the proposed vacation of the easements and it was deemed that all comply with the applicable review requirements; and concluded that staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. PB Member Morriss said he assumed that there is no expense to the tax payers relative to what the applicant plans to do with these vacations. Planner Greenberg agreed. PB Chair Gannon stated, for clarification, that the applicants are simply moving the backflow preventer/ meter and the fire hydrant. Planner Greenberg agreed, and added that the applicants need these facilities, they will have to establish new easements prior to the second reading by the City Commission, and then connect them prior to removing the old connections. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the Zoning Code identifies the criteria for Urban Open Space, and SMH submits in their Master Plan what they deem is Urban Open Space on their campus; and asked who from the City verifies that the calculations of the percentage for Urban Open Space, submitted by SMH, are accurate, and that the designated areas that they identify meet the criteria of Urban Open Space. Planner Greenberg said that when SMH was initially approved, City staff that met with the applicant at that time would have reviewed that; added that this time they are not proposing any new Urban Open Space, SO he has not looked at that; noted that the City Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 42 does not do surveys, they rely on the applicant's proposal, and if the applicant is proposing something that is not accurate, then that is something that would need to be revisited, and the applicant has to clarify it. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the Planning Board does not know if the applicant has met the 5% criteria level, or more than that, for Urban Open Space. Planner Greenberg stated that he cannot speak to the original approval, but during the various applications he presented to the Planning Board for the parking garage, parking garage changes, the street vacations, etc., staff has to take their word for it; and concluded that if it is inaccurate information, staff deals with it when that comes to light. PB Chair Gannon asked when staff was reviewing this particular site plan, and looked at the landscape plan on p. LP-101, was there an evaluation by staff to say, in order to determine if they meet the criteria for Urban Open Space, if there should be some amenities not just foliage; and asked where in the evaluation by staff does this come in to play, to say, you have this entire section up there in the north east corner, there are no amenities, SO what could be added there, a bench along the walkway might be appropriate, does this dialogue take place at all. Planner Greenberg stated that these could be advisory comments during the DRC review; staff did not offer any comments about adding amenities to this area; added that he appreciates the value to go out on a walk; added that, with respect to crime, SMH has done a good job providing additional areas that can be monitored with surveillance, and in his experience, he has never seen lack of sitting options; said that he also appreciates the passive aspects outside of the site; added that people do not want to go eat lunch at the corner of a high traffic intersection; pointed out that the entrance sign is there, which needs to be visible from US 41, they have a big monument sign there, and people need to see that, sO hospital staff did a good job landscaping inward of that sign to allow good visibility at that intersection. PB Member Morriss asked why the courtyard greenery is not calculated as part of Urban Open Space. Planner Greenberg stated that according to the criteria, Urban Open Space must be accessible to public from public streets and sidewalks. Affected. Persons: Attorney Fournier called BJH, LLC, who had filed an application for affected person's status, and has designated Mr. Cook as the company's designated spokesperson. Mr. and Ms. Cook identified themselves for the record, and read a letter authored by the Owners of BJH, LLC, who claimed in the letter that they did not receive a notice; they object to the project because of traffic concerns, and lack of space for staging construction; and that construction will interfere with access to their property. Attorney Fournier stated that the people did not receive notice because they are outside the 500-ft. radius used for notifications; and concluded that the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Cook will be considered as "Public Input." Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 42 Rebuttal by Applicant: Mr. Bailey stated that they understand Ms. Cook's S comments, and added that there is always going to be some external impacts associated with any project, however the applicants think that these are de minimis; added that the measuring stick: is the number ofl beds, and SMH is not increasing the number of beds; and concluded that this facility is necessary to our community to provide this kind of medical care. PB Chair Gannon asked where the staging of construction would take place. Mr. Bailey stated that the SMH has an aggressive program that they learned overtime, with the Central Energy Plant, that was constructed approximately eight years ago. Mr. Perigo noted that itis a very tight site plan, but as part of the submission to the City they have provided a staging and phasing plan; added that they propose to have a fenced area, indicating how to access and how to exit the site, the construction fence is modified before the final circumference around the building, where they will leave it in place for the balance of the construction project; the first three months, they will be taking smaller bite size pieces to allow traffic in and out, because they are a hospital, they are not closing their front doors, SO they have to allow access in and out just as if they were not doing the project at all; added that as part of SMH's general contractor' S agreement with the sub-contractors, there are steep fines and penalties for any subcontractor found parking in the community, fines such as. the first offense is a $500.00 dollar fine, second offense is "you are off the job." PB Chair Gannon asked where the construction workers are supposed to park. Mr. Perigo stated that they can either park on the site, or at the staging area, the old Burger King site at the corner of Floyd Street and US 41;noted that there is a building there, approximately 35-40 parking spaces, and room for their construction trailers, SO they will be staging their staff from there. PB Chair Gannon asked if, during the construction, there will be closures of the sidewalk along Waldemere Street, or any of the other rights-of-way. Ms. Smith responded there would be temporary closure where the building is proposed sO pedestrian movement along US41 would use the crosswalk to cross the street to the north side of Waldemere, go down to the next crosswalk and cross back over to the other sidewalk; and added that the sidewalk will be closed only along the proposed buildings, depending on the stage in the process, and it will be identified, as part of the building permit. PB Chair Gannon asked if it is less expensive to pay $50.00 dollars per day, and close the sidewalk, than to build scaffolding over the sidewalk. Ms. Smith agreed, and stated that there will be multiple utility connections, it is a matter of safety, and there is significant work to be done in that area. Mr. Perigo added that there are a lot of underground utilities on the existing footprint of the building that will have to be relocated as well, sO they will have to clean the underground portion of the site before they can go vertical, and that they need go under the sidewalk because theyl have facilities that go across Waldemere Street. PB Chair Gannon asked if the public will be denied access to the right-of-way for two years. Ms. Smith stated that the public will have the sidewalk on the north side of Waldemere Street. PB Chair Gannon stated again that the public will not have access to the sidewalk on the south side of Waldemere Street for two years, and they will have to go around it, instead of SMH building scaffolding. The SMH team agreed. Ms. Smith said that this will last, at least, for the portion of the project that involves the construction of those elements. Mr. Jackson added that with the cranes, the materials, and the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 42 construction at this location, it was deemed by the team that it was a safer route for the public to cross the street than be under a scaffolding. PB Chair Gannon asked, if, in the cities where they build scaffolding, it is not safe for the public to walk under; and asked if the SMH team is saying that there is no way they can provide scaffolding that would be safe for the public. Mr. Perigo stated that given the option to make it safer, or have the pedestrian traffic cross the street, that would be the better option of the two. PB Chair Gannon stated that he understands the attitude that the public can be forced to walk somewhere else as opposed to using the right-of-way. Ms. Smith noted thatitisi in the sidewalk easement, it is not the right-of-way, the land was given for the sidewalk when the SCAT bus stop was designed. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Waldemere Street will be closed at any point in time. Ms. Smith stated there will be only night closures in certain phases, and SMH will meet the City's permitting requirements. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the applicants said that no one attended the community meeting, added that she recalls that SMH has a Community Advisory Council, and asked if they have discussed this. Mr. Bailey stated that the Community Advisory Council reviewed this project, and a presentation was made to CCNA at the Fire Station. PB Member Morriss asked if there is a contact person to call in case someone parks in front of someone's driveway. Mr. Perigo stated that there are two roaming dedicated security officers, on bicycles and on golf carts, who roam the site and the neighborhood, and know all the neighbors. Ms. Liang stated that one of her employees, Ms. Wilcox, used to be a liaison, and she would be a good conduit for this. PB Member Morriss suggested that SMH share this contact information with the neighbors. Mr. Bailey said that in the past, Ms. Wilcox shared her address with all the affected neighbors, and she was extremely responsive to their communications. PBI Member Morriss asked what] happens when someone blocks a driveway. Mr. Perigo stated that they see if they can find who it is, based on their license tag, which is monitored through a simple badging security system; explained that anyone who goes on the project has to go through this third party security system, SO background checks are done as part of that, when a vehicle is going to be on and off the site consistently, they get a tag, and they are given a parking space or a designated area where they are supposed to park; added that if they are found to be outside of their designated area, even if they are still on the site, they get towed; emphasized that they have to park at their designated parking area; added that if they are off site, and SMH can find out who they are by their license tag, then SMH can contact them immediately, or they are towed and they get fined, it is quick. Staff Rebuttal There was none. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 42 PB Member Morriss moved to adopt a motion to find Easement Vacation 18-SV-06 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the abandonment or removal of the existing fire hydrant and backflow preventer/meter, the existing fire hydrant and backflow preventer/ meter must be relocated to the location acceptable and approved by the City Utility Department. The new fire hydrant and backflow preventer/meter. must be fully functioning at the time the existing fire hydrant and backflow preventer/meter is abandoned or removed. In no event will service be disrupted for any of the properties serviced by the existing fire hydrant and backflow preventer/meter. 2. Prior to second reading of the Street Vacations of the two subject Easement Areas before the City Commission, the Applicant shall deliver a fully executed Utility Easement in recordable form to the City Attorney for the replacement Easement Areas for the location of the new fire hydrant and backflow preventer/meter and related appurtenances. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss stated that he feels the application for the Easement Vacation meets the review criteria. The motion for the Easement Vacation is approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0). PB Vice Chair Normile moved to adopt a motion to find Site Plan 18-SP-14 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain aj permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled Sarasota Memorial Health Care System Oncology Tower, received by the Development Services Department on August 3, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development depicted in Site Plan 18-SP-14, the applicant shall, at its sole cost and expense, connect the new fire hydrant and water backflow preventer/meter as needed to satisfy requirements of the City of Sarasota Utilities Department.. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 42 PB Member Ohlrich stated that she will not support this motion because she is convinced that two of the three Urban Open Space areas do not meet the criteria identified in the Zoning Code. PB Member Morriss stated that he disagrees with that; added that basically the combination of the fact that it is an unusual circumstance, and also the fact that it does not say that you have to stick a bench in the middle of these areas, tells him that they are in compliance and he is comfortable with the motion. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she understands and agrees with the concerns expressed by PB Member Ohlrich, however, she would like to see a correction in the definition of Urban Open Space and include the interior courtyards that are SO useful and SO good for the people who are at the hospital, because reality enters into what one can consider to be Urban Open Space, because of the people that can go there otherwise. PB Member Blumetti stated that that is a bonus; added that the fact that there is a 5% minimum Urban Open Space, and they are providing the interior courtyards which do not count, it is a bonus; stated that to PB Member Ohlrich's point about who calculates the 5%, it is up to the architect and the engineer, they have to uphold a certain professional standard, and if they don't, there are professional consequences to that, SO you have to trust that they do their job, and give correct information. The motion for Site Plan 18-SP-14 is approved with a vote 4 to 1 (PB Member Ohlrich voted "No.") IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE. PUBLIC: ATTHIST TIME CITIZENS: MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING BOARDON TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHHAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS MAY NOT BE. ADDRESSED, ATT THIS TIME. (A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE TIME: LIMIT.) There was no public input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 11, 2018 Page of 34, paragraph 2 should read as follows: Code: additions are underlined; deletions are strieken-threugh "PB Member Ohlrich stated that is it seems in the analysis there are Revised minutes were approved by consensus. 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 42 Planning Director Cover stated that there are three items, mostly relating to dates and updates; noted that the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Ordinance goes to the City Commission on September 17, 2018; explained that this Ordinance intends to promote Historic Preservation in the City of Sarasota through tax incentives; pointed out that there was a naming contest within the City for the Transportation Master Plan, and the selected name is "Sarasota in Motion;" noted that they received six proposals, which will be reviewed by the City Commission on September 25, 2018, and will be followed by the selection of the consultant to city staff on the Transportation Master Plan; noted that staff is working on two RFPS related to the Transportation Master Plan, one relates to water taxis, and the other relates to bike sharing in the City; added that the RFPS will be issued in late September, or in October; stated that September 6, 2018 is a big night for the Bay project, there is a City Commission meeting in the Commission Chambers, 5:00PM - 8:00 PM, a meeting for the SPPO to present the Master Plan, prepared by Sasaki Associates, and the Commission will be voting whether to move forward with that; concluded that it is a busy week, Commission Meeting on Tuesday, Planning Board this evening, and then the Bay meeting on Thursday night; and hoped everyone can attend. PB Vice Chair Normile asked about the status of the Form-Based Code. Director Cover stated that the staff of the Urban Design Studio are making some final cross reference checking, it is supposed to be completed by September 14, 2018, then staff will be doing some double-checking on that, and prepare to make it available to the public, for review, on October 1, 2018. PB Member Morriss asked about the dates of the first hearings. Attorney Fournier stated that the idea was to allow staff sufficient time to review it, and the hearings will begin after the first of the year. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that staff started reviewing it four months ago. PB Chair Gannon stated that what will be submitted by the Urban Design Studio this month has not been previously submitted to staff. Director Cover stated that in the next three months staff will review it and the public will be reviewing it. PB Chair Gannon asked if there is a notice to the public, stating that it will be available on October 1st] however: it is subject to changes. Director Cover stated that once it is ready, there will be some type of public notice. PB Chair Gannon clarified his earlier statement saying will the notice tell the members of the public, who usually spend time to review and submit comments, not to bother, because this is still being reviewed by staff, and it could change. Director Cover stated that the notice will say that everyone will be reviewing it, and they are welcome to submit their comments. PB Member Morriss noted that a Commissioner has stated that she spent a ridiculous number of hours reading the last version of the Form-Based Code, and felt that it was a waste of time; added that he is concerned that the public is going to think this is the final version, and if they spend time reviewing it only to see it change again, they may feel that their time is wasted again because of some politics; wondered if there is a type of disclaimer that can be used, such as "This is the beginning of the process, please hold your comments until sometime after the first of the year," because it is silly to release something for comment when it is not ready; and asked what can the Planning Board do about it. Attorney Fournier stated that this is a valid comment that needs to be taken into account, and needs to be known; added that the last time the process was discussed, he was among Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 42 those who suggested additional review time; explained that instead of reviewing the Code in increments, he thought it would be better to. have three - four months to review it, during which time staff and the attorney's office will work together, and come back to the Commission with thoughts and recommendations, based on what the Commission wanted; and concluded it needs to be communicated that this is going to be the process. PB Member Morriss stated that the credibility of the City is badly affected by this; added that nobody takes this seriously any more, and it is not good, because this is a serious document that could have some positive effects on the City, but if we are diddling around, what good is it doing; and asked when will the package will be available to the Planning Board. Director Cover noted that on September 12th is the Lido Beach Proposal. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if it is ready; discussion ensued as to when it will be ready for distribution to the PB Members, and if it will include references to what happened earlier in the process, because the context will help people understand what it is all about. Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services introduced herself for the record; stated that the staff presentation will not get much into the history of the building and the process by which they got to where they are now; pointed out that this a site plan approval, SO, at best, they will discuss that there was a request for proposals (RFPs) and these were the winners of the RFPS. PB Member Ohlrich noted that it was not an RFP. General Manager Schneider said that she is informally telling this; she did not. have a chance to review the staff report, but the site plan discussion will be whether the proposed site plan complies with the review criteria. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if General Manager Schneider, or whoever is in charge of the packet, would ensure that the traffic study is correct, because it includes outdoor dining, and asked if it is going to be included in the traffic study, etc.; pointed out that that the traffic study for the application presented earlier this evening did not include the bulk of the people, evidently they are dropped by helicopter, because they are not in the traffic study; emphasized that it would be very bad not to have the right information for next week; repeated that the traffic study has to be correct, it is key; and explained that her comments are not addressed to General Manager Schneider, but requested she pass it along. General Manager Schneider stated that Mr. Ohrenstein will be attending the meeting and will be able to talk about his reasons for arriving at his determinations; and noted that the entire restaurant is outside, there is no indoor space, however the entire seating space has been captured in the traffic study for the pavilion. PB Member Morriss asked if thel background context is considered not the Planning Board's business. General Manager Schneider stated that staff does not get into the historical aspect of the community reaching out to the Parks and Recreation Department about eight years ago, and what transpired since then. PB Member Morriss noted that the audience will be, and the Planning Board needs to be, well prepared to respond to public comments; added Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 42 that just reviewing the site plan criteria is way out of context; and pointed out that this is a very unique situation and the normal context of five criteria does not cut it. Attorney Fournier pointed out that staff can say there is a Major Conditional Use Application with the Site Plan, these are the two applications before the Planning Board, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the lease, the lease has been executed, now it is a finalized document, which does not go into effect unless the Conditional Use and the Site Plan are approved; and added that to the extent that there is testimony about the dissatisfaction with the lease, the Planning Board will probably be instructed to disregard it, because it is not relevant to the Major Conditional Use and the Site Plan. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if they can have a copy of the lease. General Manager Schneider stated that the lease is included in the packet, however, based on the direction staff received from the City Attorney's Office, the staff report will focus on the Site Plan and the Conditional Use Applications. PB Chair Gannon stated that in addition to the traffic study, there will be impacts on the parking requirements and the impacts due to change of intensity of use; and asked if there will be information about the total impact on parking on Lido Key; noted that the MPO is doing their barrier island traffic study, and they have looked at available parking throughout Lido Key, however, this will change, because the garage is going in; and asked if this sort of information will be part of the packet, providing background information for the Planning Board. General Manager Schneider said not specifically, and pointed out that this is not part of the requests coming before the Planning Board; added that, based on her understanding of the traffic study, they have looked at the impacts of going from the restaurant that was there, to the restaurant that is being proposed; noted that the impact is de minimis, which means that they do not go further and conduct a full blown study on the impact on the neighborhood; pointed out that there have been mentions of other efforts going on at Lido Key, like new bus stops, and other things that are happening for the overall transportation on Lido Key, but they are beside the point. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if they can have some input from the Transportation Planners regarding this project, because she would contest that what is going on at this one spot does not actually affect the surrounding area, and vice versa. Director Cover said they will look intoit. General Manager Schneider stated thatift the input from the Transportation Planners is to be included in the staff report, the staff report will not be ready for distribution to Planning Board members tomorrow. PB Vice Chair Normile said it would be acceptable to receive the staff report via email a few days later, and it would be nice if the Transportation Planners could attend the meeting. Director Cover pointed out that the staff report needs to be distributed tomorrow. PB Vice Chair Normile added that [the input from the Transportation Planners] could come via email later. Director Cover stated that he will talk to his staff about it. PB Chair Gannon noted that earlier Director Cover stated that there is an RFP for water taxis, and some routes include going from Marina Jacks, or the main land, over to Lido Key, sO that is another traffic circulation option, and if that is part of the Transportation Plan, that would impact the parking requirements, etc.; added that the City is doing a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 42 Transportation Plan, it takes into account ways to move people around the island, and getting them to destinations, such as the beach and other places, and that is a relevant aspect; referred to the water taxis and stated that a year ago there were negotiations for a water taxi; and asked if they were abandoned. Director Cover stated that it did not move forward, and a new RFP is being issued; and added that the Lido Beach project will not have plastic awnings. PB Member Blumetti asked if Karin Murphy will continue to be involved with the Form- Based Code process. Director Cover noted that Ms. Murphy's contract runs out on September 30, 2018, and the contract has not been renewed. 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 Chair Gannon mentioned to the Planning Board that he received a letter from the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board, requesting notifications from the Planning Board, through staff, on any projects which may relate to the disabled in the community; pointed out that one of the concerns, and one of the major impacts to the disability community, especially to those in wheelchairs, is sidewalk construction, and closing sidewalks; stated that saying 'you can use the sidewalk on the other side of the street" is not necessarily a de minimis impact on public use of the sidewalk; and asked if there is a role for the Planning Board, to say here are some projects that will have sidewalk closures, and if there is something that the citizens with disabilities can weigh on. Director Cover stated that every project reviewed by staff is evaluated on disability access. PB Chair Gannon questioned if the Building Department does that, because closing a sidewalk for two years does not take into account the needs of the disabled in the community. General Manager Schneider stated that it is the Engineering Department that issues sidewalk closure permits; added that they have an MOT, which means that they have to identify the path that people will take, whether they are walkers or mobility challenged; noted that if the path that is to be used is not safe for anyone, then it is relocated across the street, and they make sure that the pathway is done properly at intersections using crosswalks going over; said that the people will have to come back, but it is a safe path; added that the purpose of the MOT is making sure that the path to be taken is safe; stated that [Engineering staff] try to minimize closures as much as possible, and there are fees for the closures; and concluded that it is not for her to say if the fees are appropriate. PB Chair Gannon stated that he has heard from staff that they try to minimize closures, however the fact is that they do not; added that sidewalks close for two years when they [developers] can easily build scaffolding, and the public can continue to use the sidewalk; added that typically there is no signage other than "Sidewalk Closed," meaning figure it out yourself where you need to go to get around it; said that typically, if there is another sidewalk on the other side of the street, one can go across the street; noted that this is based Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 42 on his personal experience walking from his residence to downtown, where there are many sidewalks that are now closed, and he has pictures of signs, etc.; and concluded that he can only imagine the difficulty for people with disabilities. PB Member Ohlrich stated that as the person who pushes the person in the wheelchair when they are out and about, there are times when they say, "We cannot do that," and turn around and go home. General Manager Schneider asked if they have reached out to the Engineering Division. PB Chair Gannon stated that this is where he heard the comment [that they try to minimize closures], and he asked them, how can they say that, when the sidewalk is closed for eighteen going on nineteen months, as a result of a two-month MOT request. PB Member Morriss stated that there is a gap between the theory and the reality of things; and asked what needs to be done to close the gap. General Manager Schneider stated that this is the responsibility of another department, and she does not have the answers to these questions, the only thing she can do is to reach out to the other department and ask them to send staff to the Planning Board, to explain what the process would be; and added that they are part of the Public Works Department. PB Member Morriss stated iti is appropriate to find out, because it is a reality issue. General Manager Schneider stated that is the reason they are charging fees, as a way to discourage developers from right of way closures, because they add up, and there have been projects where the fees for right- of-way closures added up to $30,000 dollars. PB Member Morriss asked where this money goes. General Manager Schneider said that it goes to the General Fund. PB Member Ohlrich stated that there are: more people with wheelchairs around the hospital than there are in most locations. PB Member Morriss stated that there are no sidewalks where he lives. PB Chair Gannon asked if there is a role for the Planning Board, especially in terms of the Code; and asked where the criteria for granting MOTS for closures are found. PB Member Blumetti stated that it can be part of a Sidewalk Plan. General Manager Schneider stated that the Public Works Department does connectivity studies and look at sidewalks every year, and every year there is money in the budget to provide sidewalks. PB Member Blumetti stated that the closure money could go to sidewalks. General Manager Schneider said that it may go there, but she does not know. PB Member Morriss asked what happens to the money? PB Chair Gannon noted that walkability is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, and, in statements made by City Managers and others, there is a desire to make Sarasota a walkable community; pointed out that, when there is no construction going on, one can walk, even when they do a sidewalk repair, but when construction occurs, and the pace that is going on, and there is no focus on minimizing closures. General Manager Schneider stated that maybe they can raise the fees as a disincentive for closures. PB Vice Chair Normile asked Attorney Fournier about the role of the Planning Agency; stated that, according to Chapter 163.1374, FS, the Planning Agency is the agency responsible: for the preparation oft the Comprehensive Plan, or Plan. Amendments, and shall make recommendations to the governing body regarding the adoption or amendments to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 42 such plan; and added that they have never heard that the Planning Board is the Local Planning Agency, according to Florida Statutes. Attorney Fournier pointed out that this is the reason the Planning Board makes a determination each time if a petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the Planning Board has not really been involved in the preparation of it [the Comprehensive Plan], or in recommendations for it. Attorney Fournier stated that staff prepares it, and then it is presented to the Planning Board. PB Chair Gannon stated that ordinances, and other practices that staff is working on, have to be done in a way that meets the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Fournier agreed, and added that the Planning Board has input on the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations; questioned the request from the Disability Advisory Board, because it is a separate Board appointed by the City Commission, and they have defined, enumerated responsibilities, and he does not think one of them is having a role in the development review process; stated that he thinks they are more responsible for commenting or suggesting regulations that might be useful or need to be changed, rather than reviewing specific projects; and pointed out that if that were to be changed, that should be done by the City Commission. PB Chair Gannon stated that in their letter, the Advisory Board state that it is their responsibility to study accessibility by handicapped persons to areas such as sidewalks, recreation areas, and parking within the City, and to make recommendations to the City Commission. Attorney Fournier agreed, and noted that this would relate to the rules, and the way the Planning Board would coordinate with them. PB Chair Gannon asked if the construction is impacting handicap accessibility to sidewalks, they can make recommendations, and asked ifi it would make sense for the two Boards tol have a meeting or have a representative from that Board visit the Planning Board. Attorney Fournier stated that it is up to the Planning Board, but he thinks it should be a discussion on what changes can be made to applicable rules and regulations relating to specific issues, for example relating to minimizing closures, as opposed to having a role in the development review process, which is the responsibility of the Planning Board. PB Member Morriss asked if that could be an agenda item on the October PB meeting; added that this should not take a long time, because it will be addressing how to close the gap between theory and reality on how to minimize the closures and the time that people are inconvenienced. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she was on the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board, and her understanding is that it was created just when the ADA was passed by the Federal Government, and the City wanted to rely on the input of people who are handicapped, or people who know about handicapped conditions; added that, since then, over a period of time, as staff has been trained on the requirements of the ADA, sidewalk cut-outs, and how to build buildings that meet all these requirements, in her opinion, that Board does not have as much to do, because staff are pretty competent in identifying the requirements of the ADA; and concluded that if the Planning Board wants to meet with them, then we can listen to their recommendations, and see if we can make aj joint recommendation. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 42 PB Chair Gannon stated that if the Planning Board is responsible to make recommendations for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, he wonders if there are any changes that could be recommended that would address the issue of sidewalk closures; pointed out that this is one thing that came out of listening to different presentations, we are seeing examples of that, it is an ongoing issue, and there is more happening now. Director Cover pointed out that this is not a Comprehensive Plan issue, it is mostly relating to local ordinances and their enforcement; explained that it sounds like the primary purpose is not necessarily how things are designed, but what is going on during construction, and why things are closed off for extended periods of time, SO that is not a Comprehensive Plan issue, it is more ordinances and Land Development Regulations. PB Member Morriss asked if there could be an item on the October PB Agenda, having the Engineering staff talk about what the reality of this is, and how we close the gapi added that ADA is fundamental, and the Planning Board is not going to re-write the ADA, but we need to ensure that compliance is properly done, because if the sidewalks are not well marked and people cannot go from place to place comfortably, then that needs to be fixed; and pointed out that it is not a Code problem, ADA is already written, but we have run into two circumstances where the Planning Board is concerned about the project construction component. Director Cover stated that he can talk to Engineering, and asked what the topic is that they would be discussing, because it seems that the concern is related to things that are under construction. PB Member Blumetti stated that it is necessary to have closures during construction but when the closures last nineteen months on a two-month MOT, then there is need for some scrutiny. General Manager Schneider pointed out that Engineering may say that they need additional staff. PB Member Morriss stated that some cities have no tolerance for that, and they ask for a lot ofj justifications for closures. General Manager Schneider stated that she listens to them Engineering staff] talking to people in the meetings, she does not know what happens after the meetings, but in the meetings, they are pretty forceful with the developers about the required paperwork, the costs, the length of the process, they go out on inspections, etc. PB Member Blumetti stated that if the sidewalk will be closed for nineteen months then there should be a temporary area for handicap accessibility for the duration of the construction. PB Member Morriss noted that if it gets expensive enough the developers will find another way to do it, and that may be the key. PB Member Ohlrich stated that maybe the Planning Board could respond to the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board person saying that the Planning Board has discussed his letter, and the one item that comes to the minds of the PB Members is the closure of sidewalks for construction projects, we have invited the Engineering staff to come and address us on this matter in October, and the Planning Board members invite you to join us. PB Chair Gannon stated that this is an excellent recommendation. PB Vice Chair Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 42 Normile and PB Member Morriss agreed. PB Chair Gannon asked Director Cover to look into a time that this can be scheduled, and then draft a response letter to the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board. General Manager Schneider asked how: many: people are on that Advisory Board. PBChair Gannon responded that there are five people. General Manager Schneider expressed concerns about the space they need to meet. PB Chair Gannon stated that he is not sure if it should be a joint meeting, or just invite the author of the letter to speak; explained that he wants them [Advisory Board] to hear from the Engineering Staff, and if they have comments, it would be useful for the Planning Board to understand their concerns; added thatift they [Advisory Board] have other concerns, they should also be looked into, whether or not there is a recommendation to the City Commission; noted that, if it turns out to be that there is nothing the Planning Board as the Local Planning Agency can recommend for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, then it may be up to the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board to make a recommendation to the City Commission; and suggested that they leave it up to Director Cover to schedule it. PB Member Morriss referred to the fact that the Planning Board is the Local Planning Agency, and wondered, in terms of information, if there is a source in Sarasota where one can find out how many square feet of office space, how many apartments, etc.; explained that one way one can make bad mistakes is to determine what is needed but not knowing what is already there, because it is easy to double, triple what the market is calling for; and asked if there is a single clearing house that has all this information. Director Cover stated that it would be the Economic Development Office, they have an inventory and they also track all permitted development. General Manager Schneider stated that her office provides this information to them, and they publish a quarterly report, but they also have other studies that indicate what is out there. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that in the last couple meetings there have been a couple of issues that have come up; noted that one of them she brought up, relating to the Transportation Planners weighing in, with some very specific recommendations as to where they can weigh in, such as street vacations, etc.; added that at the last meeting there was a full discussion about Code enforcement, and how the Conditional Use enforcement was done, because the Planning Board was concerned about approving Conditional Uses when they are: never enforced; pointed out that all of these requests have been ignored and none of them have gone on the agenda; she looked in the Planning Board-Local Planning Agency Manual that they got, and it says: Agenda and Order of Business: Neighborhood and Development Services Department, [she explained that this department does not exist nowand she does not know which department it is), prepares an agenda for each meeting; any Board member may add non-agendaed non-public hearing items to the agenda by contacting the Neighborhood and Development Services Department at least one week prior to the Board Meeting; added that she does not know if this works because of notifications, but it would seem that if people on this Planning Board request, and the Board actually has a consensus, and say that we like to hear from Code Enforcement, as Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 42 an agenda item, that would actually happen, SO far the Planning Board has not had any of them happen, and asked what can the Planning Board do. PB Member Morriss suggested that the Planning Board ask that the October agenda include the things PB Vice Chair Normile is looking for as well as Enforcement issues. PB Chair Gannon noted that after the July meeting, there was a follow up e-mail from Ryan Chapdelain on Conditional Uses, the enforcement relating to that, and the documentation on that; repeated that he did a follow up email, and that was followed by a more elaborate response; basically the question was asked and answered; noted that he did not feel that there was need, and did not request an agenda item on that; added that if PB Vice Chair Normile feels that the responses they received were insufficient, then the Planning Board can add it as a topic for the discussion; and concluded that he thought that staff researched and responded back. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the response did not answer the question; the issue came up with the 99 Bottles application, the problem was not with the 99 Bottles, but with the fact that the Conditional Uses are never removed, and that violations are ignored, which affects the Planning Board, in the sense that the Planning Board is approving Conditional Uses, and the biggest concerns of the speakers that show up is that nobody enforces the conditions; added that the other is the Transportation Planner issue, getting feedback from the Transportation Planners on the greater larger issues, such as on street vacations and closing of alleys, and large projects like Lido Beach. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the response to that question was a non-response. Director Cover stated that he thought he answered that question last time, the Transportation Planners review the application, one of them was related to the Trail Project and made a modification to the recommendation to that; and stated that there is a perception that they are not looking at everything, and that is not true. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the request was for a formal statement from them regarding certain enumerated things, she passed out a paper with suggestions for PB Members review, and PB Chair Gannon suggested that you [Director Cover] also review these items and come back with some recommendations of how they could be handled; added that hearing that they are in the mix does not help the Planning Board, because the PB Members are not transportation planners, they need to hear from their experts about routing an alley out to Fruitville Road, or vacating a street, so they are guessing at this and reacting to developer's requests, when there may be a better way of handling them, but they could not think of it, because they are not transportation planners; and added that they have the expertise, it would be nice to hear from them in a formal statement, not just that they saw it. PB Member Morriss suggested that maybe they could come to the meetings SO that the Planning Board can ask some questions, or, if possible, they can become another line on the DRC sign-off. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 42 Director Cover relayed that the City, at this point, is not interested in having the Transportation Planners on the DRC for sign off. PB Vice Chair Normile asked who in the City; explained that if the Planning Board wanted to make a recommendation that this happen, it would go to the City Commission and they would decide; and asked Attorney Fournier ifi itis a staff decision. Attorney Fournier agreed thatitisp probably a staff decision. General Manager Schneider stated that her department could do a Code compliance presentation, because they do Code compliance, and she knows Mr. Litchet would be happy to come and speak to that; and added that Mr. Chapdelain was kind to respond to the PB Member comments, but, it is their department, SO they will be happy to come and talk about it. PB Chair Gannon noted that part of his response to Mr. Chapdelain was that one of the issues that was raised was citizen input and citizen complaints, because a statement was made that the City does not have staff to go inspect, we only respond to complaints; asked what is the system by which all these complaints are gathered, are they getting to the right people, are there multiple avenues by which somebody submits something; added that through his examination, he found multiple places, different web sites with different forms to fill out for violations, sO one: is inputting the complaint in two different web sites, in two different forms; and asked if the information is compiled by the same people, sO one can ask about the complaint and its resolution. General Manager Schneider stated that everything is channeled to her department, through a variety of ways, such as phone calls, people enter them on their on-line systems, or people walking in their office; she clarified she is speaking about complaints in general, not just Conditional Use complaints; added that specifically they track police complaints, police calls to all of the Conditional Uses that have liquor licenses as part of their Conditional Use, and they started doing that because at the Ritz Carlton Beach Club, people were calling the police but did not call the City, sO the City was unaware that they had issues; noted that every month they get all the police reports for all the addresses and they input the data on a spreadsheet where they note the type of violation; and stated that most of them are incidents outside the establishments, such as fights or domestic disputes. PB Member Blumetti stated that they [her department should know which complaints are actual violations. General Manager Schneider stated that most of them are disputes among people, and they are not a violation of the Conditional Use Permit; added that if it is a violation of the Conditional Use Permit, it is along the lines of a garage door being open; pointed out that staff would have to go over every night at midnight to make sure that they pulled their door down, or somebody who knew that there was an issue, they would have to call staff and make them aware of it. PB Member Blumetti asked if anyone responds to the person who made the complaint. General Manager Schneider said that her office responds to the person who filed the complaint; added if the citizens file the complaint with a name and a phone number, staff gets back to them; also all complaints go to the Department's on-line system; said that there are some people who want to be anonymous, in which case staff will not follow up, because staff has no way of contacting that person; stated people can also track their complaint on line as well if they are not anonymous, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 42 they are able to respond back and forth on the complaint system, sO they know the resolution of the complaint. PB Chair Gannon asked if there is a way to statistically determine which complaints are for Conditional Uses. General Manager Schneider stated that there would be, but staff has never received one. PB Chair Gannon asked if there was ever a complaint filed on-line for a Conditional Use violation. General Manager Schneider stated that she put in a complaint after the last meeting regarding Cask and Ale, because there was a complaint mentioned at the meeting; and noted she went over to speak to the manager of the establishment, gave him a copy of the Conditional Use, and reminded him what the conditions were. PB Chair Gannon noted that a citizen, or someone looking at the report, will not see that the reason for the complaint is the Conditional Use. General Manager Schneider stated that the people who work in Code Compliance are in the same department, and she is in the supervisory chain, sO they know that all Zoning Code violations come tol her, and many people will call Conditional Use violations Zoning Code Violations. PB: Member Morriss stated that it goes to credibility, if these Conditional Uses are intended to avoid noxious experiences, and noxious experiences are happening, but nobody ever got shut down or removed, he knows the process is the City Manager can do that, but they would rather pull a tooth than do it.. ; noted that this is another one of those gaps; added that if you have problems with an establishment that has a Conditional Use but they are not penalized or shut down, then what is the use of having Conditional Uses. General Manager Schneider stated that first staff has to document the issues; noted that there are 82 establishments with Conditional Uses, not including conditions for Site Plans or conditions that are associated with rezonings; explained that, for the City to have proactive enforcement, staff would need to go out, and confirm that the 82 establishments with Conditional Uses are in compliance; stated this takes people, it takes bodies to do that proactively; said that if there is a problem that creates a hardship on the community to the point where the place needs to be shut down, the City should hear about it in time to intercede and do something about it, before it reaches that point, but if the City does not get the outcry of complaints, it is hard to reach the point where the City Manager shuts someone down; added that when staff were working with Ivory's, there were a lot of complaints about Ivory's but they were not violations of the Conditional Use Permit; explained that Ivory's had problems with the noise travelling to the condos above, through the structural members of the building, which is a landlord thing, it was not that they had fights on the property, or stayed open later than they should, which would be specific violations of the conditions of the Conditional Use; added that Attorney Fournier was involved, he reviewed the record, there was considerable interaction between City staff and the owners of the tenant space, trying to work through that, there was a lot of effort, but there was: no determination of a violation of the Conditional Use. Attorney Fournier stated that what he remembers is that, when it originally opened, it was a wine bar called The Grape, which later converted to the Ivory Lounge, and people were unhappy because they thought it would be a wine bar there, which was more sedate than the Ivory Lounge; and added that there was nothing restricting it to that type of use, the Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 42 Zoning Code defined the two the same, sO it seemed that it was different but it was the same for the purposes of the Code, SO it was not a violation. PB Chair Gannon stated that the question that matters is that the Planning Board raised that in the last meeting, we got a response from staff, and asked if there is a value to adding this as an agenda item in the future, and having this discussed in a more public fashion; added that what raised the issue is public coming here and making statements on the record that they felt the City was not enforcing Code violations, especially in the Conditional Uses; added that this is a public perception, and asked what can the Planning Board do to address it. PB Member Morriss noted that the people were upset with Ivory's but it had nothing to do with the Conditional Use, it was more standard ordinance violations, sO staff could: not do anything about that. Attorney Fournier stated thathis office concluded that if that Resolution had been very specific and limited to the type of use that originally went there, that [the change to Ivory's Lounge] would have been a violation, but it did not. PB Chair Gannon stated that it was very clear in the last meeting, when they were discussing 99 Bottles, that there was enough in the proffers, and that a new owner would have to sign the Conditional Use Affidavit and agree to all those prior proffers that basically go with the land, and therefore any change of that would be a change in the intensity of use, and they would have to come back to the Planning Board. PB Member Blumetti agreed. PB Member Morriss stated that the transportation question that was raised by PB Vice Chair Normile remains unanswered; and asked what the action to take on that is. PB Vice Chair Normile said that PB Members had a discussion, they had a proposal, but what you [Director Cover] are telling us now is that staff says "No." Director Cover agreed. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that this is the answer, but the Planning Board did not have that until now, PB Members heard that they Transportation Planners] are in the mix, which she thinks is not good enough, but staff is in charge of their own departments; and concluded she has her answer. PB Vice Chair Normile referred to Code Enforcement, and said that there were never any Code Enforcement complaints because people called the police, the police said, "Sorry, we do not handle that," and then the complaint disappeared; and asked if there is a way to better educate the public that this is not a police matter, and here is the contact information of who to call; and pointed out the PB Members discussed it last time and were going to come back to it, but never did. General Manager Schneider stated that education is a different matter than her department hiring additional staff to go out at night to ensure that the Conditional Uses are being enforced. PB Chair Gannon noted that more staff means citizens have to pay more taxes, etc., and asked if the process is citizen driven, is then the system for citizen driven input, tracking, and reporting sufficient. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 40 of 42 PB Member Blumetti asked if the Conditional Use is on the City's interactive web site (whose name he forgot but iti is from the Form Base Code), where, if you know the building you can find out the Conditional Uses for the Building, the GIS, you click on a building and it says all the uses that are associated with that building. General Manager Schneider stated that she is not familiar with that, but it would have to be a project budgeted item, for the City Commission to give her Department money to do it, because they do not have, historically, everything on line; added that they would have to link information to it; noted that they have a lot of recent applications on-line, you can go to eDocs and find what is on a piece of property, but then to have that linked to GIS would be the next step; said that the City is supposedly coming up with a new program for eDocs, the system apparently is not searching properly, sO they will have a new program besides eDocs to get it to the GIS; added that the IT Department would have to work with her department to have those documents specifically linked, and she asked if the ordinance is what PB Member Blumetti would like to see there. PB Member Blumetti stated the he wanted to see what Conditional Uses are on the property,sO it would be a link to the Resolution. PB Member Morriss pointed out that the City has learned its lesson, and now the conditions are very specific in the proffers, and the problem that the Ivory Lounge created is not going to happen again; and added that Smokin' Joe's is the poster child of what the people are angry about. PB Member Ohlrich stated that people do not know that something is proffered, SO how do they know to complain about it, when they [the establishment) are not following the proffer. General Manager Schneider pointed out that if people are disturbed by something then they should call the City, whether iti is a condition in a Conditional Use or something is just bad; then they find out that the problem is related to a Conditional Use; stated that the public needs to know to call the City, and then City staff can sort it out, whether it is a Police matter because they are in violation of the City Code, or a violation of a Conditional Use. PB Member Blumetti asked if there is a problem with people knowing that there is a Conditional Use. General Manager Schneider stated "No," but people should call the City when they feel something is wrong, they do not have to know that there is a Conditional Use before they call. PB Chair Gannon stated that the citizens have to file a complaint, and staff will sort it out and respond; staff could say that they have looked into it, and they [the establishment) are within the uses that were prescribed for that property, for example the complaint was that the garage door was open at 10:30 P.M. and should have been down at 10:00 P.M., staff could then clarify by stating that it is not a violation, because the door is supposed to be closed at 11:00 pm.; continued saying that staff could also say, "Yes, that is a violation, now it has been assigned a number, and it goes to the Special Magistrate; added that the information that is available on-line does not show what the complaint description is, it only shows what the topic is, for example it shows that iti is a Building Permit violation, the text of the complaint is not displayable, and asked if that should be changed; pointed out that this is the reason he would like to have an agenda item, and have the staff of the appropriate department present to provideappropriate responses, and explain the process for managing complaints. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 41 of 42 General Manager Schneider asked if the Planning Board's concern is about the public not knowing what staff is working on or is it a concern that staff does not know what the complaint is. PB Chair Gannon stated that the public may not know how to file a complaint, and when they try to file, they find that the process of filing is not consistent, there are two different websites, there are two different departments, claiming to allow you to submit Building Permit violations, and it takes down different information; asked how is the information tracked and recorded; stated that from a brief look at that, he feels it is not donei in an efficient manner, and asked if it is something the Planning Board should pursue. General Manager Schneider stated that it is more of a policy decision based on the software the City is using; and asked if they need a different line to track what the complaint is. PB Chair Gannon stated that there are different ways of doing that, and asked if staff has looked into them, because in the end the public tries to file a complaint and concludes that it was not an easy process; and concluded that people need to know that complaints are tracked, and asked if the Planning Board needs an agenda item to discuss this topic. PB Member Morriss stated that he does not think SO, people will complain no matter what; pointed out that there are noxious uses related to Conditional Uses, and if people know that the doors must be down at 10:30 P.M., there will always be someone calling at 10:31 P.M., which is unnecessary if there is no noise, sO why invite that; and suggested that the City has learned its lesson, and staff have learned their lesson about being more specific in the language of the Resolution. General Manager Schneider stated for the record, that staff had recommended denial for the Ivory Lounge, but it was approved. PB Member Ohlrich stated that two of the applications this evening had traffic circulation analysis as part of the staff report that PB members considered and studied, and other applications have traffic studies; she requested some instruction on these [traffic circulation analysis, and traffic studies] sO she can have a better understanding of them; noted that she does not want to force this on anyone else, and she would be happy to meet with someone on her own, or review on her own some literature that would be provided to her; pointed out that she feels she needs to have a better understanding on these SO that she can contribute; and asked what can she do about that; added that the person she knows who knows about traffic studies and traffic circulation analysis better than anybody else is PB Vice Chair Normile, but she does know that they cannot sit together to learn about these topics. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she distributed a handout with notes on it, it was done legally through the Planning Board, and asked if PB Member Ohlrich still has that; and added that the handout explains things in basic terms, because she only understands the basics of it. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she still has that paper. Director Cover suggested that PB Member Ohlrich also sit down with City Engineer Alex DavisShaw and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein. PB Chair Gannon presented a recap of the topics that were brought up this evening: Sidewalk closures - Director Cover will speak to Engineering to determine who is the appropriate person to meet with the Planning Board on this issue; and al letter will be sent to the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 42 of 42 Transportation Planners reviewing Site Plans No follow-up action; Transportation Planners will review some applications but are not on the DRC. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the PB Members are allowed to call the Transportation Planners when they have questions about applications that are coming forward to the Planning Board for consideration. Director Clover stated that PB Members can call them. PB Member Morriss stated that this is the answer. Conditional Uses Tracking of violations, and the follow-up actions that were discussed this evening. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:54 P.M. MAL Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Patrick J. Gannon, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]