CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-NegAborhood & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. Secretary Smith stated Ms. Kathie Ebaugh had been recently appointed as the School Board representative however she was unable to make the meeting. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Secretary Smith stated there was one change to the order of the day noting the Coast Cadillac Auto Dealership site plan application that was advertised was pulled from the agenda and will not be heard. 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 Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. PB Chair Gallagher stated he needed to recuse himself from the public hearing regarding 1401 & 1445 2nd Street, handed the gavel to Vice Chair Svekis, and exited the Chambers. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. Attorney Connolly reviewed the recommended time limits Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 32 for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. Attorney Connolly stated there were two applications for affected person status for 14-SP-04, Mr. Frank Brenner and Mr. Alan Loring. Attorney Connolly confirmed Mr. Loring owns property within 500 feet of the subject parcel and recommended he be granted affected person status. Attorney Connolly stated since Mr. Brenner was not present it was his recommendation that he not be granted affected person status. B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and decisions are based on the testimony and facts given in the case. 1. 1401 & 1445 2nd Street: Site Plan application 14-SP-04 is a proposal to amend previously approved Resolution No. 08R-2007, which approved Site Plan No. 07-SP-07 for a ten story mixed use building with 168 residential dwelling units, 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 21,000 sq. ft. of office space on property located at 1445 2nd Street in the Downtown Core (DTC) zone district and within the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD). Application No. 13-AA-01, a minor amendment, was subsequently approved to adjust the use of space through the building and Site Plan 07-SP-07 is now approved for 168 residential dwelling units, 16,400 sq. ft. of retail space and no office component. Application 14-SP-04 seeks to amend Resolution No. 08R-2007 by adding the adjacent parcel (1401 2nd Street) to the Site Plan design and allow one single building to be constructed across both parcels. The development approved under 07-SP-07/13-AA-01 will remain unchanged with the exception of shared parking and internal connections to the portion of the building on the adjoining property. If approved, the addition of the parcel at 1401 2nd Street will add an additional 12 residential units, 9 guest units, and approximately 7,410 sq. ft. of non- residential floor area, and up to 47 parking spaces to the total project. [Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner). Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Attorney Brenda Patten, and Architect Gary Hoyt appeared. Attorney Patten stated Senior Planner Mendez had done an excellent job of explaining the application, stated the application is somewhat unusual in that the Planning Board does not generally get involved in approving site plans in downtown districts, noted those are generally approved administratively, and stated the applicants were proposing to add a parcel to an already approved site plan. Attorney Patten noted a match line on western side of the parcel, and stated the eastern portion of the site has a site plan approved by resolution 08R-2007 in 2008 under the DROD regulations. Ms. Patten stated that site plan includes 168 residential units, 16,400 sq. ft. of retail, and 216 parking spaces and noted the density on the DROD parcel is 200 units/acre. Ms. Patten stated the area east of the match line could be approved administratively however for very compelling reasons related to the functionality and design of the site the owner decided it made better sense to combine the parcels, noted the piece west of the match line cannot be developed under the DROD standards, stated the parcel west of the match line is what is before the Board, and the request is that be added to the already approve site plan east of the match line. Mr. Freedman stated the property west of the match line is being developed under the Downtown Core zone district, stated there is a primary street (Central Avenue), noted Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 32 2nd Street is not a primary street, stated what they are requesting is to add the parcel to the site SO internally the two buildings can be connected which will improve the efficiency of the site as well as enabling the parking structures to be utilized more efficiently. Mr. Freedman stated the ground floor will contain some retail with parking and service along the alley, the second floor has habitable space along the primary street with parking added on Central Avenue behind the liner portion of the building, is connected to the previously approved site and the applicants were not proposing to change any of the access points on the former site. Mr. Freedman stated an outdoor pool, fitness/community room, and guest units are proposed above the third level, levels 5-10 will contain 2 units per floor, those units will be larger than the units on the DROD site, noted these units will be anywhere from 1500 - 1800 sq.ft. while the DROD site units range between 700 - 1000 sq. ft., and stated with the addition of the 12 residential units on the proposed corner site the total number of units for the project would be 180. Mr. Freedman discussed the cross-section of the proposed building, how it connects to the previously approved project, how the habitable space requirements are being met, and how the parking works. Mr. Freedman discussed the elevations, noted those will be refined through the design process, and stated the applicants will be proposing to submit building permits administratively if the request to combine the two sites is approved. Mr. Freedman stated the previously approved site plan will likely morph slightly into something similar to what is being proposed for the west parcel, the access and exit circulation for the east building is being simplified, noted all code requirements have been met for the proposed site as well as the combined site, stated the site east of the match line is not being touched, and the square footage of retail on the corner parcel is proposed in a range of 7410 sq. ft. which is enough to provide retail on the first two levels as required. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants agree with the proposed conditions however request one small change to condition #5 related to the nine guest units noting they would like the language revised to reflect what is in the zoning code as far as transient accommodations to where it would read "The 9 guest units proposed shall be available only to guests of the residents of the development and tenancy shall be arranged only for periods of one week or less. Such units shall be limited to a maximum 450 square feet and may not contain cooking facilities or otherwise operate in a manner which would constitute a dwelling unit. A per-night fee may be charged to cover cost and upkeep of the units". Mr. Freedman stated these types of units are typically found downtown, the units are small, and the units will be used as sleeping quarters for guests. Ms. Patten stated there is nothing substantive being proposed from staff's S language and noted their proposed language actually tracks the zoning code versus creating language. PB Vice-Chair Svekis requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she had conversations to get some history on the project, had watched previous meetings, and had conversations with Kelly Kirschner, Gretchen Serrie, Pola Sommers, and Courtney Mendez. PB member Siegel questioned if the property is currently vacant. Mr. Freedman stated Marcia Woods former office building is on the site. PB member Siegel questioned where the site is in relationship to the Library. Mr. Freedman stated it is diagonally one block to the east. PB member Siegel requested Mr. Freedman provide a rough description of the overlay district. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 32 Mr. Freedman stated the DROD consisted of the property to the east of the match line, as well as everything to Cocoanut Avenue, noted this was one of five projects approved under the DROD and the parcel being considered tonight is well within the area of the DROD. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned when the applicant purchased the property. Mr. Freedman stated the applicant closed on the property last year. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned when the applicant purchased the DROD property. Mr. Freedman stated that property was purchased in 2013. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated when she was watching the City Commission meeting of 2008 there was detailed discussion regarding the differences between the retail being office or actual boutique or restaurant or something like that and the differences between the traffic generated between those two and were outlining how much could be office and how much could be retail and questioned if the applicants have had any of those kinds of discussions and if that has been broken down and if traffic studies have been done in accordance with those. Mr. Freedman stated they have, noted the 7410 sq. ft. of retail is part of the corner parcel only and the DROD parcel is more than that. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if 16,400 was the square footage of retail in the DROD parcel. Attorney Connolly confirmed that is what it is now. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants had met with David Smith and they determined the use would be specialty retail. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned what specialty retail meant. Mr. Freedman stated it is a category that is not a big box type but more of a main street retail. Mr. Smith stated it could be a variety of retail uses. PB member Ahearn- Koch questioned if another traffic study had been completed. Mr. Freedman stated the traffic impacts had been deemed deminimus because when you take the whole site compared to what was approved for the DROD site there is less square footage due to the elimination of the majority of the office space on the DROD parcel noting there was actually a reduction from what was previously studied. Mr. Smith stated he and the City Engineer had looked at the previous traffic study and the new trip generation for the entire project and determined that the previous traffic study was still good. Mr. Smith noted the impact would be the same or less as was modeled in the previous traffic study which passed concurrency, trip generation has been less since the recession started, and the project did meet concurrency SO it was appropriate to approve it. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if all of the traffic studies were done taking into consideration the retail has the higher volume as opposed to office which is much less. Mr. Freedman confirmed that was correct. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the 12 proposed residential units would be rentals or condos. Mr. Freedman stated at this point those would be rentals however that could change in the future. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she was only interested in the current plans. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants have no interest in making the units condos at this time. Mr. Hoyt stated it is a matter of having it all work together because both sites are the same use, will be managed the same, and noted there are a variety of reasons it makes sense. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she just wanted to be clear on whether the DROD site was going to be rental and this condos and if they would mix together somehow. Mr. Freedman stated that was not the plan at this time and noted how all the amenities work together to make it one apartment building. PB member Lindsay questioned what type of retail would not be allowed in that category and noted retail that is not on a primary street does not have restrictions on banks and that sort of non- retail activity. Mr. Freedman stated that was true and noted since there is an alley in Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 32 the back the applicants have the option to do a drive thru use, they can access the alley and 2nd Street, they just cannot have a driveway on the primary street. Mr. Freedman stated he predicts small retail type uses allowed by Downtown Edge zoning. PB member Lindsay stated there are certain restrictions on retail on the primary streets to keep them more true retail as opposed to things like banks and stock brokerages and sO forth that are not much interest to pedestrians and noted secondary streets do not have the same restrictions. Mr. Freedman stated Central Avenue is not a retail required street at this location. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the setbacks on the parcel at Central Avenue and 2nd Street would be the same as they are now. Mr. Freedman stated the setbacks are very close to the existing noting the existing building is on the property line. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated with the retail on the ground floor and not knowing what kind of traffic the whole block is going to generate one of her main concerns is with sidewalks on both sides of the street there is more and more pedestrian traffic and she wants to be sure that corner very specifically, it is catty corner to the Library as you well know and a lot of the kids from SSAS walk there and to Starbucks and she wants to be extra careful that we are very aware of that situation and that a lot of those pedestrians at a certain time of the day are children and just need to be aware of that and take that into consideration. Mr. Freedman stated he has been very fortunate to have gone through several building permit application review processes with the staff and they are very cognizant of that and the definitely watch out for that making sure we have adequate sidewalks around our buildings. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated her concerns relate to visibility as well noting the buildings need to be set back where there are proper visuals people can see the pedestrians, stated the issue is becoming increasingly important especially in light of recent events that happened with the biker and how drivers need to be very aware and conscious of pedestrians and bikers, stated these are children SO we need to be very aware of that and take acts to make sure everyone is safe in that area. PB member Svekis questioned what kinds of meetings had been held where the applicants found out the rooftop dining was objectionable. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants had held a community workshop. PB member Svekis stated no notes from the community workshop were provided. Mr. Freedman stated that was due to the fact the community workshop was voluntary. PB: member Svekis questioned how many people were concerned about the rooftop dining. Mr. Freedman stated most everyone that attended the meeting was concerned, there were 12 dozen people that spoke that spoke pretty strongly that they did not want it. PB member Svekis questioned what the nature of the concerns were. Mr. Freedman stated the concerns were noise. PB: member Svekis questioned if the size of the guest units was the applicants idea. Mr. Freedman stated his client lives in a building that has those types of guest units and he felt it was important to include those due to the fact the residential units are small and do not have adequate space for sleeping quarters for people visiting. PB: member Svekis stated the living units for the residents are sO small visitors can't camp there. Mr. Freedman stated that is what he meant to say if he didn't just say that. PB member Svekis questioned if that is the case where do the guests eat, do they have to go out for every meal. Mr. Freedman stated the downtown restaurants would hope sO however guests can eat in the residential units there just are not extra bedrooms for guests. PB member Svekis stated his question is if the guest units are limited to the guests of the residents and have a limited timeframe they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 32 can't be called housing per se sO why not have kitchen facilities. Mr. Freedman stated the inclusion of kitchens would make those residential versus guest units and the allowable density would then be exceeded. Ms. Patten stated the guest units are treated as accessory guest units and can'thave a kitchen. If a kitchen is provided the units would be counted as one of the regular units and instead of 12 units the project would have 21 units. PB: member Svekis questioned if the applicants could proffer it. Mr. Freedman stated the code is very clear on the issue. PB member Svekis noted the applicant's letter mentioned the affordable housing contribution was not of consequence in this discussion and questioned what was meant by that. Ms. Patten stated the issue is the area east of the match line was approved under the prior site plan and is subject to the DROD requirements, including the affordable housing contribution requirement. Ms. Patten stated the applicants are not touching that, everything on that site remains in place and is enforceable, stated the owner would comply with the affordable housing contribution requirements, stated the parcel to the west of the match line is not subject to the DROD densities or affordable housing contribution requirements, and noted the DROD overlay district is now expired. PB member Svekis stated he also had concerns regarding the streetscape architecture not being provided noting that view has been provided for the older building and questioned how difficult it would be to put that together for this parcel for continuity. Mr. Freedman stated the Planning Board has worked with the architect before, stated the building will be beautiful, and as far as landscape streetscape that is in the City right-of-way SO the City will dictate what can and cannot be done. PB member Svekis stated he was thinking more about the architectural aspects. Mr. Freedman stated assuming the applicant gets approval to combine the buildings the next step is to finalize the design, submit for a building permit and staff will review the aesthetics of the building at that time. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted there are two statements in their packets, one from the City that says "It should be noted that the proposed elevations under 14-SP-04 and those provided for 07-SP-17 do not match general architectural style, rhythm and shape of the windows, proposed rooflines, etc. This point was raised to the applicant in both the Development Review Committee (DRC) Meetings and in writing following. The applicant has responded (verbally and in writing) that their approach is to provide the minimum information necessary to bring the question of joining the two parcels for development purposes while retaining the DROD density forward to the City Commission, and that they do not wish to proceed to full plan development until this decision has been made. While staff feels that the point of any Site Plan application is to show consistency with the Zoning Code and criteria for Site Plan approval based on actual proposed development plans, staff concedes that plans provided meet the minimum Site Plan standard" then the applicant's state in their letter that it is not reasonable to go forward and provide those plans. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated very often the Planning Board sees more complete site plans, noted the applicant stated in their letter these would typically be approved administratively, and stated typically if something is supposed to be approved administratively the applicants would not be coming before the Planning Board and the City Commission SO this is not an apples to apples comparison. PB member Ahearn-Koch further stated she is curious as to why something more detailed was not provided, noting she was shocked when she realized what had been provided. Ms. Patten stated as explained in the staff report and the applicant's letter Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page7of 32 this is not a typical situation, stated generally if a developer files a site plan and follows the code they know it will be approved, in this case the applicants could bring a fully architecturally designed site plan, building elevation showing finished floors, etc. to the Planning Board, however if the City Commission does not approve combining the two buildings those plans are thrown out the window and that is a huge expense. Ms. Patten stated the applicants decided to do this in a two-step process, the first being to see if the two buildings can be joined together and, if not, the owner will build the building east of the match line separate from the building west of the match line which would require two driveways on 2nd Street and a whole bunch of other things including different building designs, noting the building to the west would not have to comply with the building to the east. Ms. Patten stated to provide a completely designed architectural plan at this point for a new façade across the entire frontage that meets the code was such an expensive process that the applicants took a minimum code compliant process to get the first question to the Planning Board, and stated if the Planning Board approves the request the applicants can come back with a minor Site Plan Amendment to make changes to the façade to make it architecturally compatible which staff will be reviewing as the second step. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she understands all of that however part of the standards are the Planning Board has to look at architectural design, characteristics, etc. and is concerned that those have not been provided. Mr. Freedman stated the Planning Board would not see the corner parcel if it is built separately. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that is not what is happening. Mr. Freedman stated the applicant's did not go to the expense to do that because they don't know if the request to combine the two buildings is going to be approved. PB member. Ahearn-Koch stated she understands it is somewhat of a circle however the Planning Board does have standards. Ms. Patten stated the Planning Board would have to trust staff in their review of the final plans as staff would look at the plans for code compliance, stated the applicants did the minimum to get the basic question of can the buildings bej joined to the Planning Board noting that was partly a regulatory and partly a business decision. Mr. Hoyt stated providing the plans at this point would have required doing two different designs for two different projects which would be more confusing than just presenting the property line issue, stated if the buildings are combined the applicants can come back with one project, and noted otherwise there would actually be three projects, one for each site and a combined one in order to decide a property line issue. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated two separate projects with the request to join them is what is before the Planning Board. Mr. Hoyt stated that was incorrect, the reason they were present was to make a decision about the property line. Ms. Patten stated the criteria for site plan approval in the Zoning Code is fairly general, noted it does not actually say building elevations and architectural detail has to be submitted. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she respectfully disagreed. PB member Siegel stated looking at the issue from the standpoint of process and a level playing field in the community he respectfully disagrees with Ms. Patten's interpretation of the criteria set forth under the site plan requirements, noting from his own experience it is not unusual to have to submit detailed information, stated he understands it is inconvenient, and requested an explanation as to why this request should be different from others. Ms. Patten stated the applicants anticipated this issue coming up, noted it is a valid issue, stated she wished to retract part of her Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 32 earlier comments, conceded the criteria does have general standards for looking at architectural design, etc., and stated however it goes back to the specific request which is to add a parcel to a site plan. Ms. Patten further stated the regulations state staff and the applicant can determine what information is required to be submitted to amend a site plan, noted the request is a very narrow one to add a parcel to an existing site plan, and stated she would share the concerns if a brand new building was being proposed, however the request is not for a brand new site plan but to add a parcel to an existing site plan. PB: member Siegel questioned how often an issue like this comes up noting he has never seen Mr. Freedman present anything but a complete set of plans. Mr. Freedman stated this is the first time, it is very unique due to the DROD situation, for downtown projects he always recommends, and the developers always agree, that the best approach is always go straight to building permit because the code and rules are known, and stated the applicants could do that on this building and have a redundant firewall between the two buildings which does not make sense, and noted this is a one and only situation because the DROD is no longer in effect. PB member Siegel stated he understood the applicant's position and noted he will question staff as to what happens if this comes up again. PB member Svekis questioned if the Planning Board approves the request conditioned on the approval of the exterior architectural design, how that would work. Mr. Freedman stated that is not part of the code. Mr. Hoyt stated the applicants will have to go through the full process anyway. Mr. Freedman noted that process would be administrative. PB member Siegel noted the conditions would have to be reviewed to see if that is included in the requirements. Ms. Patten stated if she understood the question PB member Svekis is suggesting that if the City Commission approves the joining of the two buildings the applicants would them come back before the Planning Board with the final design work SO they could be comfortable. PB member Svekis stated he felt somewhere there has to be agreement from staff that the exterior design is compatible with their views for the area. Mr. Freedman stated that is what the building permit application process is all about. Mr. Hoyt stated the applicants were going through the full process with the City staff at this time on two projects and there is plenty of feedback from staff SO that process is in place already and stated the applicants fully intend to go through the same process with this project. Mr. Freedman stated the two projects are the Jewel and One Palm and noted both are under construction at this time. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated she felt there was no need for a formal presentation as the applicants had covered the request in detail. Senior Planner Mendez stated that as the applicants had stated the project is unique, it is a site plan amendment dealing with particular issues, and stated the joining of the buildings and adding additional land could not be considered a minor modification to the approved site plan. Senior Planner Mendez stated she would touch on the site plan issue, noted the Planning Board has seen the exchanges between staff and the applicant, stated staff had pushed for more detail to keep it consistent with other site plans as well as to get the Planning Board to a comfortable level to make the decision, noted from a staff perspective there is second bite at the apple since it is downtown, stated the building permit review process gets very detailed into the architectural and other code compliance issues and she has no doubt in reviewing the project staff can Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 32 ensure all of the zoning requirements are enforced as well as several advisory issues such as pedestrian circulation and those types of issues. PB member Siegel questioned if staff would agree that if this request is approved under these conditions another applicant would be justified if something similar came up to say it was done before, why can't they relax what they have to submit because of the expense involved, and questioned if a policy is being established. Senior Planner Mendez stated as Ms. Patten noted under the site plan amendment criteria it states the applicant and staff can agree as to what level of information needs to be provided versus ai new site plan that has a much more stringent checklist, stated she believes the more detail the better however in this case the applicants held a very firm position and staff agreed to let them come forward based on what had been provided, noted what was submitted did meet the code requirements at this point and it is just a matter of finishing details. Senior Planner Mendez stated staff also looked at the level of detail provided for the Alcazar and those were of a similar level of detail SO holding these applicants to a similar standard came into play. PB member Siegel questioned how many floors up the proposed rooftop restaurant was. Senior Planner Mendez stated it would have been on the 10th floor as opposed to the residential units that are shown on the plans presented, noted she was not involved in the community workshop however the issue came up at the DRC meeting and was addressed then and the applicants agreed to remove the rooftop dining. PB member Siegel noted he has expressed concerns regarding alcohol in residential areas previously, stated there was a very distinguished urban guru who warned we don't want the downtown to turn into an entertainment district, noted over 70 people came out at the community workshop and questioned how something like the reaction of the people residing in the community gets memorialized SO if it does resurface there is a record and history that can be referenced in the Planning Board's future evaluation of future conditional uses. Senior Planner Mendez stated in this specific case the offer to take out the rooftop dining was reflected on the plans submitted and to memorialize that it was addressed in the staff report which becomes part of the back-up and staff has recommended a condition specific to that to ensure in the future the rooftop does not contain any non-residential use other than non-habitable accessory equipment and structures as may be required to serve the ground level retail or offiçe space, and noted the condition goes with the property. PB member Siegel questioned if something similar came up in the same general area would staff come forward and explain this was an issue previously and if that would be part of the record. Senior Planner Mendez stated while she cannot speak for others she does rely on the past history in developing her staff reports. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the Planning Board is being asked to approve joining two properties and as part of that she considers it important to look at the history of the property being joined, noted the original site plan was approved in 2008 after almost two years, there was a resolution and then an amendment, and questioned what the amendment was. Senior Planner Mendez stated the initial approval for the project that was known as the Alcazar was approved for 168 residential units, 10,000 sq. ft. of retail, and 21,000 sq. ft. of office space, stated there was a 2012 administrative amendment that reduced the residential units to 158 and took out the square footage for the office space, there was a 2013 administrative amendment that took the project back to 168 residential units and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 32 reduced the 31,000 sq. ft. of combined retail and office space to 5,000 sq. ft. of retail with no office, and the third administrative amendment increased the retail to 16,000 sq. ft., noted the traffic study was done on the 16,000 sq. ft. that was already approved plus the 8,000 sq. ft. +/- being proposed which combined is still well under the 31,000 sq. ft. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the original project was not completed. Senior Planner Mendez stated she did not have details however there were many projects in that timeframe that were ready to go then went by the wayside with the sharp drop-off in the market. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the site plan and resolution was extended for a total of 8 12 years and questioned what the criteria for the extensions was. Senior Planner Mendez stated site plans are good for two years then a two year extension can be granted which the applicant did request, then due to market conditions the Florida Legislature approved a series of extensions on development orders statewide and to qualify for those extensions the only thing required was a letter from the developer by a certain date that they were taking advantage of the extension the State is offering, no review or analysis by the City was required, and the City was obligated to grant the extensions. PB member Ahearn- Koch stated as far as the project that was approved in 2008, to be clear on what was approved in reference to affordable housing, apartments versus condominiums, unit sizes and rental space, rental prices, density bonus, height, parking off-street and in- house, architectural style, and setbacks, had those changed since 2008. Senior Planner Mendez stated those had not changed at this point, noted administrative adjustments to some of those could be requested, however, some of that cannot be changed such as height, density, etc. that are not considered administrative. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated SO the height is 106' (ten stories), density is 200 units/acre, and the units are rental. Senior Planner Mendez stated also the location of the access points and circulation cannot be changed. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated there was talk about prices. Senior Planner Mendez stated there were two options that fell under the DROD based on the fact the units were rental, either a contribution to the affordable housing fund or designating units in the project as affordable and noted if units were designated those units would have to be for sale rather than rental, stated since these units are rental the only option is a contribution to the affordable housing fund, and noted that only applies to the DROD portion of the project. PB member Ahearn-Koch requested confirmation that the DROD portion expires June 27, 2016 at which point everything is scrapped and the applicants could go forward with something completely new. Senior Planner Mendez stated that was correct, noting if construction is not started by that date the approvals expire and everything granted under the DROD would be lost and the density would revert back to 50 units/acre. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated page four talks about efficiencies gained by joining the two buildings, noted those were vaguely discussed about the entrance being one versus two, and requested Senior Planner Mendez outline other efficiencies gained by joining the two buildings, specifically by the City. Senior Planner Mendez stated those were addressed in the staff report, the biggest efficiency is access and the number of curb cuts on 2nd Street, noting when curb cuts are reduced and there is an active use along the street the pedestrian experience is improved. Senior Planner Mendez stated if two separate structures were built there would be two entrances with additional breaks which is a big one for the City and stated from the applicant's perspective there are efficiencies in cost stating if there were two buildings with a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 32 shared parking agreement the firewall would have to be maintained and to get from one building to the other would require going down to the ground level then back up which is not reasonable. PB member Siegel stated regarding the procedural issues he raised earlier, under the fourth condition the history of what took place regarding the rooftop restaurant is addressed and questioned if it would be feasible to add a reference to the paragraph on page four that states "Staff has provided recommended conditions providing the maximum development as proposed as well as a condition regarding use of the rooftop space. The condition regarding use of the rooftop space is in response to substantial concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbors based on an earlier version of the plan that showed open air rooftop dining associated with a ground-level restaurant. The applicant agreed to remove this from the plan as a part of the DRC review process, thereby alleviating the concerns from the neighborhood. In order to ensure that any future owners of the property or other effected parties are aware of this commitment, staff feels it is appropriate to memorialize it as a condition of approval" as part of condition #4. Senior Planner Mendez stated she would have to defer to the Attorney however it may be more appropriate as a whereas clause in the resolution. Attorney Connolly stated the wording would be appropriate for a whereas clause in the resolution, it would not be appropriate as a condition, and stated if the Planning Board wants to recommend that be included he has no problem putting it in the resolution as part of factual history. PB member Ahearn-Koch requested Senior Planner Mendez speak to the staff's responses to the standards, specifically numbers two, three, and four, where it talks about design & layout, architectural design, performance characteristics, all of those things she reference earlier, noted number four talks about noise, odor, etc. and those considerations and the City's response. Senior Planner Mendez stated number two is an on-balance finding as to whether or not it is compatible with the design, layout, and intent of the Sarasota City Plan sO there she speaks to the intent of the Downtown Core zone district that it is a dense, mixed-use district that forms a continuous edge along the right-of-way which is specifically addressed SO staff has found it consistent. Senior Planner Mendez stated number three regarding the minimum standards had already been discussed extensively, and in terms of number four where it talks about if there is a way the design, configuration, density, mass, etc. could be changed to mitigate or improve the development staff speaks to the benefit of the single access point that relates to the joining of the properties, loading and other services are provided via the alley which is the most appropriate place for those, and the building meets the minimum development envelope as far as habitable space, window areas, etc. particularly along Central Avenue which is a primary street frontage. PB member Ahearn-Koch requested confirmation that any loading would take place in the alley whether there are one or two projects. Senior Planner Mendez stated that was correct, in either case the loading would occur in the alley. PB member Svekis questioned in terms of the question of architectural detail if the City Commission approves the request and it then goes to building permit is there any effective control over the architèctural detail after the City's approval of the project. Senior Planner Mendez stated compliance with building design standards that deal with the base architecture, shape of openings, window areas, etc. that are all applied could be referenced as well as advisory community guidelines that can be pulled from at any time, and stated Mr. Hoyt could speak to the fact that these discussions occur when projects come along for Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 32 a building permit. PB member Svekis questioned if staff had any great concerns over that. Senior Planner Mendez stated staff did not have any concerns noting a benefit of how projects that come before the Planning Board are reviewed is that a cradle to grave approach is used and as a result she will be following the project through the entire process until final approval. PB member Svekis stated he was troubled by the issue of the rooftop restaurant, stated he did not understand how it went from something to nothing without any intermediate steps or conditions, and questioned how it was dropped sO suddenly. Senior Planner Mendez stated staff heard loud and clear the concerns of the neighbors that were expressed via phone calls, emails, general discussions, and the number of people that attended the DRC meeting, noted staff's role is to play facilitator and be sure comments from the neighbors are conveyed to the applicant, and stated that was done through the DRC comments. PB member Svekis questioned if the applicant only wanted to be open for lunch would that still be objectionable stating he was trying to understand why it was totally shut down without any perimeters of operation. Senior Planner Mendez stated the applicant would have to address that. Affected Person Testimony: Mr. Alan Loring appeared and stated he is the managing member of Wahoo Holding LLC that owns the property directly behind the proposed apartments where Cove Cleaners is located and stated he had two issues. Mr. Loring stated the first one is the issue of the alley, stated the alley is very narrow, he was concerned the access to the proposed buildings will conflict with patrons exiting Cove Cleaners, and noted that could be a problem for both property owners. Mr. Loring stated his second concern is dust from the construction, particularly the demolition of the existing building, stated it is a dry cleaning operation SO the doors are open during operating hours to allow air to flow through, stated he want to ensure the contractor understands the impact of dust during demolition on the surrounding properties, stated he does not know if it can be controlled, and noted Cove Cleaners is closed on Saturdays and Sundays and if the demolition could be coordinated around the times the business is closed that would be best. PB member Svekis asked if the Mr. Loring had any questions for staff. Mr. Loring stated he did not know what requests he could make in terms of the alley being narrow and restrictive and whether he needs to be somehow a part of the demolition of the Marcia Woods building as far as the City is concerned or if he needs to work directly with the contractor. PB member Svekis questioned if there was any response from staff. Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated staff was willing to work with Mr. Loring and noted there are things that can be done during the demolition as far as ensuring water spraydown is used to control and dampen the dust. Citizen Testimony: Ms. Cheryl Walker appeared and stated she lives at 100 Central which is 50' away from the proposed apartment building, stated there are 96 units with 150 residents who expressed concerns, stated Mr. Biter met with the residents and stated the design would be a stepped back design SO the tunnel effect would not happen between 100 Central and Five Points, and noted First Street has that problem and does not get sunshine. Ms. Walker stated Mr. Biter said he was designing the building with the stepback because the City and Planning Board would not make that mistake again and she hopes someone will remember the controversy over the tunnel Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m: in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 32 effect of not having sun on the streets. Ms. Walker stated as far as the comments about the retail restaurant rooftop bar that comes from the Ivory where residents did not know what they were getting into which was a lot of the reaction to having a rooftop restaurant here and questioned what would stop the developers from using the 9th floor for an Ivory stating that would cause the same problems as the Ivory has. Mr. Walker discussed the proposed parking spaces stating she was concerned that the amendment says up to 47 spaces however when you add the residents, renters, and retail spaces that would not be enough parking in that building SO people will park in the public parking lot and noted on weekends the residents of 100 Central cannot get in and out of their garages particularly when events are occurring. Ms. Walker stated she was also concerned about the process where the applicants did not even provide a detailed plan for the original building and suspects they are holding back until only one person has to sign-off and there is no public input. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman, Ms. Patten, and Mr. Hoyt appeared. Mr. Freedman stated the 47 parking spaces are only for 1401 2nd Street, noted the entire project has 243 parking spaces, presented a graphic depicting the stepback after the 3rd level, noting it steps back significantly and exceeds the code requirements. Ms. Patten apologized if she sounded like the Planning Board should never consider architectural detail, stated that is not what she meant, stated the standards do have a requirement that the Planning Board look at architectural design and generally when looking at a new site plan the Planning Board is looking at things more like general architectural design, stated thea applicants are requesting the addition of a parcel to an existing site plan and she sees that as different. Ms. Patten stated she wanted to point out that the Planning Board is not typically involved in the final detail of the architectural design, stated construction plans go through a process, there is a construction and building permit process that the Planning Board is not involved in SO they really are not usually involved in the final detail, pointed out there were architectural drawings in the Planning Board's packets and on page 5 of those drawings there are elevations that show the percentage of glass, type of materials, and locations of windows even though they may not show the exact final finishes. Mr. Freedman stated the plans submitted were very similar to the type of plans typically seen on a site plan for the elevations, stated he believes the concern is there is a previously approved site plan then the parcel on the corner that don't match, stated the applicant agrees and when they come back with a final design they will probably request a minor site plan modification to modify the design sO it is more elegant, and noted if their proposed changes are sO dramatic that they don't meet staff' S requirements they will be back before the Planning Board. Mr. Freedman reiterated the plans are very typical of what is normally received on the elevation level. Mr. Hoyt stated many of the items on the elevations are in response to staff comments. Mr. Freedman stated in regards to the questions about the rooftop restaurant, the client wants to build an apartment complex downtown, had an idea to have a rooftop restaurant, the push back was such that the client decided to eliminate that from the plans, and this issue is simply one of a developer listening to the neighbors. Ms. Patten noted on pages five and six of the staff report staff addresses the criteria used to decide to approve or not approve the request and stated in looking at staff's responses numbers one and two state the development is consistent with the intent of the Downtown Code, number three states Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 32 the information has been provided meeting the minimum standard to complete a review and analysis, number four is where staff discusses mitigation issues the applicants have complied with, and number five states the applicants have provided the appropriate parking. Ms. Patten stated each one of those is a positive affirmative the code requirements have been met and her final comment to the Planning Board is the proposal before them meets the code sO it is entitled to be approved as presented. PB member Siegel questioned if Ms. Patten felt that finding was based upon substantial evidence in the record right now. Ms. Patten stated she did think substantial, competent evidence is in the record to support approval. Mr. Freedman stated in regard to the concerns expressed by the owner of Cove Cleaner's S the applicants will get his contact information and work with him throughout the construction process. PB member Svekis questioned if there would be a restaurant in any of the buildings. Mr. Freedman stated he did not know for sure however if SO it would be on the ground floor. PB member Svekis stated his comment is outside of this discussion however he felt Sarasota needs more than blocks, needs features to liven things up that don't irritate the neighbors, a restaurant is such a thing and would add to the skyline if done properly architecturally to mitigate any problems with the neighbors and stated he felt every item like that was a plus for the City. Mr. Freedman stated there are many people that would agree with that and many that would not. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated someone had asked about the 9th floor being a potential club and while she knows that can'thappen but suggested the applicants might want to address that. Mr. Freedman stated that would change everything, noted it is not easy to put a restaurant on top of a building, stated the plan is to build an apartment complex and take a whole floor of residential units out would turn the project upside down. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated SO that is not a realistic fear. Mr. Freedman stated not at all. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she just wanted it addressed. PB: member Siegel made a motion to find Site Plan 14-SP-04 consistent with Section IV- 506 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Site Plan Amendment, subject to the seven conditions supplemented by a resolution that would capture the expression regarding the discussion regarding the rooftop restaurant as contained in the second to last paragraph of page four of the analysis and asked Attorney Connolly if it could be done that way. Attorney Connolly stated there has to be a resolution because there will be a City Commission resolution amending the 2008 resolution. PB member Siegel stated sO it has to be done separately. Attorney Connolly stated he would prepare a resolution as a result of this public hearing, noted that as he stated earlier the language pointed out will be incorporated in a City Commission resolution however will be in a whereas clause to be a factual finding as the support for why the Planning Board has gone there. PB member Siegel stated he liked that. PB member Lindsay questioned if the motion included the proposed minor change to condition number 5. PB member Siegel agreed to include that is his motion. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Siegel stated the key points he was concerned with had been covered, he respects the applicant'sj justification for the reduction and what they have brought forth, noted he has been on the Planning Board long enough to know that what they start with is not always what they finish with, stated while sitting there looking over the plans he thinks its appropriate, noted he has Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 32 been on the other side of this and has heard a lot of comments consistent to these from other administrative people that when you come in with a project they want to know everything there is to know from the outset, stated he has run into that a lot with restaurants they open all over the country sO iti is an important point but it is an issue that the staff has to deal with administratively, the principle he is talking about is a level playing field, he accepts that explanations that were made by the applicant and that is why he is supporting it. PB member Siegel stated as far as the restaurant part of it he feels very strongly about that issue, alcohol related businesses, whether in an overlay district or on Main Street, have got to be vetted much more thoroughly along the lines of whether there is an undue concentration of alcohol related businesses and what the history is in some of the areas, noted documentation is available, stated it is an issue in this town, he understands it sO the more we can put into, particularly when there has been a hearing and there has been a reaction from people, that it should be as clearly as we can bring it forth, stated he is not saying it is a drop dead thing but is part of the record that should be considered at the appropriate time, and stated within the manner in which we have worked it out is acceptable and that is why he is supporting the project and stated he thinks it is a good project overall. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she agrees with PB: member Siegel on some of the points he stated, she thinks the project is a good idea, she agrees with staff that one curb cut is better than two, making better use of stormwater and infrastructure and SO on and sO forth, she feels those are all good ideas, she would support overall the general idea of the project, has no specific feelings either way on the rooftop restaurant, she knows others are concerned about that, it was a good effort of faith that the developer chose not to include the rooftop restaurant voluntarily because of the neighborhood reaction, she finds it commendable when a developer holds a voluntary workshop and listens to what the neighbors say and just voluntarily says this is what you don't like SO I'll just take: if off the playing field, sO she really commends the developer on that, on the general idea, and the project, however she does not feel it has met the standards the Planning Board has before them, she knows the applicants came down and talked about they have this amount of glass versus wall versus stucco and sO on and SO forth, she sees the standards in front of her and those talk about not only the development but the design and layout, noted she knows they have a layout, stated the standards talk about architectural design and performance characteristics, stated there are too many items that are unanswered / there are question marks, she does not think the site plan meets the normal site plan standards that they do see, feels they are taking a step down and setting a precedent for less informative presentations, she knows the minimums have been met and the City said ok this is absolutely the minimum, however she does not think in this specific case when having a Planning Board public hearing and having a City Commission public hearing that there should be SO many question marks and sO many unknowns, and the we. have one very slight, vague, basic approved site plan, another sort of one that is about the same, she does not know much about either one of them that makes her confident the two will come together as one unified project, she had no doubt it can be done and trusts that they will, she trusts City staff, however she disagrees the applicants are entitled to approval, that word was not used appropriately, if they were entitled they would not be here, sO she disagrees the Planning Board was provided sufficient information as per the standards. PB member Siegel stated those were good points however one of the basic responsibilities Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 32 the Planning Board has, from what he can see, is to have these discussions, listen to everyone's opinion, but ultimately the decision will be made at a higher level. PB member Svekis stated he reflects a lot of the thoughts made by PB members Ahearn- Koch and Siegel, PB member Siegel not 100%only 95%, stated again the issue is one of exception to the norm which is bothersome, and yet he understands the nature of the two different situations here that are extremely unusual, he trusts that staff will make certain the architectural presentation is good for downtown, SO he will support the project. Secretary Smith stated the motion is to recommend approval with the seven conditions with the change in condition number five and a resolution that would capture the discussion of the rooftop restaurant discussion on page four of the staff report. The motion passed 3/1 with PB member Ahearn-Koch voting no. PB CHAIR GALLAGHER REENTERED THE CHAMBERS. THE BOARD RECESSED FOR 5 MINUTES. 2. Duval's New World Café [1435 Main Street!: Site Plan application 14-SP-05, Major Conditional Use application 14-CU-01, and Adjustment to the Downtown Code application 14-ADP-04 request Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval to allow a nightclub use, which would allow a 4-COP alcoholic beverage license for the 2,375 square foot space, located in the Downtown Core (DTC) zone district. The nightclub is being requested in conjunction with the existing restaurant know as Duval's Old World Café, however conditions have been proffered by the applicant requiring the restaurant as a concurrent use to the nightclub. The applicant has also provided proffered conditions limiting hours of operation and limiting live entertainment to three specified dates per year. The hours of operation for the use are: Monday through Thursday 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Friday and Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.; and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The proffered dates for live entertainment are: November 14 (the restaurant's anniversary date), New Year's Eve, and Fat Tuesday (the day before Ash Wednesday each year and 47 days before Easter). All live music would cease at 11:00 p.m. on November 14th and on Fat Tuesday, and would cease after the New Year's Eve celebration at midnight (12:05 a.m. an January 1st). The applicant is also seeking approval of an adjustment to the Downtown Code from the requirement that there be 500 ft. separation between the nightclub and religious institutions, schools, or residentially zoned property. In this case, the First Methodist Church is located 359 ft. away from the establishment on Pineapple Avenue, requiring an adjustment of 141 ft. [Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner). Attorney Connolly stated there was one application for affected person status from Mr. Frank Brenner. Attorney Connolly stated since Mr. Brenner was not present it was his recommendation that he not be granted affected person status. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 32 Attorney Connolly requested the Planning Board members reveal any ex-parte communications. PB member Svekis stated he had spoken to the receptionist at the Café. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman and Mr. Sean Abrams appeared. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants are requesting a Major Conditional Use and Site Plan related to the existing restaurant at 1435 Main Street that has been operating under the current owners since 2011. Mr. Freedman stated the restaurant has been very successful however the patrons have consistently requested full bar service, stated the space is 2,375 sq. ft. which is just shy of one of the requirements to get a SRX license, another requirement that cannot be met is a minimum of 150 seats, the neighboring property owners were contacted to see if additional floor area could be acquired which was unsuccessful, SO the only option is to buy a 4COP license which requires going through the City's Major Conditional Use process due to being classified as a nightclub. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants have no desire to be a nightclub, presented a site plan showing there is no actual bar area, and stated the owners just want to be able to serve. a full bar menu to their patrons. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants held a community workshop, the area residents were very concerned, and as a result the applicants developed proffers that limit the hours of operation and limit the days live entertainment could be provided to three days per year, the restaurant's anniversary, New Year's Eve, and Fat Tuesday. Mr. Freedman stated the hours of operation on the three days live entertainment could be provided are also specified noting live entertainment, if provided, would cease at 11:00 p.m. on the restaurant's anniversary and Fat Tuesday, and after the celebrations on New Year's Eve which is specified as 12:05 a.m. Mr. Freedman stated the restaurant plays Muzak as background music, noted condition number four states the Muzak is allowed at a low volume, the condition applies to the speakers on the sidewalks as well, and noted the outdoor speakers cannot be connected to a central system SO any live entertainment played indoors would not be amplified outdoors. Mr. Freedman stated the music is for the diners, not for dancing, stated it was unfortunate the owners had to go for the 4COP due to the cost involved however that is what the patrons want and that is why they are before the Board. Mr. Freedman discussed the requested adjustment from a distance separation to a House of Worship of 141 feet noting the First Methodist Church on Pineapple Avenue is 359 feet away. PB member Lindsay questioned if the distance was measured as a straight line or by the walking route. Mr. Freedman stated the distance is measured as a straight line and noted by walking distance was much further. PB member Lindsay stated the code previously required the walking distance be measured. Attorney Connolly stated the code provides for a straight line measurement, noted staff's analysis indicates the sidewalk route is 575 feet, and stated the code requires a straight line measurement to the front door of a church/synagogue sanctuary. PB: member Siegel questioned if the measurement was property to property or property line. Attorney Connolly stated the way the measurements are taken differs based on what is being measured and stated in this case the code reads minimum separation distance shall be measured in a straight line, in any direction, from the nearest point of any tenant space containing the bar, tavern, nightclub, or alcoholic beverage store to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 32 the nearest perimeter door of a church/synagogue sanctuary". Mr. Freedman stated it is unclear what the purpose of the separation is, however noise will not be a problem due to the buildings in-between. PB: member Lindsay noted the code specifies sanctuary, not ancillary buildings. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct and reiterated the wording perimeter door of a church/s synagogue sanctuary". PB member Siegel questioned if there werej just a couple of tables out front noting he noticed when he walked by there is not a lot of room. Mr. Abrams stated there are three tables with four chairs each and two two-top tables with two chairs that are brought out for special events. PB member Siegel questioned if the volume of the sound when he walked by was the same type as is being proposed. Mr. Freedman confirmed that was correct. PB member Svekis questioned where the entertainment is on the three days. Mr. Abrams stated in the past the entertainment consisted of someone playing an acoustic guitar in the corner on a stool. PB member Svekis questioned if that was the entertainment on Fat Tuesday. Mr. Abrams stated the owners have not had entertainment on Fat Tuesday in the past however they want to leave that option open, and stated the only entertainment provided in the past was an acoustic guitar and vocalist on the restaurant's anniversary. PB member Svekis questioned if the proffers came from the applicants or if they were staff induced. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants had provided the proffers. Mr. Abrams stated the issue is one of inventory, noted their competitors have full bar service, and stated if their restaurant was a little larger they would have full bar service as well. PB member Svekis questioned if the owners had any interest in live music other than those three days. Mr. Abrams stated those three days are a maybe noting the applicants want to reserve the right. PB member Svekis questioned if the hours were aj problem. Mr. Abrams stated they were not noting the restaurant closes at 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on Friday and Saturday. PB member Svekis questioned if the owners had a problem with serving full dinners at 11:59 p.m. Mr. Abrams stated that has not come up before however if someone were to walk in at that time the restaurant is open until midnight sO they would be served. PB member Svekis questioned if having a full menu was a problem. Mr. Abrams stated they are a restaurant and noted this is an issue of inventory for the restaurant. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if there is any amplified sound outside of the restaurant. Mr. Abrams stated there are two speakers that pipe Muzak out to the three patio tables. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the speakers were hooked to a radio. Mr. Abrams stated the owners have a Muzak subscription and that is piped outside during the hours of operation. PB member Siegel questioned Attorney Connolly for the record if the proffers run with the land. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. PB: member Siegel questioned if another owner would have to live with the proffers unless they tried to change them. Attorney Connolly stated that was correct noting in order to change the proffers they would have to go through the same public hearing process. PB: member Siegel stated he was interested in being sure the request was vetted as thoroughly as possible and questioned if the standards of criteria that are applied in considering a conditional use run with the land as well. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. PB member Siegel questioned if the process is to petition the City Manager if someone violated the conditions. Attorney Connolly stated the process is set forth in the City Code and generally the process starts with the City Manager providing notice the conditional use is revoked due to the violation, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 32 the applicant has an opportunity to request a public hearing to challenge the revocation, the public hearing goes to the body that granted the conditional use, noted since this is a major conditional use the public hearing would go through the Planning Board to the City Commission, and stated if the revocation is upheld there is no conditional use approval. Attorney Connolly if someone wanted to do the exact same thing later they would have to go through the public hearing process again. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the community workshop the applicants held was voluntary. Mr. Freedman stated it was required. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why there were no notes from the community workshop. After discussion it was determined the minutes from the community workshop were inadvertently left out. PB member Svekis stated it is a problem that they do not get the notes from workshops. Secretary Smith stated he would ensure those are provided in the future. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if those were just missed stating his experience has been they usually get those. PB member Siegel requested the applicants provide an overview of the workshop including how many attended and what their questions were. Mr. Freedman stated there was a good turnout of about 15 - 20 people, he believed there was someone present at the public hearing that wanted to speak, stated there was a good dialog noting there was a lot of concern because of issues at the neighboring establishment, noted part of the meeting was convincing those present that the owners only want to run a restaurant that has full liquor service, and that when those present realized that they relaxed. Mr. Freedman stated it was his understanding that at another community workshop for a nearby facility it was referenced that the applicants should go look at Duval's proffers to see how to be a good neighbor, reiterated it was a good, friendly dialog, and stated the applicants knew what the concerns were however that did not bother the owners since they do not want to be a nightclub. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the only concern was the music and if any other concerns were expressed by the neighbors. Mr. Freedman stated that was correct noting that was because having music or entertainment was associated with when an establishment shuts down, what happens when patrons leave, etc. Mr. Freedman reiterated the owners will be operating a restaurant with a full menu and a whole different crowd, and noted the owners have dubbed the patrons the opera crowd. PB member Svekis questioned what time the Opera ends at night. Mr. Abrams stated the restaurant generally gets the crowd before the Opera SO he was not sure what time the Opera ends. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated Mr. Freedman had covered the basic application and details well, stated the application is a request for a nightclub that has been proffered to make it as un-nightclub like as possible with the hours of operation, limits on live music, and limits on the volume of the music. Senior Planner Mendez stated the applicants have tried throughout to demonstrate to the public their primary characteristic is a restaurant and noted staff has made a finding of consistency with the applicable criteria for conditional use, site plan and adjustments. Senior Planner Mendez stated the distance adjustment requires straight line, the actual travel path is greater than 500 feet, and staff recommends approval with proffers 1-4 listed as conditions along with two general standard conditions regarding consistency with the site plan and the required language for any State permits as staff conditions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 32 PB member Siegel questioned if anything had been received from the church regarding their position. Senior Planner Mendez stated nothing had been received. PB member Siegel questioned if the church had been contacted. Senior Planner Mendez stated not specifically. PB member Siegel stated his recollection is this has come up before and the church never had aj problem. Senior Planner Mendez stated the church had not objected in other cases noting they had not provided a letter of support but have not objected either. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she thought the church had nothing in the materials she requested from Ms. Mendez but there was a letter of support in some cases and stated there was a letter from them on Smokin' Joe's. Senior Planner Mendez stated she had contacted the church regarding Smokin' Joe's however did not recall a letter of support. PB: member Svekis stated in the past in other issues the 500' separation was like pie in the sky and has not really been treated as a hard and fast rule. PB member Svekis stated it is very malleable, who knows how the 500' was initially devised, maybe when the horse and buggy were out, he isn't sure, and stated he does not know if it works in a congested downtown. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if there is anything that speaks to the intent of the 500 and wondered if it is a noise thing. Senior Planner Mendez stated there is nothing specific that speaks to that. PB member Lindsay stated it is more of a blue law thing noting something like that has always been in the code. PB member Siegel stated it is a public safety issue and covers schools and religious institutions. Senior Planner Mendez stated it is unique in the downtown noting there is an exception that it does not apply from one establishment to the other. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if Senior Planner Mendez would characterize the community workshop the same as the applicant noting the minutes were not provided. Senior Planner Mendez apologized for the oversight, stated she had discussed the community workshop with Ryan Chapdelain, the Chief Planner that runs the community workshops, and stated that conversation was consistent with what the applicants had stated. Senior Planner Mendez stated the main conçerns were live music, noise, and the legacy conditions to make sure it was worded SO that they run with the property and there is not a situation where it vaguely says one thing then transforms to something else like was seen with the neighbor down the street. Citizen Testimony: Ms. Dina LaReau appeared and stated she first wanted to thank each of the PB members for serving the people of Sarasota as a member of the Planning Board. Ms. LaReau stated she supports the application for the 4COP alcohol and beverage license, stated she and her husband have dined frequently at Duval's, stated the two most important reasons they go there is the food is very good and the atmosphere is inviting. Ms. LaReau stated the applicant's proffers that identify the operating hours, include access to a full dining menu during all operating hours, limit the playing oflive music to a total of three calendar days per year, and limit the sound level ofthe background music to low are clear indicators that the owners plan to use their liquor license as a means of offering their diners the opportunity to order cocktails before or with their meals, not to create a nightclub. Ms. LaReau stated Duval'si is a good member of the downtown community noting when she approached the management there seeking a contribution for the Sarasota Film Festival Volunteers event their response was Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 32 immediate and their donation was one ofthe most generous. Ms. LaReau stated Duval's clearly supports activities that enhance citizen' s experiences and give the City a good name. Ms. LaReau stated Duval's building façade is lovely, the outdoor dining area lends to the ambiance of downtown, and the tables are spaced comfortably apart and are under trees that provide shade. Ms. LaReau stated Duval's is the kind of business that speaks well of downtown and she hopes the Board approves the application. Mr. Peter Fanning appeared and stated he was appearing before the Planning Board to support the request for major conditional use and site plan approval for Duval's. Mr. Fanning stated he has represented several downtown organizations before the Planning Board and other City policy making bodies over the past five years, as well as himself, in trying to encourage a premier business atmosphere in the downtown core. Mr. Fanning stated he has spoken for and against various initiatives and is weary of businesses that request major conditional use variances that involve a 4COP request, that when a request is made he tries to visit the owner and manager of the business to get to know their practices and behaviors SO he can make a decision on whether the business would be a good citizen and respect the ethics and principles of good business, especially the rights ofthe residents and other businesses in the downtown core. Mr. Fanning stated Duval's occupies a premier site along Main Street on a block that is receiving upgrades, new developments, and a changing business oriented environment and stated it is important to the City's continued growth and business stability. Mr. Fanning stated having experienced the transition ofDuval's from its early days to now as a diner, visitor, and advocate for responsible business ownership he is comfortable in recommending the approval of Duval's request. Mr. Fanning stated in a world oftakers Duval's is a giver and has contributed to Main Street. Mr. Fanning stated Duval'sis responsible in adhering to the ordinances such as placement of sidewalk tables, playing of music, and maintaining their property. Mr. Fanning stated Duval's has worked with the Downtown Sarasota Alliance promoting its membership and mission by hosting events for the DSA, they have worked with the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association by providing gift cards to the individual residents through their downtown condo associations and offers lunch and dinner meetings that benefit the individual condo associations. Mr. Fanning stated Duval's S has made every effort to be a good neighbor to all that live, work and frequent the downtown and as we look forward to the next decade and the efforts to improve the downtown experience it is important that businesses such as Duval's are supported as they are the type of business with responsible ownership and management that will continue to make Sarasota the jewel ofSouthwest Florida. Mr. Fanning thanked the Planning Board for the opportunity to encourage their support ofthe major conditional use and site plan by Duval's by forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Patrick O'Brien appeared and stated he shared the recommendations ofthe previous speakers, stated he fully supports Duval's application, they have been a good neighbor and he believes under the current ownership will continue to be SO and he looks forward to being a patron under the new format, he appreciates their response to the community's input which is evidenced by the fact there are only a few speakers and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 32 those are in support, and stated he wholeheartedly supports the application. Mr. O'Brien stated having said that, how this is handled is extremely important, as PB member Siegel alluded to earlier, as this will be a precedent for those who wish to follow the path to be a restaurant with a full bar while not able to comply with the regulations of a 4COP license. Mr. O'Brien stated he supports the application as long as adequate proffers to protect the location from turning into a bar or nightclub under future owners are in place, and stated he is not concerned about Duval's. Mr. O'Brien stated based on the staff report and the cooperative approach evidenced by the applicant' s proffers it seems the owners and staff agree the intent is to operate as a SRX restaurant and suggested whatever proffers could be put in place to memorialize that intent should be adopted. Mr. O'Brien stated his concerns with the proffer that states the restaurant will serve its full menu for the entire time it is open noting he is not concerned with Duval's but the next owner. Mr. O'Brien stated the next owner's menu is open for discussion, the definition is left to the license holder, and the menu could be chips and dip. Mr. O'Brien stated he had discussed the issue with staff and was referred to the Florida Administrative Regulations pertaining to a SRX license and stated the regulations require a full course menu, noted the term "full course" was not in the proffers, and suggested the language of the regulations be adopted in the proffers to memorialize the intent ofDuval's and tighten up the proffers. Mr. O'Brien stated precedent is important, noted the new owners ofthe Cantina have indicated they want to do what Duval'si is doing, it is the reputation and history with the others in the neighborhood and lack of adequate proffers at the Ivory years ago that makes residents sensitive to how Duval's was handled, and that is why SO many residents attended the community workshop. Mr. O'Brien stated without adequate protection there will be as many as four COP licenses within 200' of each other which seems to be an undue concentration oflicenses with the potential to add further to the negative face ofMain Street, stated the 1400 block is very sensitive now and it is important to protect it from accidental change by having the appropriate conditions on the conditional use permits recognizing it is not Duval's S he is concerned about but future owners. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Svekis made a motion to find Conditional Use 14-CU-01 consistent with Section IV-906 ofthe Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval oft the Conditional Use, subject to proffers (1-4) and conditions (5-6); to find Site Plan 14-SP-05 consistent with Section IV-506 oft the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval ofthe Site Plan, and to find Adjustment 4-ADP-04 consistent with Section IV-1903(e) of the Zoning Code and approve the adjustment. PB member Ahearn-Koch seconded the motion. PB member Svekis stated if ever there was a poster child for responsible governance of ai restaurant and alcohol use Duval's could compete for that, stated he does not see a problem, noted the Planning Board has made changes in the past on distances from a church to a liquor establishment and he really does not see a problem. PB member Ahearn-Koch states she supports the motion, stated these have come before the Planning Board before when a restaurant wants to serve a full bar but cannot meet the requirements for seating or square footage SO they have to call themselves a nightclub when they have no intention ofbeing a nightclub, the Planning Board is in this Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 32 situation all too often, the applicant has put forward a lot of proffers that soothe the neighbors nerves and any concerns that anyone might have that they are pretending to do one thing then will turn into a secret nightclub later on, and she feels confident the proffers will protect the neighborhood and keep the intention as expressed. PB member Lindsay questioned Attorney Connolly ifit would be appropriate to add a condition that the applicants are required to comply with the restrictions of a SRX license stating rather than inventing our own language we should just impose those conditions. PB member Siegel stated he felt that was explicit. Attorney Connolly stated it was not explicit since the applicants cannot quality for a 4COP license because they don' 't have the number of seats or square footage. Attorney Connolly stated what PB member Lindsay is suggesting is the condition of approval would be to pretend to be a SRX, stated he didn't feel the City had the authority to compel that although it could be proffered and accepted, and suggested if the Planning Board was collectively interested in doing SO he would ask the applicant's their opinion. PB Chair Gallagher requested an explanation as to what the SRX requirements are. Attorney Connolly stated he would confirm with the applicants however his understanding is 51% of the revenues must come from food sales as opposed to alcohol sales, and the full course menu must be available at all times the establishment is open. PB Chair Gallagher reopened the public hearing SO the applicants could respond. Mr. Freedman appeared and stated the applicants have no problem meeting all of the requirements related to the 51% revenue and full menu noting the applicants just can't meet the square footage and number of seats. PB Chair Gallagher questioned how the 51% requirement was policed. Attorney Connolly stated the State polices that and the problem here is the policing would be through Code Enforcement, noting it is not something the City would go out looking for however if a complaint was made that raised probable cause that the condition was not being met the City could require records through code compliance that it was being met. Attorney Connolly stated he was not sure how happy Mr. Litchet would be about undertaking that obligation, he was hesitant to speak for him, and stated if the applicants were willing to proffer that they would operate under the SRX requirements the Planning Board could accept the proffer and asked the Planning Board to consider in light ofthe existing proffers does that give much more or are they satisfied with the proffers, noting that has to be a collective decision of the Planning Board. PB Chair Gallagher requested the applicant state for the Planning Board ift they would be will to accept that. PB member Siegel questioned if something could be added to proffer #2. Mr. Abrams appeared and requested that proffer be read. Attorney Connolly read the proffer and stated based on Mr. O'Brien' s comments that could be changed to be a full course menu as the Administrative Regulations define full course which means soup, salad, and meat are available. Mr. Freedman questioned ift the SRX regulations could be referenced in the conditions. Attorney Connolly stated that could be done. PB Chair Gallagher noted the 51% requirement could be cumbersome for the applicant and there is no way to police it. PB member Svekis questioned ifthe 51% requirement was an auditéd report. PB member Lindsay stated the speaker had a good point and the language that is commonly accepted and defined should be used and language should be extracted and put in the condition rather than inventing a new undefined term. Attorney Connolly Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 32 read the applicable portion of the Administrative Regulation language into the record that states, in part, "must include 1 = salad or vegetable, 2 - entrée, 3 - beverage, and 4 - bread." Attorney Connolly noted he felt the applicants could meet that. Mr. Abrams stated that would not be a challenge for them. Attorney Connolly stated proffer #2 could be changed to read the restaurant will be serving its full course menu as that term is defined in the Administrative Regulations the entire time the establishment is open for business. PB member Gallagher questioned if the applicants were ok with that. The applicants confirmed that would be ok. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing again. PB member Svekis questioned if controls on the 51% were still being considered. Attorney Connolly stated the only change being made is using the defined term offull course meal. PB member Svekis stated he accepted the change to his motion. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she accepted the change as well. The motion passed 5/0. 3. Marietta Museum of Art & Whimsy [2121 N. Tamiami Trail]: Site Plan application 14-SP-02 is a proposal to construct an approximately 1,750 sq.ft. addition to the existing building on property located in the North Trail (NT) zone district. The proposed expansion will include space for art collection and conservation work as well as a retail gift shop. [Lucia Panica, Planner). Attorney Connolly stated there were no applications for affected person status. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Ralph Tirabassi, Attorney for the applicant, Ms. Marietta Lee, Owner of the Museum, Mr. Alan Anderson, Architect for the project, and Jessica, Marietta Lee's Assistant appeared. Mr. Tirabassi stated before addressing specifics he would like to have Ms. Marietta Lee comment on the Museum and talk a little about the history. Ms. Lee stated the applicants were there to present building plans and share their success, however, before getting into that she wanted to provide some information and insights into museums. Ms. Lee stated a museum makes a unique contribution to the public by collecting, preserving, and interpreting the things of this world noting some examples are aquariums, art, children's history, nature, science and ZOOS. Ms. Lee stated museums are economic engines, noting based on information from the Florida Alliance of Museums there are over 400 museums in Florida, Florida museums spend over $338 million each year on goods and services, and museums rank among the top three family vacation destinations in the United States. Ms. Lee stated the Sarasota/E Bradenton area has nineteen museums, and noted fourteen of those are located on or just off of US 41, and nine (including the Marietta Museum of Art & Whimsy) are located on Sarasota's North Trail. Ms. Lee stated since opening in October of 2010 the museum has seen tremendous growth in visitor attendance, noted a recent Thursday talking tour attracted 293 visitors in 3 hours, and stated the comparisons between the 21012/2013 season and the 2013/2014 season is even more remarkable when the fact the museum is only open on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of each week is taken into account. Ms. Lee stated as a result the proposed expansion is no longer a want or a dream but is truly necessary, discussed the museum's current wants and needs stating the visitors wanted a café and gift store which the Planning Board approved in March of 2013, however the more that was Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 32 considered the more the owners realized there was an even greater need for a bigger office and art conservation area, stated their greatest challenge was to accommodate all the wants and needs SO they developed a list of priorities with the first being to provide more office space for staff, number two is to preserve and protect the art collection, and the third is to build a café/g gift store. Ms. Lee presented a slide showing the space that is currently available for office staff and art conservation and discussed the café/gift store stating on reflection they decided they needed a gift store that is connected to the museum as well as a free standing gift store noting that would enable the owners to promote the museum and artists, generate revenues, and ensure future viability. Ms. Lee stated the proposed expansion would allow them to be good stewards of museum resources and that they want to be good neighbors as well sO they presented the plans to the neighborhood IBSSA Board on March 13th of this year, the Board voted unanimously to endorse the site plan amendment and read a letter from David Morriss, President of the IBSSA Association, into the record. Ms. Lee stated the applicants had also sent an email to the neighborhood blog inviting the residents to come to the museum to review the plans and presented slides showing photos of various events held at the museum. Mr. Tirabassi discussed the existing site plan for the museum, noted the walkways were constructed with trex decking rather than the less expensive shell to accommodate wheelchairs, discussed the proposed addition and café/s gift store noting they are located away from neighboring properties, stated there will be easy access to the various areas, discussed the proposed retail and art conservation areas noting space for restrooms is also provided, and stated the design is consistent with the applicable zoning requirements for the North Trail and the Future Land Use map. Mr. Anderson stated the proposed addition will be architecturally consistent with the existing building, will be fortified against hurricanes, and all of the setbacks, height restrictions and glass percentages have been met. Mr. Tirabassi stated the applicants were there as a result of the success of the museum, stated it is a wonderful cause and a wonderful addition to the North Trail, has had a tremendous impact and they hope to continue that. PB: member Lindsay questioned if the curb cut referenced in condition number one was the curb cut that is closest to US 41. Mr. Tirabassi stated it was, it is the same curb cut that has been there forever, the applicants are not proposing any changes to it, and noted the loading dock is a minor structure and is not in an area that is heavily trafficked. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the hours of operation were changing. Ms. Lee stated they are still a start-up with 1 12 employees and they rely heavily on volunteers, she hopes sometime in the future they can be open more, however it takes room for office space and the structures have to be in place before that could be considered. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the café/s gift store has already been approved and now this has become a bigger priority and questioned if it takes precedent before the café/g gift store. Mr. Anderson stated the drawings for the café/8 gift store are signed and sealed and they will be submitting for al building permit within the next few days. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if that would be before this. Mr. Anderson stated he hopes to run them concurrent. PB member Svekis questioned what the difference between the retail/ gift store and the stand alone home was, will there not be a gift shop in the house? Ms. Lee stated it is not a home it is a café/g gift store and will remain that. PB member Svekis stated it was Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 32 a home, they had come to the Planning Board and received approval to make into a café/gift store that was also going to contain retail and his question is what is happening to that vis-à-vis the retail and new addition. Mr. Tirabassi stated the retail component has always been intended to be a gift shop, the applicants are only looking for a point-of-sale for museum related items, it is intended to be in with the café to be constructed soon and that continues to be the plan. Mr. Tirabassi stated the proposed expansion also contains a point-of-sale based on requests from patrons, it would help generate revenues, noted the museum's mission is to make entry free to people, they hold fundraising events and explore ways to generate revenues that are consistent with museum operations, which is where the gift shop comes in, and SO there will actually be two points-of-sale. PB member Svekis stated when the conversion of the single family home to the museum was approved one of the proposed uses was artist studios where the artists could work and reside, noted there is no space on the property for such and it was a good selling point, and stated within a short time after approval the museum bought the motel to the north and noted had that been in place the Planning Board decision might not have been the same. PB member Svekis expressed his concerns that the Planning Board was being manipulated and that something will happen to preclude what is being proposed now. Mr. Tirabassi stated at no time has there been any thought or discussion regarding manipulating the Planning Board or any other board, the history of the acquisition has always been with the intent of bestowing on Sarasota a legacy, a museum, a whimsical museum that contains not only whimsical art but fine art and sculpture. Mr. Tirabassi further stated they have someone there that did not just talk about it but actually did it however along the way concepts and plans evolved as thoughts of how the museum could best serve the community and achieve the purpose were considered. Mr. Tirabassi stated in terms of the building PB member Svekis had referenced they had tried, and succeeded in, , maintaining a structure that fit the neighborhood, was not intrusive to the surrounding properties, and noted the use was severely limited by restrictions the Planning Board placed on it to be sure it was a café/g gift shop. Mr. Tirabassi stated there was an element of residential accommodations considered, one or two units, however they decided to go with what was making the museum work and what was successful and the focus became the retail/gift store as opposed to residential. Mr. Tirabassi stated the acquisition was for parking and sculpture gardens, they wanted to create a campus with all types of whimsical and fine art, and if you visit the parking lot you will see walkways and various sculptures you would not see anywhere else. Mr. Tirabassi stated he could not even respond to the thought of manipulation, it was never ever anything he expected to hear or can respond to. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned as far as PB member Svekis' point what the proffers that went with that were. Mr. Tirabassi stated the hours of operation, what could be served as pre-packaged food, restrictions on lighting, and restrictions on live music were some of the major proffers, there were several, and noted those severely limited what could be done. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated the issue touches on a very sensitive point that the land use had been changed, had gone from single family very low density to community commercial, stated this is where one has to be super sensitive to the neighborhood, noted the border is just there with no buffer in- between, and she was curious about any interactions with the direct neighbors. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she knew Ms. Lee has a house next door, next to that is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 32 another house, there are other houses behind those, and questioned if the applicants had reached out to those neighbors regarding their additional plans. Mr. Tirabassi stated Ms. Lee had sent out a blog to all the IBSSA members requesting their comments, noted the neighbors are always invited to the parties, there is constant outreach to neighbors, in looking at the campus and where the structures are located shows they are extremely sensitive to the neighbors, and stated they want to be and feel they are a very, very good neighbor to everybody. Mr. Tirabassi stated if you look at the history of the area in terms of failed projects and proffering things that never happen again and again, the applicants pay attention to that, in this case Ms. Lee did what she said she was going to, and her vision has not changed one bit. Mr. Tirabassi stated if the Planning Board sat in on some of the museum Board's discussions and heard what was discussed regarding what they want to do for the community, bringing students in, the rapport they have built with the Ringling School of Art and Design and USF, and the interest the museum has generated, it is hard to imagine being as successful as they have been, and stated that is due to Ms. Lee keeping focused on what she is doing and wanting to be a good neighbor. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated if she was reading PB member Svekis' concerns correctly, she thinks everyone understands that, she has spoken to a lot of the IBSSA members, not about this particular application but in general about the museum and stated a lot of people were very, very worried and very concerned, a lot of the very direct neighbors were very concerned, stated Ms. Lee has done a fantastic job of inviting the: neighbors, including the neighbors, being sensitive to those issues, it is just something that always has to be at the forefront because those neighbors, for example the house next to her on Cedar Terrace bought when there was a buffer of single family all around and now directly catty corner is commercial activity, and like PB member Svekis stated the first commercial activity was going to be a sort of residence, and then a café, then a gift shop, and now expanding the museum. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she understood Ms. Lee's efforts however there is the other side of understanding the impacts on the direct neighbors such as noise, traffic, commercial activity and SO on and sO forth and not to minimize anything Ms. Lee has done or her efforts, just really important to be very aware of those impact on neighbors. Mr. Tirabassi stated the applicants hear what the Planning Board is saying, they have all along, and stated the application being presented complies with everything required, noted PB member Ahearn-Koch was correct in that there are no entitlements in this world, the most they can do as applicants is make sure they have dotted their i's and crossed their t's, have stuck with the mission, and they have presented to the Planning Board as a serious effort that is totally compliant with what the City is looking for in that zone district. Ms. Lee stated initially they were told if there was a second floor on the building proposed for the café/gift store, which it has always been proposed to be, the second floor could not be used for storage due to the location on the North Trail, that only residential could be put there, sO on second thought they questioned if they really wanted entryways to the second floor and having the gift store open all hours of the night SO the tenants could access the second floor, and it became such a complication for two small efficiencies, there was also the stairway issue and access from outside, sO they decided to eliminate the second floor, and noted the structure looks like ai nice, Key West style home. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 32 Staff Presentation: Lucia Panica, Planner, appeared and stated the applicants had done a good job in presenting the application that she would keep her comments brief. Ms. Panica stated as noted in 2013 Site Plan 13-SP-04 was approved for 1,653 sq. ft. of café/g gift store and office space, the structure had not been built yet, the site plan is still valid, and the applicants plan to submit for a building permit soon. Ms. Panica stated the new proposal is to add 1,750 sq. ft. for the conservation and collection of art, a retail gift area, an employee bathroom, and a small utility room, stated the proposed height is consistent with the North Trail zone district, the parking is covered by an off- site parking agreement that was done in 2013, noted the North Trail zone district has a requirement that prohibits operating between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am, there is no impact on vehicle ingress/egress or circulation, it does not impact pedestrian circulation, four palm trees will be relocated and one hickory tree will be removed, noted and arborist report had been completed and the hickory tree was deemed a high hazard tree, and stated staff recommended approval of the site plan. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB: member Lindsay made a motion to find Site Plan 14-SP-02 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the three conditions listed. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB: member Lindsay stated he thinks it is great, he is happy to see the place is thriving, he is disturbed that the Planning Board felt they had to put the applicants through such a third degree when they should be trying to help the enterprises on the North Trail that are working noting otherwise they will go back to historic uses as motels with hourly rates. PB member Siegel stated he supports the project and always has. The motion passed 4/1 with PB member Svekis voting no. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she had one comment for PB member Lindsay and stated regarding the third degree, not necessarily. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the Planning Board has been through a lot with this, it is very important to be very, very cautious between that line of very low single family and community commercial which is high intensity, she agrees it is great to see a business thrive on North Trail and she does not want to see a reversion back to motels, but there is a need to be very sensitive to people that bought homes there thirty to forty years ago. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizens input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 14, 2014 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 32 PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated on pages 12, 14, 15, and 19 "SCAS" should be "SSAS"; on page 8, the second paragraph, third line "to" should be "the"; and on page 13, first paragraph, fifth line 'possible" should be possibly". PB member Svekis stated on page 15, second paragraph, "need" should be either "in need" or "needed". The Planning Board approved the minutes with the changes by consensus. PB member Siegel questioned if a meeting was going to be held on July 9th, Secretary Smith stated the final decision would be made on Friday, the members had been polled and four are available, stated he would confirm with the Planning Board members by early next week, noted staff was having discussions with the owner of a business who has been making application for a development approval and staff needs to make sure everything is finalized prior to scheduling the meeting. PB member Lindsay stated consideration should be given to not meeting in August if they are meeting in July, stated historically August has been the weakest attendance and that is when people in the community are most likely to be able to attend because school has not started yet, stated there have been accusations in the past that things were deliberately done in August in order to slip them through and that sort of thing, suggested the Planning Board meet one or the other but not both, and suggested in the future the Planning Board consider making August the month they do not meet. Secretary Smith stated the issue was discussed a number of years ago when Mr. Lindsay was not on the Planning Board and the Planning Board decided they wanted to move it to July, stated part of the reason for that was items that come to the Planning Board in July would to the City Commission in August, and stated the City Commission only meets once during August SO it may not be possible to get everything on the August meeting with the City Commission. PB member Lindsay stated historically anything that is passed in August is suspect if it is controversial because citizens feel that it is a deliberate attempt to slide it through when they are: not able to respond or participate, or is when the news media will miss it and all that sort of thing because basically that is when, the rest of the community, the first two weeks of August is when probably the largest number of people, the permanent residents, take their vacations. Secretary Smith stated the decision was up to the Planning Board. PB Chair Gallagher stated if a decision was going to be made it should be placed on the next agenda. PB member Svekis stated the Planning Board should forego September SO they can travel without the kids being on the road. Secretary Smith stated he would put the item on the agenda for the regular meeting in August. PB member Lindsay stated he was not sure it should be changed for this year but he thinks longer term the fact that anything done in August is most politically suspect should be considered and noted that has been true for the past 40 years. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned didn't that go for July too though. PB member Lindsay stated not as much because now with the school schedules the way they are that last two weeks before school starts seems to be when the largest number of permanent residents take their vacations and it is sort of considered the dead time of the year when people are gone and school has not started. PB Chair stated the issue would be put on the agenda for discussion in August. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 32 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. 1. Absentee Vote 2. Waiver of absence of Mort Siegel from May 14, 2014 Meeting Secretary Smith stated last month he had indicated he would put on the agenda for discussion this month the issue of waiving absences. Secretary Smith noted that Mr. Siegel was not at the meeting and he said they could vote on granting a waiver, stated PB: member Ahearn-Koch spoke about knowing there was a discussion a number of years ago where he brought some criteria to the Planning Board for consideration, the Planning Board had questioned prior to that what the criteria for voting on granting a waiver was and he said there was none SO he brought some criteria, stated no one liked it, SO what they told him was they decided not to vote on any absences and if you are out you are out, SO he wanted to bring that forward again to decide if they wanted to vote or not vote on waivers, and noted he is the Secretary for the Public Art committee and they do vote on granting waivers with really no criteria. PB member Svekis questioned what a waiver was, how it would be described. Secretary Smith stated a waiver is an excuse for missing a meeting, stated if waivers are: not granted and you are absent 25% of meetings during a year the City Clerk will write you a letter and tell you are out, and noted at 15% he is required to put you on warning. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the intent when it was discussed was that waiver or no waiver if you are missing 25% or more of the meetings, even if for a totally valid reason such as a health issue, if you are missing that many meetings you probably should not be on the Planning Board because it puts the Planning Board in a pinch when you are only four people SO for whatever reason you probably should just not be on the Planning Board if you have to miss that many meetings. PB: member Svekis stated if you miss three meetings per year that is over 25%. PB member Lindsay noted that would only be for scheduled meetings and stated where he sees a problem is he does not want to pass judgment on whether someone has a good excuse or not, stated right now the Planning Board has pretty much only scheduled meetings and they all have them on their calendars well in advance and if someone cannot commit to that they probably should not serve, stated the problem is when you get into periods where you are scheduling a lot of special meetings, like during the five year Comprehensive Plan review, he does not know how many of the members have been through one of those, but there can be a raft of special meeting and special meetings out in the community where the Planning Board goes to a community center somewhere and has a hearing there, that can really be burdensome because those are generally not scheduled far in advance, at the beginning of the year with a fixed date, SO he can't say if he can make 25% of a whole bunch of special meeting six months or a year from now. PB member Lindsay stated he thinks it might be appropriate to make a distinction between regularly scheduled meeting and special meeting, for example when there is a hearing at the Newtown Community Center or Waldemere Fire Station action is not generally taken, they are hearings and if you have three members present you have a quorum and that is probably adequate since the other members Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 32 can get themselves up to speed later and will get feedback from the community before any decisions are made, SO there is a distinction between regular meetings and special meetings where decisions are not made, sO the Planning Board may need to consider a rule that differentiates those. Secretary Smith noted Section 2- 264 of the City Code regarding attendance applies to all meetings including workshops. PB member Lindsay stated for example he is doing a lot of work in Orlando now, he has already given them the meeting dates for the rest of the year SO people over there know not to schedule him during those times and noted he can't do that on some special meeting that might be called two weeks hence. PB member Siegel stated he does the same thing, plan everything around the regular meetings. PB Chair Gallagher stated there were a couple of different options, one is to go to the City Commission and say listen we need to change this thing would you consider changing it, and the second option is the Planning Board could agree amongst themselves that they will hold themselves, PB member Lindsay stated he did not want to be sitting in judgment, maybe a valid excuse they all agree to is if it is a special meeting that in itself is a valid excuse for not making a meeting SO we hold ourselves to the 25 and as procedure if someone cannot make a special meeting that they are all ok with waiving those. PB Chair Gallagher also stated he was confused about if one of the five is being talked about is it the other four that are voting or all five. Attorney Connolly stated it is the other four, noted it requires a super majority sO a 4/0 vote is required, the person who is requesting the excused absence has an inherent conflict, that conflict does not rise to the level of voting conflicts addressed under Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes, however there is an ethical and moral type of conflict if voting on your own absences. Attorney Connolly stated following up on the point about special meetings the Planning Board needs to keep in mind that staff does not schedule special meetings without the Planning Board's approval and if a special meeting is needed staff works with the five members to find a time they are all available. PB member Lindsay noted you could get four that could come and one that cannot. Attorney Connolly stated that goes back to what PB Chair Gallagher was saying, where a member would be excused because they others decided to go ahead without them. By consensus the Planning agreed that would be the policy. Secretary Smith questioned if the Planning Board wished to amend their Rules of Procedure. Attorney Connolly stated he did not believe that was necessary, cited Section III-203 of the Zoning Code, and stated the point is the Planning Board has control over when those get scheduled, he knows from past experience special meetings do not get scheduled on a whim, and noted the best example is the Comprehensive Plan update. PB Chair Gallagher stated sO all are in agreement that they will have to rely on memory because they are not putting the policy in the Rules of Procedure, sO for the next few years the will remember what they have agreed to and by that time there will be new Planning Board members and they can decide their own rules for themselves. Attorney Connolly stated if the issues rises to the level it is important enough to the Planning Board an amendment to the Rule of Procedures can be made. 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 32 There was no presentation of topics by the Planning Board. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. - hL aud David' Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris GallagherChair he/ Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS pE NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, ÇOMMISSION,A AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Gallagher Chris G. lann IAA Soard MAILINGADDREES THEE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 445 N. Orange AVE #205 WHICHI SERVE IS AUNIT OF: Ey COUNTY JOTHERLOCALA AGENCY COUNTY Barasota NAME QF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: CHy of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: June 1,2014 ELECTIVE D APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse: side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOUI MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: Your must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Your must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST hereby disclose that on 11 20 Chris Gallagher June (a), A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Quasl-Jediciel Rblic teariay KE: Ho1#1AAS zméuphaed a Tbe apphcant) chent ofan achiéefral hi o whik hai apathén CG Jone K,2014 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE: 2